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

Community ban or lengthy block of Reddi

Involved editors are encouraged to attempt measures outlined in dispute resolution. At this time, no consensus for ban. Navou ^banter 12:48, 13 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 [2] - 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 ([3]) without so much as a word, then I reverted ([4]) 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 [5]. 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. [6] [7] [8] That included leaving vandalism warnings for admins [9] and long time editors [10] 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.

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)

Proposed community ban of Rms125a@hotmail.com

• Clerkish note: everyone who has commented agrees with a community ban, but this needs more comments. Thank you. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 12:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

Rms125a@hotmail.com pushes an anti-Irish/anti-Catholic POV into articles, and attacks any editors who disagree with him with charming comments like"FIFTH COLUMNIST PARASITE/CENSOR", "Demiurge--I AM NO ONE'S SOCKPUPPET AND YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT BY NOW, NO MATTER HOW THICK YOU ARE" and "You are a disgrace to the UK.". That's just the tip of the iceberg, more can be seen here and here.

After an RfC in March 2006 a case was put before the Arbitration Committee. The case was not accepted, but two arbitrators recommended that Rms125a@hotmail.com should be banned by acclamation, and was indefinitely blocked in April 2006 after this ANI report.

Since then he's evaded the block using a large number of sockpuppets, see the list of suspected and confirmed sockpuppets.

Checkuser confirmed use of sockpuppets for votestacking in the following AfDs about Irish republicans:

• Martin McCaughey
• Seamus Donnelly
• Tony Gormley
• Eugene Kelly
• Patrick Kelly
• Gerry O'Callaghan
• Declan Arthurs

Recent examples of personal attacks are User:Vintagekits and his cadre of pro-PIRA supporters, the above user and his cadre of pro-PIRA supporters and/or former volunteers and User:One Night In Hackney, one of the cadre of supporters of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (such as User:Vintagekits, User:Pauric, User:GiollaUidir, User:Domer48, et al). Note that the second comment is particularly virulent as "volunteer" refers to Volunteer (Irish republican) and is an accusation that editors are former members of a terrorist organisation. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been whacking this editor's sockpuppets for a few days now. It's time to deal with this firmly, calmly, and decisively. Endorsing Hackney's proposal. Durova^Charge! 03:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban. --ElKevbo 03:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks to be about time to help this one find the door, endorse banning. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As per the above evidence, endorse. Ben Aveling 09:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Jesus, this if you got paid for on-wiki puppet shows this guy would be up there with Bill Gates by now. Endorse community ban per patent disruption, time-wasting, and non-stop sockpuppetry. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 13:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I also endorse the ban. Over 200 sockpuppets, incivility taken to the next level, threats, and prejudiced comments. Clearly the user has passed the point of lesser interventions. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 14:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban. I looked at the evidence presented in the RFC, at the editor's Talk page, and at the edit history of Michael Cusack. This editor has been causing plenty of trouble for over a year now, in spite of people who explained the policies to him very patiently. A terrible record. EdJohnston 15:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the biggest sock drawers I've seen. Plus his handle seems to be a blatant WP:USERNAME violation. Ban.Blueboy96 16:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban Should have been blocked immediately, the username is an Email address, not allowed via WP:USERNAME.Tellyaddict 19:53, 13 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)

Daniel Brandt

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

Really, I don't honestly give a crap what the outcome is. But he is one example of the problem (see above) with the distinction between "old" bans (i.e. indefinite blocks that have not at present been lifted) and "new" bans (where there's a consensus, formed here or on the AN before this noticeboard existed, and documented, to ban the user) which he points out may be defamatory. The simplest way of dealing with it is to have a discussion here to either endorse or overturn the existing "ban". --Random832 00:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Okay then, obviously endorse. People who deliberately try to violate other Wikipedians' privacy should not be allowed to edit. People are indefinitely blocked for even threatening to do that, so actually doing it is most certainly enough for banning. -Amarkov moo! 01:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Has anyone other than Brandt himself argued that he shouldn't be banned? Given that the ArbCom has endorsed the community ban, I don't see much need for a discussion at this point. I believe that such a discussion should be initiated by editors opposing the community ban (if there are any). ChazBeckett 01:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The issue is that it's not obvious that he currently is banned, not that he shouldn't be. And avoiding random accusations of libel, stupid or not, is a good thing. -Amarkov moo! 01:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, the ArbCom has rejected his appeal (it's at 3/7/0/0) and several arbitrators have explicity stated that they endorse the community ban. Still, if we're going to discuss it, I do endorse it. ChazBeckett 01:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse ban, as he owns and compiles information on his websites to personally attack Wikipedians and harass them in person, if possible. The only reason Brandt wants to be unbanned is because he wants to get his article deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• I do semi endorse the ban for everything the guys done, but, I do believe it would be in wikipedia's interests to unblock his account to let him comment on all the issues he has with his page. Maybe it would stop the wikipedia slating from his page? It's just a thought I guess Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:25, 12 April 2007(UTC)
  • Stongly endorse ban after going on his website Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Just read the ArbCom case, ChazBeckett, there are a lot of respected editors that support unbanning him, which is very scary. Endorse ban, I will never support someone who supports the outing of personal information, especially someone who does it regularly like he does. He hasn't even been constructive when he's used sockpuppets here... The people who want him unblocked and keep reverting people who revert his edits have totally lost their minds. He can use e-mail if he has concerns about his bio, like a lot of people do. Grandmasterka 01:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The arguments are at least coherent; "Maybe if he wasn't blocked he wouldn't be so angry" is reasonable at first sight. The only problem is, the idea that you get what you want by doing bad things is a terrible precedent to set. -Amarkov moo! 01:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Endorse, of course. He's done nothing but troll and fling legal threats prior to the indefban of his main account. He should email any concerns about his article to the Foundation. // PTO 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Ban Continues to fling legal threats after the indefban, has sockpuppeted constantly. SirFozzie 01:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• I endorse the ban. Socks, legal threats, more socks, and a clear lack of respect for fellow users and their privacy. Most users would be banned on one of those issues. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• If we've got to discuss this again, thoroughly endorse it. Brandt's request to be unbanned while continuing his harassment and invasions of privacy (ironically enough by a person claiming to be concerned with online privacy) is, quite frankly, laughable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• "Strongly endorse ban" per Amarkov, Ryulong, and SirFozzie. Their reasons for endorsing the ban are good enough for me. Acalamari 01:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• As I stated at RFAR, if Brandt were willing to take down the portion of his site where he reveals the identities of pseudonymous Wikipedians then I could entertain a discussion about possible unbanning. As things stand, per arbitration precedent, the thing to do is remove any possible ambiguity about his status. If he wishes to edit this site then he ought to make good faith gestures that demonstrate willingness to abide by policy. This is what I ask of any banned editor who wishes to return. Durova^Charge! 04:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. Come back, Daniel, all is forgiven? Not after what has happened, there's too much bad blood here for Brandt's presence on Wikipedia to be anything other than disruptive. Brandt's off-wiki disruption, nasty as it is, is a far better alternative than having him back here. No way. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 08:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, per everybody. Anchoress 09:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse — Sockpuppets, legal threats, and violation of privacy; oh, my! I'm also not amused by his sad attempts to undermine Wikipedia, but that is not my rationale. Madman bum and angel 00:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Dare I say overturn? I've asked for, and not seen, evidence of the legal threats that originally got him banned, and, at this point, the reason he's still blocked has nothing to do with any on-wiki activity, but rather a vendetta from us to him and vice-versa. Unlock him - if he's continually violating policy and being a nuisance, then we know the block is right. If he edits normally, we did the right thing. Win-win. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse ban per Grandmasterka and the ArbCom endorsement of the ban (particularly Morven's statement). Concerns about the article can be raised through e-mails to editors of the article. --Coredesat 01:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• All I needed to see was the Wikipedia Watch page that details the real names of editors. Nuke him. Blueboy96 17:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. not a chance. --Fredrick day 19:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - mostly about privacy concerns. Addhoc 19:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse ban, this guy has caused a lot of trouble from what I've seen. As the umpires say: "YOU'RE OUTTA HERE!" CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 19:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per badlydrawnjeff. Skult of Caro (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per common sense. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn- Brandt and I have had our dealings, and I'm on his little hit-list, but the man seems to have discovered how to use talkpages and get his point across. I was fine with the previous de facto policy of letting him post to the talkpage of his article despite being banned. With that no longer being tolerated, a lifting of the community ban to allow him to discuss things he sees that can be cleaned up, is entirely appropriate. -M^ask? 20:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of Jaakko Sivonen

Jaakko Sivonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user, currently blocked indefinitely by Dmcdevit, is asking for a review of their block, and so I'm submitting this for consideration here to "make it official", as it were.

This user has a substantial history of edit warring and tendentious editing stretching back to shortly after he arrived here in the latter part of last year. Jaakko has been blocked 10 times (not including several extensions) previously to Dmcdevit's block, for a range of reasons including three revert rule violations, move warring, incivility and making personal attacks. Jaakko has been repeatedly advised not to edit war and behave in an uncivil fashion, by a range of users (see user's talk page) but persists with the same behaviour nevertheless, even after being blocked.

For examples of revert warring, see:

• Treaty of Nöteborg (history)
• Karelia Suite (history)
• Treaty of Nystad (history)
• Porvoo (history)
• Jaakko Sivonen's move log

For examples of incivility, see: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]

See previous discussions:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive141#Persistent_incivility_and_personal_attacks
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive60#Jaakko_Sivonen_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29

It is clear that this user is unable to advance his position in relation to content disputes without resorting to inappropriate behaviour. It is furthermore clear that this user has not taken the opportunity to mend his ways, despite having ample opportunity to do so. I suggest that the community endorse Dmcdevit's block as a community ban. --bainer (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse community ban: the evidence clearly shows an unrepentant, disruptive POV warrior. We don't need more of those. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 11:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Moreschi says it well. I endorse the proposal also. Durova^Charge! 15:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse community ban. The editor is a net minus for the encyclopedia, and shows no sign of trying to contribute constructively. Bishonen | talk 15:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
• Also endorse per lengthy block log and no improvement or even acknowledgement of edit warring concerns. Addhoc 19:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

WT:RFC#Suggestion to give RFCs teeth - another potential use for this noticeboard

Moved to WT:CN Navou ^banter 12:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed community ban for sockpupeteer William Mauco

• William Mauco (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmed)
  • Pernambuco (talk · contribs · block log)
  • Ştefan44 (talk · contribs · block log)
  • Kertu3 (talk · contribs · block log)

This user received a 2 months block after being caught using sockpuppets for edit-warring. Three sockpuppets were discovered (Pernambuco, Ştefan44, Kertu3). I consider that an indefinite ban is necesarry considering the malicious way of using sockpuppets and also the persistent pattern of edit-warring, which is proved by 4 previous blocks under the name of sockpuppeteer, other 3 previous blocks for 3RR under the name of sockpuppet Pernambuco. He had also many other breaching of 3RR which were not followed by a block, fact that I reported previously at Administrators Noticeboard - see Wikipedia's double standards?. Pernambuco also had more 3RR breaching than is showed in his block log [31] and I didn't count the situations were no 3RR report was made as nobody suspected that William Mauco/Pernambuco/Ştefan44/Kertu3 are the same person.

When block of 2 months was imposed was not taken in consideration that the user evaded his previous blocks through his sockpuppets. For example: Evasion of the 72 hours block imposed in 9 December 2006 by Freakofnurture through sockpuppet Pernambuco, evasion of 10 days block imposed in 20 January 2007 by Robdurbar through sockpuppet Pernambuco, evasion of 24 hours block imposed to sockpuppet Pernambuco in 9 February 2007 by Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington through his main account William Mauco.

For the malicious usage of sockpuppets by this user and his elaborate preparation of an "identity" for each sockpuppet, to avoid suspicions, see bellow:

Moto: "Checkuser does not lie" (User:Irpen)[32]

Personages of the show

1. User:William Mauco, puppetmaster, indian origin, coloured skin (sometimes suffered from racism), excellent English language skills, interested in small statelets which want independence, like Montenegro, Transnistria, started contributions in Wikipedia in 9 March 2006 [33]
2. User:Pernambuco, active sockpuppet, brazilian, interested in a wide large of unrelated topics, some of them which nobody else really care about (like Brazilian made toy trains), native portuguese speaker, making some grammar and punctuation mistakes in English, little knowledge about Transnistria but willing to learn more, started contributions at Wikipedia in 21 September 2006 [34]

   Comment: While a succesfull sockpuppet, in the process of creation of Pernambuco some mistakes were done, like using edit summary, words from Wikipedia slang (“redlink”) and Wikipedia abreviations ("rv" instead of "revert") from his first edit.

3. User:Ştefan44, sockpuppet, romanian, interested in Romanian-related topics, marginal interest about Transnistria, started contributions in Wikipedia in 4 February 2007 [35]

   Comment: Creating a sockpuppet with a "Romanian" identity is a good idea for editing disputes about Transnistria, where an ethnic conflict between Romanians and Russians exist, and you want to push a Russian expansionist POV. Your opponents will be most likely of Romanian origin and it will be difficult for them to argue against a "Romanian" sockpuppet.

4. User:Kertu3, sockpuppet with small activity, started contributions in Wikipedia in 18 February 2007 [36]

Practical usage of sockpuppets in editing disputes

1. Sockpuppeteer protesting for the fact that sockpuppet was not invited in a formal mediation: At Request for Mediation at which he was invited, sockpuppeteer was reluctant to accept mediation because at the begining the RFM didn't listed as involved part his sockpuppet, as he explained in this message to User:Khoikhoi, and afterwards, in the mediation discussions, to the mediator User:Flcelloguy. Quote: "Khoi, (...) the editor (User:MariusM) immediately filed a request for mediation. I have some problems with this and would like your advice and that of any others who can give advice: (...) In his mediation request, MariusM provides a very misleading list of "involved parties"; in effect stacking the deck. In the past week, he has been reverted over this by me, you, Mikka, Pernambuco, Tekleni, Int19h. Yet he leaves out you, Mikka, Pernambuco, Tekleni"[37].
2. In the same mediation were sockpuppeteer and sockpuppet took both part, accusing others for "Use of sockpuppet to influence outcome of formal mediation in dispute resolution": [38]. According his own words, sockpuppeteer was doing "what every responsible Wikipedia editor would do: Making sure that voting and mediation processes are not circumvented by malicious use of sockpuppet" [39].
3. Sockpuppet strongly denying that he is on his sockpuppeteer side in a formal mediation: I just got into all of this because I moved a revert war to Talk (...) Mister William Mauco was not even involved that day (...) What makes you think that I am on "Mauco side"? [40]
4. Sockpuppet asking sockpuppeteer to be more active: "you should check in more, I just reverted back to restore some excellent edits that you had made, and this man Marius-M deleted them, but he is an edit warrior with a long series of bans, and I dont want to start to fight with him, it is best that you defend your own edits, I am warning you, I dont want to do it for you" [41]. "I have defended your intro compromise with Vecrumbas on Transnistria, but where are you, I saw that you were back two days ago, but I am tired of doing this for you and I dont care about Transnistria, not anymore, there is a man there who calls me a liar ("MArius-M") and even reported me, he wanted to get me blocked, so if you want to fight the battle then come back on wiki-pedia and do it yourself"[42]
5. Sockpuppeteeer asking sockpuppet "where are you? (...) defend your own edits!": “Pernambuco, where are you? Your block should have been lifted by now. I want to bring this to your attention: MariusM just undid your edit for the third time. If you don't want to take sides, that is fair. But at least defend your own edits”[43]
6. Sockpuppet accusing opponent for poll fraud through sockpuppets: "It is easy to create sockpuppets, and at least three have been made specifically for this page within the past 24 hours. Don't be surprised if MariusM soon proposes another "vote" or "poll" on something so all these new identities can get a chance to cast their votes"[44]
7. Sockpuppeteer explaining to his sockpuppet that he trust him as an "outsider with a cool head":[45]. Previously, the sockpuppet just explained to his sockpuppeteer: "No reason for me to get involved again because I see on the talk page of that article that some of you know a lot more about this subject than me. When I have time I want to try to learn about it but meantime please all of you could try to work it out among yourselves"[46]
8. Sockpuppeteer explaining to his sockpuppet that in a particular problem the opponent is right (that's excellent! It creates an image of honestity and integrity for sockpuppeteer): "Pernambuco, MariusM is right. The links are there. If you check the source code of the page, it was a Google Ads javascript. Possibly you can't see them because you have javascript turned off in your browser"[47]
9. Sockpuppet asking both his sockpuppeteer and the opponent to reach an agreement, meantime deleting a disputed [48] [49]paragraph with sourced information: "Keep it out until both of you can reach agreement"[50]. Explaining afterwards to the opponent: "I did not want to take sides. My edit was the same kind that I used in the other page. I just moved it all. That way, you can agree in the "talk" section. and it will not affect the main page. If you need me to help you decide then I can do it. but I try not to get involved otherwise" [51]
10. Sockpuppeteer making big effort to convince his sockpuppet of the correctness of his position, in the user talk page: Actually, if I may give my side of the story. Regarding the paragraph which you moved: There is still no consensus, and the debate is ongoing in Talk. Someone who is a selfconfessed editwarrior (a user who calls himself "EvilAlex") is now helping MariusM add it back in, so that they can skirt 3RR ... which is a similar tactic that they have used in the past [52]
11. Unrespectfull sockpuppet, naming his sockpuppeteer "hot head": Both of you are hot heads. Chill out. Don't call each other names[53]. That's good, is consolidating the reputation of "neutrality", and nothing is more difficult to fight with in Wikipedia than "neutrality".
12. Sockpuppet disagreeing with his sockpuppeteer:[54], [55]
13. Sockpuppet asking other editors to be careful when they revert his sockpuppeteer, not to revert also his work: When 'Dpotop' did his revert, he also overwrote some of my changes. The things that he point out can be discussed with the person he reverted (Mauco). (...) Please, I ask, When you revert someone, you should be careful to not overwrite the edits of other people that were done in the meantime.[56]
14. Sockpupeteer drawing attention to his sockpuppet that he was reverted: Pernambuco, I know that you already said that you don't like to get involved in edit disputes, but you just got reverted even as part of a wholesale rvv done by MariusM. He reverted me (as usual) and in the process, he decided to get rid of your work, too, even though your edit was agreed upon by EvilAlex and not by me (...) That sort of behavior is unacceptable. I don't know if you want to defend my edit, but at least you should defend your own.[57]
15. Sockpuppet asking other editors to wait the return of his sockpuppeteer: We should wait for Mauco to come back and respond to this. I already replied to him.[58]
16. Sockpuppet mediating dispute between sockpuppeteer and opponent (but reverting in fact only the opponent): Mariusm+mauco: None of you get your sentence. Both of you: Sort it out in talk space [59]. "Again? Mariusm+mauco: None of you get your sentence. Both of you: Sort it out in talk space" [60]. Also: "mauco and mariusm you need to learn to get along!!!"[61]
17. Sockpuppet explaining that both his sockpuppeteer and his opponent are doing wrong things: "you did not revert mauco and he is not just revertng you, but both of you are undoing the work of many other people also, as part of your conflict, so please stop this. I will just have to look at your log and look at his log, and start to whole sale undo both of you from now on, as a lesson" [62]
18. Sockpuppet telling that he will keep an eye on his sockpuppeteer and will revert him if necesarry: "I will keep an eye on both of you from now on, I will certainly also revert Mr William Mauco (...) the wars between you and him are not helping it, it is just making it worse, both of you"[63]
19. Sockpuppeteer aknowledging the fact that his sockpuppet never supported him, but still trying to convince him: "I know that in the past, you never wanted to stand up for me or take sides. But at least defend YOUR OWN edit" [64]
20. Sockpuppet criticising sockpuppeteer for not following the agreed rules: "You do not follow it either mr Mauco, but right now it is important all of you need to stop that edit war, and I will keep restoring the article if you all keep doing it" [65]
21. Sockpuppet calling his sockpuppeteer "warrior": "I will not take sides, and I never removed anything (...) I do not agree with your warrior friend Mauco either, but he has more sense in this than you do, I am sorry to say it, but you are acting badly"[66]
22. Sockpuppet assuring that he will not ask aproval from his sockpupeteer: "I will never ask Mauco for approval"[67]
23. Sockpuppet outlying the necesity of agreement between his sockpuppeteer and opponent: "my position is that you can not close the mediation (...) because I can see that you do not agree with Mauco and that Mauco do not agree with you"[68]
24. Sockpuppet characterizing sockpupeteer and opponent as "two fighting bears": "Why are you two always fighting? (...) I see the both of you again, and again, just like everywhere else, you are trading in insults, why? Mariusm, you need to adjust your attitude, you have a wrong understanding of the "assume good faith" and "be civil" rules, and William Mauco, you need to stop provoking this man, he has a short temper, so just ignore him" (see also edit summary) [69]
25. Sockpuppet asking other editor to wait until his blocked sockpuppeteer and the blocked opponent will return: "just wait until the two M´s return, and see what they say" [70]
26. Sockpuppet explaining how bad the opponent is: "I am more concerned with the return of MariusM, it was so peaceful when he was away, and now he shows up, and immediately he edits the page and gets reverted, then he edits again, then he goes to my page and starts accusing me of not using common sense, and here on the page he accuses immediately of "plain fallacies", it is his style, why can he not be like the others, we can all make compromises but not him or it seems"[71]. "the troubles only started when you came back from your ban, it was more peaceful here when you were blocked from edited wiki-pedia"[72]. "stop this inane edit warring, marius-m" (edit summary) [73], "the person who is most rude is the MariusM man, he is ignoring all the decisions of other people here on this page"[74]
27. Sockpuppet defending the compromise achieved by his sockpuppeteer but dissapointed for sockpuppeteer's lack of willingness to defend that version: "it is also very bad that Vecrumbas and Mauco will not defend their compromise version, where are they both? if they dont do defend it, then I´ll also stop this, and then the whole compromise falls apart"[75]
28. Happy sockpuppet because of sockpuppeteer's revival: "today Mauco came "back from the dead" and also new user Pompey64 restored the word"[76]
29. Tired sockpuppet, disapointed for lack of support from his sockpuppeteer: "i am tired of trying to help with Moldavian things (...) the people who made their proposals are Mauco and Vecrumbas and now they dont even defend their edits, they want me to do it for them, I dont think I will keep doing that for them"[77]
30. Sockpuppet asking his sockpuppeteer to explain proposed changes in talk page first: "why dont you make a proposal and post it here first before you change the main page, thats the way to avoid all the reverts from the usual edit warriors that hate transnistria, I am neutral but I like to see the proposal first and then decide"[78]
31. Sockpuppet claiming no knowledge about the protection of a page where his sockpuppeteer edit-warred: "I want to move this: (...) but the page is closed, what can I do"[79]
32. Sockpuppet claiming in a discussion where opponent was part, lack of knowledge about a language the opponent was aware that sockpuppeteer has knowledge: [80], [81]
33. Cooperation between sockpuppets: "The Stefan44 version has the latest info,and it is sourced, and all the other editors also gave their explanations, read the log and do not blank this without discussion Mariusm" (edit summary)[82]
34. Sockpuppet teaching Wikipedia policies to both his sockpuppeteer and opponent: "this is about something that Mauco and Mariusm was arguing about six month ago, I just found this policy that I want to share since its so relevant: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources (shortcut: WP:REDFLAG). See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories"[83]
35. Sockpuppet removing information against which he didn't express any reason for removal during months of formal mediation, where both he and sockpuppeteer took part: [84]. At same article removing links allegedly dead, which in fact are not dead [85]
36. Sockpuppet, denying knowledge of the other sockpuppet: "thats not me, I was going to revert you, but kertu3 did it (not me), so I was just watching the two of you" [86]
37. Sockpuppet disscussing with sockpuppeteer about the bad conduct of opponent: "Does anyone know what happened to my edits?"[87], "User:MariusM returned, that was what happened"[88], "I see. That's bad news"[89]
38. Sockpuppeteer explaining legitimate use of sockpuppetry and challenging opponent to accuse him of sockpuppetry, after 2 of his sockpuppets were caught being the same person: "I am going to defend Pernambuco (and now you'll say that I am his sockpuppet, too). (...) I am almost going to give Pernambuco an anti-vandal barnstar here, because at least he/she restored the page while you were busy trying to blank the work that took place by lots of people over the past month"[90]. Opponent was stupid enough to assume good faith of the sockpuppeteer: "I am not going to say now that you are Pernambuco's sock"[91]
39. Sockpuppeteer accusing opponents for "contravention of the most basic Wikipedia principles": "Did anyone stop to look at what Pernambuco was actually doing? I checked the log. He/she didn't introduce anything new, but just kept restoring the page from over-zealous "editing" done in contravention of the most basic Wikipedia principles. I am not in agreement with the methods, but I can understand the motivation" [92]
40. Sockpuppeteer explaining that he didn't edited the page for two weeks, after edit wars between his sockpuppets and opponents: "I was away from this page for nearly two weeks, and when I came back, I checked the History log. The logs speak for themselves: Our "clean" friends have engaged in a lot of blanking, reverting, warring" [93]
41. Sockpuppeteer explaining that his sockpuppets didn't help him, as he haven't edited the article in last 12 days (but his sockpuppets did); explaining also a disagreement with part of the edits of his sockpuppet: "Dude, how can he "be helping me"? The work he protected was not my work. I haven't had a single edit to mainspace in 12 days (...) I notice that Pernambuco supported (and protected) your graveyard edit. (...) I don't agree with it, but at least I play by the rules here[94]
42. Sockpuppeteer asking opponent block for edit-warring with 2 of his sockpuppets: "I believe he needs a significant block to understand in the future that edit warring is clearly unacceptable" [95]. Explaining afterwards that he was not part of the conflict and criticising admin decision for small duration of block: "I was NOT part of the conflict. I didn't have a single mainspace edit to this article for 12 days prior to when this started. Also, MariusM sent an email to his fellow Romanian admin-friend who did a bit of wheel warring and reduced the block to a week, in breach of normal 3RR enforcement practice. Which is much too low"[96]

Hiding evidence

1. Partial deletion of User:Dmcdevit's message regarding the discovery of sockpuppetry, in order to hide the exact names of sockpuppets and the usage of open proxies: [97]

Other issues

1. Intimidating other editors who could be inclined to support opponent in editing disputes: "Be careful with the company you keep, DI.goe, because in the future, this will reflect badly on you" [98], "DI.goe needs to watch his/her steps carefully" [99]
2. Asking 3 different admins for blocking opponent who expressed political beliefs in own userpage: "Please block him now" [100], [101], [102] (the request was not succesfull)
3. Evasion of previous blocks: The 72 hours block imposed in 9 December 2006 by Freakofnurture evaded through sockpuppet Pernambuco, 10 days block imposed in 20 January 2007 by Robdurbar evaded through sockpuppet Pernambuco, evasion of 24 hours block imposed to sockpuppet Pernambuco in 9 February 2007 by Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington through his main account William Mauco.
4. Many other breaching of 3RR which were not followed by a block - see Wikipedia's double standards? and [103]. I didn't count the situations were no 3RR report was made as nobody suspected that William Mauco/Pernambuco/Ştefan44/Kertu3 are the same person.
5. Attempt to disclose the real-life name of opponent: "What say you, (suspected real-life name of opponent)?"[104]. I am not going to say if the result of his investigations about my real-life name is correct or not.

I mention also that I tried twice mediation with Mauco:[105], [106]. In one case he didn't accept mediation, in the other he accepted very late (while his sockpuppet accepted more easy), but he didn't really explained during mediation his position. I tried also arbitration once, but it was rejected [107].

Considering the long term disruption of Transnistria-related articles in Wikipedia, that at least one user - Peteris Cedrins left Wikipedia because of him [108], that many others lost a lot of time discussing with his sockpuppets in talk pages believing that they are disscussing with real persons, the proven bad faith of this user, I consider the 2 months block is not enough and a permanent ban is necesarry.--MariusM 23:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

All I needed to see was the attempt to out another editor's real name. I support this. Durova^Charge! 01:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to out someone's real name, whether you're right or wrong, and you're out the door, especially given his other history. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Due to your thorough documentation, and some of the disturbing behaviour exposed therein, I am of the view that William Mauco's time ought to be up. Biruitorul 07:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent documentation of behavior which is not acceptable here. Especially worrying is the attempt to reveal personal information; I would completely endorse a ban. ♠PMC♠ 09:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

My full support for indefinite ban. William Mauco have vandalized Transnistrian related articles for more than 2 years. I consider the 2 months block is a slap on a face of Wikipedian community. William Mauco should be punished. EvilAlex 12:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the ban. The report above is as impressive in its scope as the user is not in his flaunting of policies. And as stated by others, the attempt to out an editor isn't cool. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 14:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban per well-presented evidence: general nutcasery, a very thorough puppet show, attempted outing of IRL identities, and consistent disruption. Not an editor we need. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 14:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the ban. Since I'm mentioned above, I'll comment at length. Yes, I left Wiki for a while precisely because of Mauco, who (very ironically, as it appears) falsely accused me of sockpuppetry. From the very beginning of that episode, I was completely open to investigation and any interlocution whatsoever -- but even now the matter isn't quite settled. If you Google my name, this is still the third result. So, in other words, Mauco attempted to blemish my reputation by calumny. Was there ever a decisive result? No, there wasn't. Do I care? No, not particularly. What amazed me was that the process couldn't be more simple -- I have never had a so-called sockpuppet, and I offered again and again to talk to Mauco to get him to drop his libel, something anybody can see by trawling through the histories of the talk pages where we met. But I well know that most people don't look too deeply -- oh, hey, here is x, and here he is with his sockpuppet farm, so he must have one. I finally gave up when nobody tried to resolve said situation -- only because Marius was kind enough to give me the name of an admin who would get rid of this did it ever go away. Now it turns out that my accuser is a compulsive liar with a sockpuppet farm? A ban isn't enough -- why not reveal exactly what Mauco was, and what he did? As someone who has always edited under my real identity, which is and always was physical and provable, being accused by such a phantom was humorous at first, but darkly absurd at worst. Mauco shrank back a bit, once, when I accused him of libel. Well, I do believe that Wikipedia is rather nervous regarding libel these days. Maybe we should find out who Mauco really is? --Pēteris Cedriņš 15:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the ban, too, but regarding an "unmasking of Mauco" or "finding out who he really is", I strongly disagree. Peteris, Wikipedia does not support revenge. Our community gains nothing if we find his exact identity. We should concentrate on other, more constructive things. bogdan 19:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse Ban. Has done several things, any one of which could have earned him a ban, all of it together? Gone. SirFozzie 15:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• I endorse the ban. While I think sockpuppetry could be forgiven, attempting to blackmail another user into backing off by being ominous over the release of personal information (that's what it looked like to me) is inexcusable.-- Domitius  talk & contribs 16:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse ban JoshuaZ 16:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strongest possible endorsement. This is a slam dunk--we don't need this clown here. Blueboy96 17:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• I endorse the ban suggestion. Like Domitius said above: suckpuppets can be forgiven, but it also depends on how they are used. Trying to manipulate things in this fashion is disgusting. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Let the other side have a say

I have observed the feud between Marius and Mauco for a while and I totally agree that it has been nasty. Not one but both sides resorted to dirty tricks (Marius' creation of the artificial history to prevail in the move war, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive146#Aggressive move warring, the so called "AndriyK trick", see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK#Reversal of irreversible page moves, first comes to mind but it was overall pretty nasty.)

I must say I was not aware of the allegations of outing someone's real name. Until the checkuser confirmed the puppetry, I was also unsuspecting on how far would Mauco go. Ironically, he tried to falsely accuse Peteris Cedrins un puppetry and at the time I also told him in clear terms to drop it. As soon as the sockpuppetry became apparent via checkuser, I left a message to Mauco.[109]

As he kept posting the futile unblock requests to his talk page, I emailed him trying to cool him down. In an email I told him that his sockpuppetry was an inexcusable offense and the two months block for it is a well-deserved one. I advised him to stop posting unblock requests, sit out his block, or at least a good part of it, before posting anything to his talk. I told him that with proven socking he won't be able to convince anyone that the block has to be overturned. I further advised him to issue an apology as soon as he is allowed to edit for past socking and a statement of understanding that socking is wrong and his agreeing to subject himself to a socking probation, that is to a permaban if he is ever caught socking again.

Today, I received an email from Mauco that he would agree to such conditions. But in any case, I think he should serve the current two months block. While he was under block, there has been several campaigns to turn his block into a permanent one. A renowned troll Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) permabanned through dozens of socks tried to impersonate Mauco by creating the Mauco-like socks posting silly defences to WP:ANI and succeeded to convince some gullible admin to permaban Mauco. That ban was overturned, once it became clear that trolling was Bonaparte's not Mauco's. Now, while the block is still lasting, this here is the new attempt, while a good faith one, to turn the block into a permanent one.

However, I think if we are discussing a permaban, we should let him have a say in this discussion. Therefore, if the permaban is to be considered, I suggest the conditional unblock so that he is allowed to post to this page and this page only whatever it is he has to say. Block should be restored should he make an edit to any page other than his talk and this one. --Irpen 18:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think is fair to let Mauco to defend himself on this page, however I saw cases in Wikipedia when a block was transformed in a permaban without allowing the accused person to defend himself - the case coming in my mind is that of User:Greier, who had also conflicts with Mauco and received an incorrect (in my opinion) 3RR block which was transformed afterwards in permaban. Regarding the "aggresive move warring" report on the Administrators Noticeboard, this is the first time I am aware of it, nobody told me when the report was made. I saw the report is mainly about an other user - Tekleni, and only incidentally I am mentioned. Indeed Tekleni and I had content disputes with both Irpen and Mauco on List of unrecognized countries, my opinion was that correct title of article should be changed in List of secessionist teritories, as I don't consider appropiate the word "countries". There is a chapter with those disscussions in the talk page of the article [110]. My first interaction with Tekleni (Tzekai, at that time) in Wikipedia was when he reverted me on Transnistrian referendum, 2006 and I gave him a Blatantvandal template [111], afterwards he was part in the mediation I asked at that article. Mauco immediatelly tried to obtain Tekleni's support throwing fake accusations against me (editing anonimously - I didn't; rallying meatpuppets - in fact I asked once support from a veteran Wikipedia user, not from a meatpuppet, Mauco used this against me for many months; distorting the facts - I think Mauco was distorting the facts)[112].--MariusM 20:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Community ban or lengthy block of Reddi

Involved editors are encouraged to attempt measures outlined in dispute resolution. At this time, no consensus for ban. Navou ^banter 12:48, 13 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 [114] - 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 ([115]) without so much as a word, then I reverted ([116]) 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 [117]. 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. [118] [119] [120] That included leaving vandalism warnings for admins [121] and long time editors [122] 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.

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)

Proposed community ban of Rms125a@hotmail.com

• Clerkish note: everyone who has commented agrees with a community ban, but this needs more comments. Thank you. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 12:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

Rms125a@hotmail.com pushes an anti-Irish/anti-Catholic POV into articles, and attacks any editors who disagree with him with charming comments like"FIFTH COLUMNIST PARASITE/CENSOR", "Demiurge--I AM NO ONE'S SOCKPUPPET AND YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT BY NOW, NO MATTER HOW THICK YOU ARE" and "You are a disgrace to the UK.". That's just the tip of the iceberg, more can be seen here and here.

After an RfC in March 2006 a case was put before the Arbitration Committee. The case was not accepted, but two arbitrators recommended that Rms125a@hotmail.com should be banned by acclamation, and was indefinitely blocked in April 2006 after this ANI report.

Since then he's evaded the block using a large number of sockpuppets, see the list of suspected and confirmed sockpuppets.

Checkuser confirmed use of sockpuppets for votestacking in the following AfDs about Irish republicans:

• Martin McCaughey
• Seamus Donnelly
• Tony Gormley
• Eugene Kelly
• Patrick Kelly
• Gerry O'Callaghan
• Declan Arthurs

Recent examples of personal attacks are User:Vintagekits and his cadre of pro-PIRA supporters, the above user and his cadre of pro-PIRA supporters and/or former volunteers and User:One Night In Hackney, one of the cadre of supporters of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (such as User:Vintagekits, User:Pauric, User:GiollaUidir, User:Domer48, et al). Note that the second comment is particularly virulent as "volunteer" refers to Volunteer (Irish republican) and is an accusation that editors are former members of a terrorist organisation. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been whacking this editor's sockpuppets for a few days now. It's time to deal with this firmly, calmly, and decisively. Endorsing Hackney's proposal. Durova^Charge! 03:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban. --ElKevbo 03:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks to be about time to help this one find the door, endorse banning. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As per the above evidence, endorse. Ben Aveling 09:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Jesus, this if you got paid for on-wiki puppet shows this guy would be up there with Bill Gates by now. Endorse community ban per patent disruption, time-wasting, and non-stop sockpuppetry. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 13:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I also endorse the ban. Over 200 sockpuppets, incivility taken to the next level, threats, and prejudiced comments. Clearly the user has passed the point of lesser interventions. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 14:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban. I looked at the evidence presented in the RFC, at the editor's Talk page, and at the edit history of Michael Cusack. This editor has been causing plenty of trouble for over a year now, in spite of people who explained the policies to him very patiently. A terrible record. EdJohnston 15:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the biggest sock drawers I've seen. Plus his handle seems to be a blatant WP:USERNAME violation. Ban.Blueboy96 16:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban Should have been blocked immediately, the username is an Email address, not allowed via WP:USERNAME.Tellyaddict 19:53, 13 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)

Daniel Brandt

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

Really, I don't honestly give a crap what the outcome is. But he is one example of the problem (see above) with the distinction between "old" bans (i.e. indefinite blocks that have not at present been lifted) and "new" bans (where there's a consensus, formed here or on the AN before this noticeboard existed, and documented, to ban the user) which he points out may be defamatory. The simplest way of dealing with it is to have a discussion here to either endorse or overturn the existing "ban". --Random832 00:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Okay then, obviously endorse. People who deliberately try to violate other Wikipedians' privacy should not be allowed to edit. People are indefinitely blocked for even threatening to do that, so actually doing it is most certainly enough for banning. -Amarkov moo! 01:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Has anyone other than Brandt himself argued that he shouldn't be banned? Given that the ArbCom has endorsed the community ban, I don't see much need for a discussion at this point. I believe that such a discussion should be initiated by editors opposing the community ban (if there are any). ChazBeckett 01:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The issue is that it's not obvious that he currently is banned, not that he shouldn't be. And avoiding random accusations of libel, stupid or not, is a good thing. -Amarkov moo! 01:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, the ArbCom has rejected his appeal (it's at 3/7/0/0) and several arbitrators have explicity stated that they endorse the community ban. Still, if we're going to discuss it, I do endorse it. ChazBeckett 01:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse ban, as he owns and compiles information on his websites to personally attack Wikipedians and harass them in person, if possible. The only reason Brandt wants to be unbanned is because he wants to get his article deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• I do semi endorse the ban for everything the guys done, but, I do believe it would be in wikipedia's interests to unblock his account to let him comment on all the issues he has with his page. Maybe it would stop the wikipedia slating from his page? It's just a thought I guess Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:25, 12 April 2007(UTC)
  • Stongly endorse ban after going on his website Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 01:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Just read the ArbCom case, ChazBeckett, there are a lot of respected editors that support unbanning him, which is very scary. Endorse ban, I will never support someone who supports the outing of personal information, especially someone who does it regularly like he does. He hasn't even been constructive when he's used sockpuppets here... The people who want him unblocked and keep reverting people who revert his edits have totally lost their minds. He can use e-mail if he has concerns about his bio, like a lot of people do. Grandmasterka 01:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The arguments are at least coherent; "Maybe if he wasn't blocked he wouldn't be so angry" is reasonable at first sight. The only problem is, the idea that you get what you want by doing bad things is a terrible precedent to set. -Amarkov moo! 01:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Endorse, of course. He's done nothing but troll and fling legal threats prior to the indefban of his main account. He should email any concerns about his article to the Foundation. // PTO 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Ban Continues to fling legal threats after the indefban, has sockpuppeted constantly. SirFozzie 01:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• I endorse the ban. Socks, legal threats, more socks, and a clear lack of respect for fellow users and their privacy. Most users would be banned on one of those issues. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• If we've got to discuss this again, thoroughly endorse it. Brandt's request to be unbanned while continuing his harassment and invasions of privacy (ironically enough by a person claiming to be concerned with online privacy) is, quite frankly, laughable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• "Strongly endorse ban" per Amarkov, Ryulong, and SirFozzie. Their reasons for endorsing the ban are good enough for me. Acalamari 01:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• As I stated at RFAR, if Brandt were willing to take down the portion of his site where he reveals the identities of pseudonymous Wikipedians then I could entertain a discussion about possible unbanning. As things stand, per arbitration precedent, the thing to do is remove any possible ambiguity about his status. If he wishes to edit this site then he ought to make good faith gestures that demonstrate willingness to abide by policy. This is what I ask of any banned editor who wishes to return. Durova^Charge! 04:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. Come back, Daniel, all is forgiven? Not after what has happened, there's too much bad blood here for Brandt's presence on Wikipedia to be anything other than disruptive. Brandt's off-wiki disruption, nasty as it is, is a far better alternative than having him back here. No way. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 08:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, per everybody. Anchoress 09:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse — Sockpuppets, legal threats, and violation of privacy; oh, my! I'm also not amused by his sad attempts to undermine Wikipedia, but that is not my rationale. Madman bum and angel 00:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Dare I say overturn? I've asked for, and not seen, evidence of the legal threats that originally got him banned, and, at this point, the reason he's still blocked has nothing to do with any on-wiki activity, but rather a vendetta from us to him and vice-versa. Unlock him - if he's continually violating policy and being a nuisance, then we know the block is right. If he edits normally, we did the right thing. Win-win. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse ban per Grandmasterka and the ArbCom endorsement of the ban (particularly Morven's statement). Concerns about the article can be raised through e-mails to editors of the article. --Coredesat 01:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• All I needed to see was the Wikipedia Watch page that details the real names of editors. Nuke him. Blueboy96 17:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. not a chance. --Fredrick day 19:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - mostly about privacy concerns. Addhoc 19:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse ban, this guy has caused a lot of trouble from what I've seen. As the umpires say: "YOU'RE OUTTA HERE!" CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 19:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per badlydrawnjeff. Skult of Caro (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per common sense. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn- Brandt and I have had our dealings, and I'm on his little hit-list, but the man seems to have discovered how to use talkpages and get his point across. I was fine with the previous de facto policy of letting him post to the talkpage of his article despite being banned. With that no longer being tolerated, a lifting of the community ban to allow him to discuss things he sees that can be cleaned up, is entirely appropriate. -M^ask? 20:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of Jaakko Sivonen

Jaakko Sivonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user, currently blocked indefinitely by Dmcdevit, is asking for a review of their block, and so I'm submitting this for consideration here to "make it official", as it were.

This user has a substantial history of edit warring and tendentious editing stretching back to shortly after he arrived here in the latter part of last year. Jaakko has been blocked 10 times (not including several extensions) previously to Dmcdevit's block, for a range of reasons including three revert rule violations, move warring, incivility and making personal attacks. Jaakko has been repeatedly advised not to edit war and behave in an uncivil fashion, by a range of users (see user's talk page) but persists with the same behaviour nevertheless, even after being blocked.

For examples of revert warring, see:

• Treaty of Nöteborg (history)
• Karelia Suite (history)
• Treaty of Nystad (history)
• Porvoo (history)
• Jaakko Sivonen's move log

For examples of incivility, see: [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142]

See previous discussions:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive141#Persistent_incivility_and_personal_attacks
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive60#Jaakko_Sivonen_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29

It is clear that this user is unable to advance his position in relation to content disputes without resorting to inappropriate behaviour. It is furthermore clear that this user has not taken the opportunity to mend his ways, despite having ample opportunity to do so. I suggest that the community endorse Dmcdevit's block as a community ban. --bainer (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse community ban: the evidence clearly shows an unrepentant, disruptive POV warrior. We don't need more of those. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 11:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Moreschi says it well. I endorse the proposal also. Durova^Charge! 15:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse community ban. The editor is a net minus for the encyclopedia, and shows no sign of trying to contribute constructively. Bishonen | talk 15:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
• Also endorse per lengthy block log and no improvement or even acknowledgement of edit warring concerns. Addhoc 19:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

WT:RFC#Suggestion to give RFCs teeth - another potential use for this noticeboard

Moved to WT:CN Navou ^banter 12:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed community ban for sockpupeteer William Mauco

• William Mauco (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmed)
  • Pernambuco (talk · contribs · block log)
  • Ştefan44 (talk · contribs · block log)
  • Kertu3 (talk · contribs · block log)

This user received a 2 months block after being caught using sockpuppets for edit-warring. Three sockpuppets were discovered (Pernambuco, Ştefan44, Kertu3). I consider that an indefinite ban is necesarry considering the malicious way of using sockpuppets and also the persistent pattern of edit-warring, which is proved by 4 previous blocks under the name of sockpuppeteer, other 3 previous blocks for 3RR under the name of sockpuppet Pernambuco. He had also many other breaching of 3RR which were not followed by a block, fact that I reported previously at Administrators Noticeboard - see Wikipedia's double standards?. Pernambuco also had more 3RR breaching than is showed in his block log [143] and I didn't count the situations were no 3RR report was made as nobody suspected that William Mauco/Pernambuco/Ştefan44/Kertu3 are the same person.

When block of 2 months was imposed was not taken in consideration that the user evaded his previous blocks through his sockpuppets. For example: Evasion of the 72 hours block imposed in 9 December 2006 by Freakofnurture through sockpuppet Pernambuco, evasion of 10 days block imposed in 20 January 2007 by Robdurbar through sockpuppet Pernambuco, evasion of 24 hours block imposed to sockpuppet Pernambuco in 9 February 2007 by Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington through his main account William Mauco.

For the malicious usage of sockpuppets by this user and his elaborate preparation of an "identity" for each sockpuppet, to avoid suspicions, see bellow:

Moto: "Checkuser does not lie" (User:Irpen)[144]

Personages of the show

1. User:William Mauco, puppetmaster, indian origin, coloured skin (sometimes suffered from racism), excellent English language skills, interested in small statelets which want independence, like Montenegro, Transnistria, started contributions in Wikipedia in 9 March 2006 [145]
2. User:Pernambuco, active sockpuppet, brazilian, interested in a wide large of unrelated topics, some of them which nobody else really care about (like Brazilian made toy trains), native portuguese speaker, making some grammar and punctuation mistakes in English, little knowledge about Transnistria but willing to learn more, started contributions at Wikipedia in 21 September 2006 [146]

   Comment: While a succesfull sockpuppet, in the process of creation of Pernambuco some mistakes were done, like using edit summary, words from Wikipedia slang (“redlink”) and Wikipedia abreviations ("rv" instead of "revert") from his first edit.

3. User:Ştefan44, sockpuppet, romanian, interested in Romanian-related topics, marginal interest about Transnistria, started contributions in Wikipedia in 4 February 2007 [147]

   Comment: Creating a sockpuppet with a "Romanian" identity is a good idea for editing disputes about Transnistria, where an ethnic conflict between Romanians and Russians exist, and you want to push a Russian expansionist POV. Your opponents will be most likely of Romanian origin and it will be difficult for them to argue against a "Romanian" sockpuppet.

4. User:Kertu3, sockpuppet with small activity, started contributions in Wikipedia in 18 February 2007 [148]

Practical usage of sockpuppets in editing disputes

1. Sockpuppeteer protesting for the fact that sockpuppet was not invited in a formal mediation: At Request for Mediation at which he was invited, sockpuppeteer was reluctant to accept mediation because at the begining the RFM didn't listed as involved part his sockpuppet, as he explained in this message to User:Khoikhoi, and afterwards, in the mediation discussions, to the mediator User:Flcelloguy. Quote: "Khoi, (...) the editor (User:MariusM) immediately filed a request for mediation. I have some problems with this and would like your advice and that of any others who can give advice: (...) In his mediation request, MariusM provides a very misleading list of "involved parties"; in effect stacking the deck. In the past week, he has been reverted over this by me, you, Mikka, Pernambuco, Tekleni, Int19h. Yet he leaves out you, Mikka, Pernambuco, Tekleni"[149].
2. In the same mediation were sockpuppeteer and sockpuppet took both part, accusing others for "Use of sockpuppet to influence outcome of formal mediation in dispute resolution": [150]. According his own words, sockpuppeteer was doing "what every responsible Wikipedia editor would do: Making sure that voting and mediation processes are not circumvented by malicious use of sockpuppet" [151].
3. Sockpuppet strongly denying that he is on his sockpuppeteer side in a formal mediation: I just got into all of this because I moved a revert war to Talk (...) Mister William Mauco was not even involved that day (...) What makes you think that I am on "Mauco side"? [152]
4. Sockpuppet asking sockpuppeteer to be more active: "you should check in more, I just reverted back to restore some excellent edits that you had made, and this man Marius-M deleted them, but he is an edit warrior with a long series of bans, and I dont want to start to fight with him, it is best that you defend your own edits, I am warning you, I dont want to do it for you" [153]. "I have defended your intro compromise with Vecrumbas on Transnistria, but where are you, I saw that you were back two days ago, but I am tired of doing this for you and I dont care about Transnistria, not anymore, there is a man there who calls me a liar ("MArius-M") and even reported me, he wanted to get me blocked, so if you want to fight the battle then come back on wiki-pedia and do it yourself"[154]
5. Sockpuppeteeer asking sockpuppet "where are you? (...) defend your own edits!": “Pernambuco, where are you? Your block should have been lifted by now. I want to bring this to your attention: MariusM just undid your edit for the third time. If you don't want to take sides, that is fair. But at least defend your own edits”[155]
6. Sockpuppet accusing opponent for poll fraud through sockpuppets: "It is easy to create sockpuppets, and at least three have been made specifically for this page within the past 24 hours. Don't be surprised if MariusM soon proposes another "vote" or "poll" on something so all these new identities can get a chance to cast their votes"[156]
7. Sockpuppeteer explaining to his sockpuppet that he trust him as an "outsider with a cool head":[157]. Previously, the sockpuppet just explained to his sockpuppeteer: "No reason for me to get involved again because I see on the talk page of that article that some of you know a lot more about this subject than me. When I have time I want to try to learn about it but meantime please all of you could try to work it out among yourselves"[158]
8. Sockpuppeteer explaining to his sockpuppet that in a particular problem the opponent is right (that's excellent! It creates an image of honestity and integrity for sockpuppeteer): "Pernambuco, MariusM is right. The links are there. If you check the source code of the page, it was a Google Ads javascript. Possibly you can't see them because you have javascript turned off in your browser"[159]
9. Sockpuppet asking both his sockpuppeteer and the opponent to reach an agreement, meantime deleting a disputed [160] [161]paragraph with sourced information: "Keep it out until both of you can reach agreement"[162]. Explaining afterwards to the opponent: "I did not want to take sides. My edit was the same kind that I used in the other page. I just moved it all. That way, you can agree in the "talk" section. and it will not affect the main page. If you need me to help you decide then I can do it. but I try not to get involved otherwise" [163]
10. Sockpuppeteer making big effort to convince his sockpuppet of the correctness of his position, in the user talk page: Actually, if I may give my side of the story. Regarding the paragraph which you moved: There is still no consensus, and the debate is ongoing in Talk. Someone who is a selfconfessed editwarrior (a user who calls himself "EvilAlex") is now helping MariusM add it back in, so that they can skirt 3RR ... which is a similar tactic that they have used in the past [164]
11. Unrespectfull sockpuppet, naming his sockpuppeteer "hot head": Both of you are hot heads. Chill out. Don't call each other names[165]. That's good, is consolidating the reputation of "neutrality", and nothing is more difficult to fight with in Wikipedia than "neutrality".
12. Sockpuppet disagreeing with his sockpuppeteer:[166], [167]
13. Sockpuppet asking other editors to be careful when they revert his sockpuppeteer, not to revert also his work: When 'Dpotop' did his revert, he also overwrote some of my changes. The things that he point out can be discussed with the person he reverted (Mauco). (...) Please, I ask, When you revert someone, you should be careful to not overwrite the edits of other people that were done in the meantime.[168]
14. Sockpupeteer drawing attention to his sockpuppet that he was reverted: Pernambuco, I know that you already said that you don't like to get involved in edit disputes, but you just got reverted even as part of a wholesale rvv done by MariusM. He reverted me (as usual) and in the process, he decided to get rid of your work, too, even though your edit was agreed upon by EvilAlex and not by me (...) That sort of behavior is unacceptable. I don't know if you want to defend my edit, but at least you should defend your own.[169]
15. Sockpuppet asking other editors to wait the return of his sockpuppeteer: We should wait for Mauco to come back and respond to this. I already replied to him.[170]
16. Sockpuppet mediating dispute between sockpuppeteer and opponent (but reverting in fact only the opponent): Mariusm+mauco: None of you get your sentence. Both of you: Sort it out in talk space [171]. "Again? Mariusm+mauco: None of you get your sentence. Both of you: Sort it out in talk space" [172]. Also: "mauco and mariusm you need to learn to get along!!!"[173]
17. Sockpuppet explaining that both his sockpuppeteer and his opponent are doing wrong things: "you did not revert mauco and he is not just revertng you, but both of you are undoing the work of many other people also, as part of your conflict, so please stop this. I will just have to look at your log and look at his log, and start to whole sale undo both of you from now on, as a lesson" [174]
18. Sockpuppet telling that he will keep an eye on his sockpuppeteer and will revert him if necesarry: "I will keep an eye on both of you from now on, I will certainly also revert Mr William Mauco (...) the wars between you and him are not helping it, it is just making it worse, both of you"[175]
19. Sockpuppeteer aknowledging the fact that his sockpuppet never supported him, but still trying to convince him: "I know that in the past, you never wanted to stand up for me or take sides. But at least defend YOUR OWN edit" [176]
20. Sockpuppet criticising sockpuppeteer for not following the agreed rules: "You do not follow it either mr Mauco, but right now it is important all of you need to stop that edit war, and I will keep restoring the article if you all keep doing it" [177]
21. Sockpuppet calling his sockpuppeteer "warrior": "I will not take sides, and I never removed anything (...) I do not agree with your warrior friend Mauco either, but he has more sense in this than you do, I am sorry to say it, but you are acting badly"[178]
22. Sockpuppet assuring that he will not ask aproval from his sockpupeteer: "I will never ask Mauco for approval"[179]
23. Sockpuppet outlying the necesity of agreement between his sockpuppeteer and opponent: "my position is that you can not close the mediation (...) because I can see that you do not agree with Mauco and that Mauco do not agree with you"[180]
24. Sockpuppet characterizing sockpupeteer and opponent as "two fighting bears": "Why are you two always fighting? (...) I see the both of you again, and again, just like everywhere else, you are trading in insults, why? Mariusm, you need to adjust your attitude, you have a wrong understanding of the "assume good faith" and "be civil" rules, and William Mauco, you need to stop provoking this man, he has a short temper, so just ignore him" (see also edit summary) [181]
25. Sockpuppet asking other editor to wait until his blocked sockpuppeteer and the blocked opponent will return: "just wait until the two M´s return, and see what they say" [182]
26. Sockpuppet explaining how bad the opponent is: "I am more concerned with the return of MariusM, it was so peaceful when he was away, and now he shows up, and immediately he edits the page and gets reverted, then he edits again, then he goes to my page and starts accusing me of not using common sense, and here on the page he accuses immediately of "plain fallacies", it is his style, why can he not be like the others, we can all make compromises but not him or it seems"[183]. "the troubles only started when you came back from your ban, it was more peaceful here when you were blocked from edited wiki-pedia"[184]. "stop this inane edit warring, marius-m" (edit summary) [185], "the person who is most rude is the MariusM man, he is ignoring all the decisions of other people here on this page"[186]
27. Sockpuppet defending the compromise achieved by his sockpuppeteer but dissapointed for sockpuppeteer's lack of willingness to defend that version: "it is also very bad that Vecrumbas and Mauco will not defend their compromise version, where are they both? if they dont do defend it, then I´ll also stop this, and then the whole compromise falls apart"[187]
28. Happy sockpuppet because of sockpuppeteer's revival: "today Mauco came "back from the dead" and also new user Pompey64 restored the word"[188]
29. Tired sockpuppet, disapointed for lack of support from his sockpuppeteer: "i am tired of trying to help with Moldavian things (...) the people who made their proposals are Mauco and Vecrumbas and now they dont even defend their edits, they want me to do it for them, I dont think I will keep doing that for them"[189]
30. Sockpuppet asking his sockpuppeteer to explain proposed changes in talk page first: "why dont you make a proposal and post it here first before you change the main page, thats the way to avoid all the reverts from the usual edit warriors that hate transnistria, I am neutral but I like to see the proposal first and then decide"[190]
31. Sockpuppet claiming no knowledge about the protection of a page where his sockpuppeteer edit-warred: "I want to move this: (...) but the page is closed, what can I do"[191]
32. Sockpuppet claiming in a discussion where opponent was part, lack of knowledge about a language the opponent was aware that sockpuppeteer has knowledge: [192], [193]
33. Cooperation between sockpuppets: "The Stefan44 version has the latest info,and it is sourced, and all the other editors also gave their explanations, read the log and do not blank this without discussion Mariusm" (edit summary)[194]
34. Sockpuppet teaching Wikipedia policies to both his sockpuppeteer and opponent: "this is about something that Mauco and Mariusm was arguing about six month ago, I just found this policy that I want to share since its so relevant: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources (shortcut: WP:REDFLAG). See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories"[195]
35. Sockpuppet removing information against which he didn't express any reason for removal during months of formal mediation, where both he and sockpuppeteer took part: [196]. At same article removing links allegedly dead, which in fact are not dead [197]
36. Sockpuppet, denying knowledge of the other sockpuppet: "thats not me, I was going to revert you, but kertu3 did it (not me), so I was just watching the two of you" [198]
37. Sockpuppet disscussing with sockpuppeteer about the bad conduct of opponent: "Does anyone know what happened to my edits?"[199], "User:MariusM returned, that was what happened"[200], "I see. That's bad news"[201]
38. Sockpuppeteer explaining legitimate use of sockpuppetry and challenging opponent to accuse him of sockpuppetry, after 2 of his sockpuppets were caught being the same person: "I am going to defend Pernambuco (and now you'll say that I am his sockpuppet, too). (...) I am almost going to give Pernambuco an anti-vandal barnstar here, because at least he/she restored the page while you were busy trying to blank the work that took place by lots of people over the past month"[202]. Opponent was stupid enough to assume good faith of the sockpuppeteer: "I am not going to say now that you are Pernambuco's sock"[203]
39. Sockpuppeteer accusing opponents for "contravention of the most basic Wikipedia principles": "Did anyone stop to look at what Pernambuco was actually doing? I checked the log. He/she didn't introduce anything new, but just kept restoring the page from over-zealous "editing" done in contravention of the most basic Wikipedia principles. I am not in agreement with the methods, but I can understand the motivation" [204]
40. Sockpuppeteer explaining that he didn't edited the page for two weeks, after edit wars between his sockpuppets and opponents: "I was away from this page for nearly two weeks, and when I came back, I checked the History log. The logs speak for themselves: Our "clean" friends have engaged in a lot of blanking, reverting, warring" [205]
41. Sockpuppeteer explaining that his sockpuppets didn't help him, as he haven't edited the article in last 12 days (but his sockpuppets did); explaining also a disagreement with part of the edits of his sockpuppet: "Dude, how can he "be helping me"? The work he protected was not my work. I haven't had a single edit to mainspace in 12 days (...) I notice that Pernambuco supported (and protected) your graveyard edit. (...) I don't agree with it, but at least I play by the rules here[206]
42. Sockpuppeteer asking opponent block for edit-warring with 2 of his sockpuppets: "I believe he needs a significant block to understand in the future that edit warring is clearly unacceptable" [207]. Explaining afterwards that he was not part of the conflict and criticising admin decision for small duration of block: "I was NOT part of the conflict. I didn't have a single mainspace edit to this article for 12 days prior to when this started. Also, MariusM sent an email to his fellow Romanian admin-friend who did a bit of wheel warring and reduced the block to a week, in breach of normal 3RR enforcement practice. Which is much too low"[208]

Hiding evidence

1. Partial deletion of User:Dmcdevit's message regarding the discovery of sockpuppetry, in order to hide the exact names of sockpuppets and the usage of open proxies: [209]

Other issues

1. Intimidating other editors who could be inclined to support opponent in editing disputes: "Be careful with the company you keep, DI.goe, because in the future, this will reflect badly on you" [210], "DI.goe needs to watch his/her steps carefully" [211]
2. Asking 3 different admins for blocking opponent who expressed political beliefs in own userpage: "Please block him now" [212], [213], [214] (the request was not succesfull)
3. Evasion of previous blocks: The 72 hours block imposed in 9 December 2006 by Freakofnurture evaded through sockpuppet Pernambuco, 10 days block imposed in 20 January 2007 by Robdurbar evaded through sockpuppet Pernambuco, evasion of 24 hours block imposed to sockpuppet Pernambuco in 9 February 2007 by Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington through his main account William Mauco.
4. Many other breaching of 3RR which were not followed by a block - see Wikipedia's double standards? and [215]. I didn't count the situations were no 3RR report was made as nobody suspected that William Mauco/Pernambuco/Ştefan44/Kertu3 are the same person.
5. Attempt to disclose the real-life name of opponent: "What say you, (suspected real-life name of opponent)?"[216]. I am not going to say if the result of his investigations about my real-life name is correct or not.

I mention also that I tried twice mediation with Mauco:[217], [218]. In one case he didn't accept mediation, in the other he accepted very late (while his sockpuppet accepted more easy), but he didn't really explained during mediation his position. I tried also arbitration once, but it was rejected [219].

Considering the long term disruption of Transnistria-related articles in Wikipedia, that at least one user - Peteris Cedrins left Wikipedia because of him [220], that many others lost a lot of time discussing with his sockpuppets in talk pages believing that they are disscussing with real persons, the proven bad faith of this user, I consider the 2 months block is not enough and a permanent ban is necesarry.--MariusM 23:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

All I needed to see was the attempt to out another editor's real name. I support this. Durova^Charge! 01:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to out someone's real name, whether you're right or wrong, and you're out the door, especially given his other history. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Due to your thorough documentation, and some of the disturbing behaviour exposed therein, I am of the view that William Mauco's time ought to be up. Biruitorul 07:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent documentation of behavior which is not acceptable here. Especially worrying is the attempt to reveal personal information; I would completely endorse a ban. ♠PMC♠ 09:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

My full support for indefinite ban. William Mauco have vandalized Transnistrian related articles for more than 2 years. I consider the 2 months block is a slap on a face of Wikipedian community. William Mauco should be punished. EvilAlex 12:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the ban. The report above is as impressive in its scope as the user is not in his flaunting of policies. And as stated by others, the attempt to out an editor isn't cool. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 14:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse ban per well-presented evidence: general nutcasery, a very thorough puppet show, attempted outing of IRL identities, and consistent disruption. Not an editor we need. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 14:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the ban. Since I'm mentioned above, I'll comment at length. Yes, I left Wiki for a while precisely because of Mauco, who (very ironically, as it appears) falsely accused me of sockpuppetry. From the very beginning of that episode, I was completely open to investigation and any interlocution whatsoever -- but even now the matter isn't quite settled. If you Google my name, this is still the third result. So, in other words, Mauco attempted to blemish my reputation by calumny. Was there ever a decisive result? No, there wasn't. Do I care? No, not particularly. What amazed me was that the process couldn't be more simple -- I have never had a so-called sockpuppet, and I offered again and again to talk to Mauco to get him to drop his libel, something anybody can see by trawling through the histories of the talk pages where we met. But I well know that most people don't look too deeply -- oh, hey, here is x, and here he is with his sockpuppet farm, so he must have one. I finally gave up when nobody tried to resolve said situation -- only because Marius was kind enough to give me the name of an admin who would get rid of this did it ever go away. Now it turns out that my accuser is a compulsive liar with a sockpuppet farm? A ban isn't enough -- why not reveal exactly what Mauco was, and what he did? As someone who has always edited under my real identity, which is and always was physical and provable, being accused by such a phantom was humorous at first, but darkly absurd at worst. Mauco shrank back a bit, once, when I accused him of libel. Well, I do believe that Wikipedia is rather nervous regarding libel these days. Maybe we should find out who Mauco really is? --Pēteris Cedriņš 15:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the ban, too, but regarding an "unmasking of Mauco" or "finding out who he really is", I strongly disagree. Peteris, Wikipedia does not support revenge. Our community gains nothing if we find his exact identity. We should concentrate on other, more constructive things. bogdan 19:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse Ban. Has done several things, any one of which could have earned him a ban, all of it together? Gone. SirFozzie 15:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• I endorse the ban. While I think sockpuppetry could be forgiven, attempting to blackmail another user into backing off by being ominous over the release of personal information (that's what it looked like to me) is inexcusable.-- Domitius  talk & contribs 16:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse ban JoshuaZ 16:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strongest possible endorsement. This is a slam dunk--we don't need this clown here. Blueboy96 17:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• I endorse the ban suggestion. Like Domitius said above: suckpuppets can be forgiven, but it also depends on how they are used. Trying to manipulate things in this fashion is disgusting. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Let the other side have a say

I have observed the feud between Marius and Mauco for a while and I totally agree that it has been nasty. Not one but both sides resorted to dirty tricks (Marius' creation of the artificial history to prevail in the move war, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive146#Aggressive move warring, the so called "AndriyK trick", see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK#Reversal of irreversible page moves, first comes to mind but it was overall pretty nasty.)

I must say I was not aware of the allegations of outing someone's real name. Until the checkuser confirmed the puppetry, I was also unsuspecting on how far would Mauco go. Ironically, he tried to falsely accuse Peteris Cedrins un puppetry and at the time I also told him in clear terms to drop it. As soon as the sockpuppetry became apparent via checkuser, I left a message to Mauco.[221]

As he kept posting the futile unblock requests to his talk page, I emailed him trying to cool him down. In an email I told him that his sockpuppetry was an inexcusable offense and the two months block for it is a well-deserved one. I advised him to stop posting unblock requests, sit out his block, or at least a good part of it, before posting anything to his talk. I told him that with proven socking he won't be able to convince anyone that the block has to be overturned. I further advised him to issue an apology as soon as he is allowed to edit for past socking and a statement of understanding that socking is wrong and his agreeing to subject himself to a socking probation, that is to a permaban if he is ever caught socking again.

Today, I received an email from Mauco that he would agree to such conditions. But in any case, I think he should serve the current two months block. While he was under block, there has been several campaigns to turn his block into a permanent one. A renowned troll Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) permabanned through dozens of socks tried to impersonate Mauco by creating the Mauco-like socks posting silly defences to WP:ANI and succeeded to convince some gullible admin to permaban Mauco. That ban was overturned, once it became clear that trolling was Bonaparte's not Mauco's. Now, while the block is still lasting, this here is the new attempt, while a good faith one, to turn the block into a permanent one.

However, I think if we are discussing a permaban, we should let him have a say in this discussion. Therefore, if the permaban is to be considered, I suggest the conditional unblock so that he is allowed to post to this page and this page only whatever it is he has to say. Block should be restored should he make an edit to any page other than his talk and this one. --Irpen 18:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think is fair to let Mauco to defend himself on this page, however I saw cases in Wikipedia when a block was transformed in a permaban without allowing the accused person to defend himself - the case coming in my mind is that of User:Greier, who had also conflicts with Mauco and received an incorrect (in my opinion) 3RR block which was transformed afterwards in permaban. Regarding the "aggresive move warring" report on the Administrators Noticeboard, this is the first time I am aware of it, nobody told me when the report was made. I saw the report is mainly about an other user - Tekleni, and only incidentally I am mentioned. Indeed Tekleni and I had content disputes with both Irpen and Mauco on List of unrecognized countries, my opinion was that correct title of article should be changed in List of secessionist teritories, as I don't consider appropiate the word "countries". There is a chapter with those disscussions in the talk page of the article [222]. My first interaction with Tekleni (Tzekai, at that time) in Wikipedia was when he reverted me on Transnistrian referendum, 2006 and I gave him a Blatantvandal template [223], afterwards he was part in the mediation I asked at that article. Mauco immediatelly tried to obtain Tekleni's support throwing fake accusations against me (editing anonimously - I didn't; rallying meatpuppets - in fact I asked once support from a veteran Wikipedia user, not from a meatpuppet, Mauco used this against me for many months; distorting the facts - I think Mauco was distorting the facts)[224].--MariusM 20:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)