| Revision as of 02:52, 2 February 2012 editSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors278,950 edits →Rlevse sockpuppetry: or ...← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:58, 15 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,063 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 26) (bot |
| Line 4: |
Line 4: |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|counter = 11 |
|
|counter = 26 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|algo = old(3d) |
|
|algo = old(14d) |
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{pb}} |
|
|
|
|
== Question == |
|
|
|
|
|
Please see . Is there an arbitration ruling which prohibits this person from editing? thank you. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 11:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: To my knowledge, Selina was never banned by the ArbCom, though a consensus among the community would be needed for an unblock. ] ]] 12:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: thanks for the reply AGK. Do you have any idea where the discussion is that developed the consensus that she should ''be'' blocked is? It was before my time, and I'd rather do some research before I jump in. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 12:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: I think the block became a community ban at ], where the consensus was against an unblock. If I recall correctly, the '' Blu Aardvark'' case also related to something similar, but the Selina ban appears to not have been apropos to the decision. In 2006, community bans were recorded less accurately than they are now, but the tenet of "a user is community-banned if no sysop will unblock" applied then as much as it does now. ] ]] 13:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Ahhh .. thank you very much sir. I really appreciate having some perspective on things. Hope you have a great day/night. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 13:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Rlevse sockpuppetry== |
|
|
It has come to light that for the last six months, Rlevse has been editing Misplaced Pages using a sockpuppet, ]. PumpkinSky created numerous copyvios, which was exactly the same behavior that brought Rlevse down. Using a sockpuppet was also a violation of the rules governing "right to vanish" which Rlevse exercised. |
|
|
|
|
|
Were any members of the arbitration committee aware of Rlevse's sockpuppetry? ] (]) 20:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: More generally, are arbs aware of any editors violating RTV or CLEANSTART to disrupt FAC? ] (]) 21:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Wow. Just wow. → ] ]<small> 21:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The first time the Committee as a body knew of the sock puppetry—and, indeed, the first time PumpkinSky's name appears in any Committee correspondence at all—was earlier today. I can't speak for whether any individual current or former arbitrator might have been aware of the account earlier; personally, however, I rather doubt Rlevse would have communicated with anyone on the Committee, as our relationship with him subsequent to his departure has been, for lack of a better word, strained. |
|
|
:::As for Sandy's question, I'm not aware of anything in that regard, although we haven't really gone looking. While we've obviously been informed of the discussions taking place at FAC, I think the general feeling on the Committee is that they're an internal FAC matter and not something for us to get involved in. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 21:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Since Sandy is being coy, allow me to be blunt. Pumpkinsky was one of the handful of people who pushed strongly for the FAC RFC. There's another user there, Alarbus, who pushed strongly for the RFC whom we also suspect of being an old editor who edits under a new name. (Sandy and I have our suspicions as to who he was previously, but I won't share them publicly) Is that, in fact, the case? ] (]) 21:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: There are three grinding an axe: Rlevse, TCO who unvanished, and Alarbus who appears to be a returning user, violating CLEANSTART to further a grudge against Raul and me. Considering his likely past accounts, and that he is revisiting old grudges with Raul and me at FAC, and that the arbs are likely aware of his old accounts-- no, it's not internal at all. Raul has overwhelming support in the RFC. ] (]) 21:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::(edit conflict) Not that I'm aware of; that name has never come up in any correspondence. (This doesn't mean that it ''couldn't'' be a returning editor, of course; we simply have no information regarding the account either way.) ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 21:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: Thanks, Kirill-- glad to hear that. ] (]) 21:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Further to this, may I ask arbitrators and/or former arbitrators to comment on ], who quit 2 days before PumpkinSky started. At that time (July 2011) several editors thought BarkingMoon might be Rlevse. The latest information adds to that case, with ] also . According to ], information about this case was known to former arbitrators such as John Vandenberg, and current ones such as Hersfold. It is possible that unfortunate decisions were made at that time, but hindsight is 20-20, so my main concern is looking forward: there may be an ongoing pattern of behavior by Rlevse here, which needs to be checked, as it has become disruptive. '']'' 22:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Note''', it has been a ''very long time'' since we've seen I recall he was quite the competent one. ] (]) 23:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* I echo Kirill's comment. Of course we were not aware. ] ]] 00:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
*: Of what? An echo adds nothing. The question here is about the awareness of Arbitrators to previous socking by Rlevse, in particular, as BarkingMoon. The silence confirms to me that this was Rlevse. So, what gives? '']'' 00:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Actually, Rlevse was insistent that BarkingMoon was not him, but was associated with him...a student/family member/associate... can't remember and the search on my email is crap. He was really really insistent on this. BarkingMoon quit before a decision on what to do was made. At that point, Rlevse had never socked (as far as anyone knows) and people who knew him (I didn't) found it hard to believe he would lie so insistently. He did admit to being PumpkinSky when challenged - which was today...yesterday (1 Feb). I can appreciate him wanting to Cleanstart, but he really can't - there is too large a pile of shit still to be shovelled in respect of checking his edits. ] (]) 01:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Very unfortunate figure of speech, the vast majority of the mainspace edits are certainly constructive, not "shit". ] 01:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: I am fully aware of BarkingMoon's denials and am not interested in figures of speech: I followed this quite closely at the time. That Rlevse denied it privately, and pointed Arbcom to associated editors is news to me, so thanks for commenting on that. I look forward to you and other arbitrators refining your searches on previous emails, and commenting much more openly. '']'' 01:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Rlevse was a good guy, though flawed. He left, I guess, not because we didn't want him, but out of shame. I'd like to think we'll welcome him back, though no argument that copyvio habits need to be nipped. Let's not take a hard line trying to preserve the fiction of RTV. If an RTV-cleanstarter is listening, I'd advise that he should stick quietly to mainspace for a couple of years. --] (]) 00:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I can only assume that editors making posts like this are blissfully unaware of what has been done to FAC over recent weeks to months. ] (]) 01:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yes, was blissfully unaware. Without question, a returned Rlevse should not be anywhere near FAC. That would be deceptive and disruptive if true. --] (]) 01:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::* |
|
|
::::* |
|
|
::::* (where those editors have been found to be in a ''substantial'' minority, yet have visited untold disruption upon FAC in past months). |
|
|
:::: So, if we have another CLEANSTART issue, are the arbs going to ignore it, too? ] (]) 01:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Is the arbitration committee aware of any other accounts currently or previously used by Rlevse? (This includes Barkingmoon) This is the same question that John Vandenberg last year on the ground that "if BarkingMoon is Rlevse, they have done a fairly decent job of a clean start", which is clearly no longer the case. ] (]) 00:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Not sure how you're reading that as a refusal to answer. Anyway, no Rlevse has never declared any alternative accounts while I've been around, and until ... yesterday it is now... no-one has come and said "editor X is Rlevse", except for the BarkingMoon account. As I said above, Rlevse said he wasn't BarkingMoon, but they were related in some way. Those who felt they knew him did not think he would lie, and BarkingMoon left the project before any final decision was made. I guess people will form their own opinion depending on whether they believe Rlevse or not. ] (]) 01:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::... or whether they believe the Arbitration Committee or not. ] ] 01:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Re: "Not sure how you're reading that as a refusal to answer." -- Did you read Vandenberg's statement? ''"The committee is not aware of any reason for any action by anyone in this matter at this time... the other suspect (Rlevse) is not under any sanction... The community needs to first decide whether there is sufficient grounds to require that BarkingMoon disclose their prior identity. There are only a few instances of BarkingMoon having made references to their prior identity, and if BarkingMoon is Rlevse, they have done a fairly decent job of a clean start, with a completely different focus and now demonstrating proficiency in German."'' - Notice that nowhere in this carefully phrased paragraph does Vandenberg actually answer the question of whether or not Barkingmoon is or is not Rlevse (and whether or not the Arbcom is aware of it). This omission was not an accidental. ] (]) 01:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: And I'll add to Raul's post that this concerns me wrt John Vandenberg's involvement in the other possible CLEANSTART case mentioned (Alarbus), since this past feedback makes it unlikely anything will be addressed on that issue, hence I haven't bothered. ] (]) 01:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I think there's clear ] evidence of corruption within ArbCom, in the way that it deals differently with different editors. The essence of a fair system is consistency, of which we see none. ] ] 01:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::(ec) What they said. '']'' 01:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: ooooh myyyyy, this is a side of G guy I've never seen before! ] (]) 01:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: Don't get too excited Sandy: I was commenting on the thread before the post by Malleus (hence the "ec"). However, there are serious questions here, and serious questions demand serious answers, so I am happy to add my support to that expectation. '']'' 02:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I have another question. Amalthea discovered Rlevse was socking, and the arbs found out sometime today. Thatcher edited CLEANSTART yesterday (ok, pehaps unrelated, could be ''extreme'' coincidence, or related to the Fae situation). I happened to discover that Amalthea knew Rlevse was socking because I monitor and followed the entry to discover the CCI. So ... was Rlevse going to be allowed to continue disrupting FAC if I hadn't happened upon this and brought it to Raul's attention? ] (]) 02:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
