This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pixelface (talk | contribs) at 05:08, 14 May 2008 (→Edit this section for new requests: new section: Eusebeus still edit-warring over TV episode articles). 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

Eusebeus still edit-warring over TV episode articles

On April 19, Jac16888 initiated an AE thread concerning Eusebeus, saying Eusebeus "has begun blindly restoring redirects." That thread was closed April 23 by GRBerry with no action taken. Since then, Eusebeus has continued to edit war over Scrubs episode articles like My Best Friend's Mistake , My Mentor , and My Princess . I believe that's a violation of the ArbCom remedy where "The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute." and the also the Principle that "Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited" and the Principle that "It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits." As far as I know, no other involved party of E&C2 has been edit-warring with Eusebeus on those articles, and restrictions were not imposed on Eusebeus in particular — so I could understand if no action is taken yet again. However, if that's the case, I think an amendment of the remedies of the E&C2 arbitration case may be in order. Any input would be appreciated. --Pixelface (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Andranikpasha

Andranikpasha (talk · contribs) has been placed on revert parole in accordance with the ruling of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, please see: , which limits him to 1 rv per article per week. However he exceeded his limit on Hayasa-Azzi, where he made at least 2 rvs today: The edits that he reverted do not appear to be vandalism like he claims and look like a content dispute. Grandmaster (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 3 days, and extended the probation for 6 months. --Haemo (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Particularly since the edits Andranikpasha was making don't appear to be anything more than silly proxy editing for Ararat arev (talk · contribs), something definitely blockable in itself. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that Andranikpasha was permanently banned from the Russian Misplaced Pages for disruption on Urartu related articles. Grandmaster (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

9/11 general sanctions

SalvNaut

SalvNaut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a long history of tendentiously lobbying to insert unreliable information and promote fringe theories about 9/11. I request an uninvolved administrator to review their edits and issue either a warning or topic ban as appropriate. Jehochman 15:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

To my knowldedge, I never insert unreliable information. I base my edits on secondary sources, and I am very well aware of the status of CDH in the engineering community, or 9/11 theories in the mainstream. I edit these topics because some time ago I've read a lot of official, unofficial, scientifc, pseud-scientifc documents and my curiosity has not been put to rest at all. I wait eagerly for the NIST WTC7 report, and any other publications. The last edit provided by Jehochman (who has a habit of putting everyone he does not agree with under AN) is very appropriate to the CDH article, because it is about a peer-reviewed article published in a third-party engineering journal. Very relevant and one of the reasons why the CDH still lives, imho. I would surely agree on a different wording, but see no reason why the info should be removed entirely. I don't have much time for editing, that's why I am WP:BOLD and put my edits in place, instead of putting them under discussion. I had, and have, no other intents, after first reactions to my edit, than to wait and see how discussion on the talk page evolves... and now this AN case, too, of course. salVNaut (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My previous complaints here about 9/11 disruptions were confirmed and the users were either blocked, topic banned or warned. Therefore, I request you strike out the bit about "who has a habit of putting everyone he does not agree with under AN". Thanks. Jehochman 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a look. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• After some head-scratching, here are my thoughts. We seem to be dealing with a case of civil POV-pushing again. All this account, SalvNaut (talk · contribs) has ever really done is hammer away on 9/11 articles trying to promote the old idea that 9/11 was the result of a controlled demolition. There's a couple of 3RR blocks in his log, but for the most part I don't see any overt policy violations apart from WP:UNDUE and WP:TE - not good ones to violate, admittedly. Usually in these sort of circumstances I'm fairly liberal, because it's not a case of outright trolling, but the problem is that IMO 9/11 controlled-demolition hypotheses are not things we can really have genuine debates over. Academic consensus rejects them pretty much unequivocally, rather like homeopathy. Ergo, in this case, due to tedious continuation of pointless debates, I am inclined to issue an indefinite topic-ban from all 9/11 articles per WP:ARB9/11, but will wait for further opinions from my fellow administrators before acting. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The idea that it was a controlled demolition is preposterous. We have clear video footage of airplanes causing it. If this user has been pushing this for this long, causing this much drama, then I say a topic ban is in order. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The controlled demolition has its own article: Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center in which these conspiracy theories and hypotheses are presented. I see no need to ban an editor from editing these articles based on a POV that believes that these hypotheses are true. I would only support such a topic ban, if the user is violating policies in his editing endeavors. The question is: Is he? or is he not?≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he is, by proposing the same edits over and over again that are rejected as contrary to policy. This is classic tendentious editing. Jehochman 01:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite ready to impose sanctions here, though I'd not argue if another admin saw fit to do so. In the meantime it would be prudent for User:SalvNaut to press the CDH stuff only on that specific article and not on more general articles relating to 9/11 where it risks running afoul of WP:UNDUE. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Eyrian on an IPs?

• 65.11.23.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.9.8.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 72.151.55.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/JohnEMcClure confirmed that Eyrian, who participated aggresively in AfDs and last edited in October 2007 and who was subsequently blocked per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian, made "numerous IP edits". Notice this IP's edit history that follows seems to focus on certain kinds of articles. Now today, notice this edit in which the IP writes, "It's been awhile since I've seen an ipc article nominated", but if you look again at the edit history of the IP, there are NO previous edits to any IPC articles, which thus makes that statement odd and as if it is from someone who either edits using different IPs or who is an old user. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• There are many editors who are AFD regulars (this IP certainly is if it is a stable IP) and care about IPC, fancruft, trivia, episodes, and the like. Any specific reason you think this is Eyrian as opposed to someone else? And do you really think the closing admins are going to pay any attention to IP comments that don't make new arguments? I don't think the admins will. GRBerry 18:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think Eyrian, because the IP's edits start around the time that Eyrian stopped editing from his Eyrian account (in October 2007) and started using different accounts and IPs. I suppose one of the arbitration committee checkusers could check the IP to see (I'm not sure if they could go back far enough to check if it's Eyrian, but if it is someone also using additional current accounts or IPs, those might show up). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Two possibilities. 1) This isn't Eyrian - obviously, we shouldn't do anything then, but it would be helpful to point out to the editor that commenting in an AFD using an IP results in minimal weight and the user might consider using an account. 2) This is Eyrian - then he can readily evade by going to a different IP (proxy, resetting a router, going to a different coffee shop, et cetera...). Either way, I don't see much to gain by blocking an IP. So far as I can see, since the case close identified or even suspected any puppets or IP addresses of Eyrian that were still in use at the time suspected, so I don't know what would happen if we tagged as a suspected puppet. Definitely try the user's talk page for a discussion. Consider tagging with {{sockpuppet}} and watching; if the IP editor vanishes then that will be confirmation of a sort, but indicate that an unending game of whack-a-mole is forthcoming. GRBerry 19:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I sent an email to Morven who was the checkuser on the Eyrian case just in case if the IPs identified at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/JohnEMcClure, which were not listed there, were not tagged. Also, I see at top of this page that we should notify the user. Is there a template for this page similar to the ANI notification template that could be placed on the IPs talk page? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Not that I'm aware of. Write a message, with attention to the third paragraph of the "Enforcement" section above. "A discussion about you is underway at ] might suffice." GRBerry 20:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Another IP that looks somewhat similarly suspicious is this one. Also another IP in the 7 range has just posted a similar edit to that other one. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The IPs are unlikely to be related. They all originate from home internet providers. Two originate from the same provider, but different regions. The other originates from a different provider. Vassyana (talk) 06:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC) I am not a checkuser.

Is it possible for a checkuser to see who the one IP is that claims to have not seen an IPC AfD in a while and yet the IP has no edits to IPC AfDs? Do the checkusers still have the information on Eyrian to see if it's likely or if in fact it is actually a current user possibly using IPs as socks? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 01:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Community ban of MarkBA for repeated sockpuppetry

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

The Digwuren case remedies do not mention socking, which is what this case is. So I'm handling it as a normal SSP case, remedy-wise, and logging at AE, SSP, Digwuren case log, and MarkBA's talk page. There is no doubt that MarkBA has repeatedly used socks and he/his socks have been blocked at least 4 times. This is highly disruptive. I'm blocking the IP in the SSP case one month, blocking MarkBA for three months, and giving MarkBA an topic ban for six months...Rlevse

• MarkBA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am forwarding this case from Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/MarkBA (2nd). User:Hobartimus wrote there, in perhaps more words than necessary, that MarkBA has repeatedly created sockpuppets to disrupt controversial articles and game the system. He noted that MarkBA is restricted per the Digwuren arbitration case. I think Hobartimus is not asking whether a particular IP address happens to be a sockpuppet of MarkBA, but rather, what to do about the sockpuppeteer? That question belongs here. It is already being discussed at , and maybe it should stay there. I don't know how this process works, and I need to sign off for the night. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 07:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand that there is an ongoing attempt at DR User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment, so at this point I would argue it may be best to allow that effort to unfold and see if can resolve the dispute. OTOH, I see no reason why not to enforce with blocks any confirmed sockpuppets, and if this particular use continues using SPs to disrupt the process, using escalating blocks may become a necessity. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"if this particular use continues" ,yes, this is the part where "it continued". The short timeline looks like this, 1. march 2008, start of 'first' sockpuppeting 2. april 2008 'first' sockpuppeting confirmed MarkBA blocked and, tagged as sockpupeteer. list of old puppets 3. May 4th sockpuppeting continues, 'second' sockpuppeting 4. May 7th 'second' sockpuppeting confirmed via checkuser. 5. MarkBA and the new puppet remain unblocked  ? - so the latest confirmed sockpuppeting is only a few days old and yet both the puppet and the pupeteer remain unblocked. I'll try to update the evidence at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/MarkBA (2nd) to best reflect this case of mass sockpuppetry and other abuse. Hobartimus (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This is just a part of a long and nasty conflict involving a number of editors from Hungary (including Hobartimus) and from Slovakia (including MarkBA). The dispute resolution process is ongoing at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. I encourage everyone to look at that page first. It has significantly decreased the amount of edit warring in this conflict and Elonka has did a great job checking activity of various IPs (MarkBA was not the only user editing without logging in). I am a bit surprised that Hobartimus is trying to get an editor from the "other side" banned while the dispute resolution is still ongoing. I am even more surprised that this thread was created when our mediator (User:Elonka) is away for few days because of unexpected real-life circumstances. I am sure she has a lot of to say about this case. What is strange, Hobartimus also forgot to notify other editors involved in this conflict. I will post a message at Elonka's page. Tankred (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the above multiple times blocked disruptive user is following my edits around and was caught making false statements once relating to this case already. Even though checkuser results were obtained two days ago and the abusive accounts still remain unblocked he claimed that the case was old and already blocked for. It seems that he is at it again, by deliberately involving himself in this case and falsely mentioning Elonka's discussion page he is trying to present it in a false light as a legitimate dispute between several editors rather than a case of repeated abusive mass sockpuppetry involving harassment, personal attacks, disruption among other things. Being in a dispute is not a licence or a magic shield to maintain an army of sockpuppets and abusively harass and mass revert others among countless other policy violations and avoid all consequences. What's next ? MarkBA was in a dispute with CheckUser's and admins because MarkBA repeatedly claimed that he never edited with the IP-s and this represents a dispute between him and CheckUsers and admins who claimed otherwise? Therefore since this is a dispute he should be immune from all blocks and consequences, since the admins were in dispute with him? Hobartimus (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

While I feel this "thing" is getting too much and too heated and going on too many pages, I have to say, that the referred "experiment" is ongoing for a month or so now, and we have reached nothing with MarkBA, except that he continues the same editing and style through IPs. Got it? His account got restricted, so he simply dropped it ("announced retirement" combining with a lengthy attack in general against the - Hungarian - editorial community - wikipedia "hijacked" and he's being "chased or harassed by a couple of jerks", "mob rule", "extreme nationalist and chauvinist", "propaganda", etc.), and continued the very same thing but now logged out. And does not stop, despite asking, warning and even blocking (for "sockpuppetry").

There was a daily habit of reporting each other on various wikipedia pages before. Since Elonka's intervention, only Mark was able to provocate a "checkuser" (Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/MarkBA → 8 confirmed "sockpuppets") and a WP:AN/I and now a WP:AE thread against himself, wich I think tells alot.

No matter that it was confirmed that all those IPs were used by MarkBA, he still(?) denies them and randomly demands apologies for "accusations of sockpuppeting". He also thinks that I am (or someone is) that dumb that (I) buy(s) this: ("the IP range just happens to be in my area"). Oh, please, just look at these: ,  :)

I am pretty much concerned that (unfortunately) Mark does not wish to play by the rules, and even more, he is against them, trying to compromise and eventually destroy them by provoking again and again, playing out the restrictions and rules (the general ones also, like WP:NPA), then denying them all. A full month of asking, warning, demanding and even blocking to make him change his way of acting failed. Imho there is not much left to do, but to say goodbye to each other, and step forward. --Rembaoud (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

TTN and Sonic the Hedgehog characters

• note. TTN blatantly violated his ArbCom restrictions and has skirted the edges of it. He is blocked for two weeks, since the last block less than a month ago was for one week. Vassyana (talk) 06:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

One week after TTN was blocked for a week for violating the restrictions imposed on him in the E&C2 arbitration case, TTN decided to violate his restrictions again. In the E&C2 case, TTN was "prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly." (bolding mine)

On May 11, 2008, TTN went to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games and said "Only seven articles...and seven character lists...are necessary....That's the basic plan...The main thing is that it gets started..." and also said "as long as there is a number consensus here, and the actual mergers are done slowly, it should work out." Sonic the Hedgehog characters are television characters. TTN made an edit to a project page requesting that a merge be performed on television character articles, and this a violation of the restrictions imposed on him by the arbitration committee. The full thread is visible here (oldid). --Pixelface (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You have misunderstood his restrictions. He did not violate them. The restriction explicitly says "He is free to contribute on the talk pages". This includes being free on project talk pages to suggest merging and deletion. No violation, no action. Go forth and try to find consensus as to the right scope of coverage for these articles, as per the second remedy in that case. GRBerry 02:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the restriction says TTN is prohibited from requesting merges on project pages. The phrase "He is free to contribute on the talk pages" does not allow him to request merges on project talk pages. --Pixelface (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

TTN is restricted from suggesting merges in project space, I'd say this was specifically in relation to wikiprojects. I'd suggest a block is in order here, but I'll leave it for another administrator to look at. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again, no adding of sources or anything just trimming (almost deleting) around almost TV material (oh heck, Jericho is a TV series, isn't it?). It is like an addiction, or as I said before Single-purpose account dedicated to removing material. However I concede that I too am involved so probably can't act in an uninvolved manner. I am not surprised. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, here we go again. Broad interpretation gone wild. I can play the ... game, too, and I get Can people please, please, please comment? For some reason, people can easily comment on the existence of one article or the inclusion of two sentences in another article, but the existence of close to one hundred gets two comments at most... if someone want to change it, that's fine... the only way that will happen is if people will comment. Looks like someone doing his best to work collaboratively with others. If people would spend more of their time improving and deleting crappy articles and less of their time at Arbcom, Misplaced Pages would be a better place. Again, he is free to contribute on talk pages, and that certainly was on a talk page. Someone close this, please.Kww (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, TTN started by asking for comments. But then he suddenly brings up mergers, saying "as long as there is a number consensus here, and the actual mergers are done slowly, it should work out." And soon after TTN asked for "comments", Krator nominated a Sonic the Hedgehog character article for deletion. What does it mean exactly when someone refers to 89 articles and says only seven articles and seven character lists are necessary? TTN may be free to contribute on talk pages, but he is prohibited from making any edit to a project page that substantially amounts to a request for a merge or deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This kind of thing could be avoided if someone would just clarify the overall restriction. Truth be told, I never even noticed the part about project pages, but the whole thing really isn't clear about it. Does that mean any project page or talk page, or is it just a catch for another case like the failed "Episode review" project? Is a merge request the same thing as pointing out bad groups of articles? Am I to be completely silent every time some random old redirect gets brought back, or can I show it to someone and let them make a call on it? Is that considered having someone edit for me?

Those are just a few of the things I'm confused over. Can someone ask some arbitrators to either comment here or one of the open requests for clarification? That would clear some things up. TTN (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not just avoid anything to do with these TV or video game articles entirely instead of looking for clarifications on what you can or can't do? Go edit other things for the six months, there is no shortage of work to be done. Why even push the issue? If you keep that up, it looks like you're angling to get around the Arbitration to push a personal agenda, which is not acceptable. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom finding didn't come out of the blue. This thread is a pretty clear violation of the letter and, presumably, the spirit of your ArbCom restriction. You are free to request a clarification, but you need to respect the editing restriction as written until such time as a clarification is approved. Lawrence is absolutely right - instead of pushing the envelope of the letter of your ArbCom restriction, it would be better to accept its spirit. I think a block would be entirely justified under the ArbCom remedy. That said, I can accept - barely - the ignorance-of-the-law defense here. However, if you do anything in article- or project-space, including project talkspace, vaguely resembling soliciting, requesting, or planning merges, deletions, etc from here on, you don't have an excuse. If you're not sure whether something might violate the letter of the ArbCom sanction, then don't do it. MastCell  15:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Some editors take the wording "to be interpreted broadly" as a de-facto topic ban for TTN. If that was arbcom's intention, then arbcom should say so in a clarification. If it wasn't, then there is no problem with TTN's pointing out terrible groups of articles. If others agree with him, then he is doing no evil, and if they don't, then TTN can't do anything about it and the status quo remains. There already are two requests for clarification in the TTN matter, but arbcom are taking their time, so it's not like this is their priority. If it is our goal to improve the encyclopedia, TTN shouldn't be punished for stating "I am bringing up a group of ridiculously inappropriate articles to get the ball rolling on cleanup, does someone want to take a look at it". – sgeureka 15:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not right. There is no deadline. Again, TTN needs to respect the current wording of the sanction until it is amended. He can't disregard it and then blame ArbCom for being too slow to address his request for clarification. The encyclopedia will not go to pieces if he has to go a week or two without pursuing this pet project. MastCell  16:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

He has stayed within the limits of the language. I certainly don't interpret the ban on project pages while allowing talk pages to ban discussion on the talk page of the Sonic wikiproject. He's already suffered a one-week block from admins stretching "broadly interpreted" beyond all reasonable limits. If Arbcom wants to come back and say "really, we just meant that TTN should just shut up about television", then that's what they should say. Until then, a block is unwarranted.Kww (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sanctions: is it time for the community to do this?

As TTN's actions (and those of his co-worker group) with these TV and fiction articles consistently and endlessly generate reams and reams of drama, conflict, and Arbitration cases, perhaps the community should simply develop custom sanctions in regards to them in place of or beyond what the Arbcom has put in place. The community has supreme power to limit internal disruption via such means, if they deem it required. Does the subjective benefit of TTN and company eliminating fiction articles and content outweigh the massive historic disruption they cause? If the answer is yes, then TTN's case needs to go immediately back to Arbitration for clarification. If the answer is no, the community needs to establish binding limitations on these actions to stop disruption. Which is it? Opinions of uninvolved editors on this matter will carry more weight. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What's key is "the co-worker group" that aids him in causing these problems. It's not just TTN. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If sanctions are determined then it needs to initially apply to TTN, and as he's stated before that he will e-mail his needs and desires in regards to fiction articles, the same sanction (if it comes to pass) would need to apply to any other editors that cause similar disruption via fiction articles. I have no opinion on the content either way, but like many, many people I believe we are quite sick of seeing disruption from any sort of "crusade" campaign on this website, which is what this has apparently become. Does the disruption outweigh the optional actions they are taking with these fiction articles? Do we want to allow ongoing meta-disruption and RFARs and ANIs over actions that may or may not be supported content matters? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that you have misidentified the cause of the disruption. The people that keep objecting to efforts to get rid of articles that can never be brought up to standard, and start RFARs, ANIs, etc., need to be blocked for disruption a few times. Once the message gets across that if you have written a crappy article, whining at Arbcom that TTN or Eusebeus or Sgeureka is being mean to you won't bring it back, most of this drama will go away. The reason this problem cycles and cycles and cycles is because one side of the dispute has learned that whining sufficiently loudly will be rewarded. Punish the whining, fix the problem.Kww (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is all subjective. The question is as I said (and I'm a content guy more than a policy guy, if you can't tell from my user page, so that for what its worth) does the amount of disruption from the methods used to work on these fiction articles outweigh possible subjective benefit from the actions of TTN, Eusebeus or Sgeureka? If the answer is the disruption is greater, sanctions are likely in order. If the answer is the benefits outweigh the disruption, then this needs to be hauled before the AC for an ironclad clarification that no-one can dispute. With something so subjective, the views of involved parties or their partisans need to be de-valued for objective outsiders to decide. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd consider the folks continually attempting to take TTN down to be a magnitude more disruptive then TTN's activities. SirFozzie (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Pixelface is correct, the restriction clearly says he is not to request a merge or any of the other procedures. These edits are then a violation. But since I did the first block, I'll leave it to someone else this time. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Serious question, Rlevse: what does He is free to contribute on the talk pages mean to you? Why did Arbcom so specifically set up different guidelines for article and talk space if they intended to block him from making similar requests in talk space? Kww (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Kww's correct, here. There is no reason for any action to be taken here. SirFozzie (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It then becomes like canvassing. I just can't believe in the face of blocks, bans etc. that someone can be so single-minded. ...and here we go again, along the trenchlines...it is still skirting the borders of the ruling to continue with the same outcomes. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Bulbasaur

In addition to requesting a merge of articles related to television characters at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games on May 11, on May 8, 2008 TTN requested at Misplaced Pages:Fiction/Noticeboard that the Bulbasaur article, another article about a television character, be redirected — which is another violation of the ArbCom ruling. The full thread is visible here (oldid) --Pixelface (talk) 05:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait, why on earth would that be redirected? It's heavily sourced, independently notable, and these character articles have been brought to Featured Article status (even Main Paged!) in the past. That makes absolutely no sense. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 05:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly - it is one of the most popular half dozen or so pokémon.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I am reopening this, because A) There was no reason for this block (the ArbCom result says he's fully able to do this on the talk pages), and B) Two weeks for a minor infraction if it WAS an infraction is completely over the top. SirFozzie (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Probation" violations?

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

I originally posted this on another noticeboard (here)but have since determined that this might be the better place.

In short, there are a few articles aparently on "probation" where I've noticed some odd actions that might require a closer look. User:Bassettcat and User:John Nevard are hitting Overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne and Naked short selling in ways that hint at undisclosed conflicts of interest.

User:William Ortiz says that User:Bassettcat resembles User:Mantanmoreland. In response, John Nevard called William Ortiz (and me, too) "crazy."

Please take a look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.164.228 (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have filed a Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mantanmoreland, Regards, Huldra (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser came up as "Unrelated". Regards, Huldra (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There is also a Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Mantanmoreland. Enjoy. John Vandenberg 11:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Nevard appears to currently be that editors main account. I'm not going to act with regard to it.
2. Bassettcat looks to be a single purpose account, but I'm undecided as to whether or not it is a sock-puppet, and the committee didn't ban SPAs, only sockpuppets (part A). However, part D is a requirement "To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page". I suspect Bassettcat to be violating either part A, part D, or both; so I recommend we topic ban in the absence of a disclosure with regard to part D.
3. Stetsonharry looks like a sockpuppet, but I'm not sure whether it is a) Mantanmoreland or b) someone from the other side of the dispute attempting to discredit either Mantanmoreland or c) someone from a drama site trying to undermine communal confidence in the process of identifying sockpuppetry. Could others review this more thoroughly? GRBerry 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply: I have no conflict of interest to disclose. I am a trader by profession, but have no current or former position in Overstock.com and no commercial relationship with that company. I have no other account on Misplaced Pages and I don't believe I can be classed as a "single purpose account," unless interest in finance is a singular purpose. I corrected the Byrne article recently to fix an error that Hulda himself discovered, concerning an award given to Byrne. I also corrected an error in naked short selling that was serious in nature. It stated that naked shorting was always illegal, which was contradicted by the article itself and by the Securities and Exchange Commission website. That error has now been reinstated to the article by the same IP who raised this issue, and who apparently has an axe to grind.--Bassettcat (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether it falls under the purview of this section, but you may be aware that the above IP and User:PatrickByrne rewrote the entire naked short selling article unilaterally and without discussion. That was aborted by Nakon, and PatrickByrne then reinstated the changes and the IP again,in the process reinstating the inaccuracy that I stated above. Nakon warned PatrickByrne for vandalism. --Bassettcat (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Pete K

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

Page semi-protected and user blocked for two weeks ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Pete K. There is highly credible evidence that Pete K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has evaded his topic ban from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review by editing anonymously. I suggest that, if an admin supports this finding, he or she should semiprotect the affected articles and block Pete K for at least two weeks. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Page semi-protected and user blocked for two weeks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)