|
|
| Line 13: |
Line 13: |
|
|
|
|
|
== Community ban of MarkBA for repeated sockpuppetry == |
|
== Community ban of MarkBA for repeated sockpuppetry == |
|
|
{{report top|The Digwuren case remedies do not mention socking, which is what this case is. So I'm handling it as a normal SSP case, remedy-wise, and logging at AE, SSP, Digwuren case log, and MarkBA's talk page. There is no doubt that MarkBA has repeatedly used socks and he/his socks have been blocked at least 4 times. This is highly disruptive. I'm blocking the IP in the SSP case one month, blocking MarkBA for three months, and giving MarkBA an topic ban for six months...Rlevse}} |
|
|
|
|
* {{Userlinks|MarkBA}} |
|
* {{Userlinks|MarkBA}} |
|
|
|
|
| Line 30: |
Line 30: |
|
|
|
|
|
I am pretty much concerned that (unfortunately) Mark does not wish to play by the rules, and even more, he is against them, trying to compromise and eventually destroy them by provoking again and again, playing out the restrictions and rules (the general ones also, like [[WP:NPA]]), then ''denying'' them all. A full month of asking, warning, demanding and even blocking to make him change his way of acting failed. Imho there is not much left to do, but to say goodbye to each other, and step forward. --[[User:Rembaoud|Rembaoud]] ([[User talk:Rembaoud|talk]]) 22:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
I am pretty much concerned that (unfortunately) Mark does not wish to play by the rules, and even more, he is against them, trying to compromise and eventually destroy them by provoking again and again, playing out the restrictions and rules (the general ones also, like [[WP:NPA]]), then ''denying'' them all. A full month of asking, warning, demanding and even blocking to make him change his way of acting failed. Imho there is not much left to do, but to say goodbye to each other, and step forward. --[[User:Rembaoud|Rembaoud]] ([[User talk:Rembaoud|talk]]) 22:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
{{report bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Eyrian on an IPs? == |
|
== Eyrian on an IPs? == |
 | Important information
Please use this page only to:
- request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
- request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
- request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
- appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.
Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.
To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions
|
|
The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:
All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.
The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:
- ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
- request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
- submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.
Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.
A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.
- Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction
An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:
- The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,[a] or is no longer an administrator;[b] or
- The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.
A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:
- a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
- a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
- a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.
Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.
- Standard of review
- On community review
Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:
- the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
- the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
- the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
- On Arbitration Committee review
Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:
- the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
- the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
- compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
- ^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
- ^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
|
Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions
|
The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:
- Appeals by sanctioned editors
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
- ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
- request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
- submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en
 wikimedia.org).
- Modifications by administrators
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
- the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
- prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.
Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.
Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.
Important notes:
- For a request to succeed, either
- (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
- (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
- is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
- While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
- These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
- All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
|
Information for administrators processing requests
|
|
Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.
A couple of reminders:
- Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
- When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
- Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
- More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.
Closing a thread:
- Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
- Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
- You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
- Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.
Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.
| |
Edit this section for new requests
- The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
- The Digwuren case remedies do not mention socking, which is what this case is. So I'm handling it as a normal SSP case, remedy-wise, and logging at AE, SSP, Digwuren case log, and MarkBA's talk page. There is no doubt that MarkBA has repeatedly used socks and he/his socks have been blocked at least 4 times. This is highly disruptive. I'm blocking the IP in the SSP case one month, blocking MarkBA for three months, and giving MarkBA an topic ban for six months...Rlevse
I am forwarding this case from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MarkBA (2nd). User:Hobartimus wrote there, in perhaps more words than necessary, that MarkBA has repeatedly created sockpuppets to disrupt controversial articles and game the system. He noted that MarkBA is restricted per the Digwuren arbitration case. [1] I think Hobartimus is not asking whether a particular IP address happens to be a sockpuppet of MarkBA, but rather, what to do about the sockpuppeteer? That question belongs here. It is already being discussed at [2], and maybe it should stay there. I don't know how this process works, and I need to sign off for the night. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 07:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that there is an ongoing attempt at DR User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment, so at this point I would argue it may be best to allow that effort to unfold and see if can resolve the dispute. OTOH, I see no reason why not to enforce with blocks any confirmed sockpuppets, and if this particular use continues using SPs to disrupt the process, using escalating blocks may become a necessity. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "if this particular use continues" ,yes, this is the part where "it continued". The short timeline looks like this, 1. march 2008, start of 'first' sockpuppeting 2. april 2008 'first' sockpuppeting confirmed MarkBA blocked and, tagged as sockpupeteer. list of old puppets 3. May 4th sockpuppeting continues, 'second' sockpuppeting 4. May 7th 'second' sockpuppeting confirmed via checkuser. 5. MarkBA and the new puppet remain unblocked ? - so the latest confirmed sockpuppeting is only a few days old and yet both the puppet and the pupeteer remain unblocked. I'll try to update the evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MarkBA (2nd) to best reflect this case of mass sockpuppetry and other abuse. Hobartimus (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is just a part of a long and nasty conflict involving a number of editors from Hungary (including Hobartimus) and from Slovakia (including MarkBA). The dispute resolution process is ongoing at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. I encourage everyone to look at that page first. It has significantly decreased the amount of edit warring in this conflict and Elonka has did a great job checking activity of various IPs (MarkBA was not the only user editing without logging in). I am a bit surprised that Hobartimus is trying to get an editor from the "other side" banned while the dispute resolution is still ongoing. I am even more surprised that this thread was created when our mediator (User:Elonka) is away for few days because of unexpected real-life circumstances. I am sure she has a lot of to say about this case. What is strange, Hobartimus also forgot to notify other editors involved in this conflict. I will post a message at Elonka's page. Tankred (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the above multiple times blocked disruptive user is following my edits around and was caught making false statements once relating to this case already. Even though checkuser results were obtained two days ago and the abusive accounts still remain unblocked he claimed that the case was old and already blocked for[3]. It seems that he is at it again, by deliberately involving himself in this case and falsely mentioning Elonka's discussion page he is trying to present it in a false light as a legitimate dispute between several editors rather than a case of repeated abusive mass sockpuppetry involving harassment, personal attacks, disruption among other things. Being in a dispute is not a licence or a magic shield to maintain an army of sockpuppets and abusively harass and mass revert others among countless other policy violations and avoid all consequences. What's next ? MarkBA was in a dispute with CheckUser's and admins because MarkBA repeatedly claimed that he never edited with the IP-s and this represents a dispute between him and CheckUsers and admins who claimed otherwise? Therefore since this is a dispute he should be immune from all blocks and consequences, since the admins were in dispute with him? Hobartimus (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I feel this "thing" is getting too much and too heated and going on too many pages, I have to say, that the referred "experiment" is ongoing for a month or so now, and we have reached nothing with MarkBA, except that he continues the same editing and style through IPs. Got it? His account got restricted, so he simply dropped it ("announced retirement" combining with a lengthy attack in general against the - Hungarian - editorial community[4] - wikipedia "hijacked" and he's being "chased or harassed by a couple of jerks", "mob rule", "extreme nationalist and chauvinist", "propaganda", etc.), and continued the very same thing but now logged out. And does not stop, despite asking, warning and even blocking (for "sockpuppetry").
There was a daily habit of reporting each other on various wikipedia pages before. Since Elonka's intervention, only Mark was able to provocate a "checkuser" (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MarkBA → 8 confirmed "sockpuppets") and a WP:AN/I and now a WP:AE thread against himself, wich I think tells alot.
No matter that it was confirmed[5] that all those IPs were used by MarkBA, he still(?) denies them[6] and randomly demands apologies for "accusations of sockpuppeting". He also thinks that I am (or someone is) that dumb that (I) buy(s) this:[7] ("the IP range just happens to be in my area"). Oh, please, just look at these: [8], [9] :)
I am pretty much concerned that (unfortunately) Mark does not wish to play by the rules, and even more, he is against them, trying to compromise and eventually destroy them by provoking again and again, playing out the restrictions and rules (the general ones also, like WP:NPA), then denying them all. A full month of asking, warning, demanding and even blocking to make him change his way of acting failed. Imho there is not much left to do, but to say goodbye to each other, and step forward. --Rembaoud (talk) 22:49, 10 May 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.
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JohnEMcClure confirmed that Eyrian, who participated aggresively in AfDs and last edited in October 2007 and who was subsequently blocked per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eyrian, made "numerous IP edits". Notice this IP's edit history that follows seems to focus on certain kinds of articles. Now today, notice this edit in which the IP writes, "It's been awhile since I've seen an ipc article nominated", but if you look again at the edit history of the IP, there are NO previous edits to any IPC articles, which thus makes that statement odd and as if it is from someone who either edits using different IPs or who is an old user. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many editors who are AFD regulars (this IP certainly is if it is a stable IP) and care about IPC, fancruft, trivia, episodes, and the like. Any specific reason you think this is Eyrian as opposed to someone else? And do you really think the closing admins are going to pay any attention to IP comments that don't make new arguments? I don't think the admins will. GRBerry 18:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Eyrian, because the IP's edits start around the time that Eyrian stopped editing from his Eyrian account (in October 2007) and started using different accounts and IPs. I suppose one of the arbitration committee checkusers could check the IP to see (I'm not sure if they could go back far enough to check if it's Eyrian, but if it is someone also using additional current accounts or IPs, those might show up). Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Two possibilities. 1) This isn't Eyrian - obviously, we shouldn't do anything then, but it would be helpful to point out to the editor that commenting in an AFD using an IP results in minimal weight and the user might consider using an account. 2) This is Eyrian - then he can readily evade by going to a different IP (proxy, resetting a router, going to a different coffee shop, et cetera...). Either way, I don't see much to gain by blocking an IP. So far as I can see, since the case close identified or even suspected any puppets or IP addresses of Eyrian that were still in use at the time suspected, so I don't know what would happen if we tagged as a suspected puppet. Definitely try the user's talk page for a discussion. Consider tagging with {{sockpuppet}} and watching; if the IP editor vanishes then that will be confirmation of a sort, but indicate that an unending game of whack-a-mole is forthcoming. GRBerry 19:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I sent an email to Morven who was the checkuser on the Eyrian case just in case if the IPs identified at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JohnEMcClure, which were not listed there, were not tagged. Also, I see at top of this page that we should notify the user. Is there a template for this page similar to the ANI notification template that could be placed on the IPs talk page? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I'm aware of. Write a message, with attention to the third paragraph of the "Enforcement" section above. "A discussion about you is underway at [[section link]] might suffice." GRBerry 20:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I originally posted this on another noticeboard (here)but have since determined that this might be the better place.
In short, there are a few articles aparently on "probation" where I've noticed some odd actions that might require a closer look. User:Bassettcat and User:John Nevard are hitting Overstock.com, Patrick M. Byrne and Naked short selling in ways that hint at undisclosed conflicts of interest.
User:William Ortiz says that User:Bassettcat resembles User:Mantanmoreland. In response, John Nevard called William Ortiz (and me, too) "crazy."
Please take a look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.164.228 (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have filed a Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mantanmoreland, Regards, Huldra (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Checkuser came up as "Unrelated". Regards, Huldra (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also a Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mantanmoreland. Enjoy. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevard appears to currently be that editors main account. I'm not going to act with regard to it.
- Bassettcat looks to be a single purpose account, but I'm undecided as to whether or not it is a sock-puppet, and the committee didn't ban SPAs, only sockpuppets (part A). However, part D is a requirement "To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page". I suspect Bassettcat to be violating either part A, part D, or both; so I recommend we topic ban in the absence of a disclosure with regard to part D.
- Stetsonharry looks like a sockpuppet, but I'm not sure whether it is a) Mantanmoreland or b) someone from the other side of the dispute attempting to discredit either Mantanmoreland or c) someone from a drama site trying to undermine communal confidence in the process of identifying sockpuppetry. Could others review this more thoroughly? GRBerry 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I have no conflict of interest to disclose. I am a trader by profession, but have no current or former position in Overstock.com and no commercial relationship with that company. I have no other account on Wikipedia and I don't believe I can be classed as a "single purpose account," unless interest in finance is a singular purpose. I corrected the Byrne article recently to fix an error that Hulda himself discovered, concerning an award given to Byrne. I also corrected an error in naked short selling that was serious in nature. It stated that naked shorting was always illegal, which was contradicted by the article itself and by the Securities and Exchange Commission website. That error has now been reinstated to the article by the same IP who raised this issue, and who apparently has an axe to grind.--Bassettcat (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether it falls under the purview of this section, but you may be aware that the above IP and User:PatrickByrne rewrote the entire naked short selling article unilaterally and without discussion. That was aborted by Nakon, and PatrickByrne then reinstated the changes and the IP again,in the process reinstating the inaccuracy that I stated above. Nakon warned PatrickByrne for vandalism. --Bassettcat (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
