Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests | Enforcement
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rlevse (talk | contribs) at 01:15, 14 March 2008 (here). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Arbitration enforcement archives
1234567891011121314151617181920
2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
341342343344345346347348349350351352

Waterboarding

This IP user seems to be edit warring. [1] Could they be a blocked or banned user returning to cause trouble? Jehochman Talk 19:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gets very old very fast, doesn't it? I've blocked the IP user for 24 hours (the second block inside a week, I noticed). -- ChrisO (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the 2nd block within a week? --nyc171 (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that they've been unblocked. For what it's worth, categorization disputes are generally kind of a silly thing to edit-war and better worked out on the talk page, but I think the unblock is fine as long as the IP is not edit-warring further. I'm considering semi-protecting the page temporarily given the volume of unconstructive IP editing over the past few days - any thoughts? MastCell Talk 21:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a winner. We've got a repeat socker on the loose, recently banned, who will probably be showing up. If we take the wind out of their sails, they might go home and rethink their life. Jehochman Talk 21:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The unblock appears to be a mistake. Here are the diffs for edit warring: [2][3][4][5] When a user makes the same edit over and over and over again, that's edit warring. I like the way the user wikilawyers with ChrisO. It reminds me of Neutral Good (talk · contribs) and BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs). Jehochman Talk 21:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree he was edit-warring. Just not sure how useful replacing the block is going to be vs. semi'ing the target article, which I'm going to do now. MastCell Talk 22:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about all the drama here. I was not trying to be disruptive and didn't know this was a "problem" article until I was told so on my talk page. I will try not to revert more than once on this article. The differences above are from 2 days ago before I was warned. Also, I was blocked awhile back when I first came here, not twice in one week. Thank you.--70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Bold text[reply]


Macedonia Moldova

Due to growing risk of an edit war (three reverts by each of the two parties yesterday, and claims by one of which that such a risk is high), I have taken the preventative step of restricting Dpotop (talk · contribs) and Xasha (talk · contribs) to one revert per two days for two weeks on all related articles and zero-tolerance for incivility on the talk pages. I bring this measure to discussion before other uninvolved admins, whom I am asking to help enforce this. Note that I am forgoing the warning this time and thus am not logging it in the arbitration page — let this measure serve as a warning, and let's hope it resonates (if enough uninvolved admins feel that position is in error, the restrictions will be revoked). Thx. El_C 11:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mixed up Moldova with Macedonia? (But no problem, we can easily extend the Balkans up there. :-) I know what you're going to say now: They both start with M, so I can't tell them apart.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! (you remembered the M, to boot: full credits for that!) I copied the wrong template and a comedy of errors ensued. All fixed. El_C 12:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BereTuborg (talk · contribs) added to the restrictions. El_C 18:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Dramatica

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

Please block 91.121.88.13 (talk · contribs) for reverting the removal of a link to ED per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. Will (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above user (User:Sceptre) has broken WP:3RR in attempting to enforce this, and has repeatedly removed the anon's legitimate comments. Chubbles (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are not legitimate. Per the above case, any user who inserts links to ED will be reverted and blocked. This includes the url. You've broken the AC ruling too. Will (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that what was removed was the phrase "" in another user's comment - not a url, but the name of the site - and the same embedded in an Alexa search, which is now a broken link. Chubbles (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "x.com" isn't an url is like saying a cup of tea isn't without two sugars. Will (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "x.com" is no less legitimate than referring to Amazon as "Amazon.com". Chubbles (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ED? Legitimate? I'm sorry, you missed the party. BJAODN was deleted months ago. Will (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the above user is deliberatively trying to sabotage a point I made against him in a civil debate. His actions appear in extremely bad form. There was no link to ED, it was a link to an Alexa graph comparing traffic against two other sites. --Truthseeq (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ruling says "Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it." A debate on the DRV is ongoing here. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested clarification on the ruling itself: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. Mackensen (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:ScienceApologist

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
No actionable complaints. MastCell Talk 22:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may or may not violate the Arbcom rulings at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist; I'll let the readers decide. The links:

Additionally, he's edited tendentiously, as well as against consensus. The above article (electronic voice phenomenon) was locked due to editwarring. The edit war occurred between SA and User:LionelStarkweather. See this diff for the last edit before it was locked, showing the content dispute. It was was locked with the Lionel version intact; while locked, there was a discussion on the talk which initially include SA; however, he stopped discussing after a while. Following the article's unlocking, he reverted without any further mention, starting a revert war that led to the article being locked again. He also removed the infobox and a sound file without any talk discussion and vague edit summaries (here and here). He calims WP:V on the second; it is not being used as a source, ergo, WP:V doesn't apply.

Per the arbcom ruling, he's restricted from making disruptive edits. I would argue that these edits are extremely disruptive, especially seeing the (for a while) constructive discussion that was occurring (see Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon sections "Moving on" and "edit request". 130.101.152.155 (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement requests should not be accepted from sock puppet accounts. Jehochman Talk 20:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a sock Jehcoman, see your talk. I use public computer terminals where the IP changes with different terminals. I use various IPs in the 130.101 range. See Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Davkal (3rd). You shouldn't have posted that reply before I had a chance to respond to the message you left on my talk. 130.101.152.155 (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the "edit-warring" and "tendentious editing" you cite is from 2 months ago. Additionally, full disclosure would mandate noting that User:LionelStarkweather is a confirmed block-evading abusive sockpuppet of the banned user Davkal. Reverting edits by an abusive, ban-evading sock is generally not considered edit-warring, but rather part of enforcing the ban. No comment on the alleged incivility in the first two diffs; I'll leave that for another admin. MastCell Talk 21:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The edits in question are from the 8th of March. You can see them at the history. The older edits were showing the pattern- those were pre-article lock. He has engaged in the behavior that caused the block in the first place.
Sorry I left out the sock of Davkal; however, it doesn't take away that SA has reverted without consensus on an article that was locked from revert warring. 130.101.152.155 (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can vouch for this user. I am in contact by email, and the IP is a sock of a Wikipedia user who is in good standing. The IP has, for exceptionally obvious reasons, decided to use only an IP on this article. The EVP article is once again locked, as with so many other articles, because of ScienceApologist's actions. Also, I do not believe that this user knows of the previous claims here against SA on this page, and I did not know of this claim till I saw it now on my talk page, nor did I urge this claim. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find that there is no incivility, and that the IP editor is using multiple IP accounts in a way that prevents scrutiny of their contributions. Such an account should not be used to level accusations at another editor. At this point, I am not going to block the IP, but I suggest that they register a pseudonym account and use it consistently. This will avoid revealing their real life identity and provide a measure of transparency to other editors who have a legitimate interest in tracking the IP editor's contributions. Jehochman Talk 21:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Unless Wikipedia changes its policy to only allow registered users to edit, I'm using wikipedia as designed. I have yet to see a policy that requires static IP addresses. Besides, the purpose of this or any AE report is the conduct of the user in question, not the poster. Checkuser me if you think I'm the sock of any of the registered users involved in this debate. As it is, I think you're ignoring the evidence simply because I'm posting anonymously. 130.101.152.155 (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing actionable in your allegations against ScienceApologist. You are an admitted sock puppet account. Please, stop disrupting this message board with frivolous and stale complaints. WP:AE is not a tool to be used for gaining position in an editorial disagreements. Jehochman Talk 21:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:ForeverFreeSpeech

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
User blocked indefinitely. MastCell Talk 21:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh off a block and right back at it... I'm not going to list specific diffs since pretty much every other edit summary is a case in itself. Check out Special:Contributions/ForeverFreeSpeech.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 07.03.2008 16:46

Before seeing this post, I indef blocked ForeverFreeSpeech for persistent, unrepentant incivility, personal attacks, POV-pushing, and disruption. If the block is also appropriate under Arbcom enforcement, I suppose that is icing on the cake. · jersyko talk 17:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What arbcom case is this from? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


User:RodentofDeath

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
Unrelated. Thatcher 20:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user appears to have reapeared once again this time as User:weighted Companion Cube. User makes first post on Wikipedia just two days after User:RodentofDeath is referred to ArbCom.

Rodent has already been caught out twice breaching his ban.

User:weighted Companion Cube has posted on same disputed article and seems to follow the same wording and tactics of RodentofDeath.

Then this user posts in deletion request a posting that is an obvious defence of RodentofDeath and seems to taunt User:Edgarde, who had been one of the complainents in the arbitration case.

Edgarde had just previously posted this on my talk page.

Rodent has previously stated in his ArbCom case that he travels and uses multiple IP addresses. A look on this user's talk page also shows the same sort of problems he had as RodentofDeath with other Editors. Susanbryce (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)slight copyediting and link piping by • VigilancePrime • • • 23:01 (UTC) 7 Mar '08 for ease of readability.[reply]

WCC is Red X Unrelated to RodentOfDeath. Thatcher 20:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ren and Stimpy episode

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
Article restored. Looks like we're done here. Thatcher 23:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Please restore Son of Stimpy per the injunction in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. This article was deleted on March 5. Related discussion at User talk:Seicer. Catchpole (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The injunction doesn't apply to speedy deletion. Will (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I just restored the article because the injunction seemed to say not to delete or undelete (change status quo) as of Feb 3. There is not mention in the injunction that speedies are excluded. This article was re-created Jan 27, 2008 and deleted Mar 5, 2008. Jehochman Talk 16:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction.

— Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2#Temporary injunction
Can't you admins do anything without wheel-warring? I see someone else has deleted it. Catchpole (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but I am out of the loop with recent ArbCom actions. I saw this page at CAT:CSD and took care of it, not knwoing that doing so violated any ArbCom rulings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesse Viviano (talk • contribs) 20:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks for notifying me of this. seicer | talk | contribs 00:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • FWIW, I recall discussion of particular episodes having notability. This is one of those landmark episodes I'd have thought. Hopefully finding indep sources won't be too hard. [[::User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[::User talk:Casliber|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 01:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive17&oldid=198096802"