Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
GordonWatts (talk | contribs)
4,767 edits
== Community ban request on User:JzG - Inappropriate language, violation of policy, et al. ==
GordonWatts (talk | contribs)
4,767 edits
Line 86: Line 86:
THEREFORE, the community should speak against an admin who, via roguery, proclaims "consensus," when not even a majority could be gained -not even by multiple tries or attempts. Wikipedia, if it supports admins who act as they wish (not based on concensus) shall support a dictatorship-form of government, and we know that dictatorships never flourish.
THEREFORE, the community should speak against an admin who, via roguery, proclaims "consensus," when not even a majority could be gained -not even by multiple tries or attempts. Wikipedia, if it supports admins who act as they wish (not based on concensus) shall support a dictatorship-form of government, and we know that dictatorships never flourish.


I certify that I have notified User:JzG: Observe: []
I certify that I have notified User:JzG: Observe: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JzG&diff=132745732&oldid=132742319]


If an admin thinks to block me for bringing this action, you shall be proclaimed a bully who is afraid to let the matter be discussed in open light of day in open forum for the full duration.--[[User:GordonWatts|GordonWatts]] 19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
If an admin thinks to block me for bringing this action, you shall be proclaimed a bully who is afraid to let the matter be discussed in open light of day in open forum for the full duration.--[[User:GordonWatts|GordonWatts]] 19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:05, 22 May 2007

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Header



Community ban request on User:JzG - Inappropriate language, violation of policy, et al.

This user has done three identifiable things which violate Wikipedia:

1: Slandered my name in such a way that I have my page vandalized on a regular basis by admins who claim that some sort of ruling or another prohibits me from posting, for example, a link to my research. [Example: [1]] (While I feel Nandesuka was wrong, I will assume "good faith" and assume he (or she) acted sincerely believing that he (or she) was authorised to do so by the illegal ruling of JzG.

2: Recently, JzG closed a community action against me. There were thirty-three (33) participants (32 registered users, list below, and one anonymous IP). Even though participants could vote multiple times, he was not able to ascertain at least 50%. As policy is written WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus_vs._supermajority clearly states that even a supermajority is not necessarily a concensus, so, since you have like 13 or 14 votes for me, with the other, majority, not voting against me, a majority did not support any action against me.

3: If sysops like Bishonen, JzG, and Nandesuka remove content from my user page that is supposedly objectionable, then it is appropriate to ask that this comment here be removed. JzG uses much worse language on his page than do I on mine. Observe: He writes "...I will probably ignore you and may tell you to fuck off." [2]


Poll: Support or Oppose use of language in #3 above.

  1. Oppose Inappropriate content.--GordonWatts 19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Auxiliary Poll: Support or Oppose admins must follow concensus policy

  1. Support No one is above the law, except maybe the foundation or Jimbo. If you don’t like the policy, vote to change it or leave -or abide by it.--GordonWatts 19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: Although emotions are still running high about the community action that recently took place, I remind the readers that this action here is about JzG (and whether or not he violated policy). While some of those who do not like me would be tempted to vote "against Gordon," I remind all that I am not being voted on. If you think I have done something wrong, you may take a community action against me, but to do so would be double jeopardy, since I've already been tried. (Also, for those who might mention that ArbCom somehow supported JzG's actions, I remind you that they did not take the case, no ruling was issued, and no legal basis exists to reference them: Their refusal to take a case does not constitute an "ArbCom" ruling. It nearly means they did not decide to take the case.)

Jimbo has said that "7. Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity," so I would hope that no one wises to punish me for brining this valid complaint.

In short: Since JzG falsely proclaimed a consensus existed (when not even a majority could be counted among the users), he has slandered me, and this slander has prodded admins like Bishonen and Nandesuka to violate policy. Observe:

Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism prohibits the following actions: "Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations: Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus." This is what Bish and Nand did: No concensus was gained. Did you know this?

LIST: The following 33 users (32 editors, in order of appearance, and 1 anon) participated in this "community discussion" in question:

  1. --Calton | Talk 13:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. --Fredrick day 13:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Leebo86 13:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. --GordonWatts 14:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Tom Harrison Talk 15:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Proto ► 15:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Corvus cornix 17:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. –King Bee (T • C) 20:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Friday (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Musical Linguist 00:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 00:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. patsw 01:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Giovanni33 02:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Sarah 07:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. ElinorD (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  19. Mangojuicetalk 16:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  20. DurovaCharge! 00:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  21. --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 02:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  22. Kyle Barbour 03:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  23. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  24. Marskell 20:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  25. ChazBeckett 00:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  26. Mangojuicetalk 01:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  27. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  28. Martin | talk • contribs 07:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  29. ObiterDicta 18:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  30. rspeer / ???ds? 00:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  31. --wL(User:WikiLeon)<speak·check·chill> 07:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  32. MastCell 05:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

and

  1. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.91.28.232 (talk • contribs) on 01:28, 21 February 2007 (edit) (undo)

CONCLUSION: Even if we were to not count the anon IP, that is 32 users, and a "consensus" would in any even have to be OVER 50%, which means at least 17. Even with people allowed to vote multiple times, we only have 14 votes against and 18 votes for any measure. (Most votes were even more lopsided, but, if this action is allowed to stand, it will set precedent that an admin can rule AGAINST the concensus, and thus violate concensus policy, simply because he or she is an admin.)

THEREFORE, the community should speak against an admin who, via roguery, proclaims "consensus," when not even a majority could be gained -not even by multiple tries or attempts. Wikipedia, if it supports admins who act as they wish (not based on concensus) shall support a dictatorship-form of government, and we know that dictatorships never flourish.

I certify that I have notified User:JzG: Observe: [3]

If an admin thinks to block me for bringing this action, you shall be proclaimed a bully who is afraid to let the matter be discussed in open light of day in open forum for the full duration.--GordonWatts 19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I don't wish any harm upon JzG (aka Guy Chapman), because he is a real person, and, like all people, I wish him well in all his life's endeavors; however, where his behaviour is inappropriate, I shall oppose it, not only because of the harm it has caused, but, because of the fact that he has led others astray (such as the several admins who now think they too can violate the Wikipedia vandalism policy, simply because they’re admins). Guy, you too must obey the rules.--GordonWatts 19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extending the ban of Artaxiad to indef

I was wondering if this would be warranted. Checkuser requests since the conclusion of the arbitration case was a rather long list. User was banned by arbcom for a year. Users are banned for a year or more by arbcom to cease disruption. More severe mesures should be taken into account if users behaviour does not improve.

User has more sockpuppets than I'd care to count. One of the check users comment was: "I spent half an hour tracking down this checkuser. It is ridiculous. Here is the tree as I have constructed it. It is incomplete".

-- Cat chi? 13:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How often does he use sockpuppets? For example, every week, every day, or...? When was the last time he used sockpuppets? —Kyриx 14:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No real way to know since he uses open proxies. Since his edit behaviour has no real patter (check contribs of User:Lakers for instance), it is very hard to tell. He may also be preforming false flag attacks as he demonstrated an odd familiarity for a banned user: "Checking some users contributions you think I'm using socks, this is either Ararat arev or Adil playing games". -- Cat chi? 15:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this guy's sockdrawer, it's definitely warranted. Once you use a sock to get around an ArbCom decision, you're effectively telling the community you're not going to follow the rules. 2321 socks? Indef ban.Blueboy96 15:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to review the raw data on the checkuser case. There are far more socks (though it might be a commonly used open proxy by other disruptive users - not that it makes this any better). -- Cat chi? 15:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did this guy attempt to use these account after the block? BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 02:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like he was making socks even while the arbitration was underway, from looking at all the block logs for this guy. That only clinches it--he's effectively thumbing his nose at the community. We don't need him.Blueboy96 02:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is really simple, if you can come up with valid evidence that (s)he was/is using multiple accounts abusively, I have no qualms with blocking this user indef. Oh, and please block the open proxy. —— Eagle101Need help? 04:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the Checkuser--21 confirmed socks. And the clerk said that the list was incomplete. Many of them were active while the arbitration was underway. If you're engaging in sockpuppetry during an arbitration and you haven't been community banned, you damned well better be.Blueboy96 04:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question of whether to do that rests on whether he used the accounts after the ban or before. If we community ban then it should be for the duration of the arbcom's ban. As it is, any further accounts are blocked so maybe he knows creating them is a waste of time. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 12:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like he used 10 of them after the end of the ArbCom case (two of them only hours after the decision came down) and four in the week before the case was underway. Like I've said before, when you're making sockpuppets while there's an arbitration underway, you're telling the community that you're not going to follow the rules. 10 socks after the final decision? Indef him.
Active after Arbcom:
Active a week before ban:

Dunno how much more blatant you can get ... this is as egregious as I've seen it.Blueboy96 14:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. No need for any further discussion here. This is a no-brainer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've extended his block to indefinite. Picaroon (Talk) 17:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Points for that. This was an easy choice, really. If he makes a request to come back and actually stops the socking, plus making an apology, I wouldnt mind reducing it back to the arbcom ban, however. -Mask? 18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slamdunk case. I fully support banning this user. Nardman1 23:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as enough evidence is presented. Enough is enough. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't get why he was even allowed back. Revealing personal information? By all rights he should have been reported to his ISP. I would think someone ought to report him now.Blueboy96 23:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Community ban request on User:JzG - Inappropriate language, violation of policy, et al.

This user has done three identifiable things which violate Wikipedia:

1: Slandered my name in such a way that I have my page vandalized on a regular basis by admins who claim that some sort of ruling or another prohibits me from posting, for example, a link to my research. [Example: [4]] (While I feel Nandesuka was wrong, I will assume "good faith" and assume he (or she) acted sincerely believing that he (or she) was authorised to do so by the illegal ruling of JzG.

2: Recently, JzG closed a community action against me. There were thirty-three (33) participants (32 registered users, list below, and one anonymous IP). Even though participants could vote multiple times, he was not able to ascertain at least 50%. As policy is written WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus_vs._supermajority clearly states that even a supermajority is not necessarily a concensus, so, since you have like 13 or 14 votes for me, with the other, majority, not voting against me, a majority did not support any action against me.

3: If sysops like Bishonen, JzG, and Nandesuka remove content from my user page that is supposedly objectionable, then it is appropriate to ask that this comment here be removed. JzG uses much worse language on his page than do I on mine. Observe: He writes "...I will probably ignore you and may tell you to fuck off." [5]


Poll: Support or Oppose use of language in #3 above.

  1. Oppose Inappropriate content.--GordonWatts 19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Auxiliary Poll: Support or Oppose admins must follow concensus policy

  1. Support No one is above the law, except maybe the foundation or Jimbo. If you don’t like the policy, vote to change it or leave -or abide by it.--GordonWatts 19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: Although emotions are still running high about the community action that recently took place, I remind the readers that this action here is about JzG (and whether or not he violated policy). While some of those who do not like me would be tempted to vote "against Gordon," I remind all that I am not being voted on. If you think I have done something wrong, you may take a community action against me, but to do so would be double jeopardy, since I've already been tried. (Also, for those who might mention that ArbCom somehow supported JzG's actions, I remind you that they did not take the case, no ruling was issued, and no legal basis exists to reference them: Their refusal to take a case does not constitute an "ArbCom" ruling. It nearly means they did not decide to take the case.)

Jimbo has said that "7. Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity," so I would hope that no one wises to punish me for brining this valid complaint.

In short: Since JzG falsely proclaimed a consensus existed (when not even a majority could be counted among the users), he has slandered me, and this slander has prodded admins like Bishonen and Nandesuka to violate policy. Observe:

Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism prohibits the following actions: "Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations: Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus." This is what Bish and Nand did: No concensus was gained. Did you know this?

LIST: The following 33 users (32 editors, in order of appearance, and 1 anon) participated in this "community discussion" in question:

  1. --Calton | Talk 13:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. --Fredrick day 13:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Leebo86 13:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. --GordonWatts 14:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Tom Harrison Talk 15:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Proto ► 15:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Corvus cornix 17:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. –King Bee (T • C) 20:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Friday (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Musical Linguist 00:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 00:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. patsw 01:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Giovanni33 02:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Sarah 07:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. ElinorD (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  19. Mangojuicetalk 16:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  20. DurovaCharge! 00:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  21. --Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 02:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  22. Kyle Barbour 03:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  23. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  24. Marskell 20:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  25. ChazBeckett 00:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  26. Mangojuicetalk 01:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  27. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  28. Martin | talk • contribs 07:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  29. ObiterDicta 18:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  30. rspeer / ???ds? 00:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  31. --wL(User:WikiLeon)<speak·check·chill> 07:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  32. MastCell 05:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

and

  1. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.91.28.232 (talk • contribs) on 01:28, 21 February 2007 (edit) (undo)

CONCLUSION: Even if we were to not count the anon IP, that is 32 users, and a "consensus" would in any even have to be OVER 50%, which means at least 17. Even with people allowed to vote multiple times, we only have 14 votes against and 18 votes for any measure. (Most votes were even more lopsided, but, if this action is allowed to stand, it will set precedent that an admin can rule AGAINST the concensus, and thus violate concensus policy, simply because he or she is an admin.)

THEREFORE, the community should speak against an admin who, via roguery, proclaims "consensus," when not even a majority could be gained -not even by multiple tries or attempts. Wikipedia, if it supports admins who act as they wish (not based on concensus) shall support a dictatorship-form of government, and we know that dictatorships never flourish.

I certify that I have notified User:JzG: Observe: [6]

If an admin thinks to block me for bringing this action, you shall be proclaimed a bully who is afraid to let the matter be discussed in open light of day in open forum for the full duration.--GordonWatts 19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I don't wish any harm upon JzG (aka Guy Chapman), because he is a real person, and, like all people, I wish him well in all his life's endeavors; however, where his behaviour is inappropriate, I shall oppose it, not only because of the harm it has caused, but, because of the fact that he has led others astray (such as the several admins who now think they too can violate the Wikipedia vandalism policy, simply because they’re admins). Guy, you too must obey the rules.--GordonWatts 19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extending the ban of Artaxiad to indef

I was wondering if this would be warranted. Checkuser requests since the conclusion of the arbitration case was a rather long list. User was banned by arbcom for a year. Users are banned for a year or more by arbcom to cease disruption. More severe mesures should be taken into account if users behaviour does not improve.

User has more sockpuppets than I'd care to count. One of the check users comment was: "I spent half an hour tracking down this checkuser. It is ridiculous. Here is the tree as I have constructed it. It is incomplete".

-- Cat chi? 13:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How often does he use sockpuppets? For example, every week, every day, or...? When was the last time he used sockpuppets? —Kyриx 14:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No real way to know since he uses open proxies. Since his edit behaviour has no real patter (check contribs of User:Lakers for instance), it is very hard to tell. He may also be preforming false flag attacks as he demonstrated an odd familiarity for a banned user: "Checking some users contributions you think I'm using socks, this is either Ararat arev or Adil playing games". -- Cat chi? 15:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this guy's sockdrawer, it's definitely warranted. Once you use a sock to get around an ArbCom decision, you're effectively telling the community you're not going to follow the rules. 2321 socks? Indef ban.Blueboy96 15:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to review the raw data on the checkuser case. There are far more socks (though it might be a commonly used open proxy by other disruptive users - not that it makes this any better). -- Cat chi? 15:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did this guy attempt to use these account after the block? BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 02:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like he was making socks even while the arbitration was underway, from looking at all the block logs for this guy. That only clinches it--he's effectively thumbing his nose at the community. We don't need him.Blueboy96 02:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is really simple, if you can come up with valid evidence that (s)he was/is using multiple accounts abusively, I have no qualms with blocking this user indef. Oh, and please block the open proxy. —— Eagle101Need help? 04:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the Checkuser--21 confirmed socks. And the clerk said that the list was incomplete. Many of them were active while the arbitration was underway. If you're engaging in sockpuppetry during an arbitration and you haven't been community banned, you damned well better be.Blueboy96 04:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question of whether to do that rests on whether he used the accounts after the ban or before. If we community ban then it should be for the duration of the arbcom's ban. As it is, any further accounts are blocked so maybe he knows creating them is a waste of time. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 12:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like he used 10 of them after the end of the ArbCom case (two of them only hours after the decision came down) and four in the week before the case was underway. Like I've said before, when you're making sockpuppets while there's an arbitration underway, you're telling the community that you're not going to follow the rules. 10 socks after the final decision? Indef him.
Active after Arbcom:
Active a week before ban:

Dunno how much more blatant you can get ... this is as egregious as I've seen it.Blueboy96 14:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. No need for any further discussion here. This is a no-brainer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've extended his block to indefinite. Picaroon (Talk) 17:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Points for that. This was an easy choice, really. If he makes a request to come back and actually stops the socking, plus making an apology, I wouldnt mind reducing it back to the arbcom ban, however. -Mask? 18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slamdunk case. I fully support banning this user. Nardman1 23:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as enough evidence is presented. Enough is enough. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't get why he was even allowed back. Revealing personal information? By all rights he should have been reported to his ISP. I would think someone ought to report him now.Blueboy96 23:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Community_sanction&oldid=132745928"