Arcticocean (talk | contribs) →Smith2006: Comment, closing thread. |
Pfagerburg~enwiki (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 240: | Line 240: | ||
:: Smith2006 has been placed on notice by PhilKnight. I would hope that Smith's editing as of that notice would give no cause for complaint; in the event that it does, a thread should be opened on this noticeboard. [[User talk:AGK|AGK]] 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) |
:: Smith2006 has been placed on notice by PhilKnight. I would hope that Smith's editing as of that notice would give no cause for complaint; in the event that it does, a thread should be opened on this noticeboard. [[User talk:AGK|AGK]] 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.''<!-- from Template:discussion bottom --></div> |
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.''<!-- from Template:discussion bottom --></div> |
||
==Jeffrey Vernon Merkey== |
|||
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' |
|||
===Request concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey=== |
|||
;User requesting enforcement: [[User:Pfagerburg|Pfagerburg]] ([[User talk:Pfagerburg|talk]]) 21:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
;User against whom enforcement is requested: {{userlinks|Jeffrey Vernon Merkey}} |
|||
;Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey]] |
|||
;Sanction or remedy that has been violated:[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey#Jeffrey Vernon Merkey banned]] |
|||
;[[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_E._Schmidt&diff=prev&oldid=269958243], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_E._Schmidt&diff=prev&oldid=274163797], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_E._Schmidt&diff=prev&oldid=274163884], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_E._Schmidt&diff=prev&oldid=277117166], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eriogonum_arborescens&diff=prev&oldid=289616079], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eric_E._Schmidt&diff=prev&oldid=291065798], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_E._Schmidt&diff=prev&oldid=291066029], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conium&diff=prev&oldid=293037523], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Tiller&diff=prev&oldid=293580531] |
|||
;Explanation ''how'' these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: With his named account blocked, Jeff Merkey uses two IP addresses to edit, and both are trivial to prove as being him, by examining the last hostname that shows up in a tracert: [http://private.dnsstuff.com/tools/tracert.ch?ip=166.70.238.44 tracert 166.70.238.44] and [http://private.dnsstuff.com/tools/tracert.ch?ip=166.70.238.45 tracert 166.70.238.45]; both stop at "jmerkey.fttp.xmission.com." |
|||
;Enforcement action requested ([[WP:BP|block]], [[WP:BAN|topic ban]] or [[WP:SANCTION|other sanction]]): IP address block, as these are static IP's assigned to Jeff Merkey. |
|||
;Additional comments: Some of these edits were brought up on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive539#Editing_by_permanently_banned_user_from_IP_address AN/I] and addressed only by semi-protecting the page which he was vandalizing. I had already reverted an edit per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits Enforcement by reverting edits] which he then quickly put back and changed a signature on the talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEric_E._Schmidt&diff=291065798&oldid=290649225]. Even without Werdna's indefinite block, the previous extension to Aug 2009 hasn't even expired, and Merkey is back again editing from that IP address, trying to put material in the Eric Schmidt BLP which was rejected by everyone else on the talk page discussion. |
|||
;Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: ''The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a [[WP:DIFF|diff]] of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.'' |
|||
===Discussion concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey=== |
|||
===Result concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey=== |
|||
''This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use <nowiki>{{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}}</nowiki> to mark it as closed.'' |
Revision as of 21:07, 31 May 2009
Requests for enforcement
Teachings of Prem Rawat
Gazifikator
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Gazifikator
- User requesting enforcement
- brandспойт 08:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Gazifikator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
- Sanction or remedy that has been violated
- Disruptive editing, Wikipedia is not a battleground
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy
- [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]
- Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue
- Ongoing point-pushing and political struggle in AA topics, now in the Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan (official warning)
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- 1RR or at admin's discretion
- Additional comments
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [8]
Discussion concerning Gazifikator
- I don't see any violations in my actions. I created the Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan article, which is completely sourced and seems to not have any problems with Wikipedia rules. Then user Brandmeister suggested to merge it with "Islam in Azerbaijan" article [9]. During the discussion I explained that these two terms are not the same and that it is not correct to merge an article about peaceful Islam believers with the one about radical Islamists and wahhabist terrorists [10]. As a result, user Brandmeister merged these two articles without waiting for a decision by an admin [11]. I returned it back, as user Brandmeister obviously violated Wikipedia rules on merging and the only third-party user is also opposing the merger [12]. Then without waiting for a decision on merging, user Grandmaster started to add irrelevant info (again about Islam believers) to the article which will support their position to merge these two articles. Another user, who is now indef. blocked and never discussed his actions, supported their actions [13] [14] [15]. And lately, user Baku87 reverted the article to indef. blocked user's version without any explanations at talk page [16], while I explained all my edits there. And the only notification ([17], not a warning) I received, was for my edits in a different article on genocides and no any relations with this case. Gazifikator (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- It appears to me that repeatedly reverted Radical islamism is a part of Gazifikator's politically-coloured articles with possible coatrack. In this recent edit for example Gazifikator deleted sourced info, which was labelled as 'unsourced POV-pushing'. Regarding Goldorack, as per WP:BAN, good-faith edits must not be reverted just because they were made by a banned user. brandспойт 20:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- To Gazifikator: I'm quite confused as to why a pagemerge should not have went ahead because a "decision by an admin" had not been passed. Administrators take no role in article content matters (but rather monitor user conduct).
Separately: I'd note that Sandstein placed Gazifikator on notice earlier this month, and so discretionary sanctions could (per AA2) be placed on Gazifikator's account (although I make no comment as to whether that would be warranted at this time).
AGK 15:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- These edits seem to reflect content disagreements and do not violate "Disruptive editing" and "Wikipedia is not a battleground". They are, however, part of an edit war between Gazifikator and Goldorack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Since Goldorack is already indef-blocked, the edit war will likely not continue. I see no compelling need to issue sanctions against Gazifikator at this time, but I am ready to do so should his name appear on this board again associated with A/A disruption of any sort. Sandstein 06:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- To Gazifikator: I'm quite confused as to why a pagemerge should not have went ahead because a "decision by an admin" had not been passed. Administrators take no role in article content matters (but rather monitor user conduct).
- It appears to me that repeatedly reverted Radical islamism is a part of Gazifikator's politically-coloured articles with possible coatrack. In this recent edit for example Gazifikator deleted sourced info, which was labelled as 'unsourced POV-pushing'. Regarding Goldorack, as per WP:BAN, good-faith edits must not be reverted just because they were made by a banned user. brandспойт 20:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Gazifikator made 11 reverts just on Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan, trying to suppress the information about the number of ardent believers in Azerbaijan, supported by reliable sources. This information has direct relevance to the article, yet it is being deleted for no reason. How can one access the relative weight of radical religious trends without knowing the number of religious people in general? Some examples of edit warring by Gazifikator on that article: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]
Note that every time Gazifikator reverted, the following information was removed:
A survey estimated the proportion of ardent believers in Azerbaijan at close to 7 percent, slightly more than the number of declared atheists — almost 4 percent — with the largest numbers falling into the category of those who consider Islam above all as a way of life, without strict observance of prohibitions and requirements, or as a fundamental part of national identity.[1]
In my opinion, this is a deliberate attempt to suppress useful and sourced information, and the paragraph above was originally included by me and other users, not Goldorack. I think that Gazifikator's activity on this article is a violation of arbitration ruling, discouraging edit warring. --Grandmaster 08:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Result concerning Gazifikator
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.
Wowest
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Wowest
- User requesting enforcement
- Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Wowest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories
- Sanction or remedy that has been violated
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Discretionary sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy
- [25][26]
- Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue
- Wowest is canvassing new editors to a discussion[27] where he believes the new editors will be sympathetic to his cause.
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- Indefinite topic ban
- Additional comments
- Wowest has been a tendentious editor in 9/11-related articles for some time. Indeed, he has been banned before[28] and appeared on this page earlier this month, the result of which was a "formal, final warning" to Wowest by the closing administrator.[29] I will be notifying the closing administrator, AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), of this thread per his request. Update: done.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [30]
Discussion concerning Wowest
I would firstly express my concern that yet another complaint over Wowest's conduct is being presented to this noticeboard. I am unsure at this point whether the complaint has any substance (a point that I will explore in a little more detail below), but I would invite input from Wowest as to how he feels about being the subject of another complaint (even after my quite clear final warning a few weeks ago).
I would observe that the crux of this complaint seems, to my mind, to be that Wowest's conduct has constituted inappropriate canvassing of other editors. I copy for reference the summary table from Wikipedia:Canvassing, the project's behavioural guideline on this aspect of editor conduct:
Scale | Message | Audience | Transparency | ||||
Friendly notice | Limited posting | AND | Neutral | AND | Nonpartisan | AND | Open |
↕ | ↕ | ↕ | ↕ | ||||
Inappropriate canvassing | Mass posting | OR | Biased | OR | Partisan | OR | Secret |
Term | Excessive cross-posting | Campaigning | Votestacking | Stealth canvassing |
If sanctions are to be placed on Wowest's account as a result of this complaint, I would expect them to be because an administrator thinks his comments to other editors to be "inappropriate canvassing" (in one of its four shades—scale, message, audience, or transparency) rather than a "friendly notice." By extension, the question we ask ought to be whether Wowest's comments are negatively influencing editing in this subject area. I tentatively suggest that I think that may unfortunately be the case.
I would invite the input of other administrators (and, as above, Wowest) on this. AGK 15:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- After further review of Wowest's presence in this subject area, I am growing increasingly concerned about his editing there. I note my intention to pass sanctions on Wowest's account at the conclusion of this thread (although, as always, further input may give me cause to reconsider that intention). AGK 16:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Given that the user has not been following policy guidelines before, a limited sanction might have the effect that the user will look for the relevant guidelines before doing something that might be in violation of policy. I don't know whether such a form of "punitive-preventative" form of sanction exists or would be legitimate, however. Cs32en 16:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
By posting two messages to a partisan audience, Wowest (talk · contribs) has not followed WP:CANVASS. The user's messages were limited, neutral, and open. Wowest (talk · contribs) has apparently not been warned to stop the canvassing before this A/E request has been filed. There is damage to the editing process, but the damage is limited, as the canvassing can be taken into account when evaluating consensus. As sanctions are preventative, they should only be applied if editors continue a form of disruptive behavior after having been warned, or if they resume a form of behaviour about which they have already been warned previously. We certainly would be able to better judge about this case if the user had been warned before this request has been filed. A warning should generally be accompanied by advice on how to proceed without violating policy, i.e., in this case, the possibility of informing all editors who have contributed to related articles irrespective of their views on the issue. Cs32en 16:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Wowest has been consistently unhelpful in editing 9/11 topics. They were previously topic banned for 45 days. The inappropriate canvassing is just frosting on the cake. As an editor with first hand experience trying to improve these articles, I have suffered through a parade of single purpose, pro-Truther accounts with all their wikilawyering, endless pestering, and circular argumentation. This is a highly disturbed area where sanctions should be applied swiftly to prevent disruptive editors from driving off productive editors. Jehochman Talk 17:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- The unpleasant editing environment to which productive editors to the 9/11 area are subjected is something that I'm quite concerned about, so I'm sympathetic to your comment. In an attempt to strike a balance between "swiftly" removing editors and being recklessly hasty, I'd anticipate this thread being closed by tomorrow afternoon (after input from any editors who wish to offer it). AGK 17:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Check the date when Wowest was originally topic banned. Nothing has changed since then. Why rush now? By all means, take your time and take care of the matter properly. Jehochman Talk 21:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like it if Wowest at least has a few days to respond, as he has not done so yet. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear AGK:
- Thank you for your invitation to participate in this discussion.
- I am a physically disabled Wikipedian. As such, editing is one of many things which I am unable to do consistently, for extended periods of time or on a daily basis, and this includes defending myself here.
- I fully agree with Jehochman's last comment, beginning with "Check the date." I will attempt to reply competently to this matter at my earliest opportunity, and, to balance this, I agree not to edit any articles at all until this matter is resolved. Do you find that suitable?
- Wowest (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- If you would agree to refrain from editing the subject area in question until this thread has been closed, it would be appreciated, yes. However, I do feel that this matter is somewhat straight-forward: your editing, Wowest, has been a cause for concern for some time, and I think it inevitable that sanctions are going to be passed on your account.… Naturally, I'm open to be convinced otherwise, by your comments or those of other editors. AGK 13:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Result concerning Wowest
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.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Shutterbug
- User requesting enforcement
- The Legendary Shadow! (talk)13:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Shutterbug (talk)
- Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology
- Sanction or remedy that has been violated
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Scope_of_Scientology_topic_ban
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy
- Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Statement_by_Shutterbug
- Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue
- Section 3A of 'Scope of Scientology topic ban' states:
3A) Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles, including as examples but not limited to, articles for deletion, reliable sources noticeboard, administrators' noticeboard and so forth.
User has posted to the talk page of the arbitration case on Scientology, this is clearly a violation of the above terms of their topic ban.
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- as per terms laid out in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Enforcement, user should be blocked for 1 month
- Additional comments
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.
Discussion concerning User:Shutterbug
The user has self reverted so I'm not sure whether any action is required. PhilKnight (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
It was his comment on the talk page of the arbitration case that I was referring to, I wasn't aware of any action on the Scientology article. The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Unless repeated or disruptive, I don't think that banning a named party to a RFAR from comment is a good idea, even after the close. Meanwhile, isn't launching AE complaints broadly concerning Scientology articles also topic-blocked under the "and so forth"? (To prevent continuing conflict by other means.) It's best to let all drop, and I'm sure that many admins are keeping an eye out for serious violations. (With that, out of here before I get smacked—but clarification of if the block also extends to AE actions as well would be nice.) AndroidCat (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Mind you, the requesting user above, The Legendary Shadow!, has been topic-banned by the same ArbCom (Diff). So I consider her enforcement request as another attempt to stir up trouble and unrest. As I noted on the ArbCom page (that is not an "article" per 3b) of the ArbCom "decision"): there are lies left in this case and that is why it will never get to rest until the discrimination issue is sorted out. Shutterbug (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Result concerning User:Shutterbug
Closed without action. This request is not actionable because the "request" section does not contain an actual diff of the conduct alleged to have violated an arbitration decision. Sandstein 06:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Smith2006
Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
- User requesting enforcement
- Pfagerburg (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
- Sanction or remedy that has been violated
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey#Jeffrey Vernon Merkey banned
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy
- [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]
- Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue
- With his named account blocked, Jeff Merkey uses two IP addresses to edit, and both are trivial to prove as being him, by examining the last hostname that shows up in a tracert: tracert 166.70.238.44 and tracert 166.70.238.45; both stop at "jmerkey.fttp.xmission.com."
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- IP address block, as these are static IP's assigned to Jeff Merkey.
- Additional comments
- Some of these edits were brought up on AN/I and addressed only by semi-protecting the page which he was vandalizing. I had already reverted an edit per Enforcement by reverting edits which he then quickly put back and changed a signature on the talk page [41]. Even without Werdna's indefinite block, the previous extension to Aug 2009 hasn't even expired, and Merkey is back again editing from that IP address, trying to put material in the Eric Schmidt BLP which was rejected by everyone else on the talk page discussion.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.
Discussion concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
Result concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
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.