Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jdavidb (talk | contribs) at 04:06, 21 December 2005 (Can we get a statement that somebody did something wrong?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Current Remedies

This comment is about the current remedies being offer. I'm not sure why it is so difficult to block people, especially given the fact that you have IP addresses. It is true that the pages can be protected. However, once they are unprotected, I guarentee you those associated with DOM will begin to aggressively edit them again.

The remedies that are being suggested are not enough. I believe if the Arbitration Committee doesn't send a clear signal about the behavior of Johnski and his associates, that this will be an ongoing problem. A problem which will end up right back before the Arbitration Committee yet again.

I strongly urge the Arbitration Committee to consider more punitive measures that will better protect Misplaced Pages from being a propaganda tool. Davidpdx 23:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Davidpdx's comments above. Johnski is obviously a member of "Melchizedek", which is a criminal gang responsible for defrauding millions of dollars from people around the world over more than a decade. He has clearly co-ordinated the activities of other gang members as well as creating sockpuppets of his own in order to insinuate pro-Melchizedek content and delete anti-Melchizedek content from at least a dozen articles, ranging from Antarctica to Jerusalem to Bokak Atoll, over many months, in a campaign of targeted vandalism that has required massive amounts of effort from many other editors to rectify. Johnski and his associates are not members of the Misplaced Pages community, and their presumed criminal links bring the Misplaced Pages project into disrepute by association. All IPs associated with this gang should, in my opinion be banned from editing all relevant articles for a period of 6 months - and then banned permanently if there is a recurrence of the vandalism. --Centauri 05:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

We cannot block EarthLink Fred Bauder 14:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Fred, I understand now. I guess it is good information to know. In that case, I will be contacting Earthlink personally and giving them an earful as well as referencing this case.

Are all the IP address Earthlink? I was able to do a search on the IP addresses and I believe only a few are Earthlink. I realize sometimes it is difficult to block or ban people that cause problems, so I'm just asking for everything possible to be done that can be. Thanks for listening. Davidpdx 14:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have read the modifications on the proposal and I think the Semi-Protection is a step in the right direction. I am still going to do my part though by complaining to Earthlink about vandalism coming from their IP addresses. Hopefully, they can be of some assistance as well. Davidpdx 15:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If we can't block certain IP's then can't the committee simply declare the vandals in this case personas non grata, allowing any reverts made by them to be automatically reverted without reference to the 3 revert rule? This seems to have worked with a group of dedicated editors and admins thwarting Wik and his army of sockpuppets. --Gene_poole 02:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

We can try, but I think this sort of problem is just what semi-protection was designed to handle. Anytime you want to unprotect it and try that will be fine. Fred Bauder 03:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

But can we get arbcom clearance ahead of time that when the page is unsemiprotected changes made against consensus by Johnski et al may be automatically reverted by an admin and result in an automatic block? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 04:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Currently most of the findings of fact sound like declarations about the new approach to be taken. I'd like to see some findings of fact that actually declare that what Johnski, et al have done is wrong and is not to be done in the future. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 04:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)