Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lsi john (talk | contribs) at 18:45, 27 June 2007 (→Durova: clarify). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Arbcom-talk

• ]

Recent spamming

Time to contact the ISP methinks. I've checked out five of the IPs used and all return Belgacom. – Chacor 13:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Some stupidity between the socialist web sites workforall.org and workforall.net. I don't understand why the .net guy keeps spamming his request here. Does he think that the 50 times it has been removed were all accidents, and the case will suddenly be accepted on the 51st attempt? Bottom line (since he is probably reading this) is the following:

1. The Arbitration committee does not decide content issues, only serious editor conduct problems.
2. The removal of WorkForAll.net links is an editorial decision made by multiple editors and there is no evidence that policies were violated.
3. Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process. If you think the decision to remove the links was wrong, you should start with a request for comment to solicit the views of additional editors.
4. Misplaced Pages should not be used as a vehicle to promote private web sites. The fact that some articles have inappropriate links to some web sites is a reason to find and remove them, not to add more ("Other crap exists so mine should too" is not an acceptable argument here).
5. If you persist, you will be reverted and blocked. You are way outnumbered by the recent changes patrol, by the way. If necessary, we can block your entire ISP, which is bound to make them take notice of you. So please stop. Thatcher131 13:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

He's taken to vandalizing the talk pages of users who remove his "request". He got me and Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) this morning (Thanks to Lectonar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for cleaning it up!). Adam 15:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I reproteced the page again today with an expiry of 2 weeks. Seems he reposted as soon as the expiry went away last time. Hope I wasn't out of line in doing this. ^demon 13:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for 24 hours. Might be time to start writing that email to Belgacom. – Chacor 13:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

He can reset his IP quite easily it seems. Thatcher131 13:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Two weeks seems like a long time. I wonder if we should put a notice on the page advising users to contact a clerk for help. On the other hand, I have never seen a legitimate request filed by an IP editor. Hmmm. Thatcher131 13:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think if an IP editor did have a legitimate request (ie: they know enough about policy to know what would be appropriate), they would know enough to ask on this page or a clerk for help. ^demon 14:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please remember to restore move=sysop permanently every time; protects w/ expiration dates potentially leave pages vulnerable to attacks. - Penwhale | 09:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Although Thatcher seems to be on the money, I must say that I have seen some fairly good IP statements on proposed cases. That note may not be astray. Daniel 06:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Durova

Durova, you may want to discuss here instead of on the main page. I get from the instructions that we are not to get into discussions there and your responding to my statement invites continued back and forth discussion. My only question for you is what does this mean? "Per Justanother, alternative methods of resolution are not available." You are implying that I said what, exactly? --Justanother 04:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's customary at RFAR to respond to another editor's statement by appending one's own. The particular comment of yours that comment responded to is I should mention that I am not looking for any WP:DR vis-a-vis Durova for her actions. I'd already recommended DR repeatedly before opening this request. Unfortunately for this situation, user conduct WP:RFC would be difficult to pursue with this many editors and mediation requires the consent of all parties. Durova 17:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Druova, that makes your method a self-fulfilling prophesy. You say it's too many people for an RfC, I disagree. I doubt that I would even be involved in an RfC on COFS. And, I don't see any reason for Justanother to be involved in an RfC on COFS either. My only reason for involvement was to try and stop the high speed railroading witch hunt that was out to HANG those people that have tried our patience long enough. The entire situation was based on multiple repeated usage of prior one-sided 'reports' of suspicion and innuendo. Anyone who looks at it fairly, will see that COFS does not have a horrible block log. COFS has 2 blocks for 3RR. The other blocks were for 'suspicion' and were unblocked. COFS has not been given a fair due-process. From what I can tell, COFS doesn't even edit all that much.

Johochman clearly doesn't like those people (Scientologists). And, because your apprentice fast tracked it out of COIN, where it belonged, and into CSN where it didn't belong, and then because you two (reinforced by each other's posts) effectively tag-teamed COFS and ram rodded your own personal consensus, you forced me to be involved, in order to try to slow things down and to try to inject reason. But it was clearly too late, as you had already made up your mind. And, in the end, you 'declared' a non-existent 'consensus' for your ruling, and requested another admin on AN/I close the ticket and bless your decree. I don't think it was intentional, I think you just got caught up in your own personal views, the two of you reinforced each other, and it got out of control. (Note: your indef block of Bus stop, where numerous editors posted on your talkpage in surprise of your drastic measures. Bus stop may need a community ban, but he hasn't had proper WP:DR either. You took that from him.)

I believe that, as a team, either you or Johochman should have recused yourselves from commenting. Based on your own remarks on your talkpage, you are clearly very proud of your 'personally trained wiki-sleuths'. It makes perfect sense that Johochman would want to impress you with his tenacious attack. It also explains his attack on me (defending you) with his AN/I post, after I did everything he asked me to do. Whether or not you technically violated any wiki-rules or policy, or whether it technically qualified as anything like meat puppets, I don't know. But it certainly was a bit unethical from my perspective.

Smee and Anynobody have been a driving force against COFS for POV reasons, from the beginning. They continue to throw out the same 'sock puppet check' (because that is all they really have). And what they don't point out is that, during their 'witch hunt', an admin finally told them to knock off the fishing, when they finally went too far and added me to the list. Then you and Johochman (presumably duped by the numerous 'reports') effectively team up with them and rammed this through. (Granted they did not arrive in this situation at the beginning, but they have been involved in the campaign from the beginning, and they have certainly jumped in and proudly displayed their socks check and argued for banning).

There isn't any evidence of misconduct that I saw presented. There is only evidence of reports of suspicion, filed time and again, for the most part by anti-Scientologists. If you honestly take time to read through it, taking yours and Johochman's comments out, there is not a lot left. If you two were truly NEUTRAL, then why did you dominate the conversation? Why did Johochman produce '2 fresh diffs' (25 hours old and 10 hours apart) to justify your views of warring? A neutral admin, with no 'adjenda', would have listened to the case being presented and then ruled. Johochman steered it to the CSN, and then both you and Johochman took very active roles in prosecuting the case. And THAT is why I got involved. There was no evidence of a neutral party. those people have tried our patience long enough.

What, exactly, is the question of the dispute?

1. COI? then it should have been on COIN. How strict a definition of COI are we going to apply to these articles? And, are we willing to apply it across the board evenly to both sides?
2. Disruption? There is no evidence of disruption.
3. POV? Scientology articles are full of pov editors on both sides.

I've said it twice before and I'll repeat it here: If we are going to take a bite of the apple, we better be prepared to eat the whole damned apple. The tension over the Scientology articles won't be resolved by banning the editors from either side, who aggressively remove POV, unless our goal is to allow the Scientology articles to be written POV.

And the really funny part about all this, if there is a funny part, is that I have unanswered concerns about COFS too. You called me a defender, which I find funny. Because not once have I defended a single action of COFS. My efforts have been to slow things down, get them into the correct venue, and make sure that we don't mis-convict someone. You concluded means I am guilty of some unidentified off-line collusion, and then tied an apology to some action on my part to 'apologize to your apprentice'. And you accused me of being a long-term vandal with a new account, who will be 'discovered' by thorough investigation by your sleuths. (Simply because I voiced firm opposition to you?) Tag-team attack COFS, Tag-team defend each other.

Durova, we got off to a bad start, and for that I'm sorry. You have said this is a hobby for you, and you clearly enjoy the investigations and banning. But the people here are real. They are not simply a hobby. The views being expressed in these articles are real and they stir up very strong emotional and powerful feelings. Scientology is a religion. It isn't mine, but it is a religion. Some of the pro-Scientologists are fanatics, AND some of the anti-Scientologists are fanatics. Some aren't fanatics at all, but are simply here to defend their religion against attack and some are here to attack that religion (though they may not accept that it is a religion). When someone defends against a fanatic, their actions may seem extreme. Upon reflection, perhaps that's why my actions seemed extreme to you?

Personally, I believe you got a bit carried away here. I think you might want to consider taking a break from the CSN board, and reflect on what you want to contribute to wikipedia, and how that can and does impact real lives. Maybe even take a short break from 'training sleuths' and look at your motivation for doing it.

I don't know what the future will bring. But I do know that I hope it brings a peaceful resolution to this entire situation, so that we can return to writing articles. After all, that is the reason for wikipedia. Peace.Lsi john 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)