Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive2: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:45, 15 May 2022

Latest revision as of 00:39, 13 September 2022

Line 294:

==Arthur Ellis==

A recent Arb Comm decision [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella]] found that [[User:Arthur Ellis]] (aka [[User:Mark Bourrie]], [[User:Ceraurus]], etc., and many Ottawa IPs) used socks for tendentious editing and disruption. He was indefinitely banned from articles on Canadian politics, including [[Warren Kinsella]] and any article that mentions it. Today, two IPs {{IPvandal|142.78.190.137}} and {{IPvandal|64.230.111.172}}, both of which are consistent with Ellis' venues and manner (see [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella/Evidence#First_Assertion:_rampant_sock.2Fmeat-puppetry|here]]), defaced the Arb Comm page[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella/Proposed_decision&diff=prev&oldid=76793494] and edited both [[Warren Kinsella]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warren_Kinsella&diff=prev&oldid=76791480] and [[Mark Bourrie]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Bourrie&diff=prev&oldid=76792201] (which is covered by the ban). I reverted and protected the ArbComm decision, but given that I am involved in a new Arb Comm case involving the same editor would prefer to leave the matter to the judgement of another admin. [[User:Bucketsofg|<fontspan colorstyle="color: #DF0001"><b>Buck</b></fontspan>]][[User:Bucketsofg/Esperanza|<b><fontspan colorstyle="color: green">ets</fontspan></b>]][[User_talk:Bucketsofg|<fontspan colorstyle="color: grey">[[User_talk:Bucketsofg|<b>ofg</b></fontspan>✐]] 18:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

*See [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Requests_for_clarification]]. There were some opinions during the voting that make me want to ask for clarification before acting. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 20:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Line 486:

*{{IPvandal|209.217.84.167}}, an IP consistent with Ellis' past usage, edited the Bourrie entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Bourrie&diff=prev&oldid=78117294 here], removing reference to the Kinsella lawsuit.

*That the IP 209.217.84.167 is in fact Arthur Ellis is shown by this diff, where Ellis [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden/Workshop&diff=next&oldid=78015637 signs the IP's edits as his own]. [[User:Bucketsofg|<fontspan colorstyle="color: #DF0001"><b>Buck</b></fontspan>]][[User:Bucketsofg/Esperanza|<b><fontspan colorstyle="color: green">ets</fontspan></b>]][[User_talk:Bucketsofg|<fontspan colorstyle="color: grey">[[User_talk:Bucketsofg|<b>ofg</b></fontspan>✐]] 18:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

::IP blocked 24 hours, {{userlinks|Arthur Ellis}} blocked for 12 hours, since he is involved in another open arbitration. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 19:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Line 538:

:::::I'm sorry, that's not how I read it. "'' Irishpunktom shall for one year be limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page.''" Maybe another editor is watching this page and can give a third opinion. I see that [[Muhammad]], for example, seems plagued with brand new single purpose accounts, but I don't see that Irishpunktom has violated the parole at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Irishpunktom#Irishpunktom_placed_on_revert_parole]], unless the parole was subsequently modified and not logged. [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 21:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:::::::O.K., I see how you could read it that way as well. I've added two more reversions regarding the Muhammad article to the top of this report. Tom makes tiny reversions, far apart, sometimes against different editors or in different places, in the hopes no-one will notice. He also fails to discuss many of his reversions. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{[[User_talk:Jayjg|<small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</small>]]} 21:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Just for the third opinion, yes it does seem to be one per article, per week, and yes he has contravened that. Article 1 of the "enforcement" section of the ruling clearly states a short block is in order, which [[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] appears to have handled. <b>[[User:Deiz|<FONTspan STYLEstyle="verdana"color: COLOR="#000000; font-family: verdana;">Dei</FONTspan><FONTspan COLORstyle="color: #FF3300">zio</FONTspan>]]</b> <small>[[User talk:Deiz|talk]]</small> 23:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:I would have started with 24 hours myself but I have no objections to the 48 hour block imposed by Humus. Not only were there three reverts of the image in a week, there was no discussion by IPT on the talk page as required, and these particular reversions were part of a larger revert war over this image. (I would have done it on the new diffs but I was out for a while tonight.) [[User talk:Thatcher131|Thatcher131]] 03:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

<span id="63286697708" ></span>