Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Header

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may found at the above link. DPeterson is banned for one year. All parties are reminded of the need for care when editing in an area with a potential conflict of interest. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 20:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The article Great Irish Famine is placed under the mentorship of three to five administrators to be named later. All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page. Further terms of the mentorship are contained in the decision and will be amplified on the article talkpage. Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks. MarkThomas is placed on standard civility supervision for one year. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 22:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above arbitration case has closed and the final decision is located at the link above. Vlad fedorov is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 14:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron liebman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (January 30th, 2007 - May 11th, 2007) has been haunting us with sock puppets since his indefinite block on May 11th. He is using these sock puppets to repeatedly add false information to articles (I think, if I'm wrong please correct me). He has 130 suspected puppets and 12 confirmed accounts. These puppets are frequently popping up, and I think a ban should be in order. I think he has exhausted all of our patience. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User has been indefinitely blocked since May. Moving from only one 31 hour block to an indefinite is harsh. Why not try a block of a few months first? Unblock, if he re-offends, indefinitely block. Banno 22:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has the user been informed of this discussion, and has the issue of identity been solved? Banno 22:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you understand. He was indef. blocked in May for sock puppetry, and is still using more puppets to evade his block and add false info to articles. He has been disruptive ever since he joined. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps more explanation is needed, including links and diffs. Banno 06:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a ban when no admins are willing to unblock the person? I proposed a ban here for User:Lyle123, and it was closed as "no need to reconfirm existing bans" or something like that (see here). Kwsn(Ni!) 18:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that he has been blocked indefinitely, after only one block of 31 (why 31?) hours, and that the indefinite ban has been in place since May, I am considering unblocking him. Banno 21:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then this discussion can produce a result, just wanted to make sure that was clear. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prima faci, this looks like Liebman started editing seriously in March [2], got into a few disputes and broke 3RR and was blocked briefly, tried to avoid 3RR with a few sockpuppets and was blocked indefinitely. Perhaps a block of a few months would have been better. Since then he has used sockpuppets to avoid the block. I suggest unblocking, so that he doesn't have a need to use sockpuppets, and with the condition that a breach of 3RR, including via sockpuppets, will result in an indefinite block and community ban. Banno 21:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has shown no willingness whatsoever to conform to the rules about citations and POV-pushing, ever since his first activities in January up until now (or at least yesterday, when he was very active with his socks). With no commitment from him to do better, how do you imagine that unblocking him will help solve anything? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I can't disagree with this more vehemently, Banno. Liebman has been using the identities of real living people at both SABR and http://baseball-reference.com/bullpen while denying all sockpuppetry and even claiming that other people are stalking him (checkuser says otherwise). This edit at bullpen confirms that he's almost stealing other people's identity. He's been discredited on this wiki and theirs and responded with venomous messages like this and this just for a quick sample. Frankly I'm shocked that someone would be rewarded for months of rampant false information and sockpuppetry by being released from their block! —Wknight94 (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liebman's indef block was only after we warned and blocked his sockpuppets for increasingly long times and he kept making new ones (about a dozen at the time, more since) despite repeated warnings on his page and the sock pages to stop making more. The combination set of user accounts and IPs were all clearly and repeatedly warned and told to stop escalating the sockpuppetry and vandalism. There are also very serious concerns in that he's impersonated almost 50 members of the SABR baseball statistics organization with account names. Please see: WP:Long term abuse#Baseball Vandal aka Ron liebman for an overall summary, though I don't know if it's up to date on all the socks (check the categories). Georgewilliamherbert 21:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To follow myself up, also look at the 5 checkusers; 4 were actually run and confirmed 41 named socks and 15 plus IPs or IP ranges in New York City libraries and universities, and we've identified a lot more than that by edit pattern alone. Per Kwsn below, he also out and out lied about being associated with the socks, right before the largest CU confirmed that he was. He's also persistently lied in emails to unblock-en-l. Georgewilliamherbert 22:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse ban - He lied saying all the socks were imitators, yet this check right after he said that proved otherwise. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Now you are telling us things we need to know, if the community is going to endorse a ban. Not all of us are familiar with the minutia of the case, and it is up to those making the case for a ban to present the evidence. Since my interest in baseball ranks somewhere below my concern for what you do with your breakfast scraps, a bit of detail is needed, especially links and diffs. Banno 22:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A list of diffs"? There are hundreds of them. I suggest you start with the history for Hideki Matsui and cross-check it with the list of sockpuppets (listed in the first paragraph, above) to see which ones are his, and then you will just begin to get the idea. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My advice to you, which will be lost on you if you're under the age of 50 or so, but that's OK: "Duke 'im, Banno!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned by ArbCom for one year for activities documented at this case. The ban was initially set to expire on March 29 2008 but has been extended twice due to instances of meatpuppetry and proxy editing.

Today, it emerged that Bmedley Sutler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) admitted to being a meatpuppet of FAAFA, stating rather brazenly that half of his edits were proxy edits for FAAFA. In particular, he admitted to deliberately sinking Crockspot's RFA by introducing evidence of his off-wiki conduct.

FAAFA's ban has already been reset twice, but to my mind, when you deliberately attempt to sink an RFA--with a meatpuppet no less--you have no business being here. I therefore propose that FAAFA's ban be extended to indefinite. Blueboy96 23:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, FAAFA/Bmedley has also used the identity of NBGPWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which has its own sorid history of blocks. Dman727 23:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the indef blocking admin of the Bmedley Sutler account I agree. The FAAFA account's ban should be made indefinite. Seeing what we have all had to deal with for the past few months I see no reason why he should be allowed to come back after one year.--Jersey Devil 23:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it would be appropriate to extend the siteban on FAAFA from 1 year to indefinite as a formality. In practice, I seriously doubt any admin would or should consider unblocking him at this point anyhow. MastCell ^Talk 23:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The community's patience with FAAFA and crew has ended. They've been given many opportunities to contribute productively but instead they have disrupted the project over and over. The parting statement of Bmedley boastful and unrepentant. I agree with an indefinite ban. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems silly not to, considering FAAFA's block log. --Deskana (talky) 23:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree with the above. You don't get to circumvent your block, accumulate a new block log like this user did, and then boast about it later without some serious consequences. --Haemo 23:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per basically everybody. We should probably indef the non-FAAFA half of Bmedley, too, just for formality's sake (assuming he wasn't just pulling our chains there). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure he was just pulling our chains there.Proabivouac 02:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he was, though, better safe than sorry? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse indefinite ban as one of the victim of his attacks and homophobic rants. --DHeyward 02:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious endorse. Here are a few more probable socks I have collected.

• Pimmelkopf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• TheDeciderDecides (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Macacawitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

- Crockspot 02:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If I may be allowed to play devil's advocate, Bmedley did admit to being a meatpuppet for a banned user, and thus as far as we're concerned, he's a meatpuppet for a banned user. However, should his admission be taken to definitively condemn another user? How do we know for sure that Bmedley isn't just "pulling our chains" with something that isn't true after all? If that were true, FAAFA would have no control over his actions and no recourse. To block one user on his or her own admission is one thing, but blocking a user based on the admission of a lying malcontent who claims to be his or her meatpuppet seems a bit off.

It also seems a bit off not to extend some form of courtesy to the user (Crockspot) whose RfA was "sunk" by Bmedley. I don't know exactly what to do, but it's pretty obvious that he'd be an administrator now without Bmedley's "outing" of a politically incorrect comment he or she made on another forum which Bmedley spread all over the place trying to make the potential administrator seem homophobic. Given my user name, I'm not exactly happy that another user would say, "Pretty much any dude with 'bear' in his handle you can assume takes it up the ass," on CU or DU or any of those stupid "underground" websites, but this comment, which sunk the RfA, shouldn't have done so. It is rude, politically incorrect, and insensitive (to LGBTs, people with "bear" in their handle, and asses), but this whole business of dragging people's extra-Wikipedia lives into Wikipedia decisions is a horrible thing, and Bmedley's the one who is responsible for it in this case. Is he going to be able to get away with it? Calbaer 03:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read fnord23's posts (which is FAAFA) on WR, it's pretty clear that he was not being victimized. - Crockspot 03:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be made clear that the evidence used to indefinitely ban FAAFA is not Bmedley's say-so. This discussion makes it seem as though it is. Calbaer 03:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse indefnite ban Disruptive user, already should have been banned indefinitely. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• His antics with Smedley are unacceptable, an extension to infinite is well deserved here. --MichaelLinnear 05:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• How about basing this on some evidence, like what Proabivouac brought up on ANI? Republicans, gay sex and meth:[3][4] "Busheep"[5][6]The second comparison is half off-wiki, but I'd support a ban extension on the first alone. There's just too much circumstantial evidence here for it to be a coincidence.--Chaser - T 06:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, reluctantly. I'd hoped this was an editor who would make a legitimate return. Doesn't look like he's willing to work within our structure. Durova^Charge! 13:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Editor does not appear to want to return and edit within guidelines. Has taken pride in "beating" the system. -- Avi 17:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse well-deserved ban. KrakatoaKatie 21:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crockspot's RFA

People opposed his RfA. He did not pass. We can't say "oh, well it turns out the evidence you guys all used was provided by a banned user, so your opinions don't count." -Amarkov moo! 03:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does pose an interesting problem. Assuming for the moment that they are actually two people, Bmedley did not only admit to proxy editing, he stated that FAAFA was actually logging in on Bmedley's account. According to the Wikipedia banning policy, banned users are not welcome to contribute, and all of their contributions to the project are subject to deletion. So how do you unring a bell? - Crockspot 03:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I knew, I'd propose something, but I don't, so I'm just throwing it out there.... Calbaer 03:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have a short list of alternate workable remedies, but this is probably not the appropriate place to discuss them. - Crockspot 03:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been quite convinced for sometime that Faafa and Bmedley are the same person, even before he admitted to proxy editing for faafa and sharing the account yesterday. Heck his very first edits screamed sock. His behavior, language, agenda, article interests and mode of operation are completely identical. As for the Crockspot RFA....well its really unfortunate and troublesome. If Faafa had not interfered, Crockspot WOULD be an admin right now. However there is no indication that the majority of editors who opposed Crockspot were "in league" with faafa/bmedley. They simply voted their conscious and I think that should be respected. Essentially Faafa/Bmedley found a way to exploit the WIKI process. While Faafa/Bmedley has proven himself to be a dishonest troublemaker, there doesn't seem to be a reasonable way to compensate Crockspot and thats a failure of WIKI. I think that Crockspot best course of action is to simply abandon his account and start anew. He's a quality editor and deserving of adminship, however there is no unringing the bell at this point. Dman727 03:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Could someone explain why we are treating this revelation as bad? Clearly, the information swayed many people's opinions. For what reason should we not allow people to give information that will change the outcome of a RfA? -Amarkov moo! 03:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not bad or good. It just is. RFA's are structured like a game of poker IMO. You use any and all information available to make a decision. Sometimes your cards get flashed and your opponents get more information than they are normally entitled to. In this case Crockspot hand was revealed through his decision to use a less than anonymous user-id. Others have been more circumspect with their identity and are rewarded for it. As I mentioned above its a failure of the wiki process, and unfortunately the miscreant faafa exploited it. Dman727 03:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's not re-open this issue, please.--Chaser - T 03:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's an interesting question, if Bmedley didn't ask the question, would someone else have? Personally, on a side note, points to Crockspot for keeping a cool head through all that. Kwsn(Ni!) 18:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I think there was a decent chance that at least part of that information would have come out. There were significant opposes prior to the information getting out and discussed. --Rocksanddirt 18:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting the Crockspot RFA--in which I did not participate--is not a good idea, even in light of FAAFA/Bmedley's ridiculous disruptions. The number of oppose votes was extremely high, and obviously oppose voters were evaluating Crockspot's comments on Conservative Underground (and his response to the questions about them) rather than Bmedley's post and we therefore need to respect their opinions. Also it should be noted that the majority of CU posts (including the one that people may have felt was most egregious) which were added to the RFA came from User:BenB4 and if anything it may have been his post that pushed a bunch of people into oppose (Bmedley already had a bad reputation at that point, and at least one editor encouraged Crockspot not to even respond to his post--Crockspot only responded after BenB4 posted additional CU comments). Trying to undo the RFA results will create an enormous amount of bad blood and will be bad for the project. Crockspot should continue contributing in a positive fashion and try again down the road or, if he feels that is impossible, create a new account and start from scratch. Or just live without being an admin, which, after all, is no big deal.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree, my point is just that it was not a slam dunk passage prior and there was the appearance of folks looking for a reason to say no. However, my observation is that this community forgives that sort of thing slowly, if at all, so I don't know that the crockspot handle will ever be able to pass an Rfa. --Rocksanddirt 20:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was cruising to an easy pass before the CU material was introduced. See Image:RFA Crockspot - off wiki activity influence.png. - Crockspot 21:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but as I said much of the CU material was not introduced by Bmedley. Regardless of how it got there, many editors found it quite troublesome and voted Oppose in good faith. We can't, as you said, unring the bell (or put the genie back in the bottle) so I don't think there's any remedy that will undo the results of that RFA (and even if there was it would be a dramafest to the nth degree). I also agree with Amarkov above that, in spite of Bmedley/FAAFA's major incivility and justifiable long-term ban, the revelation of the CU stuff was a good thing. The very fact that it changed the outcome of the RFA makes it good that we had the information (had it come out after a successful sysopping it could have been much more of a problem). I think the best thing we could do is move on from this whole situation.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per community consensus here, I extended the ban to indef. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 22:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, this is the second time this year that we've had to ban someone at least in part for disruption at RFAs ... maybe we should let it be known on the main RFA page that disruption there will be dealt with very severely. Blueboy96 22:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will an admin please look at the behavior of Crossmr (talk · contribs) and Njyoder (talk · contribs) on PayPal and Talk:PayPal? This is a dispute about whether to include Paypalsux.com as a source or external link. They filed an RFC, but instead of actually waiting for comments, have continued to argue with each other. There are about 16,000 words on the talk page after the filing of the RFC, almost all by the two of them. (I doubt they read each others' posts any more, or at least they don't seriously consider their merits.) They have also been forum shopping at WT:RFAR trying to get arbitrators to enforce some three-year old case against one of them or something. Other editors including arbitrator JPgordon have tried to be voices of reason on the talk page but no use. The article is currently protected.

Protection locks out all editors when there are only two problem editors here. I propose a community ban of Crossmr and Njyoder from the article and its talk page for a good long time, months at least, to be enforced by blocking, so other editors who are not so polarized can deal with this. I also ask that lookout be kept for sockpuppets and SPAs since I suspect that one or both will be unable to truly disengage. Dread Pirate Westley•^Aargh 12:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to try a little good faith and have a look at the full details surrounding the case before proposing a ban with vague details about what's going on and lots of assumptions about how we're really thinking and editing. For some clarification: the dispute is about not only the inclusion of that link among other similar links, but also about whether or not a forum is a reliable source for criticism. The dispute arose when 2 editors commented from the RfC and stated they didn't feel paypalsux was an appropriate external link. Following that an IP added some old, improperly sourced criticism to the article which was removed with explanation. Edit warring ensued despite more than another editor attempting to explain to Njyoder that this was not an appropriate citation to support the material. As far as a "three year old case" its a 2 year old case, and the sanctions from that case only expired 1 year ago. The reason it was brought up again was because I saw his current behaviour and method of handling the current dispute to be identical to that previous behaviour, and there was very little editing on his part since the expiration of the sanctions. I also sought input as to whether or not to file that case, and was told that if it was the same behaviour there was no need to go through the same DR process that obviously did not work last time. As to whether or not we can disengage, we've already disengaged at IntelliTXT, at least I have while the discussion continues. I've refrained from reverting the article further, even though the majority has agreed with my interpretation of the policies.--Crossmr 12:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need more hard evidence rather than vague statements. A community ban proposal is a serious thing. Durova^Charge! 13:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make much sense. Crossmr is correct about the sourcing issue, I think. I've recused myself from any ArbCom activity here, because of my eBay connections; but a cursory look at the sources (and unsourced language) that Njyoder wants in the article should be sufficient. Go to Talk:PayPal and help instead. It's hard; there's verbosity there; but the issue isn't that complicated. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jpgordon. I'm not sure if your comment was direct at me or the OP, but the situation would be much better resolved if anyone commenting here instead went to the paypal and IntelliTXT talk pages and weighed in on those respective discussions.--Crossmr 14:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crossmr is definitely a good faith editor and although I haven't edited alongside Njyoder, this appears to be a content dispute. In this context, I agree with Durova that insufficient evidence has been presented for a community ban and with Jpgordon that proposing a ban doesn't make a lot of sense. Would suggest this discussion is closed and some form of dispute resolution attempted. Possibly formal mediation? Addhoc 16:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main issue here is that we haven't had enough outside input. If we can get editors to go to the talk page and weigh in on the issue it should (hopefully) solve the issue without the need for formal mediation, or anything further. if we can't get people to go to the article pages and give input, something like formal mediation will become necessary.--Crossmr 17:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the discussion here, I think we won't be needed formal mediation or anything as one user seems unable to work with the original research and reliable source criteria for an encyclopedia and will likely end up blocked for disruption. --Rocksanddirt 18:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last week, Bormalagurski (talk · contribs), who is subject to a one-year ArbCom ban, was caught using the account TheWriterOfArticles (talk · contribs), and thus had his ban reset. He has now come back with yet another sock, KasterJeShupak (talk · contribs), begging for a new start [7]. I wonder what should be done here - should we reset his ban again, or should we allow him a "fresh new start"? TML 18:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it sounds like he wants to invoke his right to vanish, which I support to a certain extent, but less so in the case of an editor who is or has edited inappropriately (especially to the point of a banning). Given his statement (assuming he's being truthful about none of the edits with the new account being disruptive), I'd make the following recommending: leave an indef block on the main account. Tell him he has to finish his original ban until october, however impose an additional 6 month parole on his behaviour. If during that time he doesn't edit war or vandalize or commit any similar disruptive behaviour which got him banned in the first place he can be left to edit in peace with no undue attention paid to him.--Crossmr 18:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with 'second chances', though we need to get an admin or two who are willing to agree with this, and agree to monitor his second chance. (i.e., if something moderately disruptive is done, that editors don't complain here about someone still see it and puts him back under the ban) This does make extra work for folks, no doubt. --Rocksanddirt 20:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we reach a consensus on the sanction, we don't necessarily need an admin to monitor him. Any editor could monitor for violation and just make sure it gets put on AN/I with a link to this discussion if necessary. Having an admin on board though would be ideal.--Crossmr 20:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may found at the above link. DPeterson is banned for one year. All parties are reminded of the need for care when editing in an area with a potential conflict of interest. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 20:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The article Great Irish Famine is placed under the mentorship of three to five administrators to be named later. All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page. Further terms of the mentorship are contained in the decision and will be amplified on the article talkpage. Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks. MarkThomas is placed on standard civility supervision for one year. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 22:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above arbitration case has closed and the final decision is located at the link above. Vlad fedorov is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 14:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron liebman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (January 30th, 2007 - May 11th, 2007) has been haunting us with sock puppets since his indefinite block on May 11th. He is using these sock puppets to repeatedly add false information to articles (I think, if I'm wrong please correct me). He has 130 suspected puppets and 12 confirmed accounts. These puppets are frequently popping up, and I think a ban should be in order. I think he has exhausted all of our patience. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User has been indefinitely blocked since May. Moving from only one 31 hour block to an indefinite is harsh. Why not try a block of a few months first? Unblock, if he re-offends, indefinitely block. Banno 22:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has the user been informed of this discussion, and has the issue of identity been solved? Banno 22:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you understand. He was indef. blocked in May for sock puppetry, and is still using more puppets to evade his block and add false info to articles. He has been disruptive ever since he joined. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps more explanation is needed, including links and diffs. Banno 06:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a ban when no admins are willing to unblock the person? I proposed a ban here for User:Lyle123, and it was closed as "no need to reconfirm existing bans" or something like that (see here). Kwsn(Ni!) 18:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that he has been blocked indefinitely, after only one block of 31 (why 31?) hours, and that the indefinite ban has been in place since May, I am considering unblocking him. Banno 21:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then this discussion can produce a result, just wanted to make sure that was clear. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prima faci, this looks like Liebman started editing seriously in March [9], got into a few disputes and broke 3RR and was blocked briefly, tried to avoid 3RR with a few sockpuppets and was blocked indefinitely. Perhaps a block of a few months would have been better. Since then he has used sockpuppets to avoid the block. I suggest unblocking, so that he doesn't have a need to use sockpuppets, and with the condition that a breach of 3RR, including via sockpuppets, will result in an indefinite block and community ban. Banno 21:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has shown no willingness whatsoever to conform to the rules about citations and POV-pushing, ever since his first activities in January up until now (or at least yesterday, when he was very active with his socks). With no commitment from him to do better, how do you imagine that unblocking him will help solve anything? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I can't disagree with this more vehemently, Banno. Liebman has been using the identities of real living people at both SABR and http://baseball-reference.com/bullpen while denying all sockpuppetry and even claiming that other people are stalking him (checkuser says otherwise). This edit at bullpen confirms that he's almost stealing other people's identity. He's been discredited on this wiki and theirs and responded with venomous messages like this and this just for a quick sample. Frankly I'm shocked that someone would be rewarded for months of rampant false information and sockpuppetry by being released from their block! —Wknight94 (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liebman's indef block was only after we warned and blocked his sockpuppets for increasingly long times and he kept making new ones (about a dozen at the time, more since) despite repeated warnings on his page and the sock pages to stop making more. The combination set of user accounts and IPs were all clearly and repeatedly warned and told to stop escalating the sockpuppetry and vandalism. There are also very serious concerns in that he's impersonated almost 50 members of the SABR baseball statistics organization with account names. Please see: WP:Long term abuse#Baseball Vandal aka Ron liebman for an overall summary, though I don't know if it's up to date on all the socks (check the categories). Georgewilliamherbert 21:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To follow myself up, also look at the 5 checkusers; 4 were actually run and confirmed 41 named socks and 15 plus IPs or IP ranges in New York City libraries and universities, and we've identified a lot more than that by edit pattern alone. Per Kwsn below, he also out and out lied about being associated with the socks, right before the largest CU confirmed that he was. He's also persistently lied in emails to unblock-en-l. Georgewilliamherbert 22:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse ban - He lied saying all the socks were imitators, yet this check right after he said that proved otherwise. Kwsn(Ni!) 21:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Now you are telling us things we need to know, if the community is going to endorse a ban. Not all of us are familiar with the minutia of the case, and it is up to those making the case for a ban to present the evidence. Since my interest in baseball ranks somewhere below my concern for what you do with your breakfast scraps, a bit of detail is needed, especially links and diffs. Banno 22:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A list of diffs"? There are hundreds of them. I suggest you start with the history for Hideki Matsui and cross-check it with the list of sockpuppets (listed in the first paragraph, above) to see which ones are his, and then you will just begin to get the idea. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My advice to you, which will be lost on you if you're under the age of 50 or so, but that's OK: "Duke 'im, Banno!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned by ArbCom for one year for activities documented at this case. The ban was initially set to expire on March 29 2008 but has been extended twice due to instances of meatpuppetry and proxy editing.

Today, it emerged that Bmedley Sutler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) admitted to being a meatpuppet of FAAFA, stating rather brazenly that half of his edits were proxy edits for FAAFA. In particular, he admitted to deliberately sinking Crockspot's RFA by introducing evidence of his off-wiki conduct.

FAAFA's ban has already been reset twice, but to my mind, when you deliberately attempt to sink an RFA--with a meatpuppet no less--you have no business being here. I therefore propose that FAAFA's ban be extended to indefinite. Blueboy96 23:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, FAAFA/Bmedley has also used the identity of NBGPWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which has its own sorid history of blocks. Dman727 23:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the indef blocking admin of the Bmedley Sutler account I agree. The FAAFA account's ban should be made indefinite. Seeing what we have all had to deal with for the past few months I see no reason why he should be allowed to come back after one year.--Jersey Devil 23:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it would be appropriate to extend the siteban on FAAFA from 1 year to indefinite as a formality. In practice, I seriously doubt any admin would or should consider unblocking him at this point anyhow. MastCell ^Talk 23:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The community's patience with FAAFA and crew has ended. They've been given many opportunities to contribute productively but instead they have disrupted the project over and over. The parting statement of Bmedley boastful and unrepentant. I agree with an indefinite ban. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems silly not to, considering FAAFA's block log. --Deskana (talky) 23:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree with the above. You don't get to circumvent your block, accumulate a new block log like this user did, and then boast about it later without some serious consequences. --Haemo 23:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per basically everybody. We should probably indef the non-FAAFA half of Bmedley, too, just for formality's sake (assuming he wasn't just pulling our chains there). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure he was just pulling our chains there.Proabivouac 02:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he was, though, better safe than sorry? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 02:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse indefinite ban as one of the victim of his attacks and homophobic rants. --DHeyward 02:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious endorse. Here are a few more probable socks I have collected.

• Pimmelkopf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• TheDeciderDecides (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Macacawitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

- Crockspot 02:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If I may be allowed to play devil's advocate, Bmedley did admit to being a meatpuppet for a banned user, and thus as far as we're concerned, he's a meatpuppet for a banned user. However, should his admission be taken to definitively condemn another user? How do we know for sure that Bmedley isn't just "pulling our chains" with something that isn't true after all? If that were true, FAAFA would have no control over his actions and no recourse. To block one user on his or her own admission is one thing, but blocking a user based on the admission of a lying malcontent who claims to be his or her meatpuppet seems a bit off.

It also seems a bit off not to extend some form of courtesy to the user (Crockspot) whose RfA was "sunk" by Bmedley. I don't know exactly what to do, but it's pretty obvious that he'd be an administrator now without Bmedley's "outing" of a politically incorrect comment he or she made on another forum which Bmedley spread all over the place trying to make the potential administrator seem homophobic. Given my user name, I'm not exactly happy that another user would say, "Pretty much any dude with 'bear' in his handle you can assume takes it up the ass," on CU or DU or any of those stupid "underground" websites, but this comment, which sunk the RfA, shouldn't have done so. It is rude, politically incorrect, and insensitive (to LGBTs, people with "bear" in their handle, and asses), but this whole business of dragging people's extra-Wikipedia lives into Wikipedia decisions is a horrible thing, and Bmedley's the one who is responsible for it in this case. Is he going to be able to get away with it? Calbaer 03:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read fnord23's posts (which is FAAFA) on WR, it's pretty clear that he was not being victimized. - Crockspot 03:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be made clear that the evidence used to indefinitely ban FAAFA is not Bmedley's say-so. This discussion makes it seem as though it is. Calbaer 03:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse indefnite ban Disruptive user, already should have been banned indefinitely. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• His antics with Smedley are unacceptable, an extension to infinite is well deserved here. --MichaelLinnear 05:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• How about basing this on some evidence, like what Proabivouac brought up on ANI? Republicans, gay sex and meth:[10][11] "Busheep"[12][13]The second comparison is half off-wiki, but I'd support a ban extension on the first alone. There's just too much circumstantial evidence here for it to be a coincidence.--Chaser - T 06:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, reluctantly. I'd hoped this was an editor who would make a legitimate return. Doesn't look like he's willing to work within our structure. Durova^Charge! 13:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Editor does not appear to want to return and edit within guidelines. Has taken pride in "beating" the system. -- Avi 17:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse well-deserved ban. KrakatoaKatie 21:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crockspot's RFA

People opposed his RfA. He did not pass. We can't say "oh, well it turns out the evidence you guys all used was provided by a banned user, so your opinions don't count." -Amarkov moo! 03:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does pose an interesting problem. Assuming for the moment that they are actually two people, Bmedley did not only admit to proxy editing, he stated that FAAFA was actually logging in on Bmedley's account. According to the Wikipedia banning policy, banned users are not welcome to contribute, and all of their contributions to the project are subject to deletion. So how do you unring a bell? - Crockspot 03:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I knew, I'd propose something, but I don't, so I'm just throwing it out there.... Calbaer 03:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have a short list of alternate workable remedies, but this is probably not the appropriate place to discuss them. - Crockspot 03:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been quite convinced for sometime that Faafa and Bmedley are the same person, even before he admitted to proxy editing for faafa and sharing the account yesterday. Heck his very first edits screamed sock. His behavior, language, agenda, article interests and mode of operation are completely identical. As for the Crockspot RFA....well its really unfortunate and troublesome. If Faafa had not interfered, Crockspot WOULD be an admin right now. However there is no indication that the majority of editors who opposed Crockspot were "in league" with faafa/bmedley. They simply voted their conscious and I think that should be respected. Essentially Faafa/Bmedley found a way to exploit the WIKI process. While Faafa/Bmedley has proven himself to be a dishonest troublemaker, there doesn't seem to be a reasonable way to compensate Crockspot and thats a failure of WIKI. I think that Crockspot best course of action is to simply abandon his account and start anew. He's a quality editor and deserving of adminship, however there is no unringing the bell at this point. Dman727 03:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Could someone explain why we are treating this revelation as bad? Clearly, the information swayed many people's opinions. For what reason should we not allow people to give information that will change the outcome of a RfA? -Amarkov moo! 03:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not bad or good. It just is. RFA's are structured like a game of poker IMO. You use any and all information available to make a decision. Sometimes your cards get flashed and your opponents get more information than they are normally entitled to. In this case Crockspot hand was revealed through his decision to use a less than anonymous user-id. Others have been more circumspect with their identity and are rewarded for it. As I mentioned above its a failure of the wiki process, and unfortunately the miscreant faafa exploited it. Dman727 03:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's not re-open this issue, please.--Chaser - T 03:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's an interesting question, if Bmedley didn't ask the question, would someone else have? Personally, on a side note, points to Crockspot for keeping a cool head through all that. Kwsn(Ni!) 18:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I think there was a decent chance that at least part of that information would have come out. There were significant opposes prior to the information getting out and discussed. --Rocksanddirt 18:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting the Crockspot RFA--in which I did not participate--is not a good idea, even in light of FAAFA/Bmedley's ridiculous disruptions. The number of oppose votes was extremely high, and obviously oppose voters were evaluating Crockspot's comments on Conservative Underground (and his response to the questions about them) rather than Bmedley's post and we therefore need to respect their opinions. Also it should be noted that the majority of CU posts (including the one that people may have felt was most egregious) which were added to the RFA came from User:BenB4 and if anything it may have been his post that pushed a bunch of people into oppose (Bmedley already had a bad reputation at that point, and at least one editor encouraged Crockspot not to even respond to his post--Crockspot only responded after BenB4 posted additional CU comments). Trying to undo the RFA results will create an enormous amount of bad blood and will be bad for the project. Crockspot should continue contributing in a positive fashion and try again down the road or, if he feels that is impossible, create a new account and start from scratch. Or just live without being an admin, which, after all, is no big deal.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree, my point is just that it was not a slam dunk passage prior and there was the appearance of folks looking for a reason to say no. However, my observation is that this community forgives that sort of thing slowly, if at all, so I don't know that the crockspot handle will ever be able to pass an Rfa. --Rocksanddirt 20:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was cruising to an easy pass before the CU material was introduced. See Image:RFA Crockspot - off wiki activity influence.png. - Crockspot 21:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but as I said much of the CU material was not introduced by Bmedley. Regardless of how it got there, many editors found it quite troublesome and voted Oppose in good faith. We can't, as you said, unring the bell (or put the genie back in the bottle) so I don't think there's any remedy that will undo the results of that RFA (and even if there was it would be a dramafest to the nth degree). I also agree with Amarkov above that, in spite of Bmedley/FAAFA's major incivility and justifiable long-term ban, the revelation of the CU stuff was a good thing. The very fact that it changed the outcome of the RFA makes it good that we had the information (had it come out after a successful sysopping it could have been much more of a problem). I think the best thing we could do is move on from this whole situation.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per community consensus here, I extended the ban to indef. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 22:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, this is the second time this year that we've had to ban someone at least in part for disruption at RFAs ... maybe we should let it be known on the main RFA page that disruption there will be dealt with very severely. Blueboy96 22:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will an admin please look at the behavior of Crossmr (talk · contribs) and Njyoder (talk · contribs) on PayPal and Talk:PayPal? This is a dispute about whether to include Paypalsux.com as a source or external link. They filed an RFC, but instead of actually waiting for comments, have continued to argue with each other. There are about 16,000 words on the talk page after the filing of the RFC, almost all by the two of them. (I doubt they read each others' posts any more, or at least they don't seriously consider their merits.) They have also been forum shopping at WT:RFAR trying to get arbitrators to enforce some three-year old case against one of them or something. Other editors including arbitrator JPgordon have tried to be voices of reason on the talk page but no use. The article is currently protected.

Protection locks out all editors when there are only two problem editors here. I propose a community ban of Crossmr and Njyoder from the article and its talk page for a good long time, months at least, to be enforced by blocking, so other editors who are not so polarized can deal with this. I also ask that lookout be kept for sockpuppets and SPAs since I suspect that one or both will be unable to truly disengage. Dread Pirate Westley•^Aargh 12:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to try a little good faith and have a look at the full details surrounding the case before proposing a ban with vague details about what's going on and lots of assumptions about how we're really thinking and editing. For some clarification: the dispute is about not only the inclusion of that link among other similar links, but also about whether or not a forum is a reliable source for criticism. The dispute arose when 2 editors commented from the RfC and stated they didn't feel paypalsux was an appropriate external link. Following that an IP added some old, improperly sourced criticism to the article which was removed with explanation. Edit warring ensued despite more than another editor attempting to explain to Njyoder that this was not an appropriate citation to support the material. As far as a "three year old case" its a 2 year old case, and the sanctions from that case only expired 1 year ago. The reason it was brought up again was because I saw his current behaviour and method of handling the current dispute to be identical to that previous behaviour, and there was very little editing on his part since the expiration of the sanctions. I also sought input as to whether or not to file that case, and was told that if it was the same behaviour there was no need to go through the same DR process that obviously did not work last time. As to whether or not we can disengage, we've already disengaged at IntelliTXT, at least I have while the discussion continues. I've refrained from reverting the article further, even though the majority has agreed with my interpretation of the policies.--Crossmr 12:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need more hard evidence rather than vague statements. A community ban proposal is a serious thing. Durova^Charge! 13:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make much sense. Crossmr is correct about the sourcing issue, I think. I've recused myself from any ArbCom activity here, because of my eBay connections; but a cursory look at the sources (and unsourced language) that Njyoder wants in the article should be sufficient. Go to Talk:PayPal and help instead. It's hard; there's verbosity there; but the issue isn't that complicated. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jpgordon. I'm not sure if your comment was direct at me or the OP, but the situation would be much better resolved if anyone commenting here instead went to the paypal and IntelliTXT talk pages and weighed in on those respective discussions.--Crossmr 14:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crossmr is definitely a good faith editor and although I haven't edited alongside Njyoder, this appears to be a content dispute. In this context, I agree with Durova that insufficient evidence has been presented for a community ban and with Jpgordon that proposing a ban doesn't make a lot of sense. Would suggest this discussion is closed and some form of dispute resolution attempted. Possibly formal mediation? Addhoc 16:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main issue here is that we haven't had enough outside input. If we can get editors to go to the talk page and weigh in on the issue it should (hopefully) solve the issue without the need for formal mediation, or anything further. if we can't get people to go to the article pages and give input, something like formal mediation will become necessary.--Crossmr 17:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the discussion here, I think we won't be needed formal mediation or anything as one user seems unable to work with the original research and reliable source criteria for an encyclopedia and will likely end up blocked for disruption. --Rocksanddirt 18:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last week, Bormalagurski (talk · contribs), who is subject to a one-year ArbCom ban, was caught using the account TheWriterOfArticles (talk · contribs), and thus had his ban reset. He has now come back with yet another sock, KasterJeShupak (talk · contribs), begging for a new start [14]. I wonder what should be done here - should we reset his ban again, or should we allow him a "fresh new start"? TML 18:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it sounds like he wants to invoke his right to vanish, which I support to a certain extent, but less so in the case of an editor who is or has edited inappropriately (especially to the point of a banning). Given his statement (assuming he's being truthful about none of the edits with the new account being disruptive), I'd make the following recommending: leave an indef block on the main account. Tell him he has to finish his original ban until october, however impose an additional 6 month parole on his behaviour. If during that time he doesn't edit war or vandalize or commit any similar disruptive behaviour which got him banned in the first place he can be left to edit in peace with no undue attention paid to him.--Crossmr 18:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with 'second chances', though we need to get an admin or two who are willing to agree with this, and agree to monitor his second chance. (i.e., if something moderately disruptive is done, that editors don't complain here about someone still see it and puts him back under the ban) This does make extra work for folks, no doubt. --Rocksanddirt 20:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we reach a consensus on the sanction, we don't necessarily need an admin to monitor him. Any editor could monitor for violation and just make sure it gets put on AN/I with a link to this discussion if necessary. Having an admin on board though would be ideal.--Crossmr 20:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]