| |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Closed without prejudice. Not anWP:ACDS matter.El_C16:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning ScrupulousScribe[edit]
I suggest that the topic ban was too narrow, but that despite that, the editor is playing with its scope and testing its limits, possibly voluntarily as a time sink.
Discussion concerning ScrupulousScribe[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ScrupulousScribe[edit]Statement by Nsk92[edit]Setting aside the substance of this request for the moment, my impression is that procedurally the request is filed in the wrong venue. The topic ban has been imposed pursuant to General Sanctions rather than to any Arbitration case. As such, I believe the proper enforcement venue for violations of this topic ban isWP:AN. In principle, COVID-19 related discretionary sanctions and topic bans can also be imposed underWikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. However, it appears that ScrupulousScribe never received a user talk page notification aboutWP:ACDS in that case, and until such notification happens, the Pseudoscience AE discretionary sanctions can't be considered here. On the substance, I think that the first diff[1] is still covered by theWP:BANEX exemption, as a discussion (albeit rather lengthy) of the topic ban itself. The third diff[2] does not appear to violate the topic ban, which was specifically limited to the Covid-19 lab leak theory and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. However, the second diff[3] does appear to be a topic ban violation as the ANI discussion in question specifically concerns the Covid-19 lab leak theory.Nsk92 (talk)09:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Atsme[edit]Wrong venue, and a bit premature. The t-ban was specific in that it was a Community t-ban that is restricted toCovid-19 lab leak theory, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and anyone directly associated with the Institute, so this is not only the wrong venue, there is some ambiguity that needs to be sorted out.Boing! said Zebedee, who is feeling under the weather right now, has already responded to the concern andasked for patience until he can thoroughly investigate the issue. My intention is not to condone or pass any judgment on ScrupulousScribe, a shiney new editor with a lot to learn; rather, my intention is to allow Boing some time to investigate and clear-up any ambiguity that may have created a cloud over the way forward. Having said that, I do hope ScrupulousScribe will voluntarily remove himself from editing anything related to the COVID investigation, or risk being subjected to a wider ranging t-ban that is "broadly construed".Atsme💬📧09:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Boing! said Zebedee[edit]I placed the topic ban underWikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019. It was not placed under any sanction enacted by the Arbitration Committee, and so this venue is not applicable. If someone wishes to request a topic ban under any applicable sanctions enacted by the Arbitration Committee, they will have to request it (as a whole new sanction) under the applicable rules. I suggest that this request should be procedurally closed.Boing! said Zebedee (talk)12:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning ScrupulousScribe[edit]
|
As mentioned, I'm
|
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Reinhearted[edit]
I have never done this before so do be gentle if I've made mistakes in the filing. @Reinhearted: first caught my eye with edit summaries that raised flags non-neutral editing onfalafel. I reminded them of the article's 1RR restriction[4] but they continued to revert the same content. Does this edit falls within Arab-Israeli conflict?[5][6][7][8] and these edits come after this[9] I hope the editor is here to contribute productively but they have only 145 edits and there has been a lot of edit warring onfalafel recently even with open and unresolved discussions still open about these changes.
Discussion concerning Reinhearted[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Reinhearted[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Reinhearted[edit]
|
| Blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action.El_C05:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Friendly Batman[edit]
Blocked from editing an article for two weeks due toWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1055#Nationalist POV pushing, personal attacks and accusations of vandalism by Friendly Batman
User was informed atUser talk:Friendly Batman#Comment on vandalism. andUser talk:Friendly Batman#January 2021 2 not to use the term "vandalism" in inappropriate contexts. User appears to be pushing a right-wing Indian POV, and objects to any mention of Muslims. The constant referral to any content they object to as "vandalism" isn't helpful.
Discussion concerning Friendly Batman[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Friendly Batman[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Friendly Batman[edit]
|
| Speedy closed. The Committee is already on it.El_C21:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning WanderingWanda[edit]
Also relevant:
These unseemly,WINNING-oriented attempts to exploit Flyer22's death to further a wiki-political and PoVADVOCACY agenda are, under the DS of this topic area,block- and/or topic-ban-worthy, given all the previous warnings. How could WWpossibly think it a good idea to post this stuff anywhere on WP much less right on an ArbCom page, immediately after narrowly escaping at least an I-ban? The doubled-down, selfish heartlessness of today's WanderingWanda disruption is especially galling, given WW's attempt to paint Flyer22 as heartless for citing a source WW doesn't like[14] (even after Flyer22 tried to appease by changing the Wikipedia-voice summary – nothing's good enough if WW's decided you aren't within their specific fold in this schism between various left/progressive and LGBT+ doctrines). Diff also establishes WW knows all aboutdogwhistling.
In summary, this editor has had many chances and anunusual amount of leeway to adjust to writing an encyclopedia among peers, versus writing a personal socio-political blog that attacks enemies.Their behavior's gotten much worse not better, so they need to be removed from the topic area. WanderingWanda's behavior triggers so many points ofWP:NOT policy it isn't worth listing them out. I don't think this is a bad-faith problem, but a severeCIR /NOTHERE /SOAPBOX issue.
11:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Extension request Requesting a limit extension (presently 23 diffs, some only because case pages are blanked, so regular links to sections don't work; and about 1100 words, much of it quotation). Pinged no one other than non-Arb admins whom I've diffed taking action about this editor before. Unless pinged back to answer questions (or verbally attacked :-), I don't plan to respond here further, but just let AE admins assess the evidence. If an admin wants to trim this to what AE most wants to see, I'm okay with that as long as it does not cripple/skew the report. I need some sleep, though. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 11:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Discussion concerning WanderingWanda[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by WanderingWanda[edit]Statement by Bilorv[edit]I found WanderingWanda's comment sensitively written and genuine, so I cannot agree with the insinuations suggested. I was much more upset by some of the responses to somebody trying to express positive thoughts in a uniquely difficult position, which quite genuinely saddened me when I first read it this morning. Remember that there is a person behind each username and you do not know about that person's life experiences. In my seven years on this site, words people have written about me have made me cry. They have rendered me unproductive with my real-life responsibilities for a full day due to anger or hurt. They have made me take actions I have regretted. Each of these are possible consequences that you will not see when writing something anything less than formal and polite towards somebody. We must be very careful not to hold individuals involved in the suspended ArbCom case responsible for an event far beyond their control—it has a huge potential of real-world harm. From my own experiences in life I have seen a glimpse into what it can feel like to hold yourself to any degree responsible for another person's death and I do not wish that on anyone. If that sentence resonates with anybody then they are welcome to email me. From what I have seen, SMcCandlish has been very careful to spell out explicitly that such blame is not his intention wherever he even touches this topic, for which I commend him. I encourage others to be similarly careful and humane. I would actually ask WanderingWanda to consider not making a statement about this enforcement request, to avoid inflaming tensions further, though doubtless a lack of response will enrage some, as will any response they could possibly make, and any possible outcome of this enforcement request. To others, I would say: if you've spent less than an hour writing your statement, and not stepped away from the screen before submitting, then you might wish to consider whether the rawness of emotion in your words is desirable. —Bilorv (talk)13:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Feyd Huxtable[edit]Editor Bilorv's comment is excellent except for the first line. Some of Wanda's post Arb case editing has indeed been highly problematic. If they say one more objectionable thing about Flyer I'd agree they warrant at least a 6 month block. I'd also not have a great problem if admins want to give Wanda an immediate 1 month block on a "prevent disruption, not necessarily uphold justice" bases. But must strongly object to they way Wanda's been characterised by SMcCandlish SMcCandlish has done a phenomenal job defending both Flyer & encyclopaedic values, saving the need for many others to put the days of time & energy needed to rebut some of the nonsense that was posted at the case. But at this point he has maybe lost a bit of perspective. To take one specific examplethis WW diff isn't Wanda implying anyone else is heartless – it's almost the reverse. I use that language (or similar like "you'd need a heart of stone…" ) quite often in RL as an oblique way to appeal to a decision makers emotion (which one obviously wouldn't do if talking to someone one considers heartless.) Wanda themselves is quite the opposite of "selfish heartlessness" / "severe CIR" etc. Not a single of the neutral editors who looked carefully at Wanda's conduct in the Arb case said anything that supports Wanda being a negative editor outside of the feud. In fact several sitting & former Arbs said the opposite. E.g. "shows promise as an editor" (workshop) , "has the potential to be an excellent editor" (PD) etc. Wanda's recent problematic edits are not due to lack of Competency, studied falseCiv etc. It was due to considerable stress over what happened. E.g. saying"reported death" indicates part of them can't fully believe whats happened. I've never had contact with Wanda before & am in no way even a faint wiki friend of theirs, but on seeing the ridiculous line about looking forward to an afterlife shouting match, I immediately emailed them to say 1) events must have severely effected them for them to say something so insensitive. 2) to suggest a short wikibreak. Without revealing their reply, it wasn't inconsistent with them being under significant stress.Flyer is a completely irreplaceable editor and their loss is among the worst possible imaginable tradegies. She was also someone who deeply cared about this project and Id submit the worst way to honour her memory is to have further divisive debate at this point in time. SMcCandlish would be an excellent choice to lead lessons learnt / reform efforts type work on this, but only after a few weeks gap so the initial shock of Flyers loss can be better processed. So I'd beg any admin reading this to speedy close the AE before this gets more hearted, ideally as No action, or maybe a short disruption preventing block for Wanda, but without endorsing any of the negative analyses against them.FeydHuxtable (talk)14:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning WanderingWanda[edit]
|
| Blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action.El_C14:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning LotteryGeek[edit]
N/A
Discussion concerning LotteryGeek[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by LotteryGeek[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning LotteryGeek[edit]
|
| An indef BROADLY AP2 TBAN has been imposed.El_C14:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Spartan7W[edit]
Afterthe user is politely warned about the DS in effect, including the 1RR in effect in this page, the userexplicitly refuses to comply, calls the edit challenging his/her edit "vandalism" and suggests that those challenging the edit "should have taken it to the talk page" (which ignores that the lead section of this article has been extensively discussed already, and also ignores baseline ONUS/consensus/1RR principles). In a "no, you" moment, this user spammedtwo editors ([20][21]) with the same warning that he himself was given. This is not an isolated incident. This edit has engaged in disruptive edits at various articles on political figures and topics at least as far back as 2017, including atAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez (warnedat 23:19, March 13, 2019), including edits so inappropriate they had to beRev'deled);Presidency of Donald Trump; andMichael Flynn.
TaggingSPECIFICO andPoliticsfan4, who witnessed the conduct at issue. In sum, this is a slam-dunk case for an speedy, andindefinite topic ban against Spartan7W.Neutralitytalk
Discussion concerning Spartan7W[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Spartan7W[edit]I would like to it be explained to me why I, a long-time editor, can add good-faith, sourced information to the lead of an article, with rationale, and then that that edit can be reverted, with no discussion in the talk page, nor rational given as to why it was objectionable, but should I find his edits objectionable, I am subject to "enforcement"? Spartan7W§ 16:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]With all the factors cited by Swarm below, it would seem that a block would be called forin addition to an AP2 topic ban.Beyond My Ken (talk)10:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Spartan7W[edit]
|
| The appeal is declined.~Swarm~{sting}12:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. | ||
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are foundhere. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (seeWP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by WEBDuB[edit]Firstly, I waswarned for my rhetoric andWP:ASPERSIONS. Later, I started thediscussion trying to explain the situation and solve the problem. Did I really break the rules so badly that I got a topic ban? I think that on Balkan topics, these are unfortunately common situations that often should to be endured and silenced. I was a victim myself, and rarely did any of the admins step on my side. Many times, I was labeled both as a neoliberal anti-Serbian editor and as a Serbian nationalist POV pusher and propagandist. Has any of the admins ever reacted? I have been the target of similar (and worse) rhetoric that I am accused of. For example, I was evenaccused of “ultranationalist CONTENTforking”,of justifying andof relativizing and downplaying war crimes, while Mikola22 said (1,2) that I am boring and alluded to WP:CANVASS using the terms “your editors”, “your friends”, Serbian POV pushers etc. He was alsoreported for promoting fringe and genocide-inspired theory, supporting far-right editors from hr.wiki, calling Yugoslav and Serbian historiography “a fairy tale based on nothing”... Several non-Balkan editors have expressed their concerns about his editing (1,2,3). How did that result? Have I even violated any of these rules? There were otherfalse accusations and aspirations. Ktrimi991called me “silly”, “dumb” andsaid that I have the battleground mentality. At the same time, he violated the 3RR in the article that initiated this whole dispute (1,2,3) and deleted two warnings mockingme andanother editor. He was alsoreported for many other similar conflicts and he waswarned for disruptive editing, as well as he even threatened (1,2,3) other editors. How did that result? What about theWP:BOOMERANG now? Have I even violated any of these rules? Am I, after all, the one who deserves to be banned? In every Balkan topic, several editors have been labeled as Serbian ultranationalists, are accused of canvassing, etc. Has any of the admins ever reacted? I have personally reported about five times for various forms of harassment, including long-term abuse, personal attacks, disclosure of personal information (some example:[23][24][25]), but without any response. To be honest, only the oversight team helped a few times. What is wrong with my comments? What in my case is bad rhetoric and false accusation without evidence? Aspersions charges (Potential evidence ofWP:HOUNDING)[edit]
The final move[edit]When El_Cinformed me that I was subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction he citedthis change which followedthe warning. However, that was really an accidental and stupid mistake. I wanted to delete it from theGenocides in history (before World War I) article because those courts were made later. . In the meantime, there was a problem with link redirection. Or I simply missed the article I was in. If I had noticed that I was on the wrong article, I would have corrected the mistake myself. This change with theGenocides in history article was completely misinterpreted.It has nothing to do with Balkan topics. Regardless of the fact that the content related to Bosnia and Herzegovina was found there by chance. With numerous changes, I condemned the denial of the Srebrenica genocide and all nationalist moves by Serbian politicians (it can be seen in the articles aboutAleksandar Vučić,Ana Brnabić,Tomislav Nikolić,Bosnian genocide denial,Overthrow of Slobodan Milošević...). I also created an article about theanti-war movement in Serbia and the protests against theSiege of Sarajevo, etc. No one can attribute nationalist label or POV-pushing or anything like that to me. Moreover, I added the most critical and negative content in the articles about politicians and politics in Serbia, authoritarian rules, and media freedom. Even the2020 Serbian parliamentary election article I wrote to a large extent was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in theWP:ITN section on24 June 2020. If anyone was impartial in Serbian-related articles, then it was me. I wrote both good and extremely bad things. Let's get back to the topic. After the warning, I apologized and did not enter into any conflicts or break any of the rules. I complied with everything from his warning, except for this stupid mistake. Summary[edit]To conclude, I did not break any rules after the warning. Once again I askwhat did I do so much worse than the others? I have research experience, as well as access to many documents and books (which I often added as sources here). I really think I can contribute a lot to this topic in the future. I think the sanction is too strict.Please consider my appeal. I promise that such situations will not happen in the future. I hope you will understand. Thanks.--WEBDuB (talk)18:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Reply[edit]@El C: 1.Though I also noted their perplexing removal of 30K-worth of text today, as well - I have already explained that it was a stupid mistake. It is easily corrected, no problem remains. Most importantly, it has nothing to do with the warning, nor with the Balkan topics. 2. Take for example them falsely conflating, in this very appeal, between having anaction called "dumb" as opposed to them, themselves, being called that. - Ok, is it an example of good communication when someone calls another editor's action dumb? 3.Their largelyWP:NOTTHEM approach to this appeal itself further affirms that notion, I think. - This is certainly not WP:NOTTHEM. First, I mentioned other editors to show that my accusations are not false, that I was really attacked and called by various names. You asked for evidence, I presented it. Fruthermore, I wanted to show how there are far more serious violations and worse examples of communication on Balkan topics. Did I threaten anyone that way? Have I ever been sanctioned for edit war? Other editors were forgiven for more serious violations, even though they were reported by dozens of other editors. Why am I an exception and immediately banned only because of one dispute? Is such a restriction justified and fair? Why no one protected me when I was the target of WP:ASPERSIONS? My so-called aspersions related to that. I didn’t start it first, I just responded to it.--WEBDuB (talk)21:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by El C[edit]My assessment has been that WEBDuB too often tends tocast aspersions with evidence-less claims. And that when they do actually provide evidence, it is often irrelevant to what is actually being discussed. Like when they kept conflating between fly-over IPs and regular editors (in good standing) of the topic area, despite having been warned to refrain from doing so — which was key to me deciding to impose the sanction, and which I made clear to them from the outset (diff). Though I also noted their perplexing removal of 30K-worth of text today, as well (diff). Anyway, there's a problem here that has to do with proper communication, with due diligence and with the maxim of assuming good faith — all components that are necessary for editing such a fraught topic area. Attributes that, I believe, WEBDuB currently lacks. Take for example them falsely conflating, in this very appeal, between having anaction called "dumb" as opposed to them, themselves, being called that. No, this editor is a liability to the topic area at the present time time. Their largelyWP:NOTTHEM approach to this appeal itself further affirms that notion, I think.El_C20:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Peacemaker67[edit]I am an admin familiar with the topic area, but should probably be considered involved because I have reverted WEBDuB on a number of occasions and taken contrary positions on contested issues. This report has been brought to my attention by several editors due to El C asking for input from admins with experience in the Balkans subject area. For an uninvolved admin, I suggest consultingEdJohnston, who has a good track record on dealing with problems in the area. Given the significant uptick on POV-pushing and battleground behaviour on Balkans articles over the last nine months which I have mentioned a number of times on various noticeboards, this action is welcome and overdue. I have been collating evidence and preparing to report WEBDuB and a number of other editors to this board for some months, focussed on their editing to minimise Chetnik war crimes during WWII in particular. Given their prompt appearance to support each other on diverse articles across many time periods of the Balkans, I have no doubt that there is some serious off-Wiki coordination going on betwen these editors. Putting together a successful case on long-term POV-pushing is difficult, so it is a positive that El C has acted decisively based on the evidence presented. El C rightly points out that WEBDuB has demonstrated that they lack important attributes necessary to edit in this fraught area, and I consider that they have demonstrated this consistently over a long period of time. I would like to highlight further evidence of POV-pushing and battleground behaviour on Balkans articles by WEBDuB, as follows:
This is just a grab-bag of additional diffs and material I could quickly put my hands on, as I am going to be largely offline for 24 hours shortly, and felt that I should comment promptly having been asked to do so. Normally if I had the time I would categorise their behaviour into themes and list diffs against each one. I have no doubt that if I put in some effort I could file my own 20/diff AE report on POV-pushing and battleground behaviour by WEBDuB (and several others), and this action by El C encourages me to clear the decks of other stuff for a bit and get on with it, despite the time it takes to do so in a clear, concise and professional manner. WEBDuB not only edits prolifically in the Balkans area, but in the most contentious articles (involving the Chetniks, Kosovo, war crimes, religious persecution and genocide) of what is already a highly contentious area, and they do so in a way that is not in the best interests of the encyclopaedia, because they are consistently pushing a pro-Serb POV and battlegrounding. There should be less toleration of this sort of wikibehaviour in an area covered by a long-standing ArbCom case, and I therefore endorse ElC's TBAN. That is not to say that there are those that oppose WEBDuB are squeaky clean (many aren't), we should be more robust with misbehaviour in the subject area on all sides, and I acknowledge that as an admin creating content in parts of the subject area I perhaps have let too much of this slide. However, on the basis of the evidence provided (reinforced by my own, above), I think the action against WEBDuB on this occasion is appropriate. Let them show they can edit constructively and neutrally in other areas of Wikipedia for six months and we can look at reviewing the TBAN then.Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)00:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by WEBDuB[edit]When WEBDuB was warnedhere, his responsehere wasn't perfect but he also apologized and acknowledged his mistake. Meanwhile, the other diff which precipitated this ban (here) was a mistake on his part as he was trying to remove content that was out of scope with the article, except he mixed up the general Genocides in history article with the newly createdGenocides in history (before World War I). While some of WEBDuB's reactions are strong, he's not all wrong. For instance, there is a LTA dynamic IPhere who has been following and harassing certain editors for some time, but in particular WEBDuB, so much that some of his edits were removed from public view. This is enough to perturb anyone editing in this area. It's also not a secret that there are POV blocks in the Balkans area and that much worse type of behavior has gone on there, which is incomparable to a recent slip-up from this editor who from his history has been an otherwise productive editor for over a decade. In short, this is a drastic measure and an overreaction from an admin, who with due respect, is not that familiar with this editing area. --Griboski (talk)20:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Result of the appeal by WEBDuB[edit]
|
| Withdrawn by OP.El_C19:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Armatura[edit]
I made a report of the user atWP:ANI about 2 weeks ago andSebastianHelm handled the report and gave a very extensive report on both my and Armatura's actions and recommended consequences, but at the end, they realized that they had become too involved with the case, so they rescued themselves to leave the handling of the case to other admins. However, other admins recommended that the report be taken to AE, so here I am. I'd be happy if the report just picked up where it left off. @El C: I'm reporting the overall behaviour and the specific actions have already been linked in the previous report. I felt like SebastianHelm did a ton of work going through all of the histories of both me and Armatura's behaviour and laid oud proposed consequences, so I didn't want the effort to be wasted because some time had passed from the original report. I made a new report because I don't see any improvement in behaviour since SebastianHelm's proposed behaviour changes and the IBAN was, at least for me, an evidence for it. If you think the report still should be closed, then I can withdraw my report. —CuriousGolden(T·C)19:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion concerning Armatura[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Armatura[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Armatura[edit]
|
| User indef blocked in lieu of an AE sanction. After providing time for additional review, the block has been endorsed.~Swarm~{sting}06:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Ihardlythinkso[edit]
L. Lin Wood falls under the "closely related people" provision of the AP2 topic ban scope, as a person who has been heavily involved in the attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 US presidential election. Wood is not a UFOs or flat earth conspiracy theorist; the very descriptor of "conspiracy theorist" exists on the pagesolely due to his various beliefs about US politics. There is an American politics{{Ds/talk notice}} at the top of the talk page warning contributors about the AP2 discretionary sanctions, so there is no question it applies.GorillaWarfare (talk)16:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion concerning Ihardlythinkso[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Ihardlythinkso[edit]Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof[edit]I read the post on El_C's talk page requesting reopening because of IHTS' positive contributions in the chess area. If there was a way to partial-block someone from an entire topic area, I'd suggest that as an alternative - but as we can't do so, and as IHTS has repeatedly violated every sanction imposed on them in the American politics area... I don't see as there's any good alternative here. They may be doing good work in one area, but if they're completely unable to restrain themselves from personal attacks, aspersions, and declarations like
Statement by Floq[edit]I don't honestly know what to do in these situations. AE seems kind of dysfunctional, but I'm not sure what I would change. Doing AE stuff as "normal admin action" seems somehow against its purpose, but certainly makes unblocking with conditions easier and more reasonable. An indef in this case seems harsh, but there have certainly been a lot of previous chances extended. If I thought a warning/reminder would work, I'd have suggested leaning in that direction, except I don't think there's evidence a warning/reminder would work. Yes, lots and lots of useful edits in a separate topic area are kind of being sacrificed because of two snotty comments in a topic-banned area. I just don't know. Ultimately, if someone is going to repeatedly, intentionally ignore a topic ban, I guess there aren't too many other options. --Floquenbeam (talk)17:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by GoodDay[edit]Wait a sec. UFO doesn't always meanalien space ships & furthermore, what's wrong with believing in the existence of aliens, if folks believe in the existence of an invisible man living in the sky? Anyways, zapping IHTS into ban-land is rather harsh (IMHO) & perhaps too hasty, as politics in the USA is still somewhat volatile, during this pandemic.GoodDay (talk)17:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] @EI C: Perhaps we should wait to hear from@EvergreenFir:, as he/she may not even be bothered by IHTS' response.GoodDay (talk)17:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] @GorillaWarfare: His goose is cooked, ain't it :(GoodDay (talk)17:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] @NorthBySouthBaranof: That's not good :(GoodDay (talk)17:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] I don't like to see an editor getting banned, but it looks like not evenPerry Mason could win this case.GoodDay (talk)17:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Mentoring[edit]Wouldmentoring be an option for IHTS?GoodDay (talk)02:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Pawnkingthree[edit]Since returning to activity in mid 2020 IHTS has contributed almost exclusively to chess topics, where he is an undoubtedly a positive for the encyclopedia, but I was very disappointed by the edits to the Lin Wood talk page and I accept that it is a clear violation. In September 2020 he made some minor copyedits to such articles asBarbara Lagoa andAmy Coney Barrett, which I suppose may be technical breaches of the ban as well. He was warned byUser:MaxBrowne2 at the time that he was "dangerously close" butdid not appreciate the advice. I believe an indef is too harsh when weighed against his overall record of positive contributions since his return, but short of partially blocking him from every article outside of chess, I am at somewhat of a loss as to how to proceed here.--P-K3 (talk)17:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by EvergreenFir[edit]Responding toGoodDay's ping. I am not bothered, but had I known that IHTS was t-banned from the topic I would have reported to AE from the start. Unfortunate IHTS is unwilling/unable to adhere to that ban. I think indef or long-term block is appropriate.EvergreenFir(talk)17:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Cullen328[edit]I have been on the receiving end of this editor's vitriol before, so I am a bit involved, I suppose. I would like to point out that the block log shows that this editor has been disruptive in the chess topic area as well. I endorse the block.Cullen328Let's discuss it20:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by MaxBrowne2[edit]I'm sad to see him go and wish there was some other possible outcome, but I understand that the indef is for an ongoing pattern, rather than a single fairly minor incident.MaxBrowne2 (talk)03:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] @Cullen328: His behaviour has improved in the last few years and he will be missed byWP:CHESS. Just wish he'd stop testing boundaries around his US politics TBAN.MaxBrowne2 (talk)01:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] My opinion for what it's worth - it wasn't worth losing this editor over such a trivial incident.MaxBrowne2 (talk)02:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Also, I really don't like the paternalistic attitude and lack of concern for editor retention expressed by many admins. Incivility from admins is a frequent occurrence and is never punished. Admins, Wikipedia is not about you, it's about the people who create the content.MaxBrowne2 (talk)03:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]Re: GoodDay - Mentoring for an editor with 10.5 years of service time and 67K edits seems a bit silly. If they haven't gotten it by now...Beyond My Ken (talk)03:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Result concerning Ihardlythinkso[edit]
|
| Declined as not a topic ban violation --GuerilleroParlez Moi06:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Philip Cross[edit]
These edits are the most egregious of several edits made by the user about a leak of a film about the serving head of state of the UK. This is clearly direct involvement in an article concerning British politics.
User is editing this page extensively, including those areas that discuss the recent leak of the documentary, whose subject is the current UK head of state.
@El C: It's my understanding that the remedy is
Discussion concerning Philip Cross[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Philip Cross[edit]Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]I could be shown to be wrong, but my understanding of the system in the UK is that the Queen, as head of state, has no personal say in political issues. Her speeches which touch on the subject are written for her by the party in power, and otherwise she is a figurehead, the ultimate constitutional monarch. I suppose some of the Royal Family get into messes when they express their personal opinions, but I can't recall these every being about UK politics. If this is correct, then even "broadly construed" wouldn't include the Queen and Royal Family.Beyond My Ken (talk)03:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Philip Cross[edit]
|
| Scope of the sanctions has not been contravened.El_C20:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Raymond3023[edit]
Raymond3023's recent talk page history had this comment of Arbitration ban[53]. This user along with another user:MBlaze Lightning has continued their disruptive edits (Edit warring) on an article"2021 Farmers' Republic Day parade" which is related to India Pakistan. (see[54])
This user along with another[55] has been repeatedly removing sourced content and references from the article. He is only posting one liners claiming "problem exist" without specifying the specific problem, I have asked them 3 times now but it seems they are only interested in disrupting this page. Raymond3023's only contribution so far on this page is to edit war and remove sourced content without specifying the problem despite being asked. At the time of this writing Raymond3023 has still not explained what specific problems they have with the content. --Walrus Ji (talk)18:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HiEl C, I believe this article "2021 Farmers' Republic Day parade" which is a part of "2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest" comes under India Pakistan conflict and the same has been covered by multiple media sources and leaders who are naming and blaming Pakistan for this incident. Some links for your reference.[59][60][61]Walrus Ji (talk)19:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ok, I had filed this report as I understand that the Indian Government and Indian Media are calling these protestors as Pakistani agents. The article in question elaborates the conflict between the Protestors (i.e. Pakistani Agents) with the Indian security forces. Theedit diff that I linked as evidence as has phrases like "deployed 15 companies of para military forces" and " died after being shot in the head by the police". I felt that such an extension would come under the "broadly construed" language used in the sanction statement. Thanks for the clarification. --Walrus Ji (talk)20:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion concerning Raymond3023[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Raymond3023[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Raymond3023[edit]
|
| Scope of the sanctions has not been contravened (same as above).El_C20:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning MBlaze Lightning[edit]
This user along with another user:Raymond has continued their disruptive edits (Edit warring) on an article"2021 Farmers' Republic Day parade" which is related to India Pakistan conflict. (see[63])
I believe this article "2021 Farmers' Republic Day parade" which is a part of "2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest" comes under India Pakistan conflict and the same has been covered by multiple media sources and leaders who are naming and blaming Pakistan for this incident. Some links for your reference.[66][67][68]Walrus Ji (talk)19:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ok, I had filed this report as I understand that the Indian Government and Indian Media are calling these protestors as Pakistani agents. The article in question elaborates the conflict between the Protestors (i.e. Pakistani Agents) with the Indian security forces. Theedit diff that I linked as evidence as has phrases like "deployed 15 companies of para military forces" and " died after being shot in the head by the police". I felt that such an extension would come under the "broadly construed" language used in the sanction statement. Thanks for the clarification. --Walrus Ji (talk)20:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion concerning MBlaze Lightning[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MBlaze Lightning[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning MBlaze Lightning[edit]
|
| Blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action.El_C05:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Guitarguy2323[edit]
Guitarguy2323 has a history of talk-page trolling,WP:NOTFORUM political attacks and complaints of Wikipedia political bias, and disruptive editing in AP2, which resulted in a block and topic ban in December. They have violated their topic ban by making a trollish comment atTalk:Marjorie Taylor Greene alleging Wikipedia bias against conservatives because the article factually states that Greene is a conspiracy theorist. ― Tartan357 Talk05:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion concerning Guitarguy2323[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Guitarguy2323[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Guitarguy2323[edit]
|
| No need to keep this open any longer.[Also, is it just me, or are there more and more ANI/AN/AE threads going stale lately?] When it comes to removal of longstanding content, if it is established that said removal is actually a revert of a specific addition, this must be proven to the user behind the removal withdiff evidence. Otherwise, there is simply no way for them to tell whether it is just content which was a product of collaboration among various editors, with whatever is being removed not necessarily representing any particular addition of note. Again, that is why thePrevious version reverted to parameter atWP:AN3 is so key (que rant about that!).El_C19:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Zvikorn[edit]
I have had a discussion with this user about this sort of behaviorpreviously. On that occasion, I did not report him because another editor fixed the problem. I see that this user has been warned and blocked for similar behavior in a different topic area.On this occasion, when I explained the problemhere, the response was to falsely accuse me of lying (twice) and invited me to "Take it to neutral administrators if you have a problem." @Shrike: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert."WP:EW (this sentence is on editor Zvikorn's talk page).Selfstudier (talk)16:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] @El C: If the revert definition above is not correct then I will happily withdraw this request. It is not at all helpful to revert a revert without any prior discussion when I had specifically requested that (BRD, I know it's not a policy). I also wish to note for the record that I do not appreciate being falsely accused of lying. It is 100% clear that that is not the case. The content, although it is an issue, is not the issue here and I am already dealing with that.Selfstudier (talk)18:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion concerning Zvikorn[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Zvikorn[edit]To whom it may concern I will work my reply line by line to what I have been falsely accused of:(1 The 31st of January Edit was indeed without an edit summary however it was explained in the edit summary of a future edit and on the talk page of the article(2 Reverted the edit and went to talk unlike what SelfStudier says. Edit summary was not unclear and I explained it better on the talk page. All 4 off the difflinks give me unable to load messages so I am unable to reply to them at this time.The next thing I will address is the discretionary sanctions I received on the talk page from the user who is the other participating in this conflict. I did not edit any other articles after the notice. In my opinion, it should be noted that another user who participates in the conflit should not be able to give users who he is in a conflict with the notice. I have sent Self Studier the same notice now. Next, I'll address the comments to user left.The usr falsely states that I falsely accused him of lying twice. However, that is nothing father from, the truth. I stated in the talk page of the contested article my reasoning for each edit twice and provided the explanation for my reasoning. Self Studier did in fact lie twice and anyone who reads the talk page can see that. I apologize if my explanations and edit summaries or even this response is a bit tangled as I still have not mastered the art of formating here on wikipedia.I suggest and even gave advice to the editor who falsely accuses me here today to take it to administrators so they can see how hard he is to deal with and that I am in the right. Finally, I will address the false accusations the editor made on my talk page.(1 The editor falsely said that I have breached the one revert rule. I did not breach the rule as I only reverted once and don't plan on reverting again. The admins should watch the accuser to see if he intends to break such rule even just outside of the 24 hours as the rule states.(2 The editor falsely accuses me of pushing POV. As I said in my talk page and the talk page of the contested article, this once again, could not be farther than the truth. I explained my edits and gave reasoning behind them unlike the accuser who himself is pushing POV. In addition, I stated on the article that I did not remove information regarding the vaccines and only added an important legal document. The vaccine section is due for expansion as stated in the talk section on the page above ours. Lastly, I removed the settler line (without an edit summary and I apologize) however I later explained twice that I see it to fit better on the Israeli article and not the Palestinian one. In conclusion, I state the full truth and I expect the admins to see that and decline this report. I am happy to answer and explain any more questions you have. In addition, I kindly ask to admins to format this answer correctly, if I haven't done so. Thank You Edit 1: I tried giving SS the discretionary sanctions alert but he has already received one for this topic in the last twelve months. Statement by Shrike[edit]Selfstudier to what version he was reverting in his first edit? --Shrike (talk)15:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Wikieditor19920[edit]
Statement by Zero0000[edit]Thefirst edit was a revert ofthis edit of 32 days earlier. I have no opinion on whether one month makes the initial edit stale enough. In this case, Selfstudier added a sentence and a source for it, and Zvikorn removed that sentence and source. It was a revert for sure. Zvikorn knew it, too, see the edit summary "Reverted". Whether the edit was excusable for some other reason, I have no opinion, and I'm not going to comment on what the outcome of this case should be. To editorEl C: I really don't understand what you wrote about the meaning of "revert". As far as I know, the defining policy isWP:Edit warring. That policy does not say either that a previous page version must be recovered nor that a previous edit must be undone entirely (I don't understand "encompassed within"). Actually it says that partially undoing a previous edit counts as a revert and so does the text at the start ofWP:AN3.Zerotalk02:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] To editorEl C: I stand corrected on the edit summary and apologise for that misdirection. On the definition of a revert, I don't agree that a help page can overrule the plain text of a policy. Thepolicy says "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert" (my emphasis). It says the same again a few lines later. The instructions at the start ofWP:AN3 have no weight as policy but anyway they also say "Undoing another editor's workwhether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." I assume you don't think an edit-warrior can escape sanction by being careful to only delete parts of previous edits. Having said that, you are quite right that there should be some limit to which deletions count as reverts. If you want to judge that being in the article for a month is long enough for removal to not be called a revert, I'm fine with that. Personally I think there should be a legislated maximum time between the original edit and its (whole or partial) undoing before the latter is called a revert. That would be consistent with the intention of rules like 1RR to slow down disputes. Would you support that?Zerotalk06:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] Result concerning Zvikorn[edit]
|