Revision as of 22:53, 2 July 2007 editChrisO~enwiki (talk | contribs)43,032 edits →[]: - tweak← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:29, 4 July 2007 edit undoChrisO~enwiki (talk | contribs)43,032 edits →[]: - still edit warringNext edit → | ||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
This appears to be a clear violation of the article probation, specifically regarding POV editing, edit-warring and the arbitrary use of reverts without discussion. I've discussed the issue with jpgordon, who suggested bringing it here for broader review. -- ] 22:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | This appears to be a clear violation of the article probation, specifically regarding POV editing, edit-warring and the arbitrary use of reverts without discussion. I've discussed the issue with jpgordon, who suggested bringing it here for broader review. -- ] 22:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
:The edit warring is continuing (, ). Action really needs to be taken on this. -- ] 19:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
==]== | ==]== |
Revision as of 19:29, 4 July 2007
Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Important informationShortcuts
Please use this page only to:
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}}.
|
Edit this section for new requests
- add new reports to the top of the section
User:Nikola Smolenski
Articles related to Kosovo are currently on article probation per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo. On 10 June, I rewrote and greatly expanded Gazimestan speech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article related to Kosovo. The new version was intended to reflect mainstream views from multiple scholarly sources and to take out previous material that was a combination of original research and heavy reliance on material from a non-reliable source, a personal website called emperors-clothes.com (). Commencing 18 June, Nikola Smolenski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) began repeatedly edit-warring on the article, initially reverting the new version without discussion (, ) and later seeking to re-insert personal commentary, partisan views and non-reliable sources (, , , , ). This conduct has continued up to today. The issue of the non-reliable source has been discussed on Talk:Gazimestan speech and Misplaced Pages talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-31 ChrisO#Discussion 6; jpgordon (who was not an arbitrator at the time of the Kosovo RfAr), KillerChihuahua and I all concur that emperors-clothes.com is not a reliable source, and the policy on reliable sources has repeatedly been explained to Nikola. However, Nikola does not accept this consensus and has repeatedly edit-warred here and on other articles to add links to the website, including links to copyright violations, for which he has previously been blocked.
This appears to be a clear violation of the article probation, specifically regarding POV editing, edit-warring and the arbitrary use of reverts without discussion. I've discussed the issue with jpgordon, who suggested bringing it here for broader review. -- ChrisO 22:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- The edit warring is continuing (, ). Action really needs to be taken on this. -- ChrisO 19:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
User:Infinity0
Infinity0 (talk · contribs) again broke his revert parole when he made two reverts to Anarchism. Diffs: 19:25, 29 June 2007 - first revert, 12:40, 30 June 2007 - second revert, old version to which he reverted to – same changes to anarcho-capitalism section are best visible in accompanying diff. -- Vision Thing -- 13:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Vision Thing is being dishonest here. First edit is not a revert. Last diff he provides is from months ago. Vision Thing is also gaming the wikipedia system, by using the fact that I am on revert parole, to undermine my efforts to edit the page to reflect a consensus reached by WP:3O editors, and others, on Talk:Anarchism which VT alone is ignoring. -- infinity0 14:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Decline. Edit warring is unacceptable. However, Infinity0 has recently commented on the talk page and other editors have complained about VT's reverts. Additionally, reading the discussion history, it indeed seems as though Infinity0 is trying to enforce consensus in good faith. (Both users blocked for 24 hours due to the edit warring with an encouragement to discuss, not continually revert and to be polite and constructive in their dealings with other editors. Infinity0. Vision Thing.) Vassyana 14:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Note: There is also a new arbitration case involving these editors currently pending at WP:RfAr. Newyorkbrad 23:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Newtonspeed
Newtonspeed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), appears to be be latest reincarnate of Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse/HeadleyDown. See arbcom case: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans. Please keep an eye on this editor. We should probably start with a checkuser, see archive: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/HeadleyDown. --Comaze 05:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- There is nothing enforceable at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming. HeadleyDown appears to be banned by the community, rather than ArbCom. A more appropriate venue would be one of the admin noticeboards or directly contact one of admins who has blocked his other accounts. Thatcher131 06:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- No need. I am HeadleyDown. Just turning up the heat on Comaze and his COI antics. Feel free to kill my account. Newtonspeed 06:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well there's a surprise. 86.143.211.85 06:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Beckjord--propose extending to indef
Beckjord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), better known as paranormal "investigator" Jon-Erik Beckjord, was banned for a year from Misplaced Pages in 2006 for inserting pseudoscientific garbage into articles relating to the paranormal (such as Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster). He has since had his ban reset across two full calendar years for sockpuppetry.
On his Web site, Beckjord has information on how to revert the Bigfoot article back to his preferred version. And it's linked directly from his site's Bigfoot section. While he was here, he openly called for his supporters to help him insert his junk theories into the Bigfoot article--and is clearly still doing so.
It is evident that despite understanding our policies on verifiability and original research, the chances of him editing within policy are slightly better than finding a needle in a haystack. Furthermore, deliberately encouraging others to vandalize an article is a violation of the spirit of WP:MEAT. I therefore propose that Beckjord's ban be extended to indefinite.
I'd proposed this on WP:ANI, but was advised that this was a better venue. Blueboy96 19:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- (For reference, the relevant case is Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord.) This all goes back to the issue of whether behavior on external sites can, or should, lead to onwiki blocks or bans. There have been only a very few cases where things posted on external sites have led to sanctions onwiki, and since he is already banned until February 6, 2008, I don't think extending it to indefinite would be worthwhile. Nor would it do much towards preventing any further bad edits, seeing provisions in the case make it easy for his account to be rebanned if he returns and misbehaves again. Any account that reverts to that version of the article can be indefinitely blocked immediately due to its similarity to him, per the "Edits by other accounts reasonably believed to be Beckjord shall be considered Beckjord for the purposes of this decision" text. Picaroon (Talk) 17:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Picaroon does have a good point--the fact he's doing this makes it very likely that he'll be gone for good once this ArbCom ban is lifted (the decision allows him to be banned with the agreement of any three admins). However, I still say it's grossly inappropriate to use your site to encourage others to vandalize Misplaced Pages. I therefore propose amending the decision to read, "If the Bigfoot article is reverted in any manner similar to Beckjord's editing style, Beckjord shall be banned indefinitely." Blueboy96 12:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- This is not really the best place for this discussion. This noticeboard can not modify arbitration decisions; you would have to go to RFAR for that. If you want consensus for a community ban, you would be more likely to get sufficient input at one of the admins' noticeboards. Thatcher131 06:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Picaroon does have a good point--the fact he's doing this makes it very likely that he'll be gone for good once this ArbCom ban is lifted (the decision allows him to be banned with the agreement of any three admins). However, I still say it's grossly inappropriate to use your site to encourage others to vandalize Misplaced Pages. I therefore propose amending the decision to read, "If the Bigfoot article is reverted in any manner similar to Beckjord's editing style, Beckjord shall be banned indefinitely." Blueboy96 12:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Possible violation of Minun's one year ban
Here on the Evidence page of the Minun Arbitration case, it said that 81.153.148.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was a sockpuppet of Minun, which is all but confirmed by the IP's edits, and in this WP:ANI discussion.
Looking at the contributions of this IP, the IP edited James May] on May 24th, 2007, which would violate the terms of Minuns ban:
Should Minun, editing under any username or IP, violate any ban imposed by or under this decision he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Iloveminun#Log of blocks and bans.
- Passed 6 to 0 02:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Should we assume good faith here, and assume that the IP has been assigned to someone besides Minun, or treat it as a violation? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 05:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Category: