| Revision as of 18:18, 27 April 2007 view sourceTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 editsm →[]: Sign properly← 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, Administrators83,873 edits nav request |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{historical|WP:CSN}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
{{editabuselinks}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
|
{{Administrators' noticeboard navbox|csn=yes}} |
|
|counter = 7 |
|
|
|algo = old(48h) |
|
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{/Header}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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). |
|
<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --> |
|
|
<!-- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. --> |
|
|
<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
== Diyarbakir == |
|
|
|
|
|
:<small>This was originaly posted on ANB/I but I felt it would be more appropriate here</small> |
|
|
* {{user|Diyarbakir}} |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
User had been tagging random cities with "Category:Kurdistan" . When the categories were removed as per ] and ] he reverted them back with an edit summary "revert anti-kurd edit". |
|
|
|
|
|
I do not believe he is a new user given the nature of the edits. Being as inactive as he is, his/her ability to notice such category removals is also suspicious. Especially on articles where he has no edits which may involve ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
Although registering as far back as 13 September 2006, user has of which most seems to be voting ('''keep'''inging kurdistan), categorizing (adding Kurdistan) or reverting (restoring Kurdistan). |
|
|
|
|
|
--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 17:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Is there a question of community action? Is this a content dispute where ] should be attempted? I do not understand what is being asked here. With regards, ] <sup>]</sup> 17:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree that this looks highly odd - finding CfD about 10 edits in? - but I can't really see much of a basis for a community sanction. Do you have something for checkuser to be run against to establish if this is a sock? Cheers, ] <sup> ]</sup> 17:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::It may be a ] sockpuppet, I am not sure. It is very hard to request a checkuser since there had been far too many people that were banned for similar reasons. User may even be a ] sockpuppet. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 19:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The latter user doesn't appear to be blocked or banned, so even if this is his/her sock, there isn't a violation here, since the edits are not abusive. -- ] <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 20:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::That is not true. ] prohibits user "...from editing articles which concern Turkey or Kurdish issues" also ] puts additional restrictions on harassment. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 12:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::That's a very interesting link, not least because it links to ], and here you are accusing an editor for adding ] tags. -- ] <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 19:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Moby Dick was sanctioned by arbcom after such levels of stalking. I have nothing more to add more than the arbitration case. He is prohibited to even participate in any vote I am involved with. Additionally arbcom found his edits on Kurdish related topics disruptive. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 17:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
: This is a funny place to bring this problem. There is no blocking record, and looking at the history of his talk page I see no instances of attempts to communicate with him about problematic editing on his part. If you think there is a problem with his edits, please discuss this with him in the first instance. Trying to get an editor who is as-yet in good standing permanently banned from Misplaced Pages obviously isn't going to work. --] 17:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think the user is far too suspicious to be treated like any random "good standing" user. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 19:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You were already told, at ], that this user's ''"actions were inline with policy and as such the sock cant be rightfully classed as abusive unless the owners been banned."'' Please don't ]. -- ] <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 19:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I am merely looking for additional opinions. I do not believe this qualifies as "forum-shopping" since the issue discussed isn't content related. Besides I already clarified that a similar thread existed in ANB/I --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 12:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::''"I am merely looking for additional opinions."'' -- No, you <u>don't</u> come here to "look for additional opinions", you come here "for the discussion of ], including topical bans", as the top of this page states, along with "this noticeboard is not a replacement for ], and should not be used as a type of dispute resolution: community ban requests should be a last resort." If all you'd wanted was comments, you know where ] is, you've been there before. -- ] <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 22:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Cool Cat, I think this was better off where it was before, and I'd suggest you take it back there. -- ] <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 18:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Including category:Kurdistan for some places is a legitimate edit, there are content disputes but not something to deserve a sanction. The situation can change if he is a sock used for frauding votes, 3RR violation or supporting his sockpuppeteer in talk pages.--] 19:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Would you recommend a checkuser? It might be too old to check - also I do not have a real puppet master suspect. I still feel this is a ''disruptive "throwaway" account used only for a few edits''--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 23:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::I have posted this at ] and found some interesting additional evidence. Please reconsider this case with that additional evidence. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 13:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Since at this time you're the only person who's posted to that page, there are no checkuser results to consider. There's just your complaint that after you'd filed an MfD on Portal:Kurdistan and CfDs on Kurdistan categories, Diyarbakir (who's been adding Category:Kurdistan tags) opposed the deletions. How is his/her consistent support of Kurdistan topics any more abusive than your ]? -- ] <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 20:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I also note that you filed <span class="plainlinks"></span> earlier this month, only to have it declined as a content dispute. "Category:Kurdistan" also underlies your present complaint, forum-shopped to these two noticeboards. Please stop trying to use disciplinary procedures as leverage in your content dispute.<p>Finally, I notice that you have '''never''' posted to ] ''<span class="plainlinks"></span>'', either to try settling your dispute with him/her before bringing it here, or to notify him/her of your bringing this complaint. See the top of ]: ''"As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting."'' Here you are in the wrong, Cool Cat. Please take more care with your own behavior. -- ] <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 21:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diyarbakir = Moby Dick ]. Hence I formally request users block as per every remedy on the RFAR case on ] namely: ], ], and ]. Blocks shoud be logged at ]. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 21:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Diyarbakir is now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet per the checkuser and arbitration cases (). --] <small>(] <nowiki>|</nowiki> ])</small> 00:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
Since September 2006, {{userlinks|Dhimwit}} has done nothing but troll. It seems highly likely that this is an abusive sockpuppet account. I move that Dhimwit is banned. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
: See also {{userlinks|82.20.124.228}} |
|
|
: I'm worried about this. He seems to be a bit confused about Misplaced Pages policy, and I don't see much evidence of trolling. There seems to be ample evidence that he is trying to improve Misplaced Pages but feels victimized by administrators. --] 15:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Looking at his edits, he appears to add unsourced commentary and then demand other edits find sources and gets very annoyed when the material is removed, which could be trolling or possibly confusion. His current week long block is for personal attacks, then avoiding a block to leave a grumpy message, followed by blanking his talk page, which again, could be trolling or just about plausibly, confusion. On balance, I would prefer to give another chance. ] 22:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::: I agree to that. But it should be a last chance. If he's just going to be a pain we can afford to let him go. --] 03:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{vandal|Lovelight}} has gone from being mildly disruptive to engaging in edit warring () and now egregious insults. His contributions are those of a ], working almost exclusively on articles related to trying to add oftentimes ridiculiously silly conspiracy theory misinformation to articles related to the events of September 11, 2001. I believe the community has had enough of this kind of behavior and an indefinite ban or similar sanction is mandatory. An Rfc has been filed on Lovelight ], but I think this is a waste of time.--] 18:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*I believe a community ban is warranted. His contribution is limited to repeated WP:POINT violations, 3RR violations as well as just general disruption in addition to the issues cited above. --] 19:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*I also believe it is warranted. He takes up far more time from editors and admins than his contributions warrant. Unfortunately, based on his behavior and what he has implied in his talk postings, I fear he will come come back as a vandal of similar quality to ]. --] 19:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*I'm afraid I have to agree as well. I tried to reason with this person, and (s)he just will not listen. I think it's inevitably headed for an ArbCom ban at this point, so we may as well save the trouble. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*Support ban, has crossed the line. ] 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*<s>Statement from Lovelight, posted here by request</s> |
|
|
*:<s>"Please note that noticeboard is not a replacement for requests for comment, and should not be used as a type of dispute resolution: community ban requests should be a last resort. '''Complex or ambiguous cases''' should go to dispute resolution."</s> |
|
|
|
|
|
* I think this is a good case for an indefinite ban. It appears to me that the fellow is only here to fight. --] 20:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*<s>Another statement from Lovelight: (--] 20:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC))</s> |
|
|
*:<s>Well Tony, you are wrong, have you visited related talk page, have you checked related history, are you aware of the issue(s) here or did you just took a look at my "representative" talk space? Please, if you are to endorse this, then at least find some good will and time to go through the history which led to this point. Thanks. ] 20:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)</s> |
|
|
|
|
|
*Lovelight asked to have his previous two statements replaced with the following: (--] 21:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)) |
|
|
*:Please note also that this noticeboard is not a replacement for requests for comment, and should not be used as a type of dispute resolution: community ban requests should be a last resort. '''Complex or ambiguous''' cases should go to dispute resolution. Please check related history I'm afraid my talk space is not "representative", at least, if you don't take a closer look. I'd appreciate, if you would find some time and good will to check the facts. Thanks. ] 20:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*Mongo's observation about the complexity and ambiguity of this case may be important: "Lovelight has gone from being only mildly disruptive, to edit warring and down right offensive." I would argue for continuing the RfC in order to better understand this process. I have some experience in this vein and can imagine how someone with Lovelight's views has been received on arrival. Seraphimblade could provide examples of his attempts to reason with Lovelight, and other opportunities to go from mildly disruptive to mildly constructive could be examined. It does seem to me that Lovelight is no longer capable of taking even his own struggle here seriously. I'm just not at all sure that's his fault alone.--] 21:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::This is what oftentimes happens when POV pushers meet continued resistance against their efforts. They can either work with the consensus, become an edit warrior, or file frivilous Rfc's and arbcom cases to try and get their way...impuning the integrity of those that have worked hard to keep Misplaced Pages a respectable and reliable referece base.--] 21:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I agree in part: the way POV pushers are treated these days often turns them into edit warriors at an early age, if you will, instead of just going away. Banning them without an RfC may well turn them into vandals. This same treatment, however, also causes people who are not POV pushers to either leave or file RfC's with the hope of improving the rhetorical climate. It is possible to work hard doing the wrong thing, even with good intentions.--] 22:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::My attempts to work with Lovelight are on ], if you'd like to look at them. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* I support an indefinite ban. ] 22:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* Since we have seen no expression of guilt or fault whatsoever from Lovelight, I am forced to support a community ban. (I started the RfC moments before he was blocked for 3RR. Again.) --] 23:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I would observe that there are two questions here: |
|
|
:*#has this fellow been blocked correctly? |
|
|
:*#* If so then could whoever keeps broadcasting this fellow's pleas for an RFC please stop? It'd gone beyond ] if we're discussing a fellow who has already been correctly blocked for one week for egregious edit warring, came out of that and got himself correctly blocked for another two weeks. |
|
|
:*# Do we call it a day with this editor? |
|
|
:*#* If the answer to the first question is "yes", I would suggest that it's going to take a very, very big counter-argument to make this fellow appear worth expending even more effort on. |
|
|
: So we should pay a lot of attention to the answer to question 1. For upon that question hinges the future of this fellow. --] 03:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Looking at his block log and talk page, the answer to 1) is, 'Yes, certainly.' Lovelight's defense for persistent edit warring has always been that he is telling The Truth about What Really Happened on 9/11, and so should not be limited by the three-revert rule. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Bye bye Lovelight. --] 00:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*Re:Tom Harrison: Indeed, that's exactly what I found when I blocked him a couple weeks ago. I'm not going to comment on the whether or not to community-ban him; however, his attitude suggests strongly that he has no interest in functioning as a member of our community. ] 00:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
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).
