Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Thucydides411
[edit]Procedural closure: The appeal is moot because the block that was appealed has expired. Sandstein 09:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" 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 (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Thucydides411[edit]There are four reasons why I think this sanction should be repealed:
In sum, I was blocked for editing in exactly the same manner as most editors on the page, in a manner that admins had explicitly told us was consistent with the 1RR policy. If Coffee's interpretation of 1RR (which differs from that of several other admins) is correct, it should at least be applied consistently, rather than to one editor in particular. And it should not be applied retroactively to editors who were acting in good faith, according to the interpretation of policy they had been given by admins, and who spent a considerable effort engaging civilly with other editors on the talk page.
Statement by Coffee[edit]The Arbitration Committee approved page restriction (placed by Bishonen) states that editors
Statement by SPECIFICO[edit]1. It's been amply disputed by others, and never documented by Thucydides411, that @MelanieN: stated any safe harbor or definition of DS that applies to the facts of this case. If he has concerns about the form or function of ARBAP2 sanctions, he should go to Arbcom Clarification to seek improvements after his block expires. SPECIFICO talk 02:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Further to my point (1) above, Thucydides' repeated and ongoing attempts to misattribute self-serving exemptions to several Admins is disruptive and in my opinion is on its face a further serious violation of ARBAP2. I suggest Admins consider whether Thucydides should have a more lengthy ban from this article so that he can fully consider his behavior before returning to action. SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC) @NeilN: I understand that you dissent from the consensus as of the close of the AE against Thucydides. However my understanding of these AE appeals is that they're to correct some defect or omission in the original process, not to re-open the discussion, challenge consensus at the "trial level" or relitigate the details. There are no new facts here, just remarkably obstinate repetition of the disputed meme about longstanding and Admin advice that was rejected first time around. SPECIFICO talk 04:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC) @NeilN: Thanks for your reply, but isn't that about relitigating the original decision rather than ruling on some error or omission of process that would cause the decision to be reversed? I mean, the Admins came to a decision with all the diverse views on the table at the time of the block. Did you feel that your dissenting view was not treated appropriately among the Admins? I understand there may always be a minority opinion in any adjudication, but unless the process itself was flawed, the consensus, taking account of all views, should stand. SPECIFICO talk 04:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC) On the one hand we have the facts -- Thucydides documented to have violated DS, behaved disruptively, and ignored demonstrated consensus against him on talk. On the other hand we have his Special Defense: "No fair!" -- The weight of the evidence in this matter says "appeal denied." SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Awilley, thank you for the work you did to provide that timeline. It shows us that the disputed content was never in the article for more than 9 days before being disputed by revert. It further shows many editors recognizing its BLP violation and duly removing it. I don't believe that 9 days is considered "longstanding" and I don't believe that a BLP violation should ever be reinstated. Even if an editor had doubted all the others who were pointing out the BLP violation, any editor with that doubt could have sought advice by going to BLPN before reinserting that content. Awilley, in light of the 9 day "longstanding" disconnect, please reconsider your conclusion. Instead we saw attacks on the good faith of half a dozen editors who recognized the smear -- published in an opinion piece in a second-tier US newspaper. You may find it helpful to do a similar analysis of the article talk page, where a clear consensus identified the text as a BLP violation glibly referring to misrepresentation by a living person -- a public servant, no less, whose responsibility entails handling sensitive information for the US. SPECIFICO talk 14:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC) @Awilley: Thanks for your reply. I think the argument Thucydides was using to pursue his appeal, now moot, referred to content that stayed in the article uninterrupted for 4-6 weeks or whatever. Once it is challenged by reversion, it should not go back in. Therefore the fact that Mr. T et al participated in an edit war, never letting the reverted content stay out of the article, does not relate to the requirement of T's theory, namely that it had been stable consensus version for a long period of time. The point is that the first reinstatement occurred after the content had been in the article for 9 days. How does that relate to any advice any Admin gave about "longstanding" in the sense of weeks or months? What happened after T's reinstatement violation is sauce on the pudding, but the pudding was baked after he reinstated the 9-day longstanding. As to BLP UNDUE, SPS and other defects in the content -- yes it had all those problems and the fact that the edit warriors continued to reinstate it after all of those were raised on talk suggests, if anything, that T's block should be lengthened, not commuted. The BLP problem is that the Op-Ed and the WP text were written as if to refer to a fact about Clapper, when in fact the authors were asserting an opinion, and not one suitable for repetition without explicit discussion as an opinion. And becuase of the weak and UNDUE nature of the opinion, that kind of treatment would also have been a BLP violation. But yes, you're right that they should not have been edit-warring this stuff back in regardless of the BLP issue. SPECIFICO talk 02:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC) @NeilN: Thank you for your comment on Awilley's evidence. Given that Thucydides' claim of "longstanding" is invalid, what exemption would apply to his repeated reinsertion of that content given a) the BLP violation (which he could have addressed by seeking support for his view at BLPN) and b) the demonstrated talk page arguments against the content by several editors who presented policy-based reasons including PRIMARY and UNDUE? SPECIFICO talk 04:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Steve Quinn[edit]Admins look for patterns where an editor might be thwarting polices or editing into articles without consensus. In this case, the material was challenged based on content polices by a half dozen productive editors, including me:
Thucydides411 was actually undoing any edits by some of the above editors in a short amount of time. No consensus had appeared for these edits:
This is what Admin Coffee and Admin EdJohnston were able to discern. Also, Thucydides411's talk page comments demonstrate their disregard for lack of consensus and policy based arguments: His "longstanding" argument does not hold against the assertion of content policy questions. Rather than engage in discussions about how to properly deal with the material under discussion, or about removal of policy violations, he bangs the "longstanding" gong. Also, there were not enough editors on that agreed with Thucydides411 to say there was a consensus. I will let the other diffs speak for themselves. Coffee's decision is accurate. Thucydides411 "reinstated edits that had been challenged without obtaining consensus first." Also, he was doing this while discussions were ongoing. As an aside, the discussions are still ongoing. Steve Quinn (talk)
Statement by JFG (involved)[edit]Thucydides411 was acting in good faith, based on DS guidance from admins NeilN [14] and Awilley[15], while opposing editors argued that no material should be restored after a deletion is challenged by reversion. This misunderstanding spawned no less than three AE cases (Steve Quinn vs Guccisamsclub, JFG vs SPECIFICO and Steve Quinn vs Thucydides411), plus a fourth case that I refrained from raising against Geogene (see my statement in the Thucydides case above). Sanctions are meant to be preventive, and in order to prevent further disputes along these lines, all editors need official guidance to clarify whether NeilN and Awilley's interpretation of DS wording — We really need strong admin guidance on whether removing longstanding text is a challengeable edit or whether only text additions are challengeable (which would imho be an unbalanced restriction). Thucydides has demonstrated on his talk page that he is ready to abide by the rules, as long as the rules are clear, therefore I deem the block punitive. — JFG talk 08:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Statement by NeilN[edit]A couple things here. First, the article is not under WP:1RR but under a special form of WP:1RR, imposed by JFG on December 30, 2016. The wording, "Changes against established consensus without prior discussion can be reverted on sight and such reverts are not limited by WP:1RR restrictions" makes clear the difference and so my conversation last August with MelanieN does not apply to the current situation. Thucydides411, given this, can you please supply a diff where Coffee says Melanie and I are incorrect in our interpretation of 1RR? Second, JFG's modification to 1RR for this article appears nowhere in the talk page guidance detailing editing restrictions. As I alluded to before, I have a lot of sympathy for editors trying to follow the rules in good faith, with all the ill-advised terminology (e.g., "firm consensus") and inconsistent instructions appearing on the article's pages. --NeilN talk to me 16:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Apologies JFG. Sometimes these articles just melt together. I am copying below what I just posted to Thucydides411's talk page and adding some more thoughts I expressed elsewhere. There are two separate editing restrictions in place for that article, both independent of each other.
Any edit means any edit, whether addition of new material, the tweaking of long-standing existing material, or the removal of long-standing existing material. The meaning of "long-standing" changes from article to article. As with Donald Trump, I would take it to mean 4-6 weeks for this article. One this challenge has happened, no editor should be re-doing the addition/tweaking/deletion without obtaining consensus.
This is the more prosaic WP:1RR. It is somewhat superfluous given the above, but is useful to stop individual editors from edit warring over new material. Scenario:
It can also work out this way:
WP:1RR is there to tell you that even if the "consensus required" restriction is violated, Editor B still can't edit war. It also keeps things under control if there's a dispute about what is "long-standing". A challengeable edit can be an addition, modification of long-standing material, or removal or long-standing material. I think the term "edit" you used, from the restriction, is a clear indication of this. Arbcom did not use the more explicit and narrow "addition" and on Wikipedia, editing by no means refers to only adding material. The restriction is supposed to stabilize articles and removal of long-standing content can easily be seen as destabilizing. --NeilN talk to me 01:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Darouet[edit]Thucydides411 has been blocked by Coffee, for challenging, via reversion, edits deleting comments by Pierre Sprey, William Binney and Ray McGovern. Their commentary had been present in the article at least a month prior to efforts to remove them ([16]). Diff Sequence[edit]
There are 5 instances in which editors have "restored edits challenged by reversion: edits #3, 12, 14, 17 and 21 (SPECIFICO, Volunteer Marek, Only in Death, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and Geogene). There are 8 instances in which further reversions continued after the five D/S violations list above: edits #4-5, 13-18 (Thucydides411, MelbourneStar, Guccisamsclub, Only in Death). Admin response[edit]On 4-5 February BlueSalix and Volunteer Marek made substantial, contested edits to the article, reverted by MelanieN ([40], [41]). On Talk, MelanieN explained that "edit"≠"text." That is, deleting article text may be an "edit" that can be "challenged," and that trying to delete a second time could therefore be a D/S violation ([42]). This interpretation is consistent with the D/S text and with earlier commentary from NeilN (1, 2). Sandstein closed the first case against SPECIFICO, explaining, In the case against Thucydides, EdJohnston stated, Coffee stated that because Thucydides411's edits (#11 and #18) did not have consensus, he should be blocked, explaining : NeilN strongly suggests all 1RR are violations [48]. In response, Coffee repeats that without "consensus," the "established version" holds: In response to all this, Sandstein states, Look at that stack of 21 diffs, and read MelanieN's, NeilN's, and Coffee's commentaries on D/S restrictions. No matter how you interpret them, edits #3, 12, 14, 17 and 21 (SPECIFICO, Volunteer Marek, Only in Death, Space4Time3Continuum2x, and Geogene) are D/S violations. Under NeilN's 1RR interpretation edits #4-5, 13-18 (Thucydides411, MelbourneStar, Guccisamsclub, Only in Death) are also D/S violations. Many of us have pointed out how absurd this situation is. There is no way to interpret policy such that Thucydides411 merits a block, but seven other editors don't, and five of them much more so. -Darouet (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Geogene[edit]NeilN, please explain how you arbitrary "longstanding" concept is not WP:FAITACCOMPLI. I think that when you say longstanding you really are just assuming that text in question was once backed by consensus. But consensus is a moving target; text that doesn't have it shouldn't belong in the article. Any reading of this DS that implies otherwise is at odds with community consensus and therefore void. Geogene (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Statement by involved admin MelanieN[edit]I've been out of town for 2 weeks on a family emergency, and I came back to find that my name has often been invoked in this discussion. This is because, on that article's talk page, I explained the DS guidelines as they had been explained to me at my talk page by more experienced administrators. link 1, link 2 (It says something sad about the DS guidelines that I, a 10-year editor and 2-year administrator, didn't understand them and was seeking clarification.) The guideline I expounded was that an "edit" under the meaning of the DS could include a removal of longstanding material, so that restoring such a removal was a permissible challenge to it. That made sense to me, because I have seen people game the system by deleting anything they don't like and daring others to restore it; it doesn't seem right to have the guidelines stacked in favor of the deleters like that. I have not followed the incident that led to Theucydides getting blocked, but it appears he was trying to follow the guidelines as I explained them. I am distressed that he wound up blocked for doing in good faith what he had been told was all right, especially since numerous other people including myself did the same thing without consequences. I personally acted on that same understanding, at that same page, when I restored two deletions that I interpreted as "removals of longstanding material" which could be challenged by reversion. (One of my reverts was of a mass deletion of sourced material by Volunteer Marek [54], and the other was of a clearly POINTy removal of a mass of material by BlueSalix.[55]) I cited my own understanding of the guidelines at the talk page when I restored those two removals, adding that "if an admin thinks that was a violation on my part, you know where to find me." [56] No one approached me or chided me about those two reverts, which were done in the same spirit as the revert by Theucydides. Shouldn't I have been banned or blocked also? Should I block myself? As I said, I am distressed that no-one has done anything about what seems to me to be an obvious miscarriage of justice here. And I think it is clear that the guidelines can be interpreted in more than one way, and may need to be clarified by ArbCom. --MelanieN (talk) 05:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Thucydides411[edit]Comment by Mr Ernie[edit]Per admin Sandstein's comment below "I find the restriction at issue (too) difficult to understand and apply," the block should be overturned. The administrators responsible for the restriction should refactor and simplify it, and someone should create WP:KAFKA. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@User:NeilN thank you for being a voice of reason here. Now please move forward with the unblock. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Analysis by Awilley[edit]Having been pinged towards this appeal several times, I took a couple of hours today to dig into the edit war that seems to be at the heart of this. I'd like to report my findings, with the disclaimer that this is a complex dispute and I have not been able to read all of the relevant talk page posts. I have attempted to track the disputed content from time it was introduced to the article to the edit war that led to Thucydides441's block. For those who care about such things, I consider myself uninvolved.
Result of the appeal by Thucydides411[edit]
|
JFG
[edit]Content dispute, no action taken. Sandstein 09:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC) |
---|
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 JFG[edit]
On WP:ACDS, the section entitled "Guidance for editors", it says: Within the area of conflict, editors are expected to edit carefully and constructively, to not disrupt the encyclopedia, and to:
None found
Discussion concerning JFG[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by JFG[edit]This is a simple content dispute.
Although it pains me to contemplate retorsion, I would suggest admins to consider a WP:Boomerang temporary TBAN for Steve Quinn who has now started 3 unproductive AE cases in short succession against various editors on the same page:
I consider this series reflects at best a serious misunderstanding of editor conduct standards, at worst an abuse of the DS litigation process. — JFG talk 04:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Guccisamsclub[edit]Litigation by inertia? Sanctions have been lifted. Only 1RR is in place. PS: SPECIFICO's diffs show no violation of 1RR by JFG. I think SPECIFICO deserves to be blocked for making false statements about users in an attempt to get them blocked. This happened to me as well. Guccisamsclub (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by SPECIFICO[edit]There is an additional bright-line 1 RR Violation here: @My very best wishes: makes a very salient point here. Why do a group of editors on this one article claim that the "no reinstatement" sanction is an unmitigated disaster, impossible to understand, unfair, not enforced, etc. etc., and yet we see no problems with it elsewhere. And there's a corollary: Why is it that the editors who see this unique problem all happen to be insistently editing to insinuate doubts, ranging from minority to fringe, about the mainstream conclusions and the overwhelming preponderance of mainstream RS reporting about the subject? How odd that editors with a certain POV all think that the DS as posted by @Bishonen: was unintelligible impossible to observe, while miraculously any number of editors trying to add RS content to the article were able to stay far away from the bright line in Bishonen's DS? These are the mysteries of the night. SPECIFICO talk 00:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Mr Ernie[edit]No. No violation. This is getting ridiculous. Stop bringing this crap to AE. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Geogene[edit]Diffs so far seem to show JFG using DS as an excuse to revert content removal by others without attempting to justify the content on its own merits. If another user is making a good faith effort to justify an edit-including the removal of content-you must make your own good faith effort to answer those arguments before reverting. Failure to do so, including by changing the subject (crying DS) is edit warring. DS exist to prevent that sort of bad behavior, not to justify it. Geogene (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by My very best wishes[edit]JFG violated editing restriction on the page when the restriction still was in effect [63]. As clarified by Bishonen above, he did not revoke his restriction *retroactively* [64]. In addition, JFG also violated 1RR rule on the page. Based on comments by JFG, he violated this editing restriction willingly [65],[66]. This is wrong. Yes, I can agree with JFG that the restriction is not very helpful. But as long as such restriction remains, it must be respected and enforced. At the very least, one should clarify here if the edit by JFG was in fact a violation of the editing restriction. If this question can not be clarified, then such restriction should be removed from all pages because it means that the restriction is not really enforceable and only leads to unnecessary conflicts and AE reports. My very best wishes (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Darouet[edit]Can we please wait a few days before ruling on this case? I'd like to comment but these AE requests have been so frequent it is impossible to keep up. -Darouet (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Thucydides411[edit]Another content dispute being dragged into AE? Can't Steve Quinn just discuss on the talk page, rather than trying to get editors they disagree with sanctioned? There's a normal Bold/Revert/Discuss process going on at Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Suggestions. Reading through that discussion, it looks like JFG is genuinely open to finding a compromise with the other editors involved (JFG's comments here). Rather than threatening AE against JFG, Steve Quinn should be on the talk page working through the content dispute with JFG and others. Please, let's have some sense. This case should be closed down without further ado, and everyone should be admonished to stop bringing their content disputes to AE. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning JFG[edit]
|
CatapultTalks
[edit]CatapultTalks (talk · contribs) is hereby banned, for 3 months, from editing any and all pages regarding post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 CatapultTalks[edit]
Starting with most recent
Previous: On Immigration policy of Donald Trump - This page is under a 1RR restriction due to discretionary sanctions of which CatapultTalks has been made aware
Depending on how you count it that's either three or two 1RR violations. On Executive Order 13769 - This page is under a 1RR restriction due to discretionary sanctions of which CatapultTalks has been made aware
This is at least four 1RR violations and pretty close to a straight up 3RR violation On Social policy of Donald Trump - This page is under a 1RR restriction due to discretionary sanctions of which CatapultTalks has been made aware
Then
So that's a few more 1RR violations and a 3RR violation. In addition to the persistent edit warring several of these edits violate the discretionary sanction which states: " All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." Several of CatapultTalks' edits have been challenged by several users via reversion, yet he persists in restoring his preferred version without much discussion, much less bothering to get consensus. See this previous 3RR report which was closed with "Report_should_be_made_at_WP:AE.2C_which_is_the_appropriate_forum_for_any_Discretionary_Sanctions_violations" (personally disagree, violating 3RR and 1RR is violating 3RR and 1RR, discretionary sanctions or not, but here it is) [91]
I think I really bent over backwards with this user. Here is the first notification. Here is the second notification. Here is the third and formal notification by User:Coffee. Here is the fourth notification. And here is one last ditch attempt to try and get the user to listen and actually make a pretense at observing the discretionary sanctions restrictions: Fifth notification. Pretty much the response the whole time has been "I'm right, you're wrong, take it to the talk page" (of course CatapultTalks didn't bother taking anything to the talk page themselves) Note that CatapultTalks' reply here sort of encapsulates the problem - he violates 1RR, 3RR and other discretionary sanctions and when you bring that up to him he tries to argue about how his edits were legit (on his own talk page, rarely on article page) and refuses to stop edit warring. I mean, discussion is good, but if you break the rules that everyone is suppose to abide by, people will get frustrated (especially after he's been notified, what, six times?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Isn't Mr.Ernie's comment below itself sanctionable, per WP:ASPERSIONS? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC) For the first three diffs in the "Starting most recent" section, the diffs are there and just those three are sanctionable. I will try to dig out the diffs for the older reverts tomorrow.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning CatapultTalks[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by CatapultTalks[edit]First, I strongly object to the allegations that I don't bother taking anything to the talk page. Here are examples where I started discussions on talk pages. You would notice that in some instances I agreed based on inputs from other editors that my initial edit could be wrong and we arrived at consensus. On Immigration policy of the Donald Trump administration: [92], [93], [94], [95] On Social policy of the Donald Trump administration: [96], [97], [98] On Executive Order 13769: [99], [100], [101] Here's why VolunteerMarek's allegations about my edits are wrong: Starting with most recent per VolunteerMarek's statement above
On Social policy of the Donald Trump administration:
On Immigration policy of Donald Trump:
To me, this looks like VolunteerMarek is reverting my sourced good faith edits just because they don't like the edits or that it wouldn't promote a certain narrative. Please note that none of these edits are vandal attempts or unsourced POVs. So there is no justification in reverting my edits without a good reason - especially given that I'm very open to discussion on talk pages. CatapultTalks (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Follow-up comment: I request administrators commenting/acting on this to please note that this problem has compounded because of VolunteerMarek's continuous disruptive reverts of my good edits. It is almost like VolunteerMarek is setting me up for failure, by reverting without basis and then asking me to go get consensus. I implore you to relook at the kind of reverts we are talking about. Especially this [115], this [116] and this [117]. Also note that I've had fewer problems with other editors in gaining consensus because they have participated in talk page discussions - something that VolunteerMarek hasn't done. I want to reiterate that I do respect the policies, processes of Wikipedia, but it is the bad discretion displayed by VolunteerMarek in reverting my good edits that I don't respect.CatapultTalks (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Mr Ernie[edit]
Statement by SPECIFICO[edit]
Statement by James J. Lambden[edit]@Sandstein: The archives indicate Mr Ernie is correct to claim Volunteer Marek has brought a number of editors with "opposing political viewpoint[s]" to this board. To be precise: 7 (now 8) since August of last year, more than any editor in the same period under ARBAP2: 8/2/2016, 10/8/2016, 10/27/2016, 11/21/2016, 11/25/2016, 12/21/2016, 12/26/2016 WP:ASPERSIONS cautions against claims without evidence or in inappropriate forums. This appears to be neither. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning CatapultTalks[edit]
|
Joe1w
[edit]User has been blocked indefinitely as a sock per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Petey Parrot. Bishonen | talk 22:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC). |
---|
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 Joe1w[edit]
User repeatedly adds BLP violations to politicians' pages. Appears to repeatedly add bowel-related and other gross health details about politicians. Another note: this user likes to put non-English edit summaries for some reason. User was blocked by Bbb23 indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Petey Parrot
Discussion concerning Joe1w[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Joe1w[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Joe1w[edit]
|
The Rambling Man
[edit]The Rambling Man is blocked for a month. Sandstein 21:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
|
---|
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 The Rambling Man[edit]
The Rambling Man has continued insulting and belittling other editors since the last AE thread last December, where he was warned that "continuing to use unnecessarily harsh language is likely to result in being blocked."
Discussion concerning The Rambling Man[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by The Rambling Man[edit]Driveby comment by Iridescent[edit]Given that the most recent diff of TRM being "belittling" was in reply to someone else saying "fuck you" to him, I think you can probably cut him some slack for that one. ‑ Iridescent 21:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning The Rambling Man[edit]
I note that The Rambling Man has declined to comment here, by removing the notification diff with the comment "from an admin who routinely abuses his position, this is nothing of interest to me I'm afraid. Focus on admins telling editors to "FUCK OFF" instead". In my view, the request establishes clearly that The Rambling Man has continued the conduct from which they were prohibited, i.e., "insulting and/or belittling other editors", and even their reaction to this AE request constitutes a violation of this prohibition. Per the remedy at issue, if "The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy." According to that policy, administrators must consider "the severity of the behavior; [and] whether the user has engaged in that behavior before." I conclude that the number of violations established in the evidence, together with the warning in the last AE request and the reaction to this request, establishes a pattern of recurring violations and amounts to a severe violation of the prohibition. Accordingly, to effectively deter The Rambling Man from continuing with this conduct, I am blocking them for a month. Sandstein 21:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
Volunteer Marek
[edit]No violation. --NeilN talk to me 02:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC) |
---|
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 Volunteer Marek[edit]
Even though they are separated by only a minute, reverts A3 and A4 cannot be considered a single revert, because they address totally different parts of the article, with the two reverted edits absolutely unrelated to each other. A couple days ago, I notified VM of another DS violation on his talk page:
I didn't want to make a fuss about it as I assumed he simply didn't pay attention. However he turned the accusation against me and alluded to collusion or socking by other editors that I never heard of; this is a pattern of behaviour which is not conducive to civil and peaceful editing.
Block log shows a suspension on 28 March 2016 for personal attacks or harassment + a solid list of older offenses. VM was the target of several AE cases in 2016, where many commenters pointed out his recurring battleground behaviour; however no technical grounds for sanctions were found.
VM has participated in numerous AE cases concerning the ARPAPDS system, been the target of several cases and launched a few against others. He was alerted about DS four times, with the latest notice being posted on 13 December 2016.
@NorthBySouthBaranof: Wouldn't your interpretation be open to gaming the system? An editor who wishes to undo several recent changes to an article, possibly by several editors and in distinct sections, could simply group all such reverts into a single edit and avoid the 1RR restriction? — JFG talk 02:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof[edit]I don't think the filing user's statement is correct, and this is not a violation. As the policy states, Statement by Darouet[edit]I don't think this is a violation - these edits were consecutive - and while the article has been contentious, I don't think Marek has behaved egregiously, or worse than others. I'll note that if this is a violation, my own edit yesterday - a single edit that undid multiple actions of others - was also a violation. JFG imho you should withdraw this request. -Darouet (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Volunteer Marek[edit]
|