Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Geoffrey Mitchell (talk | contribs) at 20:04, 9 June 2007 (→‎[[User:Geoffrey Mitchell|Geoffrey Mitchell]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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



Geoffrey Mitchell

It's clear he doesn't want to contribute, just to harass me and Matthew. Motion to community ban. Will (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I know people normally ask for diffs. Take your pick. Will (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A look through those edits indicates that the editor in question has never made an edit outside of talk pages and a couple of noticeboard posts, and seems to exist solely to carry on the fight for the indef-blocked Sixty Six (talk · contribs). But, he's also never been blocked and I don't see any other dispute resolution, which makes me think a community ban might be excessive. Maybe an RfC would be a better starting point - a wider range of viewpoints might help. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with your comments Tony, I don't think an indefinite ban is out of the question for an account that hasn't made any positive contributions. Addhoc 23:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My personal belief is that Geoffrey Mitchell, and the IPs that often "show up", are Sixty Six or friends of Sixty Six (meat puppets). Geoffrey Mitchell has shown quite clearly that he is not here to edit/improve the encyclopaedia, I've tried to ignore the long-term trolling that has occurred, but it's coming to a point where it's becoming a nuisance... and I can't foresee him contributing positively to the encyclopaedia. Perhaps a check user should be performed to verify that he is not Sixty Six? Matthew 19:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the checkuser. Seems there's a high chance that Geoffrey may be a sock as well, even if the CU comes back as negative. Whsitchy 20:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be curious as well. I'm also going to leave a note on Geoffrey Mitchell's talk page to suggest that he try building the encyclopedia instead of carrying this on; it doesn't look like he's aware of this discussion either, at this point. I still feel that, if he's not a sock (or the checkuser continues to be refused), some other dispute resolution or mediation should be used before a community ban is enacted. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Q: After seeing a positive contributor to Wikipedia bullied and blocked by those filing the complaints, and having been falsely accused of being a sock puppet, would *you* want to contribute article edits and corrections, knowing that your efforts would be wasted? Geoffrey Mitchell 20:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban of User:Panairjdde

I'm calling for a community ban of the User:Panairjdde. Extensive evidence of his behavior can be found, here. I'm aware that the original user name is blocked indefinetely for using multiple accounts abusively, but I wish to establish that the user is permanently banned by the community which will allow for several things:

1. Perhaps get the user to understand that his edits on WP are unwelcome and that his sock edits will be reverted no matter how valid his contribution is.
2. Make sure that users who revert his sock edits do not receive 3RR blocks from unsuspecting administrators (see example here).
3. If the user continues to create new socks and edits on WP, we can pursue filing an abuse report, with hope that it will be handled more seriously and urgently.

--Palffy 04:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this--all I needed to see was that he named three of his socks "DisposableAccount." That shows total disregard for the rules. Ban.Blueboy96 18:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not get what is the practical difference between an indefinite block and a ban:

  1. I shall continue editing as much as I feel I can and want contribute, regardless your opinion: a sick user management process does not mean the whole Wikipedia is somehow wrong;
  2. How a ban could change this? If your friends (the racist Kingjeff) does not know those rules he pretends to defend (as one can see from his block log) it is not my fault;
  3. How a ban could change this?

Best regards, --TufkaPanairjdde 23:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you keep missing the point that you have been given numerous chances to change your behavior by lenient admins, but instead have repeatedly broken WP rules (and continue to insist that you have the right to do so as well as continue editing as you see fit, as you stated above) and as a result you have admins and editors looking out for you and banning you and your socks on sight. I maintain a need for this ban for the three reasons stated earlier. --Palffy 23:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand clearly what you say. The problem is that you do not understand what I say. I think that the "user-management" rules of Wikipedia, which is parte of the management of the encyclopedia, is flawed, but at the same time I like very much the encyclopedia in itself. This is why I came to understand that I do not care of your opinion, and that I keep on contributing if I feel so.
On another plane, you keep to ask for the ban: as I told before, I do not care about it, as it is a ban from the "community" not from the "project". I tried to help you to understand that, apart fulfilling your hatred, the ban makes no difference, but, in the end, it does not concern me.
Thank you all for your attenttion.
--TufkaPanairjdde 23:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Banning policy more closely (...bans often apply to the entire project... and The Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. A ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent. The standard invitation Wikipedia extends to "edit this page" does not apply to banned users.). The ban is not from a community, the ban is from the project, initiated by the community. You can be banned from the project through any of the 5 sources, Wikipedia:Ban#Decision_to_ban. --Palffy 00:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:TufkaPanairjdde is now indefinitely blocked, as is User:Panairjdde. It does not seem that administrators will have the slighest reluctance to block any new socks of his that may appear. I suggest that the issue be closed at this noticeboard. Post to WP:AN/I if the problem should come up again. EdJohnston 01:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with EdJohnston here. From the user's previous posts on this noticeboard, he clearly states his intentions to continue editing unless he's outright banned from the project. I think many editors are tired of playing hide-and-seek with his socks and wish that other avenues be explored, including a formal revocation of his editing privileges on Wikipedia. --Palffy 01:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, he just stated that he doesn't consider a community ban a ban from editing the project, and Arbcom has better things to do than pass symbolic resolutions saying that someone disruptive who nobody would unblock is banned. -Amarkov moo! 05:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then, let's spell it out in black and white for him. No one would be willing to unblock him, he is therefore banned. And to clarify, a community ban is a ban by the community from the project. Until and unless he shows he is willing to change his behavior and the community is willing to give another chance, he is not welcome here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since we getting so close to unanimity here, does anyone feel it would be correct to add his name to Wikipedia:List of banned users? EdJohnston 15:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Geoffrey Mitchell

It's clear he doesn't want to contribute, just to harass me and Matthew. Motion to community ban. Will (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I know people normally ask for diffs. Take your pick. Will (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A look through those edits indicates that the editor in question has never made an edit outside of talk pages and a couple of noticeboard posts, and seems to exist solely to carry on the fight for the indef-blocked Sixty Six (talk · contribs). But, he's also never been blocked and I don't see any other dispute resolution, which makes me think a community ban might be excessive. Maybe an RfC would be a better starting point - a wider range of viewpoints might help. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with your comments Tony, I don't think an indefinite ban is out of the question for an account that hasn't made any positive contributions. Addhoc 23:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My personal belief is that Geoffrey Mitchell, and the IPs that often "show up", are Sixty Six or friends of Sixty Six (meat puppets). Geoffrey Mitchell has shown quite clearly that he is not here to edit/improve the encyclopaedia, I've tried to ignore the long-term trolling that has occurred, but it's coming to a point where it's becoming a nuisance... and I can't foresee him contributing positively to the encyclopaedia. Perhaps a check user should be performed to verify that he is not Sixty Six? Matthew 19:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the checkuser. Seems there's a high chance that Geoffrey may be a sock as well, even if the CU comes back as negative. Whsitchy 20:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be curious as well. I'm also going to leave a note on Geoffrey Mitchell's talk page to suggest that he try building the encyclopedia instead of carrying this on; it doesn't look like he's aware of this discussion either, at this point. I still feel that, if he's not a sock (or the checkuser continues to be refused), some other dispute resolution or mediation should be used before a community ban is enacted. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Q: After seeing a positive contributor to Wikipedia bullied and blocked by those filing the complaints, and having been falsely accused of being a sock puppet, would *you* want to contribute article edits and corrections, knowing that your efforts would be wasted? Geoffrey Mitchell 20:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban of User:Panairjdde

I'm calling for a community ban of the User:Panairjdde. Extensive evidence of his behavior can be found, here. I'm aware that the original user name is blocked indefinetely for using multiple accounts abusively, but I wish to establish that the user is permanently banned by the community which will allow for several things:

1. Perhaps get the user to understand that his edits on WP are unwelcome and that his sock edits will be reverted no matter how valid his contribution is.
2. Make sure that users who revert his sock edits do not receive 3RR blocks from unsuspecting administrators (see example here).
3. If the user continues to create new socks and edits on WP, we can pursue filing an abuse report, with hope that it will be handled more seriously and urgently.

--Palffy 04:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this--all I needed to see was that he named three of his socks "DisposableAccount." That shows total disregard for the rules. Ban.Blueboy96 18:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not get what is the practical difference between an indefinite block and a ban:

  1. I shall continue editing as much as I feel I can and want contribute, regardless your opinion: a sick user management process does not mean the whole Wikipedia is somehow wrong;
  2. How a ban could change this? If your friends (the racist Kingjeff) does not know those rules he pretends to defend (as one can see from his block log) it is not my fault;
  3. How a ban could change this?

Best regards, --TufkaPanairjdde 23:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you keep missing the point that you have been given numerous chances to change your behavior by lenient admins, but instead have repeatedly broken WP rules (and continue to insist that you have the right to do so as well as continue editing as you see fit, as you stated above) and as a result you have admins and editors looking out for you and banning you and your socks on sight. I maintain a need for this ban for the three reasons stated earlier. --Palffy 23:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand clearly what you say. The problem is that you do not understand what I say. I think that the "user-management" rules of Wikipedia, which is parte of the management of the encyclopedia, is flawed, but at the same time I like very much the encyclopedia in itself. This is why I came to understand that I do not care of your opinion, and that I keep on contributing if I feel so.
On another plane, you keep to ask for the ban: as I told before, I do not care about it, as it is a ban from the "community" not from the "project". I tried to help you to understand that, apart fulfilling your hatred, the ban makes no difference, but, in the end, it does not concern me.
Thank you all for your attenttion.
--TufkaPanairjdde 23:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Banning policy more closely (...bans often apply to the entire project... and The Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. A ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent. The standard invitation Wikipedia extends to "edit this page" does not apply to banned users.). The ban is not from a community, the ban is from the project, initiated by the community. You can be banned from the project through any of the 5 sources, Wikipedia:Ban#Decision_to_ban. --Palffy 00:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:TufkaPanairjdde is now indefinitely blocked, as is User:Panairjdde. It does not seem that administrators will have the slighest reluctance to block any new socks of his that may appear. I suggest that the issue be closed at this noticeboard. Post to WP:AN/I if the problem should come up again. EdJohnston 01:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with EdJohnston here. From the user's previous posts on this noticeboard, he clearly states his intentions to continue editing unless he's outright banned from the project. I think many editors are tired of playing hide-and-seek with his socks and wish that other avenues be explored, including a formal revocation of his editing privileges on Wikipedia. --Palffy 01:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, he just stated that he doesn't consider a community ban a ban from editing the project, and Arbcom has better things to do than pass symbolic resolutions saying that someone disruptive who nobody would unblock is banned. -Amarkov moo! 05:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then, let's spell it out in black and white for him. No one would be willing to unblock him, he is therefore banned. And to clarify, a community ban is a ban by the community from the project. Until and unless he shows he is willing to change his behavior and the community is willing to give another chance, he is not welcome here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since we getting so close to unanimity here, does anyone feel it would be correct to add his name to Wikipedia:List of banned users? EdJohnston 15:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Community_sanction&oldid=137102654"