This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lar (talk | contribs) at 17:22, 3 October 2007 (→User:Deeceevoice: reference the MFD). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. 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}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Edit this section for new requests

User:Deeceevoice

• Deeceevoice has been sanctioned in the past against having offensive material on their user page. The current page contains some material which can be considered offensive by some of the editors. For relevant discussion on this issue, use the links below:
• Admin noticeboard, discussion 1
• Admin noticeboard, discussion 2
• Neil's talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk • contribs) 15:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  I was about to post this here. The relevant Arbitration ruling is Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Deeceevoice#Offensive_user_page_prohibition. Neil ム 15:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly a rant against Misplaced Pages, and I have removed the name of one editor she singled out for attention. However, I do not believe the content is "calculated to offend," especially compared to the content at issue in the Arbitration case. The same kind of rant has been made by other editors concerning articles they are passionate about, and by recognized experts in certain fields who find themselves frustrated at a system that gives the same weight to a board certified specialist and to a high school kid who just took a health class (to paraphrase one such complaint I read once). The language in in places less moderate than I would be, but I am not passionate about this issue and Deeceevoice is. I don't find that the rant crosses the line from immoderate to offensive and it is certainly not deliberately offensive. Nor are the links to humanitarian campaigns "offensive" in any sense of the word. I do concur with the removal of the email from a banned user. Thatcher131 17:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that in the recent MFD Raul654 and jpgordon (both current arbitrators) commented keep, quite strongly. Now, I haven't compared the page then to now to see if it's significantly different, but that does seem to be of some relevance. ++Lar: t/c 17:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Shutterbug formerly User:COFS

Shutterbug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) "...appears to be working towards a pro-Scientology point of view at the expense of NPOV." -Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/COFS#Findings of fact.

Continuing the same behavior:

• Removed reference with edit summary:lie removed. this well known to be out of a finance series for church organizations and about the fact that you go bankrupt if you don't have any income.
• Removed several WP:RS used elsewhere in the article with edit summary: NPOVed. if you feel it is impossible for you just to state a simple fact without the need to slant it to something overly slanderous or overcritical, then please refrain from editing.
• Removed {{fact}} requesting reference for assertion about critical acclaim, with edit summary:it's "literature" critics)
• Removed citation and replaced with {{fact}}(Anynobody 07:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

The arbcom debated a 30 day block for previous behavior like this, which I still feel is a bit too harsh. However some kind of block, or very explicit warning, seems to be in order considering how recently the case was decided. Anynobody 05:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me as funny that the editor who added in outright falsehoods in the article is now screaming for punishment of the one who reverted his POV pushing, probably after realizing that he has no Misplaced Pages policy to back up his POV. But find out for ourself, however please follow the whole route through the article history and talk page discussion about the above, as well as the ArbCom discussion (which ended with putting the article under probation) on the subject. Anynobody as a part of the ArbCom decision ultimately was warned not to harass another Scientologist editor (Justanother) or be blocked. I feel he just turned the page and now runs after me. Shutterbug 06:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't intend to turn this into a battleground by replying to every comment, but I will say that what Shutterbug has identified as POV pushing is simply what the references say. Anynobody 06:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not correct. On the money one your text is an interpretation of the ref - and an incorrect one at that. On the critics one you deleted a valid ref yourself which I put back in and on the NPOVed one you threw the lead section off balance by inserting repetitions of the same idea to push your viewpoint, i.e. violation of WP:UNDUE and I shortened this convolution of one-sided opinion to a true statement of facts, in alignment with WP:NPOV. Anyway, this does not lead anywhere, so can someone not involved in the Scientology discussion have a look and say something? Shutterbug 06:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Additional note: This is turning into a mass deletion of cited text. Stop it, Anynobody, just get your fingers under control. Shutterbug 07:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish you hadn't reverted over cited text so many times, but it's forced me to also report violating WP:3RR. WP:AN3#User:Shutterbug reported by User:Anynobody (Result: ) Anynobody 07:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Shutterbug banned from editing scientology-related articles and their talkpages for 30 days

I agree that Shutterbug is behaving disruptively at L. Ron Hubbard, especially in the sense of creating and keeping alive quarrels through aggressive edit summaries which focus on editors rathers rather than edits. Here's a typical one, not quite as overt an attack as the examples Anynobody cites: "reverting back to NPOV titles instead of POV pushing wording put in by F451" It's from September 26, just three days after the article was put on probation, and led to an angry debate on the talkpage. What is the need for routinely using edit summaries to provoke other editors? That's not what edit summaries are for, and there's no possible constructive purpose in such creation of bad blood. I'm not interested in who's right or wrong about the "POV" of the versions being reverted between; my point is that it doesn't matter, when reverting something, if it's (in Shutterbug's view) POV pushing or not. His/Her reason for reverting is presumably a quality of the text (=the quality of being POV), not an assumed intention of the editor who put it there (=the quality of being POV pushing). Therefore, write (if you must) "reverting back to NPOV titles instead of POV wording", lose the "pushing". Honestly, how hard is this principle, how many times has it been explained? Don't attack people, stick to editing the text, use edit summaries to explain why a change is made. I've only looked at the Hubbard article, but from his/her behaviour there alone, Shutterbug is being continually provocative. Anynobody has some even worse examples above.

Per the article probation that scientology-related articles is on, I'm hereby banning Shutterbug from editing those articles for 30 days. This includes talkpages. I hope the arbcom will let me know if including talkpages is inappropriate, but Shutterbug is a disruptive and quarrelsome presence on Talk:L. Ron Hubbard. (Today's header posted by S: "Vandalism by Anynobody.") I will assume good faith and not state that s/he is trying to provoke other editors into inappropriate behaviour, but s/he's certainly having that effect. (It's for instance easy enough to provoke Fahrenheit451.) Finally, I'm quite unimpressed by Shutterbug's attempt above to cadge a ride on the arbcom decision re Anynobody/Justanother. Bishonen | talk 09:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC).

I do not understand two things: a) you were part of the ArbCom procedure and involved yourself in the fight between Justanother and Anynobody/Anyeverybody etc. I don't know why you are involving yourself now. It might be possible by WP policy though. Not really important. b) Your judgment resulted in the addition of a couple of POV statements in the article. May be that I do not understand the job of an Admin, may be. I thought you would guard the application of Misplaced Pages policy to reach a correct/verifiable article. After all this is an encyclopedia not a social club or soccer game in need of a referee. Content control, correct application of NPOV etc. is what I thought would be key here. If that is not your product, what is it then? I do understand that I was too noisy and stupidly got myself provoked by continuous inclusion of falsehoods. The talk page ban however is not in alignment with the ArbCom decision at all so I do have a problem understanding your punishment decision. Shutterbug 17:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to provoke this behavior. The simple fact is that Shutterbug's strong feelings have clouded her ability to edit Scientology articles in a WP:NPOV way as defined by the policy.

With all due respect, focusing on her edit summaries entirely misses the problem, removing or altering cited text and trying to invoke mistaken perceptions of what NPOV is. Take the Time's use of Hubbard's quote about money, Shutterbug thought I had put it in the article out of context, when I actually used exactly the same context as the Time article. "Make sure that lots of bodies move through the shop," implored Hubbard in one of his bulletins to officials. "Make money. Make more money. Make others produce so as to make money . . . However you get them in or why, just do it." is the closing sentence of several paragraphs discussing Hubbard's financial motivations. Anynobody 01:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it is a falsehood, you know it but put it in the article anyway. It's not a bulletin, it's not "to officials", it's not a correct quote, it's out of context, it's not part of doctrine and it is interpreted and embellished by you personally - not covered in the ref - with a 100% POV statement. In the absence of actual article probation control - CONTENT CONTROL for the sake of a correct Misplaced Pages article - I agree that my mistake is to be so noisy that I seem to attract the attention personally instead of getting the attention on POV pushing and the inclusion of outright false information in articles. Attacking me for provoking god-knows-who is an interesting approach, given your own consistent behavior. Shutterbug 16:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Probation decision on Scientology articles

In light of the recent ArbCom decision, how may editors request placement of a Probation template on a Scientology-related article, and who may place the template on a given article? Thanks. HG | Talk 15:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The decision says it is placed on the talk page of the article. Seems rather mandatory, or not? Shutterbug 06:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• All articles related to Scientology are placed on probation. As long as there is no disagreement about whether an article is "related to Scientology" or not, any editor may place the {{Article probation}} template at the top of the talk page. If there is a disagreement, ask an admin to make a determination. Thatcher131 07:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for your input. Pursuant to the comments above, I've placed the Article Probation tag on Talk:Psychiatric abuse. The Scientology connection is noted in the article (though the editing there has been volatile) and its Talk page. I also left a brief explanation about my placement of the tag. Thanks again. HG | Talk 14:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Chrisjnelson (2)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User already blocked for another infraction. Newyorkbrad 19:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson, Chrisjnelson is "limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page". Well, he may have violated this by not discussing his reversion to 2007 New England Patriots season (initial edit reversion ). Its been over an hour, and he hasn't discussed it on the articles talk page, or contacted the user who's edit he reverted. He also reverted without discussion on Derrick Johnson (intitial edit reversion ) Sasha Callahan 03:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: Chrisnelson is discussing the reversion to 2007 New England Patriots season on its talkpage. Sasha Callahan 02:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Administrator response: As noted, Chrisjnelson did discuss the reversion on the talkpage, although in the future he should post there before or immediately after reverting. Not clear that a block is warranted on this report; but I see that in the meantime Chrisjnelson has been blocked by another administrator for 24 hours for incivility issues anyway. I hope this editor will get the message soon as he has good information to add to Misplaced Pages, but he's not going to be able to if he continues his current style of contributing. Newyorkbrad 11:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Nrcprm2026

user:Nrcprm2026 was placed under parole on Depleted Uranium and all related articles,RfAr probation. He has violated this with sockpuppets many time, and was recently found to be the puppeteer behind User:BenB4 Checkuser on BenB4. I beleive it is time to ban him permanently. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• "I do not see the downside of using socks to try to point out what other editors have neither the time nor inclination to." - Ahem. User obviously does Not Get It. Endorse indefinite ban. ~ Riana ⁂ 15:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Also endorsed. Two down, one to go. Moreschi 15:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Three. – Steel 15:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• (ec) Endorse. Riana's diff seals the deal. IAR isn't an excuse to evade sanction or continue disruption, and that would actually be contrary to the spirit of the principle. Vassyana 15:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ban implemented by indef blocks of socks and main account, duly logged. Moreschi 15:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that BenB4 was the other user (along with Bmedley Sutler) who dug up old off-wiki posts and posted them to my RfA, which then promptly failed. One of the arguments as to why I was not entitled to any type of courtesy remedy was that BenB4 was a user in good standing. That argument just went out with the bathwater. - Crockspot 22:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on this, it appears that there are two more sock accounts:

• Acct4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Pretty blatant editing patterns.
• Andy r2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) created today by Acct4, as yet unused.

- Crockspot 23:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Hajji Piruz

User:Hajji Piruz, formerly User:Azerbaijani, was placed under parole under the remedy by the first ArbCom case , and further placed under supervised editing per remedy of the second ArbCom case - . After a 10-day break, which included a 48-hour block due to edit warring at Template:Literature of Azerbaijan, User:Hajji Piruz, formerly User:Azerbaijani, is back to reverting and edit warring on other pages related to Azerbaijan without properly discussing. Below are his reverts in first day of editing after 10 days:

• Iran-Azerbaijan relations -
• Caucasian Albanians -
• Safavid dynasty -
• Shirvanis -
• Azerbaijan Democratic Republic -
• Arran (Republic of Azerbaijan) -
• Azerbaijan - - changing the text sourced directly from CIA World Factbook, without proper discussion.

Please, check his history , during the day of September 27th, all of his article edits were reverts on Azerbaijan-related articles. Thanks. Atabek 15:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I also note that he is required to discuss any content reversions on the relevant talk pages. Moreschi 16:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Where did I violate parole? I have been involved in discussions in all of these articles, and put comments for every single revert. I was gone for a period of a week and a half, of which certain users took advantage to insert POV, OR, and remove large amounts of sourced information.Hajji Piruz 19:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's true that you have not violated your parole directly (or not that I can see), and on every occasion you do seem to have used the talk page. This is commendable. What is not so commendable, however, is that you walk away for ten days and then come straight back with a pile of reverts in one day across multiple related articles. That is highly dubious conduct, to say the least. Consider this a stern warning for the future. I'm undecided as to whether any further action is necessary. Moreschi 19:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Shall I add, that one of his edits , is actually removing sourced text wording taken from CIA World Factbook 2007, and replacing it with sourceless POV. Actually, he never discussed this particular edit on the talk page , but repeated general non-edit-specific POV comments. I think the ArbCom remedy refers to leaving comments/discussing specific reasons for reverting particular content, not just any comment. Atabek 00:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Here’s Hajji Piruz’s latest comment, threatening with an edit war on FA article Azerbaijani people. Hajji Piruz makes POV interpretations of sources that have no support from other editors, and not only those who are party to this arbcom case, but also such respected members of wikipedia community as User:Tombseye (who wrote that article up to the FA standard). However Hajji Piruz keeps edit warring over inclusion of that particular edit in a number of Misplaced Pages articles despite lack of consensus. Grandmaster 04:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

user:MaplePorter

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

MaplePorter has been indefinitely blocked by Picaroon as discussed below. MaplePorter may appeal to ArbCom. Thatcher131 16:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (HK) was involved in three ArbCom cases. In the course of them he was discovered to be using sock puppets so expertly as to almost elude detection. One of the cases includes a ban enforcement provision that resultd in a one-year ban: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Ban enforcement. Since then the ban has been reset twice due to further sock activity. MaplePorter (talk · contribs) (MP) has edited with the same POV as HK. Recently, MP uploaded an image, claiming that it had been scanned by her boyfiend, who she claimed had never edited Misplaced Pages before. The photo, Image:DennisKing,ChipBerlet.jpg, is an identical copy, pixel-for-pixel, as a photo uploaded by HK three years ago, Image:King berlet.jpg. It is techically impossible for a scanned photo to exactly match another scan done on a different scanner years apart. The image is not readily available on the web, but MP does not claim she obtained it there anyway. The logical conclusion is that MP has lied about how she obtained the photo, and the likeliest reason is that MP is actually a sockpuppet of HK. I request that the MP account be banned as a sockpuppet and that the ban on HK be reset. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If MP and HK were the same person, why would MaplePorter be uploading that image again? I don't even understand why MP would lie about the source of the image... there's another one available so why does it matter? -- tariqabjotu 21:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The image uploaded by HK had been deleted long ago. I restored it for the purpose of this comparison. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I received this image as an attachment to an email from a friend of mine. I had the impression that this person had aquired the image by scanning. However, I have now spoken on the phone with this person, and he informed me that he was unable to get a satisfactory result by scanning, so he used an image that he found on the web at this location: http://www.biocrawler.com/w/images/8/89/King_berlet.jpg. I hope this solves one mystery. The other, unsolved mystery is why is this such a big deal to Will Beback? There are many real problems at Misplaced Pages that could use attention by an administrator. --MaplePorter 23:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I am also puzzled about how Will's "logical conclusion" that I was lying is consistant with WP:AGF. --MaplePorter 23:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The image first appeared in a LaRouchite publication which was copyrighted. All other sources are stolen from this copyrighted publication, unless the original LaRouchite photographer wants to come forward and release it into the public domain, which itself is dubious, because it probably was a work for hire. The only reason it was reposted was to continue a campaign of cyberstalking.--Cberlet 23:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, images used under Fair Use are typically copyrighted, but not considered "stolen." And featuring photographs of notable individuals on Misplaced Pages is not typically considered "cyberstalking." --MaplePorter 23:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears plausible that the image was scraped by biocrawler.com before it was deleted. They have boatloads of scraped images at http://www.biocrawler.com/w/images/. Thatcher131 00:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering that MaplePorter volunteered that it was scanned, responded when requested that it was scanned, and then specifically said it was scanned by her boyfriend, I find it remarkable that she suddenly changes her story when confronted. I did a long search on Google Images to see if I could find the image on the web, but to no avail. How ddid MaplePorter's friend find the image? What links to it? I am still dubious. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is obvious that MaplePorter is either a sockpuppet for HK, or in violation of the intent of the arbcom ruling on editing LaRouche-related pages, or both. At what point is it not obvious that the primary role of MaplePorter is to delete material critical of LaRouche and add material favorable to LaRouche in the same manner as previous editors banned from editing? Just look at the contributions page.--Cberlet 02:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to cite the arbcom ruling that you think Maple is violating? My read is that it says references to LaRouche should not be added to articles where they are inappropriate. Are you talking about something different? Please specify. --Marvin Diode 14:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The accusation is that Maple is acting as a sockpuppet or proxy editor for Herschelkrustofsky, which would be grounds for blocking or banning. Thatcher131 14:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well... Cberlet said that "it is obvious that MaplePorter is either a sockpuppet for HK, or in violation of the intent of the arbcom ruling on editing LaRouche-related pages, or both." My question concerns what is meant by "the intent of the arbcom ruling" in the event that it is not the same as "Maple acting as a sockpuppet or proxy editor." --Marvin Diode 23:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Will on this one. The series of events according to Maple are difficult to believe. Additionally, Maple's statement regarding "the other, unsolved mystery" and the small comment following that seem to me to be pleas to divert attention away from anything that may be uncovered upon further scrutiny of him. -- tariqabjotu 05:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it simply means that I have been involved in numerous content disputes with Will Beback (who has edited with the same POV as Cberlet) and I think that he is engaging in a bit of harassment to intimidate me. --MaplePorter 20:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you clarify the situation by giving us the link through which the biocrawler image was found? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The likely explanation is that MaplePorter is a puppet of Herschelkrustofsky. Tom Harrison 21:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

So what's our conclusion here? I see MaplPorter hasn't asnwered questions about how this obscure image was found. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

She provided a web address that checks out. What policy is being violated here? --Marvin Diode 05:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The accusation is sock puppetry to avoid a ban. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And how does the fact that she, or her boyfriend, was able to find an image on Biocrawler support this theory? --Marvin Diode 13:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's the current claim. In order to prove it I've asked MaplePorter repeatedly to clarify how the image was found. Apparently MaplePorter refuses to substantiate her story. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you checked to see whether the image at http://www.biocrawler.com/w/images/8/89/King_berlet.jpg matches the one she uploaded? Either it does or it doesn't. If it does, her story is credible. The fact that you have been involved in numerous content disputes with Maple is troubling, and you might want to consider recusing yourself (the same goes for Tom Harrison.) --Marvin Diode 00:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we know where MaplePorter claims to have obtained the image. The question on the floor is how was that image found? MaplePorter has already given conflicting answers. Unless a more plausible explanation is given then I think it's likeliest that it was obtained from HK, and that MaplePorter is HK. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There are substantial holes in your theory. Is there any evidence that HK is connected in some way to Biocrawler? Did he put the image there himself? If not, how would he have any particular insider knowledge of how to find it there? As far as Maple giving conflicting answers, she says that she got the image from her boyfriend, and that she thought it was scanned, but then learned that it came off the web. Assuming good faith, the initial report that it was scanned could be an honest mistake, as she says it was. I don't see any other inconsistencies in her story. And I still wonder whether you, who have quarrelled with her continually over article content, are entirely objective and impartial in this matter. --Marvin Diode 20:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed to be impartial. Nor have you. MP repeatedly assured me that the image had been scanned. When confronted with the impossbility of that assertion she came up with an incomplete second explanation. She refuses to make any further statement clarifying how she obtained this image that was originally uploaded by HK. Rather than you and I debating each other, I'd like to hear from MaplePorter and from uninvolved editors. HK has used sock puppets many times before and maintains a steady interest in Misplaced Pages. Flouting ArbCom bans disrupts Misplaced Pages. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Amazing as it may seem, I have real life concerns that keep me from editing continuously at Misplaced Pages, so I am just now seeing these recent comments. Will Beback's assertion that I am "refusing to make any further statement" is just one more indication of his bias. I will ask my friend what the search criteria were -- is that what is being requested? --MaplePorter 07:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

When the question is ignored while other edits are made to Misplaced Pages I assume that it is ignored intentionally. The question is how was the image obtained? Was there a link that led to it, and if so what's that link. Or was it a search function, or what? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

According to his best recollectin, he did a Google search (not image search) using search words "King Berlet jpg." That brought up Indopedia, which had a blank image called "king_berlet.jpg." Then he did a Google search for "King_berlet.jpg" and found Biocrawler. --MaplePorter 20:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If you got a file named "king_berlet.jpg" it seems odd that you'd rename it "DennisKing,ChipBerlet.jpg", and it seems odd that your boyfriend would have gone to all that troubel to search for the file, and then tell you he'd scanned it. Can you upload one of the scans he performed? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeez. Why don't you just apologize to her and move on? --Marvin Diode 23:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who has expressed incredulity about MaplePorter's various explanations for this image. Once we're all satisfied with the answers the matter will be settled, one way or the other. Until then, interjections like that don't help further the matter. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback or Cberlet, can you provide some examples in the forms of diffs showing Maple Porter and Herschelkrustofsky pushing the same point of view? The photograph story is suspicious, but is not evidence of sockpuppetry itself. I'd like to see more examples of similarities between the two. Picaroon (t) 23:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've done a comparison of the edit summaries, grammar, and points of views of these two users, and have determined they are most likely the same user. Therefore, I have blocked MaplePorter indefinitely as a ban evading sock. Picaroon (t) 20:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That sort of "evidence" seems flimsy and circumstantial if you are taking such a radical step as an indefinite block. MaplePorter has made valuable contributions to a number of articles.--Marvin Diode 21:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Not commenting on the merits of the ban, the evidence suggests sockpuppetry, and sockpuppets of banned users are blocked, indefinitely. You may petition the committee for an annulment of the ban so Herschelkrustofsky may contribute constructivly under his main account if you wish, but the fact that this account may have made valuable contributions does not nullify the fact that it is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Picaroon (t) 22:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

...except that there is no reliable evidence that MaplePorter has any connection whatsoever with Herschelkrustofsky. This whole affair reminds me of The Crucible. --Marvin Diode 14:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

While I maintain that I'm pretty good at comparing non-technical traits and drawing conclusions from them, I nevertheless consulted a checkuser on this issue. He said "Based on checkuser evidence, I think it's fairly likely that MaplePorter is a HK sock". Picaroon (t) 20:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you are talking dynamic IP numbers, which means more circumstantial evidence. I find it depressing that at Misplaced Pages an unscrupulous editor who wants to get his way in a content dispute can get his or her opponent indef-blocked, just by making a half-plausible allegation of sockpuppetry. This sort of thing will ruin Misplaced Pages's credibility. --Marvin Diode 14:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the checkuser information was not divulged, we don't know if the MaplePorter account was using dynamic or fixed IPs. Please be careful about describing other editors as "unscrupulous" as that could be seen as a personal attack. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Marvin Diode, you are not privy to the relevant checkuser data, so you probably shouldn't be trying to draw conclusions regarding them. Now, let's recap the evidence. Two involved users, Will Beback and Chip Berlet, who are familiar with Herschelkrustofsky, think MaplePorter is the same editor. Three uninvolved admins (Tariqabjotu, Spartaz, and I) agree with them. The accounts uploaded the same image, and the latter account has spun an unconving excuse that has changed at least twice. The two accounts edit the same subjects, have the same point of view, and have similar style quirks. And to wrap it all up, they are editing from similar IPs; a checkuser says the connection is  Likely, based on technical evidence alone. Please explain how all this evidence is faulty, without resorting to calling it "circumstantial" again and again. I'm open to being convinced that I made the wrong determination, but you're not convincing me. Picaroon (t) 00:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

MaplePorter's story about the image changed only once by my count. But otherwise, I'm afraid we've arrived at a deadlock, because my objection does come down to the simple fact that the evidence is circumstantial. That, and the fact that I have noted no serious conduct problem with MaplePorter's editing, and a lot of constructive contributions. It disturbs me that the two "involved users" that you mentioned are users that have been engaged in protracted content disputes with MP. If a user who had no axe to grind were to come along and point to an editor who was disruptive and unproductive, and then present evidence that suggested sockpuppetry, I would say that a ban is in order. But in this case, it seems like a serious overreaction. I find the whole affair disturbing and disheartening. --Marvin Diode 06:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with two experienced editors raising concerns - especially concerning the possibility of a new sock from a serial sockpuppeter. If nothing else, the editors most likely to recognise a sock are those editing the article in question. Neither took admin action themselves and waited for uninvolved admins to review the edidence and make a decision. Fron your argument we would never be able to deal with serial socks because everyone who knew anything about them would be disbarred from raising concern. There is a more then reasonable case that MaplePorter is HK and providing an incorrect explanation for the origin of that image did not help their cause. HK is banned and any reincarnation even as a productive user is not allowed unless they can have the ban rescinded. As you say, we appear to be at an impasse, you don't agree with the block but the consensus is that this was the right thing to do. Spartaz 07:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Rktect

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved: User has already been blocked by Neil for one week for violation of the arbitration decision. Newyorkbrad 16:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

While pursuing what initially looked like wikistalking of the above-named user, I inadvertantly discovered that User:Rktect may have been quietly violating his or her Arbcom sanction against editing articles on weights and measures for quite some time. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IP user apparently wikistalking Rktect for the ANI thread from which this discovery developed. This is a copy-paste of my post there with diff links to evidence of the Arbcom-decision violation:

Hmmmm... Looks like Rktect has possibly violated his or her Arbcom ban against editing articles on weights and measures: diff. --Dynaflow babble 07:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC) He or she is also creating a preferred version of an article in his userspace (User:Rktect/Ancient egyptian units of measurement, User:Rktect/mile, User:Rktect/History of Measurement, User:Rktect/pous, User talk:Rktect/cubit, User:Rktect/degrees, User:Rktect/Imperial Unit, etc.) that he would otherwise be barred from editing. He or she is even creating new weights-and-measures articles in namespace: diff. More: diff, diff, etc. --Dynaflow babble 07:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There also seems to be trouble brewing between Rktect and at least one other user on articles having to do with the ancient Near East, though that is probably more a matter for ANI. --Dynaflow babble 08:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Rktect has been blocked for one week by Neil for violation of the ArbCom decision. Newyorkbrad 09:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Shouldn't the above articles in Rktect's user space be deleted per CSD G5? Caknuck 14:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Chrisjnelson

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User warned; see below. Newyorkbrad 02:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

For the past couple months or so (don't quote me on duration) there was an ArbCom case between the since-indefinitely blocked Jmfangio (talk · contribs) and Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs). Since Jmfangio was indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry (Tecmobowl (talk · contribs)), Chrisjnelson received a six month restriction. See here for the final ruling on this. At 15:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC), Picaroon (talk · contribs) informed Chris about this decision on his talk page. The result is that Chris is limited to just one revert per article per week (with the exception of blatant vandalism) and he was made alert of this, via the comment Picaroon left him.

On 26 September 2007, Chris violated this restriction by reverting two edits on at least four articles, including Jonathan Smith (American football)‎, Derek Schouman‎, Brad Cieslak‎, and Matt Murphy (American football)‎. All the reverts to these four articles are of similar nature, so to save from redundancy, I will provide the diffs from Jonathan Smith (American football), and will provide the others if seen necessary.

At first, I made one edit at 16:19, September 26, 2007. Shortly after, Chris reverted me at 16:33, September 26, 2007. Later that same day, at 20:33, September 26, 2007, Chris reverted yet another edit that I made, which is clearly in violation of his restriction. Ksy92003(talk) 02:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

My reply is basically a copy-and-paste job from all the times I've already defended myself on this subject. So here goes:

I looked at Ted Ginn, Jr. yesterday and saw I didn't violate my restriction, and since I did all the other edits at the same time I assumed I'd reverted the same amount of times. Upon further inspection, it seems that while I only reverted once on Ginn I reverted twice on some of those other articles. So yes, I was mistaken yesterday in saying I didn't violate the restriction, and I just explained why I was mistaken. Now, I have seen I was mistaken so I am fully acknowledging that. Whether you want to believe me or not, it was an honest mistake. I like to think an honest mistake, especially a harmless one, can go unpunished once. If it happens again, I would say definitely punish me. I will definitely understand if I'm reprimanded now, but I'm hoping for a single instance of leniency for a one-time honest and harmless mistake.

I can honestly say this was a mistake and I would never intentionally violate my restriction. I mean after all, it would be quickly noticed and I'd only face more punishment so why would I do it on purpose? That's just be stupid.

Also, I'd like to point out that two admins - User:Picaroon and User:Durova - have been made aware of my accidental violation, and one was informed by me. User:Picaroon said:

"Chris appears to be unaware his edits constituted multiple reverts; as he is now aware of this, and I presume aware of the consequences if he does this again, I think a block would be purely punitive at this point."

Both admins never said they felt any punishment was necessary this time around, and both simply pointed Ksy92003 here if he wished to continue his pursuit. Ksy92003 has a personal problem with me and wants to see me punished whether it's deserved or not.►Chris Nelson 02:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Administrator response: Given the user's statement that these violations were inadvertent, that it might take him a little time to get used to the new limits, and that this will not happen again, I agree that a warning to Chrisjnelson that the arbitration decision means what it says and will be enforced is sufficient for these violations. However, now that you have been reminded of the ruling, it is essential that you abide by it. We understand that in the past you may have been provoked into edit-warring by Jmfangio, but that is no longer an issue. Please continue editing in compliance with the Arbitration Committee decision so that blocks do not become necessary. Newyorkbrad 02:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)