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

Propose Indefblock of Buzzards39

I am proposing to have Buzzards39 indefinitely blocked for the following reasons:

• Buzzards39 is disclosing identities of user names and locations which is considered harassment in Incident 1,Incident 2, "The other goblin is Paul Drockton, AKA "Mormons 4 Justice", a formers Farmers manager who has been on a jihad against all things Farmers the past several months over a dispute dating back to 2002" and "This guy is from Arlington TX. The same city and state I am live in today".
• Buzzards39 is a Farmers Insurance Agent, " I am an insurance agent who does sell Farmers Insurance products.", yet he continues to edit Farmers_Insurance_Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) all sections of it including criticism. He delete criticism and tries to justify it with excuses. I warned him about this but he continues to delete and justify criticism of Farmers Insurance.
• Buzzards39 is Single purpose account which his sole purpose is to keep others from writing negative information about Farmers Insurance, yet at the same time writes positive information about it conribs. He has been warned about editing a single article,"Last, you might enjoy looking up articles to do with other interests -- hobbies, home town, school, outside interests -- and see if any of those look interesting too."
• Lastly he is rude to me then he goes to an administrator and acts like a lost puppy who is a victim.
• Disclosure: I am responsible for most/all of information that is critical of farmers Insurance. Router 17:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• From a summary review of the issue, this is a very inappropriate request. Community bans or indefinite blocks are sanctions of last resort against inveterate troublemakers who have already been the subject of multiple shorter blocks. In this instance, there have been no obviously problematic edits by Buzzards39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that I can see and no previous blocks. This page is not the Wikipedia complaints department. It appears you two are in a conflict over article content. To resolve such conflicts, please use the dispute resolution procedure. WP:3O might be a good place to ask for third party input. Sandstein 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• • And an editor who does pretty much nothing but post links to gripe sites such as "fuckpaypal" and "farmersinsurancesucks" is in a poor position to suggest another editor is a single-purpose account. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Jpgordon should disclose that he was/is a [personally identifiable information removed]. Then conspired with Syrthiss to indefinite block me. With that said I propose a temporary block or severe warning to Buzzards39 for the violations that has and continues to commit. Router 22:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please don't include personal information about other people in your edits. Corvus cornix 23:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I've refactored the offending info out. -M^ask 23:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That personal information is on jpgordon's user page so I didn't think it was a big deal, but OK. Router 01:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, really. It's not like I try to conceal that I worked at eBay until five years ago. I appreciate the concern, but I make no attempt to conceal my real-life identity. But it remains a fact that Router's sole interest at Wikipedia appears to be to add gripe sites to articles. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Jpgordon, lets not lie now. I have not added a Gripe Site since you and Syrthiss proposed indef block of me, that case is over and done with you do not need to rehash. I learned my lesson. Router 18:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't like being called a liar. Please, instead, call me badly mistaken; for whatever reason (arrogance, among others), I assumed that you, like others have sometimes done, continued the specific bad behavior I chastised you for. Please accept my apologies. I withdraw from this conversation. I've stricken out the mistaken comments; Router has my permission to edit them away if he wishes . --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• In regards to the alleged harrasment, I plead "rookie mistake", since the personal info that the honorable Mr. Router refers occured literally on my first or second discussion edit. If it is a big deal, then by all means, remove it. As to my edits, I can only say that I have tried to: 1. Stay within the lines on NPOV, going so far as to solicit admin review of edits that I have made, and 2. Striven for full disclosure as to any possible COI so that Wikipedians may see my work and comments and draw their own conclusions. My humble submission is that Mr. Router has not been quite so transparent about his reasons for interest. When information has been properly sourced, I have left it alone. But I am unrepentant for removing or altering content that is false or misleading, including my latest revisions. I would not want to revoke Routers right to good faith editing, I wish he would accord me the same privelege. Buzzards39 04:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. This request really jumps the gun. The community doesn't ban accounts that haven't even earned a single regular block yet. Read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Durova^Charge! 20:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose banning, I don't see anything even close to that level yet. Requesting a ban is not a dispute resolution step. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I also see no reason to support a block, let alone anything like a ban. In fact, Router should learn that on Wikipedia we don't divide articles up into sections depending on the editors' points of view: that's a recipe for disaster in terms of WP:NPOV. This is an editing dispute, and I have seen inappropriate contributions from both sides, but with a little more attention to the article from the community, and some education about Wikipedia, everything should work out fine. Mangojuice^talk 20:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. I completely agree with Durova. This is way too sudden and not a productive means to settle your dispute. As suggested above, there are options at WP:DR to help resolve issues like this. A community ban is not something to place on such an unelevated situation.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. As others have pointed out, you've got to make some good-faith efforts at dispute resolution before even considering a community ban. I'm starting to wonder if this page's header should provide firmer guidance about when community ban discussions are appropriate. We could take the wording from Sandstein's post above: "This page is not the Wikipedia complaints department. Community bans or indefinite blocks are sanctions of last resort against inveterate troublemakers who have already been the subject of multiple shorter blocks." --Akhilleus (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, Akhilleus, and I've been requesting that from the techies. Should link to WP:DE and outline appropriate circumstances and actions (involved parties don't decide on bans). Durova^Charge! 22:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs)

Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs) is up to no good again on Sweetest Day and various related pages on both here and on Commons, despite being blocked several times for disruption and being warned countless times on his talk page about not resuming the issue. His recent contributions consist of edit warring over previously-removed links to a Commons gallery of articles related to Sweetest Day (the talk page there contains much POV pushing), and in late January he was again POV pushing (here, here as "reverting sophisticated vandalism", etc.), though nothing was done. Almost all of his edits are to things related to American Greetings and Hallmark Cards, and he has a long history of personal attacks and accusing other editors of being part of a corporate conspiracy (see ANI links below).

Previous ANI discussions: [1], [2], [3], [4].

This user clearly has no intent to change his ways or otherwise stop pushing his POV, as he has come back again and again despite being blocked or warned. Therefore, I propose a community ban. --Coredesat 00:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I've had numerous, numerous dealings with this editor and was really close to filing an Arbcom before he took a break around the beginning of the year. The Commons thing is kind of a final straw for me because it pretty much cements the fact that Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs) is absolutely dedicated to gaming the system to push his POV by going outside the Wikipedia space to circumvent the consensus here. As Coredesat (talk · contribs) stated. he is nearly a single purpose account here and without going into too much detail about off-Wiki matters, There is evidence out there that Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs) could never be neutral about these topics; he has an axe to grind here. I've spent so much time pointing out to him why his contributions are POV that I'm fairly certain I would not be viewed as a neutral outside party to this. This could be considered an endorse if anyone wants to see it as such, though I completely understand if my opinion is discounted here.--Isotope23 16:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the observation that there is a serious issue here. The community restriction could probably be limited to Sweetest Day, Hallmark Cards, American Greetings, their talkpages, and related articles, with the ability to expand it to other areas if necessary. (I suspect if banned from these pages he will cease contributing altogether, but we would see.) Newyorkbrad 21:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Propose topic banning this editor. I issued a 72 hour block back in November (one of several by various admins). Appears to have a strange greeting card industry conspiracy theory. This has drawn out too long to be a joke. Durova^Charge! 22:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Can we do community topic bans without an ArbCom case? I think it's been brought up before, but there wasn't much discussion. --Coredesat 06:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Arbcom seems to support the idea, have a look at the arbitrators' vote summaries in this case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • In that case, the idea proposed by Newyorkbrad seems fine to me, seeing as it would end up being equivalent to a ban or block anyway (since he doesn't edit anything unrelated to those topics). --Coredesat 14:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I'd agree with that so long as it is clear that related articles are covered too (he has recently taken to editing articles related to those company's IP; Holly Hobbie, Strawberry Shortcake etc.) as well as the Hallmark holiday aritcle, where he has tried to POV push as well. To be fair, he as at least one edit to a topic related to A Course in Miracles which seemed fine.--Isotope23 14:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
          • • For the record I'd support either a topic ban or an outright ban on this editor. 22:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard needs some attention

The biographies noticeboard is backlogged at 184 reports, some of which haven't seen action since December last year. It would be good if some experienced editors went that way. Thanks. MER-C 07:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems as though many requests just haven't been closed as they should have been. I just closed the two oldest entries easily. Grandmasterka 09:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Copy and paste move

Hi, is there a certain procedure, if a user continues to make a copy and paste move (see [5]) although he was pointed out to not to do this (see User_talk:Lawsonrob? Does this come perhaps under vandalism or disruptive edits? Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 14:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

I think you should revert it and give a more stern warning. If he keeps doing it, maybe post something to WP:AN/I rather than here. Leebo⁸⁶ 14:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Clerks of all types need to be deprecated

Moved to Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Clerks

Timestamp for the bot: 14:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

BLP review requested

Seeking community guidance for my actions at Jesse Lee Peterson: that is, this edit and this edit. My reasons for acting in this manner are given in the edit summary. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be completely in the right: unsourced accusations of hate speech on biography pages should be removed on sight. –Henning Makholm 18:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, only the first of the two diff links in Moreschi's request were present when I wrote my reply above. –Henning Makholm 19:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just added the second. More of the same, IMO. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced or poorly sourced biased or potentially controversial information must be eradicated without prejudice :) You done good, Moreschi. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 04:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I linked reliable source material in my comments on the talk page, but I'll wait to edit the article. I'm not going to add fuel to what appears to be a somewhat breathless edit war on this article.-Robotam 16:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblock of Thekohser?

Thekohser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Gregory Kohs, the guy who was running WikiBiz (and is now busy with Centiare) is asking to be unblocked. He says he's given up the paid editing stuff for good and would like to be able to edit Wikipedia just to improve the encyclopedia. So, what does the community think? I'm not opposed to the idea. --Cyde Weys 22:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Very strongly oppose. Until last month he evaded his ban through a disruptive sockpuppet and he has given misleading information to journalists that was published in the mainstream press. I doubt the community has the authority to overturn a ban by Jimbo himself. Even if it did I see absolutely no reason to reopen the door. Durova^Charge! 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• What is the sockpuppet's name? Anyway, Greg is saying that Jimbo is amenable to an unblock, but I'd like to hear that from Jimbo personally, of course. --Cyde Weys 23:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Checkuser should probably be run on Ray Regan before Greg's unbanned, at least. See this diff, for instance. His contribution history shows he's clearly somebody's sock puppet. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Private conversation that I've had with Mr. Kohs makes me believe that he would not be able to edit without significant controversy. His beliefs about both Jimbo and the rest of the community are absurd to the point of assuming not just bad faith, but assuming a culture of censorship. Ral315 » 02:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• What is the sockpuppet's name? Plural. Also throw in JossBuckle Swami (talk · contribs). --Calton | Talk 03:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry, I know we are supposed to assume good faith, but I just see no good coming of this.--Isotope23 02:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• NeutralMy opinion remains neutral until more information provided. Jimbo blocked the role account/business account, or the absolute individual behind the account? If the user has given up the controversial paid editing, is there any inherent harm in allowing this user to start "good faith" editing? Navou ^banter / _contribs 02:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. This blog comment exchange gives me no hope that he can fit in. --Calton | Talk 03:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Calton's blog citation and Isotope23's succinct summary. --A. B. ^(talk) 04:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Someone who views WP as a platform for "content" (sic) raises a big red flag, waving frantically to and fro. Raymond Arritt 05:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Reserving judgement We need Jimbo's opinion on this. JoshuaZ 05:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I support unblocking, because, unlike the rest of the cabal, I actually looked at his contributions, and I see that he contributes.--GordonWatts 05:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's posts like this couple with your constant wikilawyering that I've been observing on the ArbCom page that make me think you need to be indefinitely blocked. Please stop trolling. – Chacor 05:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Who are you? And what exactly is your problem? I wasn't talking to you -and I wasn't talking about you -lastly, I wasn't talking about that ArbCom page, so kindly butt out and get back on topic here. Either vote for the guy, or against. Any more stalking comments like this, and I will seek sanction.--GordonWatts 05:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • On reflection, maybe it was not so nice to label you as a cabal for your vote, but I still think that you are bullying this guy, and I don't like it. Remember: I have some experience in the area of being bullied by those who violate policy (such as WP:Consensus policy), and I know what I'm talking about. I redacted my thoughts -true or not, they were insulting. That is my way of apologising, and showing I intended no harm on your part. Get mad, but don't be insulted or hurt.--GordonWatts 05:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Go ahead. You have no right to tell me to "butt out" of anything. You are on the verge of a community ban. You need to get your act together. You wikilawyering over the arbitration request was ridiculous. It's edits like this that just go to show why you shouldn't be a part of the project, because you refuse to listen to others. – Chacor 05:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• This decision is not going to be effectively made by voting. —Centrx→talk • 05:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Be patient per JoshuaZ; at the least, we need Jimbo to clarify whether or not the block was just for the paid editing stuff, or whether the person behind it was intended to be blocked. Nothing productive will come on insufficient information. -Amarkov moo! 05:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. Regardless of whether "the person behind it" was blocked or not, I'd support (effectively) a community ban because of the blog posts (and past edits), which suggest that the person will never be able to edit constructively, and show a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:COI and WP:OWN. On the other hand, we could give him another chance (if Jimbo and Co. agree), but keep him on a "short leash". --N Shar (talk • contribs) 05:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit-stalking, harassment¸ threats¸ personal abuse

[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Continuous edit-stalking, harassment, posting of personal abuse, and wikilawyering relating to me and my contributions  by editor that violates WP:COI and that has already been warned  [15] ---Doktor Who 05:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Propose Indefblock of Buzzards39

I am proposing to have Buzzards39 indefinitely blocked for the following reasons:

• Buzzards39 is disclosing identities of user names and locations which is considered harassment in Incident 1,Incident 2, "The other goblin is Paul Drockton, AKA "Mormons 4 Justice", a formers Farmers manager who has been on a jihad against all things Farmers the past several months over a dispute dating back to 2002" and "This guy is from Arlington TX. The same city and state I am live in today".
• Buzzards39 is a Farmers Insurance Agent, " I am an insurance agent who does sell Farmers Insurance products.", yet he continues to edit Farmers_Insurance_Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) all sections of it including criticism. He delete criticism and tries to justify it with excuses. I warned him about this but he continues to delete and justify criticism of Farmers Insurance.
• Buzzards39 is Single purpose account which his sole purpose is to keep others from writing negative information about Farmers Insurance, yet at the same time writes positive information about it conribs. He has been warned about editing a single article,"Last, you might enjoy looking up articles to do with other interests -- hobbies, home town, school, outside interests -- and see if any of those look interesting too."
• Lastly he is rude to me then he goes to an administrator and acts like a lost puppy who is a victim.
• Disclosure: I am responsible for most/all of information that is critical of farmers Insurance. Router 17:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• From a summary review of the issue, this is a very inappropriate request. Community bans or indefinite blocks are sanctions of last resort against inveterate troublemakers who have already been the subject of multiple shorter blocks. In this instance, there have been no obviously problematic edits by Buzzards39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that I can see and no previous blocks. This page is not the Wikipedia complaints department. It appears you two are in a conflict over article content. To resolve such conflicts, please use the dispute resolution procedure. WP:3O might be a good place to ask for third party input. Sandstein 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• • And an editor who does pretty much nothing but post links to gripe sites such as "fuckpaypal" and "farmersinsurancesucks" is in a poor position to suggest another editor is a single-purpose account. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Jpgordon should disclose that he was/is a [personally identifiable information removed]. Then conspired with Syrthiss to indefinite block me. With that said I propose a temporary block or severe warning to Buzzards39 for the violations that has and continues to commit. Router 22:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please don't include personal information about other people in your edits. Corvus cornix 23:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I've refactored the offending info out. -M^ask 23:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That personal information is on jpgordon's user page so I didn't think it was a big deal, but OK. Router 01:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, really. It's not like I try to conceal that I worked at eBay until five years ago. I appreciate the concern, but I make no attempt to conceal my real-life identity. But it remains a fact that Router's sole interest at Wikipedia appears to be to add gripe sites to articles. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Jpgordon, lets not lie now. I have not added a Gripe Site since you and Syrthiss proposed indef block of me, that case is over and done with you do not need to rehash. I learned my lesson. Router 18:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't like being called a liar. Please, instead, call me badly mistaken; for whatever reason (arrogance, among others), I assumed that you, like others have sometimes done, continued the specific bad behavior I chastised you for. Please accept my apologies. I withdraw from this conversation. I've stricken out the mistaken comments; Router has my permission to edit them away if he wishes . --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• In regards to the alleged harrasment, I plead "rookie mistake", since the personal info that the honorable Mr. Router refers occured literally on my first or second discussion edit. If it is a big deal, then by all means, remove it. As to my edits, I can only say that I have tried to: 1. Stay within the lines on NPOV, going so far as to solicit admin review of edits that I have made, and 2. Striven for full disclosure as to any possible COI so that Wikipedians may see my work and comments and draw their own conclusions. My humble submission is that Mr. Router has not been quite so transparent about his reasons for interest. When information has been properly sourced, I have left it alone. But I am unrepentant for removing or altering content that is false or misleading, including my latest revisions. I would not want to revoke Routers right to good faith editing, I wish he would accord me the same privelege. Buzzards39 04:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. This request really jumps the gun. The community doesn't ban accounts that haven't even earned a single regular block yet. Read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Durova^Charge! 20:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose banning, I don't see anything even close to that level yet. Requesting a ban is not a dispute resolution step. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I also see no reason to support a block, let alone anything like a ban. In fact, Router should learn that on Wikipedia we don't divide articles up into sections depending on the editors' points of view: that's a recipe for disaster in terms of WP:NPOV. This is an editing dispute, and I have seen inappropriate contributions from both sides, but with a little more attention to the article from the community, and some education about Wikipedia, everything should work out fine. Mangojuice^talk 20:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. I completely agree with Durova. This is way too sudden and not a productive means to settle your dispute. As suggested above, there are options at WP:DR to help resolve issues like this. A community ban is not something to place on such an unelevated situation.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. As others have pointed out, you've got to make some good-faith efforts at dispute resolution before even considering a community ban. I'm starting to wonder if this page's header should provide firmer guidance about when community ban discussions are appropriate. We could take the wording from Sandstein's post above: "This page is not the Wikipedia complaints department. Community bans or indefinite blocks are sanctions of last resort against inveterate troublemakers who have already been the subject of multiple shorter blocks." --Akhilleus (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, Akhilleus, and I've been requesting that from the techies. Should link to WP:DE and outline appropriate circumstances and actions (involved parties don't decide on bans). Durova^Charge! 22:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs)

Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs) is up to no good again on Sweetest Day and various related pages on both here and on Commons, despite being blocked several times for disruption and being warned countless times on his talk page about not resuming the issue. His recent contributions consist of edit warring over previously-removed links to a Commons gallery of articles related to Sweetest Day (the talk page there contains much POV pushing), and in late January he was again POV pushing (here, here as "reverting sophisticated vandalism", etc.), though nothing was done. Almost all of his edits are to things related to American Greetings and Hallmark Cards, and he has a long history of personal attacks and accusing other editors of being part of a corporate conspiracy (see ANI links below).

Previous ANI discussions: [16], [17], [18], [19].

This user clearly has no intent to change his ways or otherwise stop pushing his POV, as he has come back again and again despite being blocked or warned. Therefore, I propose a community ban. --Coredesat 00:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I've had numerous, numerous dealings with this editor and was really close to filing an Arbcom before he took a break around the beginning of the year. The Commons thing is kind of a final straw for me because it pretty much cements the fact that Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs) is absolutely dedicated to gaming the system to push his POV by going outside the Wikipedia space to circumvent the consensus here. As Coredesat (talk · contribs) stated. he is nearly a single purpose account here and without going into too much detail about off-Wiki matters, There is evidence out there that Miracleimpulse (talk · contribs) could never be neutral about these topics; he has an axe to grind here. I've spent so much time pointing out to him why his contributions are POV that I'm fairly certain I would not be viewed as a neutral outside party to this. This could be considered an endorse if anyone wants to see it as such, though I completely understand if my opinion is discounted here.--Isotope23 16:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the observation that there is a serious issue here. The community restriction could probably be limited to Sweetest Day, Hallmark Cards, American Greetings, their talkpages, and related articles, with the ability to expand it to other areas if necessary. (I suspect if banned from these pages he will cease contributing altogether, but we would see.) Newyorkbrad 21:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Propose topic banning this editor. I issued a 72 hour block back in November (one of several by various admins). Appears to have a strange greeting card industry conspiracy theory. This has drawn out too long to be a joke. Durova^Charge! 22:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Can we do community topic bans without an ArbCom case? I think it's been brought up before, but there wasn't much discussion. --Coredesat 06:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Arbcom seems to support the idea, have a look at the arbitrators' vote summaries in this case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 11:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • In that case, the idea proposed by Newyorkbrad seems fine to me, seeing as it would end up being equivalent to a ban or block anyway (since he doesn't edit anything unrelated to those topics). --Coredesat 14:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I'd agree with that so long as it is clear that related articles are covered too (he has recently taken to editing articles related to those company's IP; Holly Hobbie, Strawberry Shortcake etc.) as well as the Hallmark holiday aritcle, where he has tried to POV push as well. To be fair, he as at least one edit to a topic related to A Course in Miracles which seemed fine.--Isotope23 14:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
          • • For the record I'd support either a topic ban or an outright ban on this editor. 22:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard needs some attention

The biographies noticeboard is backlogged at 184 reports, some of which haven't seen action since December last year. It would be good if some experienced editors went that way. Thanks. MER-C 07:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems as though many requests just haven't been closed as they should have been. I just closed the two oldest entries easily. Grandmasterka 09:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Copy and paste move

Hi, is there a certain procedure, if a user continues to make a copy and paste move (see [20]) although he was pointed out to not to do this (see User_talk:Lawsonrob? Does this come perhaps under vandalism or disruptive edits? Greetings ~~ Phoe _talk 14:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC) ~~

I think you should revert it and give a more stern warning. If he keeps doing it, maybe post something to WP:AN/I rather than here. Leebo⁸⁶ 14:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Clerks of all types need to be deprecated

Moved to Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Clerks

Timestamp for the bot: 14:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

BLP review requested

Seeking community guidance for my actions at Jesse Lee Peterson: that is, this edit and this edit. My reasons for acting in this manner are given in the edit summary. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be completely in the right: unsourced accusations of hate speech on biography pages should be removed on sight. –Henning Makholm 18:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, only the first of the two diff links in Moreschi's request were present when I wrote my reply above. –Henning Makholm 19:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just added the second. More of the same, IMO. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced or poorly sourced biased or potentially controversial information must be eradicated without prejudice :) You done good, Moreschi. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 04:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I linked reliable source material in my comments on the talk page, but I'll wait to edit the article. I'm not going to add fuel to what appears to be a somewhat breathless edit war on this article.-Robotam 16:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblock of Thekohser?

Thekohser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Gregory Kohs, the guy who was running WikiBiz (and is now busy with Centiare) is asking to be unblocked. He says he's given up the paid editing stuff for good and would like to be able to edit Wikipedia just to improve the encyclopedia. So, what does the community think? I'm not opposed to the idea. --Cyde Weys 22:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Very strongly oppose. Until last month he evaded his ban through a disruptive sockpuppet and he has given misleading information to journalists that was published in the mainstream press. I doubt the community has the authority to overturn a ban by Jimbo himself. Even if it did I see absolutely no reason to reopen the door. Durova^Charge! 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• What is the sockpuppet's name? Anyway, Greg is saying that Jimbo is amenable to an unblock, but I'd like to hear that from Jimbo personally, of course. --Cyde Weys 23:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Checkuser should probably be run on Ray Regan before Greg's unbanned, at least. See this diff, for instance. His contribution history shows he's clearly somebody's sock puppet. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Private conversation that I've had with Mr. Kohs makes me believe that he would not be able to edit without significant controversy. His beliefs about both Jimbo and the rest of the community are absurd to the point of assuming not just bad faith, but assuming a culture of censorship. Ral315 » 02:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• What is the sockpuppet's name? Plural. Also throw in JossBuckle Swami (talk · contribs). --Calton | Talk 03:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry, I know we are supposed to assume good faith, but I just see no good coming of this.--Isotope23 02:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• NeutralMy opinion remains neutral until more information provided. Jimbo blocked the role account/business account, or the absolute individual behind the account? If the user has given up the controversial paid editing, is there any inherent harm in allowing this user to start "good faith" editing? Navou ^banter / _contribs 02:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. This blog comment exchange gives me no hope that he can fit in. --Calton | Talk 03:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Calton's blog citation and Isotope23's succinct summary. --A. B. ^(talk) 04:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Someone who views WP as a platform for "content" (sic) raises a big red flag, waving frantically to and fro. Raymond Arritt 05:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Reserving judgement We need Jimbo's opinion on this. JoshuaZ 05:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I support unblocking, because, unlike the rest of the cabal, I actually looked at his contributions, and I see that he contributes.--GordonWatts 05:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's posts like this couple with your constant wikilawyering that I've been observing on the ArbCom page that make me think you need to be indefinitely blocked. Please stop trolling. – Chacor 05:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Who are you? And what exactly is your problem? I wasn't talking to you -and I wasn't talking about you -lastly, I wasn't talking about that ArbCom page, so kindly butt out and get back on topic here. Either vote for the guy, or against. Any more stalking comments like this, and I will seek sanction.--GordonWatts 05:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • On reflection, maybe it was not so nice to label you as a cabal for your vote, but I still think that you are bullying this guy, and I don't like it. Remember: I have some experience in the area of being bullied by those who violate policy (such as WP:Consensus policy), and I know what I'm talking about. I redacted my thoughts -true or not, they were insulting. That is my way of apologising, and showing I intended no harm on your part. Get mad, but don't be insulted or hurt.--GordonWatts 05:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Go ahead. You have no right to tell me to "butt out" of anything. You are on the verge of a community ban. You need to get your act together. You wikilawyering over the arbitration request was ridiculous. It's edits like this that just go to show why you shouldn't be a part of the project, because you refuse to listen to others. – Chacor 05:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• This decision is not going to be effectively made by voting. —Centrx→talk • 05:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Be patient per JoshuaZ; at the least, we need Jimbo to clarify whether or not the block was just for the paid editing stuff, or whether the person behind it was intended to be blocked. Nothing productive will come on insufficient information. -Amarkov moo! 05:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. Regardless of whether "the person behind it" was blocked or not, I'd support (effectively) a community ban because of the blog posts (and past edits), which suggest that the person will never be able to edit constructively, and show a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:COI and WP:OWN. On the other hand, we could give him another chance (if Jimbo and Co. agree), but keep him on a "short leash". --N Shar (talk • contribs) 05:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit-stalking, harassment¸ threats¸ personal abuse

[21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] Continuous edit-stalking, harassment, posting of personal abuse, and wikilawyering relating to me and my contributions  by editor that violates WP:COI and that has already been warned  [30] ---Doktor Who 05:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)