Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
*WP:NPA on "] notes that "Misplaced Pages acknowledges that it cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks elsewhere may create doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are being conducted in good faith."
*WP:NPA on "] notes that "Misplaced Pages acknowledges that it cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks elsewhere may create doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are being conducted in good faith."
*The evidence suggests that User ] will be shown to also operate ] and ], and he is responsible for the vandalism and spamming of users on . Will an Admin check the IP addresses and username? --] 11:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
*The evidence suggests that User ] will be shown to also operate ] and ], and he is responsible for the vandalism and spamming of users on . Will an Admin check the IP addresses and username? --] 11:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
:I was informed about this notice from a third party who monitors this board. The first time I heard about Ian's website was when Ian made mention of it at ], but I thought that he was simply spamming for his website. Now it seems he is accusing me of unbecoming behavior and trying to sully my reputation at Misplaced Pages. I have some ideas who might be orchestrating this (I believe it is a student of mine), but I'm pretty upset that Ian would accuse me of this behavior without ever having asked me for assistance. I do use the two IPs in question to log into Misplaced Pages, but the accusations he is leveling against the ScienceApologist account are not connected with the person who logs into Misplaced Pages as such. --] 12:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.
Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.
To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions
All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.
The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:
ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.
A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.
Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction
An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:
The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
the restriction was an indefinite block.
A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:
a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.
Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.
the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
On Arbitration Committee review
Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:
the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.
Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.
Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.
Important notes:
For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
Information for administrators processing requests
Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.
A couple of reminders:
Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.
Closing a thread:
Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
As the ban log shows Copperchair has not followed their arbitration ruling and was given a 1 year ban. Since the 1 year ban they have continuously created sockpuppets and continued their edit warring as shown by multiple RFCUs . Their latest sockpuppet is Esteban "Lex" Saborío (talk·contribs) who is currently unblocked and continuing Copperchair's removal of War on Terrorism from the Iraq War.
Summation
A block of their latest sockpuppet.
Change of Copperchair's block from a 1 year block to indefinite.
He is using an obvious sock-puppet, User:Warfarin eater, to revert to the Ellis version of the page. This diff compares the edits between Warfarin and User:Something in Argyle (checkuser-confirmed sock, see here). Warfarin's only other edits have been to the Kinsella talk-page where he calls for removal of the law-suit (another issue Ellis is obsessed with).
Summation
This is about the tenth or twelfth offending sock.
This user is believed to be continuing to edit the BKWSU article in an provocative and biased manner using various sock puppets. The article was semi-protected for a while due to the use of what appear to be random IP proxies but the protection has now lapsed however even semi-protection would be insufficient since this user seems to be using various named accounts also.
Now the user is believed to be using the handles Quickerection (talk·contribs), Jankijunky (talk·contribs) and Fineupstandingmember (talk·contribs). The first of these three is already blocked for being an obscene name. In the latest bout I have not yet seen the usual pattern of taunting other editors but the type and style of edits is very familiar.
Removal of NPOV tag . The 244 editor has always strongly contested any NPOV warning tag . This view is unique and quite unusual since an NPOV tag is usually applied for much less reason to many other articles.
Re-insertion of obvious bias .
Biased opinions being referenced as a source for flatly stated facts
Misuse of references. The Misplaced Pages:OR tag is removed, reference inserted, but the reference does not address the fact being queried (that murlis were ever on sale to the general public).
Summation
Often the edits deliberately undo changes made by pro-subject editors which were made with consensus on the discussion page. We are currently building consensus on the talk page between editors with differing views. It is a shame that this disruptive editor seems to be able jump in at any time and make a mockery of our otherwise promising efforts to form a balanced team of editors. I was a participant to the arbitration case. Two other participants are currently active on the article, TalkAbout (talk·contribs) and Appledell (talk·contribs). It has never been possible to reach any consensus with 244 due to his/her agressive stance towards other editors, even editors with similar views . I've noticed that 244 just seems to edit as he/she sees fit.
Thanks Thatcher131. FYI the username Jankijunky is a reference to one of the administrative heads of the organisation, Dadi Janki. Obviously adding the word "junki" after it indicates that a point is being made. Regards Bksimonb09:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
What appears to be the same user is now continuing the reverts as 86.152.174.239 (talk·contribs). They follow exactly the same pattern and preferred version as the sockpuppets listed above. This is a static IP address based in London using British Telecom. Thanks & regards Bksimonb18:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
While I can't prove/nor will I assert that the vandalism is .244 (I don't trace IPs nor seek to find out identities), I will ask here as I did on the bot (it removed the protection on some automated basis) page, to please put the protection back on the article as it is only creating havoc. We are just now beginning to get some level of decorum and peaceful working agreements in working with the resources available. Thank you for your time and consideration with regards to this matter. PEACETalkAbout19:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
File:Yellow warning.pngWarned It is clear that he is cooperating with Adil in edit warring against others, although just past 24 hours. Gaming the system is not to be tolerated, and 1 Revert parole is not a license to continue the same edit war but in slow motion. Thatcher13106:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
After being banned for a month, and appealing same. Instantnood returned as an IP to perform the same reverts reported before. Please {{userarticleban}} him from Demographics of the People's Republic of China.
I blocked the IP, but it's probably dynamic. As long as he is blocked for the month, any edits he actually signs can be reported to AIV or AN/I for a faster response, as well as reverted wthout limit. I'll get around to some article bans tomorrow. There's no rush at this point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thatcher131 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
The problem was that you were taking the advantage of my absense and have tried to speedy two stub categories which you wanted them disappeared. Both of them would have disappeared if I did not put on the {{hangon}} tag. — Instantnood11:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Classic case of 'two wrongs make... two wrongs'. Schmucky's depopulations and speedy-taggings were quite inappropriate, given this was known by him to be a disputed matter. There's a venue (or several) for discussing these matters. Amd IN's hangons were besides the point: one of them was deleted anyway; the other I removed becaused I was going to that page anyway to take the matter to WP:SFD. (The other I didn't notice it unless after it'd been speedied.) Accordingly, I'd caution IN to respect his ban, and StC to desist from behaviour essentially similar to what got IN and H. sanctioned in the first place. Alai18:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Disputed behaviour did not cease when asked to stop without using dispute resolution User_talk:Instantnood#Revert.2C_hello.3F, and other messages left by other users. An extension to his ArbCom penalties was requested. The reverts did not stop during, or now immediately after: Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 4. ArbCom declined to create a new sanction and prefers the remedies of article bans and site bans, potentially including an indefinite site ban with the support of any three administrators.
In order to understand the seriousness and ArbCom sanctions him you have to understand Instantnood. He games the system to stay under any revert limit but he carries on the same revert war for years which is what makes ignoring him disruptive to those trying to maintain consistency. He makes a few reverts to an article once a week or once a month to what he prefers then leaves it for a bit and returns after the disruption has died down to do it again. His edits singularly enforce his POV and his edits are usually minor changes to categories, templates, intro, etc that change the presentation of articles. Changes to templates and categories can affect hundreds of articles at a time. He often makes changes to two templates/categories, each individually looks like a minor content change but together he has re-classified something entirely the opposite of what it was.
In every ArbCom case, and every excuse for enforcement, he always argues about why his content is right, and he seemingly ignores or is entirely oblivious to his behavior. It is his behavior that is sanctioned. Time base blocks on Instantnood do not work, as soon as the block is over he will return to reverting. Given his method of making disruptive reverts, then leaving the article alone, the time based block is ineffective - he would have left it alone anyways. He needs to be blocked from editing these articles using the {{userarticleban}}.
the majority of his edits over the last week are content reverts based on his solo crusades. For offending behavior, I offer his entire contrib history for the last week, since Lunar New Year (Displays as Feb 18 or 19 in his contrib list depending on your time zone).
Revert warring on policy/guideline pages is particularly disruptive. This revert now goes on for years. In this case he was making this revert in 2005, after long heated discussions with many participants this sentence/phrase was removed. Nood restored it repeatedly and was banned from editing this page for a year, and on expiration of the page ban, he made the exact same revert.
The following list of articles contain general revert warring, generally without discussion, anywhere from 2 to 10 reverts in a few days. Alternatively, they contain particularly egregious examples of POV re-organization which his ArbCom sanction also prohibits. This is only a list from the last week and is incomplete. The worse examples are bolded. He should be page banned from each.
Demographics of China restoring text from 2005 after this content was moved to the next article, so he could point to this article on a talk page and state the next article was superfluous. Not checked
Demographics of mainland China continuation of above revert war, here he objects to changing the article title, so he is reverting both articles to remove what he doesn't like and make it appear consistent, though lots of discussion in 2005 resulted in the community changing these way back then. Not checked
Instantnood has edit warred at all the articles and categories listed above, including many violations of his 1 revert per day parole imposed by admin Eagle 101 (talk) on 8 December 2006, see here. Many of these edit wars involve categorization of articles and categories. Instantnood specifically targets category changes made by Huaiwei, even if they were days or weeks earlier, showing that Instantnood is specifically tracking and reverting Huaiwei.
Huaiwei has edit warred. The changes he makes may or may not be in good faith. However, when Instantnood reverts, Huaiwei edit wars rather than seeking other forms of assistance.
Instantnood is banned from editing any category page related to China, including but not limited to its history, culture, territories and disputed territories.
Instantnood is banned from adding or removing any category related to China from any article related to China. He may be blocked without further warning for up to a week for each violation.
Huaiwei is also banned from editing any category page related to China, and from adding or removing any category related to China from any article related to China. Huaiwei may be blocked for up to one week per violation without further warning.
I run the Web site plasma-universe.com. *My server logs note various visits by IP address 71.57.90.96 and 216.125.49.252 (Misplaced Pages contributors) whose timing coincide with the actions from two users named "Asshole" (on 23 Feb | Log (359K) ) and "Anon" (on 25 Feb | Log (285K)). Yesterday (11 Mar) I also received over 400 emails (example available on request) sourced from IP address 71.57.90.96, and another contributor to the plasma-universe.com web site received numerous emails,
Both IP addresses 71.57.90.96 and 216.125.49.252 resolve to ILLINOIS, and an email I received from someone at "Harold Washington College" in Illinois, also shows the IP address of 216.125.49.252.
ScienceApologist is the username of Joshua Schroeder , and he works at "Harold Washington College"
WP:NPA on "Off-wiki personal attacks notes that "Misplaced Pages acknowledges that it cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks elsewhere may create doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are being conducted in good faith."
I was informed about this notice from a third party who monitors this board. The first time I heard about Ian's website was when Ian made mention of it at Talk:Plasma cosmology, but I thought that he was simply spamming for his website. Now it seems he is accusing me of unbecoming behavior and trying to sully my reputation at Misplaced Pages. I have some ideas who might be orchestrating this (I believe it is a student of mine), but I'm pretty upset that Ian would accuse me of this behavior without ever having asked me for assistance. I do use the two IPs in question to log into Misplaced Pages, but the accusations he is leveling against the ScienceApologist account are not connected with the person who logs into Misplaced Pages as such. --ScienceApologist12:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
wikimedia.org).
Confirmed Thatcher131 00:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Not checked
