Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Archive9

4722:"Hey, thanks for trying to interject some maturity and civility here, Tony! And you do raise a good point about the editing, as it does appear that only those who've done thousands of edits seem to "count" around here. However, to be honest, I'm like Munta -- I'm seriously concerned that any edits I make will be purged/reversed not because the contributions are invalid/inaccurate/etc, but out of spite, vehemence and vengeance. Sure, I've got several articles out there I'd love to make corrections and additions to, but like Munta and anyone else who's run afoul of Will and Matthew, any change to any page I make will most likely be reversed. Quite bluntly, it would be a damn waste of my time. And if you'll think about it for a minute, how else is *any* Wikian supposed to interpret this debacle? We have a Wikian who *has* contributed positively to several articles -- you have to look at the history of his user page to see it now, thanks to those who were responsible for his blocking to begin with -- and yet because he refused to back down when two adolescents tried to bully him while hiding behind their monitors, he's blocked, ostracized, and otherwise refused further opportunities to contribute positively. Not because he was trolling articles, but because he wouldn't cower when the admin and his sidekick in question growled. Now, taking this into consideration, can you blame myself -- or anyone else, for that matter -- for being more than reluctant with regards to contributing? Which should explain why I've taken up this particular crusade. I *want* to contribute, but not if these two particulars in question are still being allowed to impose blocks and file false claims of "sock puppetry". That sort of behavior is not only without question *very* childish, but it's a symptom of what's keeping Knowledge from gaining the credibility the concept deserves. Geoffrey Mitchell 19:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC) " 10531:-related articles boil down to "revert, revert, revert") who seem to be more or less connected to groups actively "fighting" or discriminating Scientologists off-wiki. I do not want to bring off-wiki information in here and I won't. But this is the main issue here. How do you know who someone is working for or if a certain viewpoint has not been paid for? I am not being paid or receive any advantages for editing here. My concern is that false and biased information should have no place in Knowledge and if this puts me against agenda-pushers, well, that is not surprising then but just shows how necessary it is to scrutinize each contribution. May be I should not be open about that or maybe I should never have said on my user page that I am a Scientologist? Maybe I should not edit via a Church proxy? Knowledge can be abused as a fertile ground for hidden agendas - anonymous IDs, anonymous internet accesses, the possibility to lie about almost everything undetected - so I congratulate those who have the guts to say where they come from and what they want here. I am happy to be notified about anything I might miss in this context. But months of experience tell me that blunt falsehoods can go by for months and years in the Scientology articles because either they are not detected for lack of competent editors or deliberately left in there by the usual crew of Scientology-editors, none of which can be said to be neutral on the issue. Which is a problem that brought me here in the first place. If you know something is a lie, you would go and correct it. If you have access to more data on a subject than a lot of other people you would go and share it on a project like Knowledge. This is what I am doing. 11689:

not because I'm athiest or agnostic, but because I don't really care one way or the other. COFS' problem not only stems from COI but from either refusal or inability to adopt a more neutral editing stance with regard to this issue. If the topic's control swings to any anti-scientology editors, this same procedure, or that of protection, can be instituted. FYI, very few religions are mutually exclusive. That's generally up to the churches of the religions, and the rules that they establish, but parts of various religions are generally compatible. Perhaps you believe in thetans, out of body experiences, and Xenu, you don't have to adopt the notion of there being no god, and you could probably still believe in heaven as an afterlife without ruling out all parts of scientology views. I'd say 1 month CTB under a mentor is MORE than fair. COFS will still be able to edit all non-related articles in wikipedia, and will still be able to call attention to any biased information being introduced into scientology related articles to any one of a myriad of editors neutral to this topic who I'm sure would be glad to help.--

772:, and any other users who identify themselves as SCOX members, or who act in concert with them. I also request Administrator privileges to protect myself from them people and only for that purpose. They will not come near me if they know I will block them on sight, as they did the same forays into the Cherokee Knowledge and Wikigadugi where I am an admin and WikiSysop, and very quickly learned that I will not only block them, but file reports with their ISPs in cases where they attack my personal servers and get their service terminated, which I have done to Vigilant and Al Petrofsky several times already. The criteria for blocking would be 1) They edit any article, talk page, template, or other item on Knowledge within a 96 hour window of before or after I edit the same they get blocked for a week. This gives them four days of distance between me and items I edit. They may not post, harrass, intimidate, or come anywhere near me within this time window. 731:

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

11786:, thank you. I happen to agree that COI is not necessarily limited to paid employment. However, that has been one of the main allegations of this (and previous) discussion(s). I would be curious to learn, how broad a COI-net you would cast in the Scientology articles. I can see how we would include all Scientologists, as they clearly have a vested interest in their own religion. Would you include former Scientologists in the community ban as well? Also, I believe that one editor in particular (not named because it isn't significant at this point) runs a personal anti-COS website. Would that qualify as a conflict of interest and qualify for a community ban? If an editor makes a comment like "Scientoloty is a cult", would that indicate a conflict of interest for writing neutral articles? 3456:. It is true it is almost impossible for him to see that the stuff he added was unsourced or that he did not understand the sources he gived. Also practically all his edits needed copyediting. At one time he was disruptive to the degree that he started to revert my vandal reverts (I can provide the diffs, if needed). Plus he always blanjed his Talk page afer someone put a compliant there. Giving him a tutor would make the person work practically full time on controlling Nasz. I gave up and stopped editing the articles Nasz worked on. However, I had no doubt that someone has to solve the problem sooner or later. It is very similar to another user who was recently blocked indefinitely after a RfC I commented on. - 10542:

cases, sometimes as a named party, yet no sanction has ever even been proposed against me - so to reply to the question about casting the first stone I'll toss: 3 month community topic ban with a referral to dispute resolution. I think COFS's record justifies that much and, on the whole, it's milder than the usual destination for this sort of editorial trajectory. Strongly recommend DR also to COFS's supporters. When dealing with controversial topics generally it's a sign of trouble to see partisan people accuse neutral editors of bias. Please step back, regard this as a preventative measure aimed at defusing a tense situation before more serious sanctions become necessary, and heed the cautions regarding

3395:). With Nasz we have the two-pronged problem of language and pushing of fringe views as mainstream. Even if you invest time in cleaning up his additions, you'll still end up with fringe theories misrepresented as respectable. I honestly don't think we have much to gain from a belligerent editor with little command of English and a fringy agenda. We may get some input for evolving our article on PCT and Slavic nationalism, but I am not sure that's worth the effort. At the end of the day, he unduly imposes on Ghirla's and my time that could be spent more constructively. If other people are willing to babysit him that's fine, give him a mentor or something, but don't let him run around loose on Knowledge. 10830:? Is COFS paid? Is COFS a volunteer staff member? Do we know? Have we investigated? Do we care? Are we simply assuming COI? Has anyone who is considering a block, actually read through the edits of COFS and compared them to similar edits by Anti-COS editors? Even if COI exists, its one thing to have COI, it's another thing to introduce COI into an article. Is there any evidence that COFS is editing with any more undue prejudice than anti-COS editors who run their anti-COS websites? Placing a community ban is not something to be done lightly. And this is certainly not the clear cut case that some would have us belive. 8157:(ec) I agree with Calton above. Lets give him the unblock out of respect due his useful past contributions. With the assertion that this area will not be explored. I do not see any reason why an editor should not be given a chance to learn. Anyone can return from the edge, to contribute usefully to the project. If he returns to the same past behavior at AMA/EA, then back to the indef block. Lets not take take time with multiple chances after all the warnings and the current blocking. I think we all understand that this editor understands what is expected. Under this context, I can support an unblock. 11638:. For clarity, would you be kind enough to point out the pro-scientologists here? From what little I understand of it, Scientology and Christianity are mutually exclusive (though I could be wrong). If that is the case, it would make me an anti-scientologist by definition. As an editor, I am NPOV on the issue. I haven't had any difficulty working with the Scientologists. I wonder why you feel the way you do. Shall we assume from your comments that you are an anti-scientologist? I had not drawn that conclusion, but perhaps I should have. 11724:, I am surely not opposed to writing great articles. This discussion was running for 2-3 days without me being present. During this time lots of things have been said on various boards and I am not sure how I am being "conceived" here. As I said before I am not an employee of the Church (and have not been one in the past and currently do not plan to become one) and I get no money for this or any other advantages. I think this is the third time I write that. Looks like I have to work on my writing style so someone actually reads me... 11141:, I am surely not opposed to writing great articles. This discussion was running for 2-3 days without me being present. During this time lots of things have been said on various boards and I am not sure how I am being "conceived" here. As I said before I am not an employee of the Church (and have not been one in the past and currently do not plan to become one) and I get no money for this or any other advantages. I think this is the third time I write that. Looks like I have to work on my writing style so someone actually reads me... 8356:

Wikilawyering to get his way. That has always been a part of his MO on Knowledge, but it seems to have become dominant. He has a difficult time listening to others. He's very stubborn (and admits to being so) and very hard to suade at times. I think that the block should be lifted if he agrees to leave AMA alone. He has been at times a very valuable member of the community. And I think he can be again. But he does have an obsessive streak. Until he agrees to the topic ban, I don't think he should be let back onto the project. --

5903:). I would like to put Flameviper on community personal attack parole, with a block of upto one week if flameviper makes any attacks (this can be carried out by any administrator). If Flameviper is blocked more than 3 times for infringements of his parole, I would also like to suggest that his indef block is reinstated. Further to all that, I would like to be his mentor and look closely at his edits, if he steps out of line, I will quickly see it and re-block. I hope as a community we can give Flameviper one last chance.... 10843:

reputation of Knowledge if we allow the apparent COI to continue. If Y has been counselled repeatedly about this problem, yet chooses to continue making such edits, That's when Y gets banned. I've tried to counselling within this very same thread, and the response from the pro-Scientology camp has been that I must be an anti-Scientologist because I oppose them. Wrong. I am opposing your conduct on Knowledge, not your beliefs in real life. Counselling hasn't worked, so let's try Durova's suggestion instead.

1401:

hard science, NPOV and SPOV are close to, though not exactly, synonymous). Reddi has been sanctioned before. I suggest that the best way forward here is probably a request to the arbitrators to extend those sanctions, which appear to have been reasonably effective for the most part, because an RfC is just going to end up as another mud-fight between the scientists and the paranormal believers, which is (as we have proven more times than I can count by now) a total waste of time and server resources.

10615:), its going a little light but if COFS is willing to follow the terms of the CTB it would indicate a good first step. After all the goal of this process isn't to punish anyone, just prevent problems. Of course under ideal circumstances, anyone who is a member of an organization, as well as anyone vocally opposed to it, would abstain from editing it save certain exceptions (i.e. the correction of minor details like dates and names), much in the manner that subjects of biographical pages should.-- 11749:. It lists financial, personal, legal, and several other possible sources of COI. All you are trying to do at this point is use (incorrect) semantics to argue in defense of someone who has not just shown POV and COI on a topic, but a consistent will to enforce those views at the detriment to the quality and neutrality of the articles in question. Next time try to base an argument on a definition, it would serve your interest to make sure you actually know and understand it first. 10894:, which lives and dies by their reputation for objective evaluation of evidence, says for example: "An individual should not serve as a member of a committee with respect to an activity in which a critical review and evaluation of the individual's own work, or that of his or her immediate employer, is the central purpose of the activity, because that would constitute a conflict of interest, although such an individual may provide relevant information to the program activity." 10918:, yet I have not seen any McDonalds resturant's blown up by Pizza Hut employees. This is a subject of Religion. You're so focused on the trees you're missing the entire forest. This subject is bigger than some technical definition of COI. Which, by the way, I'm not convinced that we have actually established applies here. I certainly haven't seen any pay-stubs which prove employment. I'm not suggesting COFS isn't employed, I'm asking if we are about to ban without proof. 5190:"This is not the place to come to if you think someone is causing a problem and should be blocked. Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI) for that. Bans are a last resort against editors who behave problematically for a long period of time, not a means to gain advantage or silence those who disagree with you in a dispute. Requesting a ban against an editor is not a step to be taken lightly or without trying other means to resolve the situation first." 11002:

the Church (a very convenient way to get online from everywhere in the world and nothing else) was used broadly to get me blocked for something I did not do, i.e. sockpuppeting. Now we got not even a COI discussion and another angle for getting me booted including some wild guesses on what Knowledge policy could be without naming one of them. Durova once wrote an article which I liked - even though I think that Durova is not applying wikisleuthing at all. You find it

8588:

CharlotteWebb. This follows a number of unhelpful comments left on Requests for Adminship. I'm proposing a novel-ish solution which would initially see Gurch indefinitely blocked until such time as they accept and admit their recent behavior is unhelpful and unacceptable and agree to some form of parole which is acceptable to both them and to the community, such as short blocks leading to longer blocks and finally a final ban should the behavior continue.

12538:

anti's need to stop trying to get their "opponents" blocked or banned. COFS needs to be sensitive to the POV of Scientoogy critics and "religiously" practice 1RR when changing sourced criticism. There is work that needs to be done with the criticism and with the practices too but COFS must realize that s/he will need to step lightly when dealing with the criticism. Go ahead and make the change but if it is reverted then leave it and ask for

10568:, I mention you above as the only one who actually brought up a creative suggestion and yet you seem to feel attacked. That was not my intent. Anyway, this is gets in a discrimination issue unless actual charges are being brought up and until we sort out who is pushing what with what agenda. I am willing to participate in such sortout if everyone involved is actually willing to put the cards on the table and answer up. That includes all 2950:, I believe that - in addition to the specific legal threat - Anacapa's other behavior merits a siteban in its own right. I stated that opinion at the previous ban proposal, which if I recollect closed without action because not enough Wikipedians participated. Also, to clarify another point, I refrained from taking action on any content-related disruption (due to my own POV on the overall subject) and although I endorse a ban for 719:, these other users are all from the SCOX message board. The SCOX message board is an online community of Linux advocates who vigorously attack anyone they feel is a threat to the Linux or FOSS movements or business interests. They are also fundamentally the same community who frequent Groklaw.net. Many of their targets have been affected outside of Cyberspace. All of their behavior conforms to the offenses listed at 2577:

reticent to take direct action because I do have a mild predisposition on matters that relate to feminism. I rarely actually edit that topic except for historical biographies of female soldiers and sailors, which is far removed from Anacapa's areas of interest. I acted here because a legal threat is straightforward reason for banning and few administrators have followed this complex investigation in detail.

759:

into a corner where I come under scrutiny by other editors on the site. Simply reading this message board will reveal that all of these posters are indeed stalking and harassing Knowledge editors and contributors. All of this conduct violates jsut about every policy and rule of civility Knowledge has, The Wikimedia Foundations policies, and in many cases, State and Federal Laws as well. Users like

3542:("consistent nonsensical editing, vulgarisms in discussions"). I think it is pretty clear that we are not looking at merely a language problem here. (there is no doubt the two accounts belong to the same user, his field of interest and his gist match as well as his username). He lasted for just over two months on pl-wiki, sometimes our fluffy approach on en-wiki is a little over the top. Also note 11969:

cloud of soap bubbles instead of creating an encyclopedia which looks great next to others. For my part, I just agreed to stay off the Scientology articles for a bit, just to be able to edit here, i.e. I had to get unblocked, because a random sweeping Admin found some of the noise created around me and thought it a good idea to block me before I even could say beep in here today. No research.

10962:

polarizing because I am the only pro-editor facing a bunch of people with their own agenda. True, it is sometimes hard to see who actually has a neutral or relatively neutral viewpoint. But realize that you are automatically taking sides if no thorough investigation is preceeding your comments. I understand it might be a lot of work to cut through the noise. I think it is worth a try.

12294:(below) have led this charge against COFS. Their talk-page history is riddled with back and forth suspicion and allegation and hypothesizing. As a neutral observer, I'm very disillusioned. I'm not defending COFS here, as much as I am trying to say that this is not the proper forum for this issue. And unless we are prepared to eat the whole apple, we shouldn't bite into it at all. 4916:

bullying. Any admin who was truly upholding their responsibilities would have seen this right off the bat, and have put a stop to the whole debacle the proper way. True, Six may have gotten a little heated towards the end, but if you follow the chain of events, Will and Matthew's refusal to work out their issues with Six despite repeated attempts to settle their differences.

5328:

his medical problems" a perfectly valid criticism? I understand if the fact is that Sixty Six is still recuperating, but on Knowledge, people need to fight their own blocks if feasible, not have a "friend" go on this "particular crusade," as Geoffrey calls it. I am not advocating a block, I am merely asking Geoffrey to step back, take a breath, and try to contribute.

3090:, so Eagle101's suggestion of linking from ANI for wide input has been taken. Users who have had no interactions with Anacapa have looked at the evidence and said that a ban looks necessary. I don't think there's anything left to say here, but I don't want the thread to be archived ambiguously. Can an uninvolved admin now wrap this up and stick a bow on it, please? ·· 13046:"hobby". So maybe, instead of simply telling SheffieldSteel to go somewhere else, she indulged her hobby. Then the dynamic duo of Anynobody and Smee, a tag-team pair quick to jump on anything anti-Scientology chime in and off we go. But it all started because Durova, who should have known better, did not put the brakes to it early but instead poured on the coals. 5051:

Matthew or Will (neither of whom are admins, I should note) follow you to those articles and malevolently undo your edits, report them; if your edits are valid, they should not be reverted, and admins will deal with it. Anyhow, that's the best I can offer - I'd like to see everyone go forward from here, and avoid further nastiness; this is my best suggestion.

5093:

obvious that he's not as positive a contributor to Knowledge as he's presenting himself to be. In either case, while not currently active as admins, they are clearly using the same methods previously employed to impose their will against myself and anyone else who's decided to stand up against the type of bullying Sixty Six and others like him have received.

2059:, including but not limited to enforcement actions under their prior arbitration case, and admonished that so long as an editor, including one on probation, is not restricted in their editing of a page or area they are entitled to be accorded good faith and be treated with respect and courtesy when they edit in those areas. For the arbitration committee, 3668:) subsequently contacted Nasz. Nasz doesn't seem to have responded to this on-wiki, but I don't know if the users have had contact via e-mail. I agree that there are editing issues involving Nasz (broken English, original research, etc.), but I don't know if they exceed the level of a confused newbie to the extent that a community ban might be warranted. 5025:

articles, but he also had some civility issues that appear to have led to the indef-blocking that was left on despite reviews by several admins. If he wants to edit, I'm sure that an e-mail to one of the arbitrators or an ArbCom clerk would provide him with a starting point - and that's probably about the only thing that's going to move a block forward.

5472:. The main problem is that he never accepts consensus and is clearly disruptive because of it. It leads to alot of very lengthy arguments which go in circles and revert wars. He has stated that he is extremely stubborn, and you will never win, even if an admin intervenes. This is all true, with evidence found pretty much wherever his name appears. 9983:

Scientologists, especially those WHO ARE COMPLETELY OPEN ABOUT IT. Which is something you are just about to punish. Better be super-anonymousy, eh? Better be silent about viewpoints or affiliations. Just like Sheffield and the other anti-Scientology editors in Knowledge whose ONLY contribution is anti-Scientology, which is a classic for

13054:. And guess what. It does not describe what is happening here at all!!! The way I think this board is supposed to be used is that an editor finally racks up so many blocks that an admin blocks him indef. Then the admin posts it here and we see if any other admin will unblock. If not, voila, community ban. That is what is described at 2329:, rejecting community input, that all goes under disruptive editing. He has exhausted the patience of around 5 or 6 fairly active editors, and also mine. Evidence of all of that can be see in that RFC, but you'll have to look at Vilerock's contribs to find the recent ones. (I'm not in the mood to list them for your convienience.) - 10822:. In reality, it is pov editors on the anti-CoS side, trying to remove some of their opposition. I can see it, because I edit there and know the players. I happened across the articles due to an encounter with another editor, who happens to edit the same articles I was in, as well as the Scientology articles. I'm familar with the 10155:(on the edit, not the editor). Nor is COFS a sockpuppet or meatpuppet and such was not proven and the opposite was indicated in the checkuser case when all was said and done. COFS is, as far as I know, a Scientology staff member and shares a proxy IP with many other such around the world. Again, let SheffieldSteel pursue standard 5689:

sake of disruption. This user seems to ignore people even when shown applicable policies and believes their own ideals are the only requirement for articles. They show no recognition that their behaviour is disruptive and show no hope of reforming whilst ignoring everyone elses attempts to help wikipedia as a whole community.

11225:

not threaten to close the court and send everyone home. Of course you can always use your admin tools; that goes without saying. But there is little, if any, activity on COFS' part that would warrant such use. If your only objection is the COI issue, then (again) let's walk back over to that court and play over there. --

10367:(un-dent) I'd just like to add a couple of comments. It's rather surprising to be accused of being known as a biased editor on the issue of Scientology, although I have always considered Misou and Justanother to hold pro-Scientology views, so perhaps I should not be surprised. Perhaps this sounds like a violation of 727:

weapons permit and a firearm he carries with him always due to the serious nature of these threats. I have received a box of dead fish wrapped in newspaper shipped to my residence as well which also coincide with threatenting postings on the SCOX message board, as well as death threats directed against my family.

12645:. Whether or not there is a formal ban isn't important to me. I am only concerned with the results. If COFS doesn't want to accept a ban, for reasons of reputation, but would agree to the other things, that would make me happy. I only speak for myself, of course, but I can try to convince others if COFS agrees. 10867:? It hasn't? What counseling? What hasn't worked? Have you even done any edit counting on those articles to see how infrequently COFS is actually editing? I've never suggested anyone here is Anti-Scientologist. I think the admins here want to do the right thing, and they are being happily led down the path of COI. 5132:'s talk page? He's gotten into about 500 disputes here at Knowledge. I'm not even here to fight with Sceptre or MatthewFenton. I just don't think Sixty_Six should have been blocked, and a legitimate reason has not been given. If you uphold Sixty_Six's ban based on the arguments presented, then the fact that 991:

disagrees with you is a troll, SCOX member, OSS Zealot, revertbot, sock puppet or stalker. The sooner you start acting like a rational person and drop this "I gave money, I can do what I want!" attitude, the sooner the people you're accusing will fade into the background because you'll cease to amuse them. --

6131:, he's not "bragging" about anything. It looks to me like he's attempting to put something out in the open, which I think is better than hiding it away. Besides, according to him, the user "FlameViper12" wasn't a sockpuppet, he changed his username. Most of the accounts don't appear to ever have been used. - 10143:) to bring someone with an opposing POV here. COFS has a POV as do we all. I am familiar with COFS' edits and they are not whitewashing. They look like well-considered edits and any dispute that SheffieldSteel with them falls under the category of content disputes and SheffieldSteel should be using standard 10371:, given my alleged anti-Scientology bias, but for the record I have no great beef with Scientology, no conflict of interest, and no particular bias - other than a desire to see wikipedia succeed as a neutral and reliable source of information for others. The only thing on wikipedia that could really offend 12603:. If somebody operates an off-Wiki attack site, and then comes here and tries to use Knowledge to distribute propaganda, that's a policy violation you should report. We will consider and investigate all such complaints that have a proper basis. Editors must be careful not to create the appearance that 12147:

that something needs to be sorted out and if s/he does not sort something out then s/he may well be on that well-oiled path you envision. But for now, let's put our oilcans down, please, and let her take it from here. There is NOT any history of progressive discipline to warrant any sort of block/ban. --

13045:

Durova, the "experienced admin" here should have put a quick stop to that and "guided toward a more appropriate venue". But she did not. Instead she jumped in with both feet but little research and dubious logic. Why? IDK, but posts on her talk page clearly indicate that she sees stuff like this as a

13015:

Durova, my below edit-conflicted with your post. I am calling you on what I see as an error in judgement on your part and contributing to the misuse of this board. I disagree with your assessment of this particular case and feel that you are pigeon-holing COFS and unduly escalating something that has

12303:

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

12158:

I think that arbitration might be inevitable. Even the most neutral non-Scientology sources express a more critical view of it than Scientologists feel is appropriate. As a result they feel as though the CoS is being slandered and libelled by the media. They offer church writings or Hubbard's claims

12128:

guideline. My advice to pro-Scientology editors at this thread is to weigh the potential for losing one of the editors you value for much longer than one month through community action, as well as the potential public relations effect of a second arbitration case. A hard line approach isn't likely to

11983:

On the plan to boot Scientologists but not the hate-campaigners from the Scientology-articles, well, if this needs to go to ArbCom or JW for testing against WP antidiscrimination policy, we should do it. I'd prefer a less dramatic way, i.e. the talk page, and AN/I if needed. For me this discussion is

11794:

you remove one faction, are you prepared to step in and prevent the other faction from completely obfuscating the article with bias? I still maintain that there are a sufficient quantity of editors on both sides to prevent any single editor from getting away with inserting any lasting POV due to COI.

11559:

where I cautioned very early - before arbitration began - that an editor needed to change course. I offered some reasonable ways to change course, but she refused. Now she's sitebanned by both the community and the arbitration committee. Consider the advantages of my offer: a formal mentor will be

11311:

I treat these accounts as the same person: they edit the same topics toward the same POV. So for administrative purposes they're essentially indistinguishable: if they aren't actually the same person they're meatpuppets so the policy applies equally in either scenario. Although I could consider the

11167:

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

10897:

Following that analogy, an employee of X certainly is welcome to "provide relevant information" by posting suggestions on an article's Talk page, but there's no way they should edit the article itself. We can argue whether "emotional attachment", etc. also constitutes a COI, but to argue that writing

10691:

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

8693:

I don't want Gurch to admit our processes aren't broken, I want him to stop trying to break process even further to try and force across his point. It's disruptive, discredits those who believe process is broken and makes it hard to see if a process is genuinely broken. The last thing we need at the

8683:

He may not have been terribly helpful, but he's still being genuine, not malicious. If he's responding to the perception that wikipedia processes are becoming broken, then bullying him into admitting that they aren't isn't going to accomplish anything but pushing him away entirely. Would it really be

8174:

CyclePat has been offered just about exactly that several times over the last week, save for the one-week cap; he seems unwilling or unable to understand or accept those terms. Pat's reading of "dropping it" is "..Let's assume I'm unblocked and get 3 other users interested in the AMA by specifically

6497:

is, I think the community made a good decision. No harm done. I don't think this should dissuade us from making a similar decision about future editors wishing to come back from the edge. We may have been "suckered" however, I would call it the cost of doing business in the big picture. I to want

5926:

thread about this subject and I'll copy it to here now) I have to agree with those opposing an unblock. I was one of the editors who dealt with him very frequently in his last months on Knowledge (I was the one who imposed the 1 month block that was later extended to the indefinite block by Yanksox)

5518:

Having said that, he does seem to have some issues with civility and collaboration, and hasn't seemed to learn much through the dispute resolution thus far. While a community ban is probably not in the cards at this point, if you feel it's necessary for his actions to be dealt with, arbitration might

5136:

is still on Knowledge is ludicrous given that he's been in arguments with about 498 more people that Sixty_Six ever has and has been banned several times before that. Keep in mind, Sixty_Six never even got blocked before that. Is that how Knowledge works? You get in one disagreement with the wrong

4865:

There's another related point that should be made here: why aren't Will and Matthew here justifying their actions? As has been pointed out by others, there seems to be some obvious concerted effort to "protect" these two particulars individuals against any criticism to the point that all they have to

4280:

I think you keep missing the point that you have been given numerous chances to change your behavior by lenient admins, but instead have repeatedly broken WP rules (and continue to insist that you have the right to do so as well as continue editing as you see fit, as you stated above) and as a result

1332:

Calling it a "solomonic" approach implies that one party might be less guilty then the other. I think both editors have long histories of disruptive editing. In my experience SA, in particular, becomes a notorious wikilawer whenever it supports his agenda and Reddi has been guilty of his own policy

12532:

Durova, the problem is that when we hand out one-month bans without sufficient justification we do a disservice to the editor and to the project. To the editor because that ban will be forever used as a basis for further disciplinary actions. To the project because if Knowledge is said to operate on

11828:

that concern me. COI simply indicates a potential for an editors interests to be in conflict with those of Knowledge. The problem comes when someone does (as COFS has) make edits towards those interests. COFS has demonstrated, again as I've said before, either an inability or unwillingness to put

11793:

COI is not a policy, it is a guideline. If we start micro-managing these articles by community banning individual editors, simply because they have a related 'interest' in the articles, we better be prepared to jump in and solve the whole problem. I have no desire to represent either 'side' here. If

11519:

article consist of minor copyediting and major reversions of the edits of a number of editors that seem to be sympathetic to Scientology. I do not see that reversion behavior as the actions of a neutral editor. I added to that his action is opening this case to come up with my characterization but I

11276:

told me that the CoS doesn't provide general Internet access for it's members. It was then assumed the users must then be accessing Knowledge "at work". Essentially we don't know for sure what the actual situation is outside of the basic fact that several User accounts are editing Knowledge from the

11035:

COFS, can you confirm that you don't work for the CoS? Are we confused? Simply being a scientologist isn't a COI. I wish the pros- and the cons- could agree to respect each other's sourced statements, even when they look like bollocks. Our readers are smart enough to evaluate the sources and see

11021:

PS, I did take a time out (check my activity record) and do so regularly. I got an offline job and that is time consuming, as most of us know. This time is usually the time for some guys who just heard from a friends friend how dangerous Scientology might be to put in some badly sourced slant in the

10389:

cited above by Justanother as an example of "OR by a POV-warrior". I don't understand how a neutral observer could construe this edit as OR or POV-pushing. What it does do is cite an independent source that apparently contradicts a statement attributed to L Ron Hubbard in the article, while stopping

10350:

And the "impressive block log" boils down to two blocks for 3RR; the ChrisO block was bogus (COFS removing links as per an RfC and the links were eventually all removed) and the coelacan blocks were basically one block for something COFS has no control over - what proxy server s/he uses and the fact

10209:

discussions have failed to resolve an ongoing problem. Yes, I also have a problem with anti-Scientology litigants editing the Scientology article. The best thing would be to let people who can maintain NPOV work on the article. That said, we have to peel the onion one layer at a time, and COFS is

8421:

This thing about banning somebody because they hold and express an opinion that most others disagree with seems a bit unsettling to me... why not just ignore him when he talks about his pet obsession, and hope he moves on to something more productive eventually? Why the need to put him under threat

8396:

resolution to bar him from discussing AMA is going to have any effect and my reading of what he has stated on his talkpage is that he rejects any sort of unblock that comes with the stipulation that he must not discuss AMA. I'll wait to see what his response to Calton and Ryan is, but at this point

8329:

honor that. He's certainly not someone whose sole purpose is to disrupt; unfortunately, some of his actions have had exactly that effect regardless of intent. Still, I believe a topic ban (with quickly-escalating blocks should it be violated, and a very explicit warning that it means "Stay away from

6908:

why the standards are the way they are (for e-mail in this case, but newsgroups have similar standards in this regard). It looks like you're engaging in the same old behavior here on Knowledge... ignoring all standards when they don't suit your own preferences. Yes, I know we've got an "Ignore All

6216:

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

6066:

he agrees to a stringent set of editing restrictions under zero-tolerance (no warning for parole violation). This should include (but necessarily be limited to) discussing all reversions but vandalism on the article talk page, strict civility requirements and a prohibition on socks & IP editing.

5789:

I was really seeking an indefinite amount of time, but I suppose that's sufficient for now. The next important matter to bring up is the length of ban at the moment and/or in future. Again, I am in no place to place an opinion, as my judgement may be biased. Personally I would say indefinite, as per

5137:

person and you are blocked forever right away (no ifs, ands or buts). But you can get into an argument with everyone else who doesn't have connections and get away with it scott free, or at the very least, be given a timeout. Very hypocritical in my opinion. I challenge anyone to find any one of

4962:

Finally, I'll stress again that I *do* want to spend more time contributing to articles. However, as with many who're watching the "Sixty Six Situation" witn interest and have voiced their dissent as to how he was treated, I'm *very* reluctant to make any edits as I, with good reason, do not want to

4296:

do not understand what I say. I think that the "user-management" rules of Knowledge, which is parte of the management of the encyclopedia, is flawed, but at the same time I like very much the encyclopedia in itself. This is why I came to understand that I do not care of your opinion, and that I keep

2588:

Apologies for the lack of clarity in my use of the word "dispute". Durova is right to mention this - I was using the word in its wider meaning. The users I listed don't have a simple content dispute with Anacapa. Much of Anacapa's disruption is a matter of them turining pages into battlegrounds -

1983:

Not normally. Certain abuses warrant it, though -- especially when its admins abusively sockpuppeting. Seems to be a little more common then we'd like, sadly; I guess it's just the bell curve -- the more admins we have, the more bad apples are going to turn up to take advantage of our assumptions of

1400:

The major difference between SA and Reddi is that SA's bias is towards scientific rationalism, whereas Reddi's is towards everything but. The former is much less of a problem, as the sources SA prefers tend to be reliable and his edits tend towards what I woudl consider to be neutral (in matters of

1154:

in a very unencyclopedic fashion, being extremely combative to the point of total breakdown in communications, and has basically checked out of normal editorial discussions instead repeating himself over and over again without addressing the fundamental problems. I will ask the other editors who are

758:

The SCOX message board postings reveal that virtually every edit I make on this site is reviewed and commented on in a sportscaster "blow by blow" description at the SCOX message board, with planned forays and a multitude of sockpuppet attacks designed to create chaos on Knowledge and marginalize me

734:

During the initial foray while I was banned by Jimbo because I had filed a lawsuit in Federal Court against SCOX members, several of these message board trolls approached me anonymously through letters, anonymous phone calls, and other means and attempted to extort money from me or demanded I resume

730:

In September of 2005, SCOX message board trolls posted an article to Knowledge libelling me, then proceeded to use the article as a platform to enshrine what Jimbo Wales characterized in statements on the article talk page as "libel, trolling, and tabloid gossip". Mr. Wales deleted the page and all

12626:

And if I was quick on the trigger then I ask you to understand how many times I have seen exactly that behavior by critics of Scientology. In fact, IMO, they have elevated it to an art form. However and that said, I continue to maintain that this is NOT the proper forum to have a discussion with or

12580:

trying to get a Scientologist in trouble by, of all things, calling her an SPA. That is the laughable lopsided world we see in the Scn series articles where the pot calls the kettle black but only the kettle gets in trouble. COFS is not a disruptive editor. Yes, there is some back and forth between

12571:

You misunderstand me; I am talking about the general atmosphere in which COFS edits. That is relevant. I have been here a year now and, trust me, I know how it goes over there. Died-in-the-wool off-wiki critics of Scientology have dominated those articles for years. I do not mean SheffieldSteel; he

12461:

only. The alternative if COFS declines that offer is a three month community topic ban. Lsi john would do well to enter that program also. I think there's been enough community input from uninvolved editors to close this discussion. If anyone disagrees strongly, hotly disputed threads from this

12445:

There is/was a question about sock puppets, due to the IP address. This seems to have been resolved by establishing that the COS in LA has a proxy. As I can't see IPs, I am not in a position to know if Misou and/or COFS edits from multiple (different) respective IPs or not. However, observing their

11968:

and so on). I can stand rough words and knowing his/her edits I am sure Misou as well. However those provocateurs never get put on a stake like me here and as long as this is the case, I doubt that proper research/wikisleuthing is being done by the responsible Admins. It seems that we get lost in a

11564:

one or more articles those articles can be page protected. It doesn't matter to me whether the topic at hand is Scientology, Seventh Day Adventism, alternative medicine, or Australian professional wrestling - when a certain type of human dynamic takes over things play out in predictable ways. I'm

11224:

and have a discussion there and, if COFS does not like the outcome of that discussion then s/he can open a User RfC on the issue or try ArbCom. So where is the ball now? It should never have been in this court in the first place so lets go play the game where it should be played and lets you please

11001:

etc in all this? One information alone, which I stupidly put on my user page, that I am a Scientologist, was polarizing and got me - in Feb 07 - in the line of attack. Ok, my reaction that time was not civil and not by the rules but I learned in between. Then the fact that I am using a proxy run by

10948:

for other editors who may suffer from COI or POV pushing tendencies, the community will deal with them in turn. Refraining from editing the articles doesn't mean absolute silence. The article talk pages and noticeboards would still be available if COFS seems a problem and wants to call for help.

10947:

I just want COFS to agree to stop editing the articles that represent a COI. If COFS would agree (and abide), there'd be no need for blocks! I spent a couple hours last night on IRC with another admin talking about blocks. The great insight was the blocks should be avoided whenever possible. As

10739:

And all that aside, on a personal note.. what the hell happened to due process? We have anti-COS editors who opened this discussion. We have uninvolved editors making a decision. When does COFS get representation? Shouldn't this be a much more formal process and a very thorough investigation? If we

10733:

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

9968:

I also agree after visiting the links and checking up on some of this user's past behavior that a long-term (ideally indefinite) topic ban should be initiated. All out bans are not really necessary unless a user is causing widespread problems but this user is consistently threatening the integrity

9940:

isn't part of the dispute resolution process. I agree this is a problematic editor and I can agree to a Scientology topic ban based on what you've presented, along with the editor's block log and checkuser results. But all out sitebanning is a serious matter and I hesitate to line up behind it at

8896:

in the section labelled "Discussion"). He is ignoring some rules for what he (obviously in my opinion) honestly perceives as being the greater good for Knowledge. His being mildly wrong and somewhat stubborn doesn't make him worse than a regrettably high percentage of people on Knowledge. So he's a

7865:

I could support that, although the user does contribute useful information. The other option I could see is a revert parole. If he reverts any article more than once per 24 hour period or more than 2 times in any 7 day period or more than 3 times in any 30 day period then brief blocks could follow,

7821:

Looking at his history, I see an awful lot of instances where he's deleted talk page warnings. Not promising. I would think a one-year ban on editing comics-related articles is the way to go, plus an indefinite ban on removing talk page warnings. Contrary to what your colleagues said on the RfC,

7663:

is moved back to main space, Akc9000 starts turning it into an advertisement. I ask him to stop, but he proceeds. At this point I start digging, and find out that he controls the domain name of the software he's writing about. Obviously there is a serious COI, or appearance of COI, so I reported

6416:

Well, at least now we have a considerably firmer ground to say "yeah right" from when asked again for an unblock, seeing as we can't even trust him not to use sockpuppets in a discussion on getting him unbanned. I can't say I'm too surprised either, although I did support unblocking. Oh, and I cast

6114:

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

5688:

is a problem user. Their arguments are circular backed by no policies or any sort of real argument other than "I want it" (in reference to articles about characters) despite the fact that the articles fail many of wikipedia's key policies. They create arguments simply for the sake of it and for the

5154:

This once again raises the question that no admin has dared to answer during all this: why aren't the accuser(s) previous history of edits and disputes taken into account? It would seem the answer is that the meaning of AGF applies differently to those who are either admins or cohorts of said. It's

5050:

If you have an issue with Matthew or Will regarding their contributions, as I suggested before, an RFC would be a starting point. But, as my last comment on the matter as a completely uninvolved editor, I'd really suggest that you leave this alone, and go on and edit other articles productively. If

4889:

Secondly, I really fail to see what the IP address point you're making has to do with anything here. Timeouts happen, and I simply failed to notice it until after the comment was added. I went back and added my signature after I logged in. Is there some Knowledge rule that says that happenstance is

4841:

First off, I acknowledge we're here to build an encyclopedia. What's *not* being acknowledged is that there appears to be a "clique" in effect whose interests are more interested in trying to impose their will -- no pun intended -- upon the shape of articles with undue and unnecessary force. If you

4136:

is my screenname, not a sockpuppet account. Secondly, you really have no ground to file any sort of complaint for behavior. You are just as guilty as I am of resorting to childish behavior, only difference is I am mature enough to admit it. Not only did you instigate this entire matter by initially

4100:

LOL. Thank God that's not possible. If you could become Puerto Rican through a one night stand there would be billions of you people. lol. Isn't there a list of Puerto Ricans somewhere on this site for you to update ... oh, yeah ... Puerto Ricans really haven't done anything worthwhile so you stick

3373:

to Knowledge, by learning more about him and the basis for his contributions we might be able to set limits on which contributions conform with Knowledge policy. Once Nsaz is made aware of these limits, he will be able to choose between participation and block. Then again, I'm not familiar with the

2999:

You're right Durova, some others have dealt with Anacapa far more than I have, so my remark was poorly worded. Having finished reading Cailil's report, I can see that those working on gender and feminism related articles have had to deal with him particularly often in the past. I guess I just see

12146:

to me. Long story short, COFS is a grownup and if s/he wants to play with fire then let him and if he gets burned then so be it. This is COFS' call. S/he can ask for a mentor, ask you to recommend one, do an RfC on herself, or handle this in any number of ways. The one thing I think we agree on is

11735:

If this is about COI, and COI is defined as 'employed by', and COFS claims to not be 'employed by', then the matter seems to be settled. Any further action would effectively be banning an individual for having a POV about an issue, and as I pointed out above, we will need to ban a lot more editors

11688:

Yes this is about COFS, the second party under the term "these editors" most likely refers to Misou, who has been following a similar path. I cannot speak for anyone else but I myself am 100% neutral on this issue. I have no real interest in religion on any level. I don't practice any religion,

11608:

It seems to me that the pro-Scientology faction isn't interested in working with other editors. They feel that if they cause enough procedural wrangling, and if they bring in enough sympathetic friends to stack the debate, they can obstruct our efforts to create a neutral encyclopedia. We really

11425:

be viewed as a threat. Do you view it as a threat? I seriously doubt you do. I suspect that it's more likely that you resent having your actions so explicitly defined. To consider it a threat is absurd, given the post that was associated with it. It is symbolic of the lynching that is taking place

11175:

entry. And given what I've observed - particularly at this very thread - this editor fits a pattern that typically ends with much more serious sanctions. The ball's in your court. If you refuse to volley we can serve a 3 month topic ban, and if consensus doesn't form for that I can still use my

10191:

Then I would as well say that off-wiki critics of Scientology (those that picket Scientology churches and/or maintain or heavily contribute to anti-Scientology websites, etc.) should equally not inflame the discussion by editing in those pages. In either case, the proper thing to do is address the

9501:

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

8315:

His whole premise of being unblocked is that with jsut one more chance he can demonstrate the necessity of AMA. His quixotic obsession will earn him an indefinite ban. I suggest a long block right now so that his obsession can subside somewhat. Unblocking now is like giving heroin to a junkie.

6293:

IMO, if he is going to be unblocked, then style it after the Merkey unblock. An admin (or admins) will need to commit to keeping an eye on Flameviper, not only to keep him honest as it were but also to make sure he isn't getting trolled by anyone who wants to take advantage of his temperament and

5345:

I agree, Knowledge is not a battleground, but I find it hypocritical that Sixty_Six gets a punishment for allegedly treating it as one while Sceptre and Matthew don't even get warned for treating Knowledge as a battleground. Don't you find it ironic that he is calling for the unbanning of someone

5327:

That is not how I see it. Still, Geoffrey is clearly breaking policy of advocating for the rights of a person who is not currently a party to this continued discussion. How is stating that "It might have been the stress from being assaulted by those two you-know-whos that might have contributed to

4778:

Actually, I think what Addhoc is saying is that we're here to build an encyclopedia, so that's what everyone should be doing. As I suggested to you, go out and work on articles - outside of the articles that the people you're in conflict with are involved in - and we can all go about our business.

3992:

But the question remains: what do we do with the articles Nasz and his sockpuppets have created? Do we keep them around here waiting for someone to clean them up, do we seek the help of a regional noticeboard in fixing possible translation errors, do we send the articles to AFD or should we speedy

2576:

To clarify: I am not engaged in any content dispute with Anacapa, nor do I edit at the same articles. The only sense in which Anacapa and I have a direct dispute is regarding the legitimacy of a block warning I had posted at Anacapa's user talk page. Throughout Cailil's investigation I have been

990:

Promising that if you're granted Administrator privs that you'll use them only for good? Given the unreliable nature of your previous promises (like the condition that you were only going to edit Cherokee articles on English WP) I truly hope this doesn't get granted. Mr. Merkey, not everyone who

910:

This is an off-WP fight that has rolled onto WP. While I have some sympathy for Mr. Merkey, a lot of this, quite frankly, he brought onto his own head with his actions, and his demands. It's said if you start believing that you have enemies in every corner and acting on those beliefs, sure enough,

868:

Realistically, much of what you're asking for is definitely not going to be granted. For example, I can say with almost complete certainty that the community will not grant you Administrator access to "protect" yourself, nor will it place injunctions on people preventing them from editing articles

714:

Users have exhibited a pattern of stalking, trolling, and harrassment based upon personal, political and business objectives to either drive this user away from Knowledge, or setup various "ambushes" under feigned claims of "edit warring" and other forms of disruption where they work together as a

13049:

How did I come to this epiphany? Well, I thought it odd that a so-called community sanction was taking place with a small group of mostly highly-invested editors and one "hobbyist" admin. I thought it odd that this board even existed. So I looked at the policy that is supposed to be the basis for

12904:

Yes, but it has no place here, especially as Smee neglected to inform that it was an unrelated editor in an unrelated case; the only relation being that both concern Scientology and Scientologists. But that is not enough relation seeing as this discussion is taking place on a sanction board and I

12640:

As long as people are talking and trying to find common ground, that's a good thing, regardless of the forum. We know what Durova's offer is. I would be happy if COFS would agree not to edit the Scientology articles for a while, in order to help cool down the edit wars. COFS could still use the

12537:

then that wisdom is negated if we stack the deck and the anti-Scientologists have a long history here of stacking the deck. I do not mean SheffieldSteel but I most certainly do include Anynobody and Smee. All sides need to learn to work together! Sheffield needs to stop revert-warring and all the

12078:

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

10541:

That's painting with too broad a brush: in over 15,000 edits on this site I don't believe I've ever edited a Scientology article or voiced a view about the subject or had a hand in any Scientology-related conflict. I'm also an administrator with 18 barnstars who's been involved in 14 arbitration

8587:

is a former administrator and is/was a highly regarded contributor. Their recent behaviour suggests a growing bitterness towards the project which once again culminated in a curious but most undesireable incident tonight which saw Gurch repeatedly adding a indefblocked template to the userpage of

7713:

Just block them indefinably, no need for this. I gave them one chance, thats it. Blah he is already indeffed, no need to formally "ratify" it. Close this discussion. Durova we really don't need to vote on already banned users ya know :) (yes before this discussion he was effectively banned, after

6022:

or formal ARBCOM ban). I think as we've seen before, a banned editor can request a lifting of that ban, but (generally speaking) nobody is going to unilaterally just unblock a banned editor without a community discussion first. I'm not aware of any hard or fast rules on this, but if he was just

5629:

dispute with Vilerocks/BassxForte, then no. I've been avoiding talking to him directly. If it's previous disputes, then yes, to a great extent. I have been directly involved in disputes, but I've been trying to maintain a neutral view. Since I could be regarded as being biased against this person

5539:

indicates three ways to deal with a disruptive editor: A simple ban by an admin, ArbCom, or a community ban. I consider both ArbCom and here to be a form of last resort, but I decided this may be easier, since it includes the opinion of other editors. This is why I'm growing frustrated at my last

5024:

Looking back at Sixty Six's edits, he started out contentious - his first edit under that username referred to "wikinazis" and his second, to his user page, included an insulting comment about Matthew. I went through most of his contribs this afternoon; he did make some good contributions to some

4651:

My personal belief is that Geoffrey Mitchell, and the IPs that often "show up", are Sixty Six or friends of Sixty Six (meat puppets). Geoffrey Mitchell has shown quite clearly that he is not here to edit/improve the encyclopaedia, I've tried to ignore the long-term trolling that has occurred, but

2471:

This was the editor previously here at CSN where the view point of a majority of those discussing the case was that if they were an active editor (they had disappeared from Wiki for some time), sanctions would be needed. Since the editor has returned and has not improved in the slightest, that my

12244:

Those of you on the pro-Scientology side have behaved equally poorly, so this is a road you'd best not begin going down. Both the pro- and anti- sides have plenty of bad history. Since both camps are irremediably hostile toward one another and cannot accept that the other side could possibly be

12006:

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

11344:

block. If you can't block for COI, you'll block for sock puppet. If you cant block for sock puppet, you'll block for meat puppet. If you are now going to redefine community ban to include meatpuppets who edit with a common purpose, then you need to include at least 4 more editors on the anti-COS

10706:

I believe that in extremely polarized articles, especially on religion, attempting to micro manage by trying to determine and define COI takes more than a quickie discussion on a board with uninvolved admins. And then, by placing community bans on editors from only one side, we are upsetting the

7682:

My sense is that we have been played for fools by a user intent on link spamming Knowledge who will do whatever it takes to get his stuff into the encyclopedia. If we allow him to continue editing, he should be paired with one mentor so he doesn't keep shopping around for sympathetic admins.

6695:

is telling. Eep has not bothered to issue a response to the RfC in the appropraite section. Rather, the RfC documents an escalation of name calling behaviors and editing persistently against consensus under the misguided impression that the user is some sort of martyr for a cause. He has been

6032:

Yes, the admin willing to unblock is the exact wording, though it's implict that admins will be using good judgement and considering the bigger picture not just their own point of view. If an admin believes they and they alone are right and the broader view to be ignored, then that's when we get

5662:

The only assistance I need is a willing admin to block him indefinitely. I've used ANI, no admins assisted at all. I don't like going to someone dragging them into it because it goes against my view of Knowledge, which is, volunteering. I'd rather post my problem and wait for offers of help, but

4915:

Thirdly, I'm "focused" because I saw a good contributor to Knowledge run off of here for the *wrong* reasons. He wasn't run off because his contributions wern't up to snuff, or that he was trolling, but that two specific individuals went on a vendetta against him over his refusal to accept their

3702:

I also attempted to contact him, and redress this before it came to a ban, but this user removed my overtures without comment. He does not appear willing to try and work towards a resolution of this, and I do not believe that an RfC will have any impact on him. I am loathe to move for a ban on

2562:

on Shunning (becasue Anacapa has attempted to turning the talkpage into a battleground) and with myself (because of Anacapa's repeated IP trolling of Project gender studies). I consider Anacapa's behaviour to be disruptive because it has wasted a lot of editors' time and has created a poisonous

1485:

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

1246:

is not incivil. That's precisely the sort of allegation you get from problem users that try to "turn policy right back at you". Thus, I think J.S with his "both editor" Solomonic approach is mistaken. If Reddi managed to behave for a full year, and fell back into his bad habit once he was not on

10961:

That logic gets you those editing article who have less knowledge about the subject they are editing about than the ones you are trying to boot. Asking a butcher for vegetarian recipes, so to say, will get you a list of ugly tasting meals. As I said above, let's get all cards on the table. I am

10842:

This is really very simple. Y, an employee of X, edits an article about X and gets into disputes with other editors. I don't care what X is, and I don't care about the personal beliefs of Y. I care that X has an employee editing an article about X. At minimum, this looks bad and damages the

8355:

article in late 2005. I've been saddened by the recent turn of events, because he is very passionate and when he's editing instead of trolling, he's a very useful member of the project. The problem is the passion. It's wonderful when it's put to good use. But when it isn't, he's become prone to

7796:

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

5092:

Incorrect. Will recently "abandoned" his admin position at the same time as the admin who imposed the permanent block on Sixty Six, Alkivar, and Matthew has made three very unsuccessful attempts to become an admin. If you take note of the comments made that were against his admin campaign, it's

4685:

I'd be curious as well. I'm also going to leave a note on Geoffrey Mitchell's talk page to suggest that he try building the encyclopedia instead of carrying this on; it doesn't look like he's aware of this discussion either, at this point. I still feel that, if he's not a sock (or the checkuser

3269:

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

726:

Based on news reports in the Deseret News, Darl McBride, the CEO of SCO has received death threats and boxes of earthworms and dirt in the mail from anonymous addresses which coincide with threats and postings from these users on the SCOX message board which has led to him acquiring a concealed

12967:

The only unfounded accusation getting tossed around here is that impartial editors have singled out Scientology. I extend a basic respect for devoted adherents to any religion and the standards I apply here are exactly the ones I would extend to any other faith. I've started an article about

10672:

is a staff member for CoS and therefore has a COI, shouldn't we also say that every Scientology member has a COI? In fact, I would submit, that the religious aspect would carry much more COI weight than an employment aspect. My church (not Scientology) employs people who are not members of our

8881:

and assumes relatively little bad faith, seeing as such interactions as discussed here are all "on behalf of" editors in good standing. What he does may be unhelpful, and even detrimental to his arguably good-faithed cause, but that —essentially good-faithed— is what I perceive his actions as.

5512:

It does say in the header of the page that community bans are a last resort. Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution, and if you don't feel that the user is learning from the RFC or other discussions, that really is the right way to go - especially if you haven't received a response

10095:

Hey Mike, heavy apologies for the typo and welcome to the internets. Your WEASELwords: "I wouldn't go so far as to say", "I would say its a sign of". In this whole discussion I would not say this: "I am sure you that you are not as dumb as you might appear to some.", only as a made-up example

6569:(I guess you considered the edit comment "replies to the hypocracy" an insult, or something--gee, with such a loose definition of "insult" just about everyone I've ever dealt with on Knowledge would be warned and already banned!). And then, here's the clencher, you go on to actually vandalise 6529:

This editor continuously ignores standards for disambiguation pages, revert wars to put his/her idiosyncratic ideas about how things should work into disambig pages, formats lists articles into two columns despite being told that that is not done. User then repeatedly reverts to non-standard,

4388:

I have to disagree with EdJohnston here. From the user's previous posts on this noticeboard, he clearly states his intentions to continue editing unless he's outright banned from the project. I think many editors are tired of playing hide-and-seek with his socks and wish that other avenues be

3359:

I don't mind to that, although I confess it takes a lot of precious time to follow his contributions, lest his original research infiltrates mainspace, where it may be perpetuated by subsequent edits. I have never seen a person who treats WP as a battleground for his fringe theories suddenly

3318:

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

1939:

I oppose an indef ban on Henrygb. He is presently banned until he explains his actions to ArbCom. That seems a satisfactory position to me. Banning him regardless of any explanation he may later give is unnecessary and unfair. If you believe that he will never be able to offer a satisfactory

739:

and/or sent the box of dead fish, since it was postmarked from Oregon (Portland) near where he lives. Vigilant appears to live in Nebraska and has moved to California and formerly ran the Linux Users Groups in the midwest. Most of these people have money and /or are older and have business

11933:: "Knowledge's guidelines say that people shouldn't have a conflict of interest and that you should write about things that you have no connection with. I think that is a naive view. Most of the people who write in Knowledge are tending to write about things that matter to them.". Don't you? 5651:

This situation seems a little ridiculous to me. If an editor is being disruptive or is going against consensus and will not stop, block them. Everyone here is a volunteer; it's absurd to have volunteers forced to deal with nonsense like this. Let me know if you need any assistance. Cheers.

12414:

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

10936:

On the other hand, if we want to discuss a short-term block on COFS for edit summaries or 3RR, then I'm with you. Personally, I think COFS does more of a disservice to Scientology than a credit. But that doesn't mean I support fast-tracking a community ban on someone in order to remove the

12401:

I think COFS should have an opportunity to get a mentor WITHOUT any formal ban. Because, based on prior experience, any ban will be used against COFS every time that COFS makes any revert in any future article. And a ban is unnecessary, as I believe COFS has already agreed to some form of

5355:

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

13016:

little evidence of needing escalation. While what I think about your motives does not mean much, I do not think it is because of any bias against Scientology, I think it is because you have a hobby. Is this horrendous on your part? IDK. I guess if I was COFS and I got a block out of this

1833:. This is an egregious betrayal of trust--this is the third time in a year that we've had admin-related issues tainted by sockpuppetry. Speaking as a rank-and-filer, I am of the mind that this guy should not be allowed back under any circumstances, and propose a permanent community ban. 11824:. As I have already said more than once, the COI problem is not as much COFS' association with scientology as it is the fact that whatever that association may be, it is clearly causing a lack of discipline in her edit process. It is not the presence of COI that concerns me, it is COI 12559:

At Knowledge we don't base decisions about Editor A upon policy violations by Editor B. As I've stated before, anyone here can initiate a separate action regarding any other editor. This solution specifically keeps all parties free to do that and free to engage in dispute resolution.

9982:

Hi. Did anybody note that COFS has not said anything here yet. Last time I checked Sheffield did not even bother to inform her about this little talk here. I have been attacked for being some kind of puppet of COFS. I am not. But this case has shown the nice little witch hunts going on

6231:

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

4300:

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

1999:

I'm agreeing with WJBscribe here. He's already banned until he explains his actions to Arbcom, and if he ends up doing so, then we should take his statement into account for a discussion of banning him. Having said that, I really do doubt that he won't end up banned forever some way.

13031:(Light goes off) I just figured out my problem here. This board is being misused and I kinda suspect that the error falls mostly on Durova (gee, I hope I didn't catch that "throwing around accusations" thing). SheffieldSteel, following some bad advice he got from Jehochman over at 10210:

one of the most obvious COI problems. Perhaps COFS can be convinced to work via the talk pages only, and leave the article editing to others. Obviously a solution by agreement is much better than one imposed externally. Otherwise, a topic ban would be a very appropriate solution.

1436:

Mostly agree with JzG (of course there is also a story behind SA's patience being exhausted, so he may not react like the most coldblooded and always civil rôle model of a Knowledge editor here). In addition I would be glad, if Reddi just switches to contribute where his expertise

7810:

One continually edit-warring editor who refuses to consistently follow consensus — even consensus to which he's agreed! — is creating huge frustration and aggravation for many editors. This is not right, and we need help. Thank you for any consideration you might give this issue.

2981:

Please refactor the end of that comment. Actually I'm glad when sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are obvious. That makes my volunteer work easier. I don't particularly like to educate disruptive editors about how to disrupt more effectively. Just handle the matter as routine and

12607:

they are using complaints to silence editors with a different point of view. Stopping violations of Knowledge content policies is good. Complaining to gain advantage in a content dispute is disruptive. Those who have trouble distinguishing betwen these two cases can join the

2718:

I am opposed to community ban for reason 1; I have made no conclusion for reason 2 but think that regular blocking of a period (1 week? 2 weeks?) may be better as a "cool down" tool particularly since Anacapa has never been blocked before; I fear wikistalking so I invoke reason

11454:

Even if you aren't an employee, COFS, the fact that they let you use their computer systems sure looks like you are an agent of this organization and that they approve of and guide, your activities. Whether you are employee, agent, or volunteer, your connection is very close.

10264:

they are going to get a warning, then they will get blocked if they persist. Without citing diffs, because it's late, and I am not really trying to get COFS blocked or banned, I have seen numerous instances where COFS has been alerted to the issue of COI. If COFS hasn't read

10971:

You still fail to see that your logic is self destructive. Polarizing to deal with an opposite simply drives things apart further. Maybe if you take a break and see how things work out without your constant objections to everything under the sun you might come to understand

6091:

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

1288:

I do not support the community ban on either editor since neither editor has a continuing history of abusing editing and no evidence has been presented by either requester. I would however support a topic ban on both editors due to their uncooperative and combative behavior.

7836:

Tenebrae, a community ban objectively exceeds the conduct in question. Until every possible option has been exhausted...you are now at RfC stage...imposing a ban is preemptive and counter-intuitive of what Knowledge represents. At this point we need to allow process to work.

974:

The ARBCOM has typically not taken a case with me on this topic. There are several reasons why. One of the reasons has to do with the fact I fund a company which could be viewed as in the same business space as the Foundation. The reasons are too complex to go into here.

13002:

What I have been saying at this thread is that serious site policy issues are involved here. I'd like to see things go into mentorship and dispute resolution. I also hope to make it very clear to all concerned that there are limits to Knowledge's patience and good faith.

10035:

Mhmm. She's known for at least a day, commented on it, and chose not to rebutt on it here. While I wouldn't go so far as to say its an admission of guilt, I would say its a sign of bad faith on this matter and that this clearly isn't going to get solved without community

8598:

I'm not so sure about this one, he's been trolling, but he's not going to agree to parole - he'll leave simple as that. He has the potential to be a constructive editor again, I think any indef block or parole will act the same as a ban. It seems premature at present IMHO.

2528: 2506: 2502: 3561:

I support the move for a community ban, as I cannot see any evidence of productive contributions but a great deal of disruption in his wake. This seems to be more than a language problem. He was previously blocked on the English Knowledge for similar bizarre behaviour.

743:

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

6144:

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

10795:

This is not an article about some insignificant little company where a single COI editor would stand a chance of having any significant influence. There are two very large and very polarized groups at work here. Assuming staff-member means employed, mere employment is

8694:

moment is Gurch running around adding indefblocked templates to userpages and proclaiming Charlotte to have been banned by a Checkuser. It might be how Gurch sees things, but it's confusing for editors and the whole WP:NOP thing is heated enough without this going on.

8387:

Given the latest posts by Pat on his talkpage, it appears that he rejects the idea of dropping AMA altogether. He appears to wish to try and discern why AMA was closed as well as contact other editors to gauge interest in restarting it at a future date. As I said on

4783:

you appear to have used prior to registering (as indicated by your first registered edit being to replace that IP's sig with your own)) that you're focused more on backing up Sixty Six than anything else. If you absolutely insist on continuing the argument, consider a

2847:. Legal threats are not the equivalent of "running a red light" it is taken very seriously by the community. It's one of the worst forms of intimidation and disruption an editor can try to use to get their own way on WP. Lastly, Anacapa has been advised to look at 11837:

eachother and discuss, not simply "cancel eachother out." That has a name, and its called edit warring. The only thing it leads to is articles that contradict themselves and that constantly display one bias or another depending on when you happened to call it up.

4338:

The Knowledge ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Knowledge. A ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent. The standard invitation Knowledge extends to "edit this page" does not apply to banned

4725:

Q: After seeing a positive contributor to Knowledge bullied and blocked by those filing the complaints, and having been falsely accused of being a sock puppet, would *you* want to contribute article edits and corrections, knowing that your efforts would be wasted?

10105:

Just FYI, weasel words apply to words made in attempt to assert fact. "I would say" and "I wouldn't go so far as to say" are statements indicating OPINION. This is not an article namespace, we are allowed to make inferences and draw conclusions. Its a part of

11411:

I don't appreciate the melodramatic hangman's noose. It could be viewed as a threat. I suggest it be removed from this page. The person who posted it should take a break for a short time to think about ways to interact with other editors more appropriately.

7525:, an article about the software that he apparently sells. One recurring tactic is that he plays the part of clueless newbie and asks an uninvolved editor to help, thereby taking advantage of our tendency to assume good faith. I fell for this ruse myself. See 4756:

If you read between the lines, that says "Your complaints don't matter. Either shut up and do we tell you to do, or we'll kick you out of here, regardless of whether you're right or wrong." Would someone please explain how Knowledge benefits from such a policy?

777:

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

2887:

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

12024:

Here are two fresh COI edits involving the removal of sourced material and edit warring. COFS, if you have a problem with another editor, take it to the talk page. Don't revert sourced material. If you feel that an editor is edit warring, file a report at

11859:

Neutrality? I have been complaining for a long time that there no neutrality in the Scientology pages. They are full of unproven accusation and allegations. "Some people say this", "some people say that", saunds more like John Sweeney propaganda than facts:

11757:, edits made by public relations departments of corporations; or of other public or private for-profit or not-for-profit organizations; or by professional editors paid to edit a Knowledge article with the sole intent of improving that organization's image. - 11586:

above. Listen, if you can help COFS then great. And if COFS would like a mentor then equally great. COFS is a reasonable and intelligent person (I think that you yourself can perceive that from his posts here), we do not have to hit him over the head with a

1957:

The community can do as it sees fit in this regard. We still haven't heard from him. Frankly, I don't expect to. But since ArbCom has felt fit to give him at least a vague notion of a chance ("talk to us, please"), perhaps it's simplest to leave it at that.

3685:

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

9059:- the context of this comment is interesting. Another user had already opposed saying "I don't support editors with less than 10,000 edits" - In that light Gurch's neutral is not damaging and is a funny way of pointing out how broken some comments are. 3345:

I think that before any block is administered someone should at least attempt to communicate with Nasz in his native tongue. I'm not saying that his contributions make a lick of sense to me, but lets at least identify the source of his objections. (e/c)

10471:

has started on 4 or more Admin boards so please be patient if I am saying something somebody else has said already elsewhere. I was looking who is an Admin here and is looking at things from a broader perspective. Let's see who we got here.... It's not

658: 12905:

consider Smee to be acting in bad faith to bring that up here without clarifying the lack of relationship and I think it is about time that I addressed that type of behavior on the part of that editor and I plan to begin collating my diffs to do so. --

12710:

would then ideally revert the "banned" changes and point out that such behavior could get both of them blocked due to their shared IP. I seem to remember the figure as being 1000 Scientologists who were affected by the COFS/CSI LA block related to the

10294:), a full month later, you are all about how "these people have worn out our patience"; "these people"? "our patience"? And you urge Sheffield to bypass the COI discussion and come over here for a ban? What say we slow down a bit here? Take it back to 4131:

This really is laughable. First off you know I have a user name so why don't you go ahead and at least nominate my username, that is at least following proper protocol. By the way, you should probably look up the Knowledge article for a sockpuppet ...

11219:

So I think, with all due respect, Durova, that you are a bit confused as to whom you are dealing with here. So instead of pushing for bans and threatening to override any outcome of this case that you don't agree with, hows about we send this back to

9905:

As for earlier dispute resolution, I believe someting was posted on AN/I but I have yet to find it. I'm sorry if I've handled this improperly - this is the first time I've done anything like this. Would starting an RfC be the best step to take next?

1860:

shows that he was telling the community he wasn't willing to follow the rules he's supposed to uphold. The community has acted before on several occasions with closed ArbCom cases--and even in exceptional cases when there was a case open (see RJII,

11022:

article. Which no one will remove. This happened for years with no Scientologists really caring about this encyclopedia and to the result that there are now hundreds of falsehoods, unsourced slants etc spread in over 270 articles about the subject.

4963:

find my time wasted with my contributions purged out of vengeance. Can you or anyone here guarantee that Will and/or Matthew won't take such actions? Or are the "kangaroos" so entrenched in the "kourt" that I should just abandon all hope and leave?

10876:

Yes COI is important. And if COFS had any chance of really having any significant impact as a COI editor simply by being a staff member, I'd sign on board with you. How much time have you spent editing those articles or monitoring the discussions?

1177:

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

12994:

a recent example of my impartiality: even though I had supported this article subject's siteban on policy grounds, I nominated his biography for deletion at his request - and finally brought a two-year-old dispute to an acceptable resolution. At

3000:

that the block, to a large extent, stems from his consistent problem behavior as much as the one incident. My personal patience hadn't worn out on him yet, but the block seems reasonable in light of problems with him in other areas of Knowledge.

2671:

The user's ceaseless rants and Great and Most Vigilant Crusade for The Truth pretty much guarantee that no admin in their right mind will be overturning the block anyway. Whichever "style" of ban this is, I imagine it will be effectively binding.

12581:

opposing POVs but so what? Those are common as dirt around here and we all have to work with other POVs. That is all I am asking. And I do not see how your "solution" or response addresses either of the points that I raise in my previous post. --

5194:

Take special note of the part about using a ban to gain advantage or silence those who disagree with you in a dispute. That's clearly what happened in Six's case, and what's apparently being attempted here against those who've taken up his side.

3280:

and several other articles. I would support a community ban of the user. He's been tirelessly adding nonsense to the articles since last year and revert warring over it. I have yet to see any useful contribution from him. His specialties include

11625:. I feel like the community has given these editors every possible chance to work cooperatively, but we aren't getting a constructive response. What shall we do? Follow Durova's good advice, or head down the tired old path she describes... 1881:

First off, just a reminder that this is not a vote. Secondly, I don't see how a community ban is necessary. He is banned until he replies to ArbCom. I think we should just leave it at that and let the ArbCom handle his reply, if it ever comes.

7261:

Uncle G, please do not change other users' indentation from simple indents to bullets. Both forms are acceptable, and there's no reason to force a change, and doubly so when the other user has expressed a preference for the original style. --

12269:

it goes back to what I just said, I've never cared about the religion/cult/whatever but I do care about how the rules here are applied. Each situation you've cited there is about how the rules apply, not bringing down the CoS or any editors.

11555:(no. 135) and COFS is on a trajectory that usually ends badly. The type of help and support he or she is receiving, although it appears to be heartfelt, is not serving this editor's long term interests. In more than a few ways this is like 6406:

Doesn't surprise me either. I actually pieced together a whole bunch of evidence about this a few hours ago after Moreschi unblocked him and sent it to Moreschi to examine who blocked Two-Sixteen after that. So no surprise from me either.

6874:

He/she/they/whoever has always been that way on other online communities including Usenet, where (s)he insists on posting in a non-RFC-compliant format (with excessively long lines) and telling everybody who objects to "just get over it".

785: 10311:

who has accrued an impressive block log in the four months they have been here. Either we take our norms of behavior seriously and react accordingly, or we admit that we don't really mean them, in which case we should blank the pages for

9991:. Thanks for reading, sorry for chiming in so loud. I just couldn't stand this cosy Scientologist-bashing here. Apologies again if anybody feels offended. “Who among you is without a sin, let him throw the first stone at her” (John 8:7). 8341:

I support unblocking if CyclePat agrees to a topic ban, but I do not support an immediate indefinite block if he violates that. Immediate escalation provides no time for contemplation and improvement; short, then escalating blocks, do.

6067:

If his talk is unlocked, he can take the remaining time of the block to work on sandbox articles, which would show the community his intent regarding the improvement of Knowledge. Just some thoughts. You're welcome to take or leave them.

12670:'s points made pretty well clear from above, would be a positive step in the right direction. However, it is useful to keep in mind that all of these suggested actions going forward could possibly have no affect whatsoever, in light of 4400:

The problem is, he just stated that he doesn't consider a community ban a ban from editing the project, and Arbcom has better things to do than pass symbolic resolutions saying that someone disruptive who nobody would unblock is banned.

2589:

spuriously claiming that people who question or disagree with them are totalitarians, maoists, stalinists etc - as well as povpushing. Durova herself has no content dispute with Anacapa. Sorry if my use of words led to any confusion--

12167:

much of the time in order to act as proof. To them it probably seems like Knowledge isn't interested in "hearing their side". This set of circumstances invites Scientologists who care about what we say here (on Knowledge) to edit war.

6738:

Right; interested parties should review the RfC and its talk page. Eep² has resisted extensive attempts at reasoning with him; the only apparent effect seems to been firming his resolve to continue disrupting disambiguation pages,

5899:. He is currently serving an indefinate block which is around 4 months old. He's got a bit of a temprement on him, and does occasionally snap (that's what earned him his indef), however - his heart is in wikipedia (he in fact started 715:

team to disrupt Knowledge in order to create fabricated evidence of edit warring and other claims to target this user for banning and other sanctions, and/or to misuse Knowledge to post Libel and extort money. With the exception of

6553:, you claim the reason for this community ban request is because I was "stalking" you, when I wasn't (and am not). (Add I don't know why your delusioned mind would think otherwise since you're the one who who claimed I "vandalized" 6339:

Unblocked. Please see my lengthy note on his talk page for a fuller rationale, and my unblock message (there are admins, plural, willing to unblock, and it's clear from this discussion that the original ban does not have consensus.

2958:, etc. I would also recuse myself from actually implementing an indefinite block on that basis (community bans can indeed be indefinite and many of them are). Legal threats are a different matter - I considered myself free to act. 8368:

Agree with Woohoo. All Pat has to do is agree to leave it alone and he can be unblocked. Unblock him without that assurance, and I'm pretty confident he will continue his crusade. Pat is not evil, but is is incredibly stubborn.

1489:

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

10628:

I agree it's better for people who have a COI to post suggested changes with line citations to talk pages rather than to articles. The purpose of this thread, however, is to discuss what to do about a particular problem editor.

6696:

blocked at least once since the RfC was initiated. While he did stop calling other editors "wikitators" and has stopped adding "duh" to his comments and edit summaries, there are still problems: the newest being <eyeroll: -->

4998:

and your goal is to keep up the fight with Matthew and Will, et al. This is why I'm encouraging you to go out and edit other articles, away from the dispute - again, it's more productive than carrying on a seven-month or so long

3432:

N: I think he is not qualified to speak as voice of 5 scientifics communities. I requested him to insert {fact} he accusing me of fringe. Hi you Dbachmann! what kind of emotion allow you to curse living great professors! Namly:

10082:. While the essay is written to serve a different purpose, the statements there might be helpful in constructing an argument, something you seem either unwilling to do, or perhaps are not quite sure how to do so effectively.-- 3465:

One more thing. I remember someone mention on Nasz's Talk page that he was already blocked on Polish Wikiedia. I have not checked the fact. Of course, Nasz blanked it pretty soon but it should be somewhere in the page history.

693: 9840:

This is just a small sample, from what I have encountered directly. COFS has a prodigious contributions history (except for the period of the ban) centred overwhelmingly on Scientology. COFS's Talk page (and particularly the

9321:

Given the fact that TingMing is a proven sock of Nationalist and that Nationalist has no regard for consensus, a sanity check of the case on my part convinces me it's time to help Nationalist, alias TingMing, find the door.

735:

funding of various Linux ventures and/or hired them back or gave them "salaries" in exchange to cease editing of my bio on Knowledge or in exchange for favorable edits. I believe one of the persons demanding the money was

5630:

because of the many disputes, I've been seeking other people's opinions. That's why I did the RFC under user conduct, and not a subject in particular, and why I went here for a consensus of Wikipedians instead of ArbCom. -

12424:

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

8115:

Well he'd be community banned, if he continues to troll over AMA then he gets blocked for a week, simple as that. Maybe some limit of blocks could be put on it e.g. After 3 such blocks, he gets his indef block reinstated.

7976:

No action taken, Pat is indefblocked and will not be unblocked until he accepts the terms put before him, that any discussion of unblocking does not begin until he promises to not bring up AMA (or similar "groups" again.

8410:

Following the AMA's closure I haven't noticed a 'gap' in the dispute resolution process - we clearly don't require the association to be restarted. When Pat finally appreciates this, he can be unblocked, but not before.

4096:

LOL. referred two site administrators. Your spelling is atrocious. And then you go calling me ignorant. That's really funny. I'd be shocked, but you're Puerto Rican --- so it's expected. 74.225.36.136 04:12, 8 June 2007

3620:

far from a community ban, this may be a way forward. So far he hasn't shown any sign of introspection, but if he does reform, so much the better. If not, we can still ban him in a couple of days, there's no hurry here.

11560:

a source of unbiased advice, COFS will remain free to participate in dispute resolution and to report any policy violations by opposing editors, and if another side of this topic dispute abuses the situation to try to

10073:

rhetoric. Perhaps the word you were looking for was rhetorical? In which case, no, I see no reason to attempt to persuade as you are obviously immovable in your oppinions. And again, please explain WHY you bring up

9004:

I don't usually read this noticeboard, but as soon as I saw Gurch's name I thought, "That doesn't look right." I don't condone everything he's written, but a block of any length would be completely out of proportion.

6187:

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

11480:

What about me? I do my edits from home or MacDill Air Force Base in FL. So are you going to block a military server too? My opinion is similar to those of COFS. So? What exactly you guys want? What is wrong with COFS

4213:. I'm aware that the original user name is blocked indefinetely for using multiple accounts abusively, but I wish to establish that the user is permanently banned by the community which will allow for several things: 12437:, it would probably help calm down the situation if Misou didn't get involved. The fact is, at one point he did edit from the same IP as COFS, because he was at a COS location that uses the same proxy that COFS uses. 10138:

shows numerous reversions to reinsert critical material in a prominent position, over the objections of multiple editors, in an article that is not primarily about the controversial church, not to mention a stab at

4597:

A look through those edits indicates that the editor in question has never made an edit outside of talk pages and a couple of noticeboard posts, and seems to exist solely to carry on the fight for the indef-blocked

2936:, so it was bound to be necessary to block him at some point based solely on those issues. Unfortunately, I suspect that his obsession with "balancing" certain subjects means he will reappear from time to time. 8192:

I say lay the terms to him, tell him it's a community ban and the consequences of mentioning it again, if he agree's with the community ban, he gets unblocked, if he doesn't he stays blocked - simple really :-)

9855:

Looking at those, sounds like at minimum an indefinite ban on editing Scientology-related articles is merited. The community can impose topic bans. Would also think he should be required to read and understand

9741:

and requesting a community ban? I think these people have worn out our patience. I believe past investigations have shown that COFS works for the Scientology organization, so these are nothing but COI edits.

8636:

been, but that will be the perception and I'm fairly sure Gurch will see it in that sense, thus there's nothing to be achieved in taking this approach. We already have a process for dealing with disruption and

5141:'s arguments where he has not MATURELY made a point without getting into personal attacks (criticism is not harassment). Unfortunately, it now seems that Sceptre and Matthew have now turned their vendetta on 4738:

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

869:

within 96 hours of you - that would basically allow you to prevent them from editing any article of your choice by simply making minor edits every few days. The idea that they can't edit any thing for 96 hours

13058:

as # 1. This action of coming over here looking for the indef block or ban is clear misuse of this board. I do not blame users for trying. Users can try anything. Experienced admins need to set them straight.

12734:

Truth be told, the Church of Scientology only has about eight members and all the pro-Scientology editors here are actually the same fellow - a tall, somewhat geeky dude named Derrick. Who you callin' geeky?

11980:(which are the two I tried to get the bias out) for a little. I don't have a problem stepping back a bit but I will take note on the old bias and new one being introduced and I will argue to get it out again. 10680:

There are several editors in the Scientology articles who have their own off-wiki websites, which they use to publish anti-COS information. Wouldn't that mean they also have COI? Should we community ban them

10177:

is simple and easy enough to follow. When other editors object, the COI editor should withdraw. I have no connection to Scientology, neither pro nor con, yet I definitely feel like there's a conflict here.

9537:

That regards a self-disclosure you made at Knowledge. The sandbox page has been deleted, but it appears that the material remains available through your user history. If this troubles you then please go to

5762:

Look at his contribs for the rest. the majority of his edits consist of these. I really don't think listing diffs are needed.. not only that, but I'm quite tired of this ordeal and I really didn't want to. -

5590:

for this, so no other types of dispute resolution have been attempted. Also, it was a personal decision of mine to not attempt other methods of dispute resolution, as it would be a waste of time, since he is

8977:, available to serve and guide us if we let it. Isn't that a great thing? It has the capability of actually extending our individual horizons, provided that we don't think of ourselves as being reduced to a 11928:

is valid for "personal" reasons. That just means that you should not edit about anything you are truly interested in. I googled today aboout conflict of interest and found a great quote which summarizes it

1149:

and had to be banned and blocked a number of times for violating it. As soon as his time was up, he decided to continue again to become a very problematic editor insisting on rewriting articles related to

10522:

No, it hasn't, and it does not look like this is wanted. COI-issues seem to be quite a problem as everyone has a viewpoint on something and on the issue at hand mine seems to be different than the one of

10341:(sigh) No, there is no evidence of sock-puppetry (or meat-puppetry for that matter). Please review the particulars of the case. It is unfair to try to cast a good-faith editor as something s/he is not. -- 8010:

be a constructive editor, so I propose lifting the block, and a community ban from discussing AMA on wikipedia indefinately with a block of upto one week by any administrator if he breaks this. Thoughts?

4652:

it's coming to a point where it's becoming a nuisance... and I can't foresee him contributing positively to the encyclopaedia. Perhaps a check user should be performed to verify that he is not Sixty Six?

1846:

I'm inclined to vote yes due to gross gaming of the system, but is there an active case in front of ArbCom? I think that if he's banned until he satisfactorily responds to ArbCom, then yeah, he's banned.

8506:

I think the offer's moot until Pat indicates that he will accept the terms offered, that he will not be unblocked until he agrees not to bring up the AMA again, PERIOD, so therefore, marking as complete

5907: 4075:

1. Perhaps get the user to understand that his edits on WP are unwelcome and that his sock edits will unless he adheres to site policies regarding rumor endorsement, citing sources, and personal attacks

2198: 10172:

If COFS is a Scientology staff member, then they should not be editing any Scientology articles, period. Allowing this person to edit these controversial articles only serves to inflame the disputes.

6474:

What was that about leopards and spots? Still... thank you to everyone who assumed some good faith on his part, however misplaced your trust may have been. I'm unsurprised, but nontheless disappointed.

10745:

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

3213:

Bot? That's highly unlikely as the edits aren't very fast, and anyone can match that speed. As for the edit in question, he isn't crazy, though I have no idea if the revert was justified or not.... --

689:

No action taken. Both sides are attempting to use this board as a fulcrum in an ongoing war that should have nothing to do with Knowledge. I think the operative phrase is "A Pox on Both your houses."

8293: 8140: 6013: 4994:

I pointed out the IP because it continues to give an indication that even prior to registering, you were involved in this dispute; quite frankly, at this time, you still show all the indicators of a

1215: 1155:

having problems with him to comment here, but I believe that it is high time the community recognize this disruptive editor for who he is and show him the door. Diffs to be posted at a later time. --

2704::I am surprised that it says "Most cultures worldwide have not considered the possibility that women can commit rape against men" because the editor writing this obviously forgot about Debra LaFave 10985:

I think I understand what is happening but you are saying essentially that I should take small steps and do nothing when incorrect information is being put in articles on subjects I know. Where is

5230: 2697:] which says if Anacapa either clarifies that no legal threat was intended or the threat is withdrawn, then blocking should end. This policy may be a reason not to have a community ban of Anacapa. 2063: 8469:

Well, as one of the editors who coauthored that guideline, I don't recall any discussion that would exclude it from applying to Knowledge namespace. It just usually happens in article namespace.

11846: 11437:

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

8231:

Per consensus here, it seems like 1 chance, I guess he's had enough chances already (although I would prefer the firm 3 strikes and your out rule to be used - but I'm not questioning consensus).

8217: 8187: 7482: 1895: 12344:, exactly. The people who wanted this opened, didn't want it all to come out. They only wanted you to see the COFS Smoke, so they could get a stratigic community ban on one of their opposition. 11881: 11868: 8074: 8045: 5833: 1100: 10223:

While I do not disagree that COFS has to be cognizant of COI issues (and have mentioned that on previous occasions), I do not think that past warnings by neutral admin(s) for COI violations or

6344: 6254: 6071: 5751: 979: 965: 936: 915: 897: 819: 12698:, I would think that if what they claimed about a block on one of them acting as a block of all, it would be best for them to support each other, in the spirit of the proposal. For example if 9811:

Moved cited material into a footnote. The material had the effect of calling into question the pro-Scientology point immediately preceding it in the text, yet the edit comment was "synthesis".

7928:

reverts (where versions are only very slightly different). Attempting to avoid being accused of reversion by making very minor edits that are then edited out again is in bad faith and against

3087: 1940:

explanation, then this ban is already indef to all intents and purposes. But I think we should be willing as a community to hear apologies and explanations before making a permanent decision.

1012: 12972:

although I'm not Catholic, and Muslim editors have sought my input in edit disputes about Islam although I'm not Muslim. Knowledge seeks to publish neutral and verifiable articles: when the

10402: 6192: 6169: 12142:

Perhaps, Durova, but I do not much agree with your concept that you are crystal-balling where COFS will go and you are going to forestall it and "help" her with a one-month ban. Sounds like

10044: 9977: 8041:

Why only one week? Why not indefinite? He's already indef. blocked, and he has to agree to the condition to be unblocked, if he violates that, why not put him back to the current status?

6236: 6182: 6096: 6027: 6004: 5969: 5960: 5944:

Per Metros, I think putting his block down to temperament and resolvable by a ban on personal attacks, misses the mark on his general disruptive behaviour over an extended period of time. --

5917: 5159: 3470: 3460: 2775:] does allow for unblocking if a legal threat is withdrawn. Community ban citing this reason is like giving the death penalty for writing a bad check or for possible running of a red light. 800: 13042:

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

12010:

Who here supports COI editing? Does anyone think this article should be all positive or all negative? Does anyone think edit warring is good? Does anyone want to produce a bad article?

11776: 11740: 11697: 10273:. If this is your friend, please ask them to stop. Once you do that, you'll be in a better position to call out any anti-Scientology warriors who seek to push their POV in the articles. 9151: 6245: 6109: 5541: 5219: 1267: 10437: 10428: 10419: 8316:

Let him come down for about 2 months and see if he is still obsessed. I suggest a 2 month block to see what happens. But unblocking now will only end in a permanent blcok in 1 week. --

5097: 5063: 4967: 4797: 2630:. In the past I've argued to lift blocks of editors who were simply unskillful, selfish or clueless. Anacapa's attitude problem is much more serious. His philosophy is incompatible with 1256: 1237: 12627:

about COFS. This is way "too steep a gradient" as we Scientologists would say; meaning too much, too fast. That and the points I repeatedly make to Durova are really all I have to say. --

11240: 10648: 10635: 10623: 5939: 5274: 4475: 4463: 10453: 10345: 10328: 10118: 10090: 10057: 9995: 9875: 9782: 9769: 8919:. There's seems to be well-meaning opinions underlying his remarks and behaviour, not just cranking -- and I even see some small dissent value for the longterm benefit of the project. ॐ 8307: 8255: 8226: 8161: 8087: 6149: 4761: 4743: 4502: 4438: 3964: 3944: 3930: 12782: 11815: 11485: 11010: 10980: 10355: 10244: 8998: 8623: 7200: 5931:

months since he was blocked. That is hardly enough time for him to mature out of that mindset he displayed on Knowledge for a very long time (remember this wasn't his first issue, see

5695: 4272: 3517: 2017:. The findings in the ArbCom case are worrying, and by order of AC he remains banned until he faces up to the real concerns. I have not seen evidence that Henrygb has actively tried to 1276: 882: 607: 602: 597: 592: 585: 12845:

Yes, about another editor entirely. That one started as a "drive-by". "Oh look, there's a Scientologist, let's kick him." COFS is not even mentioned there. Knock off the crap, Smee. --

12719: 12308: 12274: 6046: 5948: 4375:. It does not seem that administrators will have the slighest reluctance to block any new socks of his that may appear. I suggest that the issue be closed at this noticeboard. Post to 4359: 4311: 4287: 2909: 1204: 12951: 12938: 12909: 12895: 12649: 12631: 12516: 12298: 12253: 12239: 12047: 11300: 10922: 10906: 10302: 10231: 10214: 10196: 10182: 10163: 9910: 9896: 8405: 6401: 6392: 6307: 6202: 6135: 4429: 3611: 3566: 3391:. That is to say, fringe theories and pseudo-scholarship. Discussion of this stuff does have a place on Knowledge, but a very restricted space, mostly confined to dedicated articles ( 2097: 1923: 575: 570: 565: 560: 555: 550: 545: 540: 13063: 11679:. Clearly this is not about COFS for you, it is about removing pro-Scientologists from the project. Thank you for putting it so succinctly. Perhaps now we can close this discussion? 9931: 8688: 6325: 6211: 5544: 4189:

There seems to be unanimuos support for community ban. It was extremely nice of Panairjdde to pop up in this discussion with yet another sock and explain us reasons for his banning.

4159: 2816: 855: 838: 13121:

seems to be posting from an anti-Scientology POV, in an effort to add unrelated smoke to this situation and to bring in more anti-Scientology viewpoints. Thus, it would appear that

12527: 12184: 11318: 11281: 9339: 9033: 7856: 7843: 7725: 6755: 5656: 3630: 3378: 3364: 3004: 2964: 2918: 2666: 2030: 1951: 1914: 1905: 1889: 1868: 1851: 1840: 1321: 27: 13024: 12806: 12793: 12585: 12566: 12554: 12489: 12348: 12151: 12061: 11988: 11683: 11642: 11601: 11571: 11538: 11459: 11430: 11416: 11229: 10952: 10881: 10847: 9329: 9168: 8501: 8415: 7829: 7142: 7106: 6366: 6357: 6316: 6122: 6086: 5799: 5781: 5772: 5672: 5506: 5488: 5412: 5403: 2898: 2682: 1962: 1052: 995: 12728: 12419: 11798: 9065: 8783: 8769: 8678: 7891: 6979: 6859: 6837: 6825: 6534:

on this user for these reasons. More and more editors have been experiening disruption caused by this editor. I think it is time for a community ban if this user will not desist.

6383: 6207:

Agreed. I mean, every action of his, is reversible. I hope perhaps we can look at the possible gain to the project if he edit constructively, and any net loss, can be reversed.

5611: 5556: 5531: 5186:

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

5149: 4695: 4383: 4249: 3580: 3404: 3350: 3306: 3297: 2009: 1580: 1499: 1031: 12878: 12865: 12849: 12769: 12752: 12739: 11873:

Some people have posted examples of the problems they're concerned about. Would you care to do that instead of just drawing culteral parallels that don't reinforce the claims?--

11629: 10581:

As I stated before, your previous post simply painted with too broad a brush. I'm pretty confident about several other editors' neutrality and I'm absolutely certain of my own.

9963: 7708: 7699: 7064: 7047: 7016: 7003: 6973: 6964: 6430: 6298: 6221: 5386: 4680: 4625: 3445: 3073: 2992: 2976: 2650: 2638: 2571: 2476: 13137: 12991: 12472: 12135: 11394: 11160:

against some other editor on Scientology-related topics, any non-blocked editor is welcome to raise that separately. And if anyone wishes to redefine this site's definition of

8698: 8511: 8382: 7953: 7875: 7804: 7554: 6925: 6909:

Rules" policy, and even a "Be Bold", but when lots of other people revert you because they prefer the standards as already set here, you shouldn't keep fighting them uncivilly.

6411: 6397:

As I said to him months ago, "Knowledge is not a role-playing game." Did this multiple sockpuppeteer really think I'd not do a checkuser on him the moment he showed up? Jeez. --

6288: 5755: 5350: 5340: 5322: 4656: 4642: 4588: 4258:

I shall continue editing as much as I feel I can and want contribute, regardless your opinion: a sick user management process does not mean the whole Knowledge is somehow wrong;

4122: 3338: 2763: 2747: 2321:

since January-ish. I've tried everything, with a second and third attempt on ANI ignored, and a submission just here two days ago ignored and simply archived. He has had an RFC

1919:

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

1512: 1480: 1352: 12835: 12686: 11052: 10966: 10697:

Placing a community ban on one side of the two distinct groups, without equally banning the opposite side will tend to tip the balance in favor of the anti-CoS group and set a

9746: 8964: 8455: 8442: 7866:

up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one month, and after 10 blocks increase to six months. Any thoughts on that?

6484: 6457: 6443: 5639: 5620: 5579: 5365: 4410: 4237: 4199: 3768: 3424: 3228: 3177: 2859: 2338: 1988: 1978: 1421:"Scientific rationalism" is not an excuse for policy violation. Bias is bias, no matter scientific or unscientific, political or apolitical. We should look into the facts, not 932:

I do not believe I asked for death threats or stalking and harassment on WP by trolls. I also do not believe I instuted their forays. This is a false and callaous statement.

12365: 11145: 11026: 10754: 10606: 9141:

is banned from Knowledge for 1 year. Please be advised that TingMing is already indefinitely banned, so the one year ban will not commence until the indefinite ban is lifted.

8464: 6938: 6879: 6784: 6241:

He's not going to do anything that can't quickly and easily be undone. I'd go along with a strict unblock and I'd be quite happy to keep an eye on Flameviper's contributions.

6037: 4395: 4034: 4018: 4004: 3987: 2597: 2583: 2501:. Anacapa uses their account and about 14 different IPs from the University of California Santa Barbara to make posts. The IPs in question and edits by them are detailed in 13074:

who only wanted to make sure that someone had an opportunity to 'notice'. The editor later resolved the question himself, by looking through the edits, and conclded was that

10740:

are going to community ban COFS, I have some names to submit from the anti-cult and anti-CoS group who are as blatantly pov pushing as any Pro-CoS editor that I've ever seen.

10287: 9951: 8669: 8475: 8108: 7178: 7081: 7025: 6913: 6899: 6775: 6686: 3241: 12386:

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

11829:

her own vested interests in the topic aside towards the neutrality of the articles, a core pillar of Knowledge. As for your comment about sufficent editors on "both sides"

11509:

1. The one and only issue here is to decide if COFS has a conflict-of-interest and what is the exact conflict-of-interest (if any). That discussion would best take place at

10587: 10576: 10552: 10100: 8858: 8722: 8660: 7529:

for all the evidence. Incidentally, the user becomes very belligerent with anyone who attempts to stop his COI spamming activities. He recently received a short block for

6799: 6766: 6710: 6675: 6502: 4084:

is ethnically Cuban only because Bezos's mother's second husband was Cuban and adopted him and gave him his surname) than his edits will be reverted and anyone can submit a

3973: 3724: 3707: 3697: 3601: 3555: 3328: 2205: 2188: 7653:

At this point, I've offered to help Akc9000 restore his deleted article. An admin moves the article to my userspace, and I restore NPOV. It gets moved back to main space.

6666: 5243:

easy to join. I would love to see you improve articles but so far I see almost no involvement with the article improvement process... (8 edits to the article space 79 not).

5199: 5177:

Tony Fox has this spot on. Write, not fight. Please take this advice seriously. If you keep on fighting and write nothing, you will get kickbanned later, if not right now.

4730: 3250: 2903:

I don't see anything but more sockpuppeting, more disruption, and more grief coming from allowing Anacapa to continue editing. I believe a ban's the only way this can end.

2843:

If you read the report you will see the long list of IPs Anacapa has used and the list of articles they have disrupted for nearly a year - the situation is not limitted to

2459:

Per the above link, this user accuses me of libel and of being a Maoist, so to avoid any appearance of impropriety I am submitting my decision to the community for review.

1910:

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

1894:

I guess the fact that one of his socks voted in his own RFA makes me particularly uncomfortable about him being part of the community at all. This is almost as bad as the

1429: 1393: 12057:, two reverts, 10 hours apart in the past 25 hours, hardly constitutes edit warring. Shame on you for posting evidence of not-warring and suggest that it implies warring. 8820: 7177:), random related concepts, Knowledge search links, and generally any number of other things that are irrelevant to disambiguation, and expressly counter-indicated in the 6731: 6448:

I know. I really only need to prove to myself that sockpuppetry is reasonably plausible to accept checkuser evidence, and I have an easy (and ungameable) way to do that. -

5479:; if no one at least tells me if this is the wrong spot, and why, then I will be forced to take it to arbitration. I don't want to do that, I would prefer this process. - 4080:

3. If the user continues to be a rogue editor and not listen to mediation by a mediator or use logic and reason when it comes to simple themes (for example he claims that

2088:. I didn't really want to use this last resort... personally I stopped assuming good faith for a while but was hopeful again after his new account, but it's gone again. - 1009: 976: 950: 933: 894: 782: 11426:

here, and I clearly stated that in my response. However, in a Good-Faith response to your objection, I have removed the picture. You will now have to find your own rope.

6165:

left on one of his sockpuppet's talk pages in March. Something about that makes me concerned about unblocking him because of what appears to be major stability issues.

4261:

How a ban could change this? If your friends (the racist Kingjeff) does not know those rules he pretends to defend (as one can see from his block log) it is not my fault;

3792: 3146: 2831:

is a sock of Anacapa. Checkuser will confirm either way. To reply to their concerns, Anacapa has been indef blocked for a legal threat and they have not withdrawn it.

21: 11296:

employee without considering any possible other explanations, like volunteer staff member, or other possibility. And, your assumption makes sense, given your alignment.

10640:

Indeed, I am just stating that ideally, we wouldn't have to do this, and that I do support your 3(conditionally 1) month community topic ban if it counts for anything.--

9831:

Argued against several editors that this article's lead should not contain a summary of the criticism in the article. Note referring to other users' posts as "nonsense".

9671: 8035: 4155:... wow, that's a surprise. Didn't see that coming. Perhaps people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones ... or should at least wait until one is thrown at them first. 3679: 2085: 1449: 1308: 11515:

2. Regarding my previous comments about SheffieldSteel, perhaps I went too far in calling him a POV-warrior. Perhaps. Again, I do see that the bulk of his edits in the

3207: 1333:

violations. I think a... lets say.... 6 month ban on both editors from any article relating to science and the paranormal would be the best solution for wikipedia. ---

5711: 5663:

nothing came. People just talked, they didn't act. And now no one's talking, either. I just want this over, 6 months of facing the same user is too much for anyone. -

4842:

look at the history of the events leading up to Sixty Six's permanent block, and the relationships of those involved, it's pretty clear that he was not fairly treated.

2618:. Indeed, Anacapa has a tendency to put his own opinions and original research into articles, and then slap on a reference that sort of talks about the same topic. 763:, who use the obvious controversy to promote the conduct of these people as some sort of angle to advance their own views are no better than the trolls they protect. 281: 276: 271: 266: 261: 256: 251: 246: 241: 236: 229: 224: 219: 214: 209: 204: 199: 194: 189: 184: 11040:. No, we just show the arguments on all sides and let the reader decide what to believe. I think we all could work together to improve these articles and maybe get 6023:

indef blocked the only one you would really need to be talking to about this is the blocking admin rather than garnering community input on a community imposed ban.--

7435: 1414: 1072: 12232:

And now you're, again, predicting doom and failure on the part of COFS, by denograting all Scientologists in one fell swoop for their inability to accept criticism?

8336: 8006:, he will be unblocked when he agree's to stop this behaviour. Unfortunately this promise to stop has not been forth coming, so let's help him on his way. CyclePat 7779: 4541: 1386:

where he has been "strongly cautioned", and in another report, it has been noted that ScienceApologist appears to have been given "leeway" and allowed to "push it",

1159: 1092:

Should Tobias Conradi violate any ban or prohibition imposed by this decision, he may be blocked by any administrator for up to one hour. Blocks need not be logged.

12546:. I have done that on numerous ocassions and it works great but it is a lot of bother. Sorry, COFS, but you will need to make that effort if you want to touch the 11369:

last resort against editors who behave problematically for a long period of time, not a means to gain advantage or silence those who disagree with you in a dispute

8491: 7009: 5379: 5227: 5196: 5181: 5156: 5142: 5138: 5094: 4964: 4758: 4727: 4530: 4523: 2786: 8362: 7550:

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

5290:

before the page was protected and cleared). I would not be bothered if the user also engaged in constructive criticism of the projects goals. The first pillar of

4572: 4072:

and has refused to agreed to site policy when it comes to rumor endorsement, citing sources, and has repeatedly used denigrating language towards Puerto Ricans.

3809: 2643:

Endorse community ban, per Calill's detailed report. It clearly shows that this one is not here to write an encyclopedia. It's not worth the hassle--nuke him.

11556: 10379: 9849: 9756: 8983: 8907: 8346: 5804: 5310: 3860: 2044: 1387: 171: 13020:

I might think so. The main point is I think we really need to rethink how this board is used in light of the policy on bans. I clarify that in my post below. --

12641:

talk pages, and report problems with the articles in a constructive, non-disruptive way. To help prevent any more problems, I would also like to see COFS join

9530: 8931: 7981: 7815: 4281:

you have admins and editors looking out for you and banning you and your socks on sight. I maintain a need for this ban for the three reasons stated earlier. --

4023:

And the articles are probably not incomprehensible enough for G1. Which leaves two options: prod/afd, or calling on the help of a noticeboard or a WikiProject.

3121: 3112: 2169:

I have posted this at the Village Pump and Administrators' Noticeboard with no resolution. Can somebody please advise me on how to stop his abuse? Thank you. --

2021:

however, indeed his contributions to the encyclopedia have been good. I see no need to piling on further sanctions unless the ones in place don't seem to work.

12393: 7238: 5730: 3926:) when not logged in. Exactly the same articles edited with the same edit quality. I wonder if this IP number shouldn't be blocked also for the good measure? - 3100: 12222:

asked for it to be deleted, and made sure to mention him when you innocently asked if it was really improper to keep such a bad-faith log for 3 months, right?

9014: 8426: 8320: 4415:

Then, let's spell it out in black and white for him. No one would be willing to unblock him, he is therefore banned. And to clarify, a community ban is a ban

3246:

Maybe you should discuss your edits on the talk page, rather than here. There's really nothing we can do, since there's no infractions of any guidelines. --

1380:

above, ScienceApologist was subject to an ArbCom finding that he has been (a) Uncivil (b) Deprecating (c) has edit warred (d) has failed to extend good faith.

12102: 10449:

shows you're a long-term partisan (on the pro-Scientology side, but the same would principle apply if you were anti). Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

10240:

I do see the latest "no discussion" at "Scientology again" I am looking for the earlier one(s). Please point me at them if you know where they are. Thanks --

10025:

to comment, instead of inflaming the dispute? I was just at her talk page about to invite her when I saw a comment there that seemed to link to this thread.

8050:

He's only indef blocked to get him to stop the trolling, a week block should be enough of a deterant, and he'll keep on getting them if he violates the ban.

7491: 7486: 7315: 6199: 5283: 4603: 3747: 3651: 2969:

Like I said earlier, good move, Durova. And he just did a good job of justifying that with attempt to astroturf. Good grief--do they have to be so obvious?

2940: 2794: 1120: 531: 521: 516: 511: 506: 501: 496: 491: 486: 481: 476: 469: 464: 459: 454: 449: 444: 439: 434: 429: 424: 297: 175: 53: 12616: 12333: 12037: 12014: 10277: 10029: 9548: 6062:(outdent) I would suggest that first his talk page be unlocked, so he can respond to questions. I would recommend that the block be shortened to six months 13152: 12406: 11129: 10941: 10834: 10079: 9382: 9029: 8872: 7790: 7660: 7601: 7591: 7522: 7495: 7427: 7266: 4156: 4133: 4069: 4061: 4054: 3899: 752: 403: 398: 393: 388: 383: 378: 373: 368: 363: 358: 351: 346: 341: 336: 331: 326: 321: 316: 311: 306: 13109:

This (sanctions board) thread was about COFS, not about Scientology and certainly not about the editor being discussed in the COIN thread. By posting the

8555: 7687: 7544: 7256: 7099: 7095: 4638:

While I agree with your comments Tony, I don't think an indefinite ban is out of the question for an account that hasn't made any positive contributions.

4216:

1. Perhaps get the user to understand that his edits on WP are unwelcome and that his sock edits will be reverted no matter how valid his contribution is.

2881: 2738: 2411: 1856:

The case is closed at present--they voted to ban him pending a response to their concerns. I'm proposing that he not be allowed to come back at all--the

1187: 13009: 11182: 10775: 9087: 6594: 5391:

I was going to propose that very thing today. This is about as far as it's going to get - I suggest the parties stay clear of one another and edit away.

5382:

concentrate on editing the encyclopedia rather than advocating for a banned editor or following around editors that the banned party had disputes with?--

4423:

the project. Until and unless he shows he is willing to change his behavior and the community is willing to give another chance, he is not welcome here.

3881:, but would it be an option to delete them instead, and let someone else create a proper article in their place in due time? Quality over quantity, etc? 3414:

is an administrator, but how you call an which delete all sections of article and 72% of references? In one aspect I agree with him, he titled his edit

2782: 2194: 1857: 288: 8592: 6561:

to it, which you then reverted a few times, including a legitimate "See also" section correction). You have an odd definition of vandalism if you think

6543: 3892: 2173: 12389:

My view is that we should build a wall around the Scientology-related articles, let the two sides fight it out to the death, then siteban the winners.

11201:

remedies support that claim. The only one complaining (about the edits, not about the general issue of COI) is someone that does not like COFS' edits.

10611:

Personally, I think (that is "In my opinion, as a conclusion I have drawn from consideration of evidence" for those of who are concerned over my using

10535: 9597: 7478: 5302:

and approach the project in a more helpful manner. If User:Sixty Six returns, it is up to him now to appeal his block and to go from there. Cheers! --

3856: 2465: 791:

Unless you can *prove* I sent you a package of dead fish, you will remove my name from the accusation. Lies will not help you here or anywhere else. --

415: 293: 9816:

Again moved the criticism into a footnote, while misrepresenting the court document source and referring to it in the edit comment as "clarification".

6982:, in which such a page was turned into a dab page. But see my response to him defining "disambiguation" - the stuff in there was nothing more than a 2197:

are changed, it will not be enough to change the targets of the redirects pointing to that page, but all direct links will need to be changed too. If

1272:

Suggest a request for comment per SirFozzie. Agree with Dab that Reddi is currently under probation, and further sanctions probably aren't necessary.

12996: 12290:

that has been my point. Both the pro- and anti- editors have issues that need to be addressed. Anynobody is one of the anti- editors who, along with

11236:

Sorry for jumping in the conversation so late. I really don't know the details but I really like the changes COFS have done. So what is the problem?

9928: 9527: 9379: 9250: 9006: 8461: 8223: 8158: 8084: 7551: 7281: 6499: 6208: 6179: 5617: 5576: 5346:

while Sceptre and Matt parade around asking for others to be banned? I think people need to realize who's really is treating this as a battleground.

5244: 4372: 4206: 4169: 1073: 683: 159: 154: 149: 144: 139: 134: 129: 124: 119: 114: 107: 102: 97: 92: 87: 82: 77: 72: 67: 62: 7220: 11171:

I've offered what I consider to be a very reasonable and mild solution; COFS hasn't replied to the offer of a one month topic ban conditional upon

10673:

church. I would certainly expect more support on an issue from my fellow church members, than the church janitor or secretary. If we community ban

10110:, something you might want to read up on a little bit before you continue to take aim (however innacurately) at others for how they engage in it.-- 9704: 7768: 7284: 4616:, which makes me think a community ban might be excessive. Maybe an RfC would be a better starting point - a wider range of viewpoints might help. 4599: 2928:

I am neutral on the ban. I am personally willing to tolerate more of his behavior than, I suspect, many others are; however, Anacapa is certainly

166: 7789:

Twice now, last year and this year, this disruptive, contentious editor, who follows policy and guidelines only at his choice, has frustrated the

13149: 13134: 12440: 12416: 12403: 12345: 12295: 12266: 12236: 12058: 11830: 11795: 11737: 11680: 11639: 11427: 11391: 11297: 11126: 10938: 10919: 10878: 10831: 10765:

If we make the claim that COFS is a staff member for CoS and therefore has a COI, shouldn't we also say that every Scientology member has a COI?

10751: 9024: 7217: 4146:

Plus we can't forget that you also resort to name calling. Interestingly enough you forget to provide these links: here you called me "ignorant",

3969:

What's the length of his ban on enwp? I propose a year for this type of bad behavior, since one year is the normal maximum per ArbCom tradition.

2712:

I am not at the University of California Santa Barbara. I am opposed to rape. I also invoke this policy due to the heated nature of the topic.

2700:

2. Rape article? Very heated, I agree. Block - maybe, maybe not, I haven't studied the edits much. It is possible that Anacapa is out of line.

2045: 1829:

Looking at the evidence, I initially was going to propose a one-year community ban--but then I discovered that one of his socks voted in his own

1028: 992: 667: 49: 12043:

Just to clarify that none of those are after COFS' recent block/unblock episode. One is 15 hours old and the other is 25 hours old. Carry on. --

10467:(reset) Good Day, I saw that this discussion has evolved quite a bit in my absence and it could be that I have not found all of the discussions 7793:

community to a point where we have long, involved debates, with him and a several other regular editors, trying to find a way to work together.

7234:

He states that he will continue enforcing this view until we "get it". What are we supposed to do: respond to his edit wars unto oblivion? --

5599:

affirms this. I'd also like to note that I have notified Vilerocks of this discussion (in a rather blunt way) and he does not appear interested.

12121: 8317: 7800:

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

9518: 9506: 7647: 7091: 6890: 6790: 6657: 6523: 5596: 5318:

They are not pots shots, they are well thought out and perfectly valid criticisms of inappropriate actions concerning certain people involved.

4242:

I endorse this--all I needed to see was that he named three of his socks "DisposableAccount." That shows total disregard for the rules. Ban.

3369:

The idea is to first separate his (or her) positive contributions (if any) from the combative ones. Nsaz obviously has a desire to contribute

873:

you edit it... well that's 100% certain not to happen unless getting Administrator privileges grants you the ability to predict the future. --

12874:

and this is NOT the place for you to spew every unrelated smear that you can in order to color the discussion here. So knock off the crap. --

11668:

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

10411:

and get an editor whose viewpoint might oppose their own banned deserved some degree of attack. Please knock it off and utilize the standard

9498: 9494: 7576: 6440: 6408: 6285: 6166: 5936: 4779:

Six or more months of arguing over this hasn't built the encyclopedia much; at this point, it looks, from your contributions (and those from

3487: 3086:

No one has objected to the proposed ban, except for Anacapa's sockpuppets. This thread was linked from ANI when one of those puppets started

2870: 2753: 2068: 1200:

How many personal attacks, incivility, cautions and warnings, need be reached before some positive action is taken against ScienceApologist?

2550:

As it stands Anacapa is involved in disputes with Durova (because she warned Anacapa for NPOV - this led Anacapa to make the legal threat),

2485:

For about a year User:Anacapa has been involved in povpushing and complex vandalism on wikipedia across a range of articles. Spanning From

5913:

I'd be willing to go along with that. Indefinite does not mean infinite, and if he regresses to past behavior, it can be quickly remedied.

12947:

Throwing unfounded accusations around on this sanction board seems to be contagious. I better get out of here before I catch something. --

12428:

I recommend the editor who closes this discussion look into the possibility of offline collusion between COFS's defenders. Notably, from

9335:

See above, Blueboy.. he's already banned, in fact, his one year ArbCom ban does not start until someone unbans him. This is unneccessary.

6566: 6493:

I'm going to second that. It seems that the good in the community displayed itself. While we were not privy to sensitive information as

2193:

It's more than unnecessary; it makes it harder to perform maintenance tasks in the future. For instance, if the titles of the headings on

12125: 10800:

when compared against the emotional hate that comes from the Anti-COS group and the emotional support that comes from the Scientologists.

9677: 9467: 9246: 9088: 7401: 6042:

Don't worry guys, I'm not a dick, that's why I brought it here. I personally am willing to unblock, but not without community consensus.

4712:

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

4052: 622: 11503:- I do not want to say much here as I think that this is a ludicrous place to be discussing COFS. We should take this talk back over to 11312:

possibility that this person is a dedicated CoS volunteer rather than a paid employee, the difference isn't significant to my analysis.

10298:

and try to hammer out an agreeement with COFS as to what he can and cannot do. Or perhaps an RfC would be better? But not this board. --

8392:

I want to unblock Pat so he can continue editing, but not if he is going to just be reblocked for AMA related editing. I don't think a

13129:

against COFS instead of help it. (I'm sorry that I'm not more familiar with all the proper wiki-links to more accurately describe what

12775: 12745: 12671: 12117: 10308: 9883: 9717:

article. Although COFS has stated a desire to follow the rules of wikipedia, their responses to other editors have frequently not been

9311: 8351:

I thought I'd chime in here, because I have a long history with CyclePat. I tried my best to mentor him when he first started with the

7772: 5430: 3870: 2914:

Endorse ban, his behavior on rape is appalling, probably a year or so, because I heard Fred Bauder once said we don't ban over a year.

2626:

Anacapa has a pattern of intimidating any editor who resists his assault on neutral point of view. Anacapa makes hostile comments and

2154: 1766: 1541: 1146: 1027:

Based on WHAT exactly? I'm not a sock, troll, or otherwise. This is PRECISELY what I mean. You've really got to get over yourself.--

410: 7671: 9451: 9156: 7638: 7618: 7385: 6362:

You could well be right, but even if I wind up reblocking within 5 minutes, we still will have tried. That's something, at any rate.

5469: 5255:

In conclusion... I do not support the indef ban, but I would like to heavily encourage Geoffrey to become part of the "clique". - ---

5239:

Geoffrey, yes, there is a "clique" here. Those who work to improve the encyclopedia and those who don't. Fortunately the clique is

4661:

I agree with the checkuser. Seems there's a high chance that Geoffrey may be a sock as well, even if the CU comes back as negative.

4434:

Since we getting so close to unanimity here, does anyone feel it would be correct to add his name to Knowledge:List of banned users?

2322: 2165:, in which he urges me to "be a better contributor on Knowledge" by allowing him to continue his redirect bypassing, and tells me to 2081: 1729: 911:

you will soon have exactly that. As for Mr. Merkey's demands, I have a hunch that the answer will be quick, and it will be negative.

740:

interests and/or considerable investement or stake in Linux and FOSS companies, or are high level people involved in Linux and FOSS.

10477: 9056: 8734: 1830: 17: 12500:

I'm assuming the proposed editing ban would be in regard to the (Main) namespace only, and not Talk pages. I don't approve many of

11371:. Requesting a ban against an editor is not a step to be taken lightly or without trying other means to resolve the situation first 10260:(reset) The COI in this situation is pretty much a slam dunk (changing metaphors again, sorry). If I spot an IBM employee editing 10192:

possible COI issue on a COI board and/or by means of a proper User RfC; this board is, IMO, not the proper place for this issue. --

9738: 9274: 5777:

These two users have been blocked for 2 weeks for disruptive editing practices and an unwillingness to follow consensus. Cheers. --

5468:) (both belong to the same user) Has been editing unconstructively for a very long time (around January). Evidence can be found on 4167: 2124: 10395: 9663: 7656:

Meanwhile, Akc9000 has been making a bunch of apparently constructive edits. I feel like things are going in the right direction.

6934:

We can bar him from editing dab pages. As far as I can recall, this person has not disrupted pages outside of the purview of dab.

5935:). He never brought anything productive to this encyclopedia. It's not like he was a prolific editor who snapped occasionally. 9483: 7417: 5870: 4579: 2288: 1672: 6284:

Consider what? He knows that if he gets unblocked he will be under close scrutiny from numerous editors (and administrators).

2166: 2158: 12113: 11217:

No again and I have already addressed that. Two blocks for 3RR are the only blocks relevant to anything in COFS' block history.

11107:

on the English Knowledge, and according to Jimbo Wales, it "always has been". Ignore all rules was our first rule to consider.

9699: 9459: 7500: 7444: 7439: 7393: 3703:

someone who appears to be contributing in good faith, but at this point I am honestly running out of ideas about what to do. --

2456:, and generally responds aggressively to anyone who points out that this user's behavior exceeds the bounds of site standards. 2241: 2213: 1384: 44: 12715:

you mentioned. If this is successful I'm guessing similar proposals could be worked out for future issues with other editors.

9693: 8497:

I second Tom harrison's comments, and add that CyclePat has made no indication he intends ot drop the AMA matter completely.--

7149:

Note that besides filling DPs with non-ambiguous entries, Eep²'s edits also include adding dictionary definitions, sub-words (

6947:

dab pages? He's created a few that don't need to exist (and have been subsequently speedied under G6, near as I can tell). --

6294:

goad him into getting re-blocked, this time for good. I don't have a problem with an unblock if it is approached like this.--

6009:

Admitidely, at the time he may have been banned, but in fact, this can't be the case, because an admin is willing to unblock.

2531:). Thy have also left long off-topic rants on the user pages of those user who warn or question their behaviour (for example 1282: 10707:

balance of the article and are doing more harm than we are good. There are more than enough anti-CoS editors to mitigate any

9209: 9112: 8079:

Stronger... Indef block if he disruptively revisits AMA/EA. Under this context I can support unblocking per my rationale at

7448: 5725: 5723: 5721: 5719: 5717: 5715: 4788:, but I'd advise that instead, you go out and work on articles - a productive contributor is more useful than a banned user. 3030: 12176:

applies to situations like this. Ideally I should be able to apply the principles of whatever solution we come up with as a

9791:

As above, and applicable here; Historically, you will garner more discussion if you post your case in full w/ evidence here

8788:

I don't support this, and agree with Ryan and Alison. While Gurch sometimes may be pointy, he is just to trying to show how

7565: 6746:"People still aren't getting it and, until they do, I will persist. I know what I'm doing is the correct and efficient way." 3734: 3479: 751:

has provided a lot of help with this by blocking these trolls and mission posters and recording evidence of their conduct.

13101: 11807:

to mean that Scientologists should be banned from editing Scientology articles. But editing is not edit-warring. While COI

10286:, all due respect (and an edit conflict) but I think you may be a bit too involved here yourself. On the first discussion ( 9443: 9318:

since it opened. No need for diff-digging--all the necessary diffs are provided at TingMing's RfAR and Nationalist's RfC.

7377: 6697:

over and over. There is a pattern of 1)incivility and 2) refusal to accept consensus, editing against consensus and being

5246:) Now, thats not a reason to indef-ban you... but it would be nice to see you focus more energy on article improvement. ( 4866:

do is to cry "troll!" and other, more adult admins rush to their rescue without doing any real research into the situation.

4780: 2371: 1615: 12859: 9349:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

9083:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

8523:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

7965:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

7739:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

7512: 5426:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4147: 3818:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3130:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2040:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1537:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1068:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

12976:

tried to skew articles to a pro-Catholicism POV I intervened. I was one of the voices who contributed to the siteban of

12169: 11078:

on Knowledge. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However,

10078:. Did I use any weasel words? If I did it wouldn't hurt to actually point them out. I also suggest you take a look at 9834: 7431: 7118: 6079:

I dunno--I can't get past the fact that he openly brags about creating socks. I still say that he should stay blocked.--

5978:. In fact it would appear he has the somewhat dubious distinction of being the subject of one of the ban discussions at 3909: 627: 11746: 9655: 9512: 9249:

for edit-warring and soapboxing on the China-Taiwan issue. However, TingMing was indefinitely blocked on June 14 after

12573: 9821:

Commented that editors should not attempt to obtain consensus before making sweeping changes to controversial articles.

7182: 7030:

You don't happen to have the list of entries that were on there, do you? Perhaps there's an admin that can do this? --

6692: 6531: 4686:

continues to be refused), some other dispute resolution or mediation should be used before a community ban is enacted.

3134: 2790: 1723: 13092: 11534:

and COFS may want to consider opening a User RfC on him/herself so that this issue can be settled once and for all. --

9164:

No action needed. If someone "unbans" Nationalist/TingMing, he will still need to serve a one year ban at that time.

7188:

He defends these additions by edit warring, ignoring consensus, and grossly misinterpreting Knowledge policy (such as

6682:

I think there has been time enough for Eep to desist. I propose a partial ban preventing Eep from editing Dab pages.

6550: 4939:

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

3282: 2627: 2615: 2539: 2536: 1381: 1168: 9826:

Removed cited material which contradicted an assertion attributed to L Ron Hubbard. Note the aggressive edit comment.

9268: 8267: 8176: 7929: 7917: 7474: 6276: 5587: 3866: 3374:

subject Nsaz contributes to, and I will defer to the judgment of Dbachmann and others with expertise in the field. ˉˉ

3302:

Well, he's nearly incoherent on talk pages, due to his broken English, so that's not exactly endearing him to me. --

2118: 1790: 11957: 10569: 10446: 9829: 8901:, but at least he is trying to make an actual point (the validity of which is not to be decided upon here) with his 7628: 3950: 12448: 9819: 8834: 8745: 7043: 6999: 6960: 6855: 6821: 5953:

Strongly opppose unblocking. Anyone who openly brags about creating socks and dopplegangers doesn't belong here.--

5864: 5527: 5465: 5399: 5059: 2542: 2532: 2282: 1666: 831: 10307:

C'mon, folks. We're not dealing with a newbie who is naively violating COI or other norms of Knowledge. This is a

9729:(see above links for details) but these attempts do not seem to have helped much. When I raised this issue at the 6574: 6198:

What can he do? He's not some kind of cyber-terrorist, he's just an eighth grader. Lots of eyes will be on him. --

3543: 3286: 1083:

Tobias Conradi may be blocked up to an hour by any administrator for any personal attack or violation of civility.

12030: 9523: 7852:

We have done RfCs with User:Asgardian. Fellow editors disagree with his edits, and he keeps making them anyway.--

6918: 5451: 4609: 4153: 4141: 4138: 3221: 2433: 2235: 632: 12922:. Rather than investing your time in compiling a list of greivances against Smee, why don't you take a look at 7508: 7453: 3937: 3822: 3536: 1184: 1179: 11758: 9203: 9106: 7633: 7613: 6162: 5600: 4674: 4496: 3416: 3185: 3024: 2807:

a block. The community can consider the threats disruptive whether or not they were withdrawn, and still ban. -

1826:. By order of ArbCom, he has been desysopped, and banned indefinitely until he responds to ArbCom's concerns. 10424:

I think perhaps it's best if we leave this space for neutral (i.e. uninvolved) editors to discuss the matter.

8582: 7193: 6350:

I have a bad feeling about this ... if only because of the Jarlaxle and MARMOT cases. Anyway, we'll see ...--

4219: 4150: 12622:

Wise words. And, regardless of any previous statement on my part, I am not accusing you or SheffieldSteel of

12090: 11953: 9475: 9403: 8887: 7409: 7337: 5265: 4218:

2. Make sure that users who revert his sock edits do not receive 3RR blocks from unsuspecting administrators

4078:

2. Make sure that users who revert his sock edits do not receive 3RR blocks from unsuspecting administrators.

3665: 3384: 2365: 1609: 1343: 1299: 11949: 11945: 10443: 9809: 9435: 7608: 7598: 7504: 7369: 2545: 1759: 12918:

I think Smee's notification was relevant because we have a situation here involving possible violations of

12891:

voice COI concerns. Those concerns turned out to be unfounded. See how easy it is to clear up confusion?

12429: 10891: 9304: 8751: 8433: 7465: 6645: 6641: 6637: 6630: 6626: 6622: 6610: 6590: 6586: 5993: 2947: 2148: 13145: 10750:

In my opinion, this entire line of discussion, while interesting, should not be here.. certainly not yet.

9713:

This Scientologist editor has engaged in large numbers of edits apparently intended to whitewash the main

9685: 5894: 2946:

Cailil has demonstrated remakable patience and scrupulousness in documenting this long-term problem. Per

2312: 1747: 1702: 1317:

Consideration of a topic ban will require specification of the topics in question and supporting diffs. --

12376:

Are we interested in punishment or in getting good articles? COFS's block history for 3RR is TWO. While,

10677:

from Scientology, I think we also need to also ban every Scientologist from editing Scientology articles.

10291: 9647: 9292: 8576: 7623: 7123: 5497:, here. My patience is really wearing thin. I really think a community ban is easier than arbitration. - 4368: 4024: 3994: 3954: 3882: 3687: 3669: 3270:

contains invention of Mommsen authorships. He was activ politian verbant suporter of falen pangermanizm."

2837:

for the legal threat, any community sanction here would look at this threat as the last or latest act of

2265: 2136: 12086: 11063:, I agree. I have two things to cite here, and then I'll stop posting (highlighting mine for emphasis): 9239: 9136: 7887:

The one workaround I can foresee is his making the usual big revert in steps instead of all at once. --

7572:. He reveals his COI, and at the same moment claims to be with a different company having the same name. 6671:

Eep. this is not about IPSOS. If you have things to say about him, the RfC is a better place to do so.

5882: 5215:

options have been tried and failed. I don't see evidence of that here. Please try those steps first.--

4137:

reverting my good faith edits as vandalism with no basis, you track my every move by maliciously editing

3483: 3237:. No administrator intervention is required and your accusation of bot usage is pretty much baseless. ˉˉ 3060: 2300: 1690: 1594:

so I can recognize the characteristics of obvious sockpuppets. That's when I happened upon the case of

12999:

I gave evidence as the lone supporter of an editor whose ideology was diametrically opposed to my own.

12032: 11965: 11961: 10386: 10140: 9824: 9814: 9725:

and in edit comments. COFS has been previously blocked and has also been warned regarding violation of

9615: 8487:

CyclePat is a disruptive nuisance who does the project more harm than good. I support a community ban.

7189: 3923: 3852: 3838: 3776: 3712:

Reflecting on the above, and especially the fact that he was banned on the Polish Wiki for essentially

3647: 2401: 2253: 2179:

It's unnecessary, yes, but why would it be necessary to sanction people for doing unnecessary things? -

1784: 1753: 1645: 11345:

side, all of whom claim to edit with the same veracity as COFS, and all of whom are equally tenacious.

11125:

Lets go edit articles and not try to micromanage the Scientology debate from our couch. Peace in God.

10546:. I'm equally interested in demonstrable COI evidence regarding either side of the related disputes. 9956:

Agree with Durova, except given the apparent conflict of interest the topic ban should be indefinite.

9227: 9124: 8096:

No disrespect, but given that an indefinite block hasn't succeeded in getting through to him (see his

6435:

Trust me Amarkov, there's plenty of evidence in the edit contributions for this (if your curiosity is

5746: 5744: 5742: 5740: 5738: 5736: 5734: 3048: 2444:

is a long-term disruptive editor at feminism-related subjects and probable sockpuppeteer who violates

2201:, which is about two lines, is split, the links that he pipes to that will have to be changed back. -- 12106: 11861: 11552: 9298: 8970: 8943: 8799: 8641:

behaviour and I feel we should stay on this path. I don't see why anything further is needed here. -

4522: 3081: 2731:

Account created only today, at 12:56 pm Eastern. And only edit was to this page. I smell a sock ...

2624: 2621: 2619: 2389: 2142: 1735: 1633: 1247:

probation anymore, what might be needed here is just another year of probation, not an outright ban.

1212: 1174:

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

9411: 8397:

I think Calton summed it up at ]; Pat wants option C and that simply is not on the table here, so a

7345: 4140:

and re-touching every edit I make to an article to correct "spelling mistakes" or "grammar mistakes"

3195:

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

1820: 9280: 8183: 8002:

As I'm sure most people are aware, CyclePat is currently indefinately blocked due to trolling over

6978:

In this case, no, I'm referring to dab pages that don't need to be there. Case in point, see this

6833:

is not really appropriate. Every indication is that Eep believes his way is better for Knowledge.

6105:

remove the vitriolic comments as a show of good faith and recognition of his wrongs. Just an idea.

5888: 4329: 3978:

He's blocked indefinitely. Call it a ban or not, I highly doubt anyone will ever want to unblock. -

2874:. I dunno about the rest of you, but there's really not a whole lot more to say. He hung himself. 2306: 1741: 1696: 12450:

Note that both claims are asserted by the same person, on the same day, and just four hours apart.

7008:

That list is certainly counterproductive, but other ones are fine and should have been kept, like

5567:

I understand there is an RFC linked, however, perhaps more input from the community will occur if

1808: 1563:

Again, this is something outside of this board's "scope." Henrygb is banned until he contacts the

1445:, his expertise is. All given, it seems not that sort of case which can easily be handled here. -- 12682:

involved ip addresses utilized by the editor(s), are not taken into regard in this arrangement.

12326:

Obviously this situation is way more complex than I first thought. Recommend sending to ArbCom.

11914: 11875: 11840: 11781: 11770: 11706: 11691: 11365:

This is not the place to come to if you think someone is causing a problem and should be blocked.

11006:. Let's put the cards on the table. Who is doing what with that agenda here. You'd be surprised. 10974: 10728:? Should we ban them if they work for, or support, any animal rights groups? Where would we stop? 10642: 10617: 10442:

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

10112: 10084: 10038: 9971: 9623: 9427: 9314:

out on him since February, and has made only a cursory effort to participate. He's been blocked

9286: 8954: 8810: 8600: 8270: 8232: 8194: 8117: 8051: 8012: 7643: 7540:

I am requesting a topic ban to prevent this editor from engaging in further abuse of Knowledge.

7461: 7361: 6720: 6174:

I can go along with this unblock per the editing parole on personal attacks and reversions (with

6093: 6043: 6010: 5966: 5904: 5616:

In the interest of disclosure, do you have any involvement with the subjects of this discussion?

5287: 4225: 4210: 4085: 4065: 3941: 3927: 3903: 3878: 3757:. Perhaps that will help matters. Right now I don't see adequate evidence to kick anyone out. —— 3467: 3457: 2326: 2259: 2130: 1678: 877: 12029:. Your not helping your own cause to make edits like these while this discussion is ongoing. 11164:, the place to seek community consensus for that is over at that guideline and its talk page. 10890:

canonical example of COI, the standard against which all other potential COIs are measured. The

9836:

Accused a good faith editor of "blind bashing" Scientology for restoring a summary of criticism.

3334:

Let me talk to him - I don't want to see a well-intentioned editor go under without a fight. --

2799:(Edit sounds like the above stricken sock but WHOIS says this user is Denver, CO so not a sock) 13100:

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

11924:

is not policy and I disagree with your extrapolation of it. It does not make sense to say that

9233: 9130: 8927: 8748: 8665:

Growing bitterness towards the project is unlikely to be ameliorated by an indefinite block. ˉˉ

7776: 7743: 7312: 6389: 6018:

My point is that he was apparently community banned per that discussion (as opposed to the old

5876: 3874: 3054: 2513: 2294: 1717: 1684: 1242:

we need some diffs at least. Reddi's statement is perfectly hollow, asking someone not to be a

1211:

I've had troubles with Reddi in the past; I would await diffs before judging about the present

645: 10485: 9639: 8460:

Certain areas of DE can be applied to this, even though AMA/EA is not in the article proper.

8330:

the subject, period, end of the story") may be the least harmful way to stop that disruption.

6656:, IPSOS? Seems like you're projecting your own stalking behavior, or something..."whatevah!" ∞ 2512:

In May Anacapa's disruption spiked. Displaying signs of WP:OWN, WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE on the

13055: 12980:

evangelical Christian editor. Yet whenever possible I welcome editors back from the brink.

11977: 11811:

does not justify a ban, user conduct may; therefore WP:COI asks editors to exercise caution.

11791:

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

10781:

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

10686:

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

9262: 9215: 7969: 7457: 6921:. We don't import Usenet battles here, and we do not have Usenet's standards of behaviour. 6272: 6260:

Flameviper seemed concerned about having his edits stalked. Perhaps we should consider this?

6178:

warning). I would that any edit can come back from the edge and contribute constructively.

6128: 5932: 4350: 3036: 2395: 2247: 2112: 1639: 1226:, please do not bring cases here to get leverage in an ongoing edit war. I would recommend a 1156: 11530:

to justify draconian measures like community bans. Close this and take up the discussion at

10668:

Scientology is more than a place of employment, it is a religion. If we make the claim that

8100:

for evidence), how would a one-week block -- or even a series of them -- accomplish that? --

3753:

Nasz well it appears that there are some concerns over your actions. Would you be open to a

1765:. When he was confronted by ArbCom and asked to resign, he not only did not respond to his 13051: 12534: 12112:

This situation has the characteristics of a problem that could head into arbitration and I

11272:, and some others are using a shared IP address which is utilized by the CoS organization. 9353: 9221: 9118: 9009: 8995: 8343: 7039: 6995: 6956: 6851: 6817: 6264: 5858: 5459: 4364: 4308: 4269: 3186:

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

3042: 2778: 2377: 2276: 1660: 1621: 1048:

ENOUGH. Both sides, take your off-Wiki battles elsewhere. Enough is way too freaking much.

647: 11753:

Editing in the interests of public relations is particularly frowned upon. This includes,

11520:

see that he may have simply been acting on some bad advice from Jehochman in opening this.

11390:

wanted it here. And now we have the cart before the horse and we're out to lynch someone.

11122:

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

5625:

That question's a bit ambiguous to me. Could you clarify it? If you mean something like a

5329: 8: 12977: 12508:

standpoint, but don't like excluding anyone completely. If my assumption is correct, and

12330: 11821: 11812: 10895: 10724:

if they work for a grocery store, or a farm? Should we ban them if they are a practicing

10524: 10468: 10425: 10399: 10376: 9960: 9907: 9872: 9846: 9779: 9766: 9753: 9375: 9326: 9051:

I had a look through his contribs and I dug these diffs out myself. Gurch's comments at

8958: 8814: 8729:

I had a look through his contribs and I dug these diffs out myself. Gurch's comments at

8179: 7826: 6354: 6119: 6083: 5957: 5818: 5692: 5445: 4472: 4246: 3626: 3551: 3400: 3324: 3109: 3070: 2973: 2878: 2760: 2735: 2647: 2383: 2229: 2102: 2025: 1974:

we don't ban users over a year, normally, as Fred Bauder stated in a recent ArbCom case.

1947: 1902: 1886: 1865: 1837: 1627: 1495: 1373:

however you look at it, as it does not address the edit. WP:CIVIL gives several examples.

1252: 848: 812: 10484:(a reputable editor on technical issues, but somewhat hostile to Scientologists, see my 8298:

I am notifying JzG of this discussion, as he has had interactions with Pat in the past.

7767:

This editor has no recent blocks. If he's disruptive in some way, please report this in

13126: 12434: 12305: 11865: 11482: 11237: 10914:, then shouldn't we also consider all Scientologists as having a conflict of interest? 10767:

The key phrase you glossed right over is "staff member" -- i.e.; "employee". So, no. --

10269:, that's just plain reckless. The information is there. COFS really can't be editing 9197: 9100: 8740:

and considering that his vote has an effect on the candidates' RFA's is pretty serious.

8527: 8331: 8097: 8042: 6740: 6530:

idiosyncratic versions of the article. There has been a long-standing user conduct RfC

5795: 5768: 5668: 5635: 5607: 5552: 5524: 5502: 5484: 5396: 5056: 4793: 4691: 4668: 4621: 4490: 4424: 4152:, and what do we have here? It seems you've been reprimanded for attacking other users 3388: 3097: 3018: 2904: 2895: 2679: 2334: 2162: 2093: 1814: 1105: 957:. There is too much history here (much of it off-wikipedia) for this to be a clearcut 874: 9419: 7882:

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

7353: 7052:

The list is somewhere still, in the user's user space (don't delete it). For example,

6722:. This RfC was opened 7 May 2007, which to me is ample time for a user to "get it." 6417:

my obligatory minor doubts on the workings of something I can't see the evidence for.

4224:

3. If the user continues to create new socks and edits on WP, we can pursue filing an

3607:

Can you be more specific? I have not been aware that the issue is discussed on IRC. --

1590:

As a recent new member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit, I've made it a point to look at

12716: 12513: 12390: 12354: 12287: 12271: 12250: 12181: 11864:

Lets just stick to the facts and strike those unproven allegations out of Knowledge.

11278: 11197:: No, that point is not decided and neither the block history nor the (non-existant) 10911: 10903: 10473: 10450: 10325: 9566: 9397: 8936:

In fact, maybe we should even reward Gurch. After enough of his comedy, sarcasm, and

8922: 8916: 8868: 8780: 8666: 8488: 7583: 7560:

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

7331: 7277: 7271: 7250: 7235: 7197: 7139: 6752: 6522: 6453: 6426: 5756:

Talk:Pantheon (Mega Man Zero)#Recent edit warring on this page: An answer (hopefully)

5536: 5295: 5261: 4534: 4459:

I say go for it. He's banned from editing by the community (if not community banned)

4406: 4254:

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

4014: 3983: 3659: 3577: 3375: 3347: 3238: 3174: 3001: 2937: 2812: 2555: 2359: 2318: 2184: 2060: 2005: 1796: 1603: 1574: 1339: 1295: 1097: 1086:

Tobias Conradi is limited to one revert per week on any article. This includes moves.

720: 663: 12101:. My advice to the pro-scientology editors at this thread is to take a hard look at 10873:? So now we community ban even if its only 'aparent COI' even if it is not true coi? 10134:- IMO, it is inappropriate for one POV-warrior (just a quick review of his edits in 9502:

with but the harrasement is interfering in my ability to contribute to wikipedia.

7131: 5250:) Sixty Six was banned because he was disruptive to the article improvement process. 2655:

I would suggest a crossposting to ANI, I don't think the full community is here. ——

13060: 13021: 12973: 12948: 12906: 12875: 12862: 12846: 12803: 12799: 12779: 12766: 12736: 12628: 12582: 12551: 12486: 12453:

As of now, I continue to extend my offer of a one month topic ban conditional upon

12219: 12205: 12148: 12044: 11937: 11635: 11598: 11535: 11273: 11226: 10990: 10772: 10612: 10489: 10434: 10416: 10368: 10352: 10342: 10299: 10241: 10228: 10193: 10160: 10075: 10050: 9722: 9631: 9542:

and seek their assistance in specifically clearing the information from retrieval.

9539: 9158: 8855: 8719: 8657: 8357: 8352: 8105: 7949: 7913: 7871: 7243:

I've blocked Eep² for a week. If he continues this behavior in a week, contact me.—

6830: 6805: 6376: 6322: 6304: 6268: 6189: 6132: 5987: 5822: 4349:

by the community. You can be banned from the project through any of the 5 sources,

3608: 3563: 3392: 3361: 3294: 3262: 3088:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive254#Checkuser extremely flawed

2828: 2720: 2559: 2107: 2055:

is advised not to take any further administrator actions against or in relation to

1920: 1802: 1564: 1422: 1318: 954: 796: 12858:

incident) who is big enough to knock off the crap when it is pointed out as crap.

12512:

would be allowed to contribute on the Talk pages, it sounds like a fair solution.

12226:

And you're the Anynobody who refused to agree to stay away from AN/I posting when

9868:, and post a statement that he's done so and apologize to everyone he's offended. 9845:) are a record of many attempts by other users to attempt to reason with her/him. 8628:

I'm not going to support that. It sounds like it's devised to be humiliating. I'm

7216:

In response to Wooyi and Addhoc about there being no reason to take action: Eep²

6905: 4389:

explored, including a formal revocation of his editing privileges on Knowledge. --

1898:

in my book ... my assumption was that vote stacking in RFAs is a bannable offense.

1567:. This is likely never to happen, so his ArbCom ban is an effective infinite ban.— 13070:

For the record, the Scientology post on COIN, was a 'question' by an editor on a

12663: 12642: 12609: 12478: 12454: 12143: 11172: 10806:

And that is exactly why I believe that this discussion is in the wrong forum. It

10597: 10497: 9857: 9718: 9590: 9452: 8937: 8902: 8898: 8878: 8793: 8703:

Sure, but we already have a well-defined mechanism for dealing with disruption -

8685: 8638: 8570: 8302: 7897: 7838: 7386: 7289: 7031: 6987: 6948: 6843: 6809: 6698: 6539: 6479: 6218: 5900: 5853: 5826: 5806: 5685: 5455: 5435: 5378:

Are we OK to close this with no consensus for a ban but a strong suggestion that

5360: 5299: 5212: 4785: 4435: 4380: 4149:

this little gem provides some background into your history of questionable edits

4089: 2848: 2524: 2343: 2271: 2218: 2077: 1461: 1426: 1390: 1264: 1194: 828: 11930: 9593:). Topic ban while these efforts are undertaken, so long as they are, speedily. 7587: 3441:

unlisted here. You insulting academia and my intelligence! Shame on you to say.

2051:

This arbitration case has closed and the decision published at the link above.

13032: 13017: 12935: 12919: 12892: 12855: 12828: 12712: 12659: 12646: 12613: 12463: 12341: 12327: 12098: 12054: 12034: 12011: 11944:

like the new series of provocations coming up once more from the usual people (

11721: 11626: 11622: 11610: 11531: 11510: 11504: 11456: 11413: 11387: 11367:

Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI) for that. Bans are a

11308: 11261: 11221: 11138: 11060: 11049: 11048:. Wouldn't that be nice? Is anyone here opposed to writing a great article? 10949: 10860: 10844: 10810:

like it is a simple cut-and-dried open-and-closed case of COI and it isn't. It

10481: 10317: 10295: 10283: 10274: 10224: 10211: 10206: 10179: 10026: 9988: 9984: 9957: 9869: 9763: 9743: 9730: 9609: 9586: 9484: 9336: 9323: 9165: 8978: 8890:

situations that are the one thing that is really broken about RfA (there is no

8737: 8675: 8508: 8402: 7978: 7823: 7744: 7716: 7705: 7684: 7675: 7665: 7541: 7418: 6983: 6780:

Eep is dismanteling the dab page system by his own. Something should be done.

6351: 6295: 6116: 6080: 6024: 6001: 5954: 5914: 5830: 5778: 5681: 5653: 5568: 5441: 5431: 5409: 5383: 5216: 4538: 4469: 4460: 4376: 4243: 3917: 3846: 3832: 3800: 3759: 3740: 3641: 3622: 3592: 3547: 3411: 3396: 3320: 3277: 3214: 3170: 3118: 3106: 3067: 2983: 2970: 2951: 2875: 2757: 2732: 2657: 2644: 2635: 2551: 2473: 2445: 2436:

entitled "Libelous warning" after a lengthy investigation, conducted mostly by

2408: 2224: 2214: 2073: 2022: 1942: 1911: 1899: 1883: 1862: 1848: 1834: 1778: 1591: 1518: 1491: 1366: 1362: 1248: 1243: 1234: 1117: 1079:

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

1049: 962: 912: 844: 808: 769: 760: 716: 690: 659: 12245:

acting in good faith, it would be best to defer to uninvolved parties such as

11336:, I don't know you, but it sure seems to me that you are looking for a reason 9664: 9460: 9022:

No need for a block....a few off colour opposes at RfA are best left ignored.

7394: 7196:, which are favorite citations of his in defense of any policy violation). -- 3798:

Mmm ok, I missed out the stuff above where he was banned on polish wiki :) ——

643: 12987: 12981: 12968:

Judaism although I'm not Jewish, I've raised an article about Catholicism to

12600: 12577: 12543: 12505: 12227: 12173: 12094: 12071: 12026: 11941: 11925: 11921: 11804: 11745:

Please check your definitions. COI is not defined by or as employment. See

11614: 11561: 11161: 11100: 11069: 10998: 10994: 10543: 10391: 10351:

that that IP address is shared with other Scientologists around the world. --

10313: 10266: 10174: 10152: 9937: 9865: 9861: 9726: 9147: 9095: 9060: 9052: 8974: 8789: 8761:, & recommend following the process for dealing with disruptive editors-- 8730: 8629: 8377: 8371: 8003: 7970: 7888: 7853: 7812: 7569: 7534: 7530: 7263: 6558: 6494: 6398: 6380: 6363: 6341: 6313: 6251: 6106: 6068: 6034: 5975: 5945: 5814: 5791: 5764: 5664: 5631: 5603: 5548: 5520: 5498: 5480: 5392: 5347: 5319: 5269: 5205: 5178: 5146: 5052: 4995: 4789: 4687: 4662: 4617: 4484: 4143:

when you have proven time and time again you are no expert on either subject.

4106: 4009:

G5 doesn't apply retroactively, so deciding that it is a ban wouldn't help. -

3787: 3781: 3754: 3587: 3435:

Mario Alinei, Gabriele Costa, Alexander Hausler, Marcel Otte, Jonathan Morris

3091: 2955: 2889: 2673: 2453: 2449: 2330: 2202: 2170: 2089: 2052: 1985: 1959: 1409: 1403: 1347: 1303: 1231: 1227: 1190: 1151: 824: 671: 9694: 9444: 8940:

about how everything is broken, we may actually fix RFA and other things. --

7378: 6762:

No compelling or reasonable purpose can be construed for an indefinite ban.

3590:. The guy has been here for a year, and yes I do see good contributoins. —— 3438: 13036: 12969: 12927: 12923: 12539: 12160: 11618: 11527: 11202: 11198: 11157: 11045: 10986: 10507: 10412: 10408: 10321: 10290:) you left inappropriate multiple "warnings" and on the second discussion ( 10156: 10148: 10144: 10013:(reset) I haven't "sinned" in the Scientology article space. Your post is 9942: 9941:

this point. Proposing three month Scientology topic ban and a referral to

9924: 9887: 9393: 8865: 8777: 8452: 8423: 8398: 8393: 8389: 8080: 7327: 7244: 7103: 6922: 6910: 6876: 6449: 6422: 6379:

happens to be another sockpuppet of Flameviper, so you've been suckered. --

6101:

A good chance for him would be to unprotect the talk page and request that

5997: 5979: 5923: 5592: 5572: 5291: 5256: 5209: 5133: 5129: 4653: 4613: 4584: 4568: 4563: 4402: 4010: 3979: 3655: 2933: 2929: 2838: 2808: 2631: 2520: 2441: 2344: 2180: 2001: 1568: 1477: 1446: 1377: 1334: 1290: 1263:

I think that Reddi's edits, at worse, are candidate for content dispute. --

1223: 1113: 958: 755:. For this he has earned my trust and appreciation and that of my family. 12224:

And you're the Anynobody who opened the original Checkuser on COFS, right?

9468: 7402: 5790:

WP:DISRUPT. It's been shown that he won't change his editing practices. -

1089:

Tobias Conradi is prohibited from maintaining laundry lists of grievances.

13004: 12931: 12788: 12667: 12561: 12522: 12467: 12358: 12246: 12164: 12130: 11973: 11566: 11516: 11333: 11313: 11251: 11177: 11041: 10768: 10630: 10601: 10582: 10563: 10547: 10528: 10511: 10270: 10135: 10062:

Though it is completely unrelated, I would love to learn how someone can

9946: 9891: 9714: 9656: 9543: 8840: 8762: 8758: 8704: 8642: 8552: 8470: 8437: 8412: 8101: 7945: 7867: 7803:

I will dig up a link for last year's debate. In the meantime, please see

7694: 7078: 7070: 7053: 7022: 6884:

Ah, yes, bring in non-standard Usenet line lengths into this discussion (

6834: 6781: 6772: 6683: 6672: 6652:

stalking someone else is made). So, in all of this, where have I stalked

5983: 5825:, who contributed to this discussion to lift the ban, is a sockpuppet of 5333: 5303: 4740: 4639: 4390: 4354: 4282: 4232: 4190: 4116: 3199: 3143: 2987: 2959: 2852: 2590: 2578: 2564: 2460: 2437: 1273: 792: 736: 679: 675: 12827:

Looks like yet another editor has voiced related COI concerns again, at

12678:

editors/sockpuppets/meatpuppets whatever you want to call them, and the

7521:

This COI editor has used every process and tactic available to recreate

3936:

Sorry. It seems I was right about the IP number but it has already been

3576:

per the arguments above, the potential for disruption is not worth it ˉˉ

12744:

Sarcasm is not constructive in this discussion, especially in light of

12707: 12699: 12547: 11269: 10493: 10227:

discussions have taken place at all. Can you back up that statement? --

10107: 10097: 10054: 9992: 9678: 8892: 8565: 8528: 8498: 8299: 7061: 7057: 7013: 6970: 6935: 6763: 6535: 6476: 6233: 6146: 5357: 4081: 4029: 3999: 3970: 3959: 3887: 3721: 3704: 3692: 3674: 3335: 3303: 3247: 3105:

Seconded. This ballgame pretty much ended with that Checkuser request.

2915: 2744: 1975: 1509: 1201: 1183:

ScienceApologist has recently used abusive language against others ...

1142: 1106: 11036:

which statements are true and false. Knowledge isn't here to present

10375:

religious beliefs would be deliberate misrepresentation of the truth.

6565:

is vandalising--cuz it ain't. Then you claim I insulted you regarding

6388:

I was sitting on my hands over this, but I can't say I'm surprised. --

13130: 13122: 13118: 13084: 12887:

Justanother, what Smee said above is literally true. Another editor

12832: 12749: 12725: 12703: 12695: 12683: 12624:"using complaints to silence editors with a different point of view." 12509: 12501: 12458: 12377: 12362: 12291: 11985: 11725: 11675:

I thought this was a conversation about COFS and COI? It's been said

11265: 11257: 11142: 11037: 11023: 11007: 10963: 10674: 10669: 10573: 10532: 10022: 9605: 9594: 9476: 8864:

I would say that is very premature, I agree with Ryan Allison and R.

8695: 8589: 7410: 7170: 6986:

of loosely-related items that were in no need of a dab whatsoever. --

6771:

Agree with comments by Wooyi, this isn't enough for a community ban.

6725: 6704: 6701:, instead of say bringing it up as policy proposal at Village Pump. 6242: 5821:

but reinstated per the results of a checkuser indicating that editor

4101:

to the Cubans. Understandable. 74.225.36.136 04:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

3913: 3842: 3828: 3744: 3637: 3514: 3453: 3442: 3421: 3290: 3204: 3136: 2623:

This is sneaky vandalism. I had to completely rewrite the section.

2080:

has been editing disruptively for a fairly long time now. Details at

9886:

I have my doubts that this user would respect a topic ban. Has any

8447:

That seems primarily concerned with somebody pushing a viewpoint in

7526: 7227:

be a dictionary, but that it should "contain everything--and I mean

12170:

I honestly don't care about Scientology as a religion/cult/whatever

11940:

on the matter or even check my contribs while pretty much ignoring

11936:

To add to that, so far noone has been able to actually give Diffs,

11583: 11003: 10721: 10066: 10014: 9055:

like "I don't really support people with fewer than 102,067 edits"

8733:

like "I don't really support people with fewer than 102,067 edits"

6312:

I think Ryan will fulfill this role, and I'll be happy to as well.

5547:, since this appeared to be a correct method but no one replied. - 2516: 2498: 2490: 2486: 2056: 748: 12159:

as the truth, but their information doesn't meet the standards of

11862:

http://www.bbcpanorama-exposed.org/watch-the-video-documentary.php

11109:

If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Knowledge,

10596:

And I'll modify that with this proposed compromise: if COFS joins

10053:). I think she's not there. Haven't gotten an email reply either. 9778:

I believe this refers to the checkuser / SPA block, linked above.

9686: 8684:

terrible to just put up with it for a while, until he calms down?

11551:

seeking a reason to block anyone. What I am saying is that I've

10886:

A common view is that writing an article about one's employer is

10398:

tactics - the question here is not my conduct, but that of COFS.

9842: 8973:

may provide some helpful stimulations. You see, we have all this

8886:

with all people may be impossible in some situations, especially

7771:(WP:ANI). If he's edit warring, consider compiling a report on 7021:

Please, name one entry that should be on outer (disambiguation)?

5248:

POV Disclaimer: I was heavily involved with the Sixty Six episode

4228:, with hope that it will be handled more seriously and urgently. 4144: 3535:

yes, fwiiw, the user was indefblocked on pl-wiki on 8 March 2006

12116:

to be pretty good at predicting that outcome. I'm also aware of

11211:: No, has zero socks, simply a case of multiple users on one IP. 11153:(outdent) Addressing several posts over the past several hours: 7607:

Asking an Admin to explain why both spam articles were deleted.

6885: 5965:

so what's his position currently then? Is he blocked or banned?

4562:

It's clear he doesn't want to contribute, just to harass me and

2350:

Due to constant disruprion, and sockpuppet use to avoid blocks,

12380:

is SEVEN over two usernames. Who is the bigger revert warrior?

9374:

Editor directed to email "info-en AT wikipedia DOT org" or use

8948: 8804: 8222:

I agree. Those terms are 3 chances or 1 chance, so I'm clear?

7805:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Comics/Request for comment/Asgardian

7166: 7162: 7158: 7135: 6570: 4612:). But, he's also never been blocked and I don't see any other 2773:

I am defending a Knowledge's policy, not Anacapa. This policy

648: 7704:

Agreed. A topic related ban would seem to be the answer here.

5571:

edits can be laid out. Additionally, have any other steps of

5286:

are nothing short of potshots at Matthew Fenton and Will (see

3360:

reforming into a helpful editor in the face of admonitions. --

3117:

Done: I will add Ancapa to the Ban list when I have a moment.

649: 12778:

came up with and/or are you just hoping no-one will check? --

11594: 10725: 10018: 8750:

is unacceptable, as are the taunts left on his own talk page

7646:

for deletion. I oppose this, but try to reconcile, and even

7632:

Later, questions another deletion of article. Disavows COI.

4890:

an offense? If not, then this is a non-sequitur on your part.

13091:

this potential anti-COS voice to engage in this discussion:

12798:

Refactor what? The "Derrick"? OK everyone, "Derrick" is me,

11565:

here to redirect and defuse the problem if that's possible.

11386:

or Medcab? As I understand it, this got posted here because

8994:

Um, how about not? Per everyone who has commented here. --

8757:

That said I can't support your solution Nick. I agree with

7600:. Changing the category will allow him to insert a link to 5733:(edit warring goes from 23 March 2007 on various subjects): 4537:

and concentrate on productively editing Knowledge articles.

4105:

then racist editors like him are not welcomed on this site.

2851:, as entering mentorship could ameliorate their situation.-- 12446:

edit styles, it seems to me that they are different people.

10433:

I think I meet those criteria. But I have said my piece. --

9762:

Diffs, please? Also, where are the "past investigations"?

8422:

of re-banning if he so much as mentions the subject again?

7150: 6498:

to thank everyone for the display of good faith. Regards,

4092:

article and using racist ranting such as in his own words:

3508: 3276:

He tries to revert war this and similar OR assertions into

2844: 2611: 2494: 1711: 1506:

please close it, no one will be banned from this discussion

11260:

status as an employee of the CoS. I was involved with the

10814:

like an opportunity for well meaning uninvolved admins to

9256: 6591:

Gaff gives you some tips on how to be civil (or something)

3478:

N: Good! I can refresh this memory. How the article looks

2727:

checkuser results is "likely" so stricken as likely sock.

766:

I propose a permanent ban on all of these users from SCOX.

12204:

Just for clarity, you're the same Anynobody that tracked

12085:

And to clarify this discussion from a policy standpoint,

10394:, not OR or POV-pushing. But let's not get distracted by 10261: 10069:. Last I checked only an idea or statement can actually 3652:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive87#User:Nasz

3475:

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

3429:

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

1654: 12758:

Sometimes humor is the most effective way to make one's

11579: 7012:. I find this overzealous deletion to be disconcerting. 1389:. I'm not aware of any Wiki policy which allows this. -- 11582:? I responded more to what I perceive as your error in 11557:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

10159:

instead of trying to kneecap his perceived opponent. --

9191: 7517:- has been redirected and protected to prevent spamming 7174: 7154: 6554: 4292:

I understand clearly what you say. The problem is that

3873:. Many of Nasz' articles were tagged for cleanup, like 3616:

sure, if he accepts the RfC and acknowledges that he's

3540:

Wielokrotne bezsensowne edycje, wulgaryzmy w dyskusjach

3191:

charging whithouth references the most renomed Scholars

3012: 3009:

Just so everyone knows, he may have tried to return as

1383:. I have currently reported him for further incivility, 12774:

Oh and Smee, are you pretending to misunderstand what

12576:

is an example; right now we have one off-wiki critic

12357:'s comment above, to defer judgement in this issue to 10916:

Jihads are committed based solely on religious beliefs

7924:

reverts (where versions differ not at all) as well as

7311:

Already blocked. Pointless bureaucracy to continue. --

6789:

No, I'm not dismanteling anything; I'm improving it. ∞

2353: 1597: 12103:

Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate

10600:

we can shorten the community topic ban to one month.

7597:

Next he tries to create a cozy nest for his linkspam

6250:

Seconded. Granting one last chance will not kill us.

13165: