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
add bracket
Betacommand
Line 60: Line 60:
== Community discussion about [[WP:ATT]] ==
== Community discussion about [[WP:ATT]] ==
Moved to [[WP:VPP]] where it belongs. See previous thread for details.
Moved to [[WP:VPP]] where it belongs. See previous thread for details.

== Betacommand ==

Can we have a full discussion of this dude and his supposed "abuse" of the system??
What I do know is that (under different names) he's run unauthorised bots/scripts on the Finnish Wikipedia, and we've blocked him about 5 times so far....
Well, he's exposed now. --[[User:HarryHasAnEgo|HarryHasAnEgo]] 17:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:53, 23 March 2007

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



Community ban on User:Roitr

Comments refactored to remove bold. THIS IS NOT A VOTE. Please do not treat it as such. ViridaeTalk 23:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user has a long and interesting history of repeated vandalism, as detailed on Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr, however formally he is not banned but just indefinitely blocked. A formal ban would help fight him because there will be no slightest restrictions in reverting any of his edits (this has been a sensitive issue and some legitimate editors were blocked for 3RR in the past). --Dmitry (talk •contibs ) 21:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The point of this request is an important enough difference between an indefinite block and a ban - i.e., as the policy says, any indefblocked user is always welcome to create new account, reconsider his behaviour and start anew, but banned user is simply not welcome to edit on the Wikipedia anymore, and all his edits (including legitimate ones) are to be reverted.
Now not every vandal out there on WP:LTA has been formally banned (though many can be considered effectively banned, given their history of indefblocked sockpuppets), but this particular account been blocked for more than a year now and yet he just continues with his actions, despite multiple warnings and attempts to reason with. Considering his past behaviour and especially his threats to disrupt the work of other users and the Wikipedia as a whole, I believe this user is well deserving a personal community ban. I can compile a detailed rationale if his actions documented on WP:LTA are not enough to warrant this measure. --Dmitry (talk •contibs ) 17:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For reference. --Dmitry (talk •contibs ) 23:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Activity through the evening of March 22
SockpuppetsAnonymous IPs
Tryils (talk · contribs · block log)
Mitryi (talk · contribs · block log)
Csdak (talk · contribs · block log)
Fsak (talk · contribs · block log)
Trewqx (talk · contribs · block log)		88.153.201.166 (talk · contribs · block log)
88.152.210.38 (talk · contribs · block log)
82.81.48.207 (talk · contribs · block log)
88.152.13.144 (talk · contribs · block log)
82.81.89.60 (talk · contribs · block log)
88.154.5.185 (talk · contribs · block log)
82.81.99.170 (talk · contribs · block log)
82.81.81.101 (talk · contribs · block log)
Comment The above summary misreads policy.
A blocked user cannot edit any pages other than his/her own talk page. An admin may restart the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the original block if the user commits further blockable acts. Accounts and IPs used in evading a block may also be blocked.
Edits made by blocked users while blocked may be reverted. (Admins can revert all edits from blocked users and re-make the good edits under their own names, to avoid confusing other admins who may be monitoring the same users.)
Except for partial bans, the primary account of any banned user is customarily blocked for the duration of the ban.
If the banned user creates sock puppet accounts to evade the ban, these may be blocked. When evasion is a problem, the IP address of a banned user who edits from a static IP address can also be blocked for the duration of the ban. When a banned user evades the ban from a range of addresses, short term IP blocks may be used. Typically, these last 24 hours.
Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as 3RR are for each person's edits. Using a second account for policy violations will cause any penalties to be applied to your main account. Users who are banned or blocked from editing may not use sock puppets to circumvent this. Evading a block or ban causes the timer on the block to restart, and may further lengthen it.
Hence this nomination's formal basis proceeds from a misreading: although banning policy specifically empowers immediate reversion and blocking of ban-evading sockpuppets and their edits, it does not preclude such action on blocked accounts. Banning policy's purpose is to define banning rather than blocking. Blocking policy specifically allows those responses to block evasion and sockpuppet policy covers both areas. Productive editors are already empowered to do everything this proposal seeks. DurovaCharge! 02:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How are there any restrictions on reverting an indef blocked user's edits other than WP:AGF during the interim between a new sock's emergence and a strong whiff of the familiar odor? I see no difference in that respect between a block and a ban. DurovaCharge! 22:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support a ban, if only to back up the indefinite block. ~Crazytales (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarity, this is not about endorsing a block, it is (as the section header says) about imposing a community ban. Dmitry says Roitr's account is already indefblocked but the person behind the account is not banned, and Dmitry is here requesting a ban on the person. The difference will be that, with a ban, any other account identified as belonging to the same person will be subject to not only blocking but reversion, without 3RR applying. Dmitry says "some legitimate editors were blocked for 3RR in the past", so the ban would protect them where a mere indefblock did not. That's why to have a ban on top of the indefblock. Please correct me if *I* am incorrect. -- Ben TALK/HIST 18:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

End of Anon edits

User:Naconkantari/cleanup - Wikipedia cleanup day

  • Moved to WP:VPR. This page is for sanctions/bans/other nasty conflicts.
Erm, regarding other nasty conflicts - once or twice this board has seen the start of a thread that tried to use it as user conduct WP:RFC. This isn't part of WP:DR. Thanks for moving this discussion. Cheers, DurovaCharge! 13:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion about WP:ATT

Moved to WP:VPP where it belongs. See previous thread for details.

Betacommand

Can we have a full discussion of this dude and his supposed "abuse" of the system?? What I do know is that (under different names) he's run unauthorised bots/scripts on the Finnish Wikipedia, and we've blocked him about 5 times so far.... Well, he's exposed now. --HarryHasAnEgo 17:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]




Community ban on User:Roitr

Comments refactored to remove bold. THIS IS NOT A VOTE. Please do not treat it as such. ViridaeTalk 23:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user has a long and interesting history of repeated vandalism, as detailed on Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr, however formally he is not banned but just indefinitely blocked. A formal ban would help fight him because there will be no slightest restrictions in reverting any of his edits (this has been a sensitive issue and some legitimate editors were blocked for 3RR in the past). --Dmitry (talk •contibs ) 21:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The point of this request is an important enough difference between an indefinite block and a ban - i.e., as the policy says, any indefblocked user is always welcome to create new account, reconsider his behaviour and start anew, but banned user is simply not welcome to edit on the Wikipedia anymore, and all his edits (including legitimate ones) are to be reverted.
Now not every vandal out there on WP:LTA has been formally banned (though many can be considered effectively banned, given their history of indefblocked sockpuppets), but this particular account been blocked for more than a year now and yet he just continues with his actions, despite multiple warnings and attempts to reason with. Considering his past behaviour and especially his threats to disrupt the work of other users and the Wikipedia as a whole, I believe this user is well deserving a personal community ban. I can compile a detailed rationale if his actions documented on WP:LTA are not enough to warrant this measure. --Dmitry (talk •contibs ) 17:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For reference. --Dmitry (talk •contibs ) 23:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Activity through the evening of March 22
SockpuppetsAnonymous IPs
Tryils (talk · contribs · block log)
Mitryi (talk · contribs · block log)
Csdak (talk · contribs · block log)
Fsak (talk · contribs · block log)
Trewqx (talk · contribs · block log)		88.153.201.166 (talk · contribs · block log)
88.152.210.38 (talk · contribs · block log)
82.81.48.207 (talk · contribs · block log)
88.152.13.144 (talk · contribs · block log)
82.81.89.60 (talk · contribs · block log)
88.154.5.185 (talk · contribs · block log)
82.81.99.170 (talk · contribs · block log)
82.81.81.101 (talk · contribs · block log)
Comment The above summary misreads policy.
A blocked user cannot edit any pages other than his/her own talk page. An admin may restart the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the original block if the user commits further blockable acts. Accounts and IPs used in evading a block may also be blocked.
Edits made by blocked users while blocked may be reverted. (Admins can revert all edits from blocked users and re-make the good edits under their own names, to avoid confusing other admins who may be monitoring the same users.)
Except for partial bans, the primary account of any banned user is customarily blocked for the duration of the ban.
If the banned user creates sock puppet accounts to evade the ban, these may be blocked. When evasion is a problem, the IP address of a banned user who edits from a static IP address can also be blocked for the duration of the ban. When a banned user evades the ban from a range of addresses, short term IP blocks may be used. Typically, these last 24 hours.
Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as 3RR are for each person's edits. Using a second account for policy violations will cause any penalties to be applied to your main account. Users who are banned or blocked from editing may not use sock puppets to circumvent this. Evading a block or ban causes the timer on the block to restart, and may further lengthen it.
Hence this nomination's formal basis proceeds from a misreading: although banning policy specifically empowers immediate reversion and blocking of ban-evading sockpuppets and their edits, it does not preclude such action on blocked accounts. Banning policy's purpose is to define banning rather than blocking. Blocking policy specifically allows those responses to block evasion and sockpuppet policy covers both areas. Productive editors are already empowered to do everything this proposal seeks. DurovaCharge! 02:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How are there any restrictions on reverting an indef blocked user's edits other than WP:AGF during the interim between a new sock's emergence and a strong whiff of the familiar odor? I see no difference in that respect between a block and a ban. DurovaCharge! 22:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support a ban, if only to back up the indefinite block. ~Crazytales (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarity, this is not about endorsing a block, it is (as the section header says) about imposing a community ban. Dmitry says Roitr's account is already indefblocked but the person behind the account is not banned, and Dmitry is here requesting a ban on the person. The difference will be that, with a ban, any other account identified as belonging to the same person will be subject to not only blocking but reversion, without 3RR applying. Dmitry says "some legitimate editors were blocked for 3RR in the past", so the ban would protect them where a mere indefblock did not. That's why to have a ban on top of the indefblock. Please correct me if *I* am incorrect. -- Ben TALK/HIST 18:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

End of Anon edits

User:Naconkantari/cleanup - Wikipedia cleanup day

  • Moved to WP:VPR. This page is for sanctions/bans/other nasty conflicts.
Erm, regarding other nasty conflicts - once or twice this board has seen the start of a thread that tried to use it as user conduct WP:RFC. This isn't part of WP:DR. Thanks for moving this discussion. Cheers, DurovaCharge! 13:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion about WP:ATT

Moved to WP:VPP where it belongs. See previous thread for details.

Betacommand

Can we have a full discussion of this dude and his supposed "abuse" of the system?? What I do know is that (under different names) he's run unauthorised bots/scripts on the Finnish Wikipedia, and we've blocked him about 5 times so far.... Well, he's exposed now. --HarryHasAnEgo 17:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Community_sanction&oldid=117330320"