Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:23, 22 June 2007

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

User:Asgardian

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

This editor has no recent blocks. If he's disruptive in some way, please report this in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI). If he's edit warring, consider compiling a report on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (WP:AN3)). --Tony Sidaway 22:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twice now, last year and this year, this disruptive, contentious editor, who follows policy and guidelines only at his choice, has frustrated the WikiProject Comics community to a point where we have long, involved debates, with him and a several other regular editors, trying to find a way to work together.

After last year's attempts and promises, in which the issue arose that he might have been disrupting Wikipedia as a school project, he remains as contentious, defensive and frustrating as ever — engaging in revert wars, blanking his Talk page (where he has suffered Admin sanctions), and blaming everyone but himself for the difficulties.

It's gotten to a point where other editors are tearing our hair out. We cannot go on this way. For a year now, we've done everything we could.

I will dig up a link for last year's debate. In the meantime, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Request for comment/Asgardian.

One continually edit-warring editor who refuses to consistently follow consensus — even consensus to which he's agreed! — is creating huge frustration and aggravation for many editors. This is not right, and we need help. Thank you for any consideration you might give this issue. --Tenebrae 16:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at his history, I see an awful lot of instances where he's deleted talk page warnings. Not promising. I would think a one-year ban on editing comics-related articles is the way to go, plus an indefinite ban on removing talk page warnings. Contrary to what your colleagues said on the RfC, the community can impose topic bans. Thoughts? Blueboy 96 18:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae, a community ban objectively exceeds the conduct in question. Until every possible option has been exhausted...you are now at RfC stage...imposing a ban is preemptive and counter-intuitive of what Wikipedia represents. At this point we need to allow process to work. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 04:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have done RfCs with User:Asgardian. Fellow editors disagree with his edits, and he keeps making them anyway.--Tenebrae 01:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could support that, although the user does contribute useful information. The other option I could see is a revert parole. If he reverts any article more than once per 24 hour period or more than 2 times in any 7 day period or more than 3 times in any 30 day period then brief blocks could follow, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one month, and after 10 blocks increase to six months. Any thoughts on that? Steve block Talk 13:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a very creative, fair, and — equally important — quantifiable solution.

The one workaround I can foresee is his making the usual big revert in steps instead of all at once. --Tenebrae 17:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per arbitration rulings,

“

The term "revert" as used in Wikipedia policies and guidelines is intended to include both absolute reverts (where versions differ not at all) as well as de facto reverts (where versions are only very slightly different). Attempting to avoid being accused of reversion by making very minor edits that are then edited out again is in bad faith and against Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

”

I think that covers any workarounds. Steve block Talk 18:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:COFS

COFS (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

This Scientologist editor has engaged in large numbers of edits apparently intended to whitewash the main Scientology article. Although COFS has stated a desire to follow the rules of wikipedia, their responses to other editors have frequently not been WP:CIVIL both on Talk:Scientology and in edit comments. COFS has been previously blocked and has also been warned regarding violation of conflict of interest guidelines(see above links for details) but these attempts do not seem to have helped much. When I raised this issue at the conflict of interest noticeboard, I got this suggestion:

How about taking this to Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard and requesting a community ban? I think these people have worn out our patience. I believe past investigations have shown that COFS works for the Scientology organization, so these are nothing but COI edits. Jehochman ^Talk 14:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hence this post. SheffieldSteel 15:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs, please? Also, where are the "past investigations"? Blueboy 96 20:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this refers to the checkuser / SPA block, linked above. SheffieldSteel 13:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above, and applicable here; Historically, you will garner more discussion if you post your case in full w/ evidence here instead of directing the participants to evidence located elsewhere.

As requested. COFS has...

[1] Moved cited material into a footnote. The material had the effect of calling into question the pro-Scientology point immediately preceding it in the text, yet the edit comment was "synthesis".
[2] Again moved the criticism into a footnote, while misrepresenting the court document source and referring to it in the edit comment as "clarification".
[3] Commented that editors should not attempt to obtain consensus before making sweeping changes to controversial articles.
[4] Removed cited material which contradicted an assertion attributed to L Ron Hubbard. Note the aggressive edit comment.
[5] Argued against several editors that this article's lead should not contain a summary of the criticism in the article. Note referring to other users' posts as "nonsense".
[6] Accused a good faith editor of "blind bashing" Scientology for restoring a summary of criticism.

This is just a small sample, from what I have encountered directly. COFS has a prodigious contributions history (except for the period of the ban) centred overwhelmingly on Scientology. COFS's Talk page (and particularly the archive) are a record of many attempts by other users to attempt to reason with her/him. SheffieldSteel 21:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at those, sounds like at minimum an indefinite ban on editing Scientology-related articles is merited. The community can impose topic bans. Would also think he should be required to read and understand WP:CIVIL, WP:COI and WP:NPA, and post a statement that he's done so and apologize to everyone he's offended. Blueboy 96 22:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with a topic ban at least, but in light of Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/COFS I have my doubts that this user would respect a topic ban. Has any dispute resolution been tried? Durova^Charge! 00:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for earlier dispute resolution, I believe someting was posted on AN/I but I have yet to find it. I'm sorry if I've handled this improperly - this is the first time I've done anything like this. Would starting an RfC be the best step to take next? SheffieldSteel 13:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say if you believe other steps in the dispute resolution would work, to include RFC, try them. Navou 13:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:ANI isn't part of the dispute resolution process. I agree this is a problematic editor and I can agree to a Scientology topic ban based on what you've presented, along with the editor's block log and checkuser results. But all out sitebanning is a serious matter and I hesitate to line up behind it at this point. Proposing three month Scientology topic ban and a referral to WP:3O or mediation. Durova^Charge! 16:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Durova, except given the apparent conflict of interest the topic ban should be indefinite. Blueboy 96 19:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree after visiting the links and checking up on some of this user's past behavior that a long-term (ideally indefinite) topic ban should be initiated. All out bans are not really necessary unless a user is causing widespread problems but this user is consistently threatening the integrity of wikipedia on matters related to scientology.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Did anybody note that COFS has not said anything here yet. Last time I checked Sheffield did not even bother to inform her about this little talk here. I have been attacked for being some kind of puppet of COFS. I am not. But this case has shown the nice little witch hunts going on Scientologists, especially those WHO ARE COMPLETELY OPEN ABOUT IT. Which is something you are just about to punish. Better be super-anonymousy, eh? Better be silent about viewpoints or affiliations. Just like Sheffield and the other anti-Scientology editors in Wikipedia whose ONLY contribution is anti-Scientology, which is a classic for WP:BIAS and WP:NPOV. Thanks for reading, sorry for chiming in so loud. I just couldn't stand this cosy Scientologist-bashing here. Apologies again if anybody feels offended. “Who among you is without a sin, let him throw the first stone at her” (John 8:7). Misou 18:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reset) I haven't "sinned" in the Scientology article space. Your post is rhetoric. This board functions on the basis of logic. Why don't you invite User:COFS to comment, instead of inflaming the dispute? I was just at her talk page about to invite her when I saw a comment there that seemed to link to this thread. Jehochman ^Talk 19:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mhmm. She's known for at least a day, commented on it, and chose not to rebutt on it here. While I wouldn't go so far as to say its an admission of guilt, I would say its a sign of bad faith on this matter and that this clearly isn't going to get solved without community intervention.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being rhetoric, please (WP:WEASEL). I think she's not there. Haven't gotten an email reply either. Misou 19:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though it is completely unrelated, I would love to learn how someone can be rhetoric. Last I checked only an idea or statement can actually be rhetoric. Perhaps the word you were looking for was rhetorical? In which case, no, I see no reason to attempt to persuade as you are obviously immovable in your oppinions. And again, please explain WHY you bring up WP:WEASEL. Did I use any weasel words? If I did it wouldn't hurt to actually point them out. I also suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. While the essay is written to serve a different purpose, the statements there might be helpful in constructing an argument, something you seem either unwilling to do, or perhaps are not quite sure how to do so effectively.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mike, heavy apologies for the typo and welcome to the internets. Your WEASELwords: "I wouldn't go so far as to say", "I would say its a sign of". In this whole discussion I would not say this: "I am sure you that you are not as dumb as you might appear to some.", only as a made-up example (double-WEASEL). And now back to the topic! Misou 22:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, weasel words apply to words made in attempt to assert fact. "I would say" and "I wouldn't go so far as to say" are statements indicating OPINION. This is not an article namespace, we are allowed to make inferences and draw conclusions. Its a part of discussion, something you might want to read up on a little bit before you continue to take aim (however innacurately) at others for how they engage in it.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - IMO, it is inappropriate for one POV-warrior (just a quick review of his edits in Scientology shows numerous reversions to reinsert critical material in a prominent position, over the objections of multiple editors, in an article that is not primarily about the controversial church, not to mention a stab at OR) to bring someone with an opposing POV here. COFS has a POV as do we all. I am familiar with COFS' edits and they are not whitewashing. They look like well-considered edits and any dispute that SheffieldSteel with them falls under the category of content disputes and SheffieldSteel should be using standard WP:DR such as WP:3O and WP:RfC (on the edit, not the editor). Nor is COFS a sockpuppet or meatpuppet and such was not proven and the opposite was indicated in the checkuser case when all was said and done. COFS is, as far as I know, a Scientology staff member and shares a proxy IP with many other such around the world. Again, let SheffieldSteel pursue standard WP:DR instead of trying to kneecap his perceived opponent. --Justanother 02:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If COFS is a Scientology staff member, then they should not be editing any Scientology articles, period. Allowing this person to edit these controversial articles only serves to inflame the disputes. WP:COI is simple and easy enough to follow. When other editors object, the COI editor should withdraw. I have no connection to Scientology, neither pro nor con, yet I definitely feel like there's a conflict here. Jehochman ^Talk 03:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would as well say that off-wiki critics of Scientology (those that picket Scientology churches and/or maintain or heavily contribute to anti-Scientology websites, etc.) should equally not inflame the discussion by editing in those pages. In either case, the proper thing to do is address the possible COI issue on a COI board and/or by means of a proper User RfC; this board is, IMO, not the proper place for this issue. --Justanother 03:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are here because past warnings and WP:COIN discussions have failed to resolve an ongoing problem. Yes, I also have a problem with anti-Scientology litigants editing the Scientology article. The best thing would be to let people who can maintain NPOV work on the article. That said, we have to peel the onion one layer at a time, and COFS is one of the most obvious COI problems. Perhaps COFS can be convinced to work via the talk pages only, and leave the article editing to others. Obviously a solution by agreement is much better than one imposed externally. Otherwise, a topic ban would be a very appropriate solution. Jehochman ^Talk 03:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not disagree that COFS has to be cognizant of COI issues (and have mentioned that on previous occasions), I do not think that past warnings by neutral admin(s) for COI violations or WP:COIN discussions have taken place at all. Can you back up that statement? --Justanother 03:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do see the latest "no discussion" at "Scientology again" I am looking for the earlier one(s). Please point me at them if you know where they are. Thanks --Justanother 03:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reset) The COI in this situation is pretty much a slam dunk (changing metaphors again, sorry). If I spot an IBM employee editing IBM they are going to get a warning, then they will get blocked if they persist. Without citing diffs, because it's late, and I am not really trying to get COFS blocked or banned, I have seen numerous instances where COFS has been alerted to the issue of COI. If COFS hasn't read WP:COI, that's just plain reckless. The information is there. COFS really can't be editing Scientology. If this is your friend, please ask them to stop. Once you do that, you'll be in a better position to call out any anti-Scientology warriors who seek to push their POV in the articles. Jehochman ^Talk 03:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, all due respect (and an edit conflict) but I think you may be a bit too involved here yourself. On the first discussion (here) you left inappropriate multiple "warnings" and on the second discussion (here), a full month later, you are all about how "these people have worn out our patience"; "these people"? "our patience"? And you urge Sheffield to bypass the COI discussion and come over here for a ban? What say we slow down a bit here? Take it back to WP:COIN and try to hammer out an agreeement with COFS as to what he can and cannot do. Or perhaps an RfC would be better? But not this board. --Justanother 04:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, folks. We're not dealing with a newbie who is naively violating COI or other norms of Wikipedia. This is a confirmed sockpuppeteer who has accrued an impressive block log in the four months they have been here. Either we take our norms of behavior seriously and react accordingly, or we admit that we don't really mean them, in which case we should blank the pages for WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:TE et al. and be done with it. Iamnotmyself 04:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) No, there is no evidence of sock-puppetry (or meat-puppetry for that matter). Please review the particulars of the case. It is unfair to try to cast a good-faith editor as something s/he is not. --Justanother 11:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the "impressive block log" boils down to two blocks for 3RR; the ChrisO block was bogus (COFS removing links as per an RfC and the links were eventually all removed) and the coelacan blocks were basically one block for something COFS has no control over - what proxy server s/he uses and the fact that that IP address is shared with other Scientologists around the world. --Justanother 11:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(un-dent) I'd just like to add a couple of comments. It's rather surprising to be accused of being known as a biased editor on the issue of Scientology, although I have always considered Misou and Justanother to hold pro-Scientology views, so perhaps I should not be surprised. Perhaps this sounds like a violation of WP:KETTLE, given my alleged anti-Scientology bias, but for the record I have no great beef with Scientology, no conflict of interest, and no particular bias - other than a desire to see wikipedia succeed as a neutral and reliable source of information for others. The only thing on wikipedia that could really offend my religious beliefs would be deliberate misrepresentation of the truth. SheffieldSteel 14:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add: please would all editors review this edit of mine cited above by Justanother as an example of "OR by a POV-warrior". I don't understand how a neutral observer could construe this edit as OR or POV-pushing. What it does do is cite an independent source that apparently contradicts a statement attributed to L Ron Hubbard in the article, while stopping short of calling him a liar - which would be synthesis, not OR or POV-pushing. But let's not get distracted by Attack the attacker tactics - the question here is not my conduct, but that of COFS. SheffieldSteel 14:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users that try to bypass WP:DR and get an editor whose viewpoint might oppose their own banned deserved some degree of attack. Please knock it off and utilize the standard WP:DR remedies over your content dispute. Thanks. --Justanother 14:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps it's best if we leave this space for neutral (i.e. uninvolved) editors to discuss the matter. SheffieldSteel 15:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I meet those criteria. But I have said my piece. --Justanother 15:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're neutral and uninvolved? You can't be serious - you said you have "30 years of Scientology"[7] and your contributions record shows you're a long-term partisan (on the pro-Scientology side, but the same would principle apply if you were anti). Pull the other one, it's got bells on. Iamnotmyself 16:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reset) Good Day, I saw that this discussion has evolved quite a bit in my absence and it could be that I have not found all of the discussions SheffieldSteel has started on 4 or more Admin boards so please be patient if I am saying something somebody else has said already elsewhere. I was looking who is an Admin here and is looking at things from a broader perspective. Let's see who we got here.... It's not Iamnotmyself (a sockpuppet), not User "still not an admin" Jehochman (a reputable editor on technical issues, but somewhat hostile to Scientologists, see my talk page), not Justanother, a mediator, not Misou, a bear, not ... ah, here:

Has any dispute resolution been tried? Durova^Charge! 00:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it hasn't, and it does not look like this is wanted. COI-issues seem to be quite a problem as everyone has a viewpoint on something and on the issue at hand mine seems to be different than the one of SheffieldSteel and some others (whose contributions to the Scientology-related articles boil down to "revert, revert, revert") who seem to be more or less connected to groups actively "fighting" or discriminating Scientologists off-wiki. I do not want to bring off-wiki information in here and I won't. But this is the main issue here. How do you know who someone is working for or if a certain viewpoint has not been paid for? I am not being paid or receive any advantages for editing here. My concern is that false and biased information should have no place in Wikipedia and if this puts me against agenda-pushers, well, that is not surprising then but just shows how necessary it is to scrutinize each contribution. May be I should not be open about that or maybe I should never have said on my user page that I am a Scientologist? Maybe I should not edit via a Church proxy? Wikipedia can be abused as a fertile ground for hidden agendas - anonymous IDs, anonymous internet accesses, the possibility to lie about almost everything undetected - so I congratulate those who have the guts to say where they come from and what they want here. I am happy to be notified about anything I might miss in this context. But months of experience tell me that blunt falsehoods can go by for months and years in the Scientology articles because either they are not detected for lack of competent editors or deliberately left in there by the usual crew of Scientology-editors, none of which can be said to be neutral on the issue. Which is a problem that brought me here in the first place. If you know something is a lie, you would go and correct it. If you have access to more data on a subject than a lot of other people you would go and share it on a project like Wikipedia. This is what I am doing. COFS 17:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's painting with too broad a brush: in over 15,000 edits on this site I don't believe I've ever edited a Scientology article or voiced a view about the subject or had a hand in any Scientology-related conflict. I'm also an administrator with 18 barnstars who's been involved in 14 arbitration cases, sometimes as a named party, yet no sanction has ever even been proposed against me - so to reply to the question about casting the first stone I'll toss: 3 month community topic ban with a referral to dispute resolution. I think COFS's record justifies that much and, on the whole, it's milder than the usual destination for this sort of editorial trajectory. Strongly recommend DR also to COFS's supporters. When dealing with controversial topics generally it's a sign of trouble to see partisan people accuse neutral editors of bias. Please step back, regard this as a preventative measure aimed at defusing a tense situation before more serious sanctions become necessary, and heed the cautions regarding WP:COI. I'm equally interested in demonstrable COI evidence regarding either side of the related disputes. Durova^Charge! 17:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova^Charge!, I mention you above as the only one who actually brought up a creative suggestion and yet you seem to feel attacked. That was not my intent. Anyway, this is gets in a discrimination issue unless actual charges are being brought up and until we sort out who is pushing what with what agenda. I am willing to participate in such sortout if everyone involved is actually willing to put the cards on the table and answer up. That includes all anti-editors like this. COFS 02:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated before, your previous post simply painted with too broad a brush. I'm pretty confident about several other editors' neutrality and I'm absolutely certain of my own. Durova^Charge! 05:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll modify that with this proposed compromise: if COFS joins WP:ADOPT we can shorten the community topic ban to one month. Durova^Charge! 18:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think (that is "In my opinion, as a conclusion I have drawn from consideration of evidence" for those of who are concerned over my using weasel words), its going a little light but if COFS is willing to follow the terms of the CTB it would indicate a good first step. After all the goal of this process isn't to punish anyone, just prevent problems. Of course under ideal circumstances, anyone who is a member of an organization, as well as anyone vocally opposed to it, would abstain from editing it save certain exceptions (i.e. the correction of minor details like dates and names), much in the manner that subjects of biographical pages should.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's better for people who have a COI to post suggested changes with line citations to talk pages rather than to articles. The purpose of this thread, however, is to discuss what to do about a particular problem editor. Durova^Charge! 21:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I am just stating that ideally, we wouldn't have to do this, and that I do support your 3(conditionally 1) month community topic ban if it counts for anything.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 21:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-I am very concerned by what I'm reading here.

Scientology is more than a place of employment, it is a religion. If we make the claim that COFS is a staff member for CoS and therefore has a COI, shouldn't we also say that every Scientology member has a COI? In fact, I would submit, that the religious aspect would carry much more COI weight than an employment aspect. My church (not Scientology) employs people who are not members of our church. I would certainly expect more support on an issue from my fellow church members, than the church janitor or secretary. If we community ban COFS from Scientology, I think we also need to also ban every Scientologist from editing Scientology articles.
There are several editors in the Scientology articles who have their own off-wiki websites, which they use to publish anti-COS information. Wouldn't that mean they also have COI? Should we community ban them also?

If we are going to take a bite of this apple, lets be prepared to eat the whole damned thing.

This is not a simple COI case where some random company is paying an employee to write a promo piece on their business. This is a series of articles which are highly polarized. There are two very distinct and separate camps that edit these articles; pro-CoS and anti-CoS. Only a few (very few) editors fall in the NPOV neutral middle.

Placing a community ban on one side of the two distinct groups, without equally banning the opposite side will tend to tip the balance in favor of the anti-CoS group and set a very bad precident. Are we really prepared to do that?

I believe that in extremely polarized articles, especially on religion, attempting to micro manage by trying to determine and define COI takes more than a quickie discussion on a board with uninvolved admins. And then, by placing community bans on editors from only one side, we are upsetting the balance of the article and are doing more harm than we are good. There are more than enough anti-CoS editors to mitigate any damage that COFS can do (if we can even agree to call it damage, which I'm not sure that we can).

Should we ban anyone from edting Veganism if they work for a grocery store, or a farm? Should we ban them if they are a practicing Vegan? Should we ban them if they work for, or support, any animal rights groups? Where would we stop?

As much as we would all like this to be a simple clear-cut COI decision, this is more of a case of the anti-CoS group tossing wet leaves on some coals, making smoke and yelling fire. I've seen COFS's edits. They are not the edits of a paid COI editor, who is on a professional mission to publish POV material to promote Scientology.

And all that aside, on a personal note.. what the hell happened to due process? We have anti-COS editors who opened this discussion. We have uninvolved editors making a decision. When does COFS get representation? Shouldn't this be a much more formal process and a very thorough investigation? If we are going to community ban COFS, I have some names to submit from the anti-cult and anti-CoS group who are as blatantly pov pushing as any Pro-CoS editor that I've ever seen.

Personally, I have no love for Scientology, then again I have no hate for it either. I don't really even know what it is. But I do recognize railroading when I see it, and this train is at full speed.

In my opinion, this entire line of discussion, while interesting, should not be here.. certainly not yet. Lsi john 00:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If we make the claim that COFS is a staff member for CoS and therefore has a COI, shouldn't we also say that every Scientology member has a COI? The key phrase you glossed right over is "staff member" -- i.e.; "employee". So, no. --Calton | Talk 00:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sir. I glossed over nothing. I clearly stated two things of significantly more importance:

Religious persuasion carries infinitely more weight in this discussion than mere employment.
This is not an article about some insignificant little company where a single COI editor would stand a chance of having any significant influence. There are two very large and very polarized groups at work here. Assuming staff-member means employed, mere employment is trivial when compared against the emotional hate that comes from the Anti-COS group and the emotional support that comes from the Scientologists.

And that is exactly why I believe that this discussion is in the wrong forum. It looks like it is a simple cut-and-dried open-and-closed case of COI and it isn't. It seems like an opportunity for well meaning uninvolved admins to make a difference and give them an opportunity to do the right thing. In reality, it is pov editors on the anti-CoS side, trying to remove some of their opposition. I can see it, because I edit there and know the players. I happened across the articles due to an encounter with another editor, who happens to edit the same articles I was in, as well as the Scientology articles. I'm familar with the players. Are you? What does it mean to be a staff member? Is COFS paid? Is COFS a volunteer staff member? Do we know? Have we investigated? Do we care? Are we simply assuming COI? Has anyone who is considering a block, actually read through the edits of COFS and compared them to similar edits by Anti-COS editors? Even if COI exists, its one thing to have COI, it's another thing to introduce COI into an article. Is there any evidence that COFS is editing with any more undue prejudice than anti-COS editors who run their anti-COS websites? Placing a community ban is not something to be done lightly. And this is certainly not the clear cut case that some would have us belive. Lsi john 01:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is really very simple. Y, an employee of X, edits an article about X and gets into disputes with other editors. I don't care what X is, and I don't care about the personal beliefs of Y. I care that X has an employee editing an article about X. At minimum, this looks bad and damages the reputation of Wikipedia if we allow the apparent COI to continue. If Y has been counselled repeatedly about this problem, yet chooses to continue making such edits, That's when Y gets banned. I've tried to counselling within this very same thread, and the response from the pro-Scientology camp has been that I must be an anti-Scientologist because I oppose them. Wrong. I am opposing your conduct on Wikipedia, not your beliefs in real life. Counselling hasn't worked, so let's try Durova's suggestion instead. Jehochman ^Talk 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I wish life were that simple. Counselling hasn't worked? It hasn't? What counseling? What hasn't worked? Have you even done any edit counting on those articles to see how infrequently COFS is actually editing? I've never suggested anyone here is Anti-Scientologist. I think the admins here want to do the right thing, and they are being happily led down the path of COI.

if we allow the apparent COI to continue? So now we community ban even if its only 'aparent COI' even if it is not true coi?

Yes COI is important. And if COFS had any chance of really having any significant impact as a COI editor simply by being a staff member, I'd sign on board with you. How much time have you spent editing those articles or monitoring the discussions? Lsi john 01:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A common view is that writing an article about one's employer is the canonical example of COI, the standard against which all other potential COIs are measured. The National Academy of Sciences, which lives and dies by their reputation for objective evaluation of evidence, says for example: "An individual should not serve as a member of a committee with respect to an activity in which a critical review and evaluation of the individual's own work, or that of his or her immediate employer, is the central purpose of the activity, because that would constitute a conflict of interest, although such an individual may provide relevant information to the program activity."[8] Following that analogy, an employee of X certainly is welcome to "provide relevant information" by posting suggestions on an article's Talk page, but there's no way they should edit the article itself. We can argue whether "emotional attachment", etc. also constitutes a COI, but to argue that writing about one's employer does not constitute COI is prima facie absurd. Iamnotmyself 01:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iamnotmyself, then shouldn't we also consider all Scientologists as having a conflict of interest? Jihads are committed based solely on religious beliefs, yet I have not seen any McDonalds resturant's blown up by Pizza Hut employees. This is a subject of Religion. You're so focused on the trees you're missing the entire forest. This subject is bigger than some technical definition of COI. Which, by the way, I'm not convinced that we have actually established applies here. I certainly haven't seen any pay-stubs which prove employment. I'm not suggesting COFS isn't employed, I'm asking if we are about to ban without proof. Lsi john 02:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, if we want to discuss a short-term block on COFS for edit summaries or 3RR, then I'm with you. Personally, I think COFS does more of a disservice to Scientology than a credit. But that doesn't mean I support fast-tracking a community ban on someone in order to remove the competition. Lsi john 01:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want COFS to agree to stop editing the articles that represent a COI. If COFS would agree (and abide), there'd be no need for blocks! I spent a couple hours last night on IRC with another admin talking about blocks. The great insight was the blocks should be avoided whenever possible. As for other editors who may suffer from COI or POV pushing tendencies, the community will deal with them in turn. Refraining from editing the articles doesn't mean absolute silence. The article talk pages and noticeboards would still be available if COFS seems a problem and wants to call for help. Jehochman ^Talk 01:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That logic gets you those editing article who have less knowledge about the subject they are editing about than the ones you are trying to boot. Asking a butcher for vegetarian recipes, so to say, will get you a list of ugly tasting meals. As I said above, let's get all cards on the table. I am polarizing because I am the only pro-editor facing a bunch of people with their own agenda. True, it is sometimes hard to see who actually has a neutral or relatively neutral viewpoint. But realize that you are automatically taking sides if no thorough investigation is preceeding your comments. I understand it might be a lot of work to cut through the noise. I think it is worth a try. COFS 02:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still fail to see that your logic is self destructive. Polarizing to deal with an opposite simply drives things apart further. Maybe if you take a break and see how things work out without your constant objections to everything under the sun you might come to understand this.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 02:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand what is happening but you are saying essentially that I should take small steps and do nothing when incorrect information is being put in articles on subjects I know. Where is WP:RS/WP:ATTRIB, WP:AGF, WP:NPA etc in all this? One information alone, which I stupidly put on my user page, that I am a Scientologist, was polarizing and got me - in Feb 07 - in the line of attack. Ok, my reaction that time was not civil and not by the rules but I learned in between. Then the fact that I am using a proxy run by the Church (a very convenient way to get online from everywhere in the world and nothing else) was used broadly to get me blocked for something I did not do, i.e. sockpuppeting. Now we got not even a COI discussion and another angle for getting me booted including some wild guesses on what Wikipedia policy could be without naming one of them. Durova once wrote an article which I liked - even though I think that Durova is not applying wikisleuthing at all. You find it here. Let's put the cards on the table. Who is doing what with that agenda here. You'd be surprised. COFS 02:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I did take a time out (check my activity record) and do so regularly. I got an offline job and that is time consuming, as most of us know. This time is usually the time for some guys who just heard from a friends friend how dangerous Scientology might be to put in some badly sourced slant in the article. Which no one will remove. This happened for years with no Scientologists really caring about this encyclopedia and to the result that there are now hundreds of falsehoods, unsourced slants etc spread in over 270 articles about the subject. COFS 03:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COFS, can you confirm that you don't work for the CoS? Are we confused? Simply being a scientologist isn't a COI. I wish the pros- and the cons- could agree to respect each other's sourced statements, even when they look like bollocks. Our readers are smart enough to evaluate the sources and see which statements are true and false. Wikipedia isn't here to present The Truth. No, we just show the arguments on all sides and let the reader decide what to believe. I think we all could work together to improve these articles and maybe get Scientology up to featured article. Wouldn't that be nice? Is anyone here opposed to writing a great article? Jehochman ^Talk 03:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I agree. I have two things to cite here, and then I'll stop posting (highlighting mine for emphasis):

WP:COI "This page is considered a behavioral guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."

WP:IAR "The following is policy on the English Wikipedia, and according to Jimbo Wales, it "always has been". Ignore all rules was our first rule to consider.
If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them."

COFS is not harming the project, but rather is providing stimuli to enhance the articles.

Lets go edit articles and not try to micromanage the Scientology debate from our couch. Peace in God. Lsi john 03:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Jehochman, I am surely not opposed to writing great articles. This discussion was running for 2-3 days without me being present. During this time lots of things have been said on various boards and I am not sure how I am being "conceived" here. As I said before I am not an employee of the Church (and have not been one in the past and currently do not plan to become one) and I get no money for this or any other advantages. I think this is the third time I write that. Looks like I have to work on my writing style so someone actually reads me... COFS 03:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Addressing several posts over the past several hours:

If there's a case to be made for COI or disruptive editing against some other editor on Scientology-related topics, any non-blocked editor is welcome to raise that separately. And if anyone wishes to redefine this site's definition of conflict of interest, the place to seek community consensus for that is over at that guideline and its talk page.

As I understand it, COFS is an employee of an organization who edits disruptively about that organization (or at the very least, someone who has regular access to that organization's computers). COFS also has five confirmed sockpuppets and a substantial block history. That's enough to merit serious discussion at this board.

I've offered what I consider to be a very reasonable and mild solution; COFS hasn't replied to the offer of a one month topic ban conditional upon WP:ADOPT entry. And given what I've observed - particularly at this very thread - this editor fits a pattern that typically ends with much more serious sanctions. The ball's in your court. If you refuse to volley we can serve a 3 month topic ban, and if consensus doesn't form for that I can still use my sysop tools as needed. Durova^Charge! 05:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for jumping in the conversation so late. I really don't know the details but I really like the changes COFS have done. So what is the problem? Bravehartbear 05:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova^Charge!, you sound as though you aren't 100% sure of COFS status as an employee of the CoS. I was involved with the WP:RFCU which revealed that COFS, Misou, and some others are using a shared IP address which is utilized by the CoS organization. Justanother told me that the CoS doesn't provide general Internet access for it's members. It was then assumed the users must then be accessing Wikipedia "at work". Essentially we don't know for sure what the actual situation is outside of the basic fact that several User accounts are editing Wikipedia from the same IP and with the same bias. Anynobody 06:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, per WP:SOCK I treat these accounts as the same person: they edit the same topics toward the same POV. So for administrative purposes they're essentially indistinguishable: if they aren't actually the same person they're meatpuppets so the policy applies equally in either scenario. Although I could consider the possibility that this person is a dedicated CoS volunteer rather than a paid employee, the difference isn't significant to my analysis. Durova^Charge! 06:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:CyclePat

No action taken, Pat is indefblocked and will not be unblocked until he accepts the terms put before him, that any discussion of unblocking does not begin until he promises to not bring up AMA (or similar "groups" again. SirFozzie 18:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

As I'm sure most people are aware, CyclePat is currently indefinately blocked due to trolling over WP:AMA, he will be unblocked when he agree's to stop this behaviour. Unfortunately this promise to stop has not been forth coming, so let's help him on his way. CyclePat can be a constructive editor, so I propose lifting the block, and a community ban from discussing AMA on wikipedia indefinately with a block of upto one week by any administrator if he breaks this. Thoughts? Ryan Postlethwaite 01:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why only one week? Why not indefinite? He's already indef. blocked, and he has to agree to the condition to be unblocked, if he violates that, why not put him back to the current status? Corvus cornix 01:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's only indef blocked to get him to stop the trolling, a week block should be enough of a deterant, and he'll keep on getting them if he violates the ban. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stronger... Indef block if he disruptively revisits AMA/EA. Under this context I can support unblocking per my rationale at WP:AN (disclosure: I did vote on the MFD's). Navou 01:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect, but given that an indefinite block hasn't succeeded in getting through to him (see his talk page for evidence), how would a one-week block -- or even a series of them -- accomplish that? --Calton | Talk 02:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well he'd be community banned, if he continues to troll over AMA then he gets blocked for a week, simple as that. Maybe some limit of blocks could be put on it e.g. After 3 such blocks, he gets his indef block reinstated. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I agree with Calton above. Lets give him the unblock out of respect due his useful past contributions. With the assertion that this area will not be explored. I do not see any reason why an editor should not be given a chance to learn. Anyone can return from the edge, to contribute usefully to the project. If he returns to the same past behavior at AMA/EA, then back to the indef block. Lets not take take time with multiple chances after all the warnings and the current blocking. I think we all understand that this editor understands what is expected. Under this context, I can support an unblock. Navou 02:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CyclePat has been offered just about exactly that several times over the last week, save for the one-week cap; he seems unwilling or unable to understand or accept those terms. Pat's reading of "dropping it" is "..Let's assume I'm unblocked and get 3 other users interested in the AMA by specifically talking to them on their user page..." [9]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say lay the terms to him, tell him it's a community ban and the consequences of mentioning it again, if he agree's with the community ban, he gets unblocked, if he doesn't he stays blocked - simple really :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 02:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Those terms are 3 chances or 1 chance, so I'm clear? Navou 02:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per consensus here, it seems like 1 chance, I guess he's had enough chances already (although I would prefer the firm 3 strikes and your out rule to be used - but I'm not questioning consensus). Ryan Postlethwaite 02:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terms of unblock have been given to him [10]. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am notifying JzG of this discussion, as he has had interactions with Pat in the past. Riana ⁂ 03:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His whole premise of being unblocked is that with jsut one more chance he can demonstrate the necessity of AMA. His quixotic obsession will earn him an indefinite ban. I suggest a long block right now so that his obsession can subside somewhat. Unblocking now is like giving heroin to a junkie. Let him come down for about 2 months and see if he is still obsessed. I suggest a 2 month block to see what happens. But unblocking now will only end in a permanent blcok in 1 week. --Tbeatty 03:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last time he was topic-banned here, he did honor that. He's certainly not someone whose sole purpose is to disrupt; unfortunately, some of his actions have had exactly that effect regardless of intent. Still, I believe a topic ban (with quickly-escalating blocks should it be violated, and a very explicit warning that it means "Stay away from the subject, period, end of the story") may be the least harmful way to stop that disruption. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support unblocking if CyclePat agrees to a topic ban, but I do not support an immediate indefinite block if he violates that. Immediate escalation provides no time for contemplation and improvement; short, then escalating blocks, do. --Iamunknown 05:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd chime in here, because I have a long history with CyclePat. I tried my best to mentor him when he first started with the electric bicycle article in late 2005. I've been saddened by the recent turn of events, because he is very passionate and when he's editing instead of trolling, he's a very useful member of the project. The problem is the passion. It's wonderful when it's put to good use. But when it isn't, he's become prone to Wikilawyering to get his way. That has always been a part of his MO on Wikipedia, but it seems to have become dominant. He has a difficult time listening to others. He's very stubborn (and admits to being so) and very hard to suade at times. I think that the block should be lifted if he agrees to leave AMA alone. He has been at times a very valuable member of the community. And I think he can be again. But he does have an obsessive streak. Until he agrees to the topic ban, I don't think he should be let back onto the project. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Woohoo. All Pat has to do is agree to leave it alone and he can be unblocked. Unblock him without that assurance, and I'm pretty confident he will continue his crusade. Pat is not evil, but is is incredibly stubborn. Guy (Help!) 06:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the latest posts by Pat on his talkpage, it appears that he rejects the idea of dropping AMA altogether. He appears to wish to try and discern why AMA was closed as well as contact other editors to gauge interest in restarting it at a future date. As I said on WP:AN I want to unblock Pat so he can continue editing, but not if he is going to just be reblocked for AMA related editing. I don't think a WP:CN resolution to bar him from discussing AMA is going to have any effect and my reading of what he has stated on his talkpage is that he rejects any sort of unblock that comes with the stipulation that he must not discuss AMA. I'll wait to see what his response to Calton and Ryan is, but at this point I think Calton summed it up at [User talk:CyclePat]]; Pat wants option C and that simply is not on the table here, so a WP:CN resolution won't be necessary.--Isotope23 15:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Following the AMA's closure I haven't noticed a 'gap' in the dispute resolution process - we clearly don't require the association to be restarted. When Pat finally appreciates this, he can be unblocked, but not before. Addhoc 16:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This thing about banning somebody because they hold and express an opinion that most others disagree with seems a bit unsettling to me... why not just ignore him when he talks about his pet obsession, and hope he moves on to something more productive eventually? Why the need to put him under threat of re-banning if he so much as mentions the subject again? *Dan T.* 17:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Durova^Charge! 17:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems primarily concerned with somebody pushing a viewpoint in articles, not in Wikipedia-internal debate, though. *Dan T.* 18:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certain areas of DE can be applied to this, even though AMA/EA is not in the article proper. Navou 22:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as one of the editors who coauthored that guideline, I don't recall any discussion that would exclude it from applying to Wikipedia namespace. It just usually happens in article namespace. Durova^Charge! 00:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CyclePat is a disruptive nuisance who does the project more harm than good. I support a community ban. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second Tom harrison's comments, and add that CyclePat has made no indication he intends ot drop the AMA matter completely.--MONGO 18:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the offer's moot until Pat indicates that he will accept the terms offered, that he will not be unblocked until he agrees not to bring up the AMA again, PERIOD, so therefore, marking as complete SirFozzie 18:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Gurch

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.

No consensus to ban. Addhoc 13:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gurch (talk · contribs · count) is a former administrator and is/was a highly regarded contributor. Their recent behaviour suggests a growing bitterness towards the project which once again culminated in a curious but most undesireable incident tonight which saw Gurch repeatedly adding a indefblocked template to the userpage of CharlotteWebb. This follows a number of unhelpful comments left on Requests for Adminship. I'm proposing a novel-ish solution which would initially see Gurch indefinitely blocked until such time as they accept and admit their recent behavior is unhelpful and unacceptable and agree to some form of parole which is acceptable to both them and to the community, such as short blocks leading to longer blocks and finally a final ban should the behavior continue. Nick 22:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about this one, he's been trolling, but he's not going to agree to parole - he'll leave simple as that. He has the potential to be a constructive editor again, I think any indef block or parole will act the same as a ban. It seems premature at present IMHO. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to support that. It sounds like it's devised to be humiliating. I'm certain it's not been, but that will be the perception and I'm fairly sure Gurch will see it in that sense, thus there's nothing to be achieved in taking this approach. We already have a process for dealing with disruption and POINTy behaviour and I feel we should stay on this path. I don't see why anything further is needed here. - Alison ☺ 23:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Growing bitterness towards the project is unlikely to be ameliorated by an indefinite block. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Allison and everyone.. SirFozzie 23:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He may not have been terribly helpful, but he's still being genuine, not malicious. If he's responding to the perception that wikipedia processes are becoming broken, then bullying him into admitting that they aren't isn't going to accomplish anything but pushing him away entirely. Would it really be terrible to just put up with it for a while, until he calms down? Bladestorm 23:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want Gurch to admit our processes aren't broken, I want him to stop trying to break process even further to try and force across his point. It's disruptive, discredits those who believe process is broken and makes it hard to see if a process is genuinely broken. The last thing we need at the moment is Gurch running around adding indefblocked templates to userpages and proclaiming Charlotte to have been banned by a Checkuser. It might be how Gurch sees things, but it's confusing for editors and the whole WP:NOP thing is heated enough without this going on. Nick 23:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but we already have a well-defined mechanism for dealing with disruption - Alison ☺ 00:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look through his contribs and I dug these diffs out myself. Gurch's comments at WP:RFA like "I don't really support people with fewer than 102,067 edits" [11] are definetly tendentious and considering that his vote has an effect on the candidates' RFA's is pretty serious.

The vandalism on Charlotte's web's userpage [12] and the 7 reverts back to the vandalized version[13] is unacceptable, as are the taunts left on his own talk page [14].

That said I can't support your solution Nick. I agree with Alison, & recommend following the process for dealing with disruptive editors--Cailil ^talk 23:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Alison and Anetode. ElinorD (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support this, and agree with Ryan and Alison. While Gurch sometimes may be pointy, he is just to trying to show how broken/abused our processes are. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, "please don't ban Gurch" - Alison ☺ 00:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that is very premature, I agree with Ryan Allison and R. Viridae ^Talk 00:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gurch makes comparatively harmless WP:POINTs and assumes relatively little bad faith, seeing as such interactions as discussed here are all "on behalf of" editors in good standing. What he does may be unhelpful, and even detrimental to his arguably good-faithed cause, but that —essentially good-faithed— is what I perceive his actions as. Assuming good faith such as required by policy equally with all people may be impossible in some situations, especially polarised situations that are the one thing that is really broken about RfA (there is no discussion in the section labelled "Discussion"). He is ignoring some rules for what he (obviously in my opinion) honestly perceives as being the greater good for Wikipedia. His being mildly wrong and somewhat stubborn doesn't make him worse than a regrettably high percentage of people on Wikipedia. So he's a gadfly, but at least he is trying to make an actual point (the validity of which is not to be decided upon here) with his WP:POINTs. —AldeBaer 01:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's please not criminalise Gurch for sarcasm. There's seems to be well-meaning opinions underlying his remarks and behaviour, not just cranking -- and I even see some small dissent value for the longterm benefit of the project. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 01:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, maybe we should even reward Gurch. After enough of his comedy, sarcasm, and points about how everything is broken, we may actually fix RFA and other things. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 01:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. Also, reading this may provide some helpful stimulations. You see, we have all this knowledge assembled in one place, available to serve and guide us if we let it. Isn't that a great thing? It has the capability of actually extending our individual horizons, provided that we don't think of ourselves as being reduced to a POINT. —AldeBaer 01:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, how about not? Per everyone who has commented here. --Iamunknown 05:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually read this noticeboard, but as soon as I saw Gurch's name I thought, "That doesn't look right." I don't condone everything he's written, but a block of any length would be completely out of proportion. Yechiel Man 07:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a block....a few off colour opposes at RfA are best left ignored. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look through his contribs and I dug these diffs out myself. Gurch's comments at WP:RFA like "I don't really support people with fewer than 102,067 edits" [15] - the context of this comment is interesting. Another user had already opposed saying "I don't support editors with less than 10,000 edits" - In that light Gurch's neutral is not damaging and is a funny way of pointing out how broken some comments are. Dan Beale 08:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/TingMing

The above named arbitration case has closed. TingMing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for 1 year. Please be advised that TingMing is already indefinitely banned, so the one year ban will not commence until the indefinite ban is lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 19:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban on User:Nationalist

No action needed. If someone "unbans" Nationalist/TingMing, he will still need to serve a one year ban at that time. SirFozzie 20:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

TingMing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned for one year by ArbCom for edit-warring and soapboxing on the China-Taiwan issue. However, TingMing was indefinitely blocked on June 14 after Checkuser evidence confirmed him as a sockpuppet of Nationalist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Nationalist has had an RfC out on him since February, and has made only a cursory effort to participate. He's been blocked seven times since it opened. No need for diff-digging--all the necessary diffs are provided at TingMing's RfAR and Nationalist's RfC.

Given the fact that TingMing is a proven sock of Nationalist and that Nationalist has no regard for consensus, a sanity check of the case on my part convinces me it's time to help Nationalist, alias TingMing, find the door. Blueboy 96 19:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above, Blueboy.. he's already banned, in fact, his one year ArbCom ban does not start until someone unbans him. This is unneccessary. SirFozzie 20:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Asgardian

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

This editor has no recent blocks. If he's disruptive in some way, please report this in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI). If he's edit warring, consider compiling a report on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (WP:AN3)). --Tony Sidaway 22:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twice now, last year and this year, this disruptive, contentious editor, who follows policy and guidelines only at his choice, has frustrated the WikiProject Comics community to a point where we have long, involved debates, with him and a several other regular editors, trying to find a way to work together.

After last year's attempts and promises, in which the issue arose that he might have been disrupting Wikipedia as a school project, he remains as contentious, defensive and frustrating as ever — engaging in revert wars, blanking his Talk page (where he has suffered Admin sanctions), and blaming everyone but himself for the difficulties.

It's gotten to a point where other editors are tearing our hair out. We cannot go on this way. For a year now, we've done everything we could.

I will dig up a link for last year's debate. In the meantime, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Request for comment/Asgardian.

One continually edit-warring editor who refuses to consistently follow consensus — even consensus to which he's agreed! — is creating huge frustration and aggravation for many editors. This is not right, and we need help. Thank you for any consideration you might give this issue. --Tenebrae 16:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at his history, I see an awful lot of instances where he's deleted talk page warnings. Not promising. I would think a one-year ban on editing comics-related articles is the way to go, plus an indefinite ban on removing talk page warnings. Contrary to what your colleagues said on the RfC, the community can impose topic bans. Thoughts? Blueboy 96 18:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae, a community ban objectively exceeds the conduct in question. Until every possible option has been exhausted...you are now at RfC stage...imposing a ban is preemptive and counter-intuitive of what Wikipedia represents. At this point we need to allow process to work. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 04:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have done RfCs with User:Asgardian. Fellow editors disagree with his edits, and he keeps making them anyway.--Tenebrae 01:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could support that, although the user does contribute useful information. The other option I could see is a revert parole. If he reverts any article more than once per 24 hour period or more than 2 times in any 7 day period or more than 3 times in any 30 day period then brief blocks could follow, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one month, and after 10 blocks increase to six months. Any thoughts on that? Steve block Talk 13:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a very creative, fair, and — equally important — quantifiable solution.

The one workaround I can foresee is his making the usual big revert in steps instead of all at once. --Tenebrae 17:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per arbitration rulings,

“

The term "revert" as used in Wikipedia policies and guidelines is intended to include both absolute reverts (where versions differ not at all) as well as de facto reverts (where versions are only very slightly different). Attempting to avoid being accused of reversion by making very minor edits that are then edited out again is in bad faith and against Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

”

I think that covers any workarounds. Steve block Talk 18:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:COFS

COFS (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

This Scientologist editor has engaged in large numbers of edits apparently intended to whitewash the main Scientology article. Although COFS has stated a desire to follow the rules of wikipedia, their responses to other editors have frequently not been WP:CIVIL both on Talk:Scientology and in edit comments. COFS has been previously blocked and has also been warned regarding violation of conflict of interest guidelines(see above links for details) but these attempts do not seem to have helped much. When I raised this issue at the conflict of interest noticeboard, I got this suggestion:

How about taking this to Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard and requesting a community ban? I think these people have worn out our patience. I believe past investigations have shown that COFS works for the Scientology organization, so these are nothing but COI edits. Jehochman ^Talk 14:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hence this post. SheffieldSteel 15:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs, please? Also, where are the "past investigations"? Blueboy 96 20:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this refers to the checkuser / SPA block, linked above. SheffieldSteel 13:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above, and applicable here; Historically, you will garner more discussion if you post your case in full w/ evidence here instead of directing the participants to evidence located elsewhere.

As requested. COFS has...

[16] Moved cited material into a footnote. The material had the effect of calling into question the pro-Scientology point immediately preceding it in the text, yet the edit comment was "synthesis".
[17] Again moved the criticism into a footnote, while misrepresenting the court document source and referring to it in the edit comment as "clarification".
[18] Commented that editors should not attempt to obtain consensus before making sweeping changes to controversial articles.
[19] Removed cited material which contradicted an assertion attributed to L Ron Hubbard. Note the aggressive edit comment.
[20] Argued against several editors that this article's lead should not contain a summary of the criticism in the article. Note referring to other users' posts as "nonsense".
[21] Accused a good faith editor of "blind bashing" Scientology for restoring a summary of criticism.

This is just a small sample, from what I have encountered directly. COFS has a prodigious contributions history (except for the period of the ban) centred overwhelmingly on Scientology. COFS's Talk page (and particularly the archive) are a record of many attempts by other users to attempt to reason with her/him. SheffieldSteel 21:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at those, sounds like at minimum an indefinite ban on editing Scientology-related articles is merited. The community can impose topic bans. Would also think he should be required to read and understand WP:CIVIL, WP:COI and WP:NPA, and post a statement that he's done so and apologize to everyone he's offended. Blueboy 96 22:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with a topic ban at least, but in light of Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/COFS I have my doubts that this user would respect a topic ban. Has any dispute resolution been tried? Durova^Charge! 00:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for earlier dispute resolution, I believe someting was posted on AN/I but I have yet to find it. I'm sorry if I've handled this improperly - this is the first time I've done anything like this. Would starting an RfC be the best step to take next? SheffieldSteel 13:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]