Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive9

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

Users have exhibited a pattern of stalking, trolling, and harrassment based upon personal, political and business objectives to either drive this user away from Wikipedia, or setup various "ambushes" under feigned claims of "edit warring" and other forms of disruption where they work together as a team to disrupt Wikipedia in order to create fabricated evidence of edit warring and other claims to target this user for banning and other sanctions, and/or to misuse Wikipedia to post Libel and extort money. With the exception of User:Hipocrite, these other users are all from the SCOX message board. The SCOX message board is an online community of Linux advocates who vigorously attack anyone they feel is a threat to the Linux or FOSS movements or business interests. They are also fundamentally the same community who frequent Groklaw.net. Many of their targets have been affected outside of Cyberspace. All of their behavior conforms to the offenses listed at WP:HARRASS.

Based on news reports in the Deseret News, Darl McBride, the CEO of SCO has received death threats and boxes of earthworms and dirt in the mail from anonymous addresses which coincide with threats and postings from these users on the SCOX message board which has led to him acquiring a concealed weapons permit and a firearm he carries with him always due to the serious nature of these threats. I have received a box of dead fish wrapped in newspaper shipped to my residence as well which also coincide with threatenting postings on the SCOX message board, as well as death threats directed against my family.

In September of 2005, SCOX message board trolls posted an article to Wikipedia libelling me, then proceeded to use the article as a platform to enshrine what Jimbo Wales characterized in statements on the article talk page as "libel, trolling, and tabloid gossip". Mr. Wales deleted the page and all associated edits after it had been posted for over a year and vigorously policed the article and semi-protected it to stop the abusive conduct of these trolls from the SCOX message board. I was banned originally for filing legal action in 2005 against the people making the death threats, and unbanned after the legal processes had been concluded. One of these trolls sent an email to my wife during this ordeal stating they would, "kill her, cut her open, pull out our unborn son, and kill him too." After reading this email, my wife fled our home and lived in hotels for several weeks, then stayed with friends in Cortez, Colorado and refused to return to our home for over two months. The disruption to my personal life by these individuals and their conduct cannot be described in words alone.

During the initial foray while I was banned by Jimbo because I had filed a lawsuit in Federal Court against SCOX members, several of these message board trolls approached me anonymously through letters, anonymous phone calls, and other means and attempted to extort money from me or demanded I resume funding of various Linux ventures and/or hired them back or gave them "salaries" in exchange to cease editing of my bio on Wikipedia or in exchange for favorable edits. I believe one of the persons demanding the money was User:Jerryg and/or sent the box of dead fish, since it was postmarked from Oregon (Portland) near where he lives. Vigilant appears to live in Nebraska and has moved to California and formerly ran the Linux Users Groups in the midwest. Most of these people have money and /or are older and have business interests and/or considerable investement or stake in Linux and FOSS companies, or are high level people involved in Linux and FOSS.

After returning to Wikipedia, this same group from SCOX again initiated their trolling on Wikipedia and were eventually blocked. The most sinister and disturbed of these trolls are Al Petrofsky and Vigilant. However, other "mission posters" also have recently emerged.

Admin User:Duk has provided a lot of help with this by blocking these trolls and mission posters and recording evidence of their conduct. User_talk:Duk/SPTA. For this he has earned my trust and appreciation and that of my family.

The SCOX message board postings reveal that virtually every edit I make on this site is reviewed and commented on in a sportscaster "blow by blow" description at the SCOX message board, with planned forays and a multitude of sockpuppet attacks designed to create chaos on Wikipedia and marginalize me into a corner where I come under scrutiny by other editors on the site. Simply reading this message board will reveal that all of these posters are indeed stalking and harassing Wikipedia editors and contributors. All of this conduct violates jsut about every policy and rule of civility Wikipedia has, The Wikimedia Foundations policies, and in many cases, State and Federal Laws as well. Users like User:Hipocrite, who use the obvious controversy to promote the conduct of these people as some sort of angle to advance their own views are no better than the trolls they protect.

I propose a permanent ban on all of these users from SCOX.of interacting with me on this site, including User:Hipocrite, and any other users who identify themselves as SCOX members, or who act in concert with them. I also request Administrator privileges to protect myself from them people and only for that purpose. They will not come near me if they know I will block them on sight, as they did the same forays into the Cherokee Wikipedia and Wikigadugi where I am an admin and WikiSysop, and very quickly learned that I will not only block them, but file reports with their ISPs in cases where they attack my personal servers and get their service terminated, which I have done to Vigilant and Al Petrofsky several times already. The criteria for blocking would be 1) They edit any article, talk page, template, or other item on Wikipedia within a 96 hour window of before or after I edit the same they get blocked for a week. This gives them four days of distance between me and items I edit. They may not post, harrass, intimidate, or come anywhere near me within this time window.

I cannot ask that they be banned from editing my bio because this violates the anyone can edit rule. Since Mr. Wales has taken over review of edits on my bio, they can edit it with knowledge their activities are being periodically reviewed by Senior Foundation officials.

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can *prove* I sent you a package of dead fish, you will remove my name from the accusation. Lies will not help you here or anywhere else. --Jerry (Talk) 18:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Lawl. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground. Mangojuice^talk 18:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, are you adressing that at me? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Realistically, much of what you're asking for is definitely not going to be granted. For example, I can say with almost complete certainty that the community will not grant you Administrator access to "protect" yourself, nor will it place injunctions on people preventing them from editing articles within 96 hours of you - that would basically allow you to prevent them from editing any article of your choice by simply making minor edits every few days. The idea that they can't edit any thing for 96 hours before you edit it... well that's 100% certain not to happen unless getting Administrator privileges grants you the ability to predict the future. --YFB ¿ 18:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Point, I'll correct the request. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an off-WP fight that has rolled onto WP. While I have some sympathy for Mr. Merkey, a lot of this, quite frankly, he brought onto his own head with his actions, and his demands. It's said if you start believing that you have enemies in every corner and acting on those beliefs, sure enough, you will soon have exactly that. As for Mr. Merkey's demands, I have a hunch that the answer will be quick, and it will be negative. SirFozzie 18:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe I asked for death threats or stalking and harassment on WP by trolls. I also do not believe I instuted their forays. This is a false and callaous statement. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• In my opinion this request and the above User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey thread should go to WP:ARBCOM. There is too much history here (much of it off-wikipedia) for this to be a clearcut WP:CN case. Let ARBCOM sort this one out.--Isotope23 18:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The ARBCOM has typically not taken a case with me on this topic. There are several reasons why. One of the reasons has to do with the fact I fund a company which could be viewed as in the same business space as the Foundation. The reasons are too complex to go into here. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Promising that if you're granted Administrator privs that you'll use them only for good? Given the unreliable nature of your previous promises (like the condition that you were only going to edit Cherokee articles on English WP) I truly hope this doesn't get granted. Mr. Merkey, not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll, SCOX member, OSS Zealot, revertbot, sock puppet or stalker. The sooner you start acting like a rational person and drop this "I gave money, I can do what I want!" attitude, the sooner the people you're accusing will fade into the background because you'll cease to amuse them. --Spragory 18:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and here's another sock. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on WHAT exactly? I'm not a sock, troll, or otherwise. This is PRECISELY what I mean. You've really got to get over yourself.--Spragory 19:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

ENOUGH. Both sides, take your off-Wiki battles elsewhere. Enough is way too freaking much. SirFozzie 19:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

This seems to be a long time coming. User:Reddi was placed on probation by a arbitration ruling and had to be banned and blocked a number of times for violating it. As soon as his time was up, he decided to continue again to become a very problematic editor insisting on rewriting articles related to Nikolai Tesla in a very unencyclopedic fashion, being extremely combative to the point of total breakdown in communications, and has basically checked out of normal editorial discussions instead repeating himself over and over again without addressing the fundamental problems. I will ask the other editors who are having problems with him to comment here, but I believe that it is high time the community recognize this disruptive editor for who he is and show him the door. Diffs to be posted at a later time. --ScienceApologist 16:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist is uncivil ...

ScienceApologist, Please do not distort the situation. ScienceApologist is uncivil and uncooperative.

I was not banned and blocked incredibly large time, maybe once or twice for a brief set of time. I have not been uncooperative since I have been back and have tried to talk with ScienceApologist ... but he refuses to engage constructively with me. [1]

ScienceApologist has recently used abusive language against others ... [2], again. [3], contrary to No personal attacks and WP:CIVIL.

How many personal attacks, incivility, cautions and warnings, need be reached before some positive action is taken against ScienceApologist? J. D. Redding 16:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've had troubles with Reddi in the past; I would await diffs before judging about the present William M. Connolley 16:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a prime case for Dispute Resolution, please do not bring cases here to get leverage in an ongoing edit war. I would recommend a Request for Comment, or if you insist, look into Community Enforced Mediation SirFozzie 17:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

we need some diffs at least. Reddi's statement is perfectly hollow, asking someone not to be a WP:DICK is not incivil. That's precisely the sort of allegation you get from problem users that try to "turn policy right back at you". Thus, I think J.S with his "both editor" Solomonic approach is mistaken. If Reddi managed to behave for a full year, and fell back into his bad habit once he was not on probation anymore, what might be needed here is just another year of probation, not an outright ban. dab (𒁳) 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think that Reddi's edits, at worse, are candidate for content dispute. --Iantresman 18:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Suggest a request for comment per SirFozzie. Agree with Dab that Reddi is currently under probation, and further sanctions probably aren't necessary. Addhoc 20:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison between users

• I do not support the community ban on either editor since neither editor has a continuing history of abusing editing and no evidence has been presented by either requester. I would however support a topic ban on both editors due to their uncooperative and combative behavior. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Consideration of a topic ban will require specification of the topics in question and supporting diffs. --Art Carlson 18:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Calling it a "solomonic" approach implies that one party might be less guilty then the other. I think both editors have long histories of disruptive editing. In my experience SA, in particular, becomes a notorious wikilawer whenever it supports his agenda and Reddi has been guilty of his own policy violations. I think a... lets say.... 6 month ban on both editors from any article relating to science and the paranormal would be the best solution for wikipedia. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with dab. Telling someone not to be a WP:DICK is an ad hominem however you look at it, as it does not address the edit. WP:CIVIL gives several examples.
• In response to J.S above, ScienceApologist was subject to an ArbCom finding that he has been (a) Uncivil (b) Deprecating (c) has edit warred (d) has failed to extend good faith.[4]. I have currently reported him for further incivility,[5] where he has been "strongly cautioned", and in another report, it has been noted that ScienceApologist appears to have been given "leeway" and allowed to "push it",[6]. I'm not aware of any Wiki policy which allows this. --Iantresman 18:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• The major difference between SA and Reddi is that SA's bias is towards scientific rationalism, whereas Reddi's is towards everything but. The former is much less of a problem, as the sources SA prefers tend to be reliable and his edits tend towards what I woudl consider to be neutral (in matters of hard science, NPOV and SPOV are close to, though not exactly, synonymous). Reddi has been sanctioned before. I suggest that the best way forward here is probably a request to the arbitrators to extend those sanctions, which appear to have been reasonably effective for the most part, because an RfC is just going to end up as another mud-fight between the scientists and the paranormal believers, which is (as we have proven more times than I can count by now) a total waste of time and server resources. Guy (Help!) 18:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Scientific rationalism" is not an excuse for policy violation. Bias is bias, no matter scientific or unscientific, political or apolitical. We should look into the facts, not unfairly santion editors. Neonflight 19:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Mostly agree with JzG (of course there is also a story behind SA's patience being exhausted, so he may not react like the most coldblooded and always civil rôle model of a Wikipedia editor here). In addition I would be glad, if Reddi just switches to contribute where his expertise is, not where he thinks, his expertise is. All given, it seems not that sort of case which can easily be handled here. --Pjacobi 19:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Neonflight's comment: What are you smoking right now? Facts as opposed to science. Reporting the scientific consensus is biased? --Pjacobi 19:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

this isn't on alleged policy violations on the part of SA anyway. Not that I've seen any. For the record, "don't be a dick" is something like the fundamental commandment of Wikipedia. I hereby am telling you all to not be dicks; if anyone objects to that, he'll have little choice than come to my talkpage and be a dick about it :p

Now, since no community ban seems to be forthcoming, I suppose we could as well close this debate here. I suppose this will have to be an RfC (I am not sure how what we are doing here is different from an RfC in the first place). dab (𒁳) 19:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree, admin please close it, no one will be banned from this discussion. Thanks! Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't need to be an admin. Just need to be WP:Bold. Like now. 20:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Again, this is something outside of this board's "scope." Henrygb is banned until he contacts the Arbitration Committee. This is likely never to happen, so his ArbCom ban is an effective infinite ban.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As a recent new member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit, I've made it a point to look at WP:LOBU so I can recognize the characteristics of obvious sockpuppets. That's when I happened upon the case of Henrygb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). He was caught using two sockpuppets, Audiovideo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Facethefacts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). When he was confronted by ArbCom and asked to resign, he not only did not respond to his RfAR, but immediately created another sock, SE16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). By order of ArbCom, he has been desysopped, and banned indefinitely until he responds to ArbCom's concerns.

Looking at the evidence, I initially was going to propose a one-year community ban--but then I discovered that one of his socks voted in his own adminship bid. This is an egregious betrayal of trust--this is the third time in a year that we've had admin-related issues tainted by sockpuppetry. Speaking as a rank-and-filer, I am of the mind that this guy should not be allowed back under any circumstances, and propose a permanent community ban.Blueboy96 19:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to vote yes due to gross gaming of the system, but is there an active case in front of ArbCom? I think that if he's banned until he satisfactorily responds to ArbCom, then yeah, he's banned. SirFozzie 20:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The case is closed at present--they voted to ban him pending a response to their concerns. I'm proposing that he not be allowed to come back at all--the evidence shows that he was telling the community he wasn't willing to follow the rules he's supposed to uphold. The community has acted before on several occasions with closed ArbCom cases--and even in exceptional cases when there was a case open (see RJII, JarlaxleArtemis).Blueboy96 20:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, just a reminder that this is not a vote. Secondly, I don't see how a community ban is necessary. He is banned until he replies to ArbCom. I think we should just leave it at that and let the ArbCom handle his reply, if it ever comes. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess the fact that one of his socks voted in his own RFA makes me particularly uncomfortable about him being part of the community at all. This is almost as bad as the Just H affair in my book ... my assumption was that vote stacking in RFAs is a bannable offense.Blueboy96 20:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree, I should have put the ! in front of vote (meaning support), but I think ArbCom will have to be persuaded to let him back in, and I think we can consider him banned. SirFozzie 20:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to advise the arbitrators of this discussion. They may have information (e.g., whether they have heard from him since the decision was issued) that could be relevant. Newyorkbrad 20:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I oppose an indef ban on Henrygb. He is presently banned until he explains his actions to ArbCom. That seems a satisfactory position to me. Banning him regardless of any explanation he may later give is unnecessary and unfair. If you believe that he will never be able to offer a satisfactory explanation, then this ban is already indef to all intents and purposes. But I think we should be willing as a community to hear apologies and explanations before making a permanent decision. WjBscribe 20:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• The community can do as it sees fit in this regard. We still haven't heard from him. Frankly, I don't expect to. But since ArbCom has felt fit to give him at least a vague notion of a chance ("talk to us, please"), perhaps it's simplest to leave it at that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Object we don't ban users over a year, normally, as Fred Bauder stated in a recent ArbCom case. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 02:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Not normally. Certain abuses warrant it, though -- especially when its admins abusively sockpuppeting. Seems to be a little more common then we'd like, sadly; I guess it's just the bell curve -- the more admins we have, the more bad apples are going to turn up to take advantage of our assumptions of good faith. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm agreeing with WJBscribe here. He's already banned until he explains his actions to Arbcom, and if he ends up doing so, then we should take his statement into account for a discussion of banning him. Having said that, I really do doubt that he won't end up banned forever some way. -Amarkov moo! 04:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban. The findings in the ArbCom case are worrying, and by order of AC he remains banned until he faces up to the real concerns. I have not seen evidence that Henrygb has actively tried to harm Wikipedia however, indeed his contributions to the encyclopedia have been good. I see no need to piling on further sanctions unless the ones in place don't seem to work. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I have blocked this account indefinitely for this edit entitled "Libelous warning" after a lengthy investigation, conducted mostly by Cailil, that Anacapa is a long-term disruptive editor at feminism-related subjects and probable sockpuppeteer who violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:AGF, and generally responds aggressively to anyone who points out that this user's behavior exceeds the bounds of site standards.

Per the above link, this user accuses me of libel and of being a Maoist, so to avoid any appearance of impropriety I am submitting my decision to the community for review. Durova^Charge! 19:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This was the editor previously here at CSN where the view point of a majority of those discussing the case was that if they were an active editor (they had disappeared from Wiki for some time), sanctions would be needed. Since the editor has returned and has not improved in the slightest, that my view point is that it's a good, supportable block. SirFozzie 19:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

For about a year User:Anacapa has been involved in povpushing and complex vandalism on wikipedia across a range of articles. Spanning From Menonite to Shunning and from Rape to Feminism. Anacapa uses their account and about 14 different IPs from the University of California Santa Barbara to make posts. The IPs in question and edits by them are detailed in my report (here is a wikilink to the list of Ips).

In May Anacapa's disruption spiked. Displaying signs of WP:OWN, WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE on the Christina Hoff Sommers Shunning, Antifeminism and Sex differences articles (see report). Thy have also left long off-topic rants on the user pages of those user who warn or question their behaviour (for example on my talk page on Jehochman's talk page [7] and on Durova's talk page [8]).

As it stands Anacapa is involved in disputes with Durova (because she warned Anacapa for NPOV - this led Anacapa to make the legal threat), Jehochman (because he warned Anacapa for WP:NOR on Rape) with Sxeptomaniac and Jbolden1517 on Shunning (becasue Anacapa has attempted to turning the talkpage into a battleground) and with myself (because of Anacapa's repeated IP trolling of Project gender studies). I consider Anacapa's behaviour to be disruptive because it has wasted a lot of editors' time and has created a poisonous atmosphere on certain articles.--Cailil ^talk 20:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: I am not engaged in any content dispute with Anacapa, nor do I edit at the same articles. The only sense in which Anacapa and I have a direct dispute is regarding the legitimacy of a block warning I had posted at Anacapa's user talk page. Throughout Cailil's investigation I have been reticent to take direct action because I do have a mild predisposition on matters that relate to feminism. I rarely actually edit that topic except for historical biographies of female soldiers and sailors, which is far removed from Anacapa's areas of interest. I acted here because a legal threat is straightforward reason for banning and few administrators have followed this complex investigation in detail. Durova^Charge! 20:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the lack of clarity in my use of the word "dispute". Durova is right to mention this - I was using the word in its wider meaning. The users I listed don't have a simple content dispute with Anacapa. Much of Anacapa's disruption is a matter of them turining pages into battlegrounds - spuriously claiming that people who question or disagree with them are totalitarians, maoists, stalinists etc - as well as povpushing. Durova herself has no content dispute with Anacapa. Sorry if my use of words led to any confusion--Cailil ^talk 23:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was alarmed by this editor's POV pushing on rape. You can see his agenda in this comment. Indeed, Anacapa has a tendency to put his own opinions and original research into articles, and then slap on a reference that sort of talks about the same topic. [9] [10] This is sneaky vandalism. I had to completely rewrite the section. [11] Anacapa has a pattern of intimidating any editor who resists his assault on neutral point of view. Anacapa makes hostile comments and accusations of slander. In the past I've argued to lift blocks of editors who were simply unskillful, selfish or clueless. Anacapa's attitude problem is much more serious. His philosophy is incompatible with WP:5P, so he should not be allowed to return. Jehochman ^Talk 20:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Endorse community ban, per Calill's detailed report. It clearly shows that this one is not here to write an encyclopedia. It's not worth the hassle--nuke him. Blueboy96 20:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest a crossposting to ANI, I don't think the full community is here. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The user's ceaseless rants and Great and Most Vigilant Crusade for The Truth pretty much guarantee that no admin in their right mind will be overturning the block anyway. Whichever "style" of ban this is, I imagine it will be effectively binding. ··coelacan 03:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What are the issues of this case?
1. Legal threat? See [[12]] which says if Anacapa either clarifies that no legal threat was intended or the threat is withdrawn, then blocking should end. This policy may be a reason not to have a community ban of Anacapa.
2. Rape article? Very heated, I agree. Block - maybe, maybe not, I haven't studied the edits much. It is possible that Anacapa is out of line.
:I am surprised that it says "Most cultures worldwide have not considered the possibility that women can commit rape against men" because the editor writing this obviously forgot about Debra LaFave [[13]] and Mary Kay Letourneau [[14]] or regards the U.S. as a minor thing.3. I am not at the University of California Santa Barbara. I am opposed to rape. I also invoke this policy due to the heated nature of the topic. [[15]]
I am opposed to community ban for reason 1; I have made no conclusion for reason 2 but think that regular blocking of a period (1 week? 2 weeks?) may be better as a "cool down" tool particularly since Anacapa has never been blocked before; I fear wikistalking so I invoke reason 3.Hotpotatoes 17:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)checkuser results is "likely" so stricken as likely sock.

Account created only today, at 12:56 pm Eastern. And only edit was to this page. I smell a sock ...Blueboy96 17:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No checkuser evidence = not proven. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 18:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, Wooyi ... just put in a request.Blueboy96 21:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am defending a Wikipedia's policy, not Anacapa. This policy[[16]] does allow for unblocking if a legal threat is withdrawn. Community ban citing this reason is like giving the death penalty for writing a bad check or for possible running of a red light.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.212.90.90 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC). (Edit sounds like the above stricken sock but WHOIS says this user is Denver, CO so not a sock)

That's different. Unwithdrawn legal threats mandate a block. The community can consider the threats disruptive whether or not they were withdrawn, and still ban. -Amarkov moo! 21:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain that Hotpotatoes is a sock of Anacapa. Checkuser will confirm either way. To reply to their concerns, Anacapa has been indef blocked for a legal threat and they have not withdrawn it. Durova's indef block is only for the legal threat, any community sanction here would look at this threat as the last or latest act of disruptive editting - not the only one. If you read the report you will see the long list of IPs Anacapa has used and the list of articles they have disrupted for nearly a year - the situation is not limitted to rape. Legal threats are not the equivalent of "running a red light" it is taken very seriously by the community. It's one of the worst forms of intimidation and disruption an editor can try to use to get their own way on WP. Lastly, Anacapa has been advised to look at WP:ADOPT, as entering mentorship could ameliorate their situation.--Cailil ^talk 22:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Likely. I dunno about the rest of you, but there's really not a whole lot more to say. He hung himself.Blueboy96 22:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Anacapa has now used multiple socks to pretend to not be Anacapa and present arguments against banning, as though there was disagreement, both in this thread and in the RFCU page. I don't think anyone would have any reason to oppose a ban, with that behavior. ··coelacan 23:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything but more sockpuppeting, more disruption, and more grief coming from allowing Anacapa to continue editing. I believe a ban's the only way this can end. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban, his behavior on rape is appalling, probably a year or so, because I heard Fred Bauder once said we don't ban over a year. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 00:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I am neutral on the ban. I am personally willing to tolerate more of his behavior than, I suspect, many others are; however, Anacapa is certainly tendentious and disruptive, so it was bound to be necessary to block him at some point based solely on those issues. Unfortunately, I suspect that his obsession with "balancing" certain subjects means he will reappear from time to time. Sxeptomaniac 17:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Cailil has demonstrated remakable patience and scrupulousness in documenting this long-term problem. Per Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, I believe that - in addition to the specific legal threat - Anacapa's other behavior merits a siteban in its own right. I stated that opinion at the previous ban proposal, which if I recollect closed without action because not enough Wikipedians participated. Also, to clarify another point, I refrained from taking action on any content-related disruption (due to my own POV on the overall subject) and although I endorse a ban for WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, etc. I would also recuse myself from actually implementing an indefinite block on that basis (community bans can indeed be indefinite and many of them are). Legal threats are a different matter - I considered myself free to act. Durova^Charge! 19:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, good move, Durova. And he just did a good job of justifying that with attempt to astroturf. Good grief--do they have to be so obvious?Blueboy96 20:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please refactor the end of that comment. Actually I'm glad when sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are obvious. That makes my volunteer work easier. I don't particularly like to educate disruptive editors about how to disrupt more effectively. Just handle the matter as routine and WP:DFTT. Durova^Charge! 20:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right Durova, some others have dealt with Anacapa far more than I have, so my remark was poorly worded. Having finished reading Cailil's report, I can see that those working on gender and feminism related articles have had to deal with him particularly often in the past. I guess I just see that the block, to a large extent, stems from his consistent problem behavior as much as the one incident. My personal patience hadn't worn out on him yet, but the block seems reasonable in light of problems with him in other areas of Wikipedia. Sxeptomaniac 21:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, he may have tried to return as Chergles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Talk about hanging yourself ...Blueboy96 20:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] move to close

No one has objected to the proposed ban, except for Anacapa's sockpuppets. This thread was linked from ANI when one of those puppets started Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive254#Checkuser extremely flawed, so Eagle101's suggestion of linking from ANI for wide input has been taken. Users who have had no interactions with Anacapa have looked at the evidence and said that a ban looks necessary. I don't think there's anything left to say here, but I don't want the thread to be archived ambiguously. Can an uninvolved admin now wrap this up and stick a bow on it, please? ··coelacan 08:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. This ballgame pretty much ended with that Checkuser request.Blueboy96 20:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Done: I will add Ancapa to the Ban list when I have a moment. SirFozzie 20:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

(moved from WP:AN/I ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slavic_peoples&diff=134506703&oldid=134498488

• charging whithouth references the most renomed Scholars

Plese temper him. He looks for me crazy, his action is especialy fourius when refernces are added .

It looks from the speed [17] of reversion then he using a boot aginst the edits.

Nasz 07:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot? That's highly unlikely as the edits aren't very fast, and anyone can match that speed. As for the edit in question, he isn't crazy, though I have no idea if the revert was justified or not.... --DarkFalls ^talk 07:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute: talk to the user. No administrator intervention is required and your accusation of bot usage is pretty much baseless. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should discuss your edits on the talk page, rather than here. There's really nothing we can do, since there's no infractions of any guidelines. --Haemo 07:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The so-called references are in clear violation of WP:FRINGE. Nasz keeps revert warring over his text:

Is perhaps worth to note now comon polish vocabulary phrase "actors from burn up theatre" was coined when Moomsen published his Getica unders name of 'Actores Anigue' and based on Manuscripts burn by him couple yeras before. The book is still defended by Germans like holy bone but most probably contains invention of Mommsen authorships. He was activ politian verbant suporter of falen pangermanizm."

He tries to revert war this and similar OR assertions into Slavic peoples and several other articles. I would support a community ban of the user. He's been tirelessly adding nonsense to the articles since last year and revert warring over it. I have yet to see any useful contribution from him. His specialties include fringe theories, copy&paste moves and probably also sockpuppetry. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's nearly incoherent on talk pages, due to his broken English, so that's not exactly endearing him to me. --Haemo 08:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nasz is adding confused nonsense in broken English at a frightening pace. If anyone has the heart, do try to talk sense to him, but I think a ban is perfectly arguable at this point. This has been going on forever, and the user's conduct has only deteriorated in the face of kind admonitions. dab (𒁳) 08:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me talk to him - I don't want to see a well-intentioned editor go under without a fight. --Haemo 08:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that before any block is administered someone should at least attempt to communicate with Nasz in his native tongue. I'm not saying that his contributions make a lick of sense to me, but lets at least identify the source of his objections. (e/c) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind to that, although I confess it takes a lot of precious time to follow his contributions, lest his original research infiltrates mainspace, where it may be perpetuated by subsequent edits. I have never seen a person who treats WP as a battleground for his fringe theories suddenly reforming into a helpful editor in the face of admonitions. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The idea is to first separate his (or her) positive contributions (if any) from the combative ones. Nsaz obviously has a desire to contribute something to Wikipedia, by learning more about him and the basis for his contributions we might be able to set limits on which contributions conform with Wikipedia policy. Once Nsaz is made aware of these limits, he will be able to choose between participation and block. Then again, I'm not familiar with the subject Nsaz contributes to, and I will defer to the judgment of Dbachmann and others with expertise in the field. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

well yes, Nasz is an adherent of the Paleolithic Continuity Theory and its significance to Slavic National mysticism. That is to say, fringe theories and pseudo-scholarship. Discussion of this stuff does have a place on Wikipedia, but a very restricted space, mostly confined to dedicated articles (WP:FRINGE). With Nasz we have the two-pronged problem of language and pushing of fringe views as mainstream. Even if you invest time in cleaning up his additions, you'll still end up with fringe theories misrepresented as respectable. I honestly don't think we have much to gain from a belligerent editor with little command of English and a fringy agenda. We may get some input for evolving our article on PCT and Slavic nationalism, but I am not sure that's worth the effort. At the end of the day, he unduly imposes on Ghirla's and my time that could be spent more constructively. If other people are willing to babysit him that's fine, give him a mentor or something, but don't let him run around loose on Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 09:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann is an administrator, but how you call an [edition] which delete all sections of article and 72% of references? In one aspect I agree with him, he titled his edit trolling campaign in progress Nasz 01:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

D: That is to say, fringe theories and pseudo-scholarship

N: I think he is not qualified to speak as voice of 5 scientifics communities. I requested him to insert {fact} he accusing me of fringe. Hi you Dbachmann! what kind of emotion allow you to curse living great professors! Namly: Mario Alinei, Gabriele Costa, Alexander Hausler, Marcel Otte, Jonathan Morris listed in Wikipedia and more unlisted here. You insulting academia and my intelligence! Shame on you to say. Nasz 01:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I spent a lot of time cleaning up after User:Nasz. It is true it is almost impossible for him to see that the stuff he added was unsourced or that he did not understand the sources he gived. Also practically all his edits needed copyediting. At one time he was disruptive to the degree that he started to revert my vandal reverts (I can provide the diffs, if needed). Plus he always blanjed his Talk page afer someone put a compliant there. Giving him a tutor would make the person work practically full time on controlling Nasz. I gave up and stopped editing the articles Nasz worked on. However, I had no doubt that someone has to solve the problem sooner or later. It is very similar to another user who was recently blocked indefinitely after a RfC I commented on. -Friendly Neighbour 09:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. I remember someone mention on Nasz's Talk page that he was already blocked on Polish Wikiedia. I have not checked the fact. Of course, Nasz blanked it pretty soon but it should be somewhere in the page history. --Friendly Neighbour 09:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

F: I gave up and stopped editing the articles Nasz worked

N: Good! I can refresh this memory. How the article looks now? 20 inline references!. Before me was one! Is'nt it? See also :)

F: It is true it is almost impossible for him to see that the stuff he added was unsourced...

N: It is blatant lie. Most of the references presented in R1a1 - I inserted!.

Nasz 00:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

yes, fwiiw, the user was indefblocked on pl-wiki on 8 March 2006 [18], with a reason of Wielokrotne bezsensowne edycje, wulgaryzmy w dyskusjach ("consistent nonsensical editing, vulgarisms in discussions"). I think it is pretty clear that we are not looking at merely a language problem here. (there is no doubt the two accounts belong to the same user, his field of interest and his gist match as well as his username). He lasted for just over two months on pl-wiki, sometimes our fluffy approach on en-wiki is a little over the top. Also note this recent exchange discussing his behaviour on en-wiki. dab (𒁳) 10:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I support the move for a community ban, as I cannot see any evidence of productive contributions but a great deal of disruption in his wake. This seems to be more than a language problem. He was previously blocked on the English Wikipedia for similar bizarre behaviour. Buddhipriya 10:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse ban per the arguments above, the potential for disruption is not worth it ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that we see if he is open to a Request for comment. The guy has been here for a year, and yes I do see good contributoins. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 11:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? I have not been aware that the issue is discussed on IRC. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

sure, if he accepts the RfC and acknowledges that he's that far from a community ban, this may be a way forward. So far he hasn't shown any sign of introspection, but if he does reform, so much the better. If not, we can still ban him in a couple of days, there's no hurry here. dab (𒁳) 18:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The edits of Nasz (talk · contribs) have been discussed before, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive87#User:Nasz. Piotrus (talk · contribs) subsequently contacted Nasz. Nasz doesn't seem to have responded to this on-wiki, but I don't know if the users have had contact via e-mail. I agree that there are editing issues involving Nasz (broken English, original research, etc.), but I don't know if they exceed the level of a confused newbie to the extent that a community ban might be warranted. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I see that Nasz has registered in December 2005, which means he is not a newbie. There have been many complaints about his editing, and many attempts to mentor and guide him. I agree that the time for further action (RfC?) may have come. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I also attempted to contact him, and redress this before it came to a ban, but this user removed my overtures without comment. He does not appear willing to try and work towards a resolution of this, and I do not believe that an RfC will have any impact on him. I am loathe to move for a ban on someone who appears to be contributing in good faith, but at this point I am honestly running out of ideas about what to do. --Haemo 21:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Reflecting on the above, and especially the fact that he was banned on the Polish Wiki for essentially exactly the same problems tells me that this has gone quite far enough. I'll endorse a ban --Haemo 21:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simple solution

Let's ban User:Dbachmann. It will save a lot of our time. Nasz 02:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Nasz well it appears that there are some concerns over your actions. Would you be open to a request for comment. Perhaps that will help matters. Right now I don't see adequate evidence to kick anyone out. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have a much better idea. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Mmm ok, I missed out the stuff above where he was banned on polish wiki :) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

There seems to be unanimuos support for community ban. It was extremely nice of Panairjdde to pop up in this discussion with yet another sock and explain us reasons for his banning. MaxSem 08:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm calling for a community ban of the User:Panairjdde. Extensive evidence of his behavior can be found, here. I'm aware that the original user name is blocked indefinetely for using multiple accounts abusively, but I wish to establish that the user is permanently banned by the community which will allow for several things:

1. Perhaps get the user to understand that his edits on WP are unwelcome and that his sock edits will be reverted no matter how valid his contribution is.
2. Make sure that users who revert his sock edits do not receive 3RR blocks from unsuspecting administrators (see example here).
3. If the user continues to create new socks and edits on WP, we can pursue filing an abuse report, with hope that it will be handled more seriously and urgently.

--Palffy 04:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this--all I needed to see was that he named three of his socks "DisposableAccount." That shows total disregard for the rules. Ban.Blueboy96 18:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not get what is the practical difference between an indefinite block and a ban:

1. I shall continue editing as much as I feel I can and want contribute, regardless your opinion: a sick user management process does not mean the whole Wikipedia is somehow wrong;
2. How a ban could change this? If your friends (the racist Kingjeff) does not know those rules he pretends to defend (as one can see from his block log) it is not my fault;
3. How a ban could change this?

Best regards, --TufkaPanairjdde 23:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you keep missing the point that you have been given numerous chances to change your behavior by lenient admins, but instead have repeatedly broken WP rules (and continue to insist that you have the right to do so as well as continue editing as you see fit, as you stated above) and as a result you have admins and editors looking out for you and banning you and your socks on sight. I maintain a need for this ban for the three reasons stated earlier. --Palffy 23:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand clearly what you say. The problem is that you do not understand what I say. I think that the "user-management" rules of Wikipedia, which is parte of the management of the encyclopedia, is flawed, but at the same time I like very much the encyclopedia in itself. This is why I came to understand that I do not care of your opinion, and that I keep on contributing if I feel so.

On another plane, you keep to ask for the ban: as I told before, I do not care about it, as it is a ban from the "community" not from the "project". I tried to help you to understand that, apart fulfilling your hatred, the ban makes no difference, but, in the end, it does not concern me.

Thank you all for your attenttion.

--TufkaPanairjdde 23:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Banning policy more closely (...bans often apply to the entire project... and The Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. A ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent. The standard invitation Wikipedia extends to "edit this page" does not apply to banned users.). The ban is not from a community, the ban is from the project, initiated by the community. You can be banned from the project through any of the 5 sources, Wikipedia:Ban#Decision_to_ban. --Palffy 00:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

User:TufkaPanairjdde is now indefinitely blocked, as is User:Panairjdde. It does not seem that administrators will have the slighest reluctance to block any new socks of his that may appear. I suggest that the issue be closed at this noticeboard. Post to WP:AN/I if the problem should come up again. EdJohnston 01:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with EdJohnston here. From the user's previous posts on this noticeboard, he clearly states his intentions to continue editing unless he's outright banned from the project. I think many editors are tired of playing hide-and-seek with his socks and wish that other avenues be explored, including a formal revocation of his editing privileges on Wikipedia. --Palffy 01:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, he just stated that he doesn't consider a community ban a ban from editing the project, and Arbcom has better things to do than pass symbolic resolutions saying that someone disruptive who nobody would unblock is banned. -Amarkov moo! 05:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Then, let's spell it out in black and white for him. No one would be willing to unblock him, he is therefore banned. And to clarify, a community ban is a ban by the community from the project. Until and unless he shows he is willing to change his behavior and the community is willing to give another chance, he is not welcome here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Since we getting so close to unanimity here, does anyone feel it would be correct to add his name to Wikipedia:List of banned users? EdJohnston 15:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• I say go for it. He's banned from editing by the community (if not community banned) SirFozzie 17:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Unless more discussion is needed, I second it.--Blueboy96 19:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support 50+ socks? I'd say go for it. Whsitchy 18:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

It's clear he doesn't want to contribute, just to harass me and Matthew. Motion to community ban. Will ^(talk) 10:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I know people normally ask for diffs. Take your pick. Will ^(talk) 10:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A look through those edits indicates that the editor in question has never made an edit outside of talk pages and a couple of noticeboard posts, and seems to exist solely to carry on the fight for the indef-blocked Sixty Six (talk · contribs). But, he's also never been blocked and I don't see any other dispute resolution, which makes me think a community ban might be excessive. Maybe an RfC would be a better starting point - a wider range of viewpoints might help. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with your comments Tony, I don't think an indefinite ban is out of the question for an account that hasn't made any positive contributions. Addhoc 23:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My personal belief is that Geoffrey Mitchell, and the IPs that often "show up", are Sixty Six or friends of Sixty Six (meat puppets). Geoffrey Mitchell has shown quite clearly that he is not here to edit/improve the encyclopaedia, I've tried to ignore the long-term trolling that has occurred, but it's coming to a point where it's becoming a nuisance... and I can't foresee him contributing positively to the encyclopaedia. Perhaps a check user should be performed to verify that he is not Sixty Six? Matthew 19:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the checkuser. Seems there's a high chance that Geoffrey may be a sock as well, even if the CU comes back as negative. Whsitchy 20:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be curious as well. I'm also going to leave a note on Geoffrey Mitchell's talk page to suggest that he try building the encyclopedia instead of carrying this on; it doesn't look like he's aware of this discussion either, at this point. I still feel that, if he's not a sock (or the checkuser continues to be refused), some other dispute resolution or mediation should be used before a community ban is enacted. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony's comments were received on my talk page. I'm reposting my responses here, so that all interested parties can view them accordingly:

"Hey, thanks for trying to interject some maturity and civility here, Tony! And you do raise a good point about the editing, as it does appear that only those who've done thousands of edits seem to "count" around here. However, to be honest, I'm like Munta -- I'm seriously concerned that any edits I make will be purged/reversed not because the contributions are invalid/inaccurate/etc, but out of spite, vehemence and vengeance. Sure, I've got several articles out there I'd love to make corrections and additions to, but like Munta and anyone else who's run afoul of Will and Matthew, any change to any page I make will most likely be reversed. Quite bluntly, it would be a damn waste of my time. And if you'll think about it for a minute, how else is *any* Wikian supposed to interpret this debacle? We have a Wikian who *has* contributed positively to several articles -- you have to look at the history of his user page to see it now, thanks to those who were responsible for his blocking to begin with -- and yet because he refused to back down when two adolescents tried to bully him while hiding behind their monitors, he's blocked, ostracized, and otherwise refused further opportunities to contribute positively. Not because he was trolling articles, but because he wouldn't cower when the admin and his sidekick in question growled. Now, taking this into consideration, can you blame myself -- or anyone else, for that matter -- for being more than reluctant with regards to contributing? Which should explain why I've taken up this particular crusade. I *want* to contribute, but not if these two particulars in question are still being allowed to impose blocks and file false claims of "sock puppetry". That sort of behavior is not only without question *very* childish, but it's a symptom of what's keeping Wikipedia from gaining the credibility the concept deserves. Geoffrey Mitchell 19:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC) "

Q: After seeing a positive contributor to Wikipedia bullied and blocked by those filing the complaints, and having been falsely accused of being a sock puppet, would *you* want to contribute article edits and corrections, knowing that your efforts would be wasted? Geoffrey Mitchell 20:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair enough. Nobody is saying you have to be an editor here. An indefinite ban could still be applied merely to end this squabble, in order to encourage everyone else to focus on improving articles. Addhoc 10:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If you read between the lines, that says "Your complaints don't matter. Either shut up and do we tell you to do, or we'll kick you out of here, regardless of whether you're right or wrong." Would someone please explain how Wikipedia benefits from such a policy? Geoffrey Mitchell 17:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think what Addhoc is saying is that we're here to build an encyclopedia, so that's what everyone should be doing. As I suggested to you, go out and work on articles - outside of the articles that the people you're in conflict with are involved in - and we can all go about our business. Six or more months of arguing over this hasn't built the encyclopedia much; at this point, it looks, from your contributions (and those from the IP you appear to have used prior to registering (as indicated by your first registered edit being to replace that IP's sig with your own)) that you're focused more on backing up Sixty Six than anything else. If you absolutely insist on continuing the argument, consider a user conduct RFC, but I'd advise that instead, you go out and work on articles - a productive contributor is more useful than a banned user. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There's several points to address here, Tony:

• First off, I acknowledge we're here to build an encyclopedia. What's *not* being acknowledged is that there appears to be a "clique" in effect whose interests are more interested in trying to impose their will -- no pun intended -- upon the shape of articles with undue and unnecessary force. If you look at the history of the events leading up to Sixty Six's permanent block, and the relationships of those involved, it's pretty clear that he was not fairly treated.

There's another related point that should be made here: why aren't Will and Matthew here justifying their actions? As has been pointed out by others, there seems to be some obvious concerted effort to "protect" these two particulars individuals against any criticism to the point that all they have to do is to cry "troll!" and other, more adult admins rush to their rescue without doing any real research into the situation.

• Secondly, I really fail to see what the IP address point you're making has to do with anything here. Timeouts happen, and I simply failed to notice it until after the comment was added. I went back and added my signature after I logged in. Is there some Wikipedia rule that says that happenstance is an offense? If not, then this is a non-sequitur on your part.

• Thirdly, I'm "focused" because I saw a good contributor to Wikipedia run off of here for the *wrong* reasons. He wasn't run off because his contributions wern't up to snuff, or that he was trolling, but that two specific individuals went on a vendetta against him over his refusal to accept their bullying. Any admin who was truly upholding their responsibilities would have seen this right off the bat, and have put a stop to the whole debacle the proper way. True, Six may have gotten a little heated towards the end, but if you follow the chain of events, Will and Matthew's refusal to work out their issues with Six despite repeated attempts to settle their differences.

What happened was a railroading of the type you'd only expect from a small town sheriff in the Deep South, circa 1961.

• Finally, I'll stress again that I *do* want to spend more time contributing to articles. However, as with many who're watching the "Sixty Six Situation" witn interest and have voiced their dissent as to how he was treated, I'm *very* reluctant to make any edits as I, with good reason, do not want to find my time wasted with my contributions purged out of vengeance. Can you or anyone here guarantee that Will and/or Matthew won't take such actions? Or are the "kangaroos" so entrenched in the "kourt" that I should just abandon all hope and leave? Geoffrey Mitchell 21:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I pointed out the IP because it continues to give an indication that even prior to registering, you were involved in this dispute; quite frankly, at this time, you still show all the indicators of a single purpose account and your goal is to keep up the fight with Matthew and Will, et al. This is why I'm encouraging you to go out and edit other articles, away from the dispute - again, it's more productive than carrying on a seven-month or so long fight.

Looking back at Sixty Six's edits, he started out contentious - his first edit under that username referred to "wikinazis" and his second, to his user page, included an insulting comment about Matthew. I went through most of his contribs this afternoon; he did make some good contributions to some articles, but he also had some civility issues that appear to have led to the indef-blocking that was left on despite reviews by several admins. If he wants to edit, I'm sure that an e-mail to one of the arbitrators or an ArbCom clerk would provide him with a starting point - and that's probably about the only thing that's going to move a block forward.

If you have an issue with Matthew or Will regarding their contributions, as I suggested before, an RFC would be a starting point. But, as my last comment on the matter as a completely uninvolved editor, I'd really suggest that you leave this alone, and go on and edit other articles productively. If Matthew or Will (neither of whom are admins, I should note) follow you to those articles and malevolently undo your edits, report them; if your edits are valid, they should not be reverted, and admins will deal with it. Anyhow, that's the best I can offer - I'd like to see everyone go forward from here, and avoid further nastiness; this is my best suggestion. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 03:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. Will recently "abandoned" his admin position at the same time as the admin who imposed the permanent block on Sixty Six, Alkivar, and Matthew has made three very unsuccessful attempts to become an admin. If you take note of the comments made that were against his admin campaign, it's obvious that he's not as positive a contributor to Wikipedia as he's presenting himself to be. In either case, while not currently active as admins, they are clearly using the same methods previously employed to impose their will against myself and anyone else who's decided to stand up against the type of bullying Sixty Six and others like him have received.Geoffrey Mitchell 19:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone here even read Matthew's talk page? He's gotten into about 500 disputes here at Wikipedia. I'm not even here to fight with Sceptre or MatthewFenton. I just don't think Sixty_Six should have been blocked, and a legitimate reason has not been given. If you uphold Sixty_Six's ban based on the arguments presented, then the fact that Matthew is still on Wikipedia is ludicrous given that he's been in arguments with about 498 more people that Sixty_Six ever has and has been banned several times before that. Keep in mind, Sixty_Six never even got blocked before that. Is that how Wikipedia works? You get in one disagreement with the wrong person and you are blocked forever right away (no ifs, ands or buts). But you can get into an argument with everyone else who doesn't have connections and get away with it scott free, or at the very least, be given a timeout. Very hypocritical in my opinion. I challenge anyone to find any one of Geoffrey Mitchell's arguments where he has not MATURELY made a point without getting into personal attacks (criticism is not harassment). Unfortunately, it now seems that Sceptre and Matthew have now turned their vendetta on Geoffrey Mitchell and they probably will get him banned as well. Coumarin 17:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This once again raises the question that no admin has dared to answer during all this: why aren't the accuser(s) previous history of edits and disputes taken into account? It would seem the answer is that the meaning of AGF applies differently to those who are either admins or cohorts of said. It's very hypocritical when you get right down to it. Geoffrey Mitchell 19:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony Fox has this spot on. Write, not fight. Please take this advice seriously. If you keep on fighting and write nothing, you will get kickbanned later, if not right now. Moreschi ^Talk 18:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I was advised by a former admin to quote this here, since those demanding my head on a platter for sticking up for Sixty Six apparently have forgotten how CN is supposed to work:

"This is not the place to come to if you think someone is causing a problem and should be blocked. Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI) for that. Bans are a last resort against editors who behave problematically for a long period of time, not a means to gain advantage or silence those who disagree with you in a dispute. Requesting a ban against an editor is not a step to be taken lightly or without trying other means to resolve the situation first."

Take special note of the part about using a ban to gain advantage or silence those who disagree with you in a dispute. That's clearly what happened in Six's case, and what's apparently being attempted here against those who've taken up his side. Geoffrey Mitchell 18:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Bans are for long term abusers where all other options have been tried and failed. I don't see evidence of that here. Please try those steps first.--Isotope23 20:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the point of order. Geoffrey Mitchell 21:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Geoffrey, yes, there is a "clique" here. Those who work to improve the encyclopedia and those who don't. Fortunately the clique is very easy to join. I would love to see you improve articles but so far I see almost no involvement with the article improvement process... (8 edits to the article space 79 not).[25]) Now, thats not a reason to indef-ban you... but it would be nice to see you focus more energy on article improvement. (POV Disclaimer: I was heavily involved with the Sixty Six episode) Sixty Six was banned because he was disruptive to the article improvement process.

• In conclusion... I do not support the indef ban, but I would like to heavily encourage Geoffrey to become part of the "clique". - ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Geoffrey's edits to User talk:Sixty Six are nothing short of potshots at Matthew Fenton and Will (see this edit before the page was protected and cleared). I would not be bothered if the user also engaged in constructive criticism of the projects goals. The first pillar of the five pillars of Wikipedia, states that it is not a soapbox for the advocacy of others. My advice to Matthew is to take a short break and approach the project in a more helpful manner. If User:Sixty Six returns, it is up to him now to appeal his block and to go from there. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 23:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

They are not pots shots, they are well thought out and perfectly valid criticisms of inappropriate actions concerning certain people involved.Coumarin 23:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not how I see it. Still, Geoffrey is clearly breaking policy of advocating for the rights of a person who is not currently a party to this continued discussion. How is stating that "It might have been the stress from being assaulted by those two you-know-whos that might have contributed to his medical problems" a perfectly valid criticism? I understand if the fact is that Sixty Six is still recuperating, but on Wikipedia, people need to fight their own blocks if feasible, not have a "friend" go on this "particular crusade," as Geoffrey calls it. I am not advocating a block, I am merely asking Geoffrey to step back, take a breath, and try to contribute. Wikipedia is not a battleground. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 00:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Wikipedia is not a battleground, but I find it hypocritical that Sixty_Six gets a punishment for allegedly treating it as one while Sceptre and Matthew don't even get warned for treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Don't you find it ironic that he is calling for the unbanning of someone while Sceptre and Matt parade around asking for others to be banned? I think people need to realize who's really is treating this as a battleground. Coumarin 05:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Coumarin in that everyone needs to take a giant step back, maybe take a walk in some nice fresh air, and take some time to refocus on our priorities. Which don't include fighting, or carrying on about each other. I don't think anyone here is more 'wrong' than the next person. Riana ⁂ 06:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Are we OK to close this with no consensus for a ban but a strong suggestion that Geoffrey Mitchell concentrate on editing the encyclopedia rather than advocating for a banned editor or following around editors that the banned party had disputes with?--Isotope23 14:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I was going to propose that very thing today. This is about as far as it's going to get - I suggest the parties stay clear of one another and edit away. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 15:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. SirFozzie 18:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I would like to propose that we unblock Flameviper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). He is currently serving an indefinate block which is around 4 months old. He's got a bit of a temprement on him, and does occasionally snap (that's what earned him his indef), however - his heart is in wikipedia (he in fact started WP:ADOPT). I would like to put Flameviper on community personal attack parole, with a block of upto one week if flameviper makes any attacks (this can be carried out by any administrator). If Flameviper is blocked more than 3 times for infringements of his parole, I would also like to suggest that his indef block is reinstated. Further to all that, I would like to be his mentor and look closely at his edits, if he steps out of line, I will quickly see it and re-block. I hope as a community we can give Flameviper one last chance.... Ryan Postlethwaite 19:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to go along with that. Indefinite does not mean infinite, and if he regresses to past behavior, it can be quickly remedied. SirFozzie 19:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(I posted this to the WP:AN thread about this subject and I'll copy it to here now) I have to agree with those opposing an unblock. I was one of the editors who dealt with him very frequently in his last months on Wikipedia (I was the one who imposed the 1 month block that was later extended to the indefinite block by Yanksox) and don't think this is a wise move. It's been four months since he was blocked. That is hardly enough time for him to mature out of that mindset he displayed on Wikipedia for a very long time (remember this wasn't his first issue, see User:Flameviper/socks). He never brought anything productive to this encyclopedia. It's not like he was a prolific editor who snapped occasionally. Metros 19:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Per Metros, I think putting his block down to temperament and resolvable by a ban on personal attacks, misses the mark on his general disruptive behaviour over an extended period of time. --pgk 19:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Strongly opppose unblocking. Anyone who openly brags about creating socks and dopplegangers doesn't belong here.--Blueboy96 20:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

so what's his position currently then? Is he blocked or banned? Ryan Postlethwaite 20:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

He is banned from editing. In fact it would appear he has the somewhat dubious distinction of being the subject of one of the ban discussions at WP:AN that led Durova (talk · contribs) to propose WP:CN.--Isotope23 20:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Admitidely, at the time he may have been banned, but in fact, this can't be the case, because an admin is willing to unblock. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

My point is that he was apparently community banned per that discussion (as opposed to the old indef blocked and nobody will unblock "ban" or formal ARBCOM ban). I think as we've seen before, a banned editor can request a lifting of that ban, but (generally speaking) nobody is going to unilaterally just unblock a banned editor without a community discussion first. I'm not aware of any hard or fast rules on this, but if he was just indef blocked the only one you would really need to be talking to about this is the blocking admin rather than garnering community input on a community imposed ban.--Isotope23 20:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the admin willing to unblock is the exact wording, though it's implict that admins will be using good judgement and considering the bigger picture not just their own point of view. If an admin believes they and they alone are right and the broader view to be ignored, then that's when we get problems. --pgk 21:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry guys, I'm not a dick, that's why I brought it here. I personally am willing to unblock, but not without community consensus. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I would suggest that first his talk page be unlocked, so he can respond to questions. I would recommend that the block be shortened to six months if he agrees to a stringent set of editing restrictions under zero-tolerance (no warning for parole violation). This should include (but necessarily be limited to) discussing all reversions but vandalism on the article talk page, strict civility requirements and a prohibition on socks & IP editing. If his talk is unlocked, he can take the remaining time of the block to work on sandbox articles, which would show the community his intent regarding the improvement of Wikipedia. Just some thoughts. You're welcome to take or leave them. Vassyana 20:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I dunno--I can't get past the fact that he openly brags about creating socks. I still say that he should stay blocked.--Blueboy96 20:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what the problem is, if he screws around again - he get blocked, it's quite simple, but I really believe we should give him one final chance (he didn't get one last time as his initial one month block was increased to indef by Yanksox for no other reasons). Ryan Postlethwaite 20:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A good chance for him would be to unprotect the talk page and request that he remove the vitriolic comments as a show of good faith and recognition of his wrongs. Just an idea. Vassyana 21:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm just not comfortable with someone who openly bragged about being a sockmaster. That just doesn't sit well with me at all. About the only way I'd even consider reversing my opposition (given the guy's track record) is if he deletes and salts that sock page. But even then, it's gonna be a hard sell. --Blueboy96 21:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

According to his page, he's not "bragging" about anything. It looks to me like he's attempting to put something out in the open, which I think is better than hiding it away. Besides, according to him, the user "FlameViper12" wasn't a sockpuppet, he changed his username. Most of the accounts don't appear to ever have been used. - 2-16 00:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that's a reasonable step ... regardless of whether he is unbanned, unprotecting the talk page seems reasonable. It seems so reasonable in fact that I'm going to go ahead and do it now. Should it be abused, anyone may feel free to re-protect with my blessings. --BigDT 00:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed this farewell message left on one of his sockpuppet's talk pages in March. Something about that makes me concerned about unblocking him because of what appears to be major stability issues. Metros 00:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I can go along with this unblock per the editing parole on personal attacks and reversions (with a warning). I would that any edit can come back from the edge and contribute constructively. Navou 01:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Also opposed to an unblock per Metros and above. We gave him countless, countless "last chance"s. He doesn't need one more. Ryan, are you willing to take responsibility for anything he might do if he gets unblocked? – Chacor 02:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What can he do? He's not some kind of cyber-terrorist, he's just an eighth grader. Lots of eyes will be on him. --MichaelLinnear 03:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I mean, every action of his, is reversible. I hope perhaps we can look at the possible gain to the project if he edit constructively, and any net loss, can be reversed. Navou 04:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Also agreed. All of his actions can be reversed, and Ryan is also willing to work with him. Per MichaelLinnear, he's an eighth grader, and lots of eyes will be on him- and I think we've made it clear in this thread alone that any hint of incivility, etc will result in a block as before- last chance, in other words. CattleGirl 08:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If Ryan is willing and if he is willing to work with Ryan then I see no problem unblocking the talk page first. He should immediately repudiate his past actions, promise to comply and promise to abide by the conditions. Then and only then should he be allowed to edit outside his page. JodyB 13:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

He's not going to do anything that can't quickly and easily be undone. I'd go along with a strict unblock and I'd be quite happy to keep an eye on Flameviper's contributions. Nick 16:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Granting one last chance will not kill us. Moreschi ^Talk 16:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Flameviper seemed concerned about having his edits stalked. Perhaps we should consider this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Two-Sixteen (talk • contribs)

Consider what? He knows that if he gets unblocked he will be under close scrutiny from numerous editors (and administrators). Metros 16:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

IMO, if he is going to be unblocked, then style it after the Merkey unblock. An admin (or admins) will need to commit to keeping an eye on Flameviper, not only to keep him honest as it were but also to make sure he isn't getting trolled by anyone who wants to take advantage of his temperament and goad him into getting re-blocked, this time for good. I don't have a problem with an unblock if it is approached like this.--Isotope23 16:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fine. - 2-16 17:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Ryan will fulfill this role, and I'll be happy to as well. Moreschi ^Talk 17:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's do it then. - 2-16 17:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked. Please see my lengthy note on his talk page for a fuller rationale, and my unblock message (there are admins, plural, willing to unblock, and it's clear from this discussion that the original ban does not have consensus. Moreschi ^Talk 17:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a bad feeling about this ... if only because of the Jarlaxle and MARMOT cases. Anyway, we'll see ...--Blueboy96 17:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You could well be right, but even if I wind up reblocking within 5 minutes, we still will have tried. That's something, at any rate. Moreschi ^Talk 18:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• I can't blame you for the hope. However, user:Two-Sixteen happens to be another sockpuppet of Flameviper, so you've been suckered. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  I was sitting on my hands over this, but I can't say I'm surprised. --Tony Sidaway 04:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  As I said to him months ago, "Wikipedia is not a role-playing game." Did this multiple sockpuppeteer really think I'd not do a checkuser on him the moment he showed up? Jeez. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  Doesn't surprise me either. I actually pieced together a whole bunch of evidence about this a few hours ago after Moreschi unblocked him and sent it to Moreschi to examine who blocked Two-Sixteen after that. So no surprise from me either. Metros 04:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  Well, at least now we have a considerably firmer ground to say "yeah right" from when asked again for an unblock, seeing as we can't even trust him not to use sockpuppets in a discussion on getting him unbanned. I can't say I'm too surprised either, although I did support unblocking. Oh, and I cast my obligatory minor doubts on the workings of something I can't see the evidence for. obligatory minor doubts. -Amarkov moo! 04:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  Trust me Amarkov, there's plenty of evidence in the edit contributions for this (if your curiosity is that bad I'd piece some together). Metros 04:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  I know. I really only need to prove to myself that sockpuppetry is reasonably plausible to accept checkuser evidence, and I have an easy (and ungameable) way to do that. -Amarkov moo! 04:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What was that about leopards and spots? Still... thank you to everyone who assumed some good faith on his part, however misplaced your trust may have been. I'm unsurprised, but nontheless disappointed. Riana ⁂ 04:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm going to second that. It seems that the good in the community displayed itself. While we were not privy to sensitive information as User:Jpgordon is, I think the community made a good decision. No harm done. I don't think this should dissuade us from making a similar decision about future editors wishing to come back from the edge. We may have been "suckered" however, I would call it the cost of doing business in the big picture. I to want to thank everyone for the display of good faith. Regards, Navou 12:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Already blocked. Pointless bureaucracy to continue. --Tony Sidaway 03:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Akc9000 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks)
• Dynamic Submission (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - has been deleted multiple times
• Search engine submission software (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - has been redirected and protected to prevent spamming

This COI editor has used every process and tactic available to recreate Dynamic Submission, an article about the software that he apparently sells. One recurring tactic is that he plays the part of clueless newbie and asks an uninvolved editor to help, thereby taking advantage of our tendency to assume good faith. I fell for this ruse myself. See this discussion for all the evidence. Incidentally, the user becomes very belligerent with anyone who attempts to stop his COI spamming activities. He recently received a short block for WP:NPA and WP:COI.

I am requesting a topic ban to prevent this editor from engaging in further abuse of Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 14:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• 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. Navou 14:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you all can help me figure this out, because it's just too strange to be true.

1. The editor's first contribution is a post to WP:RfA. He reveals his COI, and at the same moment claims to be with a different company having the same name.
2. Third contribution to Wikipedia: creates a template. Maybe he's edited before under another username??
3. The domain name registration records show that AKC Consulting is intimately involved with Dynamic Submission. AKC Consulting = AKC9000? I think so.
4. Next he tries to create a cozy nest for his linkspam [41]. Changing the category will allow him to insert a link to Dynamic Submission.
5. Asking an Admin to explain why both spam articles were deleted. [42]
6. Goes to help desk. [43]
7. On to deletion review [44]
8. Appeals to one admin [45]
9. Getting help from another admin [46]
10. Later, questions another deletion of article. Disavows COI. [47]
11. Back to deletion review. [48]
12. I meet Akc9000 when he nominates Search engine marketing for deletion. I oppose this, but try to reconcile, and even defend him from another hostile user.
13. At this point, I've offered to help Akc9000 restore his deleted article. An admin moves the article to my userspace, and I restore NPOV. It gets moved back to main space.
14. Meanwhile, Akc9000 has been making a bunch of apparently constructive edits. I feel like things are going in the right direction.
15. After Dynamic Submission is moved back to main space, Akc9000 starts turning it into an advertisement. I ask him to stop, but he proceeds. At this point I start digging, and find out that he controls the domain name of the software he's writing about. Obviously there is a serious COI, or appearance of COI, so I reported this again at WP:COIN
16. The user's response is to launch a personal attack against me on WP:COIN, after I've tried to help him!

My sense is that we have been played for fools by a user intent on link spamming Wikipedia who will do whatever it takes to get his stuff into the encyclopedia. If we allow him to continue editing, he should be paired with one mentor so he doesn't keep shopping around for sympathetic admins. Jehochman ^Talk 21:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll endorse this per Jehochman. Durova^Charge! 01:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. A topic related ban would seem to be the answer here. SirFozzie 01:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Just block them indefinably, no need for this. I gave them one chance, thats it. Blah he is already indeffed, no need to formally "ratify" it. Close this discussion. Durova we really don't need to vote on already banned users ya know :) (yes before this discussion he was effectively banned, after failing to shape up after my unblock) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 03:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

This 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)

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)

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? Blueboy96 18:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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? Hiding Talk 13:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Per arbitration rulings,

I think that covers any workarounds. Hiding Talk 18:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is archived. 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

(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)

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..." [49]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

Terms of unblock have been given to him [50]. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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

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" [51] 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 [52] and the 7 reverts back to the vandalized version[53] is unacceptable, as are the taunts left on his own talk page [54].

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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. YechielMan 07:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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" [55] - 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)

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

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

TingMing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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 · logs · 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. Blueboy96 19:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

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

Editor directed to email "info-en AT wikipedia DOT org" or use WP:OVERSIGHT. Navou 23:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Iwazaki (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks)

After an editor exposed my real identity in an ANI through an error I made in a sandbox, I have been harassed number of times with that information ever since. I have not dealt with incident of exposure of my real identity when I had made all efforts to conceal it including blanking the Sanbox number of times yet. That decision I am still grapling with but the harrasement is interfering in my ability to contribute to wikipedia.

• Incident 1,
• Incident 2,
• Incident 3
• incident 4 Thanks Taprobanus 23:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That regards a self-disclosure you made at Wikipedia. The sandbox page has been deleted, but it appears that the material remains available through your user history. If this troubles you then please go to this link and seek their assistance in specifically clearing the information from retrieval. Durova^Charge! 21:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

This is an impossible format. Advise taking it to RfAr (and/or RFC). Topic ban while these efforts are undertaken, so long as they are, speedily. El_C 21:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• COFS (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks ^confirmed_suspected)

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)

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

• Diffs, please? Also, where are the "past investigations"? Blueboy96 20:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

• 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...

• [56] 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".
• [57] Again moved the criticism into a footnote, while misrepresenting the court document source and referring to it in the edit comment as "clarification".
• [58] Commented that editors should not attempt to obtain consensus before making sweeping changes to controversial articles.
• [59] Removed cited material which contradicted an assertion attributed to L Ron Hubbard. Note the aggressive edit comment.
• [60] 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".
• [61] 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)

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. Blueboy96 22:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

Agree with Durova, except given the apparent conflict of interest the topic ban should be indefinite. Blueboy96 19:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

(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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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

You're neutral and uninvolved? You can't be serious - you said you have "30 years of Scientology"[62] 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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

1. 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.
2. 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)

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)

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

1. Religious persuasion carries infinitely more weight in this discussion than mere employment.
2. 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)

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)

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)

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."[63] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

(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)

"As I understand it . . ." Durova, perhaps therein lies the problem.
1. "who edits disruptively": No, that point is not decided and neither the block history nor the (non-existant) WP:DR remedies support that claim. The only one complaining (about the edits, not about the general issue of COI) is someone that does not like COFS' edits. WP:DR is thataway.
2. "has five confirmed sockpuppets": No, has zero socks, simply a case of multiple users on one IP.
3. "a substantial block history" No again and I have already addressed that. Two blocks for 3RR are the only blocks relevant to anything in COFS' block history.
So I think, with all due respect, Durova, that you are a bit confused as to whom you are dealing with here. So instead of pushing for bans and threatening to override any outcome of this case that you don't agree with, hows about we send this back to WP:COIN and have a discussion there and, if COFS does not like the outcome of that discussion then s/he can open a User RfC on the issue or try ArbCom. So where is the ball now? It should never have been in this court in the first place so lets go play the game where it should be played and lets you please not threaten to close the court and send everyone home. Of course you can always use your admin tools; that goes without saying. But there is little, if any, activity on COFS' part that would warrant such use. If your only objection is the COI issue, then (again) let's walk back over to that court and play over there. --Justanother 18:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Yes, you assumed that COFS was a paid employee without considering any possible other explanations, like volunteer staff member, or other possibility. And, your assumption makes sense, given your alignment. Lsi john 12:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

• Durova, I don't know you, but it sure seems to me that you are looking for a reason to block, rather than a reason not to block. If you can't block for COI, you'll block for sock puppet. If you cant block for sock puppet, you'll block for meat puppet. If you are now going to redefine community ban to include meatpuppets who edit with a common purpose, then you need to include at least 4 more editors on the anti-COS side, all of whom claim to edit with the same veracity as COFS, and all of whom are equally tenacious.

At the top of this board it says: This is not the place to come to if you think someone is causing a problem and should be blocked. Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI) for that. Bans are a last resort against editors who behave problematically for a long period of time, not a means to gain advantage or silence those who disagree with you in a dispute. Requesting a ban against an editor is not a step to be taken lightly or without trying other means to resolve the situation first.

Did I miss an RfC or Medcab? As I understand it, this got posted here because Jehochman wanted it here. And now we have the cart before the horse and we're out to lynch someone. Lsi john 11:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the melodramatic hangman's noose. It could be viewed as a threat. I suggest it be removed from this page. The person who posted it should take a break for a short time to think about ways to interact with other editors more appropriately. Jehochman ^Talk 13:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Lots of things could be viewed as a threat. Do you view it as a threat? I seriously doubt you do. I suspect that it's more likely that you resent having your actions so explicitly defined. To consider it a threat is absurd, given the post that was associated with it. It is symbolic of the lynching that is taking place here, and I clearly stated that in my response. However, in a Good-Faith response to your objection, I have removed the picture. You will now have to find your own rope. Lsi john 13:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

COFS -- For my work I sure could use a proxy with a fixed IP address. Will CoS provide this service for me? Somehow, I think they don't provide this service for anyone coming in off the street.

Even if you aren't an employee, COFS, the fact that they let you use their computer systems sure looks like you are an agent of this organization and that they approve of and guide, your activities. Whether you are employee, agent, or volunteer, your connection is very close. Jehochman ^Talk 13:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What about me? I do my edits from home or MacDill Air Force Base in FL. So are you going to block a military server too? My opinion is similar to those of COFS. So? What exactly you guys want? What is wrong with COFS edits?Bravehartbear 13:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment (redux) - I do not want to say much here as I think that this is a ludicrous place to be discussing COFS. We should take this talk back over to WP:COIN. I just have two points really:
  1. The one and only issue here is to decide if COFS has a conflict-of-interest and what is the exact conflict-of-interest (if any). That discussion would best take place at WP:COIN, or by User RfC. Not here.
  2. Regarding my previous comments about SheffieldSteel, perhaps I went too far in calling him a POV-warrior. Perhaps. Again, I do see that the bulk of his edits in the Scientology article consist of minor copyediting and major reversions of the edits of a number of editors that seem to be sympathetic to Scientology. I do not see that reversion behavior as the actions of a neutral editor. I added to that his action is opening this case to come up with my characterization but I see that he may have simply been acting on some bad advice from Jehochman in opening this.
  I propose that this action be closed as there is no evidence of sufficient prior WP:DR to justify draconian measures like community bans. Close this and take up the discussion at WP:COIN and COFS may want to consider opening a User RfC on him/herself so that this issue can be settled once and for all. --Justanother 13:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll clarify my central point: I am not seeking a reason to block anyone. What I am saying is that I've seen this type of situation before (no. 135) and COFS is on a trajectory that usually ends badly. The type of help and support he or she is receiving, although it appears to be heartfelt, is not serving this editor's long term interests. In more than a few ways this is like Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal where I cautioned very early - before arbitration began - that an editor needed to change course. I offered some reasonable ways to change course, but she refused. Now she's sitebanned by both the community and the arbitration committee. Consider the advantages of my offer: a formal mentor will be a source of unbiased advice, COFS will remain free to participate in dispute resolution and to report any policy violations by opposing editors, and if another side of this topic dispute abuses the situation to try to own one or more articles those articles can be page protected. It doesn't matter to me whether the topic at hand is Scientology, Seventh Day Adventism, alternative medicine, or Australian professional wrestling - when a certain type of human dynamic takes over things play out in predictable ways. I'm here to redirect and defuse the problem if that's possible. Durova^Charge! 15:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Durova, perhaps COFS does not fit into your pigeonhole? I responded more to what I perceive as your error in classification above. Listen, if you can help COFS then great. And if COFS would like a mentor then equally great. COFS is a reasonable and intelligent person (I think that you yourself can perceive that from his posts here), we do not have to hit him over the head with a block ban brick. --Justanother 19:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the pro-Scientology faction isn't interested in working with other editors. They feel that if they cause enough procedural wrangling, and if they bring in enough sympathetic friends to stack the debate, they can obstruct our efforts to create a neutral encyclopedia. We really cannot ignore WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:DE and WP:SOCK. I feel like the community has given these editors every possible chance to work cooperatively, but we aren't getting a constructive response. What shall we do? Follow Durova's good advice, or head down the tired old path she describes... Jehochman ^Talk 15:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Your wording seems to be a bit weasely. For clarity, would you be kind enough to point out the pro-scientologists here? From what little I understand of it, Scientology and Christianity are mutually exclusive (though I could be wrong). If that is the case, it would make me an anti-scientologist by definition. As an editor, I am NPOV on the issue. I haven't had any difficulty working with the Scientologists. I wonder why you feel the way you do. Shall we assume from your comments that you are an anti-scientologist? I had not drawn that conclusion, but perhaps I should have. Lsi john 15:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I missed part of what you said:

" I feel like the community has given these editors every possible chance to work cooperatively, but we aren't getting a constructive response."

I thought this was a conversation about COFS and COI? It's been said give em enough rope and they hang themselves.. Clearly this is not about COFS for you, it is about removing pro-Scientologists from the project. Thank you for putting it so succinctly. Perhaps now we can close this discussion? Lsi john 15:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is about COFS, the second party under the term "these editors" most likely refers to Misou, who has been following a similar path. I cannot speak for anyone else but I myself am 100% neutral on this issue. I have no real interest in religion on any level. I don't practice any religion, not because I'm athiest or agnostic, but because I don't really care one way or the other. COFS' problem not only stems from COI but from either refusal or inability to adopt a more neutral editing stance with regard to this issue. If the topic's control swings to any anti-scientology editors, this same procedure, or that of protection, can be instituted. FYI, very few religions are mutually exclusive. That's generally up to the churches of the religions, and the rules that they establish, but parts of various religions are generally compatible. Perhaps you believe in thetans, out of body experiences, and Xenu, you don't have to adopt the notion of there being no god, and you could probably still believe in heaven as an afterlife without ruling out all parts of scientology views. I'd say 1 month CTB under a mentor is MORE than fair. COFS will still be able to edit all non-related articles in wikipedia, and will still be able to call attention to any biased information being introduced into scientology related articles to any one of a myriad of editors neutral to this topic who I'm sure would be glad to help.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 16:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oni Ookami Alfador, did you miss this 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)"

If this is about COI, and COI is defined as 'employed by', and COFS claims to not be 'employed by', then the matter seems to be settled. Any further action would effectively be banning an individual for having a POV about an issue, and as I pointed out above, we will need to ban a lot more editors than COFS. Lsi john 16:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please check your definitions. COI is not defined by or as employment. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Examples. It lists financial, personal, legal, and several other possible sources of COI. All you are trying to do at this point is use (incorrect) semantics to argue in defense of someone who has not just shown POV and COI on a topic, but a consistent will to enforce those views at the detriment to the quality and neutrality of the articles in question. Next time try to base an argument on a definition, it would serve your interest to make sure you actually know and understand it first.

Editing in the interests of public relations is particularly frowned upon. This includes, but is not limited to, edits made by public relations departments of corporations; or of other public or private for-profit or not-for-profit organizations; or by professional editors paid to edit a Wikipedia article with the sole intent of improving that organization's image. -Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

And again, just to reiterate... Conflict of interest is not exclusive to employment.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oni Ookami Alfador, thank you. I happen to agree that COI is not necessarily limited to paid employment. However, that has been one of the main allegations of this (and previous) discussion(s). I would be curious to learn, how broad a COI-net you would cast in the Scientology articles. I can see how we would include all Scientologists, as they clearly have a vested interest in their own religion. Would you include former Scientologists in the community ban as well? Also, I believe that one editor in particular (not named because it isn't significant at this point) runs a personal anti-COS website. Would that qualify as a conflict of interest and qualify for a community ban? If an editor makes a comment like "Scientoloty is a cult", would that indicate a conflict of interest for writing neutral articles?

For clarity refer to my section heading (above) If we are going to take a bite of this apple, lets be prepared to eat the whole damned thing. COI is not a policy, it is a guideline. If we start micro-managing these articles by community banning individual editors, simply because they have a related 'interest' in the articles, we better be prepared to jump in and solve the whole problem. I have no desire to represent either 'side' here. If you remove one faction, are you prepared to step in and prevent the other faction from completely obfuscating the article with bias? I still maintain that there are a sufficient quantity of editors on both sides to prevent any single editor from getting away with inserting any lasting POV due to COI. Lsi john 17:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone interprets WP:COI to mean that Scientologists should be banned from editing Scientology articles. But editing is not edit-warring. While COI in itself does not justify a ban, user conduct may; therefore WP:COI asks editors to exercise caution. SheffieldSteel 18:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement with SheffieldSteel. As I have already said more than once, the COI problem is not as much COFS' association with scientology as it is the fact that whatever that association may be, it is clearly causing a lack of discipline in her edit process. It is not the presence of COI that concerns me, it is COI actions that concern me. COI simply indicates a potential for an editors interests to be in conflict with those of Wikipedia. The problem comes when someone does (as COFS has) make edits towards those interests. COFS has demonstrated, again as I've said before, either an inability or unwillingness to put her own vested interests in the topic aside towards the neutrality of the articles, a core pillar of Wikipedia. As for your comment about sufficent editors on "both sides" Lsi john, the goal here is to get editors to work with eachother and discuss, not simply "cancel eachother out." That has a name, and its called edit warring. The only thing it leads to is articles that contradict themselves and that constantly display one bias or another depending on when you happened to call it up. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality? I have been complaining for a long time that there no neutrality in the Scientology pages. They are full of unproven accusation and allegations. "Some people say this", "some people say that", saunds more like John Sweeney propaganda than facts: http://www.bbcpanorama-exposed.org/watch-the-video-documentary.php Lets just stick to the facts and strike those unproven allegations out of Wikipedia. Bravehartbear 16:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Some people have posted examples of the problems they're concerned about. Would you care to do that instead of just drawing culteral parallels that don't reinforce the claims?--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@, WP:COI is not policy and I disagree with your extrapolation of it. It does not make sense to say that WP:COI is valid for "personal" reasons. That just means that you should not edit about anything you are truly interested in. I googled today aboout conflict of interest and found a great quote which summarizes it pretty well: "Wikipedia's guidelines say that people shouldn't have a conflict of interest and that you should write about things that you have no connection with. I think that is a naive view. Most of the people who write in Wikipedia are tending to write about things that matter to them.". Don't you?

To add to that, so far noone has been able to actually give Diffs, WP:POLICY on the matter or even check my contribs while pretty much ignoring WP:NPAs like the new series of provocations coming up once more from the usual people ("Racist, Bigot", "flaunting bigotry","bigoted","brainwashed","cult vandalism","vandalism" and so on). I can stand rough words and knowing his/her edits I am sure Misou as well. However those provocateurs never get put on a stake like me here and as long as this is the case, I doubt that proper research/wikisleuthing is being done by the responsible Admins. It seems that we get lost in a cloud of soap bubbles instead of creating an encyclopedia which looks great next to others. For my part, I just agreed to stay off the Scientology articles for a bit, just to be able to edit here, i.e. I had to get unblocked, because a random sweeping Admin found some of the noise created around me and thought it a good idea to block me before I even could say beep in here today. No research.

Let's watch Scientology and Church of Scientology (which are the two I tried to get the bias out) for a little. I don't have a problem stepping back a bit but I will take note on the old bias and new one being introduced and I will argue to get it out again.

On the plan to boot Scientologists but not the hate-campaigners from the Scientology-articles, well, if this needs to go to ArbCom or JW for testing against WP antidiscrimination policy, we should do it. I'd prefer a less dramatic way, i.e. the talk page, and AN/I if needed. For me this discussion is closed unless some facts are being dealt with. COFS 18:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not the plan. The plan is to stop the COI and POV editing on both sides, preferably by convincing people to exercise self-control, but if that fails, we can use stronger remedies. Finally, we will try to get the remaining editors to work together to produce a good or featured article.

Who here supports COI editing? Does anyone think this article should be all positive or all negative? Does anyone think edit warring is good? Does anyone want to produce a bad article? Jehochman ^Talk 19:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fresh COI diffs

Here are two fresh COI edits involving the removal of sourced material and edit warring. COFS, if you have a problem with another editor, take it to the talk page. Don't revert sourced material. If you feel that an editor is edit warring, file a report at WP:3RR. Your not helping your own cause to make edits like these while this discussion is ongoing. [64] [65] Jehochman ^Talk 20:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify that none of those are after COFS' recent block/unblock episode. One is 15 hours old and the other is 25 hours old. Carry on. --Justanother 20:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Jehochman, two reverts, 10 hours apart in the past 25 hours, hardly constitutes edit warring. Shame on you for posting evidence of not-warring and suggest that it implies warring. Lsi john 20:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually that does constitute edit warring. From WP:3RR:

The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.

And to clarify this discussion from a policy standpoint, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox and WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground both apply here. So do WP:OWN and WP:NPOV. My advice to the pro-scientology editors at this thread is to take a hard look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate and compare it to my essay User:Durova/The dark side.

This situation has the characteristics of a problem that could head into arbitration and I speak from enough experience to be pretty good at predicting that outcome. I'm also aware of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo, having interacted with Terryeo while I was coauthoring Wikipedia's disruptive editing guideline. My advice to pro-Scientology editors at this thread is to weigh the potential for losing one of the editors you value for much longer than one month through community action, as well as the potential public relations effect of a second arbitration case. A hard line approach isn't likely to serve your own interests for very long. Durova^Charge! 21:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, Durova, but I do not much agree with your concept that you are crystal-balling where COFS will go and you are going to forestall it and "help" her with a one-month ban. Sounds like Minority Report to me. Long story short, COFS is a grownup and if s/he wants to play with fire then let him and if he gets burned then so be it. This is COFS' call. S/he can ask for a mentor, ask you to recommend one, do an RfC on herself, or handle this in any number of ways. The one thing I think we agree on is that something needs to be sorted out and if s/he does not sort something out then s/he may well be on that well-oiled path you envision. But for now, let's put our oilcans down, please, and let her take it from here. There is NOT any history of progressive discipline to warrant any sort of block/ban. --Justanother 01:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that arbitration might be inevitable. Even the most neutral non-Scientology sources express a more critical view of it than Scientologists feel is appropriate. As a result they feel as though the CoS is being slandered and libelled by the media. They offer church writings or Hubbard's claims as the truth, but their information doesn't meet the standards of WP:RS or WP:V much of the time in order to act as proof. To them it probably seems like Wikipedia isn't interested in "hearing their side". This set of circumstances invites Scientologists who care about what we say here (on Wikipedia) to edit war. I honestly don't care about Scientology as a religion/cult/whatever but I am interested in how the concept of WP:COI applies to situations like this. Ideally I should be able to apply the principles of whatever solution we come up with as a baseline for future incidents in any COI/religion issue. Anynobody 01:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No judgment going on in that statment.

Just for clarity, you're the same Anynobody that tracked Justanother's history for 3 months in a bad-faith anticipation of an RfC, right?
And you're the Anynobody who went to AN/I after Justanother asked for it to be deleted, and made sure to mention him when you innocently asked if it was really improper to keep such a bad-faith log for 3 months, right?
And you're the Anynobody who opened the original Checkuser on COFS, right?
And you're the Anynobody who refused to agree to stay away from AN/I posting when Bishonen personally asked each of us, right?
And now you're, again, predicting doom and failure on the part of COFS, by denograting all Scientologists in one fell swoop for their inability to accept criticism?

Well done. Lsi john 01:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Those of you on the pro-Scientology side have behaved equally poorly, so this is a road you'd best not begin going down. Both the pro- and anti- sides have plenty of bad history. Since both camps are irremediably hostile toward one another and cannot accept that the other side could possibly be acting in good faith, it would be best to defer to uninvolved parties such as User:Durova. Iamnotmyself 02:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john it goes back to what I just said, I've never cared about the religion/cult/whatever but I do care about how the rules here are applied. Each situation you've cited there is about how the rules apply, not bringing down the CoS or any editors. Anynobody 02:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Iamnotmyself that has been my point. Both the pro- and anti- editors have issues that need to be addressed. Anynobody is one of the anti- editors who, along with Smee (below) have led this charge against COFS. Their talk-page history is riddled with back and forth suspicion and allegation and hypothesizing. As a neutral observer, I'm very disillusioned. I'm not defending COFS here, as much as I am trying to say that this is not the proper forum for this issue. And unless we are prepared to eat the whole apple, we shouldn't bite into it at all. Lsi john 02:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Durovan: You are right. I have been guilty of comments just to pick up a fight too, I apologise for this. What we need is a fresh start. Lets use communication and stop all this argument. Scientologist see these pages and are very offended by the content. There has to be way to reach the middle road. Bravehartbear 02:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously this situation is way more complex than I first thought. Recommend sending to ArbCom. Blueboy96 02:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Blueboy, exactly. The people who wanted this opened, didn't want it all to come out. They only wanted you to see the COFS Smoke, so they could get a stratigic community ban on one of their opposition. Lsi john 02:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:Iamnotmyself's comment above, to defer judgement in this issue to User:Durova. Smee 02:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC).

Are we interested in punishment or in getting good articles? COFS's block history for 3RR is TWO. While, Smee's is SEVEN over two usernames. Who is the bigger revert warrior?

Enough. This would try the patience of a saint. It's easy to see why most sane people stay away from Scientology related articles; I only came here because of the COI angle.

My view is that we should build a wall around the Scientology-related articles, let the two sides fight it out to the death, then siteban the winners. Iamnotmyself 02:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think COFS should have an opportunity to get a mentor WITHOUT any formal ban. Because, based on prior experience, any ban will be used against COFS every time that COFS makes any revert in any future article. And a ban is unnecessary, as I believe COFS has already agreed to some form of self-imposed period of abstention. Lsi john 02:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, this is not about you. And it is not about me. It is not supposed to be a battleground. But it is important for everyone to know who the players are. And when you jump in with your bad-faith, it is important that people have a bit of background. I'm done here, as it is no longer productive. Lsi john 02:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

COFS has always had the opportunity to get a mentor without any formal ban. We're discussing community sanctions because this is an editor who's run into trouble without taking proactive steps to seek help or resolve the problems.

I recommend the editor who closes this discussion look into the possibility of offline collusion between COFS's defenders. Notably, from this edit: Bravehartbear, it would probably help calm down the situation if Misou didn't get involved. The fact is, at one point he did edit from the same IP as COFS, because he was at a COS location that uses the same proxy that COFS uses. This stands in contrast from Lsi john's claims at my own user talk page. There is/was a question about sock puppets, due to the IP address. This seems to have been resolved by establishing that the COS in LA has a proxy. As I can't see IPs, I am not in a position to know if Misou and/or COFS edits from multiple (different) respective IPs or not. However, observing their edit styles, it seems to me that they are different people.[66] Note that both claims are asserted by the same person, on the same day, and just four hours apart.

As of now, I continue to extend my offer of a one month topic ban conditional upon WP:ADOPT entry and applicable to COFS only. The alternative if COFS declines that offer is a three month community topic ban. Lsi john would do well to enter that program also. I think there's been enough community input from uninvolved editors to close this discussion. If anyone disagrees strongly, hotly disputed threads from this noticeboard sometimes head directly to this alternative. Durova^Charge! 04:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Durova. Getting a bit chilly in here, isn't it? ("offline collusion between COFS's defenders") --Justanother 14:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming the proposed editing ban would be in regard to the (Main) namespace only, and not Talk pages. I don't approve many of COFS edits from a WP:COI standpoint, but don't like excluding anyone completely. If my assumption is correct, and COFS would be allowed to contribute on the Talk pages, it sounds like a fair solution. Anynobody 05:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, talk page posts would be fine. Durova^Charge! 09:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Durova, the problem is that when we hand out one-month bans without sufficient justification we do a disservice to the editor and to the project. To the editor because that ban will be forever used as a basis for further disciplinary actions. To the project because if Wikipedia is said to operate on the wisdom of crowds then that wisdom is negated if we stack the deck and the anti-Scientologists have a long history here of stacking the deck. I do not mean SheffieldSteel but I most certainly do include Anynobody and Smee. All sides need to learn to work together! Sheffield needs to stop revert-warring and all the anti's need to stop trying to get their "opponents" blocked or banned. COFS needs to be sensitive to the POV of Scientoogy critics and "religiously" practice 1RR when changing sourced criticism. There is work that needs to be done with the criticism and with the practices too but COFS must realize that s/he will need to step lightly when dealing with the criticism. Go ahead and make the change but if it is reverted then leave it and ask for WP:30 or WP:RFC. I have done that on numerous ocassions and it works great but it is a lot of bother. Sorry, COFS, but you will need to make that effort if you want to touch the sacred cow of Scientology criticism. --Justanother 12:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

At Wikipedia we don't base decisions about Editor A upon policy violations by Editor B. As I've stated before, anyone here can initiate a separate action regarding any other editor. This solution specifically keeps all parties free to do that and free to engage in dispute resolution. Durova^Charge! 14:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand me; I am talking about the general atmosphere in which COFS edits. That is relevant. I have been here a year now and, trust me, I know how it goes over there. Died-in-the-wool off-wiki critics of Scientology have dominated those articles for years. I do not mean SheffieldSteel; he just appears to be a guy with a POV. Here is an example; right now we have one off-wiki critic WP:SPA trying to get a Scientologist in trouble by, of all things, calling her an SPA. That is the laughable lopsided world we see in the Scn series articles where the pot calls the kettle black but only the kettle gets in trouble. COFS is not a disruptive editor. Yes, there is some back and forth between opposing POVs but so what? Those are common as dirt around here and we all have to work with other POVs. That is all I am asking. And I do not see how your "solution" or response addresses either of the points that I raise in my previous post. --Justanother 15:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If somebody operates an off-Wiki attack site, and then comes here and tries to use Wikipedia to distribute propaganda, that's a policy violation you should report. We will consider and investigate all such complaints that have a proper basis. Editors must be careful not to create the appearance that you they are using complaints to silence editors with a different point of view. Stopping violations of Wikipedia content policies is good. Complaining to gain advantage in a content dispute is disruptive. Those who have trouble distinguishing betwen these two cases can join the WP:ADOPT program to get help from an experienced editor. Jehochman ^Talk 15:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wise words. And, regardless of any previous statement on my part, I am not accusing you or SheffieldSteel of "using complaints to silence editors with a different point of view." And if I was quick on the trigger then I ask you to understand how many times I have seen exactly that behavior by critics of Scientology. In fact, IMO, they have elevated it to an art form. However and that said, I continue to maintain that this is NOT the proper forum to have a discussion with or about COFS. This is way "too steep a gradient" as we Scientologists would say; meaning too much, too fast. That and the points I repeatedly make to Durova are really all I have to say. --Justanother 18:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as people are talking and trying to find common ground, that's a good thing, regardless of the forum. We know what Durova's offer is. I would be happy if COFS would agree not to edit the Scientology articles for a while, in order to help cool down the edit wars. COFS could still use the talk pages, and report problems with the articles in a constructive, non-disruptive way. To help prevent any more problems, I would also like to see COFS join WP:ADOPT. Whether or not there is a formal ban isn't important to me. I am only concerned with the results. If COFS doesn't want to accept a ban, for reasons of reputation, but would agree to the other things, that would make me happy. I only speak for myself, of course, but I can try to convince others if COFS agrees. Jehochman ^Talk 22:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think Jehochman's suggestion of WP:ADOPT, in conjunction with Durova's points made pretty well clear from above, would be a positive step in the right direction. However, it is useful to keep in mind that all of these suggested actions going forward could possibly have no affect whatsoever, in light of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS and that the other four editors/sockpuppets/meatpuppets whatever you want to call them, and the four involved ip addresses utilized by the editor(s), are not taken into regard in this arrangement. Smee 05:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC).

That is a valid point Smee, I would think that if what they claimed about a block on one of them acting as a block of all, it would be best for them to support each other, in the spirit of the proposal. For example if Misou sees COFS editing an article he/she shouldn't have, Misou would then ideally revert the "banned" changes and point out that such behavior could get both of them blocked due to their shared IP. I seem to remember the figure as being 1000 Scientologists who were affected by the COFS/CSI LA block related to the WP:RFCU you mentioned. If this is successful I'm guessing similar proposals could be worked out for future issues with other editors. Anynobody 05:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds about right. Smee 06:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC).

Truth be told, the Church of Scientology only has about eight members and all the pro-Scientology editors here are actually the same fellow - a tall, somewhat geeky dude named Derrick. Who you callin' geeky? --Justanother 12:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm is not constructive in this discussion, especially in light of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS. Smee 16:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC).

Sometimes humor is the most effective way to make one's point argument presentation --Derrick 17:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh and Smee, are you pretending to misunderstand what Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS came up with and/or are you just hoping no-one will check? --Derrick 17:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Please refactor, Justanother. Durova^Charge! 19:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Refactor what? The "Derrick"? OK everyone, "Derrick" is me, User:Justanother. --Justanother^{Talk to Derrick} 21:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like yet another editor has voiced related COI concerns again, at WP:COIN. Smee 06:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC).

• Yes, about another editor entirely. That one started as a "drive-by". "Oh look, there's a Scientologist, let's kick him." COFS is not even mentioned there. Knock off the crap, Smee. --Justanother 11:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Apparently someone (the user that opened that WP:COIN incident) who is big enough to knock off the crap when it is pointed out as crap. [67] --Justanother 12:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• And to clarify what is "crap". This is the Community sanction noticeboard and this is NOT the place for you to spew every unrelated smear that you can in order to color the discussion here. So knock off the crap. --Justanother 13:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Justanother, what Smee said above is literally true. Another editor did voice COI concerns. Those concerns turned out to be unfounded. See how easy it is to clear up confusion? Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, but it has no place here, especially as Smee neglected to inform that it was an unrelated editor in an unrelated case; the only relation being that both concern Scientology and Scientologists. But that is not enough relation seeing as this discussion is taking place on a sanction board and I consider Smee to be acting in bad faith to bring that up here without clarifying the lack of relationship and I think it is about time that I addressed that type of behavior on the part of that editor and I plan to begin collating my diffs to do so. --Justanother 15:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think Smee's notification was relevant because we have a situation here involving possible violations of WP:MEAT. Rather than investing your time in compiling a list of greivances against Smee, why don't you take a look at WP:GA and WP:FA and see what can be done to improve the Scientology article so it qualifies for one of those awards. Jehochman ^Talk 15:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Throwing unfounded accusations around on this sanction board seems to be contagious. I better get out of here before I catch something. --Justanother 15:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The only unfounded accusation getting tossed around here is that impartial editors have singled out Scientology. I extend a basic respect for devoted adherents to any religion and the standards I apply here are exactly the ones I would extend to any other faith. I've started an article about Judaism although I'm not Jewish, I've raised an article about Catholicism to WP:FA although I'm not Catholic, and Muslim editors have sought my input in edit disputes about Islam although I'm not Muslim. Wikipedia seeks to publish neutral and verifiable articles: when the Joan of Arc vandal tried to skew articles to a pro-Catholicism POV I intervened. I was one of the voices who contributed to the siteban of this evangelical Christian editor. Yet whenever possible I welcome editors back from the brink. Here's one who pulled back.

WP:AGF should obviate the need for these examples, but here's a recent example of my impartiality: even though I had supported this article subject's siteban on policy grounds, I nominated his biography for deletion at his request - and finally brought a two-year-old dispute to an acceptable resolution. At this arbitration case I gave evidence as the lone supporter of an editor whose ideology was diametrically opposed to my own.

What I have been saying at this thread is that serious site policy issues are involved here. I'd like to see things go into mentorship and dispute resolution. I also hope to make it very clear to all concerned that there are limits to Wikipedia's patience and good faith. Durova^Charge! 16:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Durova, my below edit-conflicted with your post. I am calling you on what I see as an error in judgement on your part and contributing to the misuse of this board. I disagree with your assessment of this particular case and feel that you are pigeon-holing COFS and unduly escalating something that has little evidence of needing escalation. While what I think about your motives does not mean much, I do not think it is because of any bias against Scientology, I think it is because you have a hobby. Is this horrendous on your part? IDK. I guess if I was COFS and I got a block out of this kangaroo court I might think so. The main point is I think we really need to rethink how this board is used in light of the policy on bans. I clarify that in my post below. --Justanother 16:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• (Light goes off) I just figured out my problem here. This board is being misused and I kinda suspect that the error falls mostly on Durova (gee, I hope I didn't catch that "throwing around accusations" thing). SheffieldSteel, following some bad advice he got from Jehochman over at WP:COIN tried to use this board as a substitute for WP:DR. I mean the rules above clearly state:

  Please note also that this noticeboard is not a replacement for requests for comment, and should not be used as a type of dispute resolution: community ban requests should be a last resort.

  Durova, the "experienced admin" here should have put a quick stop to that and "guided toward a more appropriate venue". But she did not. Instead she jumped in with both feet but little research and dubious logic. Why? IDK, but posts on her talk page clearly indicate that she sees stuff like this as a "hobby". So maybe, instead of simply telling SheffieldSteel to go somewhere else, she indulged her hobby. Then the dynamic duo of Anynobody and Smee, a tag-team pair quick to jump on anything anti-Scientology chime in and off we go. But it all started because Durova, who should have known better, did not put the brakes to it early but instead poured on the coals.
  
  How did I come to this epiphany? Well, I thought it odd that a so-called community sanction was taking place with a small group of mostly highly-invested editors and one "hobbyist" admin. I thought it odd that this board even existed. So I looked at the policy that is supposed to be the basis for this board, Wikipedia:Ban#Community ban. And guess what. It does not describe what is happening here at all!!! The way I think this board is supposed to be used is that an editor finally racks up so many blocks that an admin blocks him indef. Then the admin posts it here and we see if any other admin will unblock. If not, voila, community ban. That is what is described at Wikipedia:Ban#Decision to ban as # 1. This action of coming over here looking for the indef block or ban is clear misuse of this board. I do not blame users for trying. Users can try anything. Experienced admins need to set them straight. --Justanother 16:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• For the record, the Scientology post on COIN, was a 'question' by an editor on a wikibreak who only wanted to make sure that someone had an opportunity to 'notice'. The editor later resolved the question himself, by looking through the edits, and conclded was that no bad edits occured.

Please note, however, that Smee tried to recruit this potential anti-COS voice to engage in this discussion: here.

Also note that the editor declined and apologized for the post, stating that he had 'panicked' here.

This (sanctions board) thread was about COFS, not about Scientology and certainly not about the editor being discussed in the COIN thread. By posting the unrelated Scientology reference involving an unrelated editor, Smee seems to be posting from an anti-Scientology POV, in an effort to add unrelated smoke to this situation and to bring in more anti-Scientology viewpoints. Thus, it would appear that Smee is trying to escalate the situation in an established and documented campaign against COFS instead of help it. (I'm sorry that I'm not more familiar with all the proper wiki-links to more accurately describe what Smee is doing.) Lsi john 17:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

(Continued below per Jehochman's suggestion: here) Lsi john 17:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

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