| Revision as of 11:39, 21 March 2007 view sourceMercury~enwiki (talk | contribs)9,783 editsm →BhaiSaab and His_excellency: oops← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:45, 3 June 2022 view source Xaosflux (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Importers, Interface administrators, Oversighters, Administrators83,906 edits nav request | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{historical|WP:CSN}} | |||
| {{/Header}} | |||
| {{editabuselinks}} | |||
| {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox|csn=yes}} | |||
| This was the '''community sanction noticeboard'''. This forum was previously used for the discussion of ], prior to consensus at ] that another venue would be better. | |||
| Though the history is retained so that previous cases may be referenced, new issues should be raised at ] (for new ban discussions or other long discussions) or ] (for more specific incidents relating to previous sanctions). | |||
| __NEWSECTIONLINK__ | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| ] | |||
| <!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --> | |||
| <!-- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. --> | |||
| <!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --> | |||
| == BhaiSaab and His_excellency == | |||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #dedaca; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is archived. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' <!-- from Template:discussion top--> | |||
| It appears there were no objections to the motion to close. ] (] <small>•</small> ]) ban is reset 1 year, ] (] <small>•</small> ]) ban is reset 6 months. The banning administrators are asked to log actions executed at applicable locations to include the list of community bans and and applicable ArbCom enforcement logs. v/r ] <sup>]</sup> / <sub>]</sub> 09:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| *{{usercheck|1=BhaiSaab|ban=y}} | |||
| *{{usercheck|1=His excellency}} | |||
| :''moved from ]'' | |||
| They've been evading their bans again using their IP range. See ] and the associated links. I think we might as well community ban them, since they clearly are just going to do whatever they like to promote their agenda. ''']''' (]) 05:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''''Point of order:''''' The ] appears to have expired on 3 March 2007 (having been imposed on 3 September 2006 for a total of six months), so he is ''not violating any '''current''' ban'', unless further bans were imposed elsewhere. -- ] <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 02:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :A phrase containing the words "door" and "don't let" comes to mind immediately. - ] 07:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: As someone who have had enough with both, I support the ban. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 09:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I strongly endorse a community ban on these guys (see ], ]). ] 14:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :What do those results have to do with BhaiSaab? ] 16:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Blnguyen can't figure out which one it is so he figures he might as well ax both. Typical. ] 16:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :''What?'' ] 16:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::You read English perfectly well. What's so confusing? | |||
| ::''What?'' ] 16:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Perhaps I am ] naïvely but having known "both" of the editors being discussed here and having known their editing/communicating patterns and having reviewed how this anon has addressed themself to others I would estimate that he is ] and not ]. I never saw ] express himself with the same level of incivility that HE does so unless it is one person who's rather adept at playing ] I see two separate individuals at play here. This anon strikes me more as HE than BhaiSaab. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 16:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I didn't know HE, but I did know BhaiSaab, and his edits were characterised by edit warring, canvassing, arguing and obsessing over other people's Jewishness, but NEVER incivility. I'll give him that much. ] (Have a nice day!) 16:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::To be honest, I have far less experience with BhaiSaab; I don't recall him being as bad as H.E., and offhand it seems a lot of the issues with BhaiSaab had to do with his interaction with Hkelkar; the two got along like matter and anti-matter. If BhaiSaab is indeed conclusively puppeting, then sure, deep-6 him, but otherwise, perhaps another chance is in order. - ] 20:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Proposals for community bans used to go on WP:ANI but now go on the ] per ]. The idea of the change is that bans are not a matter for admins specifically but for as broad a section of the community as possible. Please move this proposal there. ] | ] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC). | |||
| <s>I never met BhaiSaab, but I do know His_excellency. He's probably the worst personal attacker ever allowed to edit Misplaced Pages, and has attacked nearly every ethnic and religious group on earth at one point or another. I say '''allowed''' because he's already been indefinitely banned twice by Tom Harrison and Jeffrey O. Gustafson, then blocked for a year by Tawker, but each time was unblocked by Bishonen or by someone she'd asked to unblock him. Then Bishonen helped him in his arbitration case. For this, some arbitrators wanted to "commend" her. His_excellency was supposed to be banned for a year, but some arbitrators said this was too long, so made it only four months. He got another two months for making more attacks on Jews during the case. Since his ban, he's returned with a bunch of sock puppets to attack Hindus as "cow-worshipers" and "dung-eaters," and now I guess to stalk people and harass them. I wonder if the people who helped him stay around are still proud of what they did. His_excellency should '''definitely''' be banned indefinitely.] 19:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)</s> | |||
| ::We're an encyclopedia, not an insane asylum. These fools have caused substantial disruption to decent, hard-working editors, which is quite frankly, intolerable. Why should someone wanting to learn/teach have to tolerate personal, vitriolic abuse? We have no obligation to anyone not interested in building an encyclopedia - they should be shown the door w/o the slightest hesitation. ] 19:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Timothy, why don't you come out from behind the sockpuppet you are utilizing so that others can fully appreciate the context in which you are making such commentary? It is highly evident this is you given the virtually identical rhetoric you've used before relative to HE. While never excusing HE's incivility and attacks I will say that he seemed fairly even keeled about denigrating ethnic groups including Muslims who he tends to support in his editing. Although I could be entirely wrong about it, I've had the impression that his main objective was to get a riser out of people much as ] tend to do. Not so much that he genuinely felt what he was saying but for the sake of the drama it caused. Regardless of his motives such behavior is disruptive and my exculpatory explanation is not made to discount that. If this IP is indeed HE then his continued disruption is inexcusable. My only thought is that he is acting out in the way that he is given a rather unwelcoming environment for Muslims there currently exists to a large degree on Misplaced Pages. There are a group of editors who are doing their best to utilize Misplaced Pages as a soapbox to turn Islamic articles into indictments against Islam in a very SOAPBOXing manner which is equally unacceptable. I'm not sure what benefit community banning HE is going to achieve... if he's going to want to continue to be disruptive as he appears to be doing with IPs then how's a community ban going to alleviate such nonsense? I would argue that the editing manner of the group of editors who HE appears to be "fighting" against should be looked at equally and possible preventative measures enacted to reduce or outright negate such equally disruptive soapboxery. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 19:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: Sorry, but this "reason for being" (]) bothers me. A lot. This is not what we are here for. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I've blocked HEWatch indefinitely and stricken through his comment. Creating a separate account specifically to attack another user is absolutely not what we are here for. --] <sup>]</sup> 20:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think the reason for the use of the separate account is simply that Timothy registered an account in his real name, and was therefore left vulnerable to His excellency's attacks on him showing up in Google searches. His excellency chose a username, and therefore has some kind of protection that Timothy doesn't have. Timothy has also never engaged in the kind of really vile attacks that His excellency engaged in. This should not be seen as a normal case of sockpuppetry. Unlike His excellency, he hasnt't created socks for ban-evasion purposes: he hasn't been banned. Nor has he created socks for multiple reverts or votes. Whether we agree with his posts or not, we should at least sympathize with his wish not to edit from an account that is linked to his real name, and that will make him more visible to Google. Also, since HE '''is''' banned, everything he posts should be removed on sight, and in particular, posts that attack another user by his real name should be instantly removed. ]] 02:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Except the ] appears to have expired on 3 March 2007, which negates the "HE '''is''' banned" premise. -- ] <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 02:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :A singularly unhelpful comment if I ever saw one, Timothy (if that's really you). The process worked, the process is working, the community as a whole handled this correctly in the end. - ] 20:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Arbitary section break 1=== | |||
| That is a remarkably instructive example of what is called unaccaptable, intolerable, and inexcusable and what is in fact accepted, tolerated, and excused. His excellency is under an arbcom ban. At the very least his ban should be restarted. If it is, this will be the third time. Since we can now not reasonably believe His excellency will stop his well-established pattern of racial and religious abuse, and will not respect the arbcom remedy, I support indefinitely banning him. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''''Point of order:''''' The ] appears to have expired on 3 March 2007 (having been imposed on 3 September 2006 for a total of six months), so he is ''not violating any '''current''' ban'', unless further bans were imposed elsewhere. -- ] <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 02:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Since these two guys edit regularly anyway, the indefinite ban will at least spare the community the trouble of resetting the block every time. ] ] 21:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Perhaps Timothy can reincarnate as ] next time. I don't know BhaiSaab, but I'm pretty familiar with HE's writing style and those IP edits in question don't sound anything like HE to me. They're mainly reverts—HE didn't use to do that. The English is poorer and the general approach simpler and less intellectual than HE's. And I note the spelling "Muhammed" — I'm pretty sure HE used to spell it "Muhammad". ] | ] 22:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC). | |||
| :Endorse a ban on these two users, BhaiSaab especially since he is a stalker.<b>]]</b> 00:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| This thread is confusing to an editor who doesn't know the history (namely me). Would someone explain the background on situation with some diffs? So far I don't see much more than a couple of checkuser results and most of the commentary builds upon previous conversations that haven't been linked from this discussion. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :There was an arbitration for "Hkelkar" (BhaiSaab's nemesis) and "His excellency", I do not have the link off the top of my head.<b>]]</b> 01:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::It was RfArb/HKelkar. HKelkar has also taken to creating throwaway accounts, apparently. For background, I urge everone to read through the RfArb, as it details the reason that India- related politics and culture pages are, quite simply, possibly the worst group of offenders on WP against NPOV and ATT. Some editors were banned, some were not even considered by Arbcom and continue to be editors in 'good standing'. ] 01:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Okay, what exactly is the need for this discussion? If two editors are already banned on their main accounts then no new consensus is needed to ban the sockpuppets. We don't issue indef blocks on IP addresses, let alone IP ranges, so the usual solution is whack-a-mole on new registered accounts and soft rangeblocks of brief duration on the IP ranges. We just keep at it until the disruptors get tired and go elsewhere. Several editors I know and respect have contributed to this thread, which makes me suspect there's some valid point I don't understand yet. Am I missing something? <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The two editors are under ArbCom bans, but not community bans. I think that is the issue. With the former, they can just wait out the bans and will automatically return (assuming they acquire no more resets); with the latter, they have are banned until the community decides to let them back in. Given the length of the ArbCom bans and their eagerness to keep resetting them, at this point this would be mostly symbolic, but a symbolic stand against this sort of nonsense is nonetheless important. - ] 02:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::'''''Point of order:''''' The ] appears to have expired on 3 March 2007 (having been imposed on 3 September 2006 for a total of six months), so he is ''not violating any '''current''' ban'', unless further bans were imposed elsewhere. -- ] <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 02:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <s>*'''Endorse''' community ban on both editors per the above discussion. To the best of my knowledge, no editor has actually waited out a yearlong ArbCom ban (they all seem to keep resetting it), yet I suppose it would be peace of mind for some diligent editors to know that these particular people would need to petition to have their editing privileges restored.</s> <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Changing to '''neutral'''. Further discussion leads me to conclude there's more here than meets the eye and none of it has been explained to my satisfaction. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 16:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*Actually, I can think of a few, among them {{User|Skyring}} and {{User|Pigsonthewing}}. <small>Not an endorsement of any kind, just a correction. </small> --] | ] 07:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Let them come and defend themselves against accusations.<font face="monospace">](]-])</font>--13:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::If they're blocked, and constantly resetting an ArbCom ban by creating sockpuppets, then there is no defense. They've shown that they're not going to abide by their penalties, and therefore, they're gone. ] 18:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for the factual correction. At the moment I don't think there's much chance of them sitting out the ArbCom ban successfully, yet we might as well relieve the hardworking editors who've stayed on top of this matter of that worry. It doesn't look like either of these people have learned from the ArbCom decision. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] appears to have expired on 3 March 2007. -- ] <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 02:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Please note that I have just reverted comments from an abusive sockpuppet ({{User|Tentotwo}}) of {{User|His excellency}}. If this sockpuppeteer wants to comment here, as he is probably entitled to do, this must happen through the parent account. If the parent account is currently blocked but not banned, the user should request an unblock solely for the purposes of commenting here. --] 15:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I disagree - the ArbCom ruling was final, thus when this discussion was begun, there was no obligation to allow His excellency to comment. His excellency got his chance to do so before ArbCom - this discussion is purely for the community to judge. Plus, both HE and BhaiSaab, as per this discussion, have been perma-banned. ] 22:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :His excellency's ban was just for six months, but if he keeps using socks he will make it de facto indefinite. I blocked another, {{user|Elevatordown}}, yesterday. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::In response to Yamla I'd prefer that His excellency posted comments to the account's own user talk page. It's already linked from the top of this thread. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 19:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::You know these two users are different people. I do not agree with ]'s indefinite blocking of ]. I think that ] very much applies here as ] certainly tangled with BhaiSaab prior to his decision to impose this community ban. This unfairness shows itself when ] had his block reset five times while ] had his reset three times. Why is ] being made to pay for the disruption of another editor? There was never conclusive checkuser proof that they were one and the same and given my experience with the two I am confident they are not the same people. Even ] ] that they are not the same person. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 21:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Okay I'm confused again. I had thought this thread was about reinforcing two ArbCom bans with indefinite community bans. Now, from what I'm hearing, that explanation presumes an unstated sockpuppetry charge that CheckUser ruled was uncertain. Well that's a very different matter. ''Is that the whole story?'' If it is, then show me a good circumstantial case from a sockpuppet investigation and back it up with complete logic and diffs. I'll strikethrough my endorsement unless I get a solid explanation of what the community is being asked to determine and substantial evidence to back it up. ] suggests I should strikethrough my opinion now, but I'll wait a bit for clarification. I hope it comes soon. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :(outdent) I'm a little confused as well. Perhaps this entire discussion needs refactored. ] <sup>]</sup> / <sub>]</sub> 21:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Let's discuss the two users separately. I think there is clear consensus for an H.E. community ban - even discounting the CheckUser results some of his sockpuppets are clearly identifiable just by language, and display the same sort of incivility he was banned for. As for BhaiSaab, who I agree is a different person, I am open to giving him another chance if he waits out his ArbCom ban without socking (but only if); but my opinion on him carries less weight because I'm not as familiar with him (although our one shared editing experience turned out reasonably positive). - ] 21:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree. I think each contributer deserves their own position on this topic. The way it looks now, it seems that we are banning them collectively, when we should focus on each of their own. If both of them are disrupting on the same side, then we could easily ban the both of them as meatpuppetry. If it's an edit conflict gone wrong, then let's look at how much each person has disrupted. It seems that H.E. is off the brink of a ban based on his recent activity, but I'm not sure about BhaiSaab. Overall, if these two editors are giving unrelated contributers a hard time one way or another, then that is what a Community ban is for. --]<sup><]·]></sup> 21:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can offer no opinion or information on BhaiSaab, but His excellency edited on as ]. His user page, ], links to his other puppet accounts. ] is the arb case. To me it is straightforward: a banned editor uses sockpuppets to evade the ban, and continues his well-established pattern of attacks. The ban gets reset; he does it again until it becomes clear that he will not respect the arbcom remedy, and he gets an indefinite ban. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's not "evading a ban" if ]. -- ] <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 02:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I am most offended at Netscott's comments - why assume that I acted in a biased manner? I don't think I have never interacted with BhaiSaab or His excellency, certainly not about anything that the RfAr was about. At the same time, he is basically saying that BhaiSaab should not be blocked becoz he had 3 ban resets in comparison to Hkelkar's 5. Should we allow him an opportunity to disrupt WP 2 more times? Do we wait until his sock makes a comment insulting someone's parents (as suggested that BS's comments are not as offensive as HS)? Is that vitriolic enough? Who is measuring exactly how offensive BS's violations are? BhaiSaab has been socking thru accounts as well as IPs. Multiple violations of an ArbCom ruling, compounded with the reasons behind the ArbCom ban and this discussion were grounds enough at the point I indef'd both HS and BhaiSaab. ] 22:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Rama's Arrow, would it be fair to say that you've had a close relationship with ]? Given you made on his behalf it would be fair to say yes. Now it is a known fact that both ] and ] were in constant conflict, as ] so cleverly illustrates. So given that this is the case it is perfectly logical to see a ] on your part in blocking ] per your apparent friendship with ]. ] should have his indefinite block lifted and his ArbCom ban reinstated with his serving out the rest of it prior to his return. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 05:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I had stopped sparring with BhaiSaab by September, my nemesis in arbcom was not BhaiSaab at all, it was a couple other trolls. Infact I'm certain Rama's arrow supported the ban on Hkelkar and has subsequently banned hkelkar again. Rama's support was hardly unique, infact apart from an enthusiastic troll and a subsequently banned user, nobody seemed to disagree with Rama. If Rama's Arrow has a close relationship with me, then the same could be said about {{user|Aeropagitica}}, {{user|Tom Harrison}} and Bhaisaab.<b>]]</b> 22:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::More evidence of a conflict of interest: You were contacted no less than six times by ] seeking assistance on matters he was editing on. ], ], ], ], ], ]. ] is more evidence of your conflict of interest. You must be aware that prior to his involvement with Hkelkar, BhaiSaab was generally more productive and contributory. It is nonsense that he is being made to pay for HE's latest disruption and indefinitely blocked when he wasn't the cause of it. As to ] that I have a conflict of interest you are wrong. I've not blocked or unblocked anyone. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 14:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Mhm, he got blocked 3-4 times when I was his primary foe, I doubt that's indicative of any productiveness. Infact, its hard to see a page where BhaiSaab wasnt in direct conflict with people (who in his view) are ]s.<b>]]</b> 22:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Rama's Arrow, you blocked BhaiSaab you had to have interacted with him. This is wrong to be lumping these two users together here. Very wrong. I'm not excusing BhaiSaab's disruptive behavior (most of which stemmed from conflict he had with Indian editor ]) but to suddenly be calling for his head at this point over disruption caused by another editor is wrong. Most eveyone who has interacted with the two see that it is evident they are not the same person. I would better understand this call for BhaiSaab's community bannishment if we were talking about a final act of disruption on his part... but this is not the case. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 22:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nobody that I can see is saying they are the same person. Maybe it is based on a misunderstanding, but your insistance on countering a charge nobody is making seems a bit odd. As I said, I know too little about BhaiSaab to have an opinion about him, but he has nothing to do with the case for banning His excellency. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sorry, the first line in this thread by Blntguyen : "they've been evading their bans again using their IP range." as though what has brought this call for HE's and BS's community banning was coordinated (or the work of one person). It is not right that they're being lumped together as one given the disruption is coming for one angle (in this instance). {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's Blnguyen's description of what each had been doing, not a claim that they are one person. Rama's arrow clearly recognizes that. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I see no IP sockpuppets listed for BhaiSaab, so what's the basis for comparison? Is the category incomplete? <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| (outdent) Here's the IP info on His Excellency: | |||
| *71.172.136.156: ?? | |||
| *72.80.40.154: New York City | |||
| *72.88.139.24: Paterson, New Jersey: | |||
| <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===] requesting a temporary unblock=== | |||
| ] is ] so that he might comment here. Given the details of this case he should be afforded the possibility to comment here (and only here) towards his defense. Would someone kindly temporarly (and limitedly) unblock him so that he may do so? Thanks. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 17:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I support a temporary and short unblock for the reason given above. -- '']'' - <small>]</small> 17:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::BhaiSaab was banned for one year under an ArbCom decision in December 2006, and so he is not eligible to be unblocked, even irrespective of any subsequent extensions or community ban. See ]. Any request for a change in this status would have to be approved by the Arbitration Committee, and I think is quite unlikely to happen. ] 17:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ohh I've not read the above thread well enough. Well, in this case, he can comment at his talkpage and paste the comments here. -- '']'' - <small>]</small> 17:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Actually, as a banned (rather than merely blocked) user, he shouldn't have a talkpage, but if he confines his comments there very narrowly, I won't take any action on that. ] 17:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ====BhaiSaab's commentary==== | |||
| With the utilization of an inclusion BhaiSaab will be able to comment below. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 17:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| <hr> | |||
| {{User talk:BhaiSaab}} | |||
| ::Wait, so your bans were reset due to supposed sockpuppetry and then later two of those turned out to be verified as ] by checkuser while ] had his ban reset '''five times'''? Something is very wrong about this idea of a community ban against you. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 20:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I found it odd that it took so long to get Rumpel banned, even from my uninvolved vantage point it was obviously Hkelkar; I think editing and language similarity is in the end the most accurate way to identify socks, CheckUser should only be used to confirm a connection, not to rule it out. Anyways, I'll re-iterate my support for giving BhaiSaab another chance. - ] 21:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The discussion is not about Hkelkar; it's about BhaiSaab and H.E. Hkelkar's sockpuppetry is no excuse for BhaiSaab's behavior. BhaiSaab may have set up fewer socks to evade the ArbComm ban than Hkelkar, but he also edit warred extensively using IPs. An indefinite ban is the only possible solution here. ] ] 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Beit Or, where is the proof of this? Check user is showing that ] has been the editor involved in all of this. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 22:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::"They edit from the same general area, and (at a minimum) are in communication off-wiki, which sometimes makes it hard to tell. There is also a real possibility that they are the same editor." ] ] 22:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The IP range Jayjg refers to covers one of the heaviest population centers in the world - New York, Newark, New Jersey. They edit from the same general area and so do thousands of other editors here on Misplaced Pages particularly as this range literally covers millions of IPs. Jayjg hasn't made a case for them being the same person but is making a relatively casual statement based upon them editing from this several million+ IP range. There is no solid case here. Also you neglected to add, "Actually, ] is ] (also banned). " to your quote there. Everyone who's edited in areas that these two have covered can tell you that they are not the same individual. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 22:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Netscott, if you wish to reassert that geographic argument, please respond to my relevant questions and analysis. I see no IPs for one of these accounts so I don't even understand its basis. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 23:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| by ] (although he mistakenly labeled it a MinaretDK) should be illustrative. The IP was effectively saying that he was BhaiSaab on Blnguyen's talk page. This latest round of HE disruption was conducted using IPs in this verizon east range (again millions of subscribers). {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 00:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Yup. But why do you think they're both from greater New York? <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Per note the address: pool-72-88-172-144.'''nwrknj'''.east.verizon.net. '''nwrknj''' = ]. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 01:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Getting one's ducks in a row ==== | |||
| Very little is clear after days of threaded discussion on this request, but I've reached one definitive conclusion. When presenting a complex request to the community it's important to be well prepared. Write up a good summary and support it with diffs, links, and examples. Guide the reader through the necessary logical steps. Communicate enough information to bring an uninformed reader up to speed and demonstrate why the situation requires action. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::And when repeatedly thumping on the phrase "evading a ban", at some point check whether ], negating the premise. -- ] <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 02:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::]'s ban was for 6 months. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 03:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Such a "reset" was not ]. -- ] <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 06:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*Move to close. ] <sup>]</sup> / <sub>]</sub> 02:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is still the matter that ] has been indefinitely blocked unfairly (and without consensus I might add). {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 03:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I asked Jayjg if he could comment here regarding the matter. - ] 03:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::As per this discussion, I've reset BhaiSaab's ban to 1 year. ] 03:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Per Rama's Arrow's response, if someone wants to archive this discussion at this point, fine with me. {{User:Netscott/s1.js}} 04:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Comment'''. The recent bans have not been logged at ] and I would politely request the blocking admins list the recent extensions to the page per the ArbCom decision. ] 06:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.''<!-- from Template:discussion bottom --></div> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| The reviewing of the RfAr for ] has concluded. The Arbitration Committee has banned ] from editing ], ], ], ], and related pages or their talk pages. | |||
| This notice is given by an informal helper on the behalf of the Arbitration Committee. - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 18:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == QuackGuru and Misplaced Pages-related articles == | |||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #dedaca; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is archived. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' <!-- from Template:discussion top--> | |||
| Recommend editors attempt ]. ] <sup>]</sup> / <sub>]</sub> 09:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| I posted and wanted to raise the possibility of a short-term enforced article probation for this user here from Misplaced Pages and Essjay related articles. Especially on the Essjay article, since the AfD closure, there has been no problems, issues, or artificial drama from any sources... except ]. - ] 22:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Why haven't regular ol' userblocks been tried? <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 23:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :*Could we see some ] regarding this behavior, aside from the AN/I link. What is it that is being asked of the community? Additionally, what ] steps have been attempted? Thanks, ] <sup>]</sup> / <sub>]</sub> 00:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::* I need to gather it up but there is no one diff that or ten that shows this, just the littered mess that is the ] talk page/archives are the best indicator. See also the comments on today's ANI mess. how many times do we let someone tweak the community's nipples like this to be impolite? They're all very silly but it's very on-going and tiring. If more is needed I'll have to gather it tomorrow unless others can first. That ANI link has links all the previous (now 5) incident reports. What I am asking for is admin-enforced probation from the Essjay article and wikipedia-related articles for a week or three to see if helps. - ] 02:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::What policies are being violated there? A quick summary with some evidence may be helpful. Have we explored other options, ], ]. I think this proposed community action needs clarity. It seems, at the moment, ''unclear''. ] <sup>]</sup> / <sub>]</sub> 02:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| (outdent) Part of the problem I see with this proposal is that it would create an exploitable precedent of imposing community bans before blocks and dispute resolution are tried. That's not something I'm likely to support in any scenario and it's especially problematic in relation to a public Misplaced Pages scandal. One reasonable interpretation of community action at this juncture would be that it would amount to an attempt at cover up. See ]. If this editor collects several blocks and dispute resolution fails, come back and I may support a nomination. Let's treat this exactly like any other problem user. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 05:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Comment'''. This is the wrong place, I think, to bring your concerns. I would also note, unless you're prepared to provide diffs and clear examples of improper behaviour, you're going to have an uphill battle getting blocks/bans imposed on a user. This user has not received a single block. If the user has been ] ''and'' ] has been tried, then it might be time for an ]. Regardless, with no clear diffs or clear examples of improper behaviour, no bans, no damning RfC, no ArbCom sanctions and so forth, it is simply far premature to discuss community bans. ] 08:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.''<!-- from Template:discussion bottom --></div> | |||
| == Indefinite block of Ldingley == | |||
| I have currently blocked {{user|Ldingley}} indefinitely pending discussion by the community. The short of it is that Ldingley, despite discussion and warnings, persistently uploads photographs later found to be copyright violations. He has placed false copyright tags on these photographs, claimed to own the copyright to photos which are not his and even placed false OTRS confirmation tags on them. In my block message to him, I suggested that I would unblock him if he agreed to refrain from uploading any images in the future. Unfortunately, while he agrees to this in his response, he also claims that he did not violate any policies or copyright with his uploads, which makes me concerned about future damage he might do to the project. So what does everyone think? Can this be handled by a community decision or is a more formal process necessary? | |||
| The gritty details: | |||
| In October of 2006, complaints were received at OTRS by photographers who posted their work on TrekEarth.com (ticket 2006090610007106). They wanted to know why their photographs were on Misplaced Pages and why someone else's name was credited. After a bit of investigating, I saw no reason to disbelieve their claims: the photos on TrekEarth were posted long before being uploaded here and one of the photographers also had other images of the same subjects, which hadn't been available via the web previously. | |||
| The photographs were removed and a review of other uploads by Ldingley was conducted. It became clear rather quickly that this editor had a history of uploading images taken from the web and claiming them as his own. After having gone through several months of rather prolific uploads, I informed Ldingley he was violating policy and asked him to stop immediately. FloNight also had some concerns with this editor's image uploads and added a few questions of her own. | |||
| In response to this and later queries, Ldingley claimed he was either the photographer responsible for the photographs or had purchased the photographs and their copyrights through photo distribution or auction sites, including a specific claim of having bought one from Getty Images which was never substantiated., Ldingley has never been able to provide any evidence of the validity of these claims. | |||
| I pointed out some discrepancies in his claims, citing a specific instance. He then changed his story, claiming to have been friends with the photographer in that instance, a claim which was denied adamantly by the photographer when I contacted him via email., | |||
| For quite some time after this exchange, Ldingley refrained from uploading any photographs except a few of ancient art and television screenshots which he tagged appropriately. After several months, I stopped monitoring his uploads closely, assuming he had learned from a mistake. Recently, I happened to notice another user questioning a recent image upload by Ldingley. I was shocked to find that Ldingley had recently gone back on a image uploading spree. There were more than 30 images, most again from TrekEarth.com which Ldingley uploaded as "copyright, but all rights released" or again, as being in his "collection". <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 04:00, March 21, 2007 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small> | |||
| :Don't see anything wrong with your actions here. Clearly warrants an indefinite block, even if the user doth protest much. Are you wanting a community ban to be formalized? —] ] ] 04:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just wanted to check; its always possible that a contributor is highly respected in areas I'm not aware of and a case could be made for some type of probation or supervision. Never hurts to be sure. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse indef''', I had some contacts with him about his uploads, and don't think he's ever going to follow our policies. ] 07:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support indefinate block'''. Due to his other useful contributions, recognized by fellow editors, and his other indications of being able to learn from his mistakes, I would normally oppose an indefinate ban. However, his repeated lies about ownership of the images, even when confronted with proof, and his return to such behaviour after being previous confronted and warned, leads me to believe he intends to continue with behaviour that is not only against policy, but patently illegal. Operating under the belief he intends to continue violating both Misplaced Pages policy and real life law, I must support a ban. ] 08:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:45, 3 June 2022
 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. | Shortcut |
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
| Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 348 | 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 | 354 | 355 | 356 | 357 |
| 358 | 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 | 364 | 365 | 366 | 367 |
| Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 1156 | 1157 | 1158 | 1159 | 1160 | 1161 | 1162 | 1163 | 1164 | 1165 |
| 1166 | 1167 | 1168 | 1169 | 1170 | 1171 | 1172 | 1173 | 1174 | 1175 |
| Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
| 471 | 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 |
| 481 | 482 | 483 | 484 | 485 | 486 | 487 | 488 | 489 | 490 |
| Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
| 327 | 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 | 335 | 336 |
| 337 | 338 | 339 | 340 | 341 | 342 | 343 | 344 | 345 | 346 |
| Community sanction archives (search) | |||||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ||||||
| Other links | |||||||||
This was the community sanction noticeboard. This forum was previously used for the discussion of community bans, prior to consensus at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard (second nomination) that another venue would be better.
Though the history is retained so that previous cases may be referenced, new issues should be raised at Administrators' noticeboard (for new ban discussions or other long discussions) or Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (for more specific incidents relating to previous sanctions).
Categories: