Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:28, 28 April 2007 view sourceGolbez (talk \| contribs)Administrators66,915 edits →[]← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:56, 28 April 2007 view source Cleo123 (talk \| contribs)1,494 edits →[]Next edit →
Line 109:		Line 109:
	::Reading his talk page, I'm not impressed.. '''"Religious conversion" is a meaningless term in the hands of proselytizers pushing their point of view.''' is just one quote that makes me think that he's become an edit warrior on this, and will not improve. I'd support a community topic ban to the three pages mentioned above. ] 19:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)		::Reading his talk page, I'm not impressed.. '''"Religious conversion" is a meaningless term in the hands of proselytizers pushing their point of view.''' is just one quote that makes me think that he's become an edit warrior on this, and will not improve. I'd support a community topic ban to the three pages mentioned above. ] 19:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
	I'm somewhat alarmed to see ]'s name in this conversation, since I first encountered him voting for the same side as me in an AfD debate, so this immediately marked him out as a person of good sense. Then I went and looked at his contribution history in this Dylan matter, and it was quite scary. Also I checked the submitter (above), ] and he looks to have a very good record on Misplaced Pages. So there you have my two 'ad hominem' arguments, and they point in opposite directions. I'm going to leave a Talk message for Bus stop, and see if he will come down momentarily from his pillar of rectitude (with which I agree, but 3RR is pretty serious, so he ought to pay attention). ] 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)		I'm somewhat alarmed to see ]'s name in this conversation, since I first encountered him voting for the same side as me in an AfD debate, so this immediately marked him out as a person of good sense. Then I went and looked at his contribution history in this Dylan matter, and it was quite scary. Also I checked the submitter (above), ] and he looks to have a very good record on Misplaced Pages. So there you have my two 'ad hominem' arguments, and they point in opposite directions. I'm going to leave a Talk message for Bus stop, and see if he will come down momentarily from his pillar of rectitude (with which I agree, but 3RR is pretty serious, so he ought to pay attention). ] 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
			::: I believe ] account of events is somewhat misleading. For the most part, I have merely been watching this dispute from the sidelines. I, myself, also questioned the information in the article a few days back because the primary source for this information appeared to be a blog. The New York Times reference has only recently been added ('''after''' Bus stop's 1st block) thanks to his persistent requests for citations. It seems that ] is legitimately concerned with WP:BLP issues. Editors on the "converted Christian" side of the fence seem to be perpetuating a possible misconception in the article, which seems to have struck a nerve with ]. He seems to feel that he is addressing a libel issue that is exempt from 3RR. Regardless, he has behaved improperly and I do not defend him on that. I will say, however, that this is shockingly out of character.
			::: I am concerned by ]'s statements above. Having followed these discussions, I find it very implausible that JohnCarter accidentally misrepresented ]'s block history. ] has created a lot of work for the other editors by challenging their position. I can understand why they might want him - or his view - blocked from the page. I do not see ]'s request for evidence of a formal sacramental initiation as at all unreasonable. I'd like to see some myself! I know of no branches of Christianity that do '''not''' require converts to be formally baptized in Christ. It is a fundamental part of Christianity required by all denominations. ] has taken ]'s statements out of context portraying him in the most unreasonable light possible. I know ] to be a very rational and civil editor by and large. He was a significant contributor on the highly contentious ] article and is most capable of working productively and positively within the community's guidelines and policies. Hopefully, he will take advantage of this block as an opportunity to calm down. ] 01:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:56, 28 April 2007

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Header

Diyarbakir

This was originaly posted on ANB/I but I felt it would be more appropriate here

User had been tagging random cities with "Category:Kurdistan" . When the categories were removed as per WP:V and WP:NPOV he reverted them back with an edit summary "revert anti-kurd edit".

I do not believe he is a new user given the nature of the edits. Being as inactive as he is, his/her ability to notice such category removals is also suspicious. Especially on articles where he has no edits which may involve WP:HA.

Although registering as far back as 13 September 2006, user has fewer than 100 edits of which most seems to be voting (keepinging kurdistan), categorizing (adding Kurdistan) or reverting (restoring Kurdistan).

-- Cat 17:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a question of community action? Is this a content dispute where dispute resolution should be attempted? I do not understand what is being asked here. With regards, Navou 17:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this looks highly odd - finding CfD about 10 edits in? - but I can't really see much of a basis for a community sanction. Do you have something for checkuser to be run against to establish if this is a sock? Cheers, Moreschi 17:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be a User:Diyako sockpuppet, I am not sure. It is very hard to request a checkuser since there had been far too many people that were banned for similar reasons. User may even be a User:Moby Dick sockpuppet. -- Cat 19:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The latter user doesn't appear to be blocked or banned, so even if this is his/her sock, there isn't a violation here, since the edits are not abusive. -- Ben /_HIST 20:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not true. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick prohibits user "...from editing articles which concern Turkey or Kurdish issues" also the clarification puts additional restrictions on harassment. -- Cat 12:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a very interesting link, not least because it links to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive102#User:Cool Cat's disruption of Kurdish categorization efforts, and here you are accusing an editor for adding Category:Kurdistan tags. -- Ben /_HIST 19:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Moby Dick was sanctioned by arbcom after such levels of stalking. I have nothing more to add more than the arbitration case. He is prohibited to even participate in any vote I am involved with. Additionally arbcom found his edits on Kurdish related topics disruptive. -- Cat 17:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a funny place to bring this problem. There is no blocking record, and looking at the history of his talk page I see no instances of attempts to communicate with him about problematic editing on his part. If you think there is a problem with his edits, please discuss this with him in the first instance. Trying to get an editor who is as-yet in good standing permanently banned from Misplaced Pages obviously isn't going to work. --Tony Sidaway 17:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the user is far too suspicious to be treated like any random "good standing" user. -- Cat 19:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You were already told, at WP:ANI#Diyarbakir, that this user's "actions were inline with policy and as such the sock cant be rightfully classed as abusive unless the owners been banned." Please don't forum-shop. -- Ben /_HIST 19:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am merely looking for additional opinions. I do not believe this qualifies as "forum-shopping" since the issue discussed isn't content related. Besides I already clarified that a similar thread existed in ANB/I -- Cat 12:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"I am merely looking for additional opinions." -- No, you don't come here to "look for additional opinions", you come here "for the discussion of community bans, including topical bans", as the top of this page states, along with "this noticeboard is not a replacement for requests for comment, and should not be used as a type of dispute resolution: community ban requests should be a last resort." If all you'd wanted was comments, you know where WP:RFC is, you've been there before. -- Ben /_HIST 22:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool Cat, I think this was better off where it was before, and I'd suggest you take it back there. -- Ben /_HIST 18:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Including category:Kurdistan for some places is a legitimate edit, there are content disputes but not something to deserve a sanction. The situation can change if he is a sock used for frauding votes, 3RR violation or supporting his sockpuppeteer in talk pages.--MariusM 19:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you recommend a checkuser? It might be too old to check - also I do not have a real puppet master suspect. I still feel this is a disruptive "throwaway" account used only for a few edits-- Cat 23:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have posted this at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyarbakir and found some interesting additional evidence. Please reconsider this case with that additional evidence. -- Cat 13:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Since at this time you're the only person who's posted to that page, there are no checkuser results to consider. There's just your complaint that after you'd filed an MfD on Portal:Kurdistan and CfDs on Kurdistan categories, Diyarbakir (who's been adding Category:Kurdistan tags) opposed the deletions. How is his/her consistent support of Kurdistan topics any more abusive than your consistent attempts to delete them from Misplaced Pages? -- Ben /_HIST 20:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I also note that you filed WP:RFARB#Category:Kurdistan earlier this month, only to have it declined as a content dispute. "Category:Kurdistan" also underlies your present complaint, forum-shopped to these two noticeboards. Please stop trying to use disciplinary procedures as leverage in your content dispute.

Finally, I notice that you have never posted to User talk:Diyarbakir (history), either to try settling your dispute with him/her before bringing it here, or to notify him/her of your bringing this complaint. See the top of WP:ANI: "As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting." Here you are in the wrong, Cool Cat. Please take more care with your own behavior. -- Ben /_HIST 21:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Diyarbakir = Moby Dick confirmed with the checkuser. Hence I formally request users block as per every remedy on the RFAR case on Moby Dick namely: #Moby Dick banned from certain articles, #Moby Dick prohibited from harassing Cool Cat or Megaman Zero, and #Moby Dick may be blocked for continuing to harass. Blocks shoud be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick#Log of blocks and bans. -- Cat 21:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Diyarbakir is now indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet per the checkuser and arbitration cases (block log). --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Dhimwit

Since September 2006, Dhimwit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has done nothing but troll. It seems highly likely that this is an abusive sockpuppet account. I move that Dhimwit is banned. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

See also 82.20.124.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm worried about this. He seems to be a bit confused about Misplaced Pages policy, and I don't see much evidence of trolling. There seems to be ample evidence that he is trying to improve Misplaced Pages but feels victimized by administrators. --Tony Sidaway 15:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his edits, he appears to add unsourced commentary and then demand other edits find sources and gets very annoyed when the material is removed, which could be trolling or possibly confusion. His current week long block is for personal attacks, then avoiding a block to leave a grumpy message, followed by blanking his talk page, which again, could be trolling or just about plausibly, confusion. On balance, I would prefer to give another chance. Addhoc 22:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree to that. But it should be a last chance. If he's just going to be a pain we can afford to let him go. --Tony Sidaway 03:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Lovelight

Lovelight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has gone from being mildly disruptive to engaging in edit warring (4 3RR blocks in two months) and now egregious insults."Well, fuck you, you little piece of shit" His contributions are those of a Single purpose account, working almost exclusively on articles related to trying to add oftentimes ridiculiously silly conspiracy theory misinformation to articles related to the events of September 11, 2001. I believe the community has had enough of this kind of behavior and an indefinite ban or similar sanction is mandatory. An Rfc has been filed on Lovelight here, but I think this is a waste of time.--MONGO 18:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe a community ban is warranted. His contribution is limited to repeated WP:POINT violations, 3RR violations as well as just general disruption in addition to the issues cited above. --Tbeatty 19:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I also believe it is warranted. He takes up far more time from editors and admins than his contributions warrant. Unfortunately, based on his behavior and what he has implied in his talk postings, I fear he will come come back as a vandal of similar quality to Cplot. --StuffOfInterest 19:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree as well. I tried to reason with this person, and (s)he just will not listen. I think it's inevitably headed for an ArbCom ban at this point, so we may as well save the trouble. Seraphimblade 20:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Support ban, has crossed the line. SirFozzie 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

~~Statement from Lovelight, posted here by request~~
"Please note that noticeboard is not a replacement for requests for comment, and should not be used as a type of dispute resolution: community ban requests should be a last resort. Complex or ambiguous cases should go to dispute resolution."

I think this is a good case for an indefinite ban. It appears to me that the fellow is only here to fight. --Tony Sidaway 20:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

~~Another statement from Lovelight: (--StuffOfInterest 20:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC))~~
Well Tony, you are wrong, have you visited related talk page, have you checked related history, are you aware of the issue(s) here or did you just took a look at my "representative" talk space? Please, if you are to endorse this, then at least find some good will and time to go through the history which led to this point. Thanks. Lovelight 20:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Lovelight asked to have his previous two statements replaced with the following: (--StuffOfInterest 21:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC))
Please note also that this noticeboard is not a replacement for requests for comment, and should not be used as a type of dispute resolution: community ban requests should be a last resort. Complex or ambiguous cases should go to dispute resolution. Please check related history I'm afraid my talk space is not "representative", at least, if you don't take a closer look. I'd appreciate, if you would find some time and good will to check the facts. Thanks. Lovelight 20:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Mongo's observation about the complexity and ambiguity of this case may be important: "Lovelight has gone from being only mildly disruptive, to edit warring and down right offensive." I would argue for continuing the RfC in order to better understand this process. I have some experience in this vein and can imagine how someone with Lovelight's views has been received on arrival. Seraphimblade could provide examples of his attempts to reason with Lovelight, and other opportunities to go from mildly disruptive to mildly constructive could be examined. It does seem to me that Lovelight is no longer capable of taking even his own struggle here seriously. I'm just not at all sure that's his fault alone.--Thomas Basboll 21:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is what oftentimes happens when POV pushers meet continued resistance against their efforts. They can either work with the consensus, become an edit warrior, or file frivilous Rfc's and arbcom cases to try and get their way...impuning the integrity of those that have worked hard to keep Misplaced Pages a respectable and reliable referece base.--MONGO 21:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree in part: the way POV pushers are treated these days often turns them into edit warriors at an early age, if you will, instead of just going away. Banning them without an RfC may well turn them into vandals. This same treatment, however, also causes people who are not POV pushers to either leave or file RfC's with the hope of improving the rhetorical climate. It is possible to work hard doing the wrong thing, even with good intentions.--Thomas Basboll 22:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

My attempts to work with Lovelight are on User talk:Lovelight, if you'd like to look at them. Seraphimblade 22:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I support an indefinite ban. Crum375 22:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Since we have seen no expression of guilt or fault whatsoever from Lovelight, I am forced to support a community ban. (I started the RfC moments before he was blocked for 3RR. Again.) --Golbez 23:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I would observe that there are two questions here:

1. has this fellow been blocked correctly?
  - If so then could whoever keeps broadcasting this fellow's pleas for an RFC please stop? It'd gone beyond Requests for comment if we're discussing a fellow who has already been correctly blocked for one week for egregious edit warring, came out of that and got himself correctly blocked for another two weeks.
2. Do we call it a day with this editor?
  - If the answer to the first question is "yes", I would suggest that it's going to take a very, very big counter-argument to make this fellow appear worth expending even more effort on.

So we should pay a lot of attention to the answer to question 1. For upon that question hinges the future of this fellow. --Tony Sidaway 03:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his block log and talk page, the answer to 1) is, 'Yes, certainly.' Lovelight's defense for persistent edit warring has always been that he is telling The Truth about What Really Happened on 9/11, and so should not be limited by the three-revert rule. Tom Harrison 13:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Bye bye Lovelight. --Tony Sidaway 00:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Tom Harrison: Indeed, that's exactly what I found when I blocked him a couple weeks ago. I'm not going to comment on the whether or not to community-ban him; however, his attitude suggests strongly that he has no interest in functioning as a member of our community. Heimstern Läufer 00:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

So, can we permablock him already? --Golbez 00:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Bus stop

Maybe this doesn't belong here, but I don't know where else to take this. The above user above has been blocked from editing three or four times now for three reversions of content on pages related to Bob Dylan, specifically regarding his conversion to Christianity in the late 1970's-early 1980's. Sources for that conversion include the Encyclopedia Britannica and New York Times and a published book of his own Christian statements from the stage. He cites "absence of a high profile publication is clear proof that no conversion took place." Evidently none of the above qualify, and in his eyes absence of evidence is clear prove nothing happened. User seeks to see some evidence of a formal sacramental initiation into Christianity, evidently not knowing or caring that several branches of Christianity do not use such practices, or perhaps believing that those Christians should not be classified as such. User has also questioned the good faith of editors seeking to insert such sourced material, using phrases such as "His Jewish heritage doesn't go out the window because he felt like exploring Christianity in 1979", Request user be blocked from editing the pages Bob Dylan, List of converts to Christianity, and List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians, as those three pages would seem to contain the only content which causes him to engage in these repeated reversions and other POV matters, that being questions about Dylan's conversion to some form of Christianity. John Carter 19:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

According to his block log, he is currently in the middle of his second 1-day block for 3RR. Addhoc 19:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not an admin, and simply counted the number of times he had notices of blocks on his user page. I didn't think to check the block record. My apologies. John Carter 20:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Reading his talk page, I'm not impressed.. "Religious conversion" is a meaningless term in the hands of proselytizers pushing their point of view. is just one quote that makes me think that he's become an edit warrior on this, and will not improve. I'd support a community topic ban to the three pages mentioned above. SirFozzie 19:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat alarmed to see Bus stop's name in this conversation, since I first encountered him voting for the same side as me in an AfD debate, so this immediately marked him out as a person of good sense. Then I went and looked at his contribution history in this Dylan matter, and it was quite scary. Also I checked the submitter (above), John Carter and he looks to have a very good record on Misplaced Pages. So there you have my two 'ad hominem' arguments, and they point in opposite directions. I'm going to leave a Talk message for Bus stop, and see if he will come down momentarily from his pillar of rectitude (with which I agree, but 3RR is pretty serious, so he ought to pay attention). EdJohnston 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe User:Warlordjohncarter account of events is somewhat misleading. For the most part, I have merely been watching this dispute from the sidelines. I, myself, also questioned the information in the article a few days back because the primary source for this information appeared to be a blog. The New York Times reference has only recently been added (after Bus stop's 1st block) thanks to his persistent requests for citations. It seems that User:Bus stop is legitimately concerned with WP:BLP issues. Editors on the "converted Christian" side of the fence seem to be perpetuating a possible misconception in the article, which seems to have struck a nerve with User:Bus stop. He seems to feel that he is addressing a libel issue that is exempt from 3RR. Regardless, he has behaved improperly and I do not defend him on that. I will say, however, that this is shockingly out of character.

I am concerned by User:Warlordjohncarter's statements above. Having followed these discussions, I find it very implausible that JohnCarter accidentally misrepresented User:Bus stop's block history. User:Bus stop has created a lot of work for the other editors by challenging their position. I can understand why they might want him - or his view - blocked from the page. I do not see User:Bus stop's request for evidence of a formal sacramental initiation as at all unreasonable. I'd like to see some myself! I know of no branches of Christianity that do not require converts to be formally baptized in Christ. It is a fundamental part of Christianity required by all denominations. User:Warlordjohncarter has taken User:Bus stop's statements out of context portraying him in the most unreasonable light possible. I know User:Bus stop to be a very rational and civil editor by and large. He was a significant contributor on the highly contentious Michael Richards article and is most capable of working productively and positively within the community's guidelines and policies. Hopefully, he will take advantage of this block as an opportunity to calm down. Cleo123 01:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)