| Revision as of 21:19, 1 February 2012 editKirill Lokshin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users75,365 edits →Rlevse sockpuppetry: Replies← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:27, 1 February 2012 edit undoRaul654 (talk | contribs)70,896 edits →Rlevse sockpuppetryNext edit → | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| :::The first time the Committee as a body knew of the sock puppetry—and, indeed, the first time PumpkinSky's name appears in any Committee correspondence at all—was earlier today. I can't speak for whether any individual current or former arbitrator might have been aware of the account earlier; personally, however, I rather doubt Rlevse would have communicated with anyone on the Committee, as our relationship with him subsequent to his departure has been, for lack of a better word, strained. | :::The first time the Committee as a body knew of the sock puppetry—and, indeed, the first time PumpkinSky's name appears in any Committee correspondence at all—was earlier today. I can't speak for whether any individual current or former arbitrator might have been aware of the account earlier; personally, however, I rather doubt Rlevse would have communicated with anyone on the Committee, as our relationship with him subsequent to his departure has been, for lack of a better word, strained. | ||
| :::As for Sandy's question, I'm not aware of anything in that regard, although we haven't really gone looking. While we've obviously been informed of the discussions taking place at FAC, I think the general feeling on the Committee is that they're an internal FAC matter and not something for us to get involved in. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 21:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC) | :::As for Sandy's question, I'm not aware of anything in that regard, although we haven't really gone looking. While we've obviously been informed of the discussions taking place at FAC, I think the general feeling on the Committee is that they're an internal FAC matter and not something for us to get involved in. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 21:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Since Sandy is being coy, allow me to be blunt. Pumpkinsky was one of the handful of people who pushed strongly for the FAC RFC. There's another user there, Alarbus, who pushed strongly for the RFC whom we also suspect of being an old editor who edits under a new name. (Sandy and I have our suspicions as to who he was previously, but I won't share them publicly) Is that, in fact, the case? ] (]) 21:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:27, 1 February 2012
Use this page to discuss information on the page (and subpages) attached to this one. This includes limited discussion of the Arbitration Committee itself, as a body. Some things belong on other pages:
| Shortcuts |
 | This Arbitration Committee has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
Question
Please see this link. Is there an arbitration ruling which prohibits this person from editing? thank you. — Ched : ? 11:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- To my knowledge, Selina was never banned by the ArbCom, though a consensus among the community would be needed for an unblock. AGK 12:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- thanks for the reply AGK. Do you have any idea where the discussion is that developed the consensus that she should be blocked is? It was before my time, and I'd rather do some research before I jump in. — Ched : ? 12:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think the block became a community ban at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive104#Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle: unblocking, where the consensus was against an unblock. If I recall correctly, the Blu Aardvark case also related to something similar, but the Selina ban appears to not have been apropos to the decision. In 2006, community bans were recorded less accurately than they are now, but the tenet of "a user is community-banned if no sysop will unblock" applied then as much as it does now. AGK 13:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ahhh .. thank you very much sir. I really appreciate having some perspective on things. Hope you have a great day/night. — Ched : ? 13:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Rlevse sockpuppetry
It has come to light that for the last six months, Rlevse has been editing Misplaced Pages using a sockpuppet, user:PumpkinSky. PumpkinSky created numerous copyvios, which was exactly the same behavior that brought Rlevse down. Using a sockpuppet was also a violation of the rules governing "right to vanish" which Rlevse exercised.
Were any members of the arbitration committee aware of Rlevse's sockpuppetry? Raul654 (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- More generally, are arbs aware of any editors violating RTV or CLEANSTART to disrupt FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Wow. Just wow. → ROUX ₪ 21:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- The first time the Committee as a body knew of the sock puppetry—and, indeed, the first time PumpkinSky's name appears in any Committee correspondence at all—was earlier today. I can't speak for whether any individual current or former arbitrator might have been aware of the account earlier; personally, however, I rather doubt Rlevse would have communicated with anyone on the Committee, as our relationship with him subsequent to his departure has been, for lack of a better word, strained.
- As for Sandy's question, I'm not aware of anything in that regard, although we haven't really gone looking. While we've obviously been informed of the discussions taking place at FAC, I think the general feeling on the Committee is that they're an internal FAC matter and not something for us to get involved in. Kirill 21:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Since Sandy is being coy, allow me to be blunt. Pumpkinsky was one of the handful of people who pushed strongly for the FAC RFC. There's another user there, Alarbus, who pushed strongly for the RFC whom we also suspect of being an old editor who edits under a new name. (Sandy and I have our suspicions as to who he was previously, but I won't share them publicly) Is that, in fact, the case? Raul654 (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)