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]
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]
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
Giano's not getting blocked today - any block would be without consensus, for one thing, and inappropriate anyway, for another. Whether he was baited or not is, for now, not relevant. The most depressing thing about this is the way all the old hatreds and jealousies have sprung out from under the bed, yet again, when potential Giano drama enters the room. Moreschi (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC#Civility:_Giano placed Giano under the following restriction: "Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.".
Is this compatible with arbcom's ruling? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to be the same diff twice. Is that correct? You may want to fix that. In my outside view I don't see this particular edit as falling within the cited definition. The closest to the line I saw was Giano assuming that there are some admins that are unwilling to take Giano's advice about how to handle the matter. I'd suggest that is in fact the case, there are some that aren't. I have no official standing of course, I'm just sharing my view. ++Lar: t/c 13:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read the section of Giano's talk page above the one in which the "denouncing admins as stupid" diff is located, it is clear that Giano is talking about reinserting errors because they were removed by a sock of a banned editor. It is also worth noting that BrownHairedGirl and Giano have been exchanging views on Newyorkbrad's talk page. The first diff (which has been changed since Lar posted) was written before the ArbCom case was closed - as is clear from the fact that it talks about it being likely that the civility sanction will pass. This is a pretty weak case for invoking the ArbCom ruling for a block, in my opinion. Jay*Jay (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to a bit of a stretch. I am particularly unimpressed by this comment by BrownHairedGirl to Giano: "Does anyone know what strange quirk of the weather has brought Giano back around here to troll on behalf of Vintagekits?" which is most certainly uncivil, an assumption of bad faith and frankly unbecoming of an administrator. To then file a request for enforcement against Giano is pretty ridiculous. WjBscribe 13:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec)The first diff is more than a month old. Why bring it up now? The second diff shows Giano making a frank assessment using the word "stupidity". Based on a quick review of the situation, his assessment seems like it might be accurate. "Stupidity" is quite mild compared to what Giano previously said that resulted in the sanction. While not the most diplomatic term, there is nothing in the sanction that forbids Giano from being forthright. I think no action is required here. I hope people will not be running to this noticeboard every time Giano makes a comment they disagree with. Jehochman Talk 13:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Lar, I have now fixed the duplicate diff. The second diff invokves Giano saying "we have too many little admins running around without a clue how to handle a situation"], and concludes "Let stupidity reign". It's fine to disagree with a course of action, but is it really compatible with arbcom's restraint to describe those he disagrees with as being "without a clue" and summarising their actions as "stupidity"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you accept that your comment to Giano I cite above was totally unacceptable? Do you not see any irony in so casually calling him a troll and then asking for action to be taken against him for incivility and assumptions of bad faith? WjBscribe 14:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are mistaken to assume that I was casually calling Giano a troll. I made that comment after long experience of Giano intervening to object to any sanction against Vintagekits, and of his sneering at the admins who take in the task of dealing with it. Vintagekits has a long history of disruptive editing (set out length in The Troubles arbcom), and after a final last chance he resumed sockpuppeteering, including multiply voting in favour of Giano at the arbcom election, and it was that conduct which led to his recent removal. I have yet to see Giano ever offering support for admin action against Vk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I find the characterisation of someone who has contributed the volume of excellent content to this encyclopedia that Giano has as a "troll" unwarranted and inflammatory. In tense situations, such as the editing around "the troubles" articles, it would be my hope that administrators would act calmly and reasonably with a view to cooling things down. With respect, your input into the discussion should have been to try to extinguish the flames, not pour petrol over them. WjBscribe 14:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope that no-one disputes the significance of Giano's excellent contributions to article space, including his writing of a slew of exquisitely-written featured articles. However, that does not excuse his highly provocative sniping in other areas, such as [this one, which prompted me to note that he had resumed trolling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are quite mistaken BHG, and taling,out of the top of your head, my proposals for dealing with VK from the workshop page to the present time, have been amongst the most draconian and restraining. Had they been adopted you would noyt find yourself in this position that you do now. Frankly, I'm confused as to what your agenda is, if it solving the Troubles problems and less disruption to the encyclopedia, you appear to have an odd way of going about it. Ypur presence on this page being a prime example. Giano (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: at least this sorry and misguided affair has brought Bishonen [8] back to us, even if her rare edit is causing her to be harrassed buy one of BHG's friend. Oh yes regarding BHG's comment about VK voting for me, i was delighted to have his suport, even though I did not realise quite how "supportive" he was being. Or is BHG asserting otherwise? Giano (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The arbitration ruling was intended to (and should be interpreted so as to) reduce drama, not cause it. Please let's not get into a silly argument about whether Giano's comments were uncivil or suggest that he should be blocked (having said that I note with thanks to all that this suggestion has not yet been explicitly made). </doc_glasgow> --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Ant..(ah I've just seen the connection Anthony/Tony - very good that)this I suspect is exactly what the Arbs anticipated happening everytime someone disagrees with me,and ultimately will lead to immense bad feeling and disruption. curious solution wasn't it. Giano (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All users that work in the area of arbitration enforcement are expected to work collaboratively as they enforce the Committee's rulings. I expect that both BrownhairedGirl and Giano will discussion various approaches to enforcing our ruling in thoughtful and civil manner. Two wrongs do not make a right. Brownhairedgirl, if you have concerns about Giano's approach to dealing with Vintagekits, then state them in a manner that describes the problem without using inflammatory words. Giano, if you have concerns about the approach that administrators are using when dealing with Vintagekits, then state them in a manner that describes the problem without using inflammatory words. This is a caution to both of you. Both of you, please take this advise on board so no further warning or sanctions are needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't you start warning me! You and your Arbs deliberatly imposed this sanction knowing exactly the problems it would cause. Now accept the blame yourselves and stop trying to pass the buck! Giano (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: I assume this is another of your admins [9]. Giano (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Flo, I commented after reading this comment by Giano, in reply to Rockpocket, in which Giano described the admins involved as "completely inept" and make a clear assumption of bad faith by accusing them of "trying to make a name for himself". What purpose does that serve except trolling?
- At the time I replied, to Giano, I was unaware that he was on civility patrol, or I would have brought the matter here rather than replying directly to him. Is the assumption of bad faith in accusing Rockpocket of simply "trying to make a name for himself" compatible with the arbcom ruling? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet again if BHG bothers to read to the end of the "trying to make a name for himself" quote rather than lifting7 words out of context, it is quite clear I am not referring to those admins already involved. I think BHG is deliberatly not AGFing, is this what the Arbcom considers admorable Admin behaviour? Giano (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Giano, that makes no sense. I cannot see any reasonable way of reading your comments in the way you now claim they were intended to be read, but if you were not referring to those already involved, how exactly was it assuming good faith to pre-emptively denounce anyone else who became involved as "trying to make a name for himself", before those people had even appeared?
- You also said "You are completely inept at sorting these matters out for yourselves", and I see no doubt that was aimed at those already involved. That's a straightforward personal attack on the edit to whom you were replying. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Using the term "troll" makes some assumptions about the intent of the contributions that are unhelpful. Giano is an established users that needs to be treated with respect even if you do not agree with his approach. Applying derogatory labels is rarely useful if your goal is developing a good working relationship with an user. And that is our goal, right? FloNight♥♥♥ 14:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Flo, I think that many of us commenting here are established users, and that all deserve to be treated with respect. So please could you address the degree of respect which Giano showed to the established editor Rockpocket in this comment, after he had been specifically injuncted by arbcom to refrain both from accusations of bad faith and personal attacks? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calling any editor in good standing a troll is inflammatory, unrequired, and unbecoming. We should simply issue an official warning to Brownhairded girl for violating NPA and being disruptive, and be done with it. Lawrence § t/e 15:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I just check that I understand your proposal? You appear to be saying that this comment by Giano is to be regarded as just fine, and no action should be taken about it despite (as I subsequently discovered) the editor concerned already being under civility patrol, but that describing it as trolling merits a warning? Is that really what you are saying?
- Also, are you sure that is appropriate to describe an editor already injuncted by arbcom as being "in good standing"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I take a very deep offense to any baiting of any editors, unintentional or intentional, especially when others then turn around to use that baiting as a weapon (for good or ill) in dispute resolution. Especially when that weaponized position needs to be heavily defended--stand by your initial statement or conviction, if you feel it's valid. Having to convince, cajole, and work to get it enforced tells that it had no validity. And yes, to me an editor in good standing is anyone who is not blocked. Arbcom enforcements are there alone by the goodwill of the community, and are no scarlet letter. Giano's edit was not exactly wise, but it was not a violation of the terms of his probation by any stretch. Your comment, however, was the classic definition of a disruptive edit. Continued disruptive editing could lead to editing sanctions against yourself, so forewarned. Lawrence § t/e 15:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lawrence, you're off base here. Your suggestions of editing sanctions against BHG are very ill-founded. SirFozzie (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Her edit was as much a violation as the thing she's claiming against Giano. Fair is fair, and all rules will be applied equally to all users, is all I'm saying. Lawrence § t/e 15:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Look up the part of AGF which says that one should assume good faith to the point where one has a reason not to AGF. I like Giano. Giano is very passionate about what he argues about. but look at those statements he made. Calling administrators "Stupid" for following one of Wikipedia's base policies, that banned users do not have the right to edit, is de facto and de jure trolling. If in Giano's mind, the edits are good, he can certainly reinstate them, and take "ownership" of them, (being careful not to become a proxy for a banned editor to continue editing).. But good, bad, indifferent, WP:BAN states that banned users are not allowed to post on Wikipedia, and posts by socks of banned users should be reverted when ever found. SirFozzie (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Foz, I'm not disputing any of that--I said my peace, and I think Giano's comments weren't wise, or the most helpful--but I don't think they were violations in this case of his probation either. But I'm not going to debate that. My only point here was that BHG's statements were actually worse than Giano's, in the civility and NPA department, highlighting the irony of the AE request. Lawrence § t/e 16:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- SirFozzie, you might be interested to know that Newyorkbrad does not share your interpretation that posts should be reverted whether good, bad, or indifferent: Policy is that edits from sockpuppets of blocked or banned users may be reverted. "May" is not "must", and common sense should be used in this as in all other wiki-matters. I have not reviewed this particular series of edits but if, for example, a blocked user saw the spelling "teh" and changed it to "the", it would be foolish to revert it for the sake of reverting it. On the other hand, if an individual is rightfully banned, we do not want to encourage him or her to sneak around the ban, and allowing too many substantive edits to stand can have the effect of doing so. Although it is not written down anywhere, the reason for the ban and seriousness of the user's violations that led to it can also be relevant. [10]. If you look at the context within which Giano's comment was made (look at the discussion above the diff that BrownHairedGirl provided, as well as the diff itself), it is pretty clear he was talking about the exercise of good judgment and common sense, rather than the blind and mindless application of policy - This petty damaging of the encyclopedia by reverting good and valuable edits, and in at least one instance re-inserting a mistake seems a curious way of solving a problem. Now, he shouldn't have referred to such actions as "stupidity" because WP:CIVIL is presently the most important WP policy. But, he does have a point. Jay*Jay (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to my eyes, he doesn't. Banned users are banned for a reason. If folks want to re-revert afterwards and take ownership of the content, fine, go ahead. Anything less however, encourages more disruption and delays the banned user getting the hint that their contributions are just plain not welcome. SirFozzie (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- SirFozzie, you might not see a difference, but I believe others will:
- SirFozzie: But good, bad, indifferent, WP:BAN states that banned users are not allowed to post on Wikipedia, and posts by socks of banned users should be reverted when ever found.
- Newyorkbrad: Policy is that edits from sockpuppets of blocked or banned users may be reverted. "May" is not "must", and common sense should be used in this as in all other wiki-matters.
- I think the difference here is stark - revert no matter what on the one hand, use judgment and common sense on the other. The idea of reverting a correction of a typo because the correction was made by a sock of a banned editor, and then reverting the reversion - but noting that you are now taking responsibility for the content - is ridiculous. The idea that policy requires that an editor reintroduce errors, and then allows and endorses the right of that editor to walk away, leaving the error behind, is ludicrous. Any such policy needs urgent re-writing, and any editor unwilling to invoke WP:IAR to avoid carrying out such an unnecessary reversion should expect to have their judgment questioned or criticised. Jay*Jay (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Part of the difference is a nuance you are missing - NYB is speaking of reverting past edits by a newly banned editor, whereas I think SirFozzie is referring to edits by a banned user after the ban (please correct me if I am wrong). No edits, constructive or otherwise, are welcome from a banned editor. Some edits by a now banned user made before the user was banned can remain, if they are not controversial and clearly benefit the project. The difference isn't a contradiction - the situations are different, and the point is different. Avruch T 17:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Avruch, you are wrong, because NYB made this comment today on his talk page in part of a discussion with BHG and Giano - and he is not talking about edits made prior to banning. I agree that edits from a banned user aren't welcome, but that does not mean that they must be reverted. I just happen to think that NYB (and also Giano) are correct about this point - and I say this making no claim that Giano should have used the language that he has. Jay*Jay (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jay, I've copied the relevant section from the policy, that regardless of the merits, that a post by a sock of a banned user may be reverted at any time (it's one of the few things the electric fence of 3RR allows through) to your talk page. SirFozzie (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, if no action is going to be taken on this enforcement request (and it looks like that is the case) then it should be archived. Spreading disputes to multiple forums is part of both underlying issues here, so lets not support prolonging the problem. Avruch T 16:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lawrence, I quite agree with you about the inappropriateness of baiting: that's precisely what I was commenting on when I described Giano's intervention as trolling and why I lodged compalint here about Giano's continued attcks on those he disagrees with for stupidity. Calling other editors "completely inept" and accusing them of "trying to make a name for himself" is baiting by any reasonable definition.
- However, I do note a decided reluctance in some quarters to take action against Giano, which was most clearly articulated by WjBscribe[11], who appears to be suggesting that good contributions to article space mean that an editor cannot also be a toll. I also note Giano's shock and outrage that anyone would warn him about his conduct, even when he launches again into calling other editors "stupid", "inept" and accuses admins of "trying to make a name for himself" without any evidence to substantiate this.
- In closing, though, may I suggest that some other admins take over the headache of dealing with Vintagekit's numerous sockpupets? Those who have been doing it are unlikely to continue if they don't get support when trolled by an editor already under civility patrol.
- There's not much I can say on this situation, except to suggest a read of WP:TROLL, so this will probably my last contribution to this thread. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Giano was provocative and uncivil, attacking the people who are trying to deal with a banned user. Troll fits the bill quite nicely. I notice Until(1 == 2) agrees also.[12] Ty 17:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think that then ban me! It says any Admin can! Please the Arbs and get on with it then. Giano (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, Jehochman, I have temporarily unarchived this, because discussion continnued despite the archiving tags (about somewhat unrealted issues, sure, but stil, I don't want to give others the impression that we're forcing them not to talk about it) SirFozzie (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ZOMG, an admin acted stupid, and Giano called them stupid. Oh, horrors. Zocky | picture popups 20:25, 11 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.
- Request that he be added to Wikipedia:List of banned users. Reasons: Persistent abusive sockpuppetry, personal attacks (particularly against User:Rockpocket) and incivility. Case link Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. - Kittybrewster ☎ 23:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- VK is blocked indefinitely, which means he is banned unless some admin decides to unblock him. Listing on the banned users page has no significance that I am aware of, it certainly does not prevent an admin from unbanning VK if the admin thinks it is defensible to do so. Is there some reason this would be a contentious listing, or is there some reason to insist on a bookkeeping formality? Thatcher 00:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I recollect, this was not Arbitration enforcement but instead a decision made at WP:ANI. And indeed, the block log reflects that. Find the ANI discussion; that will show the actual reasons for the indefinite block. I think this was indeed a ban, but the ANI archive will be more accurate than anyone's speculation or recollection. GRBerry 02:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am trying to formalise the uncontentious community ban. I suspect it would take a application by Arbcom to unban him. His block log suggests he is a close relation of Lazarus. I am quite happy to post the request elsewhere. - Kittybrewster ☎ 08:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom case:
Editor Liftarn (talk · contribs) has been making:
Liftarn (talk · contribs) has been violating Purpose of Wikipedia spirit removing sources and claiming OR on each and every word that might be critical of the article's subject. He also routinely uses the "per talk" reasoning for edits not discussed or at least clearly not agreed upon on talk.
His latest edit [50], explained with "We have been over this already." removed well cited material who's removal was not discussed anywhere, and also the removal of two valid external links which he previously removed under the "promotional clutter" claim.
I've tried resolving issues with him and opened a WP:3O request, but frankly, discussions were going nowhere and I've personally had it with the editor's refusal to get the points raised, follow WP:NPOV and editorial process.
Respectfully. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Samuel Weems is dead, BLP is scarcely relevant. The description may well be accurate anyway. Most of the diffs presented are from February and January, though I admit this is less than impressive. The current dispute over Carlos Latuff does not seem sufficiently serious to merit administrative attention at this time. Try MedCabal or MedCom if disputes continue. Liftarn's editing is less than perfect but no worse than many others who go unsanctioned. Moreschi (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any suggestions on how to handle the false edit summaries and content removal? I actually submitted this post with hopes for a warning being issued to Liftarn, nothing more. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Warning for what? As regards the paragraph he removed from Latuff's bio, I agree. We don't need to go on about how controversial the contests are that Latuff chooses to enter. In an article on the contest, that fine - how is it relevant to Latuff's bio? The guy's obviously a nutter, no need to overstress the point. Nor is removing sourced content a crime in itself if said content is clearly off-topic. Moreschi (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- From my perspective, I figured a warning for the "per talk" and "promotional clutter" false edit summaries was in order. He waited another full week without any talk page comment and removed the external links (and some extra material) again... this is clearly not the right way for an established editor to behave.
- p.s. If he wants to narrow down the "how controversial" paragraph, he should at least make note that this is his intention.
- p.p.s. (offtopic content note) without winning 2nd place on the Iranian holocaust denial extravaganza, I'm not certain Latuff would have an article on wiki. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (persisting) Issue seems to be persisting (latest Liftarn diff). I honestly can't deal with the false edit summary issue anymore -- this time it's "It has already been discussed and agreed upon." -- and request assistance. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated to RodentOfDeath. Thatcher 20:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Redflag [51] This is not a new editor. Jehochman Talk 13:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)