| Revision as of 21:49, 26 August 2007 view sourceMercury~enwiki (talk | contribs)9,783 edits →[]: resolve← 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, Administrators83,869 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. --> |
|
|
<!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
== {{user|Watch844}} - proposal to topic-ban == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{discussion top|1=Account has been indefinitely blocked. ] 22:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
::::::I suppose I should slow down and be more clear: I'm not opposing an indef on this user. It's a single purpose account, which renders a topic ban on the individual pointless. That remedy usually goes to editors who make productive edits in other areas but run into trouble at a hot button. My comments in previous posts at this thread have addressed the assertion that a variety of other editors remain disruptive on this topic, but that just aren't as obviously or exclusively disruptive. If someone presents evidence to back up that assertion then I think it would be reasonable for the community to weigh remedies that are article-based in addition to the siteban on this individual. Does that make sense now? <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 12:22, 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) |
|
|
:''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. ]'s adminship is suspended for a period of 30 days. For the arbitration committee, ]<sup>(])</sup> 21:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== {{user|NCdave}} == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{discussion top|1=NCDave is banned from Steven Milloy and related articles including ], ], and ] ] 04:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{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) |
|
|
:::Thanks, but really no need for the apology. Sometimes editors worry that bans are about politics rather than policies. I hope NCdave and others see how that isn't so. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 12:32, 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) |
|
|
*Having just reverted-and-blocked a SPA who'd turned up here on their very first edit, after a careful review of this editor's contributions I endorse the topic ban. This fellow is clearly quite the troll, and further problems must clearly lead to a siteban. One thing, though - his first edit, with the summary - "Corrected numerous factual errors and severe POV bias; added additional information, photo, and links" - and this third - "revert JonGwynne's POV vandalism; however, Dale Arnett's subsequent minor correction was retained" - hello, anyone? Do I hear quacking in the foot-clothing drawer, or is there something perfectly legitimate here that I've missed? ] <sup> ]</sup> 09:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
**Interesting. He started editing during the Terri Schiavo controversy, when there was extensive off-wiki canvassing to enlist editors to "correct" the POV of the Misplaced Pages article (some of this is alluded to in his ]). I assumed that perhaps he had some familiarity with Misplaced Pages-speak via these off-wiki organizational efforts, but who knows. For the record, I'm not aware of any evidence that he's involved in sockpuppetry. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Do you suspect me of sockpuppetry, Moreschi? Well, you're wrong. I've complained to many people about misbehavior of certain editors on Misplaced Pages, in the Steven Milloy article and elsewhere, but I didn't ask that person to create his account, and I didn't write . Every new Wikipedian has a first contribution. I am grateful that his first contribution was here. ] 08:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::No, but I would be fascinated to know how you were using such sophisticated edit summaries, using acronyms for official policy, on your very first edit. BTW, '''someone''' is socking here, because the troll who I reverted-and-blocked was quite clearly an experienced user. ] <sup> ]</sup> 15:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''For the record, ] opposes banning me.''' ] 08:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support topic ban'''. While the block log speaks volumes, the pattern of disruption on the pages is ] in the extreme. NCdave has soapboxed, edit-warred and is now probably sock-puppetted to block-evade - a topic ban in this situation is lenient. This pattern of disruption is one I'm familiar with and one that is far too common on controversial (or simply political) articles - we should have no tolerance for this behaviour in an encyclopedia. That said, I would suggest that the ban be reviewed after a year if NCdave joins ] now. We should try giving them a second chance if they earn it by becoming a constructive editor, however, if they blow that second chance then they have nobody to blame but themselves--] <sup>]</sup> 12:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Disagree with topic ban and ban'''. NCdave is a thoughtful editor who is willing to make changes based on consensus. While working on the Steve Milloy article I saw him jump through a number of hoops to please other editors (read the talk page, it has pages upon pages of his discussion which is more civil than most others). Most editors would rather ignore him than answer his questions and I saw this time and time again at the Steve Milloy article, instead of answering direct questions posed by NCdave, he was ignored and reverted without comment (by many supporting this ban)- then you accuse him of not following a consensus? Please. The fact that he focuses on one topic at a time is irrelevant. --] 15:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:As someone involved in those discussions: The first one or two times NCDave would ask a particular question or make an argument, he would always get a reply. But when he simply repeats the same questions and lines of reasoning time after time, yes, editors--myself included--stop taking the bait. There's a huge difference between this--a reluctance to re-argue debates that we've already been through--and what you describe as "editors would rather ignore him than answer his questions." OTOH, there are numerous questions and points made on the talk page that were posed to NCDave and were completely ignored by him. ] 16:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Suggesting that NCdave has been ignored is, I would argue, incorrect. The talk page shows extensive efforts to address his objections. However, our responses to him were generally ignored, and his objections repeated endlessly, aggressively, and tendentiously, regardless of how many outside editors have come in to disagree with them. It is exhausting to deal with someone whose sole focus is Milloy, who makes dozens of argumentative edits to 5 or 6 different talk pages threads per day, who takes any lapse in response as evidence of consensus, and who edit-wars relentlessly for good measure. I would argue that the talk page and NCdave's history are a testament to a reasonable degree of patience and restraint on the part of editors dealing with him. Although that patience, on my part at least, is officially exhausted. Theblog himself has been a thoughtful, collegial, and constructive contributor to the discussion on Steven Milloy, and has advanced positions similar to NCdave's without the associated tendentiousness. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Disagree with topic ban and ban'''. The Steven Milloy page seems to be pretty relentlessly POV. It reads more like a hit job. From what I see, NCdave is trying to make the article more NPOV and that should be applauded. It's clear that some people feel that Milloy is a stooge for tobacco companies, or oil companies, but that feeling gives the whole article a flavor of "Milloy shouldn't be taken seriously". I don't think that's appropriate, and I think efforts to make it more balanced are not necessarily wrong.{{unsigned|ClearCase Guy}} |
|
|
**User's second edit. ] <sup> ]</sup> 18:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
***It isn't an acceptable solution to an article ] issue to allow one editor to consistently circumvent policies. The issue here is whether NCdave can operate within site standards, not whether his POV is correct in an abstract sense. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 00:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support ban''' - talk page abuse, revert warring and based on his block log, no signs of improvement. ] 22:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' Given the evident violations of ] (or, less probably but just as bad, outside canvassing) noted by ], we should be considering a complete and permanent ban, rather than a topic ban. ] 22:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
**I had initially considered proposing a full siteban, because NCdave has two very serious strikes against him in his behavior at ] and now at ]. I proposed the topic ban instead to provide him with one last chance to demonstrate that he can edit collaboratively on other topics. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Comment''' - NCdave has conacted me by email (I'm presuming others have also been contacted like this). He seems to be seriously considering ]. I have very strong feelings about the kind of editing NCdave was engaged in as there are a number of editors like this in most so-called "controversial" articles which makes editing in them very difficult. But I'm willing to give NCdave a chance ''if'' he proves he is willing to resolve this issue constructively. If he enters WP:ADOPT I think the community should consider a topic ban of limited duration (6-12 months) to be reviewed here at WP:CSN with the in-put of his mentor. Any thoughts?--] <sup>]</sup> 19:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
**'''Comment''': I have seen no on-wiki evidence anywhere that NCdave has ''ever'' acknowledged a problem of ''any'' sort with any aspect of his approach to Misplaced Pages, going all the way back to his RfC through his recent 3RR blocks and this very thread. The difficulties he's encountered have uniformly been blamed entirely on the bias, unfairness, and dishonesty of others. In fact, just today he to a month-old archived 3RR report - a rebuttal consisting mainly of personal attacks, as has his defense below and his . I'm not fundamentally opposed to the idea of revisiting the topic ban in a year if he enters ], if the community feels that's the best approach, but is it too much to ask that he acknowledge that there's a problem, or at the very least, make a post or two without unsupported personal attacks? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::MastCell I 100% agree with you. NCdave has made a number of attacks and uncivil remarks that must be withdrawn immediately. I'm only suggesting that he enter the programme so that he can learn how to behave properly on wikipedia. I'm in absolute solidarity with you MastCell in your position that behaviour of this sort is not only tendentious, but incompatible with building an encyclopedia. If NCdave does not withdraw his attacks and work to become a constructive wikipedian then a permanent topic ban or site ban are the only alternatives--] <sup>]</sup> 21:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::OK. I've always thought forever was a long time, and probably all bans should be open to review after 6 months or a year, so I wouldn't object to that - particularly if he's willing to sign on with an experienced mentor. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
* '''Oppose ban (of course).''' Sorry I've been slow responding, folks; you caught me at a busy time at work. |
|
|
: First let me say that '''if I believed the things that MastCell said about me, I'd ban me, too.''' However, he was not truthful. I don't have time to address all of his accusations tonight, but I'll make a start, and resume later. I have to earn a living. ] 08:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:* Accusation #1: "NCdave is a '''] focused on ].'''" (This was MastCell's first accusation.) <u>'''Untrue.'''</u> |
|
|
:: Reply #1: I've been contributing on Misplaced Pages for 2.5 years, with , including contributions to about '''50 different articles (~30 of them this year),''' in addition to '''contributions to numerous other Talk pages & meta-discussion pages.''' The vast majority of my contributions had nothing at all to do with Steven Milloy. Most of those articles had nothing at all to do with Steven Milloy. At most articles, my edits have been well-received. In fact, '''less than 13 hours before MastCell filed his complaint here I had made several contributions to the ] article,''' which obviously has nothing to do with Steven Milloy. |
|
|
:: '''It would be nice to be able to dismiss MastCell's false accusation as an honest error.''' Maybe he didn't know about my other contributions? Perhaps he got clicked on the wrong user's User Contributions link, and thereby didn't notice all my other work? Unfortunately, that isn't the case. '''Less than an hour before MastCell filed his complaint here,''' I had posted a comment in another "meta discussion" page, one where I'd never contributed before, '''yet MastCell found it and replied''' there just '''minutes before filing his complaint against me here!''' |
|
|
:: Obviously, MastCell knew when he made his SPA accusation that it was untrue. So why should you believe any of his other complaints? ''Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.'' |
|
|
: ] 08:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC) (more coming soon...) |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Please note''': NCdave came to Steven Milloy about 2 months ago, and has made >200 edits to the article and talk pages during that time (see ) with very few on any other topics. Hence ]. NCdave seems to be citing his participation in ] as evidence he's not an SPA. I find that interesting, because a) that is his first and only foray into AfD's and b) it just happens to be an AfD I nominated. One might be tempted to conclude he's following me around. I won't address the accusations of dishonesty, because I think the diffs I've cited speak for themselves there. I will note, though, that today NCdave looked up his month-old 3RR report in the archives and . That's right - to a month-old 3RR report from the archives. I honestly could not provide a more convincing example of the issues with tendentiousness, Wikilawyering, personal attacks, and ] that led me to file this proposal. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Along similar lines''': After ] about this CSN, NCDave's first order of business (beyond to ]) was to me to to ] for '''a month old 3RR violation that ] with by when it was pointed out to me.''' (Obviously, the reviewing admin against me.) Only 1+ days later did he get around to posting his response this CSN here. ] 17:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Support ban'''. Reviewing this user's recent history demonstrates an inability to constructively contribute to the encyclopedia on a number of fronts. I agree with ] that a topic ban (vs. an outright ban) is a gentle application of the guidelines and, while I ''hope'' that MastCell is right in thinking NCdave can change his ways, I'm not going to hold my breath. -- ] 21:26, 23 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> |
|
|
|
|
|
== {{user|NCdave}} -- follow-up == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, come on, Raul654! I wrote that I've been very busy in the real world, and I wrote that my comments were incomplete, but that I would revisit them soon. In the meantime I (obviously) was not editing the ] article, so why the rush? Why ban me before I get a chance to answer the accusations against me? |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know what the procedures are for it, but I would appreciate this discussion being reopened. |
|
|
|
|
|
Note: In response to Cailil's suggestion, I have requested that an experienced mentor me per ]. (If I get adopted, I guess my first question for my mentor should be what the procedure is for getting this discussion reopened.) ] 06:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Furthermore, Raul654 edits the page in question, I do not think he is neutral on the subject- in fact he removed a tag that NCDave argued strongly for on multiple occassions. This is the second time I know of that Raul654 has banned or blocked a user he is in conflict with. I think an immediate unblock is in order on this basis. You can reopen the original discussion, but the block by Raul654 is clearly inappropriate. --] 16:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::In this case, Raul654 was summarizing the consensus of uninvolved editors, which was clearly in favor of the topic ban, rather than exercising any particular administrative powers himself. As to whether the thread should be re-opened, or should have been left open longer, I'll defer that to the uninvolved editors and those with more experience on the workings of this page than I have. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Is that what is supposed to decide such matters? "The consensus of uninvolved editors?" I note that most of the editors who supported the ban are very much involved. How big of a majority does it take to make a "consensus?" |
|
|
:::For what it is worth, I wish I'd been allowed the opportunity to address the accusations made against me. Raul654 shut this down less than 24 hours after I said my comments were incomplete but I'd be back soon. Why the rush? |
|
|
:::Note that I wasn't editing the article in the meantime. ] 17:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: MastCell, do you actually think it is appropriate for an admin in conflict with an editor to decide when to close the thread and to ban the editor? It violates WP:block, but WP:BAN does not have a similar rule spelled out. You have obviously taken quite a bit of time to escalate and go through the process and procedures concerning NCDave- which is how it should be if you feel he is breaking rules. But when an admin in conflict with NCDave come in and bans him before he has even given his side of the story makes a mockery of the whole process.--] 19:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Good news: I have been by a mentor! I hope he can help me avoid tripping over Misplaced Pages's confusing (to me) rules and procedures in the future, and give me good advice for how to better work with some of the other Misplaced Pages editors. ] 18:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I thought it worth trying to evaluate some of the claims in this ban, proposed by MastCell. |
|
|
::NCdave (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account focused on Steven Milloy. |
|
|
a quick perusal of NCDave's contributions shows edits on a large number of subjects from June 2005, through May 2007. The interest in Milloy seems restricted to after June 2007, no doubt due to the habit of a number of editors for making rapid reversions. The charge of ] seems difficult to justify. |
|
|
|
|
|
::He labels edits he disagrees with as "vandalism".] |
|
|
While this is true for this example quoted, it is noteworthy that NCDave explicitly justifies why he has called it vandalism, and that this is a single example. It is not true that NCDave labels all edits as "vandalism". |
|
|
|
|
|
::He repeats the same arguments endlessly without convincing anyone (see the entire Talk:Steven Milloy). |
|
|
TheBlog, EdPoor, myself and others have shared a common viewpoint with NCDave, e.g. ], ], ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
::He then accused me of malfeasance for archiving these "active" threads.] |
|
|
interestingly, reading the talk section quoted does not show the word malfeasance. As I read it, NCDave disagrees with your action, sets out why he disagrees, and asks you to revert. He does not call you names. Neither does what he alleges have anything to do with the legal definition of ]. This accusation is simply untrue. |
|
|
|
|
|
::He accuses those who differ with him of malicious intent ] |
|
|
Formally, the text complains (non-specifically) about Milloy-bashers, and is merely one comment. That isn't an explicit accusation of malicious intent. Moreover, Raul654, an admin, reverted one of NCDave's changes with the terse comment that he was reverting the "whitewash". ] Surely we should have similar standards of behaviour expected from all users ? |
|
|
|
|
|
::He accuses those who differ with him of malicious intent (), defamation |
|
|
this is an extremely serious charge, and is unreferenced. There is a distinction between saying that the text someone writes is potentially defamatory, and saying that the person who wrote it is a defamer. I do not recall NCDave directly accusing people of being defamers. |
|
|
|
|
|
::He accuses those who differ with him of malicious intent..., defamation, lying ], ] |
|
|
|
|
|
The first reference ] does not accuse anyone at Wiki, or any editor thereof, of lying. It says that an advocacy group has published what NCDave holds to be lies. They certainly are claims that are not obviously supported. |
|
|
|
|
|
The second reference ] contains no use of the word "lie", "liar", "lying" in the section quoted. |
|
|
|
|
|
MastCell did undo one of NCDave's edits to introduce a potentially damaging quote by the Tittabawassee River Watch ]. I agree with NCDave that it is unconscionable that an experienced wikipedian could not fail to realise that this was not a reliable source (breach of ], that the charges were not justified and could not fail to realise that the material was extremely damaging, and should have been removed as per ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
The first reference does not support the claim that NCDave accuses anyone on wikipedia of lying. I believe NCDave's second charge, that Mast cell did insert an abusive reference recklessly, is true. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Recently he's gone in for full-on personal attacks and implicit legal threats ] |
|
|
there are no legal threats in the passage cited. To state that a page has a defamatory meaning is not a threat. |
|
|
As regards to NCDave's "full-on personal attacks", Mastcell is making a "full-on personal attack" against me in the cited passage. I agree with NCDave's comments. Specifically, MastCell has not made any reliable reference to justify the charge that I have made legal threats on wikipedia. |
|
|
|
|
|
] has made numerous serious charges. I find that at least four of these explicit claims are without foundation. I find several to be misleading, and several to be entirely justifiable behaviour on NCDave's part. |
|
|
|
|
|
I believe this ban is without foundation, and it is extremely unfortunate that Raul654 implemented the ban so soon after reverting NCDave's edit. |
|
|
] 13:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Block review of Peroxisome == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Discussion top|1=Consensus is that an indefinite block is not appropriate and the checkuser request has not produced evidence of sockpuppetry. Accordingly, I am lifting the block to take into account the five days this editor has already been blocked. ] 11:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{userlinks|Peroxisome}} has been blocked indefinitely by {{user|Raul654 }} for trolling an article talk page. Peroxisome has requested to be unblocked, arguing that what he did was merely presenting his arguments. The unblock request has gone unreviewed for nearly 24 hours. This seems to indicate that deciding whether or not this block was appropriate is a somewhat complicated matter that requires the attention of more editors. This board seems to be a good place to gather consensus on this. Please also read the blocked user's talk page for any arguments he may offer in his defence. This is a procedural post; I have no opinion (yet) on the merits of the block. ] 19:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Additional note: like the above thread, this involves the article ]. ] 19:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* Dang. What is it about Milloy that brings out such love in people. I've never even heard of the guy (guess I need to watch more TV). Anyway, while Peroxisome focuses almost exclusively upon the ] and ] pages, I am not seeing enough strong evidence to convince me that Peroxisome is a troll. In fact, I see where issues raised by Peroxisome with regards to the article have been addressed by editors who disagree with him (such as Mastcell at ) and that Peroxisome appears to be part of a edit dispute over this article. While Peroxisome has made borderline legal threats, I'm not sure there's enough there for an indefinite block. In addition, since Raul654 has edited the Milloy article a few times, I wish he'd let someone else block Peroxisome because of the appearance of a conflict of interest. So I'd say '''lift the block'''.--] 19:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Comment from a non-neutral editor''': While Peroxisome (like NCdave) has occasionally raised very valid issues about the article, they are drowned out (particularly recently) by accusations of defamation and plain argumentativeness. comes to mind; when it became clear that he hadn't actually read the source he was arguing endlessly about, he changed the subject and kept arguing. His posts and edit summaries tend to contain legal threats and accusations of dishonesty (, , ), and he consistently accuses editors of defamation (, ), without troubling himself to bring it up at ] as has been repeatedly suggested. He has the ''de rigeur'' (though none recently, I should note). Would I have blocked him for his behavior, were I an uninvolved admin? Probably not. Am I sorry to see him blocked? Not at all; he seems to revel in provoking a reaction and his constructive input is far outweighed by his approach, in my opinion. Let me be clear: I ''welcome'' differing or opposing views on the Milloy page, because without them the article tends to drift too far in one direction. But NCdave, and to a lesser extent Peroxisome, are not hapless editors being persecuted for holding a minority viewpoint. Their behavior in advancing that viewpoint is at issue. That's my 2 cents as an involved and obviously non-neutral editor; I'm glad that this is up here, though, because I would prefer to see some objective feedback about this block. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::For the record, MastCell's accusation that I have been pushing my POV is untrue. I have always sought to make the Milloy page (and every other article to which I've contributed) balanced and neutral. MastCell does not welcome differing or opposing views on the Milloy page, he routinely ''deletes'' information that does not support his POV. In contrast, I rarely delete anything, I just try to make the article factual and balanced, and include both sides of each issue. ] 17:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Unblock''', I reviewed his comments on the talk page in question and it does not appear to be trolling to me, I honestly think those are his thoughts, regardless, it is a pure judgement call. Additionally, the fact that admin who blocked him was actively engaged in the discussion and editting of the article is I believe a clear violation of the rules and calls for an immediate unblock. Don't they de-admin people for that? --] 21:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Support changing to temporary block.''' Like the above two editors, I am involved in the dispute and non-neutral. I was a bit surprised to see an indefinite block dropped on him (though I'm still a newbie, and maybe this is standard practice in cases like these). I support a temporary block to allow him another chance, but I do think that it should be some sort of longish block. I agree that in the past he made some useful contributions to the article, but as of late he's been nothing but tendentious. Arguing ''ad nauseum'' that 1 + 1 does not, in fact, equal 2—as he was doing in —is not useful, doesn't help the project, and is only disruptive. Action against such behaviour is called for, though perhaps not as strong the one that was doled out. ] 22:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
**'''Comment.''' While Peroxisome's behavior over at ] has been less than helpful, NCdave's conduct was much worse. The fact that NCdave only got a topic ban for his bad behavior, reinforces my view that Peroxisome's full-site-forever ban is too harsh. I favor instead a topic ban like that issued for NCdave, or a shorter site-wide block. If, however, the suspicion of sockpuppetry on part of peroxisome turns out to be founded, then I would favor the indefinite site-wide ban.] 17:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Support changing to temporary block.''' I'm also involved. I don't find Peroxisome at all helpful, and he's clearly a single-purpose campaigner (I've also encountered him on these topics outside Misplaced Pages). Still, I'd prefer to reserve permanent blocks as a last resort, for cases like that of NCDave.] 23:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Support changing to temporary block''' per Yilloslime and JQ. Unlike the case of NCDave, there is a non-negligible possibility that Peroxisome could become a constructive editor. ] 00:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* I almost unblock this fellow earlier, but I couldn't get a good enough handle on the contentious article in question. I'd support making it a shorter block. --] 00:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* Support indef on the basis of this post. Would agree with shortening it if the editor withdraws it and pledges to stop posting legalistic arguments. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 00:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
**I did ask him to stop with the charges of defamation (or go to ]), and was his response. Of course, maybe the community will have better luck. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
***What is your complaint about , Durova? It is a very gentle and polite explanation of one of the reasons for his article contributions. The warning tag about WP:BLP says, "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." Are you suggesting that it is some kind of offense to allude to that policy in polite Talk page comments? Peroxisome's measured comments are well-taken and reasonable. ] 08:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
****Given how often and opportunistically the BLP card has been played, I feel compelled to point out that ] also says: ''"If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."'' ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*****And if it isn't it doesn't. ] 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Note''' that Peroxisome has commented on this thread on ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Note regarding abusive sockpuppetry''': I whether he had any connection to the two brand-new accounts which commented on NCdave's proposed ban above. was his (non-)answer. I asked him again and got . I have filed a checkuser request. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:I banned Peroxisome from commenting at my blog, and he returned using several sock puppets, so he has form here. --] 05:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Tim, were I a betting man, I would bet serious money that Peroxisome has <u>not</u> engaged in sockpuppetry. I, too, have been falsely accused of sockpuppetry, which I've never done. It is wrong to voice mere <u>suspicions</u> as outright <u>accusations</u>. Your buddy. MastCell, is an admin, and has the ability to track down IP addresses and determine which ones are sock puppets. You should do such checks ''before'' you make potentially erroneous accusations. |
|
|
::MastCell says that he is doing a "checkuser request," which I presume is a check of IP addresses and user names, to identify sock puppets. I don't know how long that takes, or how it works, but I hope you will encourage him to share the results here. |
|
|
::Also, I note that one of of the two accounts that MastCell calls "brand-new accounts" has actually been around since 2006. How is that brand-new? ] 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The vast majority of admins can't do a checkuser. Because of privacy concerns (among other reasons), checkuser tools are authorized for only a very small number of people. ] 17:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::NCdave, I don't have the ability to check IP addresses. The check will be performed by an outside editor. I have filed a request at ], where the results will be visible to anyone who cares to look. Those accounts belong to an experienced user; few people are directly involved in this issue enough to care to use socks to comment; Peroxisome just happens to be blocked at the moment; and he's regarding the accounts. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but there are clearly grounds to look into the issue of sockpuppetry. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I stand corrected. Thank you for that information. I look forward to the answer when it arrives. Will you post it here? ] 17:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Yes. ] indicates that Peroxisome is ''unrelated'' to the two new accounts which commented on the above thread. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Lift the block.''' Peroxisome is a careful and uniformly reasonable editor, certainly never a troll. He raised very legitimate issues about the article in question, but was routinely reverted and insulted by MastCell and others. MastCell has an axe to grind, because when MastCell did six reverts of the article on the same day, Peroxisome filed a against MastCell. ] 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
**'''Comment''': Me again? I didn't block Peroxisome, I didn't discuss his block on- or off-wiki with Raul654, and I made it explicit, in my comment here, that I am not neutral on the subject of Peroxisome. I realize that you've relied on singling me out and attacking me in your 3RR violations, your unblock requests, and your topic-ban discussion. People might give more credence to your position that Peroxisome should be unblocked if you tried a different approach here. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Action?''' This thread appears to be circling the drain. In the interest of a speedy and fair resolution for Peroxisome, I'll note that checkuser did not indicate he's engaged in sockpuppetry, and there appears to be a consensus, even among editors in conflict with him, to lift or shorten his block. As a side note: I'm asking any uninvolved admin who is watching this thread or considering unblocking Peroxisome to please keep an eye on the situation after doing so. There are real issues here, though an indefinite block may not be the appropriate response at this time, and I'd like some outside, uninvolved eyes on the situation going forward. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
{{Discussion bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== {{user|Jmfangio}} and {{user|Chrisjnelson}}: proposed topic ban == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{discussion top|1='''Withdrawn proposal''': editors pledge to a voluntary solution. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
In relation to ] I propose a topic ban on these two editors. Jmfangio has expressed support of this idea as long as it applies to both users. Consistent edit warring on (American) football topics has led to blocks and disruption. If the community accepts this then restrictions would apply as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
*No posts to football-related articles or templates for either editor. |
|
|
*A limit of one talk page post per day, per football-related article on each of these two editors. |
|
|
*Related topic parole on other sports: administrators may block for disruption if they determine that the dispute has bled onto some other sports article.¹ |
|
|
*These restrictions would remain in effect until the day after the next Superbowl or until the close of arbitration (if arbitration opens). |
|
|
|
|
|
¹With the exceptions of men's figure skating, synchronized swimming, and croquet. |
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, the footnote is a joke, but otherwise it's a serious proposal. The aim is to minimize collateral damage at frequently visited articles that are popular points of entry for new editors. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I like this idea. Arbcom cases take forever. If Chris agrees to it, I think it would be acceptable to implement voluntarily without having to gain a consensus to do so.--] - ] 01:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:* Please review ] where i suggested a temporary topic ban. To clarify my positioin - i will only do this if a) there is some movement with the RFC and RFA. B) This applies to Chrisjnelson as well. C) This is only temporary until the RFC and RFA have finished. The true problem here is not the content, it's the behavior. I will not agree for this until the end of the next super bowl. D) No limit on my talk page posts. The colateral damage here is that I have agreed to walk away from many many individual articles already and the other user has made no such concessions. As you will see by the RFC, the evidence is substantial and as I have done nothing but defend the content and myself when admins fail to take any responsible action - i can't agree to any "sanction" that is not related to the conclusion of these two "procedures". <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">]|]</span></small> 02:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:WADR to Durova, who I think has done a good job of putting this together, it really needs to go to arbitration. Just a cross-topic ban doesn't address all of the issues. --] 02:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Sorry, I just don't feel I deserve this. I think it'd be bad for Misplaced Pages.►''']''' 02:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
With the ] note: I have attempted to mediate and participated in the RFC. |
|
|
|
|
|
Past behavior has resulted in disruption to the project. While it is ''my hope that all contributers can contribute productivly'' to the project, this simply is not going to happen. Sometimes contributers will take disputes heavily, and this will damage the project by ways of page protection and blocks for disruption. The page will be a popular point of entry as Durova suggests, so I'll not want to see disruption about and around those pages. |
|
|
|
|
|
I will support this proposal, voluntarily preferred '''or''' involuntarily by community sanction. Best regards, ] <sup> ] </sup> 02:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:I still support the arbitration request. The Committee is slow in deciding whether to take this case and the season might be half over before it concludes. So an interim community measure makes sense: I put a higher priority on stable articles than on the merits of either side in this particular debate. Note also that ArbCom could lift the restriction while the case is ongoing if a party raises a motion and makes a good case for it. Best wishes to all, <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:* Here's my concern Durova - we have yet again a stand off. I'm not whole heartedly agreeing with your proposed scenario - but seeing as i opened up a request for this myself - isn't it clear that I'm willing to work toward some peace? If you spend some time at the RFC, you will see that i recently added examples of him doing the same thing to another user. He comes here and says "It'd be bad for wikipedia" ... i mean come on - stoping a wide spread dispute is somehow a bad thing? This is why my faith in the system has failed. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">]|]</span></small> 02:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Posturing doesn't help find a peaceful solution. --] 03:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You both had the option to enter your own binding agreement during ]. That didn't work out. Now - although of course I'd prefer the support of one or both parties - I'm proposing this for the community's benefit. It's in the community's hands now. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 03:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' topic ban per B and Durova. Given that the involved parties appear deeply dug-in to their positions, the community must step in. We need to reduce time spent on refereeing and get back to editing an encyclopedia. ] 03:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Where has B said that B supports the topic ban? (I don't support it - I don't think it addresses the issues that need to be addressed. It's like trying to stop a forest fire by cutting down on saturated fats.) --] 04:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Okay so... no ban is necessary. Let Jmfangio edit whatever he wants, and I just won't. All I would really like to edit the ] article and the templates at ] - two things Jmfangio has shown pretty much no interest in (if any at all). Can I just agree to stop doing anything with the infobox, adding it anywhere, edit warring with him or anything and just edit those things on my own? I want to do the Dolphins article in particular, because I'm trying to make it a very deep article that will be interesting to look back on years from now. None of this ban stuff is necessary.►''']''' 03:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*I support this at least as a temporary measure while the ArbCom case proceeds, if it is ultimately accepted. If Jmfangio and Chrisjnelson are willing to agree not to edit the articles which have previously been in contention during that time, I believe it could go a long way toward resolving the issue. I don't see that there's been any problem on the two articles Chrisjnelson brings up, so I see no harm in allowing those two as an exception unless anyone else sees any issue. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Bravo to the two editors involved for both offering to stand down. --'''<span style="background:Black;color:White"> ]|]|] </span>''' 04:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
(outdent)Thanks, Chris. How about this modification to the proposal? Both editors can choose two (different and uncontroversial) football articles and edit there as long as they don't cause disruption. Jmfangio, would you like to choose two of your own? If this proposal passes, you'd be banned from the rest of the topic for a little while but welcome to raise a couple of your favorite pages to featured status (and if you actually succeed at reaching ], ], or ] I'll give you a barnstar). <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't think he should be banned from editing anything. He can edit whatever he wants here at Misplaced Pages, including the articles/templates I said I'd like to focus on. All I'm saying is that's all ''I'' want to work on, and that I'm willing to drop everything else. I don't think there is any immediate need for a ban of any kind on either of us, unless it is felt one or both of us deserves punishment for our past violations.►''']''' 04:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Remedies are preventative, not punitive. So per your offer I'll withdraw the proposal. If problems resume I (or anyone else) could renew it. Best wishes. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:48, 23 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> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ] opened == |
|
|
|
|
|
An Arbitration case, ], has been opened. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ''']''' 00:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. ] is banned for one year. For the arbitration committee, ]<sup>(])</sup> 21:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==] opened== |
|
|
An Arbitration case, ], has been opened. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] ] 23:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<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.'' {{#if:This case fits the bill of complex. Try ] or ]. ] <sup> ] </sup> 17:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)|''A summary of the conclusions reached follows.'' |
|
|
::This case fits the bill of complex. Try ] or ]. ] <sup> ] </sup> 17:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
}} <!-- from Template:discussion top--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== THF == |
|
|
|
|
|
] has a known and acknowledged conflict of interest in respect of Michael Moore. As far as I can tell he has voluntarily undertaken to step back from these articles. In order to damp down the dispute and put an end to the endless discussion threads I propose that we formally record that THF should not directly edit articles relating to Michael Moore or his films, that he is welcome to contribute suggestions on the relevant Talk pages, but that he should not propose links to his own writing on the subject, or discuss such links without noting that he is the author. This restriction will solve the substantive issue with THF's involvement with these topics and make it unnecessary for others to note his real identity, a technical infringement of the ] even if the source of the information is THF himself. |
|
|
|
|
|
If this is endorsed by the community and accepted by THF, I will undertake to contact the webmasters of michaelmoore.com and ask them to remove their attacks on Misplaced Pages editor THF. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 07:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I disagree with this resolution, which gives in to intimidation tactics, and implies that Moore's initial criticism had any basis in fact. I make no requests regarding whether WP should take any sanctions against Moore, other than that Misplaced Pages enforce whatever policy it has evenly, and treat this situation precisely the same way one would treat it if an anti-global-warming website were to start attacking Misplaced Pages editors it disagreed with. With respect to ], I've stated my position at ], and won't repeat it here. ] 16:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I can't speak for THF, but as far as I know I don't believe he's volunteered to step back from the Michael Moore articles. There is an ] at COI/N, and there seems to be some consensus that while THF may have a POV on Moore, his POV does not necessarily translate into COI, and in fact there have been no abusive edits presented that would indicate a problem. It's still an open case though, so see the discussion for details. ] 08:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It will be easier to evaluate your proposal here if you provide ]. Also, is THF willing to do this without the community's intervention? ] <sup> ] </sup> 08:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*This issue focuses solely on the Michael Moore issues, which appear to the Achilles tendon of THF. There are two issues that have gotten THF into trouble, where he has caused massive disruption to the Misplaced Pages project: '''1. to insert into 25 Misplaced Pages film pages a ''' that he authored and his employer published.; and '''2. to have MichaelMoore.com labeled an attack site''' and removed from Misplaced Pages because it did what THF did for the last year, which was reveal who he is, that he is an outspoken public critic of Michael Moore, and that he edits ''all'' of the Michael Moore pages. This public feud THF has with Michael Moore has been brought to Misplaced Pages, and it has become very disruptive to the project, with talk of throwing Moore "to the dogs" not to "reward" Michael Moore by including links to his pertinent website, et. al. During the film fiasco, THF actually argued that it would be ''.'' THF does not want us to talk about who he is, so he ]'s the policies and guidelines. On one hand, he links to Moore's website that "outs" him and he tries to get work authored by himself and published by his employer into multiple articles; he then follows that . How are we supposed to discuss THF's edits and their context when he is trying to put his own material into the project and his outside feud with Moore is relevant (relevant enough for Moore to acknowledge it)? I do not see how THF can expect ] to apply to him when he himself continually outs himself. THF becomes the 800 pound gorilla in the room. This is not what our policies and guidelines were drawn up for: we are here to protect private individuals who want to contribute, not public individuals who work for employers whose very nature is public policy disputes and issues, who go out and speak publicly on national airwaves and television programs about the issues he edits, etc. If THF is willing to speak publicly on Fox News, NPR, the Washington Post and internationally on the BBC, why are his edits on Misplaced Pages over the same topics supposed to conceal his identity? So that he doesn't suffer harassment off-wiki? Then why does he speak publicly with his identity revealed over those very same topics? Does anyone else see how silly this is. It would be a different story if most of us made the same edits, since our careers don't revolve around the very topics that we edit; but THF's career does. He presents himself to the public countless times on these topics, and the public has the ability to contact him about the issues he talks about in the Wall Street Journal, so why is Misplaced Pages a special animal for him, where we are concealing his identity? This is his job, and I don't see where any of our internal policies regarding protecting the identities of average people apply when a person is already public, exposing them to public comment and scrutiny, over the exact same issues. If ] edits the Rush Limbaugh pages or the Al Franken pages, it's a different case, because MessedRocker isn't writing editorials in the Wall Street Journal and Businessweek over the same issues, and his career and actions outside of Misplaced Pages, where he essentially remains anonymous, are irrelevant. THF's career and life outside of Misplaced Pages are synonymous with the edits he makes. Michael Moore was right in pointing out who THF is, since THF is ''already'' a public critic of Moore and he is simply using Misplaced Pages as ''another public platform'' for his criticisms. If what Moore did, which was state facts, is considered an "attack" then by logical analogy, so is what THF does to the Moore's articles. Nobody contends that either individual is reporting anything but facts, and THF is already public about his feelings on Moore and his work. So why are we concealing something that THF does not already conceal in both national and international press mediums? --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 14:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Can you provide diffs for what you claim? I'd like to investigate for myself the edits that are considered controversial, but I'm not about to go searching through thousands of edits to find them. ] 14:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I supplied I think three or four diffs. If you want more, please let me know which issue and I will hunt them down. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 15:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::David: none of those diffs are article edits (most seem to be civil talk page debates), and none raises any red flag for me. If this were an anonymous editor, there would be no problem with those diffs. Are there others? ] 16:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::'''And after all this acrimony and disruption, THF now he has "nothing to hide."''' Huh? That might come as news to many of his supporters.--<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 15:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I do have nothing to hide. I have done nothing wrong. I was asking for ]ity in an effort to stem harassment. This seems to have backfired, so I am shrugging my shoulders. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::This is now the '''ninth''' forum where David has raised these COI complaints about a content dispute, which are wildly misleading. '''Every''' single edit he is complaining about occurred on a '''talk page'''. ] expressly permits an editor with a COI to disclose the COI and request a proposed edit. In good faith, I suggested that my published point of view was notable, and thus merited inclusion under NPOV. David (who has ) objected strenuously, making 17 talk-page comments with a variety of libelous personal attacks. I made 9 talk-page comments responding and defending my proposed edit. After an RFC, consensus was not to include the cite to my writing. It was never added to the main page. That dispute ended more than '''two weeks ago'''. Multiple complaints by David to COIN and ANI found I had done nothing wrong other than possibly overreact to some trolling. Where is the problem? ] 16:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::*You can keep counting all you want, I don't know how this helps your argument; I was asked to comment here on my Talk page. I also dare you bring a ] suit - we've been both been to law school, and if you are going to use such strong terminology then follow it up with action. I take extreme exception to your Wikilawyering and use of legal terms that have no bearing. So bring your suit for libel. Let's see how meritorious it is. Otherwise, please refrain from making scurrilous accusations just because I've "called your number".--<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 17:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::], David, I never suggested that I was going to sue you, just that you made false statements about me that necessitated a response. I further note that if one of Chip Berlet's or WMC's political opponents went after them with hundreds of edits that were personal attacks forum-shopped over a dozen pages over a two-week-old content dispute on a talk page that never once entered mainspace they would have been blocked three or four times by now. You've made your lengthy case repeatedly, now let others discuss it. ] 17:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::We are both trained as attorneys, THF, so do not use legal terms that have no legal bearing. The diff you provided applies to your commentary regarding liability reform, etc., not to how you rank documentaries and what qualifies as a documentary. You have no notability in this regard. If you continue to raise new arguments I will continue to respond to them, and asking me not to do so is a bit ]. |
|
|
:::::David: it is clear that several editors were insistent on revealing THF's identity against his wishes, and there was a minor edit war on that template. So it seems THF's action to quell that dispute (by adding the link himself) is a gracious concession on his part. If you consider me "one of his supporters", well you might like to know I support the decision he made. (Though, in fact, I am in no way a "supporter" of THF - only of Misplaced Pages policy). ] 16:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:THF should be banned from any political (or politicized) articles on which his employer, the American Enterprise Institute, has taken a stand. It's a clear conflict of interest for him to be editing these articles. ] 15:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::My employer takes no stands. It is nonpartisan think tank with a collection of scholars who frequently disagree with one another. ] and ] and I have three different opinions about federalism and tort reform, for example. ] and I disagree with ] about many bioethics issues. I disagree with ] on a number of legal issues. ] has published articles on the Roberts Court that are 180 degrees opposite of what I've published on the subject. ] 16:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
With respect to ], (1) I don't have a COI; and (2) even if I did have a COI, my edits are consistent with ], because I discuss them on the talk page first several hours in advance. |
|
|
|
|
|
If the argument is "THF has a conflict of interest because he doesn't like Moore," or "THF has a conflict of interest because he is right-wing," then I ask that COI guidelines be applied consistently and that every editor on the page who likes Moore or is left-wing be barred from editing the page, and the page be turned over to a set of people who have no opinions about Moore whatsoever. A look at the page's edit history (and at edits I have made) show that it's not the editors of the page who don't like Moore who are POV-pushing. |
|
|
|
|
|
If the argument is "THF has a conflict of interest because he has written about Moore," then this is a misreading of the COI guideline. So long as I don't edit the mainspace article to include ''my'' writing on Moore, I am not violating COI guidelines. Any other interpretation of the COI policy would demand that people with expertise in the subject cannot edit Misplaced Pages simply because they have published. Perhaps that's the rule Misplaced Pages wants, but then it should be enforced evenly, and all of the other academics should be kicked off the project also. Chip Berlet and William Connolley regularly edit (often self-promotionally) in the fields of their expertise, and when trolls repeatedly accuse them of the "appearance of COI," the trolls are blocked. I should not be treated any differently, so long as my mainspace edits are good-faith efforts to comply with Misplaced Pages policy. I have ~7000 edits on Misplaced Pages: if I am a POV-pusher, surely someone can find a '''mainspace diff''' of something I have done wrong. David's diffs are all to talk-page discussion in an effort to generate consensus--exactly what collaborative editing is all about. |
|
|
|
|
|
If the argument is "THF's former employer was hired in 2004 by a pharmaceutical company all because the pharmaceutical company hoped that, three years later, THF, when he worked for a completely different employer, would make Misplaced Pages-policy-compliant edits to an article about a movie about health care, all because he performed some legal work on a completely different unrelated subject for the pharmaceutical company," I suggest that that is a self-refuting argument, and that anyone who makes it got it from an attack site that demonstrates their own COI under even application of the policy. ] 16:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
: First I think THF has been fair in being known for the person he is. If he had wanted to, he could have been an anonymous editor on Wiki, and much of the arguments in this discussion would be invalidated. |
|
|
: On the other hand, I doubt whether it is ''wise'' for him to engage in Wiki articles on which he has an obvious point of view, which may not be neutral. Perhaps it may indeed be wise to have this voluntary "no-edit" policy, but I don't think that is something that needs enforcement. ] 16:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
===The issue is not COI, the issue is disruption=== |
|
|
The problem here is not one of COI, the problem is one of disruptive editing and Wikilawyering. I've outlined this case in my above comment. Our policies and guidelines protecting user anonymity are there to protect the NYPD police officer who makes a factual but unflattering edit to the ] page, and should his identity be found out, may have ramifications for him with his job. However, if ], a Bloomberg opponent, began editing the Mayor's page, his identity would be pertinent to the discussion, and our guidelines and policies would not protect Ferrer. The situation with THF is analogous to the Ferrer situation, not the police officer. THF's career is to criticize public figures that disagree with his ideological point of view, and in the situation at hand, with ] in particular. Our guidelines and policies are there to protect those of us who are not public figures so that we may edit with knowledge we possess without fear of negative consequences in our waking life. Harassment, death threats, stalking, job problems. THF, who now says he has nothing to hide, so I am guessing he does not mind being called ], has none of these issues and if he does, they are probably more a problem when he goes on Fox News than when he edits Misplaced Pages. Therein lies the rub: Ted has wanted to protect his identity against "unseen forces" on Misplaced Pages that he curiously is not concerned about when he goes on national television, with his face, employer and identity for a much larger audience to see. The problems I see for sanctioning, since this is the sanction board, are as follows: |
|
|
#THF's ] - using and abusing the letter of policies and guidelines with no concern for the spirit of why these were intended. This has caused a massive amount of disruption on the Misplaced Pages Project. He argues he should be protected by rules that are not there to protect ] or ] when they bring their public disputes onto Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
#THF's ] - He has consumed the ANI board over the last week asking to have pertinent content removed from articles, in this case ] and his sub pages, because Moore fingered a known, notable public critic of his as one of his main Misplaced Pages editors. THF has instigated disruptive edits and made them himself by ] our policies and guidelines. |
|
|
#THF's ] - when a person authors an unnotable piece as THF did, and then argues strenuously to have it included, going so far as saying it is a violation of policy ''not'' to include it, they are violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the COI guidelines. When a person who has a public feud with another public person, such as ], and then efforts to have that person's content removed from Misplaced Pages, it violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the COI guidelines. |
|
|
Those are my arguments for sanctioning. <br>--<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 17:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'm sorry, but I have to point out that your argument currently contradicts itself, as you say in the very first sentence that "''The problem here is not one of COI, the problem is one of disruptive editing and Wikilawyering''," yet your very last point at the bottom of your post says COI. —''']''' 17:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::The phrasing and inclusion were on purpose. The COI argument is the least of the problems with THF, yet above it is the only argument framed. The other two issues are the more serious and go to the heart of the matter. Although I am of the opinion that there are COI issues at stake, reasonable minds have differed on all three of the COI incidents that involved THF. The main problems are #1 and #2. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 17:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*Here it is... the ban proposal suggests a mainspace ban... I'm asking for some ] to mainspace. And if we could correlate those to ] it would be helpful. Additionally, precedent at this board is to close proposals that are complex... the arbitration committee is more suited for complex cases, so if it turns out research needs to be done, and a straightforward case cannot be presented, I'll probably close this thread provided an absense of substantial objection to that. With regards, ] <sup> ] </sup> 17:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:*I don't feel that THF's behavior needs to only apply to mainspace, since he has used our policies and guidelines to tie everyone up in what is a public feud with Michael Moore. I feel the diffs I have provided above point to this problem. A person can work behind the scenes and cause as much disruption as when they edit the mainspace. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 17:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Please note that I responded to the claims of disruption in an apology on ] before I knew this thread existed. I won't repeat them here, though I note that David is violating ] once again by repeating false accusations on multiple pages instead of directing people to one talk page. |
|
|
|
|
|
If we're going to talk about disruption, then this needs to go to arb, because out of the two of me and David, it's quite clear who is being more disruptive. I have repeatedly acted to end disputes by conceding issues where I had good-faith arguments for continuing to stand for consistent enforcement of wikipedia policy, and David has refused to relent on anything or assume good faith, even in areas where his arguments were repeatedly rejected, and has repeatedly acted to throw fuel on the fire. And that's just on-wiki: off-wiki, we get to David's use of Misplaced Pages email servers to send off-wiki threats in an effort to intimidate me to yield on a content dispute. As I discussed off-wiki with several admins, I had been willing to bury the hatchet on that, and let bygones be bygones in the hopes that David would stop ]ing me, but it seems that nothing is going to end David's vendetta against me without an express command from the arbitrators that he should leave me alone. His conduct is extraordinarily disruptive and not acceptable. ] 17:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I am in agreement. As the top of this page says: ''Complex or ambiguous cases should go to dispute resolution''. This is becoming disruptive all by itself, I would suggest an RFC or ArbCom. ] 17:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*For all of the arguments THF raises against me, my Talk page carries no admonishments. Curious that, considering how public this issue is. THF posts different responses all over the place, instead of directing people to one place, and then when I respond to those, I am ]. THF, I e-mailed to raise to your attention that you edit Misplaced Pages a lot during the work day, and asked if you were concerned someone might raise this to the attention of your employer. I never said I would, and trust me, THF, I have a pretty full life and have no desire to try and harm your employ. If I really wanted to make it a threat, I wouldn't have e-mailed via Wikimedia servers, which I used b/c I didn't want to use your AEI address to ask the question - duh. I assumed (correctly) you had a different address assigned to your Misplaced Pages account than your employer's. I apologized, however, because the question was asked in a heated moment. Like there was no "attack" on you by Michael Moore, there was no "threat" by me in that e-mail. I've encouraged you to bring this up at ArbCom, and I was the one who first talked about it on-wiki. Other editors, admins even, raised the same issue with you. If you stop the disruption, the constant ANI threads over your identity, etc. I don't think this need go any further. Otherwise, I'm willing to take it as far as it needs to go. I only re-entered this issue with you once you started the thread to have MichaelMoore.com removed from Misplaced Pages, you may note. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 17:53, 26 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> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<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.'' ''A summary of the conclusions reached follows.'' |
|
|
::Create a new account, contribute constructively, and don't visit past behavior or persona. ] I did comment on this discussion, so if the templates need to be undone for more discussion, go ahead. ] <sup> ] </sup> 19:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
---- <!-- from Template:discussion top--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Overturning community ban on ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have spoken to Willy on Wheels about his community ban (I know him in real life, yes, the original one), and he has said he would like to '''return to Misplaced Pages.''' |
|
|
He has told me '''all of the accounts he has used''', and that a LOT of people are imitating his old "move-page-on-wheels" routine, which, he says, is no longer amusing any more. |
|
|
|
|
|
He would like his ban overturned, if the community are willing to do such a thing. He told me he hasn't been active since at least early 2006 - and anyone who's moved pages "on wheels" here, or on Wikibooks/quote/tionary/versity or any other wikipedia since February 2006 is not him. |
|
|
|
|
|
He's also told me he's not using {{userlinks|195.188.152.16}} any more, and has said that he recognises he was wrong, and says that he's glad his notorious ] page is gone - as it is, he said it was "the old me", and that "page-move vandalism is no fun". |
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, if the community would like to forgive him, then I hope he can be ]. --] 17:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*I would recommend ]. Regards, ] <sup> ] </sup> 17:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* His name is pretty stigmatized -- he may be better off registering a new account and starting fresh. ] (]) 17:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*I agree with MessedRocker - I don't see how he can expect to productively edit with that name. That would cause too much disruption and raise too many hackles. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 18:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*Navou, a ] was filed in June, but rejected outright. Anyway, I know him in real life, and he's said "page-move vandalism is no fun". MessedRocker, whilst your idea sounds good, wouldn't that technically violate ]?? Anyhow, Willy's given me a list of '''all his accounts he used.''' Want me to post them here?? I'll admit I'm a bit of a ], but it's better if the community can forgive and forget. He's also told me any accounts registered after February 2006 that have "on wheels" are not him, he said it was no longer fun to move pages then. |
|
|
OK, I think I've explained myself... this is all for the best, eh?? Oh, and Willy isn't asking for ''the original account'' to be unbanned - but for permission to come back! (doing things the legit way!!) --] 18:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Frankly it would be better for him just to start a new account, without letting anyone know. The amount of scrutiny he would face if it were known that he were the person behind WoW would likely drive him back off again. As long as he's contributing in good faith, it doesn't matter, does it? ~ ] 18:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*While this is a technical violation of ], if he registers a new account, and edits productivly, I don't see how anyone would notice the difference. ]. ] <sup> ] </sup> 18:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
**I'd tend to agree with Navou. If he comes back, and edits so productively no one ever even dreams it's him, what's the difference? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*If the arbitration committee refused to consider the request so recently, why should the community consider it? Poor decisions have consequences. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 18:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
**Right. If he wants to come back as a totally new user, with no reference whatsoever to Willy, and behaves well, we won't even notice. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yes, but how do we let Willy (or WoW as you dubbed him), come back ''without'' violating ]. I mean, if someone like ] tried to do what Jp Gordon suggested, wouldn't that be a violation of such?? I'm just trying to do this fairly and squarely, playing by the rules. --] 18:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::There's technical violations, and then there's reality. In reality, if ''anyone'' who's been disruptive to the point of banned in the past comes back, edits productively, and stays well away from the old behavior that got them in trouble, no one will ever even suspect it's the old troublemaker. Of course, if they go back to the problematic behavior, they'll quickly be found out and the new account blocked too. Even if everything you say is true, and WoW wants to come back and edit productively, the best and least disruptive way for him to do it is to create a new account, play nicely, and never mention his old incarnation at all. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Just so. On the other hand, if he starts up by creating multiple usernames in a short period of time, he'll probably be noticed. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Echo Seraphimblade - It seems like as long as he doesn't go moving pages "on wheels" nobody will ever notice him. His notoriety didn't come from his subjects, but from his vandalism. --<font color="#0000C0">David</font> ''']''' 19:02, 26 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> |
|
|
|
|
|
<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.'' ''A summary of the conclusions reached follows.'' |
|
|
::User already blocked indef. ] <sup> ] </sup> 21:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
---- <!-- from Template:discussion top--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Vandal|Theodore7}} has returned to Misplaced Pages, now his soft-ban on astronomy- and astrology-related articles has expired (see ] for details). He is again inserting his own unsourced points of view into articles and revert warring over them. As he has not used the time during his soft-ban to demonstrate that he can be a productive editor, I propose to ban him indefinitly. —'']'' 19:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*Support, this POV warring troll waited virtually precisely only so long as his ban lasted, and is as Ruud notes, now back to his old habits. The only one he has managed to improve upon is his personal attacks and civility transgressions, and as ''that'' ban still has a further six months, I surmise that for some reason he thinks only the ArbCom ruling binds him to following policies. He has added nothing but strife, edit warring, OR, POV and multiple references to Jimbo on talk pages (as supposed support for his actions) since he registered. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:06, 26 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> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Isarig == |
|
|
*] (<span class="plainlinks">] '''·''' ] '''·''' '''·''' ] '''·''' {{#ifexist:{{SITENAME}}:Requests for checkuser/Case/{{ucfirst:{{{User|Isarig}}}}}| '''·''' ]}}) |
|
|
|
|
|
] has been a notable revert warrior here on Israel-related articles for two years. When not at ] as an offender, he is there reporting editors who have mutually violated 3RR ''alongside him'' in edit wars. He was recently ] for extensive warring at ], but un-blocked two days early for promising to cease his perpetual edit warring. Despite the aforementioned leniency in his most recent block, it ] that Isarig has moved from edit-warring on his main account to edit-warring with the assistance of sockpuppets. Isarig unapologetically continues his edit war here on Misplaced Pages, ] (going so far as to accuse other editors of participating in Hamas' kidnappings amongst other incivility and personal attacks), and has now moved to evasive means of disruption (sockpuppetry) after promising administrators he would cease his edit wars. |
|
|
|
|
|
This is deliberate deception and a malevolent use of Misplaced Pages as a battleground. I hold that Isarig has exhausted the community's patience, and should be community banned. If not completely community banned, I propose a topic ban on Isarig (and any accounts operated by Isarig) against editing any articles related to the ] and greater ]. Submitted by ]<sup>]</sup> 20:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Support full ban'''. If no community consensus for a full ban, a topic ban from articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli conflicts. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*Support ban. Were it not for the sockpuppetry, I would more strongly support a topic ban; as it is, I will support either but IMO a full ban is indicated. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* It's evident that other policy measures have failed here and other editors are being affected outwith the topic space by 3RR bans brought about due to Isarig. ] 20:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Comment''' this is not "Misplaced Pages users for deletion"; I ask the preceding users to consider <strike>striking out their pseudo-votes</strike> elaborating on their reasoning. Has anyone considered the idea of mentorship? Might Isarig be willing to be mentored voluntarily? ] 20:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::''Bans are a last resort against editors who behave problematically for a long period of time, and are not used unless there is no other way to stop disruptive behavior. Requesting a ban against an editor is not a step to be taken lightly or without trying other means to resolve the situation first.'' Isarig agreed to cease his edit warring, then immediately resumed his edit warring with a sockpuppet account. I don't see how mentorship solves this kind of willful disruption; he has shown a willingness to be deceptive and evasive in continuing his edit warring. Since blocks are only preventative and not punitive, this is the only measure for those exhausted by Isarig's prolonged campaign here. I do, truly, believe the community to be exhausted with his war and have raised the issue in this (appropriate) venue. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Ban'''. I've never seen a chronic 3RR violator and sockpuppet abuser turn into a productive editor. Misplaced Pages is not therapy. —'']'' 21:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Block from the project''' - this user has systematically behaved in a variety of outrageous ways. Expect detailed diffs when I'm back on my own machine. ] 21:40, 26 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).
