| Revision as of 09:22, 22 August 2007 view sourceMoreschi (talk | contribs)19,434 editsm Reverted edits by WP User 29 (talk) to last version by Dbachmann← 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}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
{{editabuselinks}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
|
{{Administrators' noticeboard navbox|csn=yes}} |
|
|counter = 11 |
|
|
|algo = old(120h) |
|
|
|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. --> |
|
|
<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Question Concerning Malber == |
|
|
{{discussion top|1=Bans are not ratified. An indef block where no sysop is willing to unblock is a ban. ] <sup> ] </sup> 21:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)}} |
|
|
I am not {{user5|Malber}}, but I have been following his story, which has been talked about on several places offsite. I saw he was banned by one admin for something or other temporarily and then Malber got mad and claimed he revoked his GDFL so he was banned permanently. I think it would serve Misplaced Pages's interests if several admins would post here agreeing with the ban as community consensus. ] 17:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:There is implicit agreement to the ban when no admin is willing to unblock him. As long as the block holds, the ban also holds. —''']''' 17:43, 18 August 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> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==]== |
|
|
|
|
|
This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. ] and ] are admonished for their behaviour, and directed to refrain from importing outside disputes into the English Misplaced Pages, disclosing real names or other identifying personal information on-wiki, and from making personal attacks and uncivil remarks. For the arbitration committee, ]<sup>(])</sup> 21:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==]== |
|
|
|
|
|
This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. ]'s editing privileges are suspended for one year. For the arbitration committee, ]<sup>(])</sup> 18:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
The above case is closed. A general amnesty for editors involved in Eastern Europe-related articles is extended, with the expectation that further editing will adhere to Misplaced Pages's policies. Future behavior problems may be addressed by the Arbitration Committee on the motion of any Arbitrator or upon acceptance of a request for inquiry by any user who edits in this area. For the Arbitration Committee, ] ] 19:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== {{user|Watch844}} - proposal to topic-ban == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've had it with this fellow. He's been twice been blocked for consistent POV-pushing and revert-warring on ], non-stop advocating a very ] position. He's had up to 7 users reverting him, and a similar number debunking his nonsense, which has been shown to be of no merit, on the talk page. I propose that we ban him from ] and all related article, loosely defined (and yes, we can do this, we do not need the ArbCom to do it for us). Violations of this may be rewarded with blocks of up to a week: after 3 such blocks the block length may increase to indef, all blocks to be logged here. ] <sup> ]</sup> 16:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'm totally unfamiliar and univolved and I have a couple of questions. Has the user been told of this proposal yet? Are there sufficient allowable references for his fringe, or is there a fair bit of original research? Does the user understand the ] policy and what we mean by sythesis and original research? With increasing use of the fringe theory noticeboard, I'm seeing more and more that people do not understand this aspect of the project. --] 17:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Oh, his fringe is notable enough. His problem is he makes his fringe out to be mainstream academia, which is just plain rubbish. I've informed him of this thread, and, yes, he has been told of our rules on content (V, NOR, etc). Out of interest, he's a virtual single-purpose account, since all he ever does here is wage war on ] - check his contribs. ] <sup> ]</sup> 17:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'm mostly concerned that we go through the process and try to educate. I fully understand if the community that edits on india topics has reached the end of the line. --] 18:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Oh, he knows what he's doing. It's not India articles in general, mind, not even close - it's just this one article (and related ones) that he's obsessed with, and which I would like to ban him from. ] <sup> ]</sup> 18:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I've found my patience with out-and-out single-purpose tendentious editors to be at an all-time low at the moment. That said, perhaps a more modest initial approach, such as a 1RR limitation on the article in question, would make sense? That will encourage him to discuss rather than edit-war. If that fails, then I'd fully endorse a topic ban. As it is, I'd weakly endorse one. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'd go along with your alternative, but with reluctance. He's been blocked twice before for dubious conduct re this article, and he has '''not stopped''', and he seemingly makes '''no other contributions'''. 1RR won't stop him, he'll just keep grinding away, just at a lower pitch. ] <sup> ]</sup> |
|
|
::But WWJCD (what would Julius Caesar do)? :) Actually, I had failed to review his block log, which is pretty damning given his failure to evidence a learning curve of any sort. With that in mind, I could get behind a topic ban at this point. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Endorse topic ban''' - The constant reapplication of whitewashed writing about this fringe theory compromises Misplaced Pages's coverage of the topic, and it is especially irking that he continues even as his views are refuted by a number of serious editors on the talk page. He seems to be a single purpose account that aims to edit war a promotional version of the article onto Misplaced Pages. ] 18:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* I blocked him indef about a minute ago, I noticed this when I was going to leave a message saying he was blocked indef, all of his edits are revert warning, no need to keep that kind of user around. Thanks ] ] 19:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
** I was only just getting used to the idea that I was a mere "lackey" of the "colonial establishment" :) -- ] 20:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Comment:''' {{user|Watch844}} is not an isolated case. His SPA-ness may have been particularly crass, but there are others pushing the same POV on ] and related pages. E.g., of relatively recent vintage, {{user|Darrowen}} or {{user|Cosmos416}}. Drive-bys like {{user|Bkn}}. And by now seasoned "regulars" like {{user|Sbhushan}} or {{user|WIN}}. Never mind the horde of {{user|Hkelkar}} sockpuppets. While they've all read the same blogs and prop-lit (and, needless to say, little else) this is not ordinary meatpuppetry, where every month or so we go through the same boring cycle of bogosity, debunking and edit-warring. What am I saying? Cannon fodder like {{user|Watch844}} are a plenty, ready to be martyred by topic bans, community bans and what have you. They are enthused by a "cause" and bring an essentially religious fervor to their assault on WP. We ain't seen nothin' yet. ] 01:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:What are you suggesting, community article parole? <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I'm sorry, I wasn't suggesting anything. My bad, for not being constructive. To make amends, the idea I'm thinking through at the moment is an exception to 3RR. Specifically, mark the user as "revertible on sight" or "revertible without cost": he is still subject to 3RR, but those who revert him are not. Basically, stack the edit-war in the WP community's favor. Unfair? Boo hoo, cry me a river, troll! :-) ] 03:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::As in article-wide 2RR? That's been suggested before on the community level but never implemented. If you want to make a real case for across-the-board revert warring problems at that article, we could see how it goes. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 03:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Sorry, at which article? I confess I'm not up to speed on policy discussions. Which pages should I read to catch up? Thanks! ] 05:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::a special status of "not banned, but revertible on sight"? This may work for users threatened by a community ban who are ''willing'' to go for "1RR parole" instead. I don't see why we should keep a user around once it has become clear they edit in bad faith. Please. They maintain their private sock armies anyway, why should we create red tape around them? Drive-by edit warriors belong blocked on sight. Dedicated and entrenched trolls should be discussed here, and if there is a consensus that they quite obviously are not going to mend their ways, they should be banned as well. Misplaced Pages has only so many competent and dedicated editors. Trolls and fanatics are a dime a dozen, and that's not counting socks. We desperately need to stack the odds in favour of the encyclopedists. ] <small>]</small> 07:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''ban''' away. a topic-ban is equivalent to a full ban anyway, since this is obviously a single-topic trolling account. ] <small>]</small> 07:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==]== |
|
|
|
|
|
This arbitration case has now closed, and the decision may be found at the link above. ]'s adminship is suspended for a period of 30 days. For the arbitration committee, ]<sup>(])</sup> 21:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=={{user|NCdave}}== |
|
|
{{user|NCdave}} is a ] focused on ]. He has evinced most or all of the characteristics of a ]: he's been repeatedly for 3RR violations, although he ] that he was not reverting but was . After the release of one 3RR block, he immediately returned to edit-war over the same issue, resulting in another block. He . He repeats the same arguments endlessly without convincing anyone (see the entire ]). He simultaneously runs 5 or 6 redundant talk page threads, and if other editors fail to respond to one of them, . His first activity, on arriving at ], was to systematically append his ] to a series of thread which were 6 months to ''over 1 year'' old (). He then for archiving these "active" threads. He accuses those who differ with him of malicious intent (), defamation, lying (, ), etc. Recently he's gone in for full-on personal attacks and implicit legal threats () and attacking uninvolved admins (). These are not new problems: before Milloy, NCdave was a single-purpose POV warrior on ], where his consensus-building approach of led to ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
Bottom line: NCdave is a highly tendentious, disruptive editor with a single purpose at present, a long history and multiple blocks for 3RR and edit-warring, for which he is utterly unrepentant. He persists in disrupting ]. I propose that he be banned from the article and talk pages of ] and closely related subjects. I will notify NCdave and involved users from the Milloy article of this thread. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Support ban''' ] 22:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* I '''agree''' wholeheartedly with ], and I have been involved with the dispute over at ]. ] 22:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Agree'''. As the Schiavo material shows, this is a repetitive pattern.] 23:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Support ban''' One is struck by the similarity of his behavior on ] to his actions on ] as detailed in the previous RfC. A broader concern is that even if he is banned from Milloy-related articles, he may simply move on to demonstrate the same ] behavior in some other topic. ] 23:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Support ban''' on ] and closely related subjects. Is it possible to list these "closely related subjects" here so we are up front on which articles the ban extends to?--] 23:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Closely related articles would at least include: ] and ], possibly ] and perhaps others.] 23:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Sounds good to me.--] 23:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*When I have a strong POV on a subject I tread lightly, so my opinion here is prefaced by the following: I am not neutral about ]. My views on that case formed from firsthand experience as a caregiver who, while I was speaking on behalf of a terminally ill relative who could not advocate for himself, had the unsettling experience of being interrupted on two separate occasions by a health care professional who presumed the patient's wishes were ]. Actually his desires were the reverse and he had the foresight to have expressed them in a legal document; I stood over that nurse and that (ahem) "patient advocate" while I insisted they read his real desires. I hope those individuals never made such an abhorrent mistake again. That said, I support the ban proposal. Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle for advocacy. If one's views are so strong that they demand attention then seek another venue, preferably one that satisfies ] so the opinion can then enter an article legitimately as a regular citation. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::I apologize for bringing up Terri Schiavo in a manner which doesn't do justice to the complexities of her particular situation. My intention in doing so was only to provide the context that NCdave's current issues are not isolated, but part of a pattern of behavior. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 05:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Support ban''' He does not seem to able to give ground, even when his position is untenable. --] 04:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*Support ban. To my knowledge I have never contributed to the Milloy page, but it's on my watch list (can't remember why). A ''topic'' ban strikes me as a very restrained measure to take. I base this from what I've seen on that travesty and confusing mess of a talk page, as well as the edit-warring in general (both S.Milloy pages). Additionally, it should come with a warning that future similar behavior on the next article would result in a long term and complete ban. ] 05:07, 22 August 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).
