Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
→The Maiden City: closed |
→Discussion concerning Mr Taz: use the existing remedy? |
||
Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
:As explained by its author Rlevse above, that section is not an enforceable arbitral remedy. (If further discussion on this subject is desired, please let's do so in the section concerning ''The Maiden City'', above, so as to avoid duplication.) <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 21:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC) |
:As explained by its author Rlevse above, that section is not an enforceable arbitral remedy. (If further discussion on this subject is desired, please let's do so in the section concerning ''The Maiden City'', above, so as to avoid duplication.) <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 21:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
::I suggest that if this remedy is not enforceable then we should put Mr Taz on 1RR/week probation per [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Probation_for_disruptive_editors]]. [[User:Kevin|Kevin]] ([[User talk:Kevin|talk]]) 10:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
===Result concerning Mr Taz=== |
===Result concerning Mr Taz=== |
Revision as of 10:09, 24 April 2009
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Important information Please use this page only to:
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}}.
|
Edit this section for new requests
The Maiden City
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Request concerning The Maiden City
- User requesting enforcement
- BigDuncTalk 17:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- The Maiden City (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles
- Sanction or remedy that has been violated
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy
- Revert #1 Revert #2 Revert #3
- Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue
- 3 reverts in less than 24 hours, which is a violation of 1RR
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- Unsure
- Additional comments
- Informed of sanctions here. Editor is also under investigation for sockpuppetry see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Maiden City.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- Here
Discussion concerning The Maiden City
Per my comment at Discussion concerning Mr Taz below, I am not sure that section is an enforceable remedy. I will ask the editor who wrote it, Rlevse (talk · contribs), to explain. Sandstein 20:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- The link Sandstein is referring to is not part of the formal case remedy voted on by the arbs in the case. It is part background and part observation that I wrote and should be treated as such. It's in the log section, not the decision section. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Rlevse. If there are no objections, I intend to close this request because there seems to be no arbitral remedy to enforce here. Sandstein 21:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The sanction or remedy that has been violated per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case which states that: All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related. This is clearly illustrated with Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: Revert #1 Revert #2 Revert #3. --Domer48'fenian' 21:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- As explained by its author Rlevse above, that section is not an enforceable arbitral remedy. Sandstein 21:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Without going into the merits of this particular report, this development seems rather disturbing. Editors have generally worked well under the 1RR restriction, and to have it removed will only cause more edit warring and less discussion. The "remedy" comes from this discussion with a caveat of "NOTE: If this is approved, I'll post it to The Troubles arb case". So what exactly was being "approved"? Is this entirely null and void is it going to be open season on revert warring rather than discussion again? This is not a step forward in my opinion. O Fenian (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- As noted below, nothing is "removed"; rather, it turns out that there was no valid 1RR restriction in the first place. Edit warring is still sanctionable by admins much like any other disruption, just not via arbitration enforcement. If you think a 1RR restriction should be imposed, you may petition the ArbCom to add that remedy by means of a motion, at WP:RfAr. Sandstein 22:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Until I know what was "approved" I am not fully satisfied. A proposal was made for "approval", everyone seemed happy with it and it worked well, and suddenly we are being told it was all a big mistake. How many people have been blocked under this restriction that, apparently, should not have been? O Fenian (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Speaking as an ex-administrator who dealt heavily in this area, I am rather disappointed to see the "Must have ArbCom's blessing" attitude from someone I expected better of. I invite you to review the voluminous history of this, the multiple ArbCom cases, the constant editwars. The 1RR rule is the only thing that keeps everyone from putting these articles in a constant state of editwarring. As far as I'm concerned, the 1RR rule is not only an active, actionable remedy, but it's very much needed. But this is Wikipedia, where Bureaucracy rules, and to hell with common sense. But fine, I'll set up a jump through the hoops so you can sleep well at night, knowing that you're not a "rogue" administrator. *shakes head* SirFozzie (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with both O Fenian and SirFozzie. While I don't like it, never did and still don't it has worked. Now if it is the case that it is not an enforceable arbitral remedy I'll be looking to have my block log amended to reflect this and everyone else who has been blocked using it. As has been pointed out by SirFozzie there has been a voluminous history of this, with multiple ArbCom cases and have been addressed my multiple Admin's so are you now suggesting both you and they were all wrong. We have a clear breech here and User:Sandstein dose not want to enforce it, and this is not the first time. User:Sandstein never said anything when they rejected the unblock requests made under this ruling so what has changed? --Domer48'fenian' 08:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Discussion about this general topic is ongoing at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request to amend prior case The Troubles. I have commented there and propose we wait what action, if any, the Arbritration Committee decides to take. Sandstein 08:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Reply by The Maiden City
Having just come across this childish vendetta by O Fenian and BigDunc I can respond as follows.
For your information the so-called reverts were edits. It was O Fenian and BigDunc who actually took it in turns to revert my edits. It is quite clear that these two individuals (if in fact they are two) have commenced edit warring against me in every article that I have contributed to. I have already reported O Fenian as a Troll due to his actions. This very request for sanctions comes from and is sponsored by these two users, it is further proof of their conspiracy against me aimed at preventing me from contributing verified edits to certain controversial Irish related articles. A quick reference to the Free Derry (talk) page highlights O Fenians activity against all and anything edited by me. There are no others involved. I intend to continue to make genuine contributions to these articles and will endeavour to have the edits incorporated within the articles no matter how disruptive these individuals attempt to be. I do not have enough experience of Wikipedia to evade all the pitfalls and certainly do not know all the rules but can only assure administrators that I am genuinely trying to improve the articles that I now contribute to. --The Maiden City (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Note to this case by SPI clerk Mayalld (talk) An SPI case has concluded that following his earler block, this user continued to edit without logging in (as 78.33.101.58 (talk · contribs)), evading the block, and that the request to unblock the account came only when the IP was itself blocked (to evade the block on the IP). As the user has been engaged in repeated block evasion, he has now been indef blocked for that evasion. The IP is blocked for a week. As the IP appears to be static, it might be proper to block for longer. Mayalld (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Result concerning The Maiden City
This enforcement request is now moot because The Maiden City (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked for block evasion. As to the procedural issue, ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request to amend prior case The Troubles indicates that the sanction at issue is a community sanction, not an arbitral remedy, and I assume that the case page will be amended to reflect this. Sandstein 16:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Mr Taz
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Mr Taz
- User requesting enforcement
- O Fenian (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Mr Taz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles
- Sanction or remedy that has been violated
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy
- Version reverted to revert one revert two revert three (third revert made after being notified of this discussion)
- Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue
- Violation of 1RR, two reverts in less than 24 hours
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- Discretion of administrators dealing with this
- Additional comments
- Despite me explaining on the talk page why his edits were problematic (see Talk:North-South divide in the United Kingdom#Ireland and map I was reverted without an edit summary or explanation on the talk page. Editor was made aware of the sanctions here, and it is not unreasonable for an editor to accept that adding unsourced and contentious information about The Troubles to another article falls under the scope of the sanctions without a further notification.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [1]
Discussion concerning Mr Taz
The case certainly seems actionable. But I'd appreciate it if someone could explain to me why the section Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case is an enforceable arbitral remedy. It does not seem to be part of a decision voted upon by the committee and appears to be drafted with less than the usual care. Sandstein 20:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, O Fenian, you have made two rapid reverts on the same page, [2] and [3]. Why should you not be sanctioned too? Sandstein 20:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- From what I have been informed, if you make two edits in a row it is one revert, as there is no literal difference in making one edit or two edits in sequence. That is what the wording at WP:3RR says too "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert". O Fenian (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The link Sandstein is referring to is not part of the formal case remedy voted on by the arbs in the case. It is part background and part observation that I wrote and should be treated as such. It's in the log section, not the decision section. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Rlevse. If there are no objections, I intend to close this request because there seems to be no arbitral remedy to enforce here. Sandstein 21:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I do not object to the closing of this request, largely because the disruptive editing has ceased. However this development seems rather disturbing. Editors have generally worked well under the 1RR restriction, and to have it removed will only cause more edit warring and less discussion. O Fenian (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- No 1RR sanction is removed by the closing of this request. Rather, it turns out that there never was an ArbCom-imposed 1RR sanction in the first place. If such a sanction is seen as desirable, it must first be sought through a request for arbitration. Sandstein 21:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Discussion continuing in the section above as requested. O Fenian (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The sanction or remedy that has been violated per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case which states that: All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related. This is clearly illustrated with Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy. Version reverted to revert one revert two revert three (third revert made after being notified of this discussion).--Domer48'fenian' 21:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- As explained by its author Rlevse above, that section is not an enforceable arbitral remedy. (If further discussion on this subject is desired, please let's do so in the section concerning The Maiden City, above, so as to avoid duplication.) Sandstein 21:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest that if this remedy is not enforceable then we should put Mr Taz on 1RR/week probation per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Probation_for_disruptive_editors. Kevin (talk) 10:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Result concerning Mr Taz
This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.
Perscurator
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Request concerning Perscurator
- User requesting enforcement
- Jehochman Talk 16:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Perscurator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced
- WP:ARB9/11
- Sanction or remedy that has been violated
- WP:ARB9/11#Discretionary sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy
- Check user contributions at random. Samples: [4][5]
- Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue
- Virtually all edits focus on the promotion of 9/11 conspiracy theories, in violation of WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP and the arbitration case sanctions.
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- Indefinite topic ban from all 9/11-related pages, including talk pages, broadly construed. User was previously warned.[6]
- Additional comments
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [7]
Discussion concerning Perscurator
I am reluctant to accede to this request. All but three edits of Perscurator are from autumn 2008 or earlier, most also predating the warning, and are presumably not very actionable any more. The newer two edits, linked to in the request, may have been intended to present the conspiracy theories (for which and their proponents I have no sympathy at all) in a favorable light - but, taken by themselves, they do not seem to be objectionable: they are concerned with apparently reliable sources and were not made in a disruptive manner. Whether these sources belong in the article seems to be worthy of good faith discussion; this content issue should not be settled by an arbitration enforcement request. Sandstein 17:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- This request is premature. Both edits are a request for adding an edit that is discussed in a now hidden section here [8]. The edit dispute is more of where and how to present it with several editors agreeing that it can be in the article if those issues can be resolved. If an edit adding material that gives support to a conspiracy theory is always considered a violation of WP:ARB9/11#Discretionary sanctions for "promoting" 9/11 conspiracy theories regardless of how reliably it is sourced then we have a problem and the article will never be NPOV. The sanctions should only apply if edits are deliberately disruptive. Wayne (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Jehochman, in reply to your un-closure below, is there evidence that Perscurator has engaged in meatpuppetry? Sandstein 16:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, I see, at http://www.911blogger.com/node/19833. I am evaluating this. Sandstein 16:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I believe so. Take a look at the cited sock puppetry case. There's no point to repeat the same comments here. Hut 8.5 knows the most about it. Perhaps you could ask him for clarification or expansion. (Unclosure--not exactly, just a shortcut rather than starting a new thread.) Jehochman Talk 16:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- All right, at that thread, we have the editor "Vesa", who admits to being Perscurator here, posting inter alia:
- "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_Trade_Center_controlled_demoliti... It would be nice, though, to see more of us truthers there..."
- "There has to be something that can be done to stop that. But what? Does anyone know a proficient "Wiki-lawyer"?"
- This violates WP:TEAMWORK, a policy that provides that "Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate." Accordingly, I am of a mind to impose the requested topic ban, although not - given that this would be his first sanction - an indefinite one. What do others think? Sandstein 16:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- All right, at that thread, we have the editor "Vesa", who admits to being Perscurator here, posting inter alia:
If you want proof that Vesa=Perscurator, look at this edit and the page it links to. Furthermore I can see that Vesa had discussed influencing Wikipedia articles before on the same site: [9] I think something should be done here, since this is a clear violation of policy and campaigns to get people to edit articles could certainly be problematic, but since I've edited a lot in this area and interacted with Perscurator before I am definitely involved. Hut 8.5 18:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: The following, up to 17:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC), was moved from the "result" section below.
No action. No administrator or other user on this board, apart from the requesting user, appears to consider this to be actionable at this time. Concerning Perscurator, see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Huntdowntheconspiracists. Sandstein 10:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Please don't close this. There is an active discussion at WP:SPI concerning meat puppetry by Perscurator. If you review the facts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Huntdowntheconspiracists, I think it is clear that sanctions are going to be applied. Perscurator has been found to be soliciting accounts off site to cause 9/11 disruption. Jehochman Talk 16:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sandstein, nobody even commented, except Wayne, who is certainly not an uninvolved editor. Let's hear what EdJohnston has to say. Jehochman Talk 16:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Don't know whether we need to ask EdJohnston. He apparently considers a mass enforcement (diff). Which evidence are you referring to with regard to the statement that "Perscurator has been found to be soliciting accounts off site", Jehochman? --Cs32en (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC) -- ok, the URL was give above while I was typing. --Cs32en (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Mass enforcement may be the only way to restore order. When people join a riot in progress, they share the blame for what happens. The evidence is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Huntdowntheconspiracists in my evidence section, and the comments by others, specifically User:Hut 8.5. For the sake of your own reputation, it would be wise to distance yourself from those engaging in sock and meat puppetry, disruption and battlezone tactics. Jehochman Talk 16:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I see people citing content-related WP policy sound bites at random, without coherence and without any apparent thought about the underlying WP policy considerations. Administrative actions with regard to content are being justified by such flawed reasoning. First of all, I am distancing myself from such conduct. I am also not surprised that some people start rioting under these circumstances. --Cs32en (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- In sock and meatpuppet cases, the usual practices accept that indefinite blocks may be doled out widely to anyone whose misconduct can be shown. It may happen that we hold back and issue shorter blocks or no blocks at all if it seems that it's not that big of a problem, or that things are returning to normal. Since we're in the presence of an extensive outside campaign to influence these articles to a certain POV, and there are no signs yet the campaign is abating, I would favor giving long blocks to those, like Perscurator, who can be shown to have helped organize the meatpuppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I see people citing content-related WP policy sound bites at random, without coherence and without any apparent thought about the underlying WP policy considerations. Administrative actions with regard to content are being justified by such flawed reasoning. First of all, I am distancing myself from such conduct. I am also not surprised that some people start rioting under these circumstances. --Cs32en (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sock and meatpuppetry is a separate issue to the case that Jehochman has initiated. This case should concentrate solely on the current allegation made against Perscurator and these new claims should be dealt with in a separate case or it would be wrongly implied that Jehochman was justified in reporting him. This implication that Perscurator's edit was in violation would be to the detriment of legitimate editors who may be frightened off from contributing. Wayne (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- We are not a bureaucracy, and the alleged meatpuppet activity falls within the area of conflict of the arbitral decision, so this is quite the proper forum. Sandstein 20:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- While it falls under the area of arbitral decision this is not what he was accused of. Deal with this case and start a new case for the new claims. Wayne (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Having just looked at the evidence for Perscurator has been found to be soliciting accounts off site to cause 9/11 disruption. I note that the evidence is two years old and appeared to not result in any volunteers to edit. I would also argue that the evidence is at the lower end of a violation as Perscurator makes it clear that he is talking about two edits he wanted to make that in themselves are not in violation of WP:ARB9/11#Discretionary sanctions nor were they disruptive if they were in the format he claims in the post. Also it should be noted that the sanctions were not in force two years ago so penalising him for violation should be based on his actions since and it is disingenuous to bring up evidence that is so old. If his actions since are in violation then I would support a ban but must oppose it at this time given what has been presented here. I also would like to point out that some editors who oppose his edits are responsible for
mostmuch of the disruption that results[10] which is why I am so passionate about neutrality and fairness in these cases. Wayne (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Having just looked at the evidence for Perscurator has been found to be soliciting accounts off site to cause 9/11 disruption. I note that the evidence is two years old and appeared to not result in any volunteers to edit. I would also argue that the evidence is at the lower end of a violation as Perscurator makes it clear that he is talking about two edits he wanted to make that in themselves are not in violation of WP:ARB9/11#Discretionary sanctions nor were they disruptive if they were in the format he claims in the post. Also it should be noted that the sanctions were not in force two years ago so penalising him for violation should be based on his actions since and it is disingenuous to bring up evidence that is so old. If his actions since are in violation then I would support a ban but must oppose it at this time given what has been presented here. I also would like to point out that some editors who oppose his edits are responsible for
- This is not ancient history from 2008. Perscurator was trying to recruit truthers to Wikipedia on April 16, only two days ago. Here is a comment that Hut 8.5 just made in the SPI case:
In the same thread, Vesa says It would be nice, though, to see more of us truthers there..., which is an attempt to recruit truthers to win the Wikipedia discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)This blog post and its replies are trying to get people to add material to Wikipedia articles, including advice on wearing down editors removing the material in question. One of the people posting this is "Vesa", who edits Wikipedia as Perscurator. Hut 8.5 16:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- "Truthers" is of course a misnomer..they're not on Wikipedia to report what they find from reliable, scientifically peer reviewed articles, but are instead here to promote heresay and falsehoods from unreliable sources as well as misrepresentations gleemed from the reliable ones. We've seen this kind of behavior before...agenda driven CTers and others try to misuse this website to promote the ridiculous...which makes the website look ridiculous.--MONGO 04:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- While it falls under the area of arbitral decision this is not what he was accused of. Deal with this case and start a new case for the new claims. Wayne (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm very dissapointed with the ego driven POV pushing shown in this case (admin excepted, he's only bowing to consensus). Perscurator's "soliciting accounts off site" was in 2007 not 2008 as claimed and the instance in this blog post "only two days ago" is definately not soliciting unless those interpreting it are either illiterate or do not have English as their mother tongue. As for Hut 8.5's claim "its replies" support the soliciting can he please point out where? I can see nothing even resembling this. In effect an editor is topic banned solely for saying "It would be nice, though, to see more of us truthers there" on an offsite forum. Surely someone has a more legitimate example to justify the ban. If not then you clearly make the case for what is posted in those forums and are playing right into their hands by losing the moral highground. Wayne (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your support, Wayne. I think it is ridiculous that one is banned for expressing a one-sentence wish outside Wikipedia that there were more like-minded editors on Wikipedia. I was not aware that expressing such views could be used to penalize an editor, nor was I warned about it. I strongly feel that this incident was simply used as a pretext to get me banned.
- Please allow me to quote my comments from the fateful outside thread, now that it has attracted your attention:
- The latest Bentham online article cannot be referenced, as Bentham is such and such. So why can the earlier Betham online article by Jones et al still be linked?
- When one points out that the latest article has been discussed in Danmark's TV2, they say that YouTube is not a realiable source.
- When one shows the numerous references to the article in e.g. Danish mainstream and science media, they say they do not undestand Danish and that it is best to USE only English sources.
- And so on. A question to all Bloggerists and fair-minded Wiki editors possibly reading this: What can be done about this unfairness?
- I am appalled that some editors are allowed to exclude references based on such clearly illogical and dishonet arguments, while those who protest such "thug action" are banned based on any possible excuse. 88.113.224.40 (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have blocked the IP above for the evasion of Perscurator's block. Sandstein 20:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Result concerning Perscurator
In view if the discussion above, I am blocking Perscurator for a month and topic-banning-him from 9/11 topics for a year, all for violations of WP:TEAMWORK as described above. Sandstein 06:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Ohconfucius
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Ohconfucius
- User requesting enforcement
- —Locke Cole • t • c 04:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking
- Sanction or remedy that has been violated
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Temporary_injunction
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy
- [11][12][13][14][15][16]
- Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue
- Delinking dates while injunction is in effect and issues remain unresolved. Unlinking dates also has the effect of removing the auto formatting, on which there is no consensus.
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- Block
- Additional comments
- The RFC is over, but the matter of auto formatting remains unresolved, and there is still the matter of conduct and behavior of editors during the RFC.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- The diff of the notification.
Discussion concerning Ohconfucius
I am a habitual editor of all the articles whose diffs are cited above, and am engaged in housekeeping task of aligning all dates to dmy/mdy, mostly with regard to ISO-formatted dates. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Locke Cole, how do these edits constitute, in your opinion, a "program of mass delinking"? I am unconvinced. Sandstein 05:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- They were all performed rapidly, some within less than a minute. I also did not provide every diff, there were others in the contribution history. This editor in particular also has a habit of flaunting this injunction (see his prior blocks for violating this injunction as well as the permanent block of Date delinker (talk · contribs)). —Locke Cole • t • c 06:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm also unconvinced the evidence presented demonstrates a "program of mass linking or delinking" has occurred. PhilKnight (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- I am also unconvinced that the word "mass" is involved. I'd be more comfortable, however, if Ohconfucius were yet more cautious, an inch away from the running of a bot to remove autoformatting coding en masse. Locke Cole's incantation that there's no consensus should be taken with yet another grain of salt. And it's irrelevant here, anyway. What matters is the interpretation of the injunction text. Tony (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- I did not provide an exhaustive list of diffs, as I didn't believe such a listing would be useful. Are you saying you want even more diffs, because I can surely provide more... I just figured admins would AGF that I wouldn't bring this here without cause. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm also unconvinced the evidence presented demonstrates a "program of mass linking or delinking" has occurred. PhilKnight (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- They were all performed rapidly, some within less than a minute. I also did not provide every diff, there were others in the contribution history. This editor in particular also has a habit of flaunting this injunction (see his prior blocks for violating this injunction as well as the permanent block of Date delinker (talk · contribs)). —Locke Cole • t • c 06:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- The injunction against “mass delinkings” was intended to stop bot activity, which does thousands of edits per hour (see Lightbot history and scroll to the bottom). Minor manual editing like this has always been permitted. Besides, the injunction against bot delinking will be lifted soon and this specious complaint will be moot anyway. The complainant, Lock Cole, knew all this before coming here. Greg L (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Care to refactor/remove/strike the last line of your comment there? Accusing another user of bad faith is not only poor form, but entirely pointless in this context.--Tznkai (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Greg is being cranky today. If it weren't bad manners to do so, I'd strike through both his imputation of what goes on in Cole's head and his pre-empting of what would be a decision by the arbitrators. Tony (talk) 06:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Care to refactor/remove/strike the last line of your comment there? Accusing another user of bad faith is not only poor form, but entirely pointless in this context.--Tznkai (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Trying to approach this neutrally, I would say there's two problems in OC's edits:
- Unlike others who have been brought forward but no action taken, where the date delinking was usually done in conjunction with other article cleanups, these edits (and several others, I spot-checked the contribution) are primarily to delink date with maybe one additional non-date link removed per normal linking requirements. The edit summaries are clear that these are to do something with dates.
- The injunction, while calling against a program of mass linking/delinking, does not limit this to just bots or scripts, and so the fact that he has done at least 2 batches of 20 such articles in a row over the last couple of days looks to me like it passes the duck test. I AGF that OC's contributions are all being done by hand, but as per the wording of the injunction and the intent from the first point, this would see to fall under it.
- I don't think a block is necessary, but it should be affirmed that this action is against the injunction, so that further engagement in this fashion can bring about another. --MASEM (t) 12:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree 100% with what Masem wrote. Seeing only six links cited by Locke, I didn’t quite realize it was 20 articles. Perhaps it would be better, Ohconfucius, if you cooled your jets somewhat so we spend less time here? Greg L (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- As he's been blocked previously for this, and had his alt account (Date delinker (talk · contribs)) indefinitely blocked for violating this injunction, I felt simply warning him wouldn't be the most effective course of action. However, at this point, a block would be purely punitive. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Result concerning Ohconfucius
This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.
Worth watching, under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy and related cases. He appears - or at least claims to be - to be the author of several books promoting various substances. He's doing a bit of self-promotion, replacing articles with samples from his books, that kind of thing. I think a lot of his contributions have been deleted with the articles. Probably not necessary to act yet, but I think a few more eyes would help. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- I am marking this as resolved. Shoemaker's Holiday, this page is for specific and actionable enforcement requests only, as described in {{Arbitration enforcement request}}. Your message above is not actionable. Sandstein 15:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)