Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:18, 6 April 2008

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

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-enwikimedia.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.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332

Edit this section for new requests

Reincarnation of user banned during Arbcom?

Anti-in popular culture/anti-trivia accounts Dannycali, Burntsauce, and Eyrian were banned in the Alkivar and subsequent Eyrian arbitration cases. Those familiar with those cases should look at these contribs. Notice, the editor under question has an incrediblye large gap in edits:

21:39, 5 April 2007 (hist) (diff) m Helen Keller‎ (→Removing vandalization)
07:16, 20 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Armenian Power‎ (Request for page to be locked.)

He also expresses an opinion strikingly similar to the banned socks associated with the above mentioned cases and seems to be picking up today where the banned accounts left off. More specifically, his main contributions for today focuses on starting and participating in a new AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical elements in popular culture (second nomination)) for the same article previously nominated by banned account Eyrian (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical elements in popular culture). And the use of death as a metaphor for what should happen to these kinds of articles is also consistent with what we have seen in previous AfDs associated with the now banned accounts. Nevertheless, to be fair, based on this edit, I could be wrong (Eyrian was almost never nice to me), so I'll leave it to someone else's judgment. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Karabinier

User:Karabinier had already been notified about WP:ARBMAC (repeatedly)[1][2], yet chose to ignore these polite reminders and proceeded to engage in an edit war with four other users and on mulitple occasions on the Alexander the Great article.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Further he

refuses to respect consensus
refuses to discuss the matter on the talk page
refuses to even read the dozens of talk pages that have been wasted discussing this minor matter (there are already 11 archived talk pages)[10]
makes highly provocative comments [11] in addressing other editors, in clear violation of WP:Civil.

His behaviour runs the danger of reigniting the tendentious and time wasting debates engendered by this matter before consensus was finally arrived at. The article had been stable for over a year before User:Karabinier showed up. Finally User:Karabinier has also been reverting consensus on other Macedonia related articles, like Republic of Macedonia. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a clear 3RR violation on Alexander the Great, that's a standard 24h block, first in his log.

Incivility: This [12] is hardly incivil in the context it was said in; the previous posting to which he responded was a good deal more unfriendly.

I don't see much to worry about in his involvement on Republic of Macedonia; Karabinier made a set of highly productive restructurings of that page, part of which was a good-faith and properly justified rewrite of the intro. That rewrite happened to be against a long-standing compromise that had been battled out over a year ago, which doesn't mean it's in principle unjustified. He was first met with a rather unconstructive blanket revert of all of his edits [13], which was only subsequently rectified into a merely partial revert of the contested intro [14]. He then reintroduced his proposed intro change once more [15]. A single revert on his part is not yet crossed the line into disruptive edit-warring, in my book. Others were revert-warring more.

In all, I'm not sure his involvement in Balkan issues is enough of a long-standing pattern at this point to make more far-reaching ARBMAC-style sanctions necessary. This user is not (yet) a Balkan regular. A revert limitation (restricted to Macedonian topics) could be discussed, but I guess at this point we can also just see and wait how he continues after this first block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in all points made by FP. I was the one who did the blanket revert, and I was misled by the intro change, due to the fact that there were hardly any edit summaries for his many consecutive edits. When BalkanFever noted this in my talkpage,[16] I agreed immediately,[17], I noted his other positive contributions,[18] and following BalkanFever's full re-revert of my blanket-revert I changed only the intro.[19] Niko Silver 17:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That said, Karabinier's other edits in RoM were indeed great improvements, but his conduct at Alexander the Great should be viewed beyond the mere WP:3RR violation: His repeated revert regards the origins of Alexander, which have been discussed to exhaustion in the talkpage, and he supported them with the rationale that they were ...politically backed by the newly formed country(?!) [20]. This is a serious violation of the WP:NPOV policy (the "N" there stands for "neutral", not for "national"), and I suggest the user is instructed to read this policy, and the also applicable WP:RS thoroughly. A possible next edit of his on these grounds should be viewed very seriously. Niko Silver 17:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG and Légion d'honneur

PHG (talk · contribs) appears to be making unverifiable claims about an individual winning the Légion d'honneur. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Polak#Convenience break 2. PHG claimed that they won the honor in 1989, but there is no evidence at Catégorie:Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur , nor at List of Légion d'honneur recipients by name, nor via Google search, including book search. It appears that the messages from the arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance have not been taken to heart. I think PHG immediately needs to cease editing until a mentor is found to check for compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:V. Thoughts? Jehochman ^Talk 20:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is clear gaming. PHG appears to be deliberately attempting to introduce misinformation, either in continuance of the pattern that earned him a topic ban in the first place or to make a point. Given the clarification thread where it appears that the arbitrators are on the way to widen the restriction, and this latest disruptive editing, I am blocking him indefinitely until arrangements for mentorship, or some other form of close supervision, can be taken. — Coren ^(talk) 21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point he's trying to toss everything he can find in Google at the article hoping to get it kept because this gentleman's significance is the only claim for the material in another article he's writing. See here where some else had to remove information that clearly was not even about the same person. Shell ^babelfish 21:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC) - Sorry, this information was inserted by someone other than PHG. Shell ^babelfish 22:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On hold. Keep in Un-Resolved section, for now. Since it was initiated, the AfD should be allowed to take its course without the discussion, and energies of the participants, being fragmented. Report may be reopened based on the result. El_C 21:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: indefinite block by Coren should be lifted immediately. I am likely to do it myself in a little while; at the very least, I'd like to see how the AfD is concluded before drastic action is taken (otherwise, what's the point of having an AfD?). Thx. El_C 23:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Addendum 2: Okay, I unblocked PHG (I did, in fact miss the block having been issued when I wrote the first On-hold note above). I again ask that we wait for one structured discussion (AfD) to formally conclude before moving to the next. El_C 00:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were it not for the timing, I would have opposed the unblock because I do not beleive PHG's behavior depends on Christian Polak's notability. Simply put: at best, PHG has used a source he did not properly understand in order to make an unsupportable claim. If that had been an isolated incident, I would have made nothing of it— but as it is, he was found by the Arbitration Committee to have habitually misrepresented sources, and he was strongly admonished not to do this again. Given that he has been brought again in front of the AC for that same problematic behavior, and that he nonetheless persists, yet another obvious "error" in comprehension was strictly unacceptable.

As it is, the most good faith we can stretch to cover PHG's citation practices is that he is extraordinarily careless in selecting and citing sources, so much so that any putative value he introduces to the encyclopedia is canceled by the fact that every single assertion he writes needs to be double and triple checked by other editors.

I don't beleive PHG has a future as a contributor on Wikipedia unless he is strictly and competently guided, and unless and until he agrees to mentorship. — Coren ^(talk) 00:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You went on at such length and yet, inexplicably, failed to respond to my main objection: the afd was still open, so in theory it could go either way. I expect you to address this. El_C 00:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put: I beleive it's entirely besides the point. Whether the AfD determines that there is consensus that the article's subject is notable enough to retain it or not has no bearing on the citation practices of PHG. He is at best negligent and at worst disingenuous in the way he makes citations from difficult (or impossible) to verify sources, and shows no effort or intent to correct those damaging practices. — Coren ^(talk) 00:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, how the AfD closes matters, because we expect it to also touch on that area (and if it doesn't, then we move on). El_C 01:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate Coren has unarchived this report; now we have competing discussions. I really tried to avoid this from happening. El_C 00:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be held anywhere else, if that's your worry. — Coren ^(talk) 00:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what that means. My worry is your methods. El_C 01:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

El C, considering that you and I have been involved in prior disputes,[21][22] I question your impartiality here. --El on ka 01:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit of a stretch. Also, there was no objection when I took administrative action unfavorable to PHG.^[23] El_C 01:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask what on earth the AfD has to do with whether or not this incident warrants a block? This isn't about someone's behavior in one AfD, this is about a contributor who habitually misrepresents or outright falsifies sources -- that he happened to do so again on an article that is up for AfD is completely beside the point. Shell ^babelfish 01:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That should be shown in the AfD, since it already started. We don't need multiple discussions, and he should be allowed to participate. El_C 01:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The status of the AfD is irrelevant. The block was appropriate because PHG violated sanctions. I wasn't really involved with this discussion since I don't read Japanese, but Google translation has been extremely helpful. In a nutshell:

During a contentious AfD on the article Christian Polak (which PHG had created), PHG added information saying that Polak had "received the Medal of the Légion d'honneur (Chevalier) in 1989."[24] The source given was http://necom.cool.ne.jp/book0206.html .
The listed source is in Japanese, but a Google translation to English is available here.[25]
- What the source shows is that:
  - For one, it is a very weak source. It is obviously a self-written speaker bio, which is not allowable as a source for claims of notability (see WP:SELFPUB)
  - Even allowing for the above, the source doesn't say anything about the Legion d'honneur award. Instead, it mentions a National Order Award.
  - Further, PHG added to the article that the award was given in 1989,[26] but this is not confirmed in the source that he added.[27]

When challenged about the information at the AfD, PHG did back down, remove the source, and change the name of the award. However, that he added the information at all, with such a weak source (and a misinterpreted source at that) appears to be clearly in breach of the ArbCom ruling, specifically Finding of Fact #2:

In numerous edits to a series of articles concerning medieval and ancient history, including but not limited to articles relating to the alleged Franco-Mongol Alliance, PHG has cited scholarly books and articles for propositions that the cited works do not fairly support. Typically, PHG has isolated on a particular statement or quotation within a work and taken it out of context without fairly presenting the viewpoint of the source taken as a whole. Some examples of this have been presented by the parties here. Arbitrators' independent review of several of PHG's sourced edits versus the content of the original sources confirms that several sources have been cited in a misleading or distorted fashion. Although we continue to assume good faith with regard to the intent of PHG's editing, its overall effect is problematic.

And Remedy #2:

PHG is reminded that in contributing to Wikipedia (including his talkpage contributions, contributions in other subject-matter areas, and contributions after the one-year editing restriction has expired), it is important that all sourced edits must fairly and accurately reflect the content of the cited work taken as a whole.

In other words, despite the ArbCom cautions, PHG has continued to use weak sources, and/or cited them "in a misleading or distorted fashion." As such, a block was appropriate. --El on ka 01:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was actively investigating the above. That's why I put the AE report on hold. So we can have one investigation restricted to one place. The block seems to have cut it short, however; while I expect PHG principal opponents to support the block, wouldn't they rather have a more substantive, and transparent, basis for it? I might have been ready to support it soon. El_C 01:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It comes across as too eager for immediate censure. All of you should have just let me place this report on hold. Allow the AfD to close (any day now — I would have done it myself and had time to look at it had it not been for these distractions), then, if the citation methodology was shown to still be problematic (which it may well be), we could have made arrangements for mentorship or whatever. But this seeming concerted must-be-censured right-now mentality is not what we want to turn Arbitration Enforcement into. There's no rush. El_C 01:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely that there is no rush, and will be happy if El C reviews the AfD carefully and provides an opinion. El C has an excellent understanding of history. Jehochman ^Talk 01:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no trouble with El C offering an opinion at the AfD, but I strongly disagree that El C should be using his admin tools here. --El on ka 01:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, Elonka had no trouble when I took administrative action that favoured herself in this dispute,^[28] but now there's suddenly a problem? Because she is not being automatically supported? It doesn't work that way. El_C 01:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

El C, your protecting that page did not "favor me", and for the record, yes, I had a problem with you getting involved with that one too, but it was a minor issue so I didn't say anything. But now you've gone and overruled another admin, which is a very different matter. You should not have gotten involved. There's also the issue of your relationship with Jehochman, but that's a more complex issue. Some of your comments on Coren's talkpage were also inappropriate. To be clear: El C, I would prefer if you no longer used administrator tools in any situation involving me, as I do not trust your impartiality. It would also be nice if you deleted that subpage in your userspace devoted to me. --El on ka 02:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what Elonka is talking about. I don't see how everything PHG-related pertains to her. My relationship with Jehochman is perfectly normal (what I missing there?). My comments on Coren's page are, in part, a followup of other, unrelated issues regarding similar premature action. Elonka, Shell and Coren who are still fairly new admins, do not appear to fully appreciate how blocks are not punitive. PHG can be told not make similar edits, but to restrict him from an ongoing discussion is not in the spirit of how do things around here. Now, I don't at all mind letting another admin handle this, if only to reduce some of the increasing tension. But I would prefer that it be overseen by an admin who, like myself, is experienced in attending to arbitration enforcement matters. Many thanks in advance. El_C 02:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not lump me in the "new admin" or "supporting the block" categories - I just asked what on earth the AfD had to do with whether or not PHG was violating his restrictions. Shell ^babelfish 02:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm done here. El_C 03:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, that patronizing attitude will most certainly not win you any friends. I am hardly a "new" admin, and nobody here is questioning the amount of AE work you have been doing. A block until mentoring can be found of an editor whom I estimate to be damaging to the encyclopedia (and I am very obviously not alone in this evaluation) is most certainly not punitive, regardless on how you personally care to call it. — Coren ^(talk) 03:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not here to win friends, it's unfortunate you keep reading what I say as patronizing (again, such is not the intent); you are fairly new, and quick on the block button, still. Regards, El_C 04:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for additional input

Would several other uninvolved editors please weigh in on what we should do about this situation. We do not have a consensus yet. Jehochman ^Talk 04:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by PHG

Thank you for your kind support on this during the time I was peacefully sleeping in Paris. I do read and write Japanese quite fluently (I spent quite a few years there), and I basically never use a translation tool such as Google for Japanese. Unfortunately, I am not an expert of the Japanese names for French medals though. When I saw the information about Polak's medals on the Japanese website, I did think that 国家功労賞 was Japanese for "Legion d'honneur". I asked a Japanese national (who speaks fluent French), who could not give me the French name for 国家功労賞 either. The Japanese site used for the source is an online publishing house [29], which I thought should be fair enough as a (first) source. A few hours later and some Googling, I realized 国家功労賞 was Ordre National du Merite (mainly because I couldn't find other mentions of Polak's Legion d'Honneur as well). So, I was wrong with the denomination of the medal, and when I realized that I corrected it right away ("Ahhh, 国家功労賞 seems to be Ordre national du Mérite. シュバリエ is Chevalier (the first rank), オフィシエ is Officier (Officer, the second rank). Would somebody have access to the list of recipients of the Ordre national du Mérite? PHG (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)" [30]). By the way, the Japanese site was not so bad, as it was confirmed by French official sites [31]. Sorry for the mistake, but sometimes Japanese/French/English translations can be tricky, although I think I would rank as quite good at it. Best regards to all. PHG (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you reinsert this poorly sourced material into a biography of a living person? [32] Jehochman ^Talk 13:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, because I think it is quite well sourced, since it is an article from the Monthly Letter of the French Chamber of Commerce in Japan [33], and I added the original French quote as J.Reading had requested. Best regards. PHG (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of transparency, could you use the web site's domain name instead of the IP address? Also, this looks like a cached copy of the document. The cache link is unreliable and could go dead. Can you link to the live copy of the document instead? Could you endeavor to use {{cite}} templates with as many of the fields completed as reasonably possible? I do a lot of citing and cite checking. Errors are less problematic when cites allow others to check and correct the information. I have created a plugin for Firefox, wpcite.xpi, that partially automates web citations. You might find this useful. Jehochman ^Talk 14:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... which is my whole point. Why did you insert material you did not understand into an article? If you didn't know what 国家功労賞 stood for, it was not appropriate to insert a reference to a guess in the meantime (especially one that is so trivially verifiable as false). I am making no inferences about your motives or intent from this, but at the very least you are being careless— which is compounded by the fact that you have been repeatedly told that your sourcing practices are problematic. — Coren ^(talk) 15:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a simple request for PHG to better comply with policy on verifiability. As has happened many times before, when editing problems are identified to PHG, he invokes WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and continues as if nothing has happened. Jehochman ^Talk 18:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic and religious provocation

I think the following remark[34] by PHG reveals his agenda:

... Christians might resent material showing exchanges, agreements and goodwill between the Popes and the Mongols for example, although it is historical reality. The people whom I have encountered (and who attacked me relentlessly at Arbcom) and who have always tried to play down these relations, remove original letters etc... typically seem to be from "heartland America" (Christian Midwest).
— User:PHG

PHG was reminded of the need to collaborate with other editors at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance#PHG reminded: collaborative consensus. Baiting with ethnic/religious provocation is not collaborative; in fact, it is quite disruptive. Jehochman ^Talk 13:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know, it's just a Talk Page discussion, basically a statement of facts, as a response to a worry of User:Appletrees about the reactions of Korean Christians to his planned translation of Franco-Mongol alliance (here). Don't worry, it is not a question of "agenda": I am Christian myself, it's just that I am of the European kind, which means that I am probably quite tolerant in my outlook. Quite a few people have called me "French", or "pro-Buddhist", or whatever: I don't consider it "Ethnic and religious provocation" or whatever, and I don't think describing that some users are "Midwest Christian" should either. Best regards PHG (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved notices

Privatemusings

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

No action taken. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings, Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is subject to an enduring restriction prohibiting him from editing any article which is substantially a biography of a living individual.

The restriction makes no exceptions for reversion of vandalism. Guy (Help!) 20:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already subject to RFAR review here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for clarification: User:Privatemusings for a clarification. Community consensus, which can change sanctions, so far seems to be vandalism/BLP reverts are exempt from the prohibition, so far. You should weigh in there. Lawrence § t/e 20:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three arbitrators have spoken out against these edits being blockable reverts. Can this be considered resolved? Risker (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first two are clear vandalism reverts, and no administrator using sound judgment would take any action regarding them. The third is on the article of someone who was dead before the article was created, and has never been a BLP article. (It is also a good edit.) Contrary to Guy's assertions, WP:BLP does not apply to material about deceased individuals, nor has it ever. No action should be taken. GRBerry 20:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the history of PM certainly ther first 2 look substantially positive edits and really he should eb congratulated for "turning over a new leaf". Thanks, SqueakBox 20:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to close this, based on feedback above and from the Arbitrators here. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 4 April 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.

A day and a half later

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

I am the one who closed this the first time, but not the second (PhilKnight t did), but I was going to do so moments before. This is the note I was about to add: I, myself, find it a bit difficult to follow what happened. I suppose an intensive review would provide answers, but I, at least, don't have time to do that. I consider it the responsibility of the individual appealing the topic ban to provide us with a concise report that presents the pertinent body of evidence in a way where an hour-long review could turn into five or ten minute read (i.e. we are all volunteers here and our time is scarce; mine at least is). But, I should stress that even if this was to be undertaken, we have no procedure in place for overruling another admin. Thus, only the Arbitration Committee, acting as a body, has the authority to lift this —indefinite, I presume— topic ban (unless, of course, the admin who put it in place reconsiders). Thx. El_C 22:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This started as a subthread of a closed report about the Matt Sanchez article, which is now archived here.

I apologize for not being fully aware of the best way to show that I have offered to not only watch for possible incivilities but also provided the article's own archives as evidence of my actions. The entire thread above was in reference to Durova's stated concern about WP:COPYRIGHT problems yet they even concede that the material should be sourced to the original publisher rather than Youtube which I readily agree with, again. I also wonder why this route was taken rather than just working with other editors to fix the issue, instead of fixing the reference Durova told me to shop the idea at Reliable Sources Board which I think is inappropriate, if they knew the original sources should have been utilized then they could work with others to fix the problem. I don't believe the topic ban has been given fair consideration and being extremely new to this venue would like some uninvolved admins to consider offering opinions and advice as I feel Durova may have a COI being not only involved with the military project but also mentoring Sanchez is some fashion. Durova's offer to filter my insights on the article are interesting at best and I think it's fair to say would effectively silence my involvement altogether as I now feel little good would come of engaging that talk page, at least for a while. I fully support wikipedia's policies and have stated that above. I also don't appreciate the assertion that I want to compromise on article quality either. As for the anon IP vandal, the timing is interesting but is also simply par from the course with Sanchez and I'm well used to these attacks and the anon IP's contributions seemed to match that of Sanchez or a meatpuppet of some sort, sometimes we only have a gut feeling, i can't help that this anon feels to me exactly like a Sanchez sock of some sort, regardless of where the IP is located. I've asked nicely for that to be added to the Log of blocks and bans. Benji boi 20:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the anon IP actions on your talk page to be an irritating red herring. Ultimately, they are irrelevant to the decision as to whether you should be topic banned.

I would not have closed the report above had I not concurred with JzG's action in topic banning. This board is a very low traffic board; for a more thorough review I suggest you first 1) discuss with Guy and 2) if and only if that discussion has occurred and failed take it to a more public forum. I concurred with his topic ban because my review of the article talk page led me to believe that it was more likely than not that the process of reaching a policy compliant consensus on the article would be aided by the topic ban. GRBerry 21:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the IP assessment. I appreciate your response but am still puzzled. The issue was removing content because the sourcing was faulty, if the sourcing was addressed to the original source rather than a secondary source and had been clearly presented as "we need to change to the original sourcing" I would have readily agreed. Instead I'm being painted simply as someone who's trying to disrupt which I'm not. Many of the improvements to that article have been my work. This ban will effectively end my wikipedia career as I don't feel that I should edit anywhere if I'm not suitable to edit. I will take your suggestion to discuss with Guy and appreciate your input even if we disagree. Benji boi 21:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjiboi, the copyright issue was separate from the reliable sources issue and concerned different citations. Maybe you got confused because Eleemosynary insisted on copy/pasting an unrelated discussion into the thread about copyright. Either way, if you don't want to work with me you're welcome to use the option JzG provided. And as several people have discovered (including Matt Sanchez), when I support a ban it's a policy matter with no prejudice toward the individual. I've given barnstars to people who were banned. So go ahead and use the noticeboard instead. All I intended to do was give you another option where your concerns could get swifter attention than a low traffic board, and firsthand interaction would ensure that if the concerns that led to the page ban stopped being an issue I'd be on the ball about getting that restriction lifted as swiftly as possible. I juggle a lot of things and the Matt Sanchez article isn't a top priority. The door remains open if you choose to suppose I can be taken at face value. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 22:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please just find another article to edit. Your presence on that article is offensive and inflammatory to the subject. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova I appreciate that clarity as I never supported adding material about the subject's "adult entertainment" that wasn't quite RS'd as I knew it would simply be removed anyway. My concern was the copyright issue being used to remove content and felt that we should instead simply used the original source which would indeed be an improvement.

Guy, Sanchez has found every LGBT editor and those who he thought were LGBT and those he perceived to be in some way against him on the talk pages "offensive and inflammatory". I'm happy to follow policies but banning editors based on what the subject of an article wishes? That seems peculiar. Benji boi 22:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any attempt to stop just LGBT editors from touching his articles would be absolutely out of line--the day BLP subjects get control, or even implied control of such a thing on their articles is the day that anyone trying to enforce such wishes would be on a fast track to losing their sysop bits for trying to enforce them, and the WMF wouldn't even dare to do such a thing. I think it's your history there on your own that Sanchez sees as inflammatory. Guy can correct me if I'm wrong, but if it's just because you're gay: if that is Sanchez's claimed reason, then Sanchez's reasons can be discarded as rubbish. Lawrence § t/e 23:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that Sanchez has targeted myself along with all others he perceived to be LGBT or otherwise against him. And even if Sanchez does find me in some way offensive or inflammatory that still doesn't seem to support a ban. Benji boi 23:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanchez' objection is down to the tone of your edits and comments. He doesn't seem to have a problem dealing with other editors who I know are gay. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I agree that Sanchez's editor preferences are immaterial. Anyone who acts as a neutral Wikipedian is welcome there as far as I'm concerned whether their tastes are for men, women, or barnyard animals. ;) Seriously, I did not inform Matt Sanchez about the AE thread until after Benjiboi articulated suspicions that the trolling might have originated with Matt. Durova^Charge! 23:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The anon has stopped for now. Here is the last talk page postings as all the unresolved topics were archived. I have been painted as "filling up the talk page AE thread with irrelevant comments" and ignoring policies which sounds really bad. I hardly claim to be an expert but neither was I saying we must violate our policies to include _____. Instead I have continued to try to improve the article by raising what I saw as POV problems (many of which others agreed with) and pretty much remained civil and on-point with few exceptions. I also worked hard to clean up the talk page and archives to help keep the discussion constructive. Benji boi 00:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just find another article to edit, please. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I have found lots of other articles to edit but feel a ban against me was unneeded so would like it reversed. I believe I have shown respect not only for the subject who attacked me directly and indirectly, repeatedly, but also tried to show respect for policies and protocols, at least when I was aware of them. I have even tried to show respect for this process. I was never warned, although technically that may not be required, nor was I notified of this thread involving me until I was banned and came here to seek it being reversed. I am still looking for that. Benji boi 09:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing of this article causes distress to the subject, please just leave it alone. It should be no big deal. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, with respect, all sorts of editors who didn't ascribe to his wishes and views cause(d) him distress, I just happen to be one of the current ones. As noted above it doesn't seem like we ban editors from articles because it causes the subject distress. And it's a very big deal to me to be banned just as I consider it a big deal to work at getting any other editor banned from editing wikipedia in part or whole. I have in the past advocated for Sanchez in various ways and still think he could return as a good editor. Benji boi 10:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the subject's prejudices (such as they might be), any reasonable person would be distressed by an editor who strongly defends using negative material referenced to third party blogs and other problematic sources. To be clear, he has not expressed a specific complaint about you to me, and to the best of my knowledge he was not aware that a page ban would be proposed against you. Matt has not been pulling the strings to get you banned, and all I asked for when I started this thread was the removal of some contributory copyright infringements. Matt wasn't even aware that I'd be posting here. Durova^Charge! 17:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjiboi, I suggest you accept it at face value: the subject has stated that he finds the content of your edits and the tone of your comments distressing, and those of us who have looked into it have concluded that your input is causing more pain than gain on that article. You seem unprepared to walk away without a formal topic ban, so I'm afraid that's what we have had to do. There are over two million more articles out there, so honestly I don't see why this should be such a problem for you. There are plenty of eyes on the article and looking to ensure it remains properly comprehensive and neutral. Allegations of "proxing" and the like are unhelpful, as are assertions that you feel you have been properly respectful to the subject - he doesn't, and that's what matters. It really isn't the kind of thing worth fighting over, I would say, but if you absolutely insist on appealing the ban, which I hope you will not, then you'll need to request it at WP:RFAR because I'm afraid I'm not budging on this at this point. Guy (Help!) 17:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I accept what you state, period. Although my instinct is that something may have been amiss I'm willing to assume good faith as I actually doubt Matt would have been foolish enough to try to engineer these proceedings, I don't think I suggested that but if I did I apologize. Regular comments from Guy have suggested that Matt has mentioned me specifically so that plus the anon homophobic vandal is possibly where I was connecting those dots. The third-party blog in question was a posting of Sanchez's own video and I would have readily agreed to sourcing it to the original publisher had that been suggested, it doesn't seem to have been and instead I sensed you were telling me to forum-shop when we had a handful of admins there who knew better. Knowing what I do now i would have suggested that we simply amend to the original publisher as that would seem to have resolved the issue. Similar for the YouTube sources that started this whole thread, you didn't suggest sourcing them to the original broadcasters until almost the same moment you started this entire process. Had you started with "we need to convert those sources to the original publishers per WP:RS" I think everyone would have agreed, including myself. Instead that seems like it was the last consideration.

Guy, you may be confusing me with Eleemosynary, I didn't suggest this process was rigged, they did; I also shouldn't have assumed that Durova's mentoring Matt elsewhere was a sign of ulterior motives and that was a leap of bad faith. It shouldn't have happened and i was out of line. I don't think I was called on it and I should have remained civil even if no one mentioned it until now. This remedy seems to be more punishing than resolving and the sourcing issues all could have been resolved by working towards correctly sourcing to the original publishers, which now seems to be the focus on the talk page. As I see it talk pages are to discuss improvements to an article and I have continuously advocated for letting the reliably sourced words of the subject speak for themself. I'm unaware that we ban editors from articles based on the subject's wishes, if so a warning months ago would have corrected my path. I'm sorry you won't budge on this but I feel my future involvement at Wikipedia hinges on others treating me with good faith and having trust in me as an editor. I see no reason why they should trust me on all other articles but _____. I will have to consider my options as what next steps are appropriate. Here again I ask that this topic ban be lifted as I feel all the concerns have been addressed and I'm more than willing follow policies including assuming good faith. If there are any outstanding issues that haven't been addressed i welcome the opportunity to resolve them. Banji boi 00:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that sounds reasonable enough to me. I'll leave it up to the admins how to take it from here. Durova^Charge! 03:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, Benjiboi has been a little tenacious at times, and too quick to assume bad faith of the administration of this article[35], but his contributions to the article have been acceptable, for the most part, based on my recollections of monitoring the article as of the time the arbcom case started. While I would not entertain the idea of Eleemosynary ever being permitted to edit this article again, the above statement by Benjiboi demonstrates that he is willing to start AGF and so I think that this restriction can be lifted, especially as the article is protected at this stage, so he will have ample time to demonstrate good behaviour on the talk page before the protection is lifted. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone close this subthread please? The parent thread has been closed for so long that it's gond into archive. Durova^Charge! 03:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can be closed as soon as Benjboi concedes the sanction or takes the appeal to ArbCom or an arbitrator comes here to rule definitively one way or the other. Guy (Help!) 14:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, I wasn't warned, which I would have taken to heart, nor was I made aware of these preceedings (notified only of a ban after initial thread opened and decisions made). A warning would have been more appropriate, I issue them almost every session against vandalism so find it a bit ironic that I wasn't given one. I also wasn't given any notice that I was being considered for a topic ban until i was simply given notice that I was banned. I have sought to have my ban lifted and my hope is that I will not have to further this by taking it to Arbcom. If there is something further I should do to solicit an arbitrator please let me know as I have generally been at the mercy of those who seem to be veterans of this process. If there is some other venue where I should ask for advice or support on this then please share that with me as well as I feel I'm being treated rather poorly at this point. Banji boi 20:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have re-opened this per instructions as I am convinced this ban should be lifted as nicely requested several times. I have asked for instructions on what steps to take to solicit an arbitrator in hopes to avoid taking this to Arbcom as well as asking for assistance if there is some other venue I should seek support from. Banje boi 13:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While there may be some arbitrators who watch this page, it is rare for one to participate here. This is the venue for editors to alert uninvolved administrators to probable violations of ArbComm imposed sanctions. The usual venue for getting clarifications and modifications from arbitrators is WP:RFAR, where you have said that you don't want to go - though it wouldn't be a full case, it would be a clarification. If you aren't going to go there, you could try one or two arbitrator's talk pages, but I'll be surprised if muc comes of it. GRBerry 15:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer not to open an Arbcom case as I feel my ban simply could have been lifted and replaced with a warning, my understanding is that these things are to be preventative rather than punishment, so I aim to simply resolve this here. If I am unable to get an arbitrator to come here then that is probably my next step unless I get good advice to take other steps instead. Banje boi 16:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me as if you're awfully determined to edit that article, and the subject says he finds your presence there problematic. That's a really bad combination. Really, I don't see why it is such a big deal to you. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no huge interest in that particular subject any more than other articles I've heavily invested time into investigating what sources have to say and working to improve the articles to be accurate and encyclopedic. And has been stated before the subject has found all sorts of editors presence "problematic" and, in part due to his actions and statements against many editors there, he earned a ban after many incidents. Despite his personal attacks against me I have generally remained civil and constructive towards him and the article. It's a very big deal to me to be banned from any article, especially in the manner that this all occurred. Banje boi 17:17, 31 March 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.

Jeff Merkey is back in violation of ban

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

People are using Jeff Merkey's article to push external agendas, in defiance of WP:BLP. Jeff is, on the othe rhand, banned, and he knows it. But single-purpose accounts do not actually help either situation. Guy (Help!) 00:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:ANI

Jeff has been editing again using the IP addresses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/166.70.238.45 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/166.70.238.44 (and possibly others) He appears to have the netblock: 166.70.238.40/29. This is a violation of his 1-year ban from July 2007. A traceroute to these IP addresses ends with: 19 jmerkey.fttp.xmission.com (166.70.235.16) 3035.655 ms !H 3028.875 ms !H *

This edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-03-13/Scandal_fallout_continues&diff=prev&oldid=198077758 is particulary telling, since he appears to be attempting to delete the evidence of his own ban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Nemo III (talk • contribs) 17:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Telling indeed. 166.70.328.40/29 has been blocked for 3 months. A quick perusal of the contribs are consistent with a statically-allocated /29 under Merkey's control. — Coren ^(talk) 17:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might also have a look at 166.70.238.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 166.70.238.45 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Looks like JzG knew about the ban evasion a couple of weeks ago but was trying to get Merkey to stop digging himself deeper. alanyst ^/talk/ 18:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC) I'm stupid and can't read what's already been written. alanyst ^/talk/ 18:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big legal threat here. Lawrence § t/e 19:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and classic Jeff. Jeff really doesn't seem to play well with others. I suggest we block the IP address and maybe semi-protect that IP's talk page. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire /29 is already blocked. It's vaguely amusing that one would demand being unblocked by doing the one thing that is garanteed to result in an immediate indefinite block. I'll sprotect if the threat returns. — Coren ^(talk) 19:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if the entire /29 block is blocked, how is it that he still seems to be able to edit from there? Captain Nemo III (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, if I search for blocks and rangeblocks, the IP addresses that I reported do not list as being blocked. Captain Nemo III (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely certain why the finder doesn't see it, but you can see the block here. — Coren ^(talk) 20:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, look at [36] and [37] which do not show these IPs as ever having been blocked. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Range blocks don't visibly individually block the IPs (which is part of the reason why they are so hard to track down in general); and they don't prevent editing one's own talk page (like any other block). — Coren ^(talk) 21:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to reset his ban timer, but Coren beat me to it. Looking at that legal threat, I'm of the mind that we ought to ramp this puppy to indef. Anyone else agree? Blueboy 96 20:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed this for some time and I don't think there's a need to understand why he's done this (dug himself deeper, as one editor put it). I'd support an indefinite block until he either unambigiuously retracts any past legal threats he's made, or they're resolved. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, even though they appear static, those are still just IP and it's rarely a good idea to block those indef. — Coren ^(talk) 20:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any point in taking the 6 month to indef... it's an IP and we generally err on the side of caution there. Does anyone really think that we can't re-block him pretty quickly in 6 months if we need to? - Philippe 21:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about his main account, Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Blueboy 96 21:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this was an Arbcom ban, that might not be appropriate. Besides, unless this particular leopard manages to changes a lot of spots, that ban will probably get repeatedly reset. — Coren ^(talk) 21:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I'd think just resetting would work--but since it was a legal threat, I somehow think that this guy has no intention of playing nice. Plus, I was under the impression that indef was SOP for legal threats. Blueboy 96 21:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Legal Threats == Indefinite ban. I would like to bring this to your attention: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey&oldid=148077649#Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey_placed_on_legal_threat_parole Quoting from the final decision regarding JVM:

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey placed on legal threat parole

2.1) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is placed on permanent legal threat parole. Any uninvolved administrator may indefinitely block him if he makes any statement that can be reasonably construed as a direct or indirect legal threat.

   Passed 9 to 0, 16:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's time to take the action that was envisaged by the last arbitration. Captain Nemo III (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother? Merkey has demonstrated that, at least for some, indefinite blocks are only very temporary inconveniences. --MediaMangler (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Community sanctioned bans that are properly endorsed can only be undone by another consensus. If something like that were to happen here, any rouge admin trying to circumvent community will would be on the short ride to community sanction themselves. And I'm not sure the Foundation nor Jimbo have the authority to supercede local community decisions like that. Lawrence § t/e 00:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

There are never absolutes. Although the policy dictates that all edits (including productive ones) from banned accounts should be undone, I would caution against restoring living persons breaches or simple vandalism. But as for content additions from banned users, those indeed should be removed, or we may as well abandon the policy (regardless of this purported hidden copyvio factor). El_C 03:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should Merkey's edits be removed?

By the letter of WP:BAN, all of the edits made by banned user Merkey under his recent account should be deleted. Before someone starts on that task, whether merely intending to enforce policy or from a desire to harass Merkey, it would be helpful if it could be determined if the policy actually applies. Even though the policy specifically states that the worth of the edits should not be considered, a cursory look at these edits seems to indicate that most were worthwhile additions. It should be noted, however, that Merkey has claimed (on deleted User talk:Waya sahoni) to have deliberately introduced copyright violations into articles in order to discredit Wikipedia. Limited excerpts from his source are available to help review at least a few of his edits. Because of my history of past interactions with Merkey, I will of course take no action. --MediaMangler (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] 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.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 116: / Line 116: @@
 PHG was reminded of the need to collaborate with other editors at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance#PHG reminded: collaborative consensus]].  Baiting with ethnic/religious provocation is not collaborative; in fact, it is quite disruptive. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 13:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
+::Well, I don't know, it's just a Talk Page discussion, basically a statement of facts, as a response to a worry of [[User:Appletrees]] about the reactions of Korean Christians to his planned translation of [[Franco-Mongol alliance]] ([[User talk:Appletrees#Franco-Mongol alliance|here]]). Don't worry, it is not a question of "agenda": I am Christian myself, it's just that I am of the European kind, which means that I am probably quite tolerant in my outlook. Quite a few people have called me "French", or "pro-Buddhist", or whatever: I don't consider it "Ethnic and religious provocation" or whatever, and I don't think describing that some users are "Midwest Christian" should either. Best regards [[User:PHG|PHG]] ([[User talk:PHG|talk]]) 13:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 =Resolved notices=