| Revision as of 23:36, 6 February 2005 view sourceDavid Gerard (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators213,093 edits →Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/5/0/3): reject← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:42, 6 February 2005 view source David Gerard (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators213,093 edits rm 2 withdrawn requestsNext edit → | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| When adding new requests, please give them an appropriate title as well as a subsection for arbitrator's votes. | When adding new requests, please give them an appropriate title as well as a subsection for arbitrator's votes. | ||
| ===User 66.20.28.21=== | |||
| This user is violating this recent arb com ruling. The user, now operating as ] has continued the same behavior at ], as well as engaging in simple vandalism of those who revert his insertions. ] has asked for enforcement of this recent ruling (see his examples below). If it please the court, may we please have a speedy look and a permanent ban of his whole sock drawer, just so there is no ambiguity about the ruling or response? ] 14:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Is there nothing else, nothing more forceful or effective, that was envisioned by that ruling? ] has just reverted to the 66.20.28.21 edit of ] and ], two pages on which I have been reverting this same edit for some time now. VirtuousO also inexplicably reverted two other pages, ] and ], or at least it would be inexplicable but for the obvious fact that 66.20.28.21 is engaging in specific retribution against me. (Check the , and then look at the histories of those pages. The Syngman Rhee edit was pointless disruption in the first place, and VirtuousO restored it after I reverted it.) Is it not possible to determine this user’s IP address, or the IP address of the other sockpuppets operating on these pages, and compare them? Can the admins not develop some evidence that 66.20.28.21 is circumventing the ruling, and take action? Those of us following the career of this editor have mostly viewed it as a source of unacceptable bias constantly inserted through edit wars; but now we are dealing with simple vandalism. What can you do?<BR>— ] 05:51, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/5/0/0)==== | |||
| # Reject - if it's just simple vandalism, or a ruling that needs to be enforced, ] to have action rendered. -- ]] ] 15:24, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC) | |||
| #Reject as Grunt says, this is an enforcement issue -- ] ] 16:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| #I concur. Our blocking policy says that if you have a good-faith basis for beliving that an anon is the same as a banned user, go ahead and block, and makeyour reasons clear in the block message. ] 17:15, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| # Reject. Using edits like administrators can simply enforce ] | |||
| # Reject for the same reasons as stated above ] ] 19:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| OK, I made a mistake of inexperience by putting this here. I will go ahead and block as soon as I see edits to these articles again. ] 20:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===Acidmonkey=== | |||
| I (SR) request arbitration against ], who appears to be on a campaign to revert anything I do, and who is seeking out articles on which I have done considerable work, in order to make trivial and stupid edits: and The edit history of some of these articles is lengthy. In some cases, my most recent edit was some months ago. But in each of these cases Acidmonkey has focuesed specifically on something I contributed. | |||
| I know that arbitration is the mechanism of last resort. The reason I am coming to you is because I suspect that Acidmonkey is a sock puppet or allie of CheeseDreams, and is harassing me in this way to avenge Cheese Dream's ban. I have no proof of this, other than the pattern of behavior: | |||
| * selecting articles in which I have been most active | |||
| * making in some cases massive changes, and in no case ever providing explanation in the "talk" page | |||
| * the first incident of this behavior was on the Cultural and historical background of Jesus article (one of the main arenas of conflict between me and CD). At that time, Refdoc actually suggested Acidmonkey might be a sock puppet | |||
| * I raised this issue on Acidmonkey's talk page, and Acidmonky denied it, and claimed no knowledge of CheeseDreams, sort of | |||
| * It was after I posted the message on Acidmonkey's talk page that s/he began editing pages on which I have been heavily involved. | |||
| So far, others have reverted all of these changes. But this will become especially wearisome over time. I didn't go first to mediation because of my suspicions about Acidmonkey and CheeseDreams. Also, I feel uncomfortable about requesting mediation because Acidmonkey has not acted uncivilly towards me -- since s/he never participates in the talk pages of the articles s/he changes, there isn't much chance for interaction. But if mediation would be more appopriate, I will move this complaint there. ] 16:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| =====Comment===== | |||
| I'd be surprised if this was CD (Clare). The language is appalling (and looks as though it is purposefully abominable), CD wasn't like this. However, it does appear to be someone stalking Slrubenstein's edits in order to damage them, rather than refine them. If this user can't write English, then they will have limited value here on the English Misplaced Pages, ] 17:26, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :] writes in a similar style, and actually vandalized Cheese Dream's page . I have found CD's behavior on talk pages so bizarre that it would not surprise me if she has created this strange alter-ego. But I admit, I really do not know what is going on. I just know that something is going on. ] 17:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I second Slrubenstein's request. Acidmonkey appeared in rapid succession of a couple of other sockpuppets of cheesedream and appeared to work in concert with them. I tried to get him/her into conversation, but his/her/its answers are only inane and pointless. ] 17:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Does this even need to go through arbitration? It seems that Acidmonkey has yet to make a valid edit; everything it has done is either trivial stupidity or outright vandalism . In my opinion the account could just be blocked for vandalism right now. —]]] 17:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I agree with Charles P., though it shouldn't be Slrubenstein who does the block. Perhaps this should go on the incidents subpage of ] and someone else invited to block, ] 18:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, I just blocked the account for 24 hours, reasoning: ''vandal''. If it turns out that this account is CheeseDreams' sockpuppet it should be reblocked indefinitely. If it vandalizes again after this block expires, I'll just block it again. —]]] 18:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :The problem is, whoever this is will just move to another IP address. As a matter of fact, ] is evading these blocks as we speak . Okay, I won't block -- but will someone check this out? In any case, one more example that something foul is afoot. ] 19:00, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You might want to look it this user; whom I've reverted: ]; seems like ] logged-out. — ] 19:00, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::: If that was the IP of Acidmonkey, then very likely this is CD again. This IP can be traced to Britain. How likely is it that someone in Britain would just randomly start harassing Slrubenstein? Clearly this is CD again ] 09:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The IPs may not match exactly, since after ] was blocked for vandalism, he/she switched to various other anon IPs, all in 81.156.x.x and 81.157.x.x, which were also blocked by various admins, all making the exact same reverts to the exact same set of articles. Based on behavior and contributions there seems little doubt these were all the same person as Acidmonkey. -- ] 10:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Right. I went to the talk page. Carrp wrote, | |||
| ::Thanks for experimenting with Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Misplaced Pages:Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will normally be reverted quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Carrp | Talk 18:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :and this user (whom I am convinced is CHEESEdreams) replied | |||
| ::it wasnt a test mate | |||
| This editor is currently watching ever revert and reverting. Someone please block him/her, ] 19:06, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :(] | ] | ]) has been blocked for 24 hours. The edit to ] was clearcut vandalism. -- ] 21:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| If this turns out to be CD, then CD consistent abusive behavior should get her permanent ban for one year ] | |||
| It looks like I should withdraw the complaint -- or does the ArbCom need to formally reject it? ] 14:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/8/0/2)==== | |||
| *Other—wait until a developer checks on whether Acidmonkey is a sockpuppets of CheeseDreams. I've made a request at ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:42, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>Agree with Neutrality. -- ]] ] 18:12, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)</s> Well, the result will probably be the same in either case, so reject. -- ]] ] 23:14, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC) | |||
| *:<s>Agree - pend until we can get a sockpuppet check is the obvious thing to do - ] 19:16, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)</s> | |||
| *Other - need to get a sockpuppet check --] 07:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Reject. I've had a chat to a developer, and it looks more likely than not that this is someone trying to set up CheeseDreams. Acidmonkey can just be blocked as normal under vandalism policies. ] 11:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Reject as Ambi - ] ] 11:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * Reject ] 13:46, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * Reject, per Ambi's explination. ] 14:54, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * Reject ] 19:11, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) Based on this sort of trollish edits: , , and this user can be banned indefinitely without the need for ArbCom proceedings. | |||
| *Reject as per Ambi ] ] 20:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Reject - Acidmonkey is a troll with no good edits and hence eminently blockable as is - ] 23:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Matters currently in Arbitration == | == Matters currently in Arbitration == | ||
Revision as of 23:42, 6 February 2005
Shortcut
| ||||||||||||
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration. Open cases
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases). Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open. Arbitrator motions
|
The last step of dispute resolution is a request for arbitration. Please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.
- Arbitration policy
- Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
- Developer help needed
- Standing orders
- Arbitration template
Structure of this page
The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. Important points:
- Be brief. Put a quick list of the nature of the complaints. Link to detailed evidence in the standard /Template format elsewhere if you need to.
- You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.
- Please sign and date at least your original submission with "~~~~."
- New requests to the top, please.
The numbers in the Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/0/0/0) section corresponds to accept/reject/recuse/other.
New requests
When adding new requests, please give them an appropriate title as well as a subsection for arbitrator's votes.
Matters currently in Arbitration
- /Gzornenplatz - Accepted with four votes on 29 January 2005. Evidence to /Gzornenplatz/Evidence, please.
- /Robert the Bruce - Accepted with five votes and one recusal on 28 January 2005. Evidence to /Robert the Bruce/Evidence, please.
- /Lyndon LaRouche Part Deux - Accepted with four votes and one recusal on 25 January 2005. Evidence to /Lyndon LaRouche Part Deux/Evidence, please.
Archives
- Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
- Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests