This is an old revision of this page, as edited by El C (talk | contribs) at 13:26, 16 August 2006 (→Zeq wikistalking and block count: Zeq's wikistalking of myself and block count). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:26, 16 August 2006 by El C (talk | contribs) (→Zeq wikistalking and block count: Zeq's wikistalking of myself and block count)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut- ]
A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom).
Dispute resolution (Requests) |
---|
Tips |
Content disputes |
Conduct disputes |
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open casesCase name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
---|---|---|---|
Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.
Arbitrator motionsMotion name | Date posted |
---|---|
Arbitrator workflow motions | 1 December 2024 |
The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.
The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.
0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four accept votes are cast. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details.
This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or clerk may do so.
See also
- Arbitration policy
- Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy/Past decisions
- Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case - Recommended reading: An (unofficial) guide to presenting effective Arbitration cases.
- Arbitration enforcement - Any user can request help here if it involves the violation of an ArbCom decision
- Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
- Developer help needed
- Arbitration template
How to list cases
Under the Current requests section below:
- Click the "" tab on the right of the screen appearing above the section break line;
- Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
- Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
- Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
- Remove the template comments (indented).
Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template
Current requests
Ed Poor
- Initiated by JoshuaZ at 01:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ed Poor (2).
Statement by JoshuaZ
I bring this RfArb with a heavy heart. Ed has been an editor with Misplaced Pages far longer than I have, and has a history of many productive edits. However, on certain topics Ed has a long standing history of POV pushing and related problems. These problems were yet again addressed, this time in a recent RfC. In that RfC, multiple editors from a variety of topics, especially topics related to global warming and creationism. The RfC, painted a picture of edit warring, gross violation of 3RR. When he didn't ignore it, he attempted to game the system in a disturbingly literal fashion, comparing how he was allowed to revert to a game of Go . Since then, his conduct has unfortunately not improved. Continuing his edit warring and POV pushing on climate and creationism articles(recently spreading to animal rights related articles), he also continued other problems, such as POV forking and POV redirecting, constructing articles which were complete OR/POV and/or copy-vio such as the now deleted Good scientific practice. In one dif he declared that he won't "abandon" NPOV, showing that even after a heavily endorsed RfC, he is undable to understand that his POV is not NPOV . He has also taken to disrupting attempts to get new editors to conform to 3RR and other policies and made spurious claims on WP:PAIN and WP:3RR . I could continue, but the above should be sufficient to demonstrate the basic point: past attempts at mediation have failed. RfCs have failed. Intervention of the Arb Com is now necessary.
Statement by party 2
- (Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)
Clerk notes
- (This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)
Jayjg, PinchasC & FloNight
Involved parties
- Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- PinchasC (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- FloNight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) added
- Ex-Homey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Note, after this note was left, it was removed by the same user that posted it see this diff and then blanked this case as well see this diff then readded by an ip see this diff. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- See my response to Jayjg below, I removed the notice after I removed this RFA and intended to restore the notice when I decided to proceed with the RFA with the edit note "this seems to be necessary", the same comment I made when I restored this RFA however, since there was an intervening edit by Flo which I didn't see I misfired and a) reverted to the wrong prior edit (the one that followed my notice) and b) accidentally removed Flo's edit. Ex-Homey 17:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- I cannot leave a message at User talk:PinchasC as that page is semi-protected, I have sent him an email instead. And he has responded.
- FloNight is already aware of this RFA
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
As first party, you may feel tempted to add a summary here. If you do, make it a single sentence of not more than twenty words. Please make your case in your statement.
Statement by User:Ex-Homey
Withdrawn See . Ex-Homey 20:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I was formerly User:Homeontherange. My former account was never banned, rather, I abandoned the account for various reasons, partly frustration at wikipedia and partly the suspicion that it had been compromised. I no longer have the account's password and thus cannot edit from that account, additionally it has been blocked and desysopped on my request. While there was an RFA against that account at the time that I left it was for a review of admin permissions and did not extend beyond that.
I have been in the process of withdrawing from wikipedia however I have continued to edit under single purpose accounts which with one exception I have tended to use only for a day or so.
Today, Jayjg declared these various accounts to be sockpuppets of Homeontherange and blocked them despite the fact that a) Homeontherange was never banned and b) none of the edits by those accounts were tendentious. Nevertheless he has labelled them all "abusive sockpuppets". This is wikilawyering and an attempt to use WP:SOCK as a pretext for his arbitrary actions despite the fact that WP:SOCK was not actually violated by the existence of these accounts.
As well, as I use a semi-public computer cluster along with a few hundred other people in my building, Jay's action has also declared several accounts I am uninvolved with as sockpuppets, including one belonging to my roomate.
I attempted to rectify this situation using User:Ex-Homey by pasting a "former Wikipedian" tag on User:Homeontherange. User:PinchasC reverted and then blocked me giving "homeontherange" as his justification for the block despite the fact that Homeontherange is not a banned user. I tried to explain this to Pinchas but he responded in an uncivil way by reverting me and then semiprotecting his talk page.
Both these users have thus misused their administrative permissions and acted arbitrarily. They have used wikilawyerly justifications for their actions based on a misapplication of WP:SOCK.Ex-Homey 15:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Re: FloNight
FloNight also banned an account of mine on sight despite the fact that Homeontherange was never banned by ArbComm or the community. After the fact she argued that there is a community ban when, in fact, no such thing has been done. In the face of opposition she unilaterally declared that there was a community ban in effect and banned User:Homeontherange despite the fact that that account had already been banned at my own request. This ban was lifted by Fred Bauder. Flo is engaging in an Post hoc ergo propter hoc argument to retroactively justify her arbitrary and out of policy bans. Ex-Homey 15:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Response to SlimVirgin
In fact Sonofzion is not "confirmed" and was never "confirmed". The CheckUser result at the time was "likely" and there is evidence that someone who signed themselves Sonofzion (and later daughterofzion) is in fact in Sweden suggesting "Sonofzion" may have been someone off continent who perhaps made it appear that he was editing from Toronto by using a proxy server or dummy computer. Jay seems to have conveniently changed the finding several weeks after the fact based not on a new checkuser run (since that account has not resurfaced in the past month) but on his own wishful thinking. I specifically asked if Checkuser showed same system or not same system and was never given a reply. SV is deliberately misrepresenting the facts as is Jay by including Sonofzion in a confirmed sockpuppet cat. Given dynamic IPs the number of anon IPs is quite meaningless. The other alleged sockpuppets were either single purpose accounts (since it was my intention to leave and not start a new permanent account) or are not mine but either my roomate's or others started via an IP feed shared by our co-op. None of them violated WP:SOCK save for one instance in which someone was asked to review a page for a possible 3RR violation by SlimVirgin in which ignorance of 3RR was feigned. The Homeontherange account at Mediawiki was an obvious imposter and I sent Fred and a steward an email to complain about it at the time and there is no reason, except for Slim's vivid imagination and her wishful thinking, to suspect that the other mediawiki account she lists was me. I see by some of her talk page chatter that she is now accusing anyone who has a different view than her on animal rights pages of being me - this may be a convenient pretext to use to delete contributions she disagrees with but other than that it's bogus. I have shown no hesitation to confirm accounts I have actually used but if Slim wishes to go on a self-serving witchhunt to stamp out edits contrary to her fringe animal rights opinion so be it.Ex-Homey 22:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Response to PinchasC
Post hoc ergo propter hoc there was no talk of a community ban prior to Flo banning me on sight. This was introduced as an after the fact justification. It also makes no sense to argue that someone should be subject to a community ban because there are imposters pretending to be him. Ex-Homey 15:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Response to Jayjg
That was accidental. What I was trying to to was revert my own removal of the notice of this RFA as I had decided to go ahead with it. Look at and specifically as well as where I made the identical edit comment of "this seems to be necessary". I did not see Flo's intervening edit and because of that I a) reverted to the wrong prior edit and b) removed Flo's edit inadvertently.
In any case Jay, your post to ANI misrerepesented things by mischaracterising edits and also implying that several of the alleged sockpuppets had been banned for "disruption" when, in fact, only one had and not because the edits it made were disruptive but because Flo mistakenly assumed it was a Wordbomb sock because the account asked if Mantanmoreland's CheckUser results were going to be posted. If you misrepresented the situation similarly to the ArbComm then you obtained permission to act under false pretences. Since you are an involved party in past disputes you should have left this to someone else. As it was you distorted and misrepresented in order to obtain a desired result. Ex-Homey 15:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Response to Committee
*Two admins (at least) oppose the community ban which means there is none in effect. What I need is a clear understanding that I am free to edit without FloNight, PinchasC, SV or anyone else blocking me under the false pretense that I am a banned user.
::If there *is* a community ban then I would like to appeal it (something that is now permitted according eg Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Saladin1970_appeal. If there is no community ban then I want that to be stated clearly. Ex-Homey 00:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Query to FloNight
according to Requests_for_arbitration/Saladin1970_appeal/Proposed_decision#Ban_by_the_community
The touchstone of an appropriate "ban by the community" is that there is no administrator who after examining the matter is willing to lift or reduce the ban.
Accordingly, since ChrisO below, for instance, says there is no community ban will you still ban me? If so, if ChrisO or another admin unblocks me will you respect that?Ex-Homey 10:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Statement by SlimVirgin
This is another attempt by Homeontherange to use arbitration as a platform to cause more chaos. In the last few weeks, he has used 15 confirmed sockpuppets, some of them abusive, one of them in order to evade a block for 3RR. He has also posted using 20 anon IPs, including proxies, sometimes claiming to be Homey, then denying it a few edits later and claiming his computer/user account had been compromised; or that other disruptive editors were pretending to be him. He used these ambiguities to create confusion over whether he had asked to be desyopped, over whether he was leaving, and over whether he had filed a previous RfAr. He is having a laugh at everyone's expense and has come close to exhausting the community's patience. See the proposed community ban suggested by Thatcher131.
Sonofzion was used to evade a 3RR block. Deuteronomy was used to file a 3RR report against an admin who had blocked Homey for 3RR. Fluffy the Cotton Fish (who Homey claims is a friend of his) was used to comment on the nomination to the Mediation Committee of Pinchas, who had filed an RfAr against Homey. Schroedinger the Cat was used to accuse me of admin abuse, and deliberately gave the impression that he was banned User:WordBomb in order to cause confusion. Hunting Thomas was used to make provocative edits to PETA, an article Homeontherange had previously stalked me to (but had otherwise no interest in). Hunting Thomas also pretended to William_M._Connolley that he was a new user who didn't know about 3RR, which is evidence that the account was being used deceptively in violation of WP:SOCK.
I request that the Committee not allow him to prolong this disruption with yet another arbitration case. SlimVirgin 14:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Confirmed accounts:
- 4thright (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Barbamama (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Darmok yes (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Deuteronomy2000 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- ExHomey (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Ex-Homey (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Fluffy the Cotton Fish (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Formerly known as Homey (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Holy Jehosophat (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Hunting Thomas (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Joshua Tree (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- KublaiKhan (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Labour Ready (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Schroedinger the Cat (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Sonofzion (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Shalom1980 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Suspected:
- m:user:Datamonkey, used on meta
- m:user:Homeontherange, used on meta to request adminship
Confirmed IP addresses (these have either been posted on the check-user page or Homeontherange has admitted to them, so there is no private information here about his location that is not already known):
- 64.229.161.100 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Bell/Sympatico, Toronto, Ontario)
- m:user:64.231.234.86 (Bell/Nexia, Toronto), used on meta
- 67.70.20.161 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Bell/Sympatico, Toronto)
- m:user:67.70.20.161 (Bell/Sympatico, Toronto), used on meta
- 67.71.63.229 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Bell/Sympatico, Toronto)
- 69.158.191.248 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Bell/Sympatico, Toronto)
- 70.28.159.194 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Rogers, Toronto)
- 70.48.89.229 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Bell/Sympatico, Toronto)
- 70.49.107.152 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Bell/Sympatico, Toronto)
- 70.51.120.174 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Bell/Sympatico, Toronto)
- 72.60.226.29 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Rogers, Toronto)
- m:user:72.60.226.29 (Rogers, Toronto), used on meta
- 72.60.227.118 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Rogers, Oakville, Ontario)
- 130.15.162.59 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario)
- 130.15.162.83 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario)
- 130.15.162.99 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario)
- 130.15.164.51 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario)
- 130.15.164.126 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario)
- 130.15.164.51 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario)
- 130.15.164.81 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario)
- 130.15.183.129 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario)
- 206.186.111.133 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Rogers, Toronto)
- m:user:206.186.111.133 (Rogers, Toronto), used on meta
Suspected:
- 130.94.134.218 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (anonymizer)
- 168.143.113.52 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (anonymizer)
Statement by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg
I must say that Homey has a lot of gall to even write this request. He has almost been as disruptive since he has "left" than he was before. He has an entire drawer of sockpuppets following around his former enemies, and in some cases making disruptive edits, . Homey has always had a tendency to go to ridiculous heights to try to get his way, but this situation just takes it to a whole new level. In this situation however I really don't see how it can accomplish anything besides backfiring in his face.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Response to User:KimvdLinde
I really do not know where you have found such a definition but I don't think it was anywhere on wikipedia. There is always one or two people defending even the most odious users. If we had to get the consensus on evey single person or even every single administrator before we enacted a community ban then I doubt anyone would ever be banned at all. Think about it, Willy on wheels would be running wild and free, Xed would still be making progressively crazier and crazier accusations of a vast conspiracy, that crazy religious guy would still be trying to convert people, Brandt and Merkey would have scared everyone off wikipedia by now. No, I don't think universal consensus is needed for this.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Response to User:Homeontherange
I must say that Homey's argument that Slimvirgin is basically just accusing everyone who diagrees with her of being socks of his, really sounds similar to every other time he denied that various sockpuppets belonged to him. I would say that even for someone who does not have access to checkuser reports, the evidence against him is rather obvious. His statements are beginning to look more and more like Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf and his annoucements of American soldiers setting themselves on fire in the streets of Baghdad in fear of the dreadful Iraqi army. In other words, to believe he is telling the truth flies in the face of all reason and common sense.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Statement by FloNight
IMO that User:Homeontherange is currently under a community ban. All of User:Homeontherange's user accounts are indef blocked on sight by myself and other admins. No other admins have undone these blocks. This type of behavior by the community is by definition a community ban. If they so desire, the Arbitration Committee and Jimbo can review our ban. If the Arbcom wants to open a case and modify the community ban they can. Until an admin reverses one of User:Homeontherange's blocked account, hopefully with full community consensus, I consider him under a community ban and will continue to block his sockpuppet user accounts. FloNight 14:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Selected comments from User talk:FloNight#Ex-Homey thread.
Fred Bauder explains reason that he unblocked Homey's accounts.
- I have unblocked Ex-Homey to participate in the arbitration request he made. He is limited to editing only arbitration pages. I will use checkuser to enforce this. Fred Bauder 15:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC) I also unblocked Homeonetherange. The password is lost and the only effect is to autoblock his new account. Fred Bauder 15:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
FloNight explains the reason all Homey's accounts are indef blocked.
- My blocks have nothing to do with an editing dispute. As far as I can recall, I have never edited an article with Homey. My indef blocks are purely based on his use of disruptive sockpuppets which are proven by Checkuser... FloNight talk 19:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Based on the above, I will reblock Homey if he edits outside of arb case pages. FloNight 01:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by ChrisO
Following up on FloNight's statement above, I don't think the assertion that Homeontherange is under a community ban is accurate - the block log has this entry:
- 20:16, 26 July 2006, KimvdLinde (Talk) blocked Homeontherange (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Unblock) (Per request of Homeontherage per e-mail)
I assume this was done in the light of the apparent compromising of the Homeontherange account. No community ban applies in this case as far as I know. -- ChrisO 14:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment by User:KimvdLinde
Community bans can only be applied when no body objects, and I objected, so there is no community ban. That I did not unblock any of his accounts is that it will probably end up in a wheelwar, where other admins will reblock as I am likely to be considered involved. -- Kim van der Linde 14:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Reinserted by SlimVirgin . -- Kim van der Linde 17:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:BLOCK#Users_who_exhaust_the_community.27s_patience: Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users Currently, I do not see that strong and wide consensus beyond editors that have been involved in various content disputes with Homey. That he was not community banned was confirmed by Fred Bauder here I however, would very strongly suggest to Homey that he limits his editing to the ArbCom cases. -- Kim van der Linde 14:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- See also Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Saladin1970_appeal/Proposed_decision#Ban_by_the_community. -- Kim van der Linde 04:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- The ruling states: The touchstone of an appropriate "ban by the community" is that there is no administrator who after examining the matter is willing to lift or reduce the ban. Seems clear to me. -- Kim van der Linde 04:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Statement by User:PinchasC
The abuse committed by Homeontherange is fully elaborated in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeontherange and by Slimvirgin, Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg and the others above.
In regards to the claim of him that I blocked User:Ex-Homey, the reason was because with his username he may have been impersonating Homeontherange. I noted this by placing a suspected sockpuppet or impersonator tag on his user page, as he claims that there are multiple users using his ip and accounts. And even if it was Homeontherange, then as FloNight wrote above that there was community support and as Jayjg wrote in AN/I arbcom support for the banning of his sockpuppets. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Statement by User:Jayjg
Before tagging and blocking Homey's sockpuppets I consulted with the Arbitration Committee mailing list. I was advised to go ahead, and to note the fact that I had done so on WP:AN/I, which I did: I also note that the IP address which brought this case vandalized my User: page before doing so: , and is one of a series of IP addresses claiming to be Homey, or claiming that other addresses claiming to be Homey are, in fact, not Homey, or various other deliberately confusing and disruptive actions and scenarios intended to spread FUD. Jayjg 01:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Statement by User:Bhouston
A user who goes by the username User:WordBomb among others was actually responsible for a lot of the shinnanigans as well as the original accounts that Zeq believed were sockpuppets of Homeontherange. Whether WordBomb and Homeontherange are the same people is a different question -- although I think it is established that they are different people because WordBomb has a history of abuse (I think SV mentioned this once) while Homeontherange doesn't. I can present evidence to this effect. WordBomb was incredibly effective as a troll. --Ben Houston 07:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Clerk notes
- (This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/3/0/0)
- Accept and merge with Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeontherange Fred Bauder 12:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Reject. What do you want me to arbitrate here? I see no wrongdoing by the admins, and Homeontherange seems to be adequately dewalt with by the community with checkuser assistance. Dmcdevit·t 06:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Reject pro tem. I'm concerned about the way the 'other' case is going. But one thing at a time. Charles Matthews 11:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Reject as per Charles. James F. (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Requests for clarification
Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process.
Pedophilia userbox wheel war
I would like to know if Tony Sidaway's threats at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 8#Template:unblockabuse are valid per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#SPUI, especially given the comments at . --SPUI (T - C) 17:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Link is no longer good. Fred Bauder 17:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Specifically this edit, which I still stand by. --Tony Sidaway 16:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Internal spamming/campaigning
There's an ongoing discussion at WP:SPAM about what constitutes acceptable talk page contact between users regarding discussions, votes, polls, etc. Prior rulings that have been pointed to are this prior ruling and this one. Could you offer any more specific information about what is and is not allowed/discouraged, for example: is it the use of mass userbox messaging that is disallowed (if it is), or is internal spamming/campaigning disallowed only if disruptive? Thanks. IronDuke 17:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article. Fred Bauder 16:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Alienus
The Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Alienus arbitration has been on indefinite hold since he seemed to have left the project. However, this week Alienus has returned and is using sockpuppets to edit war tendentiously. For example, compare this new edit with this old edit from February where he signs his name . So far he has used the addresses 24.44.189.249, 24.44.189.175, and 67.90.197.194. Because this seems to be a flagrant attempt to evade this accepted Arbcom case I would like to request that the case be moved back to active status, and furthermore an injunction against the use of such sockpuppets whil this case is ongoing, enforcement to be accomplished through reverting edits and indefinite block on sight. Nandesuka 13:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Today's he's used 24.44.184.238 as well. Nandesuka 12:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- There's also a question about this at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Alienus/Proposed decision. -Will Beback 03:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Zeq wikistalking and block count
I've been having a difficult time applying arbitration enforcement for Zeq and feel I have since been targetted by him. For example, after I blocked Kelly Martin for her B-list attack page, Zeq just happens to come along so as to caution me from blocking a user with whom you have a dispute" (what dispute? he fails to mention). Or, after removing and protecting the attack page by Sarasto777, Zeq just happens to come along, again. These are not isolated examples. Then today, Zeq questions my adminstrative compotence and speaks of an "edit conflict" after I delete his copyvio entry, twice. Many blocks later, how should I proceed with the tendencious edits by the user? Should I implement Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq#Enforcement_by_block next time — it will be the 6th block. Or will it? I am inclined to count article bans as blocks, and am seeking clarification as to this approach, and Zeq's conduct overall as illustrated above. Thanks in advance. El_C 13:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Motions in prior cases
- (Only Arbitrators may make such motions)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zeq
Motion to ban Zeq for a week for creating an attack article regarding User:Homeontherange (article has been deleted) diff will be available to Arbitration Committee members. Fred Bauder 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support Fred Bauder 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support ➥the Epopt 23:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Dmcdevit·t 18:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support. - SimonP 19:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Archives
- Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
- Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (extremely sparse, selective, and unofficial)