Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive264
GlassBones
edit| GlassBones is blocked indefinitely (as a normal admin action) for breach of topic ban. --RexxS (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2020 (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 GlassBonesedit
I think GlassBones either doesn't accept the topic ban (which is pretty much what he says on his Talk page), or he is so determined to continue his feuds, most notably with Snooganssnoogans) that this overrides whatever deterrent effect it might have. I suspect that nothing short of a lengthy block will stop this. Awilley and Bishonen may also have a view on this. Guy (help!) 20:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning GlassBoneseditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GlassBoneseditI edited the article about Fox News - a news organization - not any article about post-1932 US politics. I also did not insert or remove any political language. Further, I see nothing in the article's editing message warning about it being protected as a US political article. I don't understand how this could be construed as violating the topic ban regarding post-1932 US politics.GlassBones (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I continue to have an issue with the double standard that has been applied to me compared to other editors who are allowed to run roughshod over Wikipedia with their edit warring, incivility such as undoing without comment or with flippant insulting answers like "nonsense" or "conspiracy theory" or "fringe", harassment of other editors, and battleground behavior when it comes to making sure their POV is reflected in all articles they edit. One minor point - I have no clue what the "sock" comment about me means, but if that was intended to be an insult then it was for naught. Wikipedia is a fantastic resource for articles about history, physics, chemistry, biology, sports, geography, and a plethora of other topics. The one glaring area where Wikipedia falls short is in articles about US politics, which have a decidedly liberal bias that sadly is apparently just fine with the folks who run Wikipedia. In any event, if I am allowed to continue editing I can certainly stay even further away from US politics and just edit other articles. GlassBones (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)editResult concerning GlassBonesedit
|
Race and intelligence
edit| Consensus here is against unanimously implementing an IP ban. Continue to deal with issues on a case by case basis, and feel free to try to renegotiate this in the community forum. Regards, ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:46, 23 March 2020 (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 Race and intelligenceedit
At Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Exclude IP accounts and the result of Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Dispute_resolution diff there seems to be some strong arguments made that this area should not be subject to IP editing for fear of sockpuppetry and its attendant abuses. Some commentary indicated that "community input" was needed, but as these pages are under DS, I request an administrator to step in and force the issue. Allowing IP editing on the talkpage is entirely disruptive and is additionally causing issues with respect to measuring consensus and being able to track history as one particular user is using a dynamic IP that changes essentially constantly. Previous requests to semi-protect the page were rebuffed at WP:RfPP since it was beyond their remit. I believe that judicious application of this remedy here via WP:AE would help in these disputes. It might also help to apply it to additional related pages, but I'll leave that to others to propose in due time. jps (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: I don't think the special contributions method works very well. It seems to me that there are a lot of false positives in this list of edits: [2] I feel like I'm in a catch-22 situation here where the admins are annoyed because I'm not providing a lot of evidence, but I'm having a hard time finding a way to actually collect the evidence. We're talking about an article under discretionary sanctions so if this isn't avoiding WP:SCRUTINY, what is it? jps (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Okay, so it looks like a lot of admins, with the possible exception of @RegentsPark: are coalescing around the idea of asking for a clarification from arbcomm. I wonder if arbcom might be open to making a decision by simple motion? Question for the admins: is there any debate here about whether WP:DS gives WP:AE the remit to do things like semi-protect talkpages? My interpretation was that this is in line with what standard discretionary sanctions are supposed to entail, but reading the admin discussion makes me wonder whether there is some confusion about this. On the other hand, maybe y'all are just too tired with the conflict and want arbcomm to step in and do some housecleaning? My basic point is, I think it best if an admin who thinks arbitration is needed would be the one to pose the problem to them because I am still unclear what exactly y'all think about this. Is it that you feel your hands are tied or is it that you don't have the necessary information to move forward? jps (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
[3].
Discussion concerning Race and intelligenceeditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Mr rnddudeeditThis is forum-shopping. There is insufficient support for ejecting IP editors from being able to comment on Talk:Race and intelligence, and IP editors are already restricted from being able to edit the article. JPS's proposal failed to gain adequate traction. Wikipedia is not a dictatorship, we do not need autocratic measures. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by Levivich (R&I)editIvanvector just closed Talk:Race and intelligence#Exclude IP accounts as no consensus. No comment on whether this should be an AE thing or an RFC or what, but I think it's worth noting, on the numbers, that proposal looks like it went 10 opposed, 9 support. But of the opposes, two editors are now TBANed and/or indef'd, 2 are IPs, 2 are non-EC SPA accounts, and 4 are registered EC accounts. Discount non-EC !votes and it's 9 - 4 in support. (I didn't !vote but I would have supported it.) I think there is already consensus to semi-protect the talk page. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Talk:Race and intelligence#Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Race and intelligence (esp. the close) are recent examples. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC) @Ivanvector and El C: I'm sorry but Special:Contributions/2600:1004:b140::/44 does not capture all recent IP contribs. For example, that range omits the following IP addresses, each of which have edited Talk:Race and intelligence, or the dispute resolution page I linked to above, and/or some other related page (like Heiner Rindermann), within the last two weeks:
At the DR request, 2600:1012:B042:1ED6:89E2:C68C:38B:3A8 stated that they were a different editor than 99.48.35.129 or 2600:1004:B166:536E:8800:9BF8:FCBA:FABB. That was three days ago, and 2600:1012's only contribs are to the DR page. I have no idea how many people these IPs are. Does anyone? How do we have a discussion like this? I'm not sure what AE can do, but the problem is definitely a real problem. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 30/500 protection would help. Just look at all the SPAs (I just tagged them) at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#RfC on race and intelligence. Same thing with the DR request–new IPs just popping up to join that conversation? This is like IPA, not just the article, but the whole topic area should be 30/500. Also, an editor who cannot use cookies would not be able to log in to JSTOR, Gale, PubMed, or any other website on the web, so that begs the question, if you can't register an account because your device doesn't support cookies (and what kind of device doesn't support cookies?), then you can't read any of the sources, either, unless you have print copies of all of them, and if you can't read the sources, then how can you participate in discussions about the sources? Also, what kind of device doesn't support cookies but supports PDFs? I'm not really buying this claim. Anyway, 30/500 helps IPA, it'll help here, too. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by Dlthewaveedit
Statement by SMcCandlisheditI agree with Levivich's analysis. This is a WP:FALSECONSENSUS situation (more precisely, a false failure to come to consensus). As a long-term though very intermittent patroller of this and related "race" articles, I know from long experience that the majority of input from anons there is not constructive and that their unconstructive input is frequent. I mean seriously 100 archive pages? The amount of editorial time wasted on trolls and socks and meat is probably the reason the article is in such not-exactly-FA-material shape. When sockpuppeteers are forced to create new accounts to do what they do, it's much easier to patrol them (if a new account's first edit is to run to this article and make posts that say the same things as the last 10 socks of Mikemikev that we blocked, we have a tidy WP:DUCK situation). If an anon who insists on remaining one is dead certain there's a policy/sourcing issue to raise about this article, they can do so at the appropriate WP:Noticeboard, which will also have sufficient uninvolved watchlisters to address the matter if legitimate, or get a disruptive socker blocked all the more quickly. But that article's talk page (very recent attention notwithstanding) is a backwater playground for trolling sockpuppets and has been for years. That's not what article talk pages are for. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by SirfurboyeditHaving been summoned by In actu (talk · contribs)'s ping, I must confess I am confused by: "I would like a firm argument as to why we haven't reached the point for the AE admins to file a request for a second review of the original case on WP:ARCA." What was the original case we are referring to? I don't think it was anything I was involved in unless you are referring to the AfD. As I am here though, El_C (talk · contribs) says: "I think (any) :2600 IPs should be seen as a single individual in the context of this topic area." 2600::/16 is about half of the ARIN IPv6 address space![4], and in this case conflates at least two editors. The recent IP editors to this or related pages are:
Sprayitchyo is a problem, and SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) makes a good case about past issues from other IP trolls, but let's be clear that we can identify "2600:1004:b1::/40" from the others, and the actual number of IP editors on this article at this time is at most 5 and almost entirely just the one editor. We cannot selectively allow one IP editor so the community must decide whether the loss of edits from one editor who has acted in good faith is acceptable in pursuing closing down of other IP socking issues. I make no !vote on that. I said before I would not take a side on this issue, and I will not do so now. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by Robert McClenoneditI will respond on behalf of DRN. We haven't had a position of coordinator for more than a year, and I cannot recall Nihlus ever actually mediating a dispute anyway. I closed a dispute request by an unregistered editor, concerning Race and Intelligence, for various reasons, including that at least two editors said that they did not think that DRN was in order, as well as that it is more difficult to conduct dispute resolution with an unregistered editor whose IP address changes. There are at least two unregistered editors in Race and intelligence, one using various IPv6 addresses in the 2600.1004.* range, and one using IPv4 addresses in either the 99.* range or the 73.* range. Also, I think that there was conflation of Dispute Resolution, which is a policy and a general process, and the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, which is a specific forum for carrying out the process. Some of the administrators here at Arbitration Enforcement said that the parties should be using Dispute Resolution rather than dragging their disputes to a conduct forum. I think that 2600.1004 thought that they had been told to go to DRN, which is only one of the forums for dispute resolution. DRN is voluntary. All of the dispute resolution processes are voluntary, except for Request for Comments, which has the advantage that it is binding. I would prefer to work with editors who have names and so whose handles do not change. However, if there is a dispute where editors and administrators agree that DRN involving one or more unregistered editors with dynamic IP addresses in blocks is the best way to resolve the dispute, I am willing to act as the mediator, at least if I have an administrator backing me up, that is, ready to intervene so that intervention is not necessary. User:Ivanvector? User:RegentsPark? User:Sirfurboy? Do at least two editors have a content dispute where they agree that moderated dispute resolution at DRN is the best way to resolve the dispute? Are they willing to abide by the usual rules? Or is this not really about DRN after all? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Recommendation by Robert McClenoneditMultiple attempts to resolve this dispute by the community and by the administrators at Arbitration Enforcement have been unsuccessful. I concur with the recommendation that the Arbitration Committee needs to be asked to open a full case. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by PaleoNeonateedit
Levivich seems right about the closure of the RFC that should probably be reviewed. —PaleoNeonate – 23:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by NihluseditI am not sure why my name was brought up by Robert McClenon alongside an unnecessary and erroneous attack on my performance. The DRN removed the coordinator role long ago; although I would say the role should return as it is seemingly a mess at the current moment. I have no comments on this case as I am not familiar with its history. Nihlus 14:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)editResult concerning Race and intelligenceedit
|
SunCrow
edit| SunCrow blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing as a normal admin action. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:12, 22 March 2020 (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 SunCrowedit
SunCrow is an active participant at talk:Unplanned, arguing from a hard-line anti-abortion POV. There is ongoing discussion of SunCrow's desire to change the statement noting that abortion in the US is safer than childbirth, to the status of assertion. There is no consensus for this change, but SunCrow has now made the change on at least five separate occasions. The content has a piped link to abortion in the United States, which includes, inter alia, the following:
References
In rebuttal to this, SunCrow states ([8]): So: SunCrow is repeatedly changing the documented medical fact, backed in the linked article by MEDRS, to a personal POV that is not backed by any RS but instead based on personal philosophy, and doing so despite knowing that there is no consensus for this change. In fact according to this revert by Symmachus Auxiliarus, Redux: SunCrow's personal opinion of abortion and those who perform it is driving content edits against consensus, and this is disruptive. Guy (help!) 12:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SunCroweditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SunCroweditGuy's request for enforcement is deeply misleading.
I brought my concerns to the talk page (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unplanned/Archive 3#Safety_issue) in an effort to build consensus. The issue is that an assertion that abortion is safer than childbirth can only be considered accurate if one assumes that the safety of the fetus is not part of the equation. To be clear, my goal was not to remove the sentence, but only to edit it so that the contention it includes is made in the speaker's voice and not in the encyclopedia's voice. I proposed four (4) different solutions, each of which has been rejected.
Guy's assertion that I have "repeatedly changing the documented medical fact, backed in the linked article by MEDRS, to a personal POV that is not backed by any RS but instead based on personal philosophy, and doing so despite knowing that there is no consensus for this change" is--with the exception of the part about no consensus--false. The disputed sentence does not contain a medical fact. Also, I am not attempting to push a POV, but to make the encyclopedia neutral and balanced in a topic area that is highly charged and controversial. While I have pushed hard to edit this particular sentence and I acknowledge there is no current consensus to change it, the edit I am attempting to make is correct and in line with WP:NPOV. The encyclopedia should not take a position on the abortion issue, and the current version of the disputed sentence does exactly that. My attempts to gain consensus should be taken into account as well.
Statement by Doug WellereditMy few experiences with SunCrow have been bad. Two years ago SunCrow changed the lead for the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood [9] I did some work on the section concerning a major statement it made, and then added one sentence to the lead (which at that point made no attempt to summarise the article).[10] SunCrow reverted my attempt to start improving the lead and add some balance[11] with the edit summary "removed material from lede that is adequately addressed below and is not notable enough to be placed in the lede". Not only is it obvious that we'd have barely no lead if it didn't contain material well addressed in the body of the article, the text was about the organisation's Nashville Statement which is clearly notable, read its article. I ran into him recently at Alan Sears where they removed a comment on a book by Sears[12] with the edit summary "remove POV material sourced to advocacy organization website", ie the SPLC. SunCrow objected at Talk:Alan Sears#Citation to SPLC Website arguing that the SPLC is " an advocacy group whose ideology is diametrically opposed to that of ADF (the organization Sears founded). I removed the material sourced to that website, but Doug Weller reinstated the material. I don't see this as a close call. The SPLC website isn't a reliable source for this page." I pointed out that we can use such groups so long as they are attributed and that they could raise this at RSN (where as we know its been discussed always with the same result, we can use it attributed). That was in January. On March 9th SunCrow removed text attributed to the SPLC[13] from David Barton (author) with the edit summary "not notable or reliable", whatever that meant, which I later restored. They used the same "notability' argument when removing a statement that Barton lectures at Glen Beck's Book University, "source does not establish notability".[14] Their edits on all three of these articles were basically whitewashing - not every edit, some were probably justified, but that was the basic result, and they seem to have a serious problem with understanding what sort of sources we can use and the concept of "notability". Or in a nutshell, pov editing with specious rationales. Any topic ban should be wider than just abortion. Doug Weller talk 20:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)editResult concerning SunCrowedit
|
JIJJRG
edit| The user has been CU-blocked, the filer has been indeffed as well, and the administrators who commented were not really impressed by the request. I formally close without action--Ymblanter (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2020 (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 JIJJRGedit
JIJJRG JIJJRG
Please block access of user JIJJRG to Pat Day page - he wars and vandalizes all of my additions which are factual and deeply researched and properly cited from the Associated Press, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, ESPN and other Wikipedia pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Day&action=history; Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pat_Day#WP%3AUNDUE_criticism_in_lead_and_%22Technique%22_section; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pat_Day#WP%3AUNDUE_criticism_in_lead_and_%22Technique%22_section*Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Day&action=history; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
Discussion concerning USERNAMEeditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by USERNAMEeditStatement by (username)editResult concerning JIJJRGedit
|
Fowler&fowler
edit| No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Fowler&fowleredit
As an example of disruptive editing, Wikipedia's guideline includes Ownership of Content, which states:
After the "legalistic point" made below by Johnbod, who is not an administrator, that 2020 Delhi riots is not an "India-Pakistan" article, I offered at his user talk page to withdraw my complaint immediately if he could demonstrate that Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement is the wrong forum. I explained that administrator El C on 27 March 2020 advised Fowler&fowler and me: So please let me reiterate my offer accordingly. If an administrator assures me that I have filed in the wrong forum, I shall withdraw my enforcement request immediately, with apologies to everyone who has weighed in here, and especially to Fowler&fowler. NedFausa (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Fowler&fowlereditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Fowler&fowleredit
Statement by (slatersteven)editI have thought Fowler&fowler has been overly aggressive in that discussion, but then he is not alone. Its produced as lot of heated discussion. An example might be this [[19]]. I assume they mean the statement about "drive by" which is not really much of an insult. I also note the page is now under special DS. This is a case of 6 of one half a dozen of the other.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC) I think a warning might be in order for the filer.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by SN54129edit
Statement by SerChevalerieeditBeing one of the first contributors to the article (aside from retired user DBigXRay), I vouch for what is referred to as "Fowler&fowler's lead" to have introduced a great deal of quality to the article. His changes came about slowly and surely but had the effect of introducing a NPOV that even the multiple disruptors cannot break through. The article is still far to go from being perfect, but F&f's approach to building a good lead and then constructing a body around it is working slowly. Regarding his Talk page comments, I agree that they come off as being egotistical but in my personal experience he has offered reason when I have asked him to. I hardly think that this calls for AE. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by AnachronisteditIn my view, F&F has done good work, but the way he goes about it is disruptive and a source of conflict. I have advised him of alternate established approaches to modifying the lead section, which have fallen on deaf ears; he seems incapable of operating outside of his chosen mode, and appears to feel that guidelines (such as WP:LEAD and WP:MOS) can be freely disregarded. The article on 2020 Delhi riots now has a lead that is well written and well sourced but contains far too much detail for a lead, is too long, and doesn't serve as an overview (and there's already an "Overview" section that would work as a lead)... and the article is likely to remain in that confusing state for a long time. As to sanctions, I don't see what remedies would be appropriate, but I also don't want to see this editor continue being disruptive while going about making much-needed improvements. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by Lingzhi2editI've read the ten points listed above which are intended to describe F&F's allegedly punishable actions. I see little above a mild-to-moderate level of crankiness. After taking into account the emotionally-charged nature of the topic and the added charge that comes from the fact that it is very recent, I see nothing strange or unusual here. [Note that I have argued with F&F in the past too, at times sharply, and at times at a level approaching bitterness on my part.] I think someone should buy F&F a nice cup of tea and ask him to take a walk and get some fresh air. Above I see that the filer has only been on Wikipedia for 3 months, is that correct? Then we should be patient with him/her too, sit him/her down and explain the realities of Wikipedia and the nature of arbitration. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by Johnbodedit
Doug WellereditDisappointing because this is an inappropriate use of AE. There's nothing sanctionable here. Yes, as has been said, F&F can be a bit impatient/short, but I've been watching this area and it's too often a disruptive mess. I'm still not sure about the filer as I haven't examined their edits in detail, but they are on thin ice here. Doug Weller talk 14:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by RegentsParkeditI'm not sure what the filer is trying to achieve with this complaint. This particular article has been plagued by waves of POV editors attempting to skew the article toward what appears to be an untenable POV. There has been off-wiki collaboration and a wikipedia editor has been doxed and harrased in RL in the process. Some level of acerbity is likely in a highly charged situation such as this one and I don't see fowler's acerbity at anywhere near sanctionable levels. Going through NedFausa's list, I barely see anything at all. Statements such as "Nickel and dimeing sentence fragments" are hardly bothersome (and might even be justified with requests like this one). Fowler appears to have done an great job getting the lead into shape, several admins (including myself) have suggested that editors leave the lead alone and focus on getting the body into shape but, apparently, the lead is way too magnetizing. I'm trying to assume good faith (and, in fairness, I've skimmed NedFausa's edits and cannot see any evidence that places them in the off-wiki collaboration camp), but this focus on the lead concerns me because it gives the appearance of trying to use minor edits as an entry point for getting a more non-neutral POV slant into the article. --regentspark (comment) 16:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)editResult concerning Fowler&fowleredit
|
GizzyCatBella
edit| Warning issued. El_C 17:12, 6 April 2020 (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 GizzyCatBellaedit
Discussion concerning GizzyCatBellaeditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GizzyCatBellaedit
Okay, enough is enough! This is an extremely ill-intended report - a continuation of block shopping attempts [84], followed by disgusting insinuations of antisemitism and support of a permanently banned user Icewhiz and his possible sock accounts. This bad-faith report should be dismissed and BOOMERANGED. I will additionally inform ARBCOM about this. Francois Robere has been hounding me and trying to get me blocked ever since the conclusion of the Icewhiz arbitration case (evidence to follow) Let me address the main accusations first: (none of the three diffs provided violate the topic ban)
Now the additional comments of Francois Robere:
In addition in 3 FR claims "I've checked all of the sources so marked (including one marked "OR" that was mentioned earlier), and all of them pan out". This is not true and it’s not clear why we should take his word for it. If the info is in fact in the sources he can make the argument on the talk page rather than come to WP:AE and try to get another editor sanction. The truth is that most of this content is indeed undue or not in the source, as has been noted by several editors. Francois Robere padded the report with multiple diffs in his “additional comments” section to create a false appearance of some kind of malfeasance. He knows these diffs are not violations else he would include them in his “violation” section. And these are indeed ridiculous. For example, there’s nothing wrong with noting that a Soviet communist was a Soviet communist [98].It’s also worth noting that this is again reverting edits by
I'm very upset with dishonest, disgusting insinuations of me being an Anti-Semite and continuation of the WP:HOUNDING Francois Robere has engaged in ever since the conclusion of the Icewhiz arbitration case and would like to see it fully stoped NOW.GizzyCatBella🍁 23:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Please take some time in reviewing my topic ban appeal that I’ll be posting here shortly. Thanks again for your time and great administrative work which is not easy, really apreciated.GizzyCatBella🍁 11:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Could somebody please look deeper into this whole thing. Thank you. GizzyCatBella🍁 23:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Background can be found here:[106] GizzyCatBella🍁 23:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Statement by PiotruseditI concur with User:RexxS that the most applicable action is a warning to be more careful and a note that BANREVERT does not overrule a topic ban. Neither of the three topics is obviously related to Poland and WWII history, and I am rather concerned that good faith is nowhere to be found in this report. The one that's according to RexxS "most connected" to Poland, Alfred Rosenberg, doesn't even mention Poland outside a footnote. Yes, he governed some conquered EE territories, including part of Poland, for a while, but it is not common knowledge (I am quite interested in this topic area and I've never heard of him), and if one is reverting some vandalism and doesn't read an article carefully, it is a an easy fact to miss. We should assume good faith. GCG's edits were not concerned with anything connected with Polish WWII history. If the removed picture was related to this topic, yes, there would be a cause for concern. But it wasn't, and neither is this a biography one of a person significant in Polish history. I think a good rule of thumb for such cases is to check the lead of an article. If the lead doesn't seem to mention topics related to an edit ban, we should not expect the editor to read the entire article, to see if an unrelated edit might (such as adding or removing a picture that has no violation to the topic ban) be a borderline topic ban violation because of some minute fact mentioned somewhere deep in the article. The other two diffs are even further removed from this, how many degrees of separation one needs for something to even be borderline? That someone was born in Poland in WWII makes his or her article fall within a topic ban? C'mon. Neither is Latvian Legion related, it was about as involved in Polish WWII history as Greek partisans (which had a few Polish volunteers, you can always find a connection), US or UK armies (which did air drops in Poland and were war time allies), or the issue of Polish-Japanese relations (which to my surprise was actually subject to a study within WWII context: [108]), or the article about the continent of Europe itself. Sure, if you try to find a connection, you always will, for almost any edit ("Give me the man, there'll be a paragraph for him" [109]). Let's focus on the intention of the topic ban, which was to prevent GCB from editing topics related to Poland and WWII: she hasn't. No problems here - outside of the bad faith in the report itself. I am also concerned with the fact that the user making the report (FR) has not been editing the topic area much in the last few months, nor interacting with the editor reported (GCB). This report comes 'out of the blue', as the topics related to Poland, Polish-Jewish history and World War II have been peaceful for the last few months (no edit warring, protections, AE reports, prolonged content disputes of any kind, all "hotspots" have gone quiet), which can IMHO be easily explained as they become problematic only when the now-indef banned User:Icewhiz (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-10-31/In the media for context) became active in them around 2016/2017. Since his emergency ArbCom ban few months ago (for off wiki harassment and other misdoings) this area has been very quiet, just like for the years prior. So how come FR, not active in related topic areas, is reporting GCB, who seem to be doing a relatively good job not violating her topic ban? It seems rather strange for someone not active in the same topic areas as another editor, nor interacting with him, to nonetheless monitor his activities, log borderline diffs and file an AE. How come he didn't politely ask GCB to self-revert and be more careful, encouraging AGF and mending fences? I explicitly asked him to try to discuss things first with others before going to AE few months ago (User_talk:François_Robere#WP:BRD) and I sad my advice was apparently ignored. I see no desire to 'build the encyclopedia' in this report, only a sad intention to resurrect a smoldering WP:BATTLEGROUND. In fact, I don't even think this fits FR's personality, and I have a suspicion that this is an AE based on diffs and filled on behalf of the indef-banned Icewhiz, who tried socking few months ago (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz); the socks where caught in wide range blocks, but apparently they are still active here, monitoring their "enemies", and reaching out "from the wiki grave" with a desire to revenge. (PS. For what it is worth, I have came to the same MEATPUPPET conclusion before reading GCB's statement; I didn't want to color my analysis by reading the defendant point - yet we arrived at the same conclusion.) The best thing we can do is try to rebuild our pre-battleground, collegial atmosphere from before Icewhiz poisoned it, not try to resurrect it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by LepricavarkeditThis is too much of a 'gotcha' report for my liking. The filer doesn't seem to have presented the full story regarding the first diff and the other two are not unambiguous violations. Before we do anything further, somebody should ask GizzyCatBella to substantiate their accusations regarding Icewhiz and Francois. I'm not saying that Gizzy is right, but in the light of the questionable nature of this report and the well-informed testimony of Piotrus, this bears further investigation before any action is taken. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by MyMoloboaccounteditIn regards to the comments above I can confirm that Icewhiz has been stalking GizzyCatBella's edits on off-wikipedia forum. As the forum is involved in revealing real life personas of users I am hesitant to provide link here but I can send a copy to the Admins(I am not a member, but it can be read by guests). Unfortunately there is possibility here of FR acting here on behalf of perma-banned user. In regards to FR behaviour I concur that the editor has been engaging in questionable behaviour including avoiding discussion with other users and simply going to WP:AE asking for immediate ban instead of following attempts to discuss, acting confrontational towards these who were targeted by Icewhiz in the past;his ongoing snipes at my personal contributed to my decision to withdraw from Wikipedia and led me to even openly ask him to stop posting on my page[110], which was subsequently ignored [111] and requested him to stop harassing me on Wikipedia[112].If it would be confirmed as highly likely that FR edited on behalf of Icewhiz would it fall under proxing rules [113]] ? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Levivichedit@Awilley: Please rephrase
Statement by SarahSVeditFrançois Robere mentioned the recent newspaper article about Wikipedia in Gazeta Wyborcza by the Polish-Canadian historian Jan Grabowski. It's behind a paywall, so in case anyone wants to read it, please see the archived copy and Google Translate. SarahSV (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)editResult concerning GizzyCatBellaedit
|
SPECIFICO
edit| SPECIFICO is given a logged warning as follows: SPECIFICO is reminded that talk pages are for discussing article content, not contributors, and warned that continuing to make personal comments about other editors on article talk pages may result in sanctions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphimblade (talk • contribs) 06:09, 9 April 2020 (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 SPECIFICOedit
Sanctions requested but declined or warning issued instead:
Wherever this editor goes, conflict seems to follow. I do not bring this AE lightly, as I regard my own personal threshold is higher than what may be required by policy. I have only begun to interact with/observe SPECIFICO recently, and was quite astonished at the routine and pervasive bullying he/she engages in. What primarily motivates me are the off-wiki messages I received from editors heretofore unknown to me who thanked me for putting SPECIFICO on notice and described how SPECIFICO's repeated attacks have caused them to stop editing pages they are active on. Only afterwards did I realize that their user talk page archives are littered with civility warnings to which SPECIFICO responded with yet more caustic incivility. If ever there were a quintessential example of a person who is not here to build an encyclopedia and is instead interested in POV railroading and disruptive editing that has long flown under the radar, it is SPECIFICO. I am sad to say he/she is a perpetual bully; plain and simple. Update: for those who find these diffs innocuous, I invite them to more thoroughly examine SPECIFICO's contributions and talk pages and ask whether their contributions are productive or create a more toxic and intimidating atmosphere on articles that are already plagued by negativity.
Discussion concerning SPECIFICOeditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SPECIFICOeditAwilley's comment appears to be more in the vein of an involved editor citing evidence rather than an Admin evaluating this complaint and discussion. At any rate, most of Awilley's diffs are taken out of contexts that would show his concent is rather overstated. I'm not going to reply to these diffs case by case, but I think that taken together with what he advocates, they are rather misleading. That's unfortunate. SPECIFICO talk 01:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC) Respectfully, Admins, I object to the idea of a logged warning. Statement by NorthBySouthBaranofeditEssentially all of the claimed diffs are either not remotely uncivil, or are not diffs by SPECIFICO at all. For example, this March 21 diff, the sum total of which is Another March 21 diff, which states This April 1 diff - Another 30 March diff - The 28 March diff - The 24 March diff is actually by the filing party, and includes a whole host of posts by a whole host of editors... I'm guessing the filing party screwed something up? This is a naked attempt to throw a bunch of nothingburger diffs at the wall and hope that an admin just sees "oh hey lots of diffs, sanction time." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by ValjeaneditI second the concerns raised by NorthBySouthBaranof. The diffs often ignore context. Telling tendentious editors, whose edits and comments are opposed by numerous editors, to find a different topic to edit, where their edits will not be opposed, is perfectly reasonable. (That diff has now been removed.) This one jumped right out at me because it's directly false:
"Stop editing"??? No, since the comment by admin Ergo Sum was not constructive, SPECIFICO suggested they "not comment further". Nothing about "stop editing". I'm sure that editing is okay, and comments that are constructive are also welcome. There was also an implied "get better informed before commenting" in the comment, which is good advice. Similar for this one:
Nothing about "stop editing" there, but rather some good advice. This is a dubious filing. An admin should have better things to do than get irritated so easily. Is this worth a trout boomerang? -- Valjean (talk) 06:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by MrXeditNot a single one these diffs presented by Ergo Sum depict incivility or harassment as commonly understood on Wikipedia. In fact, most of them are evidence of amazing restraint on SPECIFICO's part against an onslaught of incomprehensible comments, fallacious arguments, POV pushing WP:SPAs, sock puppets, gaslighting, rehashing, and conspiracy theorizing by users, many of whom are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Importantly, Arbcom gave examples of actual incivility at WP:ARBAPDS#MONGO. The SPECIFICO diffs bear no resemblance to the nasty comments in these examples. The only action needed here is the administration of a trout for Ergo Sum and a suggestion that he recalibrate his civility radar to be considerably less sensitive. As an admin, perhaps Ergo Sum can do something about users filling discussions pages with with garbage talk causing annoyance and disruption of actual article improvement. - MrX 🖋 12:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by MONGOeditIn a previous effort to rein in some of SPECIFICO's disruptive battlefield behavior, in August 2018 Administrator AWilley imposed several specialized American Politics 2 discretionary sanctions designed to allow SPECIFICO to continue contributing in the topic area but under a more strict set of behavioral standards as discussed here SPECIFICO was not pleased about these sanctions but they were at that time supported by admins Bishonen and Drmies. The sanctions were set to last one year, but perhaps somewhat angered SPECIFICO almost immediately ceased editing for 6 months, not returning until March 2019. Those sanctions were not applied just in the heat of the moment but after a long series of discussions and warnings that went unheeded, some of which can be seen in SPECIFICOs talkpage discussion just by scrolling up from that link I provided. Has there been any improvement since that self imposed 6 month sabbatical? None I can see:
--MONGO (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Doubt a logged warning over an editor previously sanctioned in same arena will do much more then embolden behavior as already seen in there terse response above.--MONGO (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by Objective3000editI am concerned by the filer’s comment: Threaded discussion is not permitted at AE and has been removed. If any editors would like to reinstate what you said in your own section, please feel free to do so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by Mr ErnieeditI've been on the receiving end of SPECIFICO's rhetorical skills a few times now, and I usually never look back on those experiences fondly. It seems the sanctions by user:Awilley were effective. It is frustrating that no uninvolved administrators have weighed in yet - you can probably guess which way the involved editors commenting would lean before you read their statements - so it would be good to have neutral 3rd party review. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Statement by LepricavarkeditSome of the diffs provided by Ergo Sum and MONGO demonstrate that Specifico sometimes engages in battleground behavior. Perhaps a warning will be sufficient, but the contents of Specifico's sole response in this thread do not inspire confidence. When editors express concerns with one's behavior, it is better to take those concerns on board and seek to improve rather than trying to discredit the messenger. It is important that they refrain from personalizing disputes and that they make more of an effort to understand the viewpoints of those they are conversing with. I am specifically thinking of this diff, in which Specifico used the word "unintelligible" to describe a comment that is perfectly understandable if one takes the time to read it carefully. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Buffsedit
To be blunt/direct, I don't see it that way. These are contentious issues with strong feelings on both sides. People on both sides are attempting to wield policy as a sledgehammer to crush those who oppose their viewpoint. Putting a warning here for SPECIFICO only will further encourage such behavior. If a warning goes to SPECIFICO, WP:Boomerang should apply to the submitter as well. Most (if not all) of the evidence is VERY underwhelming and their effects immensely overstated. I concur that this was a "let's throw everything we can against the wall and see if it sticks in order to shut down an opposing viewpoint" attempt...that should not be overlooked. Buffs (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Statement by JzGeditSPECIFICO is guilty of occasional rhetorical exuberance. This is a not unnatural response to some pretty obstructive behaviour by others. Several of those diffs identify the other party's behaviour as clearly problematic, but, to be fair, in the current climate, conservative editors on Wikipedia are likely to feel distinctly embattled, because in current politics pretty much everything the GOP does is met with near-universal condemnation in the mainstream press, and near total support in the right wing media bubble, and the two are increasingly isolated from each other. We are probably going to have to find a way to deal with this soon. Guy (help!) 22:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)editResult concerning SPECIFICOedit
|