Wikination:Site council/Blocks requiring approval of the site council

This page concerns the Wikination site council, a body of three bureaucrats and four rotating users that decides on website matters. The current members are: American Eagle - Armachedes - DimiTalen - Jon Johnson - M. Van Gent - Ooswesthoesbes - Regaliorum.

Proposals concerning the blocking of users in cases that require approval of the site council, due to their size, consequences or contestedness.

01. User:Pierius Magnus and his army

This section is under construction.

Dimitri is editing here. Please don't edit.

Punishment block (User:Pierius Magnus)

This user has sockpuppeted for years and with tens of accounts. Why is he a threat to the website?

• He tried to undermine our stable politics, by playing both sides and provoking various fights;
• He has committed fraud in elections;
• He has manipulated discussions about him or his causes.

Allowing this would be disastrous for a wiki like ours.

I propose to block user:Pierius Magnus for six months. He is the heaviest sockpuppeteer in Wikination's history. Dimitri 08:02, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

As discussed per mail, I wait until you provide some links etc. Statements must be backed. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 11:47, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

I like idea of the administators and regular users working together in a council like this one. I really do. It makes matters a lot more transparant and clear. What I do not like, however, is that at two of the members of this council, Dimitri and Sjors, to be precise, seem to have already made up their minds about my guilt. No matter what I now say or do, if its up to them the verdict will be "guilty of all charges", is this correct? Dr. Magnus 12:40, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Dimi of course has, otherwise he wouldn't press charges. I can't speak for anyone else but I will judge fairly according to the evidence provided. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 14:42, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

So the sword of Damocles hangs above my head, and its gonna come down soon to cut it off... Still waiting for your reply of my e-mail, by the way, Yuri. Dr. Magnus 14:45, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Your strategy is simple yet dumb, Pierius. You can pretend that I am the "vooringenomen wetenschapper uit de 19e eeuw". Me myself, I would say my persistence comes from the evidence I've seen. You should know that's a great amount ;) Dimitri 17:21, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Eternal block (sockpuppets on Wikination)

I propose an eternal block for the following accounts. Those accounts are all linked to Pierius. Some of them have been confirmed sockies, others Pierius confessed himself, others show extremely clear stylistic or ideological links.

Check Forum:Wikination for more info.

• User:Dani Yusef Ali-Baba (confessed & blocked)
• User:William Johnson (confessed & blocked)
• User:ArminBlanche (confessed & blocked)
• User:BastardRoyale
• User:Drabo13
• User:Unlawful
• User:Discutie (not a site member)

There might even be more of these. I propose eternal block. Their edits will be reverted if of no real use. If they were valuable (and some were), we will of course keep them. Dimitri 08:02, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

I already told you about Dani and Johnson, Dimitri. You already blocked them forever so why even put them in the list? Then there is ArminBlanche, you got that one right also. Discutie I don't recall, perhaps I made him on another wikia and made an edit or two here? As for the rest, I can savely say they are not mine. Dr. Magnus 12:44, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Some more clarity on which accounts links how could be useful. I already started basing on the above statement. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 14:46, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

So it is Discutie and the other three that's it. So that's that he's already served the crime so. it's okay! Marcus Villanova 14:49, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I already served the crime and my socks were confessed to and blocked. The rest is bullshit, with all due respect. Dr. Magnus 14:53, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, bullshit indeed..with all due respect! ! Marcus Villanova 14:56, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

That Armin Blanche character wasn't what I would call a nice guy. The fact that he was sympathizing for the far right only strengthens the theory behind the charges. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 15:07, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

No, that was only because everybody at that point was scared of the IGP and acting very paranoid. I saw it as one big joke, the AB account. Just a sockie for fun. Like OuWTB has Alfii and Pierlot has McCrooke and PatatjeOorlog. Dr. Magnus 15:10, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

He was an anti-commie, a bit like the A.C.A.B., it was never a serious sockpuppet. Besides: it was blocked and so was I: I already have been punished for that. No need to start the same nonsense again... It happened, it was wrong, I was punished, so let it rest. Dr. Magnus 15:12, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

So that takes three sock puppets out of the equation. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 15:14, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Like I said. And the remaining users are no sockies of mine. Although I'm unsure about Discutie, I could have made him on another wikia, possibly the Romanian version of this site, but I'm not sure really. Dr. Magnus 15:16, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Wait: Discutie has no edits here. Dr. Magnus 15:17, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Full investigation

Arthur (User:American Eagle) and Yuri (User:Regaliorum) and me, we agreed to start a full investigation prior to voting on the block of these users. American Eagle will lead the investigation. We will make a full file, including textual analyses. We will compare various texts, behavioral traits and recurring themes. We will compare these results with random other text, by other users of which we know they are unrelated to Pierius. This will allow us to show how significant the similarities are, or are not. Such an investigation will take time, but should be convincing.

We hereby forbid User:Pierius Magnus and all users mentioned in this investigation to comment on it, until the moment we can present our investigation or partial results. Magnus has a history of influencing investigations by spamming users. If he does this, on this wiki, his account will be blocked for the remainder of the investigation.

Dimitri 08:37, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

will the files be opsted on wiki? And if not: could you please send them via mail? Pierlot McCrooke 09:02, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be best to make some kind of 'report'. The question is wether it should be public or restricted to site council members and Pierius. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 09:03, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

It'd be best to keep it classified until it's finished. When finished, we should ask ourselves this question again. It might indeed be best to restrict some data to site council members and Pierius. Dimitri 09:06, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Me and AE've written the first part, concerning Pierius' history as a sockpuppet and his confessions. I am now moving on to the textual analyses. I am afraid this part will take up days and days. I hope it's worth it. Dimitri 17:33, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

What did happen with the investigation Pierlot McCrooke 11:44, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

The investigation is still on. I am gathering evidence and leads and I am comparing various sources. We have already received various sources from other users and wikis. --Arthur Jefferson 10:15, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

I hope it will be finished soon. It is an important investigation Pierlot McCrooke 08:49, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

02. User:Horton11

User:Armachedes requested User:Horton to be blocked for excessively editing Wikination, without paying attention to style and content integration. It is a fact that Horton has been warned before and hardly responds to any of this. His articles remain largely unfinished and often have nothing to do with any of the pre-existing articles. As Armachedes said, adding useless content is lowering our quality.

I propose the following, of which I hope the majority of us may find it reasonable:

• User:Horton11 is warned again
• User:Horton11 will be prohibited from creating any new content for a two-week period, so that this user may experience how to enhance and update articles rather than creating new ones, and to give us some time to:
  • mark his articles as 'UC', 'stub', 'Wikify' or 'delete';
  • delete the articles marked 'wikify' and 'delete' that haven't been wikified or do not fit on this site;
• If he does not keep to these rules, once accepted and once he is informed, his account will be blocked for a short period.

Does this sound reasonable? Dimitri 18:16, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

I must stress that we do this to preserve our quality and prevent Horton's editing frenzy from escalating. It is not a punishment, since his edits are not those of a vandalist, but rather of an editor who needs some help and guidance. Dimitri 18:16, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

I changed the proposal. No more pre-emptive blocking. Dimitri 07:38, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

I will abstain as I hate the idea of blocking 'for editing too much', even though we need to exercise some control. --Semyon 09:29, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Vote

Congress Voting Options {{pro}} resulting in: Pro {{contra}} gives: Contra {{abstention}} gives: Abstention

Site council member	Vote	Date stamp
American Eagle	Pro	07:20, October 23, 2010 (UTC)
Censuree	Pro	09:39, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
DimiTalen	Pro	18:16, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
Harold Freeman
Regaliorum	Pro	08:12, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
Semyon Edikovich	Abstention	09:29, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
SjorskingmaWikistad	Contra

I really hate to do this but don't see another way. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 08:13, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

We should include a Wikination rule soon, that allows the site to prevent people from writing hundreds and hundreds of articles about one family, one company, etc. --Arthur Jefferson 07:20, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

I have never experienced seeing someone given a block for "excessively adding content". This proposed block is just high quality b***s**t. He is new guys, relax, and don't get heated. ;) SjorskingmaWikistad 11:40, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

his first edit was like a month and and a hald ago..Though I don't think we should ban him he should really start learning to do the basics. Marcus Villanova 20:04, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Crystal and Sjors. Blocking him = certainly punishing him. Bucu 20:39, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

The argument that he is a new editor would be valid if he could learn, but he doesn't! It is almost impossible to contact Horton11! The only means of making him organize with us is to make him have to comply! Right now, he doesn't give a flying fignewt about the Lovian government; let's make sure he realizes that he isn't free to run the nation the way he imagines it. Edward Hannis 00:43, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

I do give a "flying fignewt" about the government. I ran for governor to try to bring change to Kings (and Lovia) And no I do not run the nation. I am merely contributing to its growth.Horton11 00:47, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

@Blocking him: read the proposal. This does not include a block. Dimitri 06:14, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

Whatever Freeman's vote (and I expect him to oppose this proposal), there is a majority in favor of the proposal. I will inform User:Horton11. We will enact this strictly. --Arthur Jefferson 10:16, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Have you bought one of those fortune-telling orbs? You didn't happen to see what the weather is going to be like tomorrow, did you? I'm going on a trip and it would be nice to know whether I should take my raincoat or not. Regaliorum _{(Shō Kitana)} 12:40, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

In Lovia: beautiful weather, blue skies, and quite hot for the time of year! In Belgium: grey and clouded ;). --Arthur Jefferson 13:11, October 31, 2010 (UTC)