Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:Bus stop

The user has been the primary figure in a months-long edit war at List of notable people who converted to Christianity and other articles mentioning Bob Dylan's conversion to Christianity. He has been blocked three times for edits relating to Bob Dylan's conversion. [1] [2] [3] He contends that Bob Dylan never converted to Christianity, despite the existence of multiple reliable sources reporting the contrary. He refuses to accept broad consensus [4] concerning the inclusion criteria for the list, and insists that only persons who are presently Christians, and whose conversion conforms with his own strict criteria may be listed. He has made it clear through his words and actions that he will never accept any compromise measures on these matters.

Locking the article multiple times and discussing the dispute has not yielded any resolution, since the user will revert the consensus-supported edits made after the article is unlocked. [5] [6] [7] [8] The user's participation in the discussion has largely consisted of repeating the same argument that he has already posted many times to the discussion page. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] He has accused those who disagree with his views of being antisemites and members of a "hate group." [23] [24] [25] [26] Two MedCab mediations have been attempted, with the latest mediator ending the mediation as irresolvable through that means. The user refuses to accept formal mediation. The latest attempt at reaching compromise, in which the user chose to take no part, resulted in 9 votes for including all converts (former and current) in the list, and 4 editors who have so far explicitly or implicitly agreed not to contest the majority-supported option.

This is no longer a content dispute, but a case of disruptive editing. It is clear that no progress can be made on this article as long as the user is allowed to edit it, since he will not respect consensus, or accept any compromise offer. Nick Graves 02:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It most certianly is a content dispute. There certianly is no consensus in the article. Me, Bus stop, and Cleo123 have simply been outnumbered by the numerous Christian evangelists in the article, so they declared consensus. His blocks were 3RR violations, which seem to have stopped. Stop trying to tilt the scale of the dispute in your favor by calling others disruptive and asking for a block. It looks like the arbcom case isn't going to pass; there really are only two ways we can solve this dispute at this point. We can resort to dirty tricks like this one, trying to block editors as being disruptive for having a different POV as yours and taking out your enemies one at a time like many throughout history have done, or we can do the right thing, and hope arbcom reconsiders our case. Otherwise, I don't know if this dispute will end. But please, be fair.--Sefringle^Talk 03:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Are these the types of edits you're talking about, Nick Graves? Example of Bus stop's edit to article and talk page message. If so you may want to gather more diffs to prove your point. If not, you should probably find some diffs to back up the assertions you've made. Anynobody 03:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to Sefringle: Your implication that there is some sort of evangelical Christian conspiracy to include Bob Dylan in the list does not stand up to scrutiny. There's little incentive for a Christian evangelist to crow over Dylan's conversion, as his current religious status is ambiguous. No editor involved in the discussion is a Christian evangelist, from what I can tell. There are at least two irreligious editors (myself included) and one of Jewish heritage (a former mediator) who support including ex-converts in the list. User T. Anthony, a Catholic, does not believe ex-converts should be listed, but agrees that the current consensus ought bo be respected for now. Bus stop decided to take no part in the latest attempt to find a compromise. Cleo chose not to continue in the last stage of the compromise effort. Your own preference in the last stage of the polling was to include ex-converts, though in a separate section of the article. Nick Graves 03:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a conspiracy. Almost all of you are Christians however, not that that matters, but you have outnumbered us to declare consensus. Please read my comments more carefully in the futute. My vote was not consensus; it was simply taking the best of the two options. Now can you please respond to the rest of my comment? And can we please try to keep our comments shorter and more to the point in the future; it is kind of discouraging to read.--Sefringle^Talk 04:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Christian evangelists? Yikes. I'll have to expand this comment in the future, but I take a bit of offense to that labeling, as it is a misrepresentation of me, and as far as I can see, almost all other editors involved. For example, the only clearly Christian fellows are myself and John Carter, as well as T.Anthony, who opposes inclusion, but accepts the validity of the voting results. JJay, Drumpler, Ttiotsw, zadignose, Moralis, Gustav von Humpelschmumpel, and Tendancer are, as far as I know, all non-Christians, and they all more or less support the inclusion of these individuals. That being said, I don't see a Christian majority in any case, so I don't see why you're trying to paint that picture. Concerning Bus stop's edits, this is not a "dirty trick"- I'm sorry, but this user has been continuously disruptive, and this discussion is going nowhere but in circles with his involvement. He is extremely uncooperative and unrealistic, and decides that only his opinion of a matter is to be taken seriously, even deciding that his interpretation of reliable sources is more weighty than the sources themselves. I'm pressed for time, so I may just add to this later. Hopefully, supportive diffs will be extremely easy to find. Have a nice night, anyway.--C.Logan 04:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't read my last comment asking for shorter responses, but Oh well; I'll start. Obviously this discussion is going nowhere, which is why dirty tricks are being resorted to. My point is simple. There is no consensus.--Sefringle^Talk 04:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Your point is simply off the mark. I am not an "evangelist," nor a Christian, and I resent your lable, but not as much as I resent the never ending accusations of anti-semitism from Bus Stop. The question of Bob Dylan aside, I would move to ban Bus Stop even if he was in perfect agreement with me on every point, because he is the perfect example of a disruptive editor. He will never discuss, nor agree to abide by anyone else's judgment, and he can not participate in mediated discussion. Consensus, meanwhile, has been established, by agreement among many from both sides of the issue. Consensus doesn't mean unaninimity. You are one of the few who reject the established consensus. zadignose 05:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not reject the consensus. I have simply been outvoted, and I still stand where I do. I'm sorry if I offended you with the Christian evangalist label, but my point is there was no consensus to begin with. Wikipedia is not a democracy after all; it strives to build consensus. If it were a democracy, then yes, I'd simply be out of luck, and this discussion would be over. But it is not. Though I must admit talk page edit warring is disruptive.--Sefringle^Talk 05:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly my voting suggestions sounded too much like democracy. However it seemed clear a concensus was just not going to happen. We had been through two informal mediation and a month of debate. I felt like we needed a way to get people really working on some way to end the stalemate. Maybe this was a mistake and I should have been more patient. I am skeptical of that, but I'm open to the possibility. Also it's true I found the resolution disappointing because it is essentially the exact opposite of "compromise." Still I'll tolerate it because I said I would and because consensus or agreement or whatever you want to call it can change. Anyway I'm interested in what you think we should have done instead because perhaps there's something I'm not seeing. What do you think could've resulted in a true consensus? And what do you do when people are too stubborn or secure to come to any compromise?--T. Anthony 10:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I wouldn't call this a 'dirty trick'. Many individuals involved find this course of action reasonable and expected. You disagree, of course, and I understand. Cleo, I'm sure, would as well. However, you should not discount the other editors who find Bus stop's behavior extremely disruptive and grating. This individual is the one repeatedly removing my comments right now without proper details and reasoning, as well as T. Anthony's comment. And pardon the long response, but I kept it rather short- I think that what needs to be covered should be covered, and we shouldn't encourage others to constrict their comments to the point where they would be neglectful of important points. I will try to keep it trim in the future, however.--C.Logan 04:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't care much where you move my comments. Although I think people should get my permission before removing/deleting my comments. In the one case Bus stop could've removed the part where I quoted the post he withdrew about as easily as deleting it all.--T. Anthony 09:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't so much whether Bob Dylan converted to Christianity or not. Sources use the word convert, so we use the word convert -- in relation to 1979. The list was titled List of notable converts to Christianity until a few days ago. But Bob Dylan is not a convert. He is not a Christian. He is a Jew. (He was born a Jew to two Jewish parents.) He has had nothing to do with Christianity in 27 years. He has been involved religiously with Orthodox Jews. Yet they want to list him with wording next to his name that he has left Christianity. He has no place on the list. People (living people) who are not Christians should be excluded from the list. That is what the old title clearly implied. And those are the parameters that the List of notable converts to Judaism adheres to. These are its parameters, found at the beginning of that article:

"This page is a list of Jews. This list of Jews should be restricted to individuals identified as Jews by reliable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. Any items not conforming to these policies may be removed immediately."

They are proper parameters because they are elemental parameters. They are restrictive parameters. They are parameters that prevent point of view pushing. The editors at that article have been arguing that the parameters are "all those notable people who ever converted to Christianity." That is just a contrivance. Just as it is just a contrivance to change the name of the article a few days ago. There are 200 other people on that list for whom the name change is irrelevant, because they are all Christians, or were Christian at time of death. The name change is all about Bob Dylan. They will argue it is also about two other names of non Christians. But this list shouldn't be use to "showcase" anyone who ever had an interest in Christianity. It should be a compilation of those Christians who found Christian identity by way of conversion, as opposed to the only other way -- by way of birth.Bus stop 04:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If I may, I would like to re-present my evidence from the ArbCom case where it was recommended we take this to other channels:

I was initially made aware of the dispute when a request for help was listed at WP:EAR[27] The issue largely revolves around an editor named Bus stop on the List of notable converts to Christianity article. Bus stop continually reverts editor contributions without discussion because of one individual: Bob Dylan.[28][29][30] As can be seen in the diffs, the user continually makes accusations of anti-semitism. It should be noted that Bus stop has had opportunities to participate in votes to determine consensus, but has opted not to do so.[31] If one checks the diffs, reliable sources abound of Dylan's former Christian status. However, instead of actually discussing, Bus stop repeats pretty much everything he's said in the past and makes little to no effort at communication.[32][33][34] However, a compromise was reached by all other editors where the article would be renamed to make clear that this is a list of people who converted to Christianity and that if their status changed, it would be noted in the footnotes.[35] No one, to my knowledge, has ever tried to portray Dylan as a Christian, but has desired to state that he was a Christian convert and believe the article should reflect that. Likewise, this user has demonstrated behaviour unbecoming of an editor to both mediators[36][37] and an admin[38]. Drumpler 07:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• It should be noted that Bus Stop has now received his fourth block related to this issue, this time for a three revert violation (actually about seven reverts) on the TALK PAGE, where he has repeatedly removed other editor's comments. How much of this kind of behavior must be tolerated? zadignose 07:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• I've protected the article several times due to edit disputes. Regardless of the content disputes at the article, in my opinion at least there is some very disruptive editing patterns at the article and talkpage (given the recent silliness over deleted comments) as well as quite a bit of incivility at the talk page (and this has spilled over onto various involved editors' talkpages too). I don't care one way or another about the core content issue here, but the disruptive behavior needs to stop before this page is unprotected for editing.--Isotope23 13:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe that it might interest the individuals involved here that according to this page, Bus stop has had at best a total of 397 edits to mainspace content that was not directly involved in one of the two controversies over which he has expended over 1000 of his total 3000 edits to date on, those two controversies being over Michael Richards and Bob Dylan. While it is perhaps possible that he could in time become a good and productive editor, it is also possible that involvement in such disputes may be one of this editor's primary interests in wikipedia. He has in fact recently said on his talk page that wikipedia is ulimately based, from beginning to end, on what he calls "idealism", which from the context in which it was used seems to me to be, as he uses the term, a synonym for "opinion" or "point of view". If this is the case, and he was indicating that it is his belief that wikipedia is supposed to be made to conform to an individual point of view, then I believe that there may be sufficient cause to say that his goals in editing wikipedia are perhaps at least potentially in conflict with wikipedia's own goals of providing objective, neutral, verifiable information, and that it may be possible that the conflict in these two goals may not be reconcilable. John Carter 13:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Although somewhat, maybe largely even, true he has received some compliments on articles about art. See Talk:Contemporary art#Recent changes.--T. Anthony 14:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
      • That's great, but his participation in the Dylan issue has become disruptive, and has been so for quite a while. That's what this notice was about. Bus stop is certainly capable of making constructive edits on Wikipedia, but I think he's amply demonstrated that he will not be similarly constructive on articles concerning Dylan's conversion. Nick Graves 14:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh sure. Just trying to not to get too hostile or something like that. Anyway I've probably spent too much time on this, I think I'm getting slap-happy.--T. Anthony 16:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• (Much of this I already posted on the arbcom page)

The List of notable converts to Christianity is at least the second time I have witnessed Bus Stop committing disruptive behavior. The first time was on the Michael Richards page, where he likewise continuously made edits over the objections of other editors. His m.o. back then was always saying "use talk page" as a reason to revert other people's edits, then ignore everyone else's discussion on the talk page even if e.g. it was 5 vs 1 against him--in short, it seems like "use talk page" was just being used as a shield/weapon to revert other users' contributions back to his changes, which often are the very definition of original research. We had content conflicts back then, and he continuously falsely accused me as a sockpuppet (of User:Wahkeenah, feel free to checkuser) including in edit summaries as a reason to revert my edits: [39], and WP:STALKed me to another page I frequently edit to revert my changes (in the process reverting a spam link) again using "use talk page" as a false reason: [40].

I participated on the List of notable converts to Christianity after noticing he got blocked twice for 3RR violations on Bob Dylan. [41]. His disruptive behavior seems to have gotten worse, especially now as User:Cleo123 (another disruptive editor whose m.o. is accusing others of "libel" in a very disrespectful tone) whom he befriended from the Michael Richards days) was often prodding and encouraging him, including advising him to refuse moderation and twice attacking mediators ad hominem. His m.o. now seems to have changed from "use talk page" to "anti-semitic" as his reason for discrediting all other's input whom he disagrees with.

In my opinion, Bus Stop is a disruptive editor who fits all criteria in WP:DE to a tee. I do believe he edits in "good faith"--in the sense that he probably doesn't consider himself disruptive and thinks he is making positive contributions to articles--however over the past 6 months his behavior has not changed: he continues to be unable to listen to and work with others, he continues to ignore sources (unless they support his opinions) and insist on committing original research, he does not care about how WP works and treats all articles as a blog for him to voice his own opinions (alarmingly even rhetoric-ed rules should be ignored and it's opinions that matters [42], and when others disagree with his opinions then basically he'll stay there to disrupt--for months if necessary, come hell or high water. I had been thinking that with time, his conduct would become more civil and less original research/soapboxing as there had been occasions where he made positivie contributions on other pages; however consider the rarity of those occasions and the sheer disruption he caused on the Michael Richards and especially List of notable converts to Christianity: we're talking months and hours/day at least half a dozen editors having to address his edits and personal attacks [43] [44], till eventually even more editors and mediators had to be pulled in...I have to say I think this user may just be irredeemable--he will never believe in WP policies, he'll never believe that WP is for replicating what verifiable sources say and not for him to treat as his blog of his views on the world, and he's better off not editing wikipedia. He just needs his own blog.

In summary, he has (and remember these are just a few sample, I can literally spend hours pulling up examples of his violations)

• violated WP:NPA and WP:DE by disrupting the Michael Richards page for ~2 months, often using "use talk page" [45] or falsely accusing other of being sockpuppets [46] as false reason for revert
• violated WP:STALK by stalking me to revert my edits (a removal of a spam link) again using "use talk page" [47]
• violated WP:3RR and got blocked twice for 3RR violation on Bob Dylan [48]
• violated WP:DE and blocked twice for edit warring and disruption on [List of Converts to Christianity]
• violated WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA by personally attacking other users [49] [50]
• violated WP:NOR stated he believe WP should be about opinions (specifically, his own opinions) and rules should not be followed [51]
• openly stated he does not believe in WP:AGF [52] because everyone against him must be a dedicated small group of Christians intending to knock down Judaism (it's alarming User:Sefringle choose to employ the same tactic...last time I checked I for instance am an atheist, not that it should even matter)
• refused a proposal for mediation (see his Talk page)
• when the Mediation Cabal finally had to be invited, and two different mediators decided his obsession with one point had no merit (each time after another week of discussion to build a rough consensus), he personally attacked the mediators [53] [54] and accused them of bias and then ignored the rough consensus to continue disruption

This is not a content dispute, but a systematic pattern of WP policy violations by a single disruptive editor over a span of ~8 months. Yes on occasion he can contribute positively; but personally I find Bus Stop's sheer volume of disruption, personal attacks, complete flaunting of WP rules (primarily WP:NOR and WP:V as this user uses wikipedia like a WP:SOAPBOX to post long rants of his opinions without sources) outrageous. This user should be banned from editing all Judaism-related topics if not wikipedia altogether, as he has indicated no willingness to adapt to wiki rules or build consensus with others unless other's views agree with his own. Tendancer 16:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty good summary. zadignose 00:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretty long, if I don't say so myself. If someone could provide a short summary of that comment, it would be helpful.--Sefringle^Talk 01:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Short summary: Bus Stop is highly disruptive, and has violated virtually every policy and guideline on Wiki. zadignose 02:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The accusations check out: per WP:DE I've blocked Bus stop indefintely for persistent disruption and multiple long-term policy violations. Durova^Charge! 04:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And for the record, I've offered to unblock if Bus stop pledges to enter WP:ADOPT and avoid the article for three months. Durova^Charge! 19:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tecmobowl

Per the discussion, and especially the mediator's closing comments, User:Tecmobowl is indefinitiely blocked. I've read his points, and I do agree with some of them, but there is no excuse at all for sockpuppetry and continued violations of 3RR. I will say this: If Tecmobowl agrees to join some kind of Mentorship program and agrees to a six week topic ban from baseball related articles to let the ill feelings die down, I will personally lift the block. SirFozzie 20:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik decided

The above named arbitration case has closed. Tajik's indefinite ban is endorsed; additionally he is banned by the Arbitration Committee for one year (concurrently).

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, see discussion on WP:AN. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 10:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:LuLu3

This user keeps making socks for more than six months, most recently, with User:Lazyannie, even while the page is protected, to claim that Lucy Ball is alive. Can we just please ban this user? Thanks. Miranda 04:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This user was originally an AOL IP vandal. Back in November or October of last year is when I first remember encountering them. The Lulu3 account is far from their first actual account, but it's been a handy central focus for tracking this vandal. They eventually moved off of AOL IPs, and were then able to be blocked more effectively, though they still IP shift fairly often.

The key thing that this vandal does is repeatedly performing a major rewrite of the Lucy Ball article to claim that Lucy is still alive. But other regular patterns from this vandal include mass blankings of the user and talk page of those opposing him, repeated claims, once confronted, that the Lucy edits were mistakes or accidents, and various general claims of innocence to appeal to the next admin they incounter's lack of knowledge of the situation. By IP and account hopping they have been able to keeep it going where people unfamiliar with their past actions will cut them slack as a brand new user. And then once more they "accidentally" edit the Lucy page to claim that she is still alive. At one point I even had a fairly extensive conversation with the vandal, in which he agreed to stop vandalizing, create a new account, and just edit without vandalism. It was not long before the promise was broken, and the Lucy vandalism resumed.

One thing though. I have to wonder exactly what good a community ban would be on the situation. At this point, as soon as the vandal makes his signature edit, he/she is being blocked. A ban would not make this happen any faster. A ban will almost certainly not persuade the vandal to stop. If the vandal did somehow decide to stop, create an account, and edit correctly, I would be fine with that outcome. I just want the vandalism to stop. - TexasAndroid 15:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious about something here. We have protection to prevent non-accounts from editing. I 'think' we have protection to prevent 'new' accounts from editing. What about protection to prevent anyone with less than x mainspace edits from editing? It seems that something along this line would protect 'established' or 'targeted' articles from being edited by anyone other than a serious editor. And if someone 'new' really wanted to edit one of those articles, they only need to 'go forth and edit' in mainspace for a week or so (probably not something a vandal would be willing to do, simply to be caught in his first vandalism and have to start over). Peace.Lsi john 20:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(and yes, I know this should be on the page protection discussion, which I'll do also) Peace.Lsi john 20:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This kind of problem has been discussed before, and your points are on the mark. Users can set up "sleeper" accounts to get around semi-protected pages, either by simply waiting or by performing innocuous edits until the "new user" time period elapses, and then jump into their previous pattern. The question of counting edits has been raised but not pursued, for the very reason you suggest, that the vandal can simply make enough edits to get past the count. Full protection of the page will stop all of that, but permanent full protection is against wikipedia policy, a policy loophole that vandals try to exploit. Never underestimate the patience of some vandals. We've been dealing with the User:Ron liebman sockpuppet army for 6 months now, with semi-protection of various pages at various times, and as soon as they go off protection he's back at it again, like a perverse hobby of some kind. Baseball Bugs 11:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That type of vandal will also sometimes latch onto a particular article or subject for no apparent reason other than to cause trouble. For example, many of the "Ron Liebman" sockpuppets may in fact be copycats that are just enjoying the "game". There was an editor on the George Reeves page about a year ago that kept posting unsubstantiated conspiracy-theory stuff until he finally was either dispatched or got tired of the game after many, many weeks at it. That is, it's not really about Lucille Ball, it's about the chuckle they get from the interaction with frustrated editors. Baseball Bugs 12:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

In any case, there is no reason to "formalize" the community ban - until this person stops abusing the system they won't be welcome to edit. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, in fact, I think this user is "old school banned," which is indef. blocked when reverting to the evidence that Lucy is alive part. This proposal will only formalize the situation. By the way, the user has made an additional sock, User:Renatob1977. As a result, I don't think this user is cooperating to edit constructively on the encyclopedia. With the last two socks, I have noticed that {{unblock}} was never used by the puppeteer. Miranda 19:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Latest developments are on my talk page. - TexasAndroid 17:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Badlydrawnjeff is cautioned to adhere to the letter and the spirit of the Biographies of living persons policy. Violetriga is admonished for undeleting content deleted under WP:BLP without first undergoing a full discussion to determine its appropriateness, as outlined here. Night Gyr is cautioned to avoid undeleting BLP content without going through a full discussion. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 17:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Markstreet and sockpuppets, as well as William Mauco and EvilAlex are indefinitely banned from making any contributions related to Transnistria. This applies to all namespaces, including talk and user talk pages. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 17:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered

Because the dispute being arbitrated has resolved and any restrictions on the involved editors have been lifted, this arbitration case has been closed with no further action being taken. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 15:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson

[edit] Rex Germanus

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The parties to the case are strongly encouraged to enter into mediation arrangements regarding any disputes over article content that may still be outstanding. All parties are reminded in the strongest possible terms that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a forum for conspiracy, personal attacks, nor the continuation of ethnic disputes by other means. "Parties who continue such behaviour, and parties who consider it their moral duty to call out such behaviour, will be hit on the head with sticks until the situation improves."

Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs) is desysopped, but is welcome to apply for reinstatement at RfA at any time. As always, administrators should not use their administrative powers in conflicts or disagreements they are involved in. Administrators who are parties to this case are reminded that they should find an uninvolved admin to determine if blocks or other actions against any other parties to the case are appropriate, and should under no circumstances take such actions themselves. Any party that violates the ban on admin actions imposed in this case will be summarily desysopped once the violation is brought to the attention of the Arbitration Committee.

This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 15:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A long story which has come to an end? I hope the parties would understand how hard that was for everyone. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to say that if Fayssal thinks that the ruling means that a long story has come to an end, then he is almost certainly gravely mistaken, given ArbCom's decision not to hand out sanctions. We will only move on, as NYB would like, if people stop violating policy with impunity. (This remark is not an invitation to begin another slanging match.)Hornplease 00:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can basically see the harm done by RA and Dagizza by releasing private emails on wiki with the drop in Indian FA's here Image:IndiaFA.JPG There's a lack of trust now between editors.--D-Boy 18:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, remonstrating about what happened in the past, especially by a user who is no longer editing, is exactly the sort of comment that the arbitrators (and I agree with them) have concluded is not needed. Please desist. Newyorkbrad 21:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree NYB. We should move on from this incident.Bakaman 21:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar

The above named arbitration case has closed. All involved parties are granted an amnesty over the edit-warring that had been ongoing but has given the administrators the ability to sanction anyone who begins disruptive editing again.

You may view the full case decision at the case page.

For the Arbitration Committee,

- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 11:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee notes that CharlotteWebb remains a user in good standing, and is welcome to return to editing at any time. Jayjg is reminded to to avoid generating drama by making public proclamations of misbehavior before attempting private discussion and resolution of the issue. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 01:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:SanchiTachi

I have deleted an unblock request posted here as a violation of WP:SOCK. If the editor wishes to appeal under these circumstances then the proper channel is to e-mail the Wikimedia Foundation. Here's their contact information.[71] Durova^Charge! 22:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Continued block evasion through a different IP address only weighs against the chances of any appeal succeeding. I have semiprotected this page. Use proper channels. Durova^Charge! 22:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:TJ Spyke

[edit] Bombaplena requesting unblocking

Looks like this dropped off the admin noticeboard without comment; I'll try bringing it here. User has been blocked following sockpuppetry revealed by Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/YoSoyGuapo. Currently requesting unblocking, I'll probably let User talk:Bombaplena (and its history) speak for itself. Accounts used have included, that I can recall:

• YoSoyGuapo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• BoriquaStar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Bombaplena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

So. Thoughts, anyone? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

See no reason to grant an unblock. As you said, the history speaks for itself. SirFozzie 01:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would just recommend to them they create a new account, tell them that their existing accounts will not be unblocked, and protect their user talk pages. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elvisandhismagicpelvis

I'm not sure if this is even the right place to take this one, but here goes. If anyone can suggest a better way to handle this, I'd be keen to hear. User:Elvisandhismagicpelvis has been a member of Wikipedia for a month, during which time he has made 70 edits. Of those edits, a handful have been constructive, but the majority are blatant edit warring and trolling. You can literally count off the constructive edits on one hand. I'm not suggesting an all out ban here, as I feel this user does have the ability to make a positive contribution to WP, but this user continually disrupts wikipedia with his constant reverting. I'd like to suggest that this user be banned from performing reverts in sporting articles (except for obvious vandalism).

Most of his edits can be broken up into the following sections:

[edit] Sporting in Australia

[79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97]

This one is petty, and I'm ashamed to have been involved in it, but the article has been fine for years, and the change was briefly discussed on the talk page. The user wants references to "Rugby league" changed to "Rugby league football", apparently because "Australian rules football" uses the word football. (I note ironically that the user is not trying to change "Rugby union" in the same way). This user feels that every other editor's opinion is flawed by other users' bias, and this his position is the only right one, and that he is therefore justified in going against consensus.[98]

[edit] Rugby league in France

This one is a bit harder to follow. The user claimed in this edit that the ban of Rugby league in France during the war years was part of a nazi conspiracy to promote "reactionary sports like soccer and rugby union". He cited an image on imageshack, which was a scan of a French letter. Another editor disputed the interpretation of the source,[99] and the edit war began: [100][101][102][103][104].

[edit] General disruption

This user reverted a set of my edits because he had edited the same page before: [105]. I was accused of wikistalking. The user had referenced his edit history in a talk page post (defending the value of his contributions). I looked at a couple of his edits, and found that the article had plenty of room for improvement (links in headings, attempted link to an external image, an out of date external link). Despite me politely explaining this to him, he still believes that I only edited the page to "annoy him".

General trolling: [106].

Mark Chovain 23:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It sounds to me like this issue is localized to a few articles, and that the user hasn't caused nearly enough havoc to merit a community ban. I'd suggest taking this to a Request for Comment rather than here -- you've already got the diffs for it, even. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool - I'll take it over there then. Mark Chovain 02:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iantresman

This user is a general POV-warrior of all sorts of pseudoscience and fringe science ideas who seems to have overstayed his welcome on Wikipedia. His block record includes a 3RR on Eric Lerner, he has repeatedly POV pushing on a variety of articles and harassed editors who do not agree with him. For example, he repeatedly harassed User:ScienceApologist who eventually left the project over a variety of issues, including Ian's behavior. SA was a very productive editor with over 16,000 edits. Ian is now repeating the exact same thing with a relatively new user User:Mainstream astronomy Ian has been placed on probation by the ArbCom which has reduced but by no means eleminated his POV pushing. In summary, Ian is an incorrigible POV pusher and harasser who has in my opinion exhausted the community patience. Since the ArbCom's probation has not stopped him, we should consider a community ban. JoshuaZ 14:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I would not object to a community ban. After Mainstream astromony posted on his user page that he was leaving directly as a result of Iantresman's harassment, Iantresman actually posted on MA's user page to argue! [107] This seems a clear case of Immune to Clue. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If you redirect your talk page to your user page, I don't think it surprising for people to edit your user page, possibly by accident.--Prosfilaes 16:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • If you see "I've left because of harassment from Foo", and you are Foo, then its fairly clear the editor isn't interested in your argumentative posts, on talk or user page. That said, this is one tiny bit of the situation, and not the defining one, merely the most recent. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Evidence?
• I have a pending Request for arbitration on another Administrator.[108]
• I note that JoshuaZ has provided no diffs supporting his accusations of bad editing against me. Which of my edits have pushed pseudoscience?
• I am also productive editor with over 20 articles to my name (see my user page).
• As I noted on the RfA, that User:Mainstream_astronomy

• has just deleted an 18-month old article, CREIL,[109] with no discussion
• He's tagged an article on a senior respectable scientist with at least a pseudoscience tag,[110] (under another username), with no justification, added a highly contentious unsubstantiated comment,[111] that was subsequently removed on the ground of original research
• He's tagged another living person with a pseudoscience tag, again with no reliable source.[112]
• I currently suspect that User:Mainstream_astronomy is a sockpuppet of user:76.214.223.142, both of whom are contributing to an AfD here

--Iantresman 15:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• • 1) Evidence is the Rfar against you, this is already linked. 2) Your Rfar request against FM was not even mentioned until you brought it up, but now that you have, yes I find it further evidence you are more interested in spurious charges and harassment against those who do not turn a blind eye to your argumentative and contentious flouting of the Rfar ruling. 3) Productive is not an issue; it is even irrelevant. "Look at my articles started" is a separate issue from "Watch me disrupt in flagrant violation of an Rfar ruling". 5) Ma's actions are not relevant either. We are not discussing a community sanction of Ma, we are discussing a community sanction of Iantresman. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments. Perhaps you would tell me which of my statement below is incorrect:

• FM accused me [113] of breaking the RfAr with this specific edit,[114] suggesting it was "aggressive biased editing"
• In that edit of 13 July, I removed two tags: Category:Immanuel Velikovsky and Category:Pseudoscience
• At the TIME of removing the tag, the Category:Immanuel Velikovsky, did not exist as a category; it was created over 2 hours later. I mentioned this in my edit summary.
• Hence removing Category:Immanuel Velikovsky was a sensible editorial decision, since the category did not exist.
• The Category:Pseudoscience was removed because the only mention of pseudoscience in the article relates directly to Immanuel Velikovsky, not to the subject "Catastrophism". The Skpetics Dictionary does not have an entry of "Catastrophism", let alone designate it as "pseudoscience". Which begs the question, why was the article tagged as pseudoscience? Additionally, there is no reliable source linking catastrophism with pseudoscience. (Velikovsky also covers astronomy, mythology and geology; do we tag these with the pseudoscience tag?)
• Hence removing Category:Pseudoscience was a sensible editorial decision.
• Consequently, this specific edit does not violate the terms of my probation, because it is not "aggressive biased editing"
• On the contrary, adding the Category:Pseudoscience without a reliable source as justification, is a biased edit. --Iantresman 18:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You've just validated everything they've said about you. Like FM said, classic Iantresman. Odd nature 18:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Odd nature, but that's bull. You've obviously made up your mind in advance. Iantresman has raised valid issues, and you (and others) have avoided answering his specific direct questions. Talk about a Kangaroo court opinion! I'm sorry, but a refusal to respond to valid questions and a legitimate defense of his actions is nothing short of that. I still hold that Ian has a right to defend his actions and question charges leveled against him. To deny that right is to deny due process and make a mockery of the legal system on Wikipedia. That's just my opinion, of course. Mgmirkin 16:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That's easy enough to do, since Wikipedia has no legal system. Wikipedia is not a court of law. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Precisely my point. That's a problem, not a good thing.
• If there is no "rule of law" here, then how can it be considered a fair and unbiased place to live, work, make edits, etc? As it were. People (especially admins or self-proclaimed "experts") can't simply go around making unfounded statements/accusations that may have direct negative consequences on other users (such as bans), then completely ignore a user's right to defend their action or ask valid pointed questions toward the end of peaceable dispute resolution.
• This is an issue that needs addressing. This is the issue behind Ian's recent ArbCom request against FeloniousMonk {sp?}, which really should have been resolved prior to a ban (and which some have used as specious "evidence" of malfeasance; defending oneself against perceived false allegations is not evidence of malfeasance, regardless of biased popular opinion). Makes for bad policy to ban someone before they are given a chance to utilize their right to redress grievances that have possible direct impact on said sanctions, etc. My opinion. Mgmirkin 17:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally would have been a bit more open to hearing Ian's arguments, but when you engage in meatpuppetry rather than request an unblock to let yourself be heard, your credibility here is nil. Blueboy96 17:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting proposal you have there, Mgmirkin. Can you give us any examples of other websites that have successfully implemented their own court system, complete with promise of "due process"? I'm trying to wrap my head around exactly how that would work within the context of a volunteer-managed online community. Examples of existing systems would help. Thanks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: Just in case there was was even the slightest shadow of a doubt, ArbCom has unanimously stated that Wikipedia is not a court of law. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Iantresman strikes me as a pseudscience POV pusher who is quick to resort to attacks, abuse of process and endless demands for evidence against anyone who dares to reminds him of the findings of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and his resulting probation. Seems addicted to conflict and unwilling to contribute elsewhere, so considering that he's been ignoring his probation and misrepresenting its terms, a community ban not only seems warranted but inevitable. Odd nature 18:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I find Iantresman to be superficially reasonable but ultimately obdurate. He flatly refused to suggest any kind of compromise in at least one dispute, on an article where he was already subject to ArbCom sanction, and his demands rapidly became vexatious. His technique is repeatably to pretend at sweet reason while insisting that others justify the mainstream view to his satisfaction - which of course is never forthcoming since the fundamental problem is that he simply prefers the fringe or pseudoscientific point of view. This refusal to bend on demands which are rejected for good reason by other editors, or to drop them, makes him a prolific source of wasted effort for editors who would much prefer to be doing something else, but he also interprets silence as assent, so argument is necessary. I had enough of him a long time ago. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering the discussion I saw elsewhere about Iantresman using alternate accounts and trying to get help in his recent edit wars.. I can't help but to agree with the originator. SirFozzie 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hearsay is invalid rhetoric akin to "a friend of a friend of a friend said something specious about someone else, so you should believe it." It's not notable/verifiable and has no place being used as support of an argument here. Cite specific issues or conversations. Please, and thank you. Mgmirkin 17:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked User:Iantresman. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Strongest possible support. If you drive someone from Wikipedia and you haven't been community banned, you damned well better be. Blueboy96 21:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I do think Ian became less aggressive after the RFAR but that doesn't mean he has stopped causing problems, and Guy's statement is quite accurate. It can be very seductive trying to argue with someone like Iantresman, and as a result a lot of editors end up doing it, a lot, and yet it solves nothing. Mangojuice^talk 23:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I support the block too. ElinorD (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Per my comments to RfArb, I support this block. Wikipedia should never have been allowed to become a game wherein tendentious editors drive off mainstream experts by sheer perseverance accompanied by the superficial appearance of civility (per JzG above - and continuous litigation is not civil, actually.) It has become exactly that sort of game, and I can only hope that this action takes us one small step towards solving the problem.Proabivouac 01:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong support. The moment of truth came when he began kicking User:ScienceApologist when the latter was down. The community needs to do a better job of ushering these folks quickly to the door or we will end up with a form of Gresham's Law, in which the bad editors drive out the good. Raymond Arritt 02:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• The irony. It seems that iantresman was replying to the editor,[115] who was obviously not down then, but trying to justify why policy and his ban shouldn't apply to him, [116]
• And not requiring an Admin to justify their actions, and banning an editor so they can't argue for it, let alone reply, is holding down an editor in my book. That's very big of you. --83.151.17.190 10:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ian, this is not not how it went. SA had already stated that he was leaving and yet you still kept getting in your digs. Raymond Arritt 15:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I move to close. It's safe to say this guy is done editing here--driving someone from Wikipedia by means of harassment is by itself a bannable offense, in my opinion. Blueboy96 23:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I oppose a close. Although I think that wikipedia is better without Mr. Tresman's participation and endorse Tom Harrison's block, I think for form's sake, the process should not seem hasty. JoshuaZ opened this discussion less than 12 hours ago. I would like these discussions to stay open for a while; we want, I think, to be careful about what kind of precedents we set. Bucketsofg 02:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Precedents have already been set. In this particular case, I see that Admins do not have to account for their claims, Admin are not required to answer questions, Admins may give one editor "leeway",[117] (ie. actually break policy and ignoring it), and ban another editor for complaining.--83.151.17.190 10:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

To Blueboy96 and Proabivouac: Like when Iantresman was driven from Wikipedia by ScienceApologist,[118] after what seems to be a long line of (official policy) personal attacks,[119][120][121][122], and was harassed by another editor.[123] --83.151.17.190 10:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What is sadly overlooked here is that while User:Iantresman is an advocate of alternative ideas, he is only demanding that people have robust arguments. User:ScienceApologist was hardly a saint, and would frequently resort to personal attacks, litigious slight-of-hand, and outright schoolyard bully tactics if he couldn't be bothered (or simply couldn't, it was sometimes hard to tell which) to engage in rational debate. I gave up editing plasma astronomy related articles about 2 years ago mainly because arguing with ScienceApologist was actually more bizarre and disheartening than arguing with a fundamentalist Creationist (which is a hilarious way to waste ten minutes, try it some time). There is a lot of sloppy thinking going on in Wikipedia, with many unable to engage in debate where separation of the debate from the debater is essential. I am sad to see the same sloppy thinking going on here. I think banning Iantresman is just more confirmation that Wikipedia is turning into yet another homogenised manifestation of mobtruth and yet another mouthpiece for the status quo. /me steps down Jon 13:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Not overlooked; completely irrelevant. "made contributions" is a separate issue from "Watch me disrupt in flagrant violation of an Rfar ruling". SA's actions are not relevant either. We are not discussing community ban of SA, but of Iantresman. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

::Deleting two category tags looks like a harsh interpretation of "flagrant violation of an Rfar ruling", or as FM described it "aggressive biased editing" --Girls4girls 16:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Obvious Suspected meatpuppet of Iantresman

Talk about mob rule! The indefinite suspension of Ian Tresman represents a clear example of censorship and suppression by those with a fixed world view.

The work of ScienceApologist demonstrated a fanatical, almost religious devotion to mainstream theories. Science progresses by developing new ideas and challenging existing theories. ScienceApologist was in the habit of launching vitriolic attacks on all ATM ideas, thus contravening this ideal, and it was therefore appropriate that he should move on.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, as they say, and freedom of speech has always been a powerful driving force behind the world-wide-web. Ian Tresman has the right to support the work of scientists and engineers in the field of Plasma Cosmology, providing he does so in a fair and reasonable way. I am yet to see any evidence that he has been blinkered or unreasonable, although there are no lack of unsubstantiated allegations to this effect. FeloniousMonk, for example, ignored numerous requests to support his allegations of POV and Pseudoscience!

ScienceApologist's resignation was of his own choice and should not be held against Ian Tresman. There is also strong evidence that SA was involved in illegal and underhand attacks on IT. Numerus admin also clearly bear a grudge. This behaviour is unnacceptable for admin staff, who have now resorted to group bully tactics.

NB The history of science testifies that almost all new ideas are attacked on the basis that they represent a threat to a particular world view!

Soupdragon42 12:38, 17 July 2007 (GMT)

• Since he's continued the same behavior since the last ArbCom case, albeit a bit more subtle and seems highly disinclined to change his behavior, I'd have to support the indef block. Shell ^babelfish 19:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: Girls4girls (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked as a throwaway account created to participate in this discussion and a very likely sockpuppet of Iantresman. MastCell ^Talk 21:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• CheckUser is inconclusive, but reveals that Girls4girls was editing from an open proxy. End of ballgame, I think. Blueboy96 22:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• I altogether dislike both Iantresman's manner, and his ideas of what constitutes science. Nonetheless he represents a minority position, and minority positions should be represented, and I am very reluctant to ban one of the very few people who are willing to maintain views such as his. Obviously, had he been willing to do so in a more temperate manner we would not be having this discussion, for most WPedians would not treat the repeated but polite expressions of even extreme views to be objectionable. Unfortunately, it is by now equally obvious that there is no way of ameliorating his manner of participation, so I do not suggest we do otherwise than proposed here, but I think it necessary to acknowledge the benefits to NPOV that did accompany the disruption. Sound science can well afford to let itself be challenged, even ignorantly, even by the biased, and certainly by the impolite. DGG (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I have been greedy. Please, adjust your watchlist a bit and enjoy greater exposure to those extreme views, with their attendent blessings and mine. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse community ban. If there was any room for reasonable doubt, the checkuser results clinched it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? The official checkuser result is "inconclusive", since there is no technical evidence to tie Iantresman to Girls4girls. You may well conclude on the basis of the timing and content of the two edits by Girls4girls that the preponderance of evidence points to it being a puppet of Ian. I don't see how you can consider that "beyond a reasonable doubt". --Art Carlson 14:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser result showed that the new account which showed up out of the blue to defend Ian was using open proxies, which they wouldn't be if they were simply a legitimate new user who showed up at an odd moment. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

All right. Up to now I didn't even know what an open proxy is, much less that Wikipedia has a policy discouraging them. I don't share your certitude, but at least I see now where you are coming from. --Art Carlson 18:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Controvert community ban. Strong disagreement. I believe this is a biased decision for some of the reasons listed above. Apparently no right to due process in defending his actions. However, it appears the mob has spoken. Though I still disagree with the mob mentality. Users do have rights and admins/"experts" should be held to a higher standard when presenting evidence, due to their positions of greater authority. The fact that they refuse to respond to legitimate questions and calls for citations/clarification of statements speaks volumes about the bias they have against User:Iantresman. Kangaroo court, pure and simple. Look it up. I'm done. Mgmirkin 17:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Mgmirkin, the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline was created because some individuals had successfully gamed the dispute resolution process to exhaust the patience of others until productive editors either abandoned certain topics or abandoned Wikipedia. It does not serve the site's interests when such tactics succeed in creating semiprivate domains for people who demonstrate consistent contempt for site policies. This site's consensus standard is assume good faith in absence of evidence to the contrary, not due process at all costs. Unsubstantiated accusations of bias and kangaroo court contribute nothing to this discussion. We're assessing damage caused and the likelihood of substantial damage continuing. This is a textbook example of disruptive editing; I'll stand behind this community ban. Durova^Charge! 21:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Durova, I can understand if you think that you have sufficient evidence to abandon the assumption of good faith for Ian. I can also understand if you judge the preponderance of evidence to indicate that the risk of damage by a speedy banishment is less than the risk of damage of waiting too long. But please don't argue against due process as a principle. A community like Wikipedia agrees on rules and procedures, and due process just means following them all the time, not just when you feel like it. If you think the rules and precedures in place are too costly, then you can try to get a consensus to change them. --Art Carlson 15:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against it as a principle. I'm arguing that it isn't the overriding principle. And I have gotten a consensus to change the procedures that were previously in place: I was one of the principal coauthors of the disruptive editing guideline that applies here. I see no consensus for the argument you propose. Durova^Charge! 22:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse community ban. Long overdue. WAS 4.250 11:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a bad feeling about this process. I go away for a few days and when I come back I discover that JoshuaZ had suggested banning Iantresman, and hardly 5 hours later Tom Harrison had blocked him indefinitely. It is not clear to me whether the block was intended as tightening the reins while the decision is being made, or as a try-it-and-see de facto ban. Either way, the reasons a ban might be necessary have not been clearly formulated, nor has the evidence in questions of fact been clearly presented.

I am not saying that Ian's behavior is above reproach, but despite many disagreements I have always been able to work with him. I do not wish to take a position at this time on whether Ian should ultimately be banned, but I find the following points important:

• There is no need to implement a block until a decision has been made by the community.
• A minimum time (e.g. 4 weeks) must be allowed to ensure full discussion and judicious consideration.
• A ban should be supported by an obvious consensus in the community or a minimum number (e.g. three) of administrators, preferably both.
• The final reasons for the ban should be explicitly and concisely laid out by the admins making the decision.
• The evidence for any questions of fact upon which the decision is based should be explicitly laid out (usually as diffs).

(There may be a different or a better place for me to air these concerns, perhaps in a policy discussion or as a complaint against Tom harrison. If someone more familiar with Wikipedia processes has a suggestion, please let me know.)

--Art Carlson 12:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Art, if you're talking about notification and opportunity for defense I'm in agreement. I wish you had been around in March and April when this was discussed at the policy level. As you advised me, please garner consensus if you want the standard to change. I would not consider it canvassing if you notified me of any relevant discussion that takes place over there. I argued rather passionately for something similar but got overruled. Now I abide by the policy as it stands. Durova^Charge! 22:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom harrison's block does not necessarily mean Ian is banned; he is only banned if no admin is willing to unblock him. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• I would endorse a topic ban since that was the Arbcom ruling, in my view this should be tried before a community banning Iantresman (even in light of the possible meat/sock puppetry). Also while I'm not impressed by the attempts at wiki-lawyering here, shouldn't Arbcom enforcement be making a decision in situation since it is a breach of Arbcom probation? They were notified of a possible conflict of interest and breach of probabtion on July 16th [124]--Cailil ^talk 14:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The ArbCom argument hold weight. I'd accept a limited unblock for the purposes of appeal to that venue. Durova^Charge! 22:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:BAN, bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. This is not the same thing as saying that only the previous Ian-related matters that Arbcom has reviewed have any weight in the matter. The discussion here has weight as well, though this thread is still open for further discussion of the wisdom of a ban. If Arbcom looks over this particular discussion thread, they will certainly be looking into its thoroughness and the amount of data presented. It might not hurt if an advocate of the ban would try to sum up the thread so far. EdJohnston 22:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please. I just re-read the whole discussion, thinking I could try to throw together a summary, even though or especially because I have not yet taken sides on the issue, but the arguments flowed through my fingers like sand. It is clear that Ian has somehow managed to make himself a number of enemies, but that of itself is not a justification for a ban. If he is as bad as these editors feel, then it should be easy to list a half-dozen violations of policy and to cite one example of each. It should be practically trivial for KillerChihuahua to demonstrate "flagrant violation of an Rfar ruling". Although I would welcome a summary from anyone, I think the one who is obligated to present his arguments is Tom Harrison. He laid an indefinite block on Ian 4 days ago and has neither before nor since wasted a single word to justify it. This goes beyond Ian. It is a question of how this community lives up to its ideals of civility and accountability. --Art Carlson 08:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the community's ideals of accountability is that editors who persistently, incorrigibily disrupt Wikipedia, in the consensus of the community, may be blocked. This principle is codified in the disruptive editing guideline. I've never dealt with Ian (except for his inappropriate jubilation over the fact that ScienceApologist had left the project), and I don't claim to be the arbiter of whether such a consensus has been reached, but the disruptive editing guideline exists for a reason. MastCell ^Talk 16:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. Ian must be held accountable for his editing style. You and I must be held accountable for the arguments and tone we bring to this discussion. Tom must be held accountable for his administrative actions. --Art Carlson 21:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Art Carlson, Tom made the right call. We have already spent far too much time on this situation.Proabivouac 02:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying he made the wrong call. I presume he spent a reasonable amount of time examining the case and brooding over the proper course of action. I think it would be helpful if he would take a few percent of the time he spent coming to a decision to tell us what his reasoning was. I think this would be good for several reasons. One of them is that being able to refer to a clear set of arguments on this case may save us time and lead to better decision on similar cases in the future. --Art Carlson 12:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'd be willing to endorse a mere topic ban, but I can't get past the fact that he drove two users off the project. The community simply can't tolerate someone who creates a poisonous atmosphere. Blueboy96 22:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree about the posionous atmoshpere. The point I was making is really that the community can go ahead and topic ban Iantresman (for disruption) with the full backing of the existing Arbcom decision. But on top of that Arbcom enforcement are supposed to be making another decision about Iantresman's probation violation--Cailil ^talk 15:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• endorsing ban per WP:ENC. Wikipedia is "yet another mouthpiece for the status quo". Any user refusing to acknowledge that and resorting to protracted campaigning instead has no place here. I am pleasantly surprised that this "community sanction" process can in fact produce tangible results. dab (𒁳) 22:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Echoing the above... I'm sure I'm biased here, but Wikipedia is way too tolerant of people with a fringe/minoritarian axe to grind, time on their hands, and no interest in WP:WEIGHT or WP:ENC. It's all we can do to keep our heads above water in a sea of accounts who think an encyclopedia should give equal time to the ideas that cigarette smoke doesn't cause cancer, HIV doesn't cause AIDS, cholesterol plays no role in heart disease... I could go on, but I'm depressing myself. Anyhow, my point: I would endorse a topic ban. MastCell ^Talk 04:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • yes: it is amazing how many people think WP:ENC doesn't apply to them if they just keep waving their hands and changing the topic. We need to become less patient with these. We have WP:FTN now to address this problem, but we really need to learn to waste less time on each incidence. dab (𒁳) 11:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom Harrison has refused to justify his block. I have filed a complaint against him. --Art Carlson 08:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The justification for the block appears to be on this page. The community seems to be making a clear expression that this user has been excessively disruptive. We can keep discussing the permanent ban while the indefinte block is in place. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse community ban. Driving good editors away cannot be tolerated if the driver shows no desire to adjust/improve their attitude. - Crockspot 18:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This really is outright disgusting.
I'm having a hard time finding a single shred of evidence against him here.
First supposed evidence: He edited another editor's user page. Catch is, he went to that editor's talk page and was redirected. Redirecting your talk page to your user page is never a good idea (the converse is fine, of course, but never direct your talk page to your user page!), and was clearly more MainstreamAstronomy's mistake more than Ian's. Not evidence of any particularly terrible behaviour.
Further evidence of atrocious behaviour: Removed category tag, "Immanuel Velikovsky". And, guess what, Ian's right. That category did not even exist when the category tag was removed. It had existed prior to that, but Chrislk02 deleted it, explained here. Also, note that the category was recreated by User:Velikovsky, with the justification, "this is a legitimate category". Further note that "Velikovsky"'s sole contributions appear to have been to badger Ian, and to redirect his identity to User:Mainstream astronomy.

• Interesting note: By redirecting his user and talk pages to "Mainstream astronomy", User:Velikovsky is either asserting himself as being a sock/meatpuppet of "Mainstream astronomy", which would make suggesting that Mainstream astronomy is a pseudonym of ScienceApologist far less of a stretch, or... it means that Velikovsky was inappropriately pretending to be "Mainstream astronomy", in which case his recreation of a deleted category should certainly be scrutinized far more heavily than Ian removing a link to said category during the time that it didn't even exist.

Point is, at least one of Velikovsky or Mainstream astronomy has some serious explaining to do, if not both.
I've looked through this sanction discussion several times, and, in fact, I've yet to find a single case of actual proof against Ian, beyond the arbcom. Except... uh... arbcom should probably be handled by, um, arbcom?
So, seriously, can anyone here provide a single diff here? Just one? I could be missing something bloody obvious; I do it all the time.
No arguments about how he's "exhausted the community's patience"... No nonsense about how he's "driven away editors", without a lick of support or proper discussion. None of that at all. Does anyone here have any specific proof? I'm talking about diffs here.
Do you have diffs? Specific actions? Yes or no. Bladestorm 16:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Review

The review relating to the above-named arbitration has been closed without action because User:Certified.Gangsta has not edited for several weeks. Should Certified.Gangsta return to editing, the review may be reopened. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

The above titled Arbitration Case has closed and the decision has been published at the linked location. Dradin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and any other editor who is involved professionally or avocationally in the paranormal is cautioned regarding aggressive editing of articles which relate to the particular subjects they are involved with. Kazuba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is cautioned to extend good faith to Dradin if he edits and to avoid including disparaging material about Dean Radin on his user page. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 03:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

0.0. That case was open for three months? -Amarkov moo! 05:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin

This arbitration case is closed and the decision has been published at the above link. Miskin (talk · contribs) is cautioned to gain a consensus on article talk pages before making further edits if his first edits are reverted. Swatjester (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) is advised to take into account the length of time between previous blocks when blocking users, and to treat all editors violating the three-revert rule fairly. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 13:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's try this a 500th time!

[edit] Tobias Conradi

A previous sanction discussion was sidelined because of the arbitration case against Conradi. Conradi basically ignored the case while it was active, and has been biterly compalining about the outcome since it ended. A few days back he was blocked 48 hours for incivility. After continued incivility on his talk page this grew to a week and a talk-page protection, and then to a month and an email block after the incivility continued via email. According to a current WP:AN report, Conradi is now up to three IP socks as he continues to lash out against various admins, with no end in sight. I think that it's time we said enough is enough, and let him know that he is no longer welcome here. - TexasAndroid 16:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's now four IPs. I would agree that he's no longer welcome, and suggest it's time for an indef. We've certainly indeffed for less! AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I Support an indef block here. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

When a user is unwilling to accept blocks and resorts to changing IPs to avoid them, it is time to take a harder stance. I regretfully support this move. Until(1 == 2) 17:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Tobias has been rather disruptive here over the past few months - I think our only option here now is an indef block. His behaviour is now becoming too much for mediocore blocks to stop. It is most unfortunate that I believe that the positives far outweigh the negatives of Tobias being removed from the project. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As per Until(1 == 2) and Ryan. It is really unfortunate. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Tobias has had numerous opportunities to indicate he was going to change. He has not. SirFozzie 17:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

While I was blocking the block evading IPs, I did engage in a brief conversation with Tobias on my talkpage where he was complaining about his original block on 24 February 2006 and he essentially rejected my comment that by sockpuppeting he is only making it worse for himself. I don't know enough about Tobias to say if his behavior outweighs the value of his contributions, but it seems clear to me he doesn't accept the validity of the ARBCOM sanctions, he doesn't intend to follow them, and he sees the enforcement of the sanctions as illegitimate.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This very discussion is evidence that the sock puppetry has made it worse for him. I had been for a couple of days, in my mind, lightly debating whether I should open a discussion like this. The sock puppetry report on WP:AN was the last straw for me. It's what made me say "Enough is enough". Without the socks, I would likely still be thinking about it, and quite possibly would never have reached the point of launching this discussion. - TexasAndroid 18:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

He may not accept the ArbCom's decision, but the ArbCom's solutions are binding. Sockpuppetry does make his situation worse; I support an indefinite block. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 19:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse indef ban per above arguments. Many opportunities for improvement squandered. - Crockspot 19:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment He's now up to eight sock IPs today alone. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tobias Conradi is tracking them now. Five of those are from his breif sock-puppeting rampage a year or so ago, the rest are from today. And predictibally, he's now attacking me for bringing this up, and for being one of the first to block him for incivility, well over a year ago. - TexasAndroid 19:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I blocked several of his earlier ip's and they all apepar to be in the /16 for a range block. If he becomes prolific enough with the ip hopping I might reccomend a 24 hours block or so. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Reluctant but firm support, per the block log at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi. It seems that the guy goes in spurts ... you never know when he's gonna snap. I'm not as familiar with the case as most of the people who have commented, but a cursory reading of the events indicates that this guy is too unstable for Wikipedia. Blueboy96 19:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• If the consensus is to block indefinitely, I'll take the responsibility of implementing it. I've worked with him in the past, tried to counsel him away from this precipice, and I've never blocked him. If the group comes to agreement that it's appropriate, I'll implement the block and document it both on his user talk and via e-mail. If the consensus is not to remove him from the project, I'll be available to assist in any remediation needed. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Until(1 == 2) 20:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...that'd probably be best. Isotope and I have been involved, with my part being the "corrupt" individual who extended his block to the current month, so a third party is probably appropriate. A consensus seems to exist. As a curious aside, in one of his rants that someone (John?) reverted on my talk page, he listed a definition of corruption as inappropriate activities done for personal gain. I don't know about the rest of you, but I get absolutely no personal gain from adminship, and a small amount of personal loss (headaches, time my wife and daughter think I should be spending with them, etc, etc)...so who here's getting those big paychecks that I'm missing out on? AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If that is the consensus, I could implement it as well. I'm already on his list of corrupt admins; no reason to add another name there...--Isotope23 ^talk 20:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• By the way, if anyone is interested, there is a conversation I was having with him today in regards to his block in my Archives.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• I'm on his list of corrupt admins (no doubt near the top), I got one of his missives too, I usually do. I've always hoped that there was some way to avoid indefinitely blocking him but the chasm between his perception of us and our perception of him at this time seems too wide to bridge. The only answer seems to be an indefinite block (with the proviso that if he undertakes to change, to understand what the issues about his approach are, and to contribute productively, it could be lifted.) Hats off to Chairboy for volunteering to implement the block and to mentor. I'm also willing to implement it if need be. so... sadly... endorse indefinite block. If this goes through someone perhaps should update the ArbCom case (log of blocks and bans) pointing to this discussion. Oh, and Akradecki... the check's in the mail, trust me. Now get back to work! ++Lar: t/c 01:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Indefinite doesn't mean infinite. If this is the result here I'd like to think that Tobias would be welcomed back if he resolved to work on how he deals with his fellow editors.--Isotope23 ^talk 02:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Exactly so. Hence my "with the proviso that..." ++Lar: t/c 03:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• A pre-emptive note, there's every reason not to rush anything. While a consensus seems to be emerging, a WP:CS 'ban' is big medicine, and it is in the best interests of all involved to make sure that all sides have a chance to make their opinion known. If that means waiting a few days, then that's the right thing to do. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. No rush. Though his continuing IP hopping to drop accusations and attacks around is getting old very fast. (Latest this morning/last night was all over the User and Talk pages of his various IPs and the tracking category.) - TexasAndroid 14:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that this individual has presumably used 22 socks so far. I don't know if I even have that many socks. I can agree that it might be a good idea to wait a bit longer, but based on the current behavior, I can see how an indefinite block might be called for. Out of curiosity, would there be any way that this individual could, under his own identity, make a comment here in his own defence and/or to agree to terms to allow him to continue in a limited capacity? John Carter 14:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

An indefinite block on his user account will not stop his use of sockpuppets, so it doesn't matter if it happens right now or in the near future. A decision is being made regarding whether the community shuns this once productive user or not, and that's much more important than the actual act of setting the block bit to indefinite, so rushing a conclusion doesn't serve the best interests of the project. Tobias has invested a lot in us over the years before the recent unpleasantness, it's our duty to invest something back now in the form of allowing this discussion to reach a solid, time agnostic decision. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What contributions to Wikipedia does Tonbias make that are just so positive and indispensable, such that he is allowed to continuously stick his finger up at the rest of the community? He has proven over and over that he has no ability to work in a collaborative manner - only disruptive. He is rude, disruptive in his editing making 100s of moves while refusing to consult, he has ignored all attempts to steer him in the right direction, and has now apparently made 20 socks to get around a block. Yet still here now people are defending and excusing him. Seriously, what contributions does he make that are so important to the project? --Merbabu 15:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidently he has been a valuable contributor in the past. I can understand the reservations about removing the existing total block on him, particularly taking into account all the IPs he's been using. But maybe would it be possible for him to edit his user talk page, so that we could have statements we might unequivocally know are his possible responses to questions that might be posted to him, at least for a few days? John Carter 22:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would not have a problem with unprotecting his talk page in general, but I suspect that such will quickly return to personal attacks and incivility, which is what he has been doing while IP hopping. Might be worth trying, as a last resort before he's banned, but I hold little hope that it'll have any useful ending. - TexasAndroid 14:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• I do not think he should be banned, but blocked for 1 year instead. However, seeing as he's now editing as an IP-hopping editor, it looks like he may become the next Cplot, which I hope doesn't happen. He has made constructive edits. The only problem is - how do we get him back to productive editing?? It hasn't worked right now, but that's not to say it won't work in the future. Maybe his talk page should be unprotected to allow an appeal. But then again, he can always appeal to the Arbitration Committee anyway, if he feels his indefinite block is wrong. There's no right or wrong answer here, really, we'll just have to see how things pan out... --SunStar Net ^talk 15:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  Do you feel that he's likely to come back a productive editor after the one year block? If that remedy is followed, it should be with the expectation that it will be a real solution instead of a half-hearted 'compromise'. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• The conversation seems complete, there was the one comment above, but no response to a followup question as of yet. I'll close this in about half a day if there are no further developments, the consensus seems clear. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 06:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It's sad. I've been working with Tobias for years now, and yes, he's done a lot of good for the encyclopedia, but his civility issues have only gotten worse. It started a long time ago when he seemed to think he was always right, and anyone who criticized him was wrong and somehow against him. This escalated over the years to having a martyr complex and being extremely passive aggressive - he never does anything wrong, it's everyone else who's wrong, and they're attacking him; but he'll never actually do anything about these perceived wrongs, he'll just mutter to himself or make a list and whine, but not do anything about it. It's sad that it's come to this, and I won't support a community block, but I won't oppose one either. I look at Tobias like I do User:Wik - An extremely valuable contributor who just ended up going crazy or something, becoming absolutely incompatible with the community. His obsession with 'transparency' and harassment of board members, past and present, and finally his IP hopping, is the final straw. He seems to have given up any pretense of wanting to work on the encyclopedia, and his entire purpose is to complain about his valid blocks. --Golbez 07:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Enacted. I have reset his block to indefinite, and both left the user a message on his talk page. I've sent a copy of that message to him via e-mail as well. When this item is archived, the link on his talk page should be updated appropriately to reflect it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, he's just been permabanned on de.wiki too. pschemp | talk 21:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've listed him here. Not totally happy with the wording of the breif summary, so if anyone else wants to expand/clean it up, please do so. - TexasAndroid 14:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Followup Using yet another IP sock, Tobias responded here, including a statement where he declares his intentions to continue his disruptive editing. After another user reverted this response, I protected the page for 30 daysAKRadecki^Speaketh 16:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Implementation was recorded on the RfAr page ++Lar: t/c 16:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Full Judaism community topic ban for Bus stop

Bus stop makes positive contributions to the field of visual arts but engages in tendentious WP:OR on topics that relate to Judaism. After a previous CSN discussion I applied an indefinite block, also offering to restore editing privileges if Bus stop obtained formal mentorship and pledged to avoid two articles: Bob Dylan and List of notable people who converted to Christianity. Bus stop returned to editing with Fred Bauder as mentor.

On 24 July 2006 I received several petitions for intervention because Bus stop was disrupting the Who is a Jew? article. I full protected that page for a week and left messages for Bus stop and Fred Bauder. Bus stop's reaction was so negative that I opened my decision for review at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive96#Impartial_evaluation_requested and received unanimous support.

Since that time Bus stop has caused additional disruption at several Judaism-related articles and talk pages. This editor attempts to dictate content without supplying references and refuses to compromise. Another administrator has protected the "Jew" article, in part because of Bus stop's disruption.

Recent disruption:

• Talk:Messianic_Judaism#Ethnic_Jews.3F
• Talk:Ashkenazi_Jews#Isn.27t_this_a_little_silly.3F
• Talk:Jew#removal_of.27_ethnic_group.3F
• Ashkenazi Jews[126]
• Jew[127]
• Self-hating Jew
• Proselytism
• Judaism

Fred Bauder has responded to my query offline and supports banning. I propose a full Judaism topic ban for Bus stop as an alternative to sitebanning. Bus stop would not be welcome to post to talk pages on this subject. Durova^Charge! 15:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Just for absolute clarification, this also involves banning editing of the article pages? Also note recent activity on the article Atheist Jew here and further action on Messianic Judaism here.John Carter 15:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• A topic ban normally applies to article space, yes. They don't always apply to talk space. This would apply there also. Durova^Charge! 15:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support ban based on above information with regrets that the user seems incapable of keeping himself from this topic, and hope that this problematic behavior doesn't spread to content regarding other religions as well. John Carter 15:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: I am a bulwark against the mild forms of sophisticated antisemitism and anti-Jewish reportage that is prevalent on Wikipedia. Bus stop 15:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

These topics are highly contentious in the best of times. I think we should have a particularly low tolerance for disruption on them, because things escalate and spiral out of control so quickly. I seriously doubt that anti-Semitism will go unchallenged on Wikipedia if Bus stop is banned from these articles, and based on the evidence presented by Durova and the failure to respond to mentorship, a topic ban sounds reasonable and appropriate. MastCell ^Talk 15:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support The original CSN that lead to the indefinite ban is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard&oldid=140799738#User:Bus_Stop The editor's I'm-right-and-everyone-else-is-wrong-and-conspiring-against-me + WP:OR approach to editing has not changed since the last ban when it comes to editing Judaism-related articles, and it hurts consensus-building and discourages/frustrates other editors from contributing. To avoid ambiguity I think it should be made clear the ban extends to religion-related edits on Jewish people (including those who may/may not have converted to/from Judaism), such as Michael Richards and Bob Dylan. There's potential for a very good editor in there somewhere, and I really hope one day he appreciates how hard other editors work to build consensus and cite sources and resolve disagreements, and realize his POV doesn't necessarily have to be the only right one...but as is evident from his "Oppose:" statement, his anti-consensus attitude still has not changed even after given a second chance, and there's no reason to believe he'll edit in a different way any time in the near future. Tendancer 16:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Michael Richards is Jewish, and I don't believe Bus stop's, er, activities on that page related to Jew-y concerns.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

True. His activities there seem to be centered on Richards' "He's a nigger" comments, indicating to me that the editor in question deals more with "ethnic" issues than religious ones. Presumably this proposed ban would be for all content relating to Jews as either an ethnic or religious group. With any luck, there will be no need to consider extending the ban to content related to other ethnic or religious groups later. John Carter 16:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment - It should also be noted that his earlier refusal to abide by policy in citing any verifiable sources for his changes to content has continued unchangingly in the above discussions. John Carter 16:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for the pointer to the previous discussion. I was particularly interested in

    His m.o. back then was always saying "use talk page" as a reason to revert other people's edits, then ignore everyone else's discussion on the talk page even if e.g. it was 5 vs 1 against him.

  • this exactly describes BS's latest efforts in Messianic Judaism. I've not yet decided on whether to vote as I'm not convinced that many of the examples listed at the head of this thread are disruptive. --Peter cohen 17:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I looked at three or four of the diffs presented as "Recent disruption" (not in order), without perceiving any of them as particularly disruptive. This bothered me and put me off looking at the rest of the diffs, because my time is short. Can someone present a diff for the "nigger" comment referred to above and a few examples of recent, really disruptive behaviour. Thank you. --Dweller 16:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

of genuine, recent disruption.

• The diffs Durova presented, IMO, are not, when taken alone, disruptive. However the relentlessness with which he reverts and bickers in an attempt to advance his POV (namely, that "Jewish" is not an ethnicty) in a large number of articles--without backing his ideas up with sources--is perceived by many as a disruptive pattern. And, lest anyone misunderstand, Bus stop didn't make a "nigger" comment; he (and others, including yours truly) merely squabbled for a very long time about whether to include a particular quote in the Michael Richards article. It's probably not that relevant here.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed that the Richards issue is not really relevant here. The editor in question, looking at his recent edits, seems to have made roughly 84 edits, counting main and talk page edits, pushing his POV that Jews do not qualify as an ethnic group over the past seven days, on a variety of pages, including others not mentioned above. Considering that these actions are as frequent as they are, as the editor has never that I can see cited a single source other than himself for his edits, and consistently impugns those who disagree with him, I believe his actions can be seen as being unacceptable. John Carter 17:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: In point of fact, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back, I am the only one not pushing a point of view. Nor am I overly concerned with whether Judaism is an ethnicity or not. What I stand for is the full application of language to articulate whatever the issue is at hand. I am opposed to shorthand. I am opposed to terse language that obfuscates. It would be my contention that the many editors who dislike my input have a point of view to push. That point of view involves dissolving the distinction between the Jewish religion and the Christian religion. They dislike my insistence that terse terms be replaced by language used in its full capacity to articulate any given situation.

Here is another one for everyone's consideration. This is my most recent edit. It is to Messianic Judaism. Here it is. Check it out. Tell me if it is disruptive, or problematic in some other way: Messianic Judaism Bus stop 17:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

For someone who claims to oppose "terse language that obfuscates", your use of the word "recent" is frankly nonsensical. And your intimation that opposing your edit on the basis of it being "too specific" and "too accurate" is also inherently prejudicial and equally nonsensical, considering the group has existed for about 200 years. It also once again sees you glorifying your own POV. Also, your edit would seem to rule out the possibility of non-religious Jews converting to Messianic Judaism, which is not supported by any sources of which I am aware. I probably could go on. John Carter 17:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, Bus stop. That isn't a great counterexample. Replacing "ethnic Jews" with ""recent converts from Judaism" dramatically changes the semantics of that sentence; moreover, it fits along with your pattern (which is perceived as disruptive) of excising references to ethnic Jewishness w/o providing a source for your peculiarly worded reasoning.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It is disruptive in that you ignored the discussion in the talk page where you were in a minority of one, the other four of us (consisting, I believe, of a Christian, a Messainic, a mainstream Jew and a "lapsed" Jew) all opposed such a change. Exactly how the other four of us would have a shared interest in "dissolving the distinction between the Jewish religion and the Christian religion" is something I cannot conceive.--Peter cohen 17:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support for restrictions short of topic ban Bus stop's disruption seems to stem from his mistaken belief that WP is a venue in which to establish truth, rather than to report what other people have said, and also from a deeply emotional involvement in issues of Jewish identity that prevents him from editing certain articles in an NPOV manner. He tries to make sure articles reflect his ideosyncratic notions (Bob Dylan never really converted to Christianity) and private definitions of words (Jews are not an ethnic group). Anyone who sees himself as a "bulwark" is asking for trouble in a community that works on consensus. Nevertheless, a full-topic ban seems more restrictive than necessary to cure the disruption and he sometimes raises valid points. I would support a ban on article editing and a limit of one post per day on talk pages. Also, as he seems to be disruptive primarily on issues of Jewish identity specifically, I wonder whether it is possible to craft a narrower ban. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Question. What exactly is the rationale for banning Bus stop from talk pages as well as articles? I don't believe we normally do this, do we? -- ChrisO 17:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Durova could best answer that question, but I presume it has something to do with the fact that much of the allegedly disruptive behavior has occurred on talk pages and the perception that Bus stop often engages in unproductive, long-drawn-out disputes on said talk pages. Banning him from the articles alone would not preclude this behavior. Personally, I would be sad to see Bus stop banned from any more articles than he already is; but alas, I fear you more experience editors are already doing all you can to positively encourage him to collaborate more fruitfully and within WP guidelines of attribution, etc.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The Fat Man Who Never Came Back -- Feel free to rewrite the sentence to suit your semantics. I am not specifically opposed to the assertion of Jews being an ethnicity. But there is a time and a place for that assertion. Point of view pushing is a sophisticated thing. No intelligent writer on Wikipedia pushes a personal agenda in a forthright way. It is always by subterfuge that one begins the erosion of an impediment to one's message. In this case we are talking about the people who comprise the Messianic Judaism movement, are we not? Why must we retreat into the language of "ethnic Jews?" Isn't it equally possible to articulate a full description of all the people involved? Couldn't we say that the movement is composed of recent converts from Judaism, and also Jews who have not yet converted to Christianity, as well as Gentiles? My point is that we should be using language in its full capacity to say exactly what we want to say. Instead we are falling back on terse terms like "ethnic Jews." All that does is cast doubt on the definitional integrity of the word Jew. That is the point of view pushing. That is why they would like to see me banned. I favor opening up language; they favor shutting down language. Bus stop 17:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: All that this is about, all that this has ever been about, is the full articulation of situations with no holds barred on language, and the constriction of language into incomprehensible or incorrect statements. When it was the Bob Dylan issue, I never objected to any descriptions of his involvement with Christianity. Conversion is a specific term that no source exists for, and a List is a format that asserts factuality. Therefore I have always argued for the description of Dylan's Christian phase in the Bob Dylan article, and the absence of his name from the List of notable converts to Christianity article. It is the same issue. It is the same theme. All of my conflicts with a large group of editors here is that I stand opposed to the compacting of information into language and forms (Lists) that imply things that may not necessarily be true. I am in favor of using language to articulate the limitations to our understanding of some subjects. Bus stop 18:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The advice of many of this community has been: forget about what may or may "not necessarily be true" and stick with what can be attributed to a reliable source. Maybe if you posted a link to a source espousing the facts as you see them, then someone else could post a reference to a contradictory claim. Then you'd have a more balanced article and less fighting.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of sources "existed" for the use of the term "conversion"- all the reliable sources used it explicitly, and literally. You, on the other hand, persisted in the inane argument in which you chose to split hairs over terminology and attempted to argue that "his full-blown conversion" was to be read figuratively. In any case, let's not resurrect that issue if at all possible- I don't believe you want to argue for another 70-80 days or so about this whole thing.--C.Logan 20:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Not one source existed asserting that Dylan ever converted to Christianity. The opinion of a biographer is all that supports that contention. That is an opinion. No time, place or witness to any conversion exists. That is for a good reason -- that Dylan never converted. It is the bogus claim of Christians (some) that when a Jew explores Christianity he becomes a Christian. That view can have validity in some quarters, but it doesn't warrant inclusion on a list of converts because a list implies finality of the issue, and the issue is anything but resolved. The Bob Dylan article is a fine place to go into all the details of Dylan's Christian period. But inclusion on a list of converts to Christianity is point of view pushing. Conversion is unsourced. Bus stop 21:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: There is not even a scintilla of a source that actually asserts that any conversion process ever transpired for Bob Dylan. This is another example of point of view pushing. I stand opposed to this. That is what the original ban on my editing of the List of notable converts to Christianity article was all about. (And they decided to ban me from the Bob Dylan article too, for some unexplained reason.) Yes, I am difficult for the editors of these articles to deal with. That is a healthy thing for Wikipedia. If they succeed in banning me from more articles there will be yet more unopposed point of view pushing at these and other articles. Bus stop 23:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: There is no "fact dispute," The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. The only dispute is about what language should be used. No matter what the article, no matter what the issue, I favor language that is easily understandable, that leaves no room for misunderstanding. That is why I say in the last example that the language should use more words, more commas, and spell out a description of the sorts of people found in the Messianic Judaism movement. The counter-argument is that the term "ethnic Jews" does this quite nicely. No matter whether Jews are an ethnicity or not is not the issue. The insistence on the term ethnic Jews constitutes point of view pushing. In what way does it help the reader to understand the constituents of this movement? All that we have to do is spell out descriptions of sorts of people who comprise the movement. There is a good deal of unclarity in a term such as ethnic Jews. Are they Jews? Why are we dabbling in that issue when we are ostensibly describing the constituents of the Messianic Judaism movement? That is exactly what point of view pushing is. I oppose that. I am in favor of using however much language is called for to simply and unequivocally convey information. I hate the choosing of language to advance a personal agenda. Bus stop 18:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Despite, as indicated above, having chosen language to advance your own personal agenda, that Jews should not be counted as an ethnic group, yourself? John Carter 18:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page issue: my reasoning for proposing a prohibition from talk pages is that this editor essentially uses them for soapboxing, which distracts attention from article-building discussions. This editor returned from a siteban and accepted a two article ban, only to initiate a very similar pattern of disruption at another article until it had to be full protected. When I posted polite cautions this editor blanked them with spurious claims of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, then embarked upon the same disruption at several other articles. That looks to me like gaming the system.

Although I'm not absolutely opposed to some one-talk-page-post-a-day solution if that's what other editors prefer, this editor's pattern of behavior leads me to suspect he or she would comply in a manner that subverts the opportunity, such as posting once a day to each of a large number of talk pages. There are better ways to spend time than check up on someone to that extent and then craft yet another topic ban. So if someone has a counterproposal that's immune to gaming I'm all ears. Durova^Charge! 18:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That possibility of one post per day on multiple pages seems, at least to me, to have been already to an extent realized. And I assume it would really difficult to devise the system such that Bus stop can't continue to abuse the system in that way. Having said that, if the ban were only to article and article talk pages, I presume Bus stop could still contact whatever WikiProjects in wikipedia space were relevant to a given article, and make his opinions known there, as well as propose any changes s/he might wish to make. That may not actually solve the problem, unless he could be banned from mainspace and talk pages relating to Judaism, and allowed only one post per day on the relevant WikiProject pages? Could that be done? Also, I would be very gratified if we could see the user's adopter, who also happens to be one of our most respected editors, weigh in here. John Carter 18:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Then how about a limit of one post (defined as one edit: no going back and editing his previous posts) to any Judaism-related talk page. I have to say that I understand your frustration in dealing with him though. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to set up the system so that it could limit him to only one post per day for Judaism-articles as a whole, or just one post per day to any specific individual page? I honestly don't know what the capabilities of the system are here, but wouldn't mind seeing the former possibility enacted if it were possible. John Carter 18:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

(to John Carter) I contacted Fred Bauder with the same set of links and diffs last night and received the go-ahead from him before I opened this thread. There's already been community consensus for a full siteban on Bus stop so I view this proposal as one last ditch attempt to retain this person as an editor. If he or she tries to circumvent a second article/topic ban I'm prepared to use the banhammer.

And OberDicta, please define the margins of your proposal. One post per day to any Judaism-related topic? That gets a thumbs down from me.

And John Carter, that sort of thing isn't enforceable by technical means. Someone has to check up on the editor. Durova^Charge! 18:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not in any way doubt your word, and note that you had said as much earlier. I was just stating a belief that I would like to see whatever statement he might like to make, given his almost unmatched reputation as a fair and objective party, and my apologies if it were seen as anything else. No criticism of you or anyone else is consciously implied or expressed in that statement, but I couldn't think of any other way to say it. And, if the proposal would need the subject to be under constant oversight, then I guess I have no reservations to the subject ban. Thank you for the information. John Carter 19:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem; I didn't read that as a criticism. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 19:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Durova— Arghhhh I seem to have trouble expressing myself today. I meant to say one post per day total for him on all of the Judaism talk pages, not one post per page. Is that clearer? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you seriously object to the topic ban as I've proposed it? I left the door open to this editor as an act of good faith, but really it would have saved all of our time to have just imposed the full siteban and walked away. This becomes a time management issue at some point and it's burdensome to follow up on one difficult user to the extent that your suggestion would entail. If you're willing to put forth that effort yourself and contact me with diffs if troubles arise, I'll back your idea. I just caution to be on the lookout for actions that subvert the spirit of the agreement. Durova^Charge! 19:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't seriously object to the topic ban. Editing is a privilege, not a right, and he's been given his share of second chances. I'm on from time-to-time throughout the day as a necessary distraction at work (even though recently I seem to be doing more reading than actual editing) so I could check on his contrib logs. He seems to have complied with his promise to stay away from Dylan-related edits, so I would anticipate he would do the same here. I briefly interacted with him on the Dylan thing. He doesn't seem to be editing in bad faith, he just has MPOV problems and a hard time maintaining perspective on issues and articles related to Jewish identity. I fully agree he should not be editing articles on this topic. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So just to be clear, are you accepting my proposal that the topic ban include talk pages or making a counterproposal of a one-post-per-day limit, per talk page, with a pledge to monitor those contributions? It's not so much violation as subversion of the spirit of the thing that concerns me. That requires fairly careful follow-up. Durova^Charge! 21:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to your proposal and I understand why an overwhelming consensus is forming for it. I had just been thinking that the limit to one post a day (which I would prefer be for the whole of the Judaism article talk pages and not just one page) would solve the disruption concerns. If that solution is ultimately adopted, I would monitor his contributions and I'm sure other editors would as well. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Although, given the way this thread is going, it may be better to simply encourage him to more on to other topics... ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support. This issue cannot be understood without examining the context of Bus stop's long history of disruptive editing that led to the earlier indefinite banning. Considered alone, Bus stop's recent campaign to excise references to Jews as an ethnicity may just seem misguided and quarrelsome. However, this is just a continuation of the type of chronically tenditious editing that got him banned, and against which he has been warned repeatedly. Now, as then, Bus stop insists on editing articles so that they conform with his own view on the issue, nevermind what the reliable sources say.[128] Now, as then, he insists on making edits that are not supported by consensus.[129] [130] Durova, the banning admin, was kind enough to offer Bus stop to continue editing under certain conditions. Bus stop has violated the spirit, if not the letter, of those conditions by pushing his own POV in several articles concerning Jewish identity, regardless of what consensus and reliable sources have to say on the matter. Fred Bauder was kind enough to offer to adopt Bus stop so that he could be unbanned. It is signficant that even his adopter believes a rebanning of Bus stop is now in order. That Bus stop has chosen not to heed the warnings of the banning admin further indicates that Bus stop's attitude and methods have changed little, if any, since he was banned. To prevent all of these Judaism-related articles from going any further down the long path of dispute through which the Bob Dylan and Christian convert articles went, a topic-wide ban (including on talk pages) is in order. Nick Graves 19:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support. User:Bus stop has already wasted a number of editors' time with his behavior (his talk page is excellent documentation of that). A topic ban is definitely called for, though I expect to read of him being indefinitely blocked again in the near future, judging by his demonstrated inability to comprehend any viewpoint but his own. Sxeptomaniac 20:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: There's too much Christian antisemitism on Wikipedia. You all ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Some of you are promoters of Christian antisemitism on Wikipedia. All of you want to suppress a voice that opposes Christian antisemitism on Wikipedia. There is an infinite variety of language to express anything. But you are all obsessed with choosing the language that will promote your personal point of view, which is often antisemitic. Certainly you can have your Wikipedia. I am not an administrator. All you do is demean Wikipedia, but you all have overriding concerns, and long term concerns for the dignity of the enterprise are not being considered. Bus stop 20:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop, are you seriously accusing the editors at this thread of religious bigotry? Durova^Charge! 21:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You're singing the same old tune. Could you elaborate as to how your current vendetta against the term "ethnic _____" is in combat with "Christian antisemitism"? It seems that you're more content with digging anywhere possible until you can find a cause for which you can "come to the rescue" with a distinct sense of self-righteousness. I don't know if you've noticed, but it's already been explained to you that many of the individuals who have opposed your recent changes concerning "ethnicity" have been Jews. If that is the case, I find it unusual that they wouldn't join your crusade if the terms you have such a problem with were actually, really "antisemitic".--C.Logan 21:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

C.Logan -- We are not concerned with the identities of the editors. For all we care, they could be from Mars, and believe the universe was created by Google. It will be appreciated if you will please keep your comments confined to that which is relevant. By the way, you haven't the foggiest idea what my religious affiliation is, or if I have any religious affiliation at all. Bus stop 00:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, Bus stop, I ask you to strikethrough your comment about Christian antisemitism. You no more know the affiliations of the other editors here than we know yours, much less what biases any of us my have. Assume good faith is policy. Durova^Charge! 00:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Does User:Durova understand that there is more than one vantage point from which to view these issues? My overriding point is that language should be crafted for these articles, if these articles should be allowed to exist at all, that states what is known, and doesn't employ language to surreptitiously advance a pet cause. Does User:Durova understand that there are a multiplicity of points from which to view the contested issues in these articles, and that the resident editors should be a little less pigheaded in their insistence that there is only one set of language with which to convey information? Bus stop 00:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: These articles don't exist for the readers, primarily. They exist for the editors, primarily. The articles we are talking about exist as a filthy backwater of Wikipedia. I don't think many readers come to such articles for information. I use Wikipedia a lot. One can't help use Wikipedia. If you look something up on Google the first hit you get is the Wikipedia article in many cases. That is a good thing, and as a user of Wikipedia I appreciate it. But these articles and lists are a disgrace. If these articles were all that Wikipedia were about there would not be any Wikipedia phenomenon. These articles are anything but encyclopedic. These articles are playgrounds for obsessive-compulsives. Private visions are promoted in these articles. Oversight is unwelcome at these articles. Fresh input from people of diverse backgrounds is unwelcome. These articles are for the private enjoyment of the editors that write them. Bus stop 21:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: This is a grossly inappropriate effort to limit the contributions by an editor who opposes the POV of another group of editors. Please revisit WP:DR. Tomer^talk 23:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Are you certain of that? A previous siteban discussion received consensus approval on the basis that this editor refuses to abide by WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OWN, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. The other editors have bent over backwards to be accommodating - this is a classic example of the circumstances outlined at the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline. Dispute resolution is fruitless when one party sets himself or herself above fundamental policies and declares all opposition to be rooted in bigotry. Durova^Charge! 00:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Tom's comment is incredibly unfair, especially to Durova, who came up with a solution to allow him to edit after the community decided to siteban him. Look at his talk page. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Support topic ban for one year, + 90 day probation - If he is still here in a year, he very likely will have matured into a good editor. If he can maintain impulse self control for a few months, all restrictions should be lifted. - Crockspot 01:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Impulse control. Try defining your terms. Bus stop 01:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: By the way, the citizens of Germany, and Poland, exercised good impulse control when the Jews were led off to the ovens of the concentration camps. Bus stop 01:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• You're not being stuffed into an oven, or made to stand all night in the snow stripped naked. You have qualities that are worth keeping around. But you are also disruptive. My suggestion offers a way for you to learn and grow, and regain your freedom to edit any topic you wish. It's all in your own hands. But comparing this to shoah is not productive. - Crockspot 02:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support: I support any action against this editor after seeing his aggressive edits at Bob Dylan and List of notable people who converted to Christianity. For these two topics I was approached for help by user C Logan so a number of people were having difficulties with him. This is a disruptive editor judging by their block log and a large number of unblock requests on their talk page. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support It seems to be a question of whether we allow someone to ignore consensus or not. The answer is obvious. Moses Weintraub 10:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A not-too-bold solution: reapply the previous consensus siteban

I've indefblocked Bus stop per the previous siteban thread for actions cited at the outset of this discussion plus repeated violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF at this thread. Throw in Godwin's law. Whatever this user might add to the field of visual arts is more than counteracted by disruption to other areas. Volunteer time is finite and this editor barely deigned to accept mentorship when a member of the arbitration committee extended an unsolicited offer. This person has had more chances than anyone deserves. Time to wrap up and move on. Durova^Charge! 02:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've full protected the editor's user space for some choice words that remain available through the history file, and I've made the editor aware that any future appeals of the ban can be made via e-mail to another sysop or an arbitration clerk. Durova^Charge! 02:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sad to say, but this seems about the only solution possible now. Someone who responds to a final chance with the kind of diatribes seen above is not here to write and encyclopedia. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you made the right call. "Choice words" is an understatement. - Crockspot 03:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I fully support this reinstatement of the indefinite siteban, as Bus stop did not abide by the conditions of the unbanning (that is, he was not receptive to mentorship by his adopter). Nick Graves 04:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I support the ban as it stands, and would like to offer my meaningless apologies to Durova for the comments that have been removed from the now-banned user's talk page. Considering how Durova went out of his way to create the situation wherein the editor in question was allowed to be reinstated after the previous discussion, he deserves much better treatment than he has received, and has my thanks for the efforts he has made to be more than symphatethic to date. John Carter 16:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, John, but just for clarity I'm a she. ;) Durova^Charge! 04:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. I assumed the name was taken out of respect for the person, and made the apparently stupid mistake that it was a male editor showing respect for the female. I beg your pardon in this matter. After running around with the sundry weird critters of Barsoom, I kinda forgot how things work on this planet. John Carter 16:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

See Russian_names#Family name (surname)--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 06:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Russian though, just happen to respect a lady who was. Durova^Charge! 13:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• I support the reinstated ban. I've come to know Bus stop exclusively through several frivolous unblock requests related to blocks for disruptive editing about whether or not Bob Dylan converted to Judaism, or something. Quite a waste of time, all this. And now it seems the disruption continues. Sandstein 09:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support: It happened a little sooner than I expected, but it's pretty much what I predicted. His tendency to accuse editors of antisemitism, then claim that he didn't when confronted with it, was getting old fast. Sxeptomaniac 16:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey is placed on permanent legal threat parole. Pfagerburg is banned from Wikipedia for one year. Kebron is banned from Wikipedia for one year. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 17:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)