Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:22, 7 May 2006

• (Cyde Weys | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute

Cyde repeatedly abused his administrator priviledges by blocking editors he disagreed with in a content dispute.

Description

Even though Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, voting is evil and there are no binding decicions Cyde repeatedly blocked editors, who either removed the cartoon image or moved it behind a link against the poll results from early February. Cyde himself voted for the cartoons to stay visible on the main article and many times outed himself for having an extreme free speech position with no respect for religions and unwilling to compromise in this issue. IMHO this is a clear violation of WP:BP#When_blocking_may_not_be_used

Powers misused

• Blocking (log):

1. User:84.233.248.6 has not been blocked for a 3RR, but for "Persistent censorship vandalism" with an expiry time of 1 week
2. User:213.140.56.3
3. User:62.135.119.144 the pure suspicion, that this user might be Wikipidian or myself attempting a 3RR evasion was sufficient to block him for "Censorship vandalism"
4. User:213.140.56.4
5. User:66.108.42.9 Guy calls it justified to forstall a 3RR violation, though clear 3RR violations of Pegasus1138, Netscott and Anjoe did not result in a block?
6. User:68.173.27.37 again the pure suspicion, that this user might be Vkasdg attempting a 3RR evasion was sufficient to block him for "Censorship"
7. User:Wikipidian
8. User:Raphael1

Applicable policies

• Blocking policy

1. WP:BP#When_blocking_may_not_be_used explicitly states, that the "sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute".
2. WP:VANDAL Changing the cartoon image display is not vandalism, because the motivation of those, who do so, is not to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. Instead those who do so (incl. myself) do in fact want to increase the quality of the article, because they think, that an article on a controversy needs to have editors on both sides of the dispute. The blocked editors could have added valuable information regarding the muslim POV on this issue. Blocking users with a muslim POV results in a one-sided article on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article, which is ultimately derogatory to this encyclopedia.
3. WP:BP#Disruption Cyde repeatedly called the removal of the cartoons disruption, though WP:BP#Disruption explicitly states, that "inserting material that may be defamatory" may be considered disruptive, not the removal of this kind of material.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

1. Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Archive_9
2. Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Archive_10#New_archive
3. Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Archive_15#Cardiff
4. Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Archive_15#Blasphemy_is_not_a_kind_of_apostasy
5. Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Archive_17#Another_Picture.3F
6. Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display
7. User_talk:Raphael1#Warning.21

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Raphael1 12:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)

Response

This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view by JzG

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

Anyone who wants to use the Jyllands-Posten article as an example of anything other than how not to go about harmoniously editing controversial content is probably missing something pretty fundamental along the line. A consensus has developed on that article - one which I personally disagree with (I would use :Image:foo not Image:foo as an easy way to allow the cartoons to be seen in context without causing gratuitous offence). That consensus is broad based. The way to change that is through civil debate, not through edit warring. Any admin will block anonymous accounts which attempt to push tendentious edits.

Specifically:

• 84.233.248.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) clearly violated WP:3RR, the block is uncontentious.
• 213.140.56.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked for repeated vandalism and sockpuppetry. The sockpuppetry I'd have to look into, but the vandalism was persistent and undoubtedly warranted a block. I found no good-faith edits in a sample review of this user's contributions. 213.140.56.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has an identical edit pattern including the same articles and may safely be treated as the same vandal.
• 62.135.119.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has only one edit, removal of the image from the article in question, and the edit history of the article makes it look as if this was an attempt at 3RR evasion. A 24 hour block was appropriate as damage limitation, I know of no collateral damage. The same applies to 68.173.27.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).
• 66.108.42.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) reverted twice, 3RR is a limit not an entitlement. A 24 hour block to forestall further reduction was entirely appropriate.
• Wikipidian (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) was blocked as a suspected sockpuppet, unblocked when CheckUser revealed this was not the case. I would not have blocked, but I can see why Cyde did given the history of tendentious edits and other warnings that user has received. Slap Cyde with the customary Wikitrout for not posting it on the admin noticeboard (as far as I can see). He should apologise. But it's a genuine mistake and one which is easy to make.
• Raphael1 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) was blocked for WP:3RR followed by repeated removal of the contentious image in clear defiance of consensus, and has been blocked by three separate admins for the same offence.

The supposed "attempts to resolve the dispute" merely amount to statements of a point of view which was not accepted by other editors. The term POV pushing accurately describes Raphael1's edits to this article.

Given that Raphael1 is the author of this RfC, and given that the least contentious of all the blocks is that of Raphael1, a serial violator of WP:3RR blocked as such by three separate admins on four occasions, I suggest that this RfC is vexatious and should be speedily rejected. I would state also that it violates WP:POINT.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. As author, Just zis Guy you know? 13:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Mackensen (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Johnleemk | Talk 15:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.