Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Archive6

Community enforceable mediation

Community enforceable mediation has entered a 90 day experimental phase. This new option in dispute resolution allows some disputes to avoid full arbitration by giving the participants the option to enter binding agreements that use arbitration-like remedies such as WP:1RR or civility parole.

This noticeboard plays an important role in CEM: mediators will announce new cases here when they open and will present proposed solutions to the community for ratification. The community has three options with each package deal proposal:

• Accept - ratify the agreement and make it enforceable, similar to how arbitration remedies are enforceable.
• Reject - nullify the agreement and close mediation.
• Return - send the proposal back into mediation for refinements.

If no consensus emerges the default outcome is return. See WP:CEM and its FAQ for more information. Durova^Charge! 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I like it, looks good. When I see an appropriate dispute I'll send it your way for the mediators to practice on. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed community ban on User:Mmbabies

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

Mmbabies (talk · contribs · block log) hereby banned by the community for vandalism, personal attacks, threats, and egregious sockpuppetry. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

---

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

Indefblocked on February 12--only 15 days after joining--for adding blatantly false information or outright nonsense to articles. Suspected of being the puppetmaster of almost 40 sockpuppets, some of whom have made threats on talk pages and on actual articles. Some of the uglier examples:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

Some of his suspected socks' edit summaries are abusive and outright threatening:

• What did I tell you about changing the logo, punk.
• What did I tell you, what did I tell you! Son of a b(beep from KETH). I'll hurt you next time if you change this.

Azumanga1 alerted us on WP:TVS about this guy, but after taking a look at his edits, this guy's threats pose a direct threat to the project--we're lucky the Foundation wasn't flooded with calls because of some of the threats he made on articles. This calls for a community ban.--Blueboy96 04:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse and Addition -- In addition, he also revealed a list of Alief ISD school bus drivers in this article: [5]. Furthermore, while he mostly used SBC IPs for his crimes, two of them originated from Alief Independent School District servers: [6], [7]. He is a person who needs to be stopped NOW. -- azumanga 12:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And he's continuing to rewrite mathematical laws -- see the history in this article for the number 35. -- azumanga 14:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. This request is a slam dunk. There's no room for that behavior at Wikipedia. Durova^Charge! 13:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse community ban. Jesus, this chap has been busy with the sockbabies, and by the looks of it they're all as unpleasant as each other. We don't need this obvious troll, ever. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment by user proposing ban I would think it would be a good idea to block the Ailef ISD from editing Wikipedia for a time as well. It's obvious from his activity that they don't have even cursory methods of monitoring usage. There's precedent for such an extreme measure when an educational institution doesn't police itself (Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime). Any collateral damage to the ISD's other students is more than outweighed by the fact that the whole project could have been TOSed by our upstream provider had someone not caught those threatening edits in time. --Blueboy96 14:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't support this (only two edits) but if we must, allow account creation since it's limited to six per IP address per day. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 01:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse for reasons listed above. -- Gridlock Joe 03:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong support The community cannot tolerate anyone who creates such a poisonous atmosphere. See UninvitedCompany's law. Raymond Arritt 16:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. --Yamla 17:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This needs more discussion, could some uninvolved editors who watch this page, review this and comment

Needs more discussion to conclude. Thank you, Navou ^banter / _contribs 16:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Support, this person is not adding anything of value to Wikipedia and I agree, block on sight per a ban is the way to go here.--Isotope23 20:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. I started browsing through his contributions and just, wow. A completely clear-cut case for a ban. Vassyana 14:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support Looks like a clear cut case to me. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Pete Townshend - "soft-ban" on fixated editors

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Durova (talk • contribs) 01:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Community enforceable mediation

Community enforceable mediation has entered a 90 day experimental phase. This new option in dispute resolution allows some disputes to avoid full arbitration by giving the participants the option to enter binding agreements that use arbitration-like remedies such as WP:1RR or civility parole.

This noticeboard plays an important role in CEM: mediators will announce new cases here when they open and will present proposed solutions to the community for ratification. The community has three options with each package deal proposal:

• Accept - ratify the agreement and make it enforceable, similar to how arbitration remedies are enforceable.
• Reject - nullify the agreement and close mediation.
• Return - send the proposal back into mediation for refinements.

If no consensus emerges the default outcome is return. See WP:CEM and its FAQ for more information. Durova^Charge! 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I like it, looks good. When I see an appropriate dispute I'll send it your way for the mediators to practice on. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Timestamp to push archiving this another 48h. Navou ^banter / _contribs 14:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I disabled the bot because I noticed it stripped the closure template from a discussion. Navou, would you have a look at archive 5 and see if other templates got stripped from that page? Durova^Charge! 14:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'll take a look. Navou ^banter / _contribs 14:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• I do not see any anomalies in 5, did a quick look, did you let the BOT OP know? Navou ^banter / _contribs 14:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Instructions said to post a notice at WP:ANI, which I've done. Durova^Charge! 14:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Request Community Ban on JB196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Resolved

 – Already banned ~7 months ago. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• JB196 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · ban · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

This user has been indefblocked formally twice, once initially as User:JB196, snuck back as User:BooyakaDell, and since being indefblocked when found out under that account, has switched to using sockpuppets. He has a long term abuse report here. He continues to vandalize articles, inserting his link, at one pointt he site he was using got put on the spamlist, and then he turned to using proxy sites such as proxyhole to get the link into the article. I think the time has come to formally ban him from WP. You can see the accounts linked to him at his LTA report, his most recent set of socks were blocked over on ANI recently. Thank you. SirFozzie 04:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

He is already community banned. Check his user page. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Or see WP:BANNED#JB196. Banned September 8 2006. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 05:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's listed as a specifiy needed on the ban page, so I wanted to formalize it :) SirFozzie 05:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It was already formalized. We just need some time and someone to find the appropriate ban discussion, which should be in the archives somewhere. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And I have been searching the archives but haven't found it. Eyes hurt. Head hurts. Good luck to the next searcher. Going to sleep now. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 06:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think he was banned under the old style definition, "No Admin would unblock him" SirFozzie 06:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Another indefblocked user, came back, misbehaved, indefblocked. Are these bans really effective? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 08:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A ban is a social construct, not a technical mechanism. Blocks serve as the technical means. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There already was a formal community ban, though it was for his sock BooyakaDell here that served to re-affirm the original ban of B196. –– Lid^(Talk) 06:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

question

(moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)) Durova^Charge! 14:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dereks1x proposed community ban

• Dereks1x (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · ban · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

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

I propose a community ban of Dereks1x (talk · contribs) and any socks. Dereks1x was the subject of an SSP that confirmed some of his socks last week, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dereks1x. Yesterday, a checkuser request confirmed that Dereks1x used a sock (also yesterday), Doc United States (talk · contribs), with false medical credentials in a further attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute at Talk:John Edwards; see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dereks1x. Durova has been administering blocks: all known socks are currently indef blocked, Dereks1x is blocked for 2 weeks. Even without our recent history in re false credentials, I think this warrants a community ban of Dereks1x and any socks. · j e r s y k o talk · 12:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AN. MER-C 13:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I consider this particular thread premature, the method of abuse here is serious enough to merit discussion. This editor has used multiple sockpuppets in attempts to manipulate Wikipedia's biographies of leading United States Democratic Party presidential candidates. Over the past week this editor posted a request for expert attention to medical issues at John Edwards, then two hours later started a sockpuppet who claimed to be a medical doctor. For several days the sockpuppet edited medical-related articles before "stumbling" upon the John Edwards biography and agreeing with Dereks1x 100% (doing so while Dereks1x was blocked for wikistalking and WP:POINT and the editor's known sockpuppets were getting indef blocked, and while Dereks1x was requesting mentorship). This editor attempted to confuse the checkuser by posting an image of a diploma with a newspaper to "prove" an M.D. degree,[8] then pretended to "thank" the checkuser for confirming the M.D. degree[9]

Reposting part of Jersyko's information from my talk page:

1. Dereks1x placed "expert" tag in the John Edwards article to encourage an expert to conduct original research on Ms. Edwards' cancer (see talk, basically the crux of the dispute) at 12:19 on March 26
2. New User account created, User:Doc United States at 14:30, March 26
3. After a few days of editing medical articles, Doc United States adds a comment in support of Dereks1x's position at Talk:John Edwards today.

This sort of egregious abuse deserves to be run out on a rail. Although I normally give editors more chances to reform, this particiular set of incidents follows close on the heels of several other outrageous actions and it would send the wrong message to be patient with such deliberate manipulation of major politicians' biographies. Durova^Charge! 13:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If it wasn't for the false claiming of medical credentials to gain the upper hand in a content dispute, I would have just supported lengthening the block to 2 months or so, with a strong warning that further shenanigans=ban, but that pushes it over the top. Support the ban, and would recommend once it's done, getting the article semi-protected (if not already), to delay any further sockpuppet attacks. SirFozzie 15:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I've semiprotected John Edwards. Durova^Charge! 15:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse for gaming the system. Would also recommend reporting this to his ISP--claiming false medical credentials borders on fraud.Blueboy96 16:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly support to the nth degree. As mentioned above, part of his attempt to establish this false medical identity here included a flurry of edits to medical articles, presumably working from the library he is believed to frequent, which takes this well beyond disruptive behavior and gaining an advantage in a dispute and could have real consequences if a reader were to presume that an addition to an article by a "doctor" is accurate. (He also used this false identity to contact doctors on Wikipedia to enlist their support in his - Dereks1x's - position on the John Edwards article.) I strongly support a community ban and suggest that his "Doc" edits be looked at and reversed (if they haven't been already) as they were done by a sock in evasion of a block and are a potential danger to Wikipedia and its readers. Tvoz |talk 18:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I posted a message asking for review of his contributions at Wikiproject:Medicine. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Sysop time is scarce and I haven't had a chance to go over all of this editor's contributions, nor am I qualified to evaluate them. Any editor can revert inappropriate changes. I agree it is disturbing that edits to serious articles such as glaucoma were implemented under guise of authority in order to mask political manipulations. Per the comment below, I also advise the editor who made these changes to consider the potential for personal impact if a reporter discovered this abuse: all of these actions are logged in Wikipedia's user and article histories and publicly available to anyone in the world who cares to find them. Wikipedia endured some bad press over the Essjay scandal and the Siegenthaler affair, but the individuals who perpetrated those deceptions lost their jobs and quite possibly their careers. I strongly recommend ceasing this now and making use of the site's Right to Vanish. Durova^Charge! 20:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Very strongly support per Durova and Tvoz. Calculated deception such as this has no place here. Imagine the bad PR for Wikipedia if he pulled it off, then was discovered by a reporter. Raymond Arritt 18:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support Blocks clearly don't work because he simply evades them with socks. The use of false credentials to gain traction in an argument is disturbing to the highest degree. IrishGuy ^talk 21:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support His actions have gone far out side of finding sources. Doing anything to make sure his POV is heard, cannot be part of Wikipedia.--Dacium 03:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support only if done correctly

Another idea based on Durova's; just a ban and reverting the edits (there aren't that many, I'd be willing to do one day, say day 1 (3/26?) and the next volunteer do the 2nd day of edits, or I could do one day per day and finish in a few days) or we could do that vanishing thing. The reverting might be much simpler to do because it doesn't require sysop intervention. That would be a practical thing that can be done without due process as wikipedia is a privately owned website. I would advise not to revert the administrative comments (that’s vandalism), just the medical articles. It's possible that this thing about credentials will scare him/her enough to stop, especially since you mentioned essjay and siegenthaler which he/she might not know about, i.e. losing job. I think pointing that out is better than blanket conclusion about false credentials without giving full due process.

I mention due process because it's particular interest of mine.

If we make a ban because of a finding of fact of false credentials (which has legal implications), then we must state what the credentials are and then conclusively prove that they are false. Failure to do so potentially puts the Wikipedia Foundation and us on precarious moral and legal grounds. This is because we don't use the usual mechanisms of due process, such as a hearing, a chance for the accused to defend themselves, present evidence, and be questioned about evidence against them.

These points may seem like mere technicalities, but they are not.

For example, is there a legal definition of "doctor"? Was there the practice of medicine? Was the person a "Doctor of Education" or "Doctor of Divinity"? Is the diploma fake? On what basis do we say it is fake? Have we examined the paper? There are many more questions that we can't ask or hear the answer in this kind of setting (which I would like to hear). We don't have wikilawyering to speed up things but that also gets rid of some very important legal safeguards that the outside world has.

If there is just a community ban citing WK:SOCK (supected sock puppetry), it puts Wikipedia on much stronger legal grounds. The effect is the same (a ban). The difference is that we don't have to prove suspected sock puppetry to deny access to a privately operated website (just like a restaurant can refuse service for any reason). Just food for thought, sorry for the length. In the mean time, I'm doing day 1 of the medical articles.Atlas87 23:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

:update: Hey, this is fun, i.e. deleting! Finished deleting every thing medical (but not talk page or administrative replies and related stuff because that's potentially vandalism). The medical stuff is just revert. The only thing I have left is the 3/31/07 stuff. Oh, besides Durova, can someone second my actions (you know, 2nd the motion, i.e. what I'm doing)Atlas87 00:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually all of the edits from Doc_United_States between 3:37 31 March 2007 and 3:37 2 April 2007 are revertible per WP:SOCK. Durova^Charge! 00:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

When the person writes something in his defense, I think reverting that is denial of due process. That's like saying "the court transcript, we'll censor and hide it". In a free society and democracy, we don't hide that stuff. The reverting was done just for medical reasons. Even the talk pages, I think reverting that is vandalism. I will not commit vandalism or support those who do even if they try to justify it. Atlas87 00:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, his edits would still be there in the edit history ... if he claims that as grounds to appeal a ban (assuming it carries), it won't work. Blueboy96 00:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to quibble over hairs, but I am very much opposed to lynch mob activities, such as trying to rid all traces. I favor practical actions, such as reverting the medical changes and ban, but not political statements like "we determined that false credentials were used even though we didn't have a hearing or allow examination of the evidence". Some people call that liberal, I call that due process and fairness and a reflection of who we are as humans. We aren't dealing with al Qaeda ready to blow up people, just some edits. I think we should wait the full 2 weeks then make a decision even though we think we know how it will turn out, not rush to lynch. Also in time, other editors may review what was reverted and decide that a particular sentence is worthwhile.Atlas87 00:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court, and any attempts to make it so are generally very much frowned upon; while it does have "process", the legal concept of due process does not apply. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) To clarify about the defense, the appropriate way for a blocked editor to offer a defense in a community ban discussion is to post to his or her own user talk page. In this particular instance a better option is probably to contact Wikimedia Foundation and invoke the right to vanish. Durova^Charge! 01:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment As noted below, Atlas87 is confirmed to be yet another sockpuppet of Dereks1x's, unsurprisingly to those of us who have been dealing with Dereks1x's disruptive behavior the last few weeks and then given what has been posted here. In my view we are feeding the troll at this point, and it's time to do whatever is needed to stop this abuse - we all have a lot of better things to do here. (I trust someone will block this latest sock before he does more damage.) Tvoz |talk 06:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Atlas87

I strongly suspect that Atlas87 is a Dereks1x/Doc United States sock puppet. The focus on "due process" tipped me off, compare to the last message left by Dereks1x on my talk page, in addition to a couple of Atlas87's edits before he/she began posting on the CN, such as this comment at Doc United States talk page (not long after I started the RFCU) and a this cryptic comment in the PulltoOpen RfA (not long after I commented there). Given the situation, I thought it would be wise to block Atlas87 for now. Please review my block. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Both sides have asked for my review.[10] A checkuser request is getting filed so if it clears things up the account can be unblocked promptly. I agree the account history looks very much like a sockpuppet of someone.[11] Durova^Charge! 01:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I started another RFCU. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And the RFCU confirmed that this is yet another sockpuppet of Dereks1x's. Tvoz |talk 06:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have struck through comments posted by the confirmed sockpuppet. Durova^Charge! 12:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, talk about hanging yourself. This guy kinda had me fooled at first ... experienced Wikipedians usually don't know that you can't revert edits into the ether.Blueboy96 18:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:SNOW

Suggest closing this discussion. Durova^Charge! 20:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessarily seconded. Hell, even the user himself agreed to it on a "qualified" basis. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Formal extension of Punk Boi 8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) community ban

• Punk Boi 8 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · ban · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmed)
• Community banned on ANI for one year after it was decided he was too young to understand what was going on, after being given multiple chances to improve his behaviour. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive219#User:Punk Boi 8.
• Has since evaded with socks to attack users involved in his banning: Krypto Punk Boi 8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), KalehOuse 404 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), MaKE Da ROUN D HOUSE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), P U N K - TYREKICKER2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Punkyboi80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I strongly believe it is time to consider making the one-year community ban a permanent one, and we need to start to consider contacting Telstra, his ISP. – Chacor 02:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Diffs please. My opinion remains neutral. Navou ^banter / _contribs 02:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Look through the socks' contribs. Also, Sarah provided a diff below. – Chacor 03:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Well, the ban (should be) reset on each case of sockpuppetry, so if the assumption is that the user is presently not mature enough to handle editing constructively, then 1 year after he ceases sockpuppetry should be enough time, shouldn't it? And if he/she returns after that and does not improve, then I imagine a permanent ban wouldn't be difficult to implement. I guess I don't see the need; changing it to a permanent ban will not stop the sockpuppetry, and will only render the original purpose of the ban obsolete. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, he hasn't created any more socks since his ban was extended (correct me if I'm wrong), so I think we've gotten the message across. Anyway, a permanent ban would seem a little punitive right now. 1 year after he ceases sockpuppetry will hopefully be enough time for him to grow up and decide to stop treating this place like an RPG. – Riana ^ऋ 02:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

His ban was last extended about four six hours ago I think. He's probably in school right now, hence no new accounts. – Chacor 02:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I was wrong (I don't mind that normally, but in this case... ) I still think that we should just wait a little bit longer before extending the ban indefinitely, although if he creates any more by the end of today (Aus time) I won't object. – Riana ^ऋ 02:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's actually school holidays here, so we might be in for a bit of a headache. Sarah 02:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

(ec) After the ban was reset, he created another account and came back with this gem. [12] Sarah 02:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, that was actually before the most recent ban reset. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I know. But it was after it had already been reset once. I was talking above about the original reset. Sarah 02:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Something doesn't quite feel right with the sockpuppets. Nathan's editing skills were not great, but I don't recall him being insulting or vulgar. I would have expected a sockpuppet to run immediately to ArbCom, an RFC or something like that, not drop insults onto Talk pages or WP:ANI. His last edit is more in line with what he does. Either we all are getting played by these sockpuppets or we all got played from day 1 with Nathan. -- Gogo Dodo 07:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, following up to oneself may be bad form, but the CheckUser results coming up with open proxies doesn't strike me as Nathan either. He came up with Wikipedia:Wikisuite (which was never going to work, see MfD), yet he's able to find two open proxies? I dunno, sounds suspicious. True, the possibilities of some other vandal running across Nathan are pretty slim, but stranger things have happened. -- Gogo Dodo 08:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting theory, although I do know that Nathan has been abusive to me at least once prior to this by email; however, I just agree that this took it to a whole new level, and as Riana commented, "[she] didn't know words like that when I was 11 (allegedly)". Anyways, I've asked Jpgordon if he can add anything further to this discussion, at his talk; he was the checkuser who blocked the OP's, and I hoping if he can give us any further information (whether one of the socks didn't edit from OP's, or whether Nathan edited from OP's, etc.). Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Until checkuser tells me otherwise, I have no problems believing these socks really are those of the chap who got banned. I knew lots of words like that when I was 11, and plenty worse. The change in behaviour pattern is not so surprising: little kids can be surprisingly vindictive when kicked out of their favorite clique. Endorse community ban as per disruptive sockpuppetry and block evasion. User's net contribution to project has been completely negative. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 08:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and do we really know this kid is a kid? Could be just some adult troll faking it. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 08:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly confident from his earlier contributions that he is a child. This new behaviour may be resultant from his claimed Asperger's disorder. In any event, I came here to note that after I originally reset his ban, I received a politely worded (if terse) email from Nathan claiming the socks weren't his.--cj | talk 09:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi, I understand where you're coming from, but I don't like the idea of us going in the direction of community banning people on a guilty until proven innocent basis. I've given this a lot of thought and I do not support extending the ban to indefinite unless we had conclusive evidence that Nathan is responsible for the recent abusive accounts. I also agree with CJ above and my general feeling all along is that Nathan is who he claimed to be. Sarah 03:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, a non-abusive banned sock

• Squrtle11 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

See the justification at User:Squrtle11 (in the template) as well as this. The give-away was the now-deleted talk edit linked in the template (to the Avril fansite). Please review.

However, this raises an interesting question: is he operating abusive accounts out of OP's whilst trying to sneak under the ban with a good-behaving account on a normal IP, or are we dealing with two people (see above)? I'm thinking these are all Noblet, purely because I've seen him get abusive before now in a very similar fashion via email. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 09:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Requesting unblock. The capitals confirm, for me, that all the above absuive socks who write in capitals are Nathan as well. Daniel Bryant 09:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, there's something weird going on here. This guy makes obvious, abusive socks and announces them where everyone can see them on ANI? Right? Using open proxies, so as to avoid checkuser? He then tries to sneak a non-abusive sock under our noses while we're all looking the other way? I'm starting to think that's rather too clever for some random kid: if so, he must very get good grades. What odds we're really dealing with a professional troll? Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 09:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and something for jpgordon: I don't suppose you'd mind indulging my paranoia and checkusering User:Punk Boi 8 against User:LegoAxiom1007? I think the pattern matches up: both serial process abusers. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 09:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

First edit: [13]: 20th edit: [14]: 5th edit: [15]. Obvious sock of somebody, just a question of who. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 09:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I considered that, but didn't want to say anything before; however, the same refusal to listen to polite requests, even rather harshly worded warnings, is present. – Riana ^ऋ 15:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I find this whole case befuddling. I received a perfectly polite e-mail from this user protesting the one-year block, answered it as best I could (this was before any of the socks, or at least before I knew of them), and am waiting for a reply. The socks' tone or very different from the original user's account's, but as noted above that could be accounted for in a number of ways, one of which is that someone is impostering to try to get Punkboi8 in (further) trouble, the other of which is that this user is a bigger problem than first thought. Newyorkbrad 12:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused too. I starting to suspect we've either been getting professionally trolled since day 1, or someone rather malicious is going to the trouble of getting Punk boi 8 into more hot water, like NYB says. – Riana ^ऋ 15:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Trolls picking on trolls or a complete trollfest since the first account's first edit? You pays your money and takes your choice, but damned if I can work out which one. We need some checkuser here to help us out!

As an aside, if that User:LegoAxiom1007 account is a sock, then IMO it's certainly a sock of the real Punk Boi 8, not an imposter. In which case we should certainly community ban the lot. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

<after edit conflict with Mr Chacor> Brad, I think that Nathan has engaged in sockpuppetry, both before and after the community ban. However, I'm not convinced that he is behind the recent abusive sockpuppets. Or, at least, not all of them. I received another lovely message earlier today which mirrored both Nathan and the "Mr Pelican Shit vandal" [16] I think this is just a troll latching on to Nathan's ban to try to make us look like bumbling fools. I think we should leave the ban as a one year ban unless we have conclusive, compelling evidence that Nathan is responsible for the recent accounts. At the moment there seems to be genuine reason to doubt that Nathan is behind (at least all) of these accounts and I think the benefit of the doubt should fall on Nathan's side. Nathan has indicated that he will honour the community ban and leave Wikipedia peacefully. I would like us to give him the opportunity to do so and with the possibility of coming back after his ban has expired and when he is older and more mature. Sarah 03:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Uhm... Pelican shit vandalism? Punkboi9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Even this seems too far for Nathan. – Chacor 03:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Maybe we're overlooking the fact that somoene can read pages for a while and not get logged? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 05:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There are many possible explanations for the recent vandalism, but we need more than possible explanations to justify taking further action against a particular person. Sarah 06:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lukas19-LSLM

The above entitled arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. LSLM (talk · contribs) and Lukas19 (talk · contribs) are each banned from Wikipedia for one year. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 13:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for VinceB

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

VinceB (talk · contribs · block log) hereby banned by the community for disruptive sockpuppetry, relentless edit-warring, personal attacks, and egregious vandalism. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Darwinek's administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply at any time via the usual means (RfA) or by appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Darwinek is placed on standard civility parole for one year. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 15:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

please review ban user:Serafin

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

It appears consensus is reached for a ban of user:Serafin. User Serafin is banned in accordance with this discussion. Banning is not done by a handful of editors, however, this discussion appears unlikely to generate anymore comments. Relisting may be needed if an editor has a substantial objection. The blocking administrator is encouraged to note this ban at the correct ban listing and talk page. Navou ^banter 02:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

POV-pushing, personal attacks & unsigned comments

Moved to WP:AN/I Navou ^banter / _contribs 20:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Common debate ban on Bowsy and Henchman 2000 from AN/I

Consensus for a common debate ban appears to exist. Bowsy and Henchman 2000 are prohibited from participating in discussions together, where one comments, the other may not. This does not preclude the participation of one or the other, the two may not share a common debate. Navou ^banter 20:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

User:LegoAxiom1007

• LegoAxiom1007 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmed)
  

No consensus for BAN. Editors wishing a block review are encouraged to post for review at WP:AN/I. Navou ^banter 15:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

How do we "Assume Good Faith" with an editor apparently pursuing a vendetta?

Moved to WP:AN/I Navou ^banter 15:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta redux

Rfar is in progress. Navou ^banter 09:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA reform

Okay. I'm going to try to push the issue a bit more. According to the top of this page, "[t]his forum was created for the discussion of issues requiring broad community approval," and this may, in fact, be the place to do it, considering the voices at WT:RFA (which is usually RfA regulars and not a broader cross-section of users) and the soon-to-be-rejected ArbCom request regarding RfA reform. As ArbCom isn't going to touch it, and Jimbo is unfortunately not going to step in, and discussion is futile at the RfA talk page, I think it's imoportant to get some discussion rolling on how to reform RfA. I guess we should see if this is even something we can tackle here first, and if it is, start trying to figure out what's best for the situation and just friggin' do it already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think what needs to happen first is establish what isn't going to happen. Once we've gotten out of the way things which either should not change or can not concievably get enough support to change, it will be easier to find where problems we can fix are. -Amarkov moo! 00:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see what is wrong with the current system, I know some people don't like it, but that does not mean it is broken. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This subject is currently undergoing a rigorous and extended debate at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. I agree with HighInBC. The current system works successfully and I have yet to see an argument against it beyond "I don't like it". Gwernol 00:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Adminship has become a "big deal" in exactly the way it was once said not to be. requiring millions of edits in all areas, a perfect record, etc, before the bit can be set is not how things were supposed to be, and I don't think _anyone_ really wants it this way. --Random832 00:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The current system does NOT work successfully. There are perpetual backlogs, and we're all absolutely petrified to desysop anyone for fear of being unable to replace them. Requiring more than a basic level of competence and good intent to be demonstrated before it can be handed out violates WP:AGF. --Random832 00:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The difficulties in passing seems to be based on the supply and demand for admins. There are so many people running, why not take only the best? I passed my second RfA, and I did not have to perform any miracles, I just needed some experience. It was good I did not pass my first, I was not ready. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Has everyone here taken a good look at CAT:AB recently? It's gotten quite large (even though we're slowly chipping away at it). But really, adminship has become a huge deal, even though it shouldn't be. In my opinion, provided you have 1000 or so edits and haven't screwed things over then you're clearly suitable for adminship. Hell, getting approval for AWB or VP takes less work... ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't have backlogs due to a lack of admins, we have them because they are boring to go through. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And adminship becoming a big deal is not the problem of the system, but of the voters themselves. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

First, in response to the forum question I'm not philosophically opposed to discussing this here. If you find a better venue you can move the thread. Second, I agree there's a need for more sysops. Yet I think it skips a couple of steps to leap to a discussion about procedural changes to RFA. My focus this calendar year is on recruitment and coaching. Partly toward that end I've just started a new personal user award User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle that could help identify outstanding content editors as potential sysop candidates. I suspect a lot of the good volunteers aren't even entering the RFA grinder because they're out there writing articles and we don't know their usernames. Let's try some more outreach and be innovative in our methods. Durova^Charge! 01:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Completely OT, but what a cute award! --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova, that is a very on topic alternative solution to the perceived problem, good thinking. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Are we talking about requirements for voters or something? BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 03:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

We'd all like to get a few more hands swabbing the deck. I just have a different approach. I've started two successful RFA nominations and am coaching about half a dozen editors who'd like to earn mops of their own. It shouldn't be too hard for one active sysop to mentor ten people in the course of a year. If enough of us make that a priority our manpower problems would be solved - and admin coaching isn't tough to do. Durova^Charge! 06:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Another instance is for the folks at RFA to calm down for just a bit. While Danny's RFA is pretty much the exception than the rule, we need to realize this: people screw up, give them a break and RFA isn't a vote or a vehicle to decimate the opposition. It is not to wage your personal campaigns or to rehash greviences from eons ago. And if you do not think someone is right for adminship, say it in a manner that not only it is civil, but acts as constructive criticism so the nominee can actually use those comments to better themselves. It has become too cut-throat, it needs to end now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't RFA, which probably does more inappropriate promotions than inappropriate rejections. It's not even especially that there aren't enough people willing and competent to deal with those backlogs; but rather, that those backlogs exist at all is symptomatic of the general dysfunction on Wikipedia. I'm not going to launch a meta-essay on what the deeper problems are since everyone has a litany of them already. For sure, RFA is broken. But more admins running around isn't going to help. More important than reforming RFA is reforming Wikipedia to reduce the amount of stress and bullshit that the existing admins have to deal with. 64.160.39.153 05:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• The above moved from WP:CN. >Radiant< 12:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Why did this get moved? The entire point was to have it at the community noticeboard for a different set of eyes following the Arbcom's refusal to hear it. This completely misses the point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Because it is unrelated to "community sanctions" and therefore does not belong on the "community sanction noticeboard". For additional eyes, I'd suggest posting a note on WP:VP and WP:GO and WP:SIG. >Radiant< 13:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I already explained at the top as to why it fit the description of the page. And, in fact, it may involve a community sanction - the community sanctioning the bureaucrats as to how to deal with this. I'm very close to moving this back at the moment, so I'd need a better reason than "it's unrelated" when that's been addressed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Anon "Dodona"

No consensus for Ban. Navou ^banter 12:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of Arkhamite and 68.84.17.112

Arkhamite (talk · contribs · count) is banned per consensus community discussion. The blocking administrator is encouraged to note this ban by reblocking the editor noting the ban in the block log, user page and ban page. Navou ^banter 12:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ban or block of Ernham

Ernham (talk · contribs · count) is banned per consensus discussion, the blocking administrator are encouraged to note the ban on the user page, block log and correct ban log. Navou ^banter 12:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: Ernham has been indefblocked by The bainer per this ban. Mangojuice^talk 14:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan has closed. The Arbitration Committee's decision is as follows.

AdilBaguirov, Artaxiad (formerly User:Nareklm), and Fadix are each banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year. Aivazovsky, Atabek, Azerbaijani, Dacy69, Elsanaturk, Eupator, Fedayee, Grandmaster, ROOB323 and TigranTheGreat are each placed on standard revert parole; each is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and required to discuss any content reversions on the article talkpage. ROOB323 is also placed on civility parole for 1 year.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Review all old-style "community bans"

(This is in response to the failing Daniel Brandt arbcom case) The conflation of the old-style (no admin willing to unblock) and new-style (a formal discussion has taken place resulting in a consensus to ban) leads to a catch-22 situation - where the reason no admin is willing to unblock is because of the belief that there is a ban with more substance than "no-one has unblocked them" in place. In practice, this means there is NO avenue for someone under an "old-style" community ban to appeal, since an {{unblock}} is essentially a landmine. My proposal is to stop documenting old-style so-called "community bans", and just call them what they are, "indefblocks that haven't been lifted" - and since almost certainly most of these users do deserve community bans, they should be discussed and the bans made official. --Random832 22:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

All prior community bans were discussed on WP:AN or WP:ANI to the best of my knowledge. This board was created as community ban requests were filling up ANI too much. Bans like those on Blu Aardvark, Daniel Brandt, etc. are effective. And removing the "banned" status from the users prevents the editor from preventing abuse from them in the future (a banned user is not allowed to edit, and anyone is allowed to undo their edits regardless of 3RR, sorta like BLP)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, an unknown percentage of the banned users have moved on to other pursuits and it would be a poor use of time to debate whether someone is allowed to edit who hasn't even thought of editing in months anyway. Newyorkbrad 01:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

At Brandt's RFAR I proposed to formalize his status under the present system by holding a ban discussion here. From the tenor of his request to ArbCom, such an action could protect Wikipedians from potential liability by removing any ambiguity about whether indefinite blocked or community banned is the appropriate terminology. Mr. Brandt didn't take up my offer, but perhaps it's worth running a formal community ban discussion for any presumptively banned editor who contests status. Durova^Charge! 01:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC) (fixed - my bad) Durova^Charge! 03:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Um ... I think you mean Daniel Brandt, not Daniel Bryant! :) Newyorkbrad 01:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a very good idea, because the catch-22 described is real. Seconded. -Amarkov moo! 01:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

More thoughts about this matter: we could open a blanket proposal to convert all old indef blocks into (formal new style) community bans for blocks that were implemented prior to (insert appropriate date here). It's been almost seven months since I became active in this side of the process and things seemed to be gelling at that point, so I suppose it's fair to say that any editor who hasn't gotten an indef block lifted in half a year probably had serious enough problems to merit community discussion before editing privileges get restored. If I understand correctly, a confidential arbitration case that took place a few months back probably could have been avoided if the community had handled things this way. Sounds like a plan? Durova^Charge! 03:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

How about handling old-style community ban appeals like appeals to ArbCom are currently done? If someone would like to appeal an old-style community ban, they can email an administrator, who will then post their request here on that person's behalf. That process could also work for those who have been banned a year or two, and may wish to apologize and ask to be let back in. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify here, they could probably email any editors, regardless to admin or not. However, I would that unban requests go to arbcom email. Navou ^banter 13:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

We'd need community approval to do that anyway plus agreement on a dividing line for which indef blocks are covered and which aren't. It would be useful to make a formal statement and clarify the ambiguous status at the same time: Daniel Brandt asserted that it may have been libellous to call him community banned if his actual status was indef blocked. Editors shouldn't need to worry about a lawsuit over semantics. Durova^Charge! 04:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this being a forum for discussing any and all unbanning, regardless of what type of ban it is. I do have a problem with saying that only admins could post an unban request, surely any user in good standing should be able to do so. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC) PS. This page was created not because AN/ANI was being overloaded, but because community bans are more than just an admin decision.

That's an extraordinarily odd reply. How do you construe an implication that only sysops would post a ban proposal into my words? And there's absolutely no need to tell me why this board was created: I'm the editor who proposed this board. Durova^Charge! 12:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, there's no need for us to go back over community bans that were endorsed by the community at ANI, but it would probably be a good idea to have a look at indefblocks that became de facto community bans if someone complains, such as Daniel Brandt. Were would the burden of consensus be: there has to be consensus to unban - if no consensus then they stay banned - or consensus to endorse the ban - if no consensus they are unbanned? I personally favour the former: any thoughts? Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 08:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• (reset indent) I agree that we don't need to proactively review de facto bans. The appeals process as currently constituted is ArbCom, and banned users can contact ArbCom by mail. No further action required, other than to clarify the appeal route and email address. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that we shouldn't revist a ban unless someone specifically asks for it to be appealed. The question about threshold is a good one that I think is worth a subsection of its own. I'll start one and continue there. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Per Guy, we really don't need to preemptively review old cases. Should someone insist that their indefinite block is not really a ban, they can appeal to ArbCom, which can either accept the appeal or refer the matter to this board for community clarification. In the case of Brandt, it is clear from the majority of the arbitrators' comments that they accept the status quo as a ban rather than as a block. Thatcher131 12:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at hold yer horses below before posting here, please. This has morphed into something that barely resembles the actual questions. Durova^Charge! 13:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Just for the sake of clarity, the reason I suggested emailing administrators is because they're used to dealing with such users. If we had some type of volunteer board where both admin and non-admin users could volunteer to handle such requests, that may work even better. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Threshold for unbanning

• would the burden of consensus be: there has to be consensus to unban - if no consensus then they stay banned - or consensus to endorse the ban - if no consensus they are unbanned?

I personally favour the former: any thoughts? Moreschi

If there was no strong argument to ban or unban, then I would support unbanning. But if there is a strong push both ways, I don't know. Both banning and unbanning feel wrong for different reasons. My feel is that such cases ought to be refered upwards to the ArbCom. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• The threshold for unbanning should be an appeal to ArbCom, in my view, or a new debate which includes most of those who contributed to the original debate. Otherwise we may end up with bans quietly undone without reference to the people who originally investigated the abuse. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hold yer horses, folks. The replies here don't jibe with the question: I've proposed that we hold a single discussion where we mass-convert a bunch of old indef block/de facto bans into formal community bans. That means bans under the old process more than half a year ago. The reasons for doing so are to protect Wikipedians from potential libel suits over the semantic distinction between a block and a ban and to prevent troublesome matters such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nathanrdotcom. Durova^Charge! 13:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The excessively legalistic distinction between "block" and "ban" should be removed from Wikipedia policy pages. We implement blocks. We can remove all use of the word "ban" from the policy pages and be done with this nonsense. The community has a consensus to indefitely block so and so. No need for the word "ban" in the first place. WAS 4.250 13:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Where did this...notion...about libel suits come from? And – even if it were a legitimate concern – how would waving our magic wand months or years after the fact provide protection?

Honestly, if there are indef bans that need to be reviewed, let the ArbCom handle it—there shouldn't be a lot of traffic, and most cases can be dealt with very quickly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The notion comes from Daniel Brandt. Durova^Charge! 15:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Daniel Brandt would still be a pain in the ass even if we make the declaration you suggest. If he wants to sue me for saying so, he's welcome to it—and you didn't answer the second part of my question. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the purpose of the request either. Just because we have a new procedure for discussion community bans doesn't mean that bans discussed under the old procedure are invalid, and I don't see any reason to worry about individual or corporate liability here. No one has the right to edit wikipedia, and if Joe Smith decides to edit under his own real name, and acts in such a manner so as to be shown the door, and that fact becomes general knowledge, well whose fault is that? Thatcher131 13:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Look at it this way: if we routed old indef blocks through community discussion before unblocking then Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nathanrdotcom probably wouldn't have happened. It's a simple matter to incorporate a blanket statement along the lines of all existing indef blocks issued prior to October 2006 are declared to be community bans, regardless of their former status. It's a simple step to reduce our worries about Brandt and people like him and the basic notion received initial support until I posted at WP:AN and some off target replies began. Durova^Charge! 16:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be difficult to get consensus on such a broad statement. There's always going to be exceptions and the community would probably spend an eternity arguing over minor points. Additionally, arguing that such a conversion is necessary could actually lead to wikilawyering by banned users who (incorrectly) claim their ban is invalid it was implemented using the old method. I think that reviews should be handled on a case-by-case basis by the ArbCom. ChazBeckett 16:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. If anyone raises a concern about any specific indefinite ban, it can be discussed here or taken to ArbCom; I hesitate to issue a blanket statement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

All right then, if that's the way the wind blows I have no objection. Durova^Charge! 20:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please help document old ban decisions

Several people have been tracking down and linking older community-ban decisions at the listings in WP:BANNED#Banned by the Wikipedia community, but some listings still need such documentation. These are marked with a redlink followed by "[specify]". Please take a look through these entries, and, if you know where any of these redlinks should point, please add the appropriate links to WP:AN or WP:ANI archives, etc. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 19:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Consideration of block or ban for User:Just_H

Per community consensus, Just H (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is hereby banned from the English Wikipedia. *gavel* —²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Just H (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · ban · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmed)

WP:NPA violation by User:Grimerking

Grimerking (talk · contribs · block log)

See here. This seems to be a SPA, and the user has been warned various times about a number of Wikipedia policies, including WP:NPA. --Stephan Schulz 15:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This complaint belongs at WP:ANI. Durova^Charge! 20:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't we have an NPA noticeboard a while back? I thought this was the replacement... --Stephan Schulz 20:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This bears no similarity to the discontinued WP:PAIN. Durova^Charge! 04:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Page-ban suggested for User:CyclePat

I am not an admin, but nothing in the remedy needs an admin's touch (unless violated), so I think I will be WP:BOLD and state that CyclePat is hereby banned by the community from Wikipedia:Editor assistance, as well as all its subpages and talk pages. If CyclePat violates this ban, he may be blocked by any uninvolved adminstrator for up to 24 hours per violation: after 3 such violations, the blocks may escalate in accordance with adminstrative discretion. All blocks to be logged on this noticeboard. SirFozzie 03:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

I am requesting that the community ban User:CyclePat from Wikipedia:Editor assistance, as well as all its subpages and talk pages. If CyclePat violates this ban, he may be blocked by any uninvolved adminstrator for a maximum of 24 hours: after 3 such violations, the blocks may escalate in accordance with adminstrative discretion. All blocks to be logged on this noticeboard. As is usual, this ban applies to all sockpuppets or proxies of CyclePat, such as User:CyclePat2.

Evidence of conduct that requires this sanction: Has already been blocked once in connection for this matter, insults and personal attacks also in connection with this, templating the regulars, Disrupting AIV, Personal attacks on a group of editors, False accusations of vandalism, More personal attacks on a group, More false accusations of vandalism, Ditto, And again, and again, Disruption, incivility, wasting time, more attacks towards Kim Bruning, Two disruptive moves that were reverted that nobody wanted, More disruption, and more!

Narrative: WP:ASSIST was set up in order to assist editors. CyclePat, a devoted member of the WP:AMA, takes this as a challenge to the AMA, and has been enthusiastically trying to disrupt ASSIST: first by requesting a merge - see [92] - but nobody wanted that. Unsurprising, as this was a flagrant abuse of process: WP:RM is not the venue for one project to attempt to usurp another! He has then continued to disrupt WP:ASSIST and harass anyone who has tried to revert/stop him/tell him he's not wanted or needed, as the diffs show. The existence of ASSIST seems to have thrown CyclePat into a frenzy: ban him from it and the disruption will cease. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 19:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Some choice quotes:

. What needs to be done is to get everyone working on the same page. As Boomer said in an article on the Alliance Party in Canada "it's time to come back to the fold. Let this be a formal olive branch to those treasonous, mutinous bastards."

And:

In this case, the removal of comments from the talk page of WP:ASSIST demonstrate the desperation of the members of WP:ASSIST. To what extent are they going to go to if this was more than just a discussion? If they are ready to harass a user, what next? Truly there must be some limit to this non-sense? A further technique that is being used by WP:ASSIST which I have observed, is called bandwagon. This consists of inviting everyone to participate, and Reductio ad Hitlerum, by suggesting and trying to "persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action (AMA) or idea (AMA) by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience. (wikilawyering, etc...)" Such actions, conversations and comments should not be tolerated here on wikipedia and I urge that it stop now prior to going any further within the disputes resolution. Asside: Regarding AMA and ASSIST proposed move page/merger, no matter what the decission... the conversation is an important process of wikipedia’s “building concensus.” Removing the comments or blanking the page prior to finishing such a conversation is a violation of this fundamental rule. On top of that, it falls within the criteria of vandalism.

Best of all:

"I call EA a mutiny on a boat, and currently, the mutineers, instead of trying to fix ship have decided to bail into a little life boat. It's time the ship went back, even if we have to do it with our guns, and gather the mutineers. We need their help just as much as they need our help to make it out alive of the high sea. Personnally, I think they should all be gathered up and shot... forced to do one AMA case."

There is only so much we can put up with. This limited page-ban is the best solution to the problem. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 20:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering a lot of the disruption has taken part on user talk pages, I don't think it could HURT to ban CyclePat from WP:ASSIST, I think that his behavior will merit a site block shortly, if it hasn't already. SirFozzie 19:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This will hopefully prevent that unfortunate outcome. We do not wish to lose this editor altogether, but the disruption must stop. This is the best way of doing so without indefblocking/community banning outright. The cause of this is CyclePat's reaction to WP:ASSIST: cut off that, and hopefully this nastiness will end. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 19:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed as well. I don't want to end up seeing CyclePat gone, I know he's done a lot of good work, but this has got to stop. This seems like the least harmful way to do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I definitely support a ban from editing WP:ASSIST and its subpages, though I think a short-term block may be needed to give him time to cool down. He seems determined to keep disrupting WP:ASSIST despite many requests from many editors to leave that project alone. ChazBeckett 19:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed then, Moreschi. I'd be happier if it had a bit stronger teeth to it, but I guess that a 72 hour block for violating it would be punitive and not preventative (24 hours should be enough of a cool down time). Maybe a short 4-6 hour block to give him a chance to absorb this without saying something in the heat of the moment that would make it harder on him? SirFozzie 19:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with that last part. Needs a couple hours to cool down, especially after this. Feel free to go and beep an admin. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 19:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification about the narrative...first CyclePat moved Editor's assistance to ([93]) without so much as a word, then I reverted ([94]) with the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle/absolute shock that this was happening in mind, and since them it has been looniness. --Iamunknown 19:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• I support the narrow page ban as described by Moreschi (talk · contribs). CyclePat (talk · contribs) is a good faith editor and I don't doubt that he has very good intentions, but his actions at Wikipedia:Editor assistance talkpage and archives is having the exact opposite effect that I think he intends them to have. As I've said before, it is time for him to disengage here and if he won't do it voluntarily, this seems like the next best step to avoid the eventual disruption blocks he will get if he continues this behavior.--Isotope23 19:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say the proposed decision would give the best chance of this user avoiding an otherwise likely indef block. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that if he attacks ASSIST because of his adherence to AMA, then we can contact User:The Thadman (head of AMA) to admonish CyclePat. This works better than a ban. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 19:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Already been tried, failed, multiple times. --Iamunknown 19:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That's already been tried. See [95]. Nothing: the disruption has continued unabated. This needs community intervention. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!}

If this has been done and failed, I will not object a page ban. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 19:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that this user has already been admonished. If you think a particular person will be more persuasive then I am all for a solution that is voluntary, if it works that is. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the fact that he's been blocked once yesterday, for three hours about this same issue and been asked to stop disrupting WP:ASSIST by.. well, just about EVERYONE, I'm beginning to wonder if he's already squandered a "final" chance. SirFozzie 19:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of what I think, but I'm involved with WP:ASSIST so don't rely solely on my judgement. --Iamunknown 19:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

He's certainly squandered a final chance on this issue, which is why we're here, but this is a contributor worth attempting to retain. Not an out-and-out troll: he has done valuable work. If he continues to disrupt other stuff, we can always turn this into a siteban later. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 19:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing other peoples comments (as per WP:VAN) is not right. As per WP:VAN we are allowed to revert such actions. Many editors have decided to remove, not only my comments, but comments from other users at WP:ASSIST. Please, this is an issue of vandalism and perhaps now harassment (since it is ongoing). Of my limited time here are just a few examples.Archive I tried, Moreschi removes my recent comments. I created an archive for the page and the comments which all these user want so badly removed for some reason, (I wish they would explain why?), are actually helpfull towards building a better EA and AMA. Why can't you just leave the comments there and stop harassing me... perhaps then we could work on improving other issues? --CyclePat 19:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Pat, PLEASE take a couple steps back and take a deep breath. Look at how many people have asked you to stop disrupting EA. You've already been blocked once for disruption, and are quite probably heading for longer blocks. It's not worth it. Some fights shouldn't be fought. SirFozzie 19:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Pat, it comes down to this: your comments and actions at WP:ASSIST are not helpful. You have been asked my many members of the community to stay away from that project. Please listen to them. ChazBeckett 19:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:STICK applies here. Just hit "log out", take a break for a couple days, and come back ready to work on the encyclopedia. It's in everyone's best interests. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I wish that it was that simple. I would love to agree with drop the stick... even felt this would come this far once I didn't receive an appology from one of the many users that have reverted me. The stick thing sounds so nice compared to this thing... where they keep trying to "delete" the past conversation... even it's archives. The debate was dead a long... long... long time ago. But the removal of important comments however is a big no no! And is still happening even now. One of the reasons the RM was proposed in the first place is that I knew even if it didn't work I would be able to go back and look at some of the comments and perhaps fix some of the highlited issues, to help fix up AMA, as suggested in the Mfd of AMA. If we keep deleting our history (comments and debates), what do have to work with in the future? --CyclePat 19:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite simply, these things have been reverted because they constituted a flagrant abuse of WP:RM, which is not for project usurpation. Even without this, your personal attacks, harassment, false allegations of vandalism, templating the regulars, personal attacks on a group of editors, comparing them to mutineers and Hitler, cannot be ignored. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 20:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I support the ban, but suggest it be preceded by a week long block. As someone so helpfully pointed out, since EA started CyclePat's every single edit has been devoted to trying to destroy it. Maybe a week would force him to calm down. I also suggest that if he fails to heed this ban or insists he is going to ignore it (through either "WP:VAN trumps CN, I am being HARASSED, I tell you!" or whatever means) he be blocked indefinitely. CyclePat has been incivil, repeatedly characterised good faith edits as vandalism even after warnings from at least a dozen people, has been blocked for his aggressiveness and use of vandalism templates on regular users, including me (and if anything pisses me off most it's being accused of being a vandal), and to be honest, he is wikilawyering with his constant spouting off legal definitions of harrassment and propaganda, not to mention disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (I've had to deal with him rather than work on more important matters). As even his defenders are now starting to leave extremely blunt comments on his talkpage and he is still not listening to them, I think this man has exhausted the community's patience enough. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi, why is it you believe WP:RM constitutes a flagrant abuse of WP:RM? I fail to see personal attacks... unless you consider stating things like "this edit of yours" falls within the realms of WP:VAN and may be considered vandalism? or Please do not blank talk pages? As for the mutineers... if the analogy offended you then I appologize. Perhaps I should have used the bible analogy of Jesus going to get the lost sheep? But then again, perhaps the reference to religion may then offend you. When explaining, it is inherent that everyone understands differently. To meet the different characteristics of these people it is sometimes important to give a different angle or a story to go along. At that point I felt it necessary so people could understand. Finally, as you probably wanted to hear me say... but I did not refere to Hitler... I refered to popoganda theory called Reducio ad Hitlerum which is taken from the wikipedia article. If this has offended you, I again, appoligize... You may wish to see my comments on my talk page regarding this. Personally I believe the fact that you have constantly removed my comments (which fall under the definition of vandalism) cannot be ignored. This is an issue of Vandalism of my comments... it has nothing to do with AMA anymore... this is my personal affair and those people that keep reverting and removing my attempt to try and historically preserve a conversation or even my most recent comments... should be dealt with. Again, all I am asking is that the comments be preserved as per WP:VAN, and what is common practice. It just keeps getting worse and worse. The more you remove the more revert violations that there are to talk about. Please just let the comments be. In the mean time I will take a break from WP:ASSIST. I am not totally unreasonable towards compromises. --CyclePat 20:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikilawyering like this is why the AMA has a bad reputation. You are rewriting history in this manner: your disruption and evident intent to disrupt further is intent for all to see. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 20:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As Dev put it," I have to disagree with this. Normally I am fine with just archiving stuff, but the RfM poll was forced onto our pages, Pat edit warred to keep it here, tried repeatedly to reopen it, and then starting trying to force the remaining mess here again with a discussion closed template". Not only did you use totally the wrong procedure for your attempted usurpation, you then edit-warred against consensus. Then you accuse everyone else of vandalism. No, not really. You still refuse to admit you have done anything wrong: even if you did, this sanction should still be applied, because we can't tolerate such disruption and must not let it go. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 21:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Following another vandalism warning issued to Moreschi's talkpage, even while we are discussing the terms of his ban, I have requested an indef block at AN/I. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've requested that, just for now, we let that slide. Or maybe I'm just in a good mood because the English clubs all won in the Champions league tonight. I agree that usually that would be a indefblock offence, but in the heat of the moment...Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 20:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Would agree that an indef block probably isn't necessary at this point. I think the topic ban will do the job just fine, though I do still support enacting that, just to ensure that this doesn't recur. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggest community removal from WP:AMA

I suggest extending the suggested WP:ASSIST ban to a general removal from WP:AMA and a ban on all pages related to the two. Certainly the community can do this if AMA will not. CyclePat is creating a great deal of animosity across Wikipedia against the AMA in general, and that project as well as everyone else will probably be aided if he simply cuts all of this out. It doesn't have to be forever, but something is needed. /me ducks -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

:Endorse this, with the alteration that the ban from the AMA is for six months only: the ban from ASSIST is indefinite. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 20:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC) On second thoughts, maybe not. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

While I would strongly suggest that AMA do this (it is reflecting badly on them for one of their members to be so far off the plot), A) They have tried to reign in Pat as much as any other folks, and B) I am VERY leery of telling a volunteer group that they must kick out one of their own, even temporarily. SirFozzie 20:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Support Fozzie. I hear he's inflammatory and divisive as an advocate as well. I have to say though, I find it weird that a middle-aged man who apparently is a part-time lobbyist offline is incapble of reading the signs, even when they are twenty foot high neon signs saying "STOP" on them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I take that back, his website appears to indicate he is in his mid to late twenties. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This would be something for the AMA coordinator to decide. I've also just emailed Cyclepat, perhaps we can talk this through. --Kim Bruning 20:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is necessary. CyclePat (talk · contribs) has stated above that he is going to disengage from WP:ASSIST and I'm going to hold him to that. Removing him from AMA seems a bit punitive at this point and the WP:ASSIST ban should be enough right now. Regardless, per Kim I'd prefer to let AMA decide what, if anything, they want to do about this.--Isotope23 20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Aye, agreed. But the ASSIST ban is necessary: CyclePat has had more than enough chances to talk this through amicably and has spurned the lot. This kind of disruption must not be tolerated, ever. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 20:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me get a couple things straight:

1. I'm am usually a pretty nice guy.
2. I do not want to take over EA.
3. I am interim coordinator (temp) of the teams section at AMA. That means all someone needs to do is propose or call for an election anytime to "take over" the resposibility.
4. My actions for a "move page" request to the AMA have been viewed as hostile.
5. Removing these comments in the RM process is however considered hostile as well. (they should emain preserved in archive).
6. A resentement still exist for this hostile "move."
7. Despite the fact that I am following rules... it is unpleasant for everyone.

I think what needs to happen is that I run the other way, and wait for everyone here to "calm" down. Perhaps then, I may be able, later on, to walk by without getting punched. --CyclePat 21:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

So, basically, you don't think you did anything wrong. Do you still not get it? Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 21:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Pat, when you look at the NUMBER of people who have spoken here, in ANI, on your talk page, people who respect your contributions to WP otherwise, people who are viewing the AMA/EA situation for the first time, and they ALL agree you are in the wrong and need to step back, is it not beyond the realm of possibility that yes, you were and are in the wrong here? SirFozzie 21:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidently not, which is why this sanction is, regrettably, necessary. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 21:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you read carefully, you'll see he recognizes all the errors people have claimed he has made, but one. Note that English is not Cyclepat's first language. --Kim Bruning 21:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Kim, the use of the passive voice means that "My actions for a "move page" request to the AMA have been viewed as hostile..." is most certainly not the same as an admission of doing anything wrong. "Despite the fact that I am following rules" - how is that an admission of anything? CyclePat not following the rules is the problem here. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 21:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What Kim Bruning said. I wouldn't like people picking over my crap French grammar to find the hidden meaning. Based on Pat's message of 21:06 UTC here, and this comment, he isn't just stepping back, he's "running the other way". It seems like that should be enough. Or am I missing something? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad. Hopefully, this is the end of it. (well, I still would want the ban from WP:ASSIST to go through, just to try to keep from a possible repeat. SirFozzie 22:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that's something best left to Steve Caruso, perhaps. And perhaps he can think of a better idea, who knows. --Kim Bruning 22:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Why best left to Steve Caruso? At least on the EA/ASSIST side, that can be a remedy the community can levy.. (just curious) SirFozzie 23:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to give him a chance to be seen and heard from, since he's the current AMA coordinator. He might have some useful insights. That, and I'm not sure it's a good idea for the community to interfere with projects like that, especially after we basically disagreed with CyclePat about doing something similar. --Kim Bruning 23:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You are aware that WP:ASSIST is unconnected to WP:AMA, are you not? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The AMA have consistently failed to rein in CyclePat, though not for lack of trying. They've has their chance had it hasn;t worked. I agree that there is no pressing reason as of yet to ban him from the AMA, but that would be within our rights as a community should there be a good reason. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 08:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to remove CyclePat from AMA, especially given that it appears there is consensus to restrict him from interfering in the editor assistance project. Removal from AMA as well seems more punitive then preventative to me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, CyclePat's issues are with EA and not the AMA. I would recomend a ban from EA but not the AMA as I agree with above it would be punitive and doesn't address the issue correctly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aeon1006 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm not familiar with EA, but well aware of CyclePat's "advocacy" for one of our most disruptive trolls, User:Cplot. [96] [97] [98] That included leaving vandalism warnings for admins [99] and long time editors [100] Such "advocacy" isn't helpful for the project and was disruptive. Regretfully, I think having CyclePat step down from AMA would be for the greater good of the wiki community. --Aude (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Those diffs were a while ago. Did CyclePat ever indicate a change of attitude or at least say that those warnings were mistaken? — coelacan — 05:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. In the recent WP:AMA MfD discussion, he disrupted the discussion by Canvassing several groups of AMA members to join the discussion, and stated that he would avoid consensus if it went against AMA by hosting it on his user page. He also stated that he did not believe his advocacy for CPlot was harmful. You can see the discussion here SirFozzie 05:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In that discussion, CyclePat mentions handing over Cplot's IP (from an email) to an admin or checkuser. That helps. I couldn't support a ban from AMA at this time, as I think it would be punitive and not preventative. Any future actions like those taken for Cplot would change my mind, though. And the ban from ASSIST should go ahead immediately. — coelacan — 06:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban for CyclePat on the AMA...no doubt, his efforts to aide and abet notorious vandal User:Cplot was well above and beyond the call of duty of an AMA representative.--MONGO 05:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support banning him from both EA and AMA, his behaviour is too close to trolling. Also I don't mind if he'll be blocked for a week (but not indef yet), to calm down and realise that he went too far. MaxSem 05:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose on principle forcing people to leave a Wikiproject they are truly a part of. If he wants to leave voluntarily, fine, and if you want to try to convince him to leave, fine again. But even if we do have the power to do this, which it isn't clear we do, I don't believe that it should be used. -Amarkov moo! 06:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Disruption is at Assist. This would be punative. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Currently we have consensus for a ban from ASSIST but not one from the AMA: having said that, it is perfectly within our rights as a community to ban anyone from any set of pages for any length of time. If there was a really good reason to ban CyclePat from the AMA, we could. However, there isn't as of yet. Note to those above: stepping back and running the other way is not the same as admission of doing anything wrong, crap grammar or no. The question is: how soon do we wrap this discussion up and enact the ban from ASSIST? Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 08:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • Just to clarify, I'm opposinbg the idea of a ban from AMA. Banning him from Assist is preventative and thoroughly justified. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, looks like everyone is pretty much in agreement that Pat should be banned from EA and its associated talk pages, but is free to continue with his AMA duties. I'm gonna be BOLD and close the discussion. SirFozzie 03:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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