| Revision as of 14:30, 16 September 2006 editBucketsofg (talk | contribs)Administrators9,965 edits →proposed temporary injunction← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:28, 14 October 2006 edit undoArthur Ellis (talk | contribs)1,447 edits →article probation | ||
| (3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| Articles other than Kinsella were not discussed in the evidence. I believe Bucketsofg is, in effect, trying to ban Ellis from Misplaced Pages.] 00:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | Articles other than Kinsella were not discussed in the evidence. I believe Bucketsofg is, in effect, trying to ban Ellis from Misplaced Pages.] 00:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :This is yet another sock of Arthur Ellis, as shown by ]. ]]<font color="grey">] 14:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | :This is yet another sock of Arthur Ellis, as shown by ]. ]]<font color="grey">] 14:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == proposed temporary injunction == | == proposed temporary injunction == | ||
| I've proposed a temporary injunction on AE at the workshop. Since a ban on AE's editing of certain articles has already been supported by a majority of the arbitrators, I have proposed that we implement such a ban now as a temporary injunction. (AE is currently blocked for a week, and this might be moot, but it's not impossible that the ArbComm decision may not be finalized for a while still. ]]<font color="grey">] 14:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | I've proposed a temporary injunction on AE at the workshop. Since a ban on AE's editing of certain articles has already been supported by a majority of the arbitrators, I have proposed that we implement such a ban now as a temporary injunction. (AE is currently blocked for a week, and this might be moot, but it's not impossible that the ArbComm decision may not be finalized for a while still. ]]<font color="grey">] 14:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == article probation == | |||
| Since one of the few proposals that are not unanimous is regarding article probation, I suggest a slightly different approach that may gain concensus. It seems to me that wikipedia's normal procedures are normally fine: when IPs become a problem, an admin can semi-protect an article and the problem stops; when someone uses socks abusively, checkuser can be appealed to identify and then block the abusing socks. The problem is that with a committed vandal, a few minutes of his effort can require several hours of process to stop, and sometimes it is unsuccessful. In this case, for example, Checkuser turned down a request or two about Ellis. (I don't criticize the Checkuser-authority for this--care should be taken to prevent fishing expeditions.) | |||
| In light of this, I suggest that a protocol be established that lowers the bar for both semi-protect and checkuser. Specifically, 1. that any user can cite the ArbComm ruling to get a semi-protect on one of the affected articles when magma-IPs begin tendentious editing; 2. that any user can ask for a check-user on any newish account that is engaged in tendentious editing (which would normally be rejected as a fishing expedition) and that if the IP turns out to be consistent with Ellis/Bourrie's record, that appropriate action be taken. | |||
| This would have the advantage, I think, of using existing procedures, but making them easier to implement. (Obviously the specific details will need some work.) ]]<font color="grey">] 15:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| You spelled consensus wrong. ] 14:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:28, 14 October 2006
On the proposed remedy that "Arthur Ellis be banned indefinitely from Warren Kinsella and articles which relate to Canadian politics and its blogosphere. Any article which mentions Warren Kinsella is considered a related article for the purposes of this remedy. This includes all talk pages other than the talk page of Mark Bourrie." I suggest emending this to "All articles mentioned in the original request, including any article that mentions Warren Kinsella, is considered…". I say this because Arthur Ellis was blocked for 24 hours for 3RR yesterday for his edits at Rachel Marsden, and has today been using socks or meets to blank large section of the article. The Marsden article was one of Bourrie's orginal battlegrounds and the current formulation is not clear on whether it is included. Bucketsofg✐ 23:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Specifically, in the original request the "articles affected" were these: Mark Bourrie, Warren Kinsella, Pierre Bourque, Rachel Marsden, Elizabeth May (environmentalist)
- I think all of those are reasonably related enough to Canadian politics and its blogosphere. I'm not sure what the problem is. Dmcdevit·t 04:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is that it is not obvious that the Rachel Marsden, which was the first article that Bourrie (=Ceraurus = Ellis = etc.) engaged in tendentious edit and revert wars, article falls within the remedy: she is not a politician or a blogger, but a columnist. Since Ellis has just been blocked for 3RR-through-socks there today (here), it would be worth making sure that there is no ambiguity. Bucketsofg✐ 14:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think all of those are reasonably related enough to Canadian politics and its blogosphere. I'm not sure what the problem is. Dmcdevit·t 04:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Articles other than Kinsella were not discussed in the evidence. I believe Bucketsofg is, in effect, trying to ban Ellis from Misplaced Pages.Craigleithian 00:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- This is yet another sock of Arthur Ellis, as shown by CheckUser. Bucketsofg✐ 14:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
proposed temporary injunction
I've proposed a temporary injunction on AE at the workshop. Since a ban on AE's editing of certain articles has already been supported by a majority of the arbitrators, I have proposed that we implement such a ban now as a temporary injunction. (AE is currently blocked for a week, and this might be moot, but it's not impossible that the ArbComm decision may not be finalized for a while still. Bucketsofg✐ 14:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
article probation
Since one of the few proposals that are not unanimous is regarding article probation, I suggest a slightly different approach that may gain concensus. It seems to me that wikipedia's normal procedures are normally fine: when IPs become a problem, an admin can semi-protect an article and the problem stops; when someone uses socks abusively, checkuser can be appealed to identify and then block the abusing socks. The problem is that with a committed vandal, a few minutes of his effort can require several hours of process to stop, and sometimes it is unsuccessful. In this case, for example, Checkuser turned down a request or two about Ellis. (I don't criticize the Checkuser-authority for this--care should be taken to prevent fishing expeditions.)
In light of this, I suggest that a protocol be established that lowers the bar for both semi-protect and checkuser. Specifically, 1. that any user can cite the ArbComm ruling to get a semi-protect on one of the affected articles when magma-IPs begin tendentious editing; 2. that any user can ask for a check-user on any newish account that is engaged in tendentious editing (which would normally be rejected as a fishing expedition) and that if the IP turns out to be consistent with Ellis/Bourrie's record, that appropriate action be taken.
This would have the advantage, I think, of using existing procedures, but making them easier to implement. (Obviously the specific details will need some work.) Bucketsofg✐ 15:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
You spelled consensus wrong. Arthur Ellis 14:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)