| Revision as of 23:54, 21 May 2007 view sourceHangingCurve (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers100,951 edits →Extending the ban of Artaxiad to indef: Why was he allowed back anyway? He revealed personal info.← 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, Administrators83,871 edits nav request |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{historical|WP:CSN}} |
|
<noinclude>{{pp-move|small=yes}}</noinclude> |
|
|
|
{{editabuselinks}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
{{Administrators' noticeboard navbox|csn=yes}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
|counter = 8 |
|
|
|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. --> |
|
|
<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
== Extending the ban of Artaxiad to indef == |
|
|
|
|
|
* {{user5|Artaxiad}} |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* User challenged the community: "<span class="plainlinks"></span>" |
|
|
* This was taken to arbcom for <span class="plainlinks"></span> but it was <span class="plainlinks"></span>. |
|
|
* User is <span class="plainlinks"></span> |
|
|
|
|
|
I was wondering if this would be warranted. Checkuser requests since the conclusion of the ] was a rather long list. User was banned by arbcom for a year. Users are banned for a year or more by arbcom to cease disruption. More severe mesures should be taken into account if users behaviour does not improve. |
|
|
|
|
|
User has more sockpuppets than I'd care to count. One of the check users comment was: "I spent half an hour tracking down this checkuser. It is ridiculous. Here is the tree as I have constructed it. It is incomplete". |
|
|
|
|
|
--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 13:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:How often does he use sockpuppets? For example, every week, every day, or...? When was the last time he used sockpuppets? —''']''' 14:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::No real way to know since he uses open proxies. Since his edit behaviour has no real patter (check contribs of ] for instance), it is very hard to tell. He may also be preforming ] attacks as he demonstrated an odd familiarity for a banned user: <span class="plainlinks"></span>. --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 15:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Looking at this guy's sockdrawer, it's definitely warranted. Once you use a sock to get around an ArbCom decision, you're effectively telling the community you're not going to follow the rules. <s>23</s>21 socks? Indef ban.]] 15:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::You may want to review the raw data on the checkuser case. There are far more socks (though it might be a commonly used open proxy by other disruptive users - not that it makes this any better). --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 15:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Did this guy attempt to use these account after the block? ]''']''']''']'''] <small>(], ]) </small> 02:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It looks like he was making socks even while the arbitration was underway, from looking at all the block logs for this guy. That only clinches it--he's effectively thumbing his nose at the community. We don't need him.]] 02:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
OK, this is really simple, if you can come up with valid ''evidence'' that (s)he was/is using multiple accounts abusively, I have no qualms with blocking this user indef. Oh, and please block the open proxy. —— ''']'''</font><sup>]</sup> 04:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Look at the Checkuser--21 confirmed socks. And the clerk said that the list was incomplete. Many of them were active while the arbitration was underway. If you're engaging in sockpuppetry during an arbitration and you haven't been community banned, you damned well better be.]] 04:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The question of whether to do that rests on whether he used the accounts after the ban or before. If we community ban then it should be for the duration of the arbcom's ban. As it is, any further accounts are blocked so maybe he knows creating them is a waste of time. ]''']''']''']'''] <small>(], ]) </small> 12:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It looks like he used 10 of them after the end of the ArbCom case (two of them only hours after the decision came down) and four in the week before the case was underway. Like I've said before, when you're making sockpuppets while there's an arbitration underway, you're telling the community that you're not going to follow the rules. 10 socks after the final decision? Indef him. |
|
|
::::Active after Arbcom: |
|
|
*{{vandal|Bmamba}} |
|
|
*{{vandal|BWaves}} |
|
|
*{{vandal|Friesare22}} |
|
|
*{{vandal|Henbacl}} |
|
|
*{{vandal|Juntiforces}} |
|
|
*{{vandal|KURDBIJISTAN}} (only hours after ban enacted in ArbCom) |
|
|
*{{vandal|Restaren}} |
|
|
*{{vandal|Sparala}} |
|
|
*{{vandal|Starfacs}} |
|
|
*{{vandal|Torontz}} |
|
|
*{{vandal|Tricethin}} |
|
|
*{{vandal|Vrastic}} (only hours after ban enacted in ArbCom) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Active a week before ban: |
|
|
*{{vandal|Graeco}} |
|
|
*{{vandal|Kursata}} |
|
|
*{{vandal|Lakers}} |
|
|
*{{vandal|Mr. Barnstar}} |
|
|
*{{vandal|Russ}} |
|
|
Dunno how much more blatant you can get ... this is as egregious as I've seen it.]] 14:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Absolutely. No need for any further discussion here. This is a no-brainer. ] ] 15:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Agreed. I've extended his block to indefinite. ] ] 17:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Points for that. This was an easy choice, really. If he makes a request to come back and actually stops the socking, plus making an apology, I wouldnt mind reducing it back to the arbcom ban, however. -<u>]<small><sup>]</sup></small></u> 18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Slamdunk case. I fully support banning this user. ] 23:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Support as enough evidence is presented. Enough is enough. -- ] - <small>]</small> 23:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I don't get why he was even allowed back. Revealing personal information? By all rights he should have been reported to his ISP. I would think someone ought to report him now.]] 23:54, 21 May 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).
