Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive253
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Roscelese
[edit]| Declined as a reasonable sanction. --regentspark (comment) 17:02, 13 June 2019 (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 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 (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Roscelese[edit]Copied from User talk:Roscelese#June 2019 by MrClog (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC): Statement by Sandstein[edit]This appeal should be declined. For example, here are two non-consecutive reverts by Roscelese on the same day, June 10: [2], [3]. Roscelese did not discuss these reverts, or any other of her reverts of that day, on the talk page, as she is required to. Even after repeated blocks, Roscelese continues to ignore her restriction, as seen in the sanctions log. Sandstein 18:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Roscelese[edit]Result of the appeal by Roscelese[edit]
|
CharlesShirley
[edit]| CharlesShirley is reminded about civility, but otherwise closing as no action. El_C 17:04, 18 June 2019 (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 CharlesShirley[edit]
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 01:11, 3 February 2019 by Awilley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
None of the supplied diffs would require a sanction if they were an isolated incident. The problem here is, though, that the diffs show a pattern of refusing to discuss the contents of Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, instead wanting to force their version of the page through, despite my attempts (like here and my message on their talk page inviting them to discuss the matter) to start a civil conversation on the talk page. Instead, the user makes Wikipedia a battleground, making uncivil comments and personal attacks, and all this whilst being previously topic banned for similar offenses in the same area (post-1932 American politics). A general post-1932 American politics, broadly construed, topic ban may be necessary, but I will leave that up to the administrators.
Discussion concerning CharlesShirley[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 CharlesShirley[edit]I have simply chosen to stop working on the article Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt. I have decided to take a break from this article, to de-escalate the conflict and to remove myself from the negative attacks on me from other editors. This whole arbitration/request/enforcement action is an attempt to goad me into debating with these other editors and inflame tensions more. These two editors will simply not leave me alone and who apparently will not let me withdraw from working on the FTB v Hyatt article. This whole process makes no sense to me because I have decided to take a break from the article and to simply walk away from the conflict. I would hope that whomever the admin or arbitrator of this process would respect that decision.--CharlesShirley (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Statement by PaleoNeonate[edit]I noticed this AE entry so may as well comment. I recently warned this editor about offensive edit summaries (which they of course reverted with a similar edit summary - Special:Diff/901538297, Special:Diff/901540049). This gave me the impression that there is an important interaction problem. However, when looking at the talk page history, I did see a few instances of communication. The attitude could be improved, Wikipedia being a collaborative system. I will not post additional diffs for these, but the edit summaries are visible in the talk page history and user contributions. —PaleoNeonate – 08:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Acknowledging that we are not able to objectively or calmly edit a particular article/area is a good start and this may temporarily mitigate the issue if the same situation does not reproduce constantly with other articles. I noticed that before the apparent recent tension, a bot was automatically archiving posts. Perhaps that editing in less stressful areas will also as a result reduce the urge to write abrasive edit summaries. —PaleoNeonate – 19:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning CharlesShirley[edit]
|
WookieInHeat
[edit]| WookieInHeat in heat is warned, again, but otherwise, this report can be closed. El_C 17:09, 18 June 2019 (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 WookieInHeat[edit]
See El_C's warning. Their previous reversions on the same page can be seen here. In response to
Discussion concerning WookieInHeat[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 WookieInHeat[edit]My last edit to the disputed paragraph was a month ago, I received a warning (I misunderstood the WP:1RR initially) and ceased the behavior. Galobtter ignored my last reply to him on the article's talk page regarding WP:NPOV in the lede, and has not participated in that discussion in several weeks. I'm not the first editor to raise this exact issue, only to be ignored. He appears to be trying to maintain his preferred version of the article without any compromise or consensus, by simply ignoring those he disagrees with and hoping they'll go away, while relying on the 1RR restriction to prevent any changes. WookieInHeat (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: the edit you linked to is regarding Vice as a WP:RS in relation to political topics as per WP:RSP, which is a separate issue from the WP:NPOV of the lede with its own discussion on the talk page. And yes I understand the complaint, I was just trying to keep my reply concise. I mentioned my edit a month ago to highlight that I'm not trying to edit disruptively. I ceased what I thought to be the offending behavior and waited patiently for a response from Galobtter, whom ignored the conversation for weeks only to instantly come running to file for AE when I made the edit again. From my perspective it seems the WP:1RR is being gamed. WookieInHeat (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC) Statement by Doug Weller[edit]@Sandstein: I'm not involved in this dispute but am involved at Talk:Antifa where he's also arguing against a consensus, one that has been unchanged for over a year, so I'm only here to say that Lord Roem hasn't edited for a week. This shouldn't be ignored because he's not around and I hope you agree that his presence isn't required. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning WookieInHeat[edit]
|
Arglebargle79
[edit]| No action. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2019 (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 Arglebargle79[edit]
The above evidence shows a pattern of disregarding community consensus, which is disruptive, no matter the topic area.
Done.[8] Discussion concerning Arglebargle79[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 Arglebargle79[edit]Okay, let's start out with one of the so-called "warnings", shall we? if you notice almost all the reversions and attempted deletions have been gratuitous, unnecessary, and have almost always been reversed. The quickest ones that come to mind are: France's only Vice President, the Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff, 2019 Japanese imperial transition and territorial presidential caucuses from the last election cycle. This doesn't show that I"m disruptive, this just shows that young wannabee "cyber cops" like to assert some power. I have no problems with someone coming and improving my work, rather quite the opposite. Now, as to the current situation. What is going on is completely bogus. Yes, I'm a bit of a fan of creating stubs. Stubs are necessary. For example, the de la Meurthe article, which was called for deletion because the one and only Vice president of France wasn't notable, is one of these. There are lots of these and it's part of what Wikipedia is for. So it was with the 2020 Democratic candidate and Debate articles. AS to the latter, The article was created last December along with the "candidates" page. Election articles are fluid and need revision constantly. If you take a look, the December 2015 revision of the 2016 United States presidential election article looks absolutely nothing like the current version. Same thing with the subsidiary articles. Setting up a requisite number of stubs somewhat early in order to get everything right when the time comes is, in my opinion, a good idea, we have the templates finished and we could start popping info in. Easy peasy. But did they? No. A few people (six, in fact), decided to have a "consensus" without informing me or anyone else about it. Having noticed that the two articles were suddenly gone, I complained. There was no consensus. When a few people said it might be a nice idea to revive the "candidates" (actually if you look at the talk page conversation the people who requested it didn't know there was one) because the article was becoming too unwieldy. I left a note saying that since this was the case if there were no objections in the next three days, I'd revive the article. There were none, and so I did it, and then a couple of days later, WHAM!!!!! They were deleted again, saying that there was a "consensus" last December. I vociferously objected. Therefore the two alleged "violations" were justified and therefore not violations at all. Now as to Mélencron's starting an edit war with me there's a difference. Mélencron generally reverts everything I do whether it's necessary or not (and it usually isn't). I reflexively revert his reversions. His reversions of my trying to note who has been invited to the debates and who haven't are the disruptive stuff. It is necessary to inform the reader the basic info on the assumption that the reader is not going to move to another page unless he or she actually WANTS to. When it's easy to add more information in an unintrusive way, like adding an "*" to a name, then we should do so. Keeping the information from readers is always bad. IN other words: it wasn't I being disruptive, it was Mélencron... and finally, I'd like to quote this explanation of a revision of my stuff: David O. Johnson contribs 170,133 bytes +1 Undid revision 902165738 by Arglebargle79 (talk) we don't have to go by what the DNC says" In my opinion, it's better if we do when they make the rules. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Mélencron[edit]I'm not able to currently comment extensively on this and I will come back to this later, but in general I intend to echo JFG's comments about a long-term pattern of disruption, combative editing, and WP:CIR issues with the user in question which has remained unchanged over the years. Mélencron (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Arglebargle79[edit]
|
63.141.56.198
[edit]| Wrong venue. Try WP:AN3. |
|---|
| 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 63.141.56.198[edit]
Given that multiple others have reverted this edit, it definitely qualifies as a challenged edit and thus should not be reinstated without first finding consensus on the talk page.
Not Applicable
Editor's account appears new, with only edits the last few hours. However, editing this article requires first viewing a banner noting the discretionary sanctions, so it is highly likely they are aware of them. In my revert comment, though I did not mention the sanctions directly, I did state, "At this point any disagreement should find consensus in the talk page before removal"
With regard to the edit itself, the editor violating sanctions incorrectly points to an inaccurate description of the article's content in the opening section as justification for removal of the content. That description notes that "refugee camps" are to be excluded from the article. However, the content in question is about concentration camps that happen to hold refugees, not "refugee camps." There are other examples of concentration camps that happen to hold refugees in other parts of the article. See List of concentration and internment camps#Australia, Canada: Internment of Jewish Refugees, Denmark: After World War II, Finland: WWII, France: Spanish Republicans, India: World War II, Netherlands. (I have never submitted one of these requests for enforcement before, so apologies if this is inappropriate and unnecessary information.)
Discussion concerning 63.141.56.198[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 63.141.56.198[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning 63.141.56.198[edit]
|
Eric Corbett
[edit]| The consensus is clearly that no action should be taken. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:54, 22 June 2019 (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 Eric Corbett[edit]
This seems awfully cut and dry. (Non-administrator comment) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC) Are we really going to say things like this? ..Really? I am just in utter disbelief right now. Is there even a point in responding to that remark? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Eric Corbett[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 Eric Corbett[edit]I have not even the slightest interest in the outcome of this case, but I would just like to correct something. I did not express contempt for anything, despite what the over-zealous filer may claim, I merely stated my opinion that I couldn't care less about it. And I will add my observation that against the backdrop of the recent over-reach of power by the WMF to suppress the unwelcome opinions of one particular editor, to suppress the unwelcome opinions of yet another seems like a dangerous option. Eric Corbett 21:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC) Statement by Pppery[edit]@Iridescent: It doesn't matter whether he's Statement by Promethean[edit]Don't participate in the RFA process except for voting and asking the candidate questions; That was the ruling of the Arbitration committee, and they even went so far to explicitly name the sections Eric is allowed to participate in; The comments section is deliberately omitted from that list. Would suggest at the very least removing the comments and a authoritative reminder to the user concerned so as to ensure WP:ARBCOM's ruling is properly enforced. «l|Promethean|l» (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC) @NYB: That is a matter for an amendment, which Eric is more than entitled to raise with AC if he wishes. Perhaps that can be the compromise; No action taken, but Eric clarifies with AC if comments is in or out for next time. Right now it's out, and to assume it's in is an indulgent interpretation that isn't what's on paper. «l|Promethean|l» (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC) Just putting this here: [11] Statement by TonyBallioni[edit]Considering he was initially replying to me, I’m not commenting in the admin section, but I don’t really care that Eric replied to me and let’s not let this turn into even more dramah that is unnecessary. If someone wants, remove the comments, but this is pretty minor. AE should not increase drama on the project when unnecessary, and I’d hardly call it necessary now. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC) Statement by Bbb23[edit]Regardless of anything else, I wish this had not been brought here. I have no interest in seeing Eric sanctioned. I don't care whether his comment is removed. I do think the comment is a violation of the ban, but I'm not going to argue with those who disagree as, uh, I don't care that much. I think Eric's response was worse than his "violation", and although not surprising, certainly not sanctionable. I will have nothing more to say here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Eric Corbett[edit]
|
Marvin 2009
[edit]| Marvin2009 has now been alerted to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBFLG. EdJohnston (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Marvin 2009[edit]
User is a single purpose account whose major edits are in the Falun Gong related articles [14], demonstrating a similar editing pattern to User:Asdfg12345 and User:HappyInGeneral who were topic banned.--PatCheng (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Marvin 2009[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 MrClog[edit]It seems to me that the awareness criteria are not met. The editor has received 1 DS notice more than 12 months ago, and the 48 hour block was not a AE block, but a regular admin action for violation of the 3RR. The editor has never participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement.[16] As such, this request should be denied. I will send a DS alert to the user now, but that's obviously too late. --MrClog (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Marvin 2009[edit]
|
Mehrajmir13
[edit]| Stale/withdrawn. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:36, 2 July 2019 (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 Mehrajmir13[edit]
This thread over his t/p contains 11 diffs of mine reverting several of Mehrajmir13's edits (with explicit edit-summaries), because the source did not support the content. After I posted that message, the user ceased editing, all of a sudden only to return a month and a half later and immediately archive his entire t/p, including the above thread! This is perceived by me as an attempt at evading scrutiny. Coupled with his usage of DYK to push POV-laden inaccurate hooks (vide here, here et al) to main page, he is a grave threat to our reputation as an encyclopedia.
I am asking for an indefinite topic ban from any article linked with "India-Pakistan conflict", broadly construed. @Clog:-The editor is free to archive their t/p but is not free to avoid queries, related to their dubious editing. In that t/p message, I explicitly mentioned that returning to editing w/o answering will lead to an AE request. I though appreciate your proposals for a boomerang; some amount of humor is always necessary.
Notified over here. Discussion concerning Mehrajmir13[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 Mehrajmir13[edit]Statement by MrClog[edit]A few notes:
--MrClog (talk) 07:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Mehrajmir13[edit]
|
Eric Corbett
[edit]| For violating his topic ban, Eric Corbett is blocked for a month. The block may be lifted, either by myself on appeal or by another administrator, if Eric Corbett explicitly and unreservedly commits to observe the topic ban in the future, such that, in the administrator's judgment, the block is no longer needed to ensure compliance with the topic ban. To be clear, this does not require Eric Corbett to agree with or like the topic ban, ArbCom, or me. It just requires him to agree to comply with the ban as long as it remains in force. Sandstein 06:46, 3 July 2019 (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 Eric Corbett[edit]
Discussion concerning Eric Corbett[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 Eric Corbett[edit]
Statement by El_C[edit]
Statement by cygnis insignis[edit]
Statement by MJL[edit]Since I filed this request, there clearly has been an escalation on the part of Eric. [17] I'll probably post a more in depth statement later, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate Dave's statement for it's raw honesty. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Montanabw[edit]Corbett has been on parole for a long time. His last block of record was in 2015. I wish he hadn't taken a swipe at WIR (of which I am a member), but I recall with gratitude his support of my RfA a number of years back, so I owe him one here. In short, yes, he made a five word crack that was out of line, should have been struck, but striking it now would probably just inflame the drama. Here, I don't see a previous violation in the relevant section on the GGTF restriction since 2015, and that the record is confusing , nor any violation since 2012 of the RfA restriction. (If I am in error, please provide the diff). Given that the GGTF decision states that a one-month block is the standard remedy, but that two previous month-long blocks handed down in 2015 were reduced to a few days at most, I suggest that the admins make this a one-week block (thus more than the 24-48 hours he actually served for his most recent blocks in 2015). I'd take his "definitely worthy of sanction" remark above at face value (even if it drips sarcasm) and not let this escalate further. Montanabw(talk) 21:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC) Comment by Leaky[edit]@Newyorkbrad: - I think you mean "Are you willing to agree not to...." Otherwise.... @Liz: Hi Liz. I'm am sure that Eric is entirely unconcerned, but I find your use of his surname to address him here as unnecessarily jarring and tbh, rather rude. I would not wish to be addressed as "caldron" Leaky caldron (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC) @MJL: This case concerns very specific issues relating to gender. In what way do the various posts you have linked on the Fram case by Eric Corbitt have a connection - however broadly construed - to gender issues? Leaky caldron (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC) @MJL: Thanks. In fact, they have zero to do with gender and therefore nothing, on the face of it, to do with the case. Leaky caldron (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC) @MJL: The reported alleged breach is not about civility. The diffs and your comment appear to suggest that civility is implicated. It isn't. Leaky caldron (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC) @Mendaliv: Eric has not disrupted RFA for years. He has a sanction which, AFAICR, he has assiduously followed. His comment at RfA was not disruptive n the sense of causing widespread chaos. Nor is this case about stopping him contributing to Framgate, or anything else for that matter. It is purely and simply to deal with an alleged breach of a 4 1/2 year old sanction relating to broadly construed gender issues. Any new sanction cannot be a coatrack to satisfy all sorts of editor wishlists. Leaky caldron (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by (TracyMcClark)[edit]Looks like Wikipedia's voting rights for "criminals" are being decided here so be aware while setting the precedent against Universal suffrage on Wikipedia.--TMCk (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC) Comment by GoodDay[edit]Wikipedia will be much better off, when we start seeing editors as being non-gendered. There's no such thing as male & female editors. There's only 'editors'. The abolishment of GGTF & other such groupings, would be best. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC) Comment by Carrite[edit]I agree with the sentiment that the timing of this (as well as the other) RFA is tantamount to strikebreaking, but that's really not the nominee's fault. I think the "poor judgment in Women in Red" comment is ill-formed, at a bare minimum, but according to terms of his probation, Corbett can not comment again to explain himself in the RFA thread. Tagging him for AE for this is completely a chickenshit line of argument, in my view. Decline. Carrite (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by Espresso Addict[edit]Tempers are running high everywhere at the moment; candidates running for RfA this week are seen by some as strike breakers. I would urge no action be taken against Eric Corbett on this occasion. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Ritchie333[edit]As this is on an RfA I started, what I'm about to say should be taken with a large dose of WP:INVOLVED. (For what it's worth, I'm not bothered about Eric voting on it, and I'm pretty sure neither Valereee or Megalibrarygirl are either). In the past, I would have said something like "aww jeez not this again", but MJL is right that if we don't sort this out, there's a risk that the WMF T&S will do it for us. With that in mind, Eric, if you want a self-requested indefinite block à la Bishonen, just respond here in the affirmative and I will do the deed, and I will try and persuade those here not to enact any formal Arbcom-enforced sanction. If anyone else thinks such an action is unacceptable, please state so. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by Nishidani[edit]I think one should look at the remark by Hans Adler on Eric's page. It goes to the heart of, if the extreme monitoring of p's and q's introduced recently, the problem of making 'civility' (operatively this means 'etiquettish fusspottery') the baseline for everything here. Most of us see dozens of edit summaries, talk page comments which can be read as snide, impatient, acerbic etc.every day. If we are to demand that some consequential grammar of neutrality take command of every editor before they comment, that opens the door to endless complaints like this (I've often considered leaving Wikipedia because I find the daily harassment no problem: it's the damned strain of trying to live up to the politically correct that is stuffing up my pleasure in vernacular thinking). Really, who gives a flying Donald Duck? Why note such trivia? Particularly in this newer climate, which promises to give massive scope for grassing any and everyone on the strength of a single diff, and where we are at risk of confirming a precedent whose status is yet to be confirmed. Auden, I think to George Plimpton, once remarked:'I think if men knew what women said to each other about them, the human race would die out.' I've never told that to either men or women without it getting a solid laugh. If Auden had written that here, you'd probably get a complaint re either gynephobic or androphobic sexism, depending on the sex of the sensitive plaintiff. Let Mrs Testy get the better of Mr.Testosterone by all means, and vice versa, but it is all unutterly tedious twitter. We're not here for that.Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Mendaliv[edit]Here’s a thought. If a block is needed let it be four hours: the amount of time between the comment and the filing of this report (1449 to 1858 UTC). Given the concern is disruption through the comment, the recognition that Eric has violated by a community member means that counteractions to any disruption were underway. Given there are no allegations of ongoing disruption from the comment, I don’t know if there’s need for anything more. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Floq[edit]Doing something because you're worried that otherwise the WMF will do it is exactly the same as just letting the WMF do it. No comment on any other aspect of this; if Eric doesn't care, I won't either. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by Nableezy[edit]Is Women in Red even part of the gender gap among Wikipedians topic? Women in Red is about the disparity in articles about men and women, not about Wikipedians. How is this even a part of the topic area? I understand that the GamerGate case has been expanded to include any discussion about editors or article subjects but I dont see where Eric's topic ban, specific to the Gender Gap Task Force and related discussions, has been expanded to include article subjects and not editors. nableezy - 20:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by Dave[edit]IMHO this should be declined, Mainly because I like the guy and feel he's a valued editor here - It's a lame reason but meh ... it's a reason nonetheless. –Davey2010Talk 20:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by MONGO[edit]So, someone wants to cite Eric for jaywalking. Come back when you have some meat to add to the potatoes....otherwise this is simply petty.--MONGO (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz[edit]So this is the level of bureaucratic idiocy we have come to. Eric Corbett may oppose an administrator candidacy for reasons related to a subject for which he has been topic banned, but may be punished for a brief, clear, and nondisruptive statement of his reasons. It would be better if ArbCom acknowledged that such a sanction is inimical to the basic principles of community decisionmaking that underlie the process for selecting administrators and declare that the sanction as originally framed was overbroad. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by Levivich[edit]Ok so I’m new around here; can someone please clue me in on what it is that’s so great that Eric does/did that gets him this walking-on-eggshells treatment from so many veterans? Is it writing FAs or is there more? Because I have a hard time understanding how he, or other “unblockables” (like Fram), can rack up a history of so many sanctions, and yet still be described as a “net positive” by so many editors. What is up with the “yeah, they’re a total a-hole, but damn can they write well!” line of thinking? Is there any consideration for how many other people are out there who can write FAs but don’t because of the non-collegial environment? Do the veterans just think those prior sanctions were unwarranted, and that’s why they’re not respected? I really don’t get why long-standing jerks are routinely coddled on this website. Appreciate anyone giving me a clue. Thanks. – Levivich 02:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Eric Corbett[edit]
|
BorchePetkovski
[edit]| Indef blocked as a normal admin action. Not an AE block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning BorchePetkovski[edit]
I was tempted to just issue a 24 hour block after MJL made me aware of the edit, but it is already 2 days old and they only appear to edit sporadically so I'm not sure if something likely to be symbolic is best? Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Discussion concerning BorchePetkovski[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 BorchePetkovski[edit]Statement by MJL {RE: BorchePetkovski}[edit]Thank you for pinging me Thryduulf. Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning BorchePetkovski[edit]
|
Cinderella157
[edit]| For a clear violation of the topic ban, a five-day block is appropriate--to be precise, one week, minus two days, since that is how long it's been without any edits to the request here. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2019 (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 Cinderella157[edit]
--K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Cinderella157[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 Cinderella157[edit]The edits are not about the Waffen-SS. They are not about the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945. This is really too long a bow to draw to construe that they are. That is my sincere belief (as I responded to KEC).[35] They are about two relatively recent events categorised as "controversies". The first being in the US, where a US congressional candidate offended people by dressing up in costume, and the second, in the UK where two (reported) neo-nazis were filmed running-off at the mouth. The ban imposed was specifically not about WW2 more broadly, as Drmies appears to be construing. There is explicitly not an interaction ban with KEC. I cannot speak to TonyBallioni's intentions (they have not been recorded) but link to this discussion.[36]. I did raise concerns regarding transparency which relate back to statements now being made. I referred to WW2 reenactment at the case request as being contradictions between KEC's actions elsewhere and what they were alleging in the subject case. TonyBallioni has identified their participation in the case. The think the same is true of Drmies. Yes, I used rollback to revert two edits which were essentially the same that had been previously reverted and for which there were comments. I forgot that there were no comments and had intended to comment that previous version (after edits by Hohum and Xx236 were of "better" weight in respect to the tag. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by TonyBallioni[edit]@Drmies and Galobtter: the wording of the topic ban that passed was written by me as an uninvolved case participant, IIRC, so commenting up here. In my view, this is a violation of the sanction. I wrote it the way it was to intentionally prevent any editing related to the Nazi-era. It was drafted with this statement in mind, where Cinderella157 had compared K.e.coffman’s work to a Nazi era atrocity. Note that historical re-enactment was also included in that statement by Cinderella157, so I’m not sure how he can’t see the connection. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]I would like to point out that in this comment on Cinderella157's talk page in March, Bishonen reminded C157 about their topic ban and its scope, and warns them that comments they made on ANI (in a discussion about me, to be perfectly clear) were a violation of that ban. Thus, C157 has received a prior warning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Cinderella157[edit]
|
Wumbolo
[edit]| Wumbolo is banned from Andy Ngo and its talk page, as well as topic banned from Andy Ngo anywhere on Wikipedia. Wumbolo is further warned that future disruption in the American Politics topic area will likely result in further sanctions, up to a topic ban from the entire WP:AP2 topic area. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2019 (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 Wumbolo[edit]
Page placed under 1RR & consensus required by ST47 here. Wumbolo claimed a WP:BLPSPS exemption for his edit removing this. The removal had been contested in the past. The material removed does not relate to a living person and thus WP:BLPSPS does not apply. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Wumbolo[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 Wumbolo[edit]I have self-reverted the edit. wumbolo ^^^ 07:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
The table contains misrepresentations of sources by NorthBySouthBaranof. (emphases in table are mine) wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC) @Dumuzid: I apologize for attacks. wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC) @Pudeo: see #9 and #10 in table. wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Snooganssnoogans was always the one misrepresenting sources. I have been consistent. wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC) @TonyBallioni: I can't respond fully because of the limit, but the table above should provide sufficient information. wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by GMG[edit]Using twitter as a third party source in an article about a living person is a BLP violation. This edit is not subject to reversion restrictions, and is fairly clearly marked as an edit made under BLP. GMGtalk 22:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by PeterTheFourth (filer)[edit]@GreenMeansGo: I don't believe WP:BLPSPS applies, as I noted in the initial request, because the material removed does not relate to a living person. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by EdChem[edit]I have commented at talk:Andy Ngo. Following from those comments, I recommend trouting both Wumbolo and Pete, and possibly also GMG for the argument above, and then closing this AE report with no action. Added: Full thread is here, including my corrected comments as it was PTF not W who started this AE. EdChem (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof[edit]Relatedly, Wumbolo is repeatedly removing reliably-sourced descriptions of the "concrete milkshake" claim as a hoax, dubious and/or false, from the Milkshaking article. They have ludicrously claimed in edit summaries, without the slightest shred of evidence, that these are Statement by Dumuzid[edit]I ran in to some of this same behavior from Wumbbolo on the Antifa talk page, specifically with regard to Mr. Ngo and milkshakes. I think this person is a good editor, but needs to find a way to be a bit less WP:POINTY. Everything did seem to be framed as Wumbolo's edits vs. terrorism. They even managed to get under my skin, and I apologize for being a bit brusque in reply. That being said, if they are willing to honestly try to assume good faith and edit in a less overtly political way, I don't think a block is necessary. Then again, I'm an old softie, and often wrong. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by cygnis insignis[edit]Both users, the reporter and reported edit aggressively and exhibit exceptional rudeness in heated to and fros. Both seem to be spoiling for a fight, not contribute positively in my experience of them, bringing it here is just part of a campaign. cygnis insignis 00:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]@TonyBallioni:: Consider this edit, made today, attempting to whitewash the article about Laura Loomer with the removal of sourced information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by Pudeo[edit]Certainly Wumbolo shouldn't be topic banned for following WP:MOS and removing those WP:CLAIMED and WP:ALLEGED the very least. I don't understand the insistence on WP:BLPCRIME or tip-toeing whether it sounds like an assault or not. It can't be BLPCRIME, for once, because no one has been appherended or even recognized from the masked, unknown protestors. And anyone can be a part of the "Antifa" network, so there's no need to tip-toe that for BLP reasons either. You don't need to secure a conviction when there are no suspects and reliable sources have reported the attack. Wumbolo was right in describing the attack accurately per sources and removing the ALLEGEDs, but he should have left the Snopes piece intact. But all these separate things were modified in the same edits. --Pudeo (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by Snooganssnoogans[edit]I don't have to time to get into this particular dispute, but I'd just like to note that this editor is problematic on all Wikipedia pages that relate to right-wing YouTube and Twitter celebrities and fads (Andy Ngo is another example). He repeatedly and often grossly misconstrues what cited sources actually say, and then edit-wars his changes into articles. Most recently, he edit-warred content not supported by the source into Ben Shapiro's article[43][44]. He also removed text that a RfC concluded should be in the Shapiro article.[45] In an attempt to get the RS noticeboard to give Ben Shapiro's website 'Daily Wire' RS status, he blatantly misrepresented how the website was covered by other news outlets[46] (and recently did the same for LifeSiteNews[47]). He also misconstrued sources on the articles for Shadow banning[48], YouTube[49], and South African farm attacks[50](where the editor was falsely claiming that RS did not report that a "white genocide" in South Africa was false[51][52]). In my opinion, this is something that should be considered a cardinal sin on Wikipedia, because it forces other Wikipedia editors to waste their time sifting through his sources, engage in discussions with him and deal with the edit-warring in good faith. It's an enormous time sink. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by PackMecEng[edit]@TonyBallioni: Wumbolo does make a good point about BMK's personal attacks here and in edit summaries. I am concerned with your dismissal of that given our communities lack of response to such things. A new AE filing is of course not needed for that given anyone that comments here can have their conduct examined as well. PackMecEng (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Wumbolo[edit]
|
JohnTopShelf
[edit]| JohnTopShelf is topic-banned indefinitely from all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. This topic-ban may be appealed after a minimum of 90 days. Anyone seeking sanctions against any other editor is directed to file a separate enforcement request. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:00, 13 July 2019 (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 JohnTopShelf[edit]
Persistent attempts to insert negative information into Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, through gaming the 1RR/24h rule (note the timings) However, forgetting they had already made another revert ...
Discussion concerning JohnTopShelf[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 JohnTopShelf[edit]It was stated that I have "skirted" the 1RR rule. Stated another way - I complied with the rule. I am not trying to "skirt rules" - I am sincerely trying to comply with Wikipedia rules, which rival the U.S. tax code for complexity. Snooganssnoogans (talk) has stated that I continue to "edit-war blatant falsehoods and unsubstantiated smears into a BLP covered by DS." That is not true. The material I inserted into the Ocasio-Cortez article regarding Pastor Rodriguez' assessment of detention facilities was true and cited to a reliable source. The statement that the Democratic Socialists of America has a long-term goal of ending capitalism is from the organization's own web site, and is also included in the Wikipedia article on the group. Characterizing this edit as a unsubstantiated smear and blatant falsehood, as Snoog did on my talk page, is absurd. I am sincerely not trying to be a jerk about these recent edits; I have been simply trying to include factual, relevant information. The real issue is that Snooganssnoogans simply reverts edits if he doesn't like the contents, even if the edits are factual and properly cited, and then accuses an editor of edit-warring if the editor attempts to re-insert the information that was reverted without a valid reason. I also don't appreciate Snooganssnoogans' abrasive statements on the article talk page, my personal talk page, or his talk page, accusing me of lying, fabricating, being illiterate, and not operating in good faith. I am not going to request any enforcement or whatever for that, even though it is warranted. Further - what happened in the past is not relevant to this matter - I was already penalized for my past transgressions. Finally, I sincerely appreciate Drmies (talk) pointing out how to state my case in this matter - Thanks! I trust this matter will be handled fairly. -JohnTopShelf (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC) One additional thing - I hesitated to mention it here before, but it is very clear that Wikipedia has a double standard when it comes to editing and enforcement. A left-leaning editor like Snooganssnoogans can revert edits simply because he doesn’t like the content, and is not sanctioned in any way. He can also say I am lying, fabricating, smearing, and more - all untrue - and do so without recourse. Somehow that is allowed, but editing the AOC article to include true, reliably sourced information is not allowed since Snoogy, the self-anointed ruler of this article, doesn’t like it. I have changed my mind, and request arbitration and enforcement against Snooganssnoogans.-JohnTopShelf (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by Bellezzasolo[edit]Just to note that this page is also under enforced BRD, which seems to have been ignored by the user in question. A topic ban does seem to be in order given the history. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by Snooganssnoogans[edit]This editor has been repeatedly warned about (1) DS, (2) edit-warring and (3) BLP violations, yet he continues to edit-war blatant falsehoods and unsubstantiated smears into a BLP covered by DS.[59] The editor was literally part of discussions where it was clearly pointed out how a group of pastors did not specifically say that AOC was misinforming the public[60], yet the editor edit-warred this falsehood back into the article.[61] The editor was also informed that a source did not substantiate that the Democratic Socialists of America "has a long-term goal of ending capitalism," yet repeatedly edit-warred that back into the article (see diffs provided by Black Kite). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by EvergreenFir[edit]Pointing out [65] ... EvergreenFir (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Pudeo[edit]Snooganssnoogans writes in his statement here that adding that DSA wants to abolish capitalism is a "falsehood". He also said that on JohnTopShelf's talkpage, and in an edit summary. In fact, the DSA does want to abolish capitalism according to reliable sources. Vox [83]: JohnTopShelf should have used a better source as it was only implicit from the one used by him, but stop accusing him of posting falsehoods. You are wrong. I suggest a warning for Snoog for calling facts supported by reliable sources "falsehoods" because he wants an editor sanctioned on AE. --Pudeo (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Comment by MONGO[edit]Unless there is further evidence of issues any ban that might be imposed should be limited to anything about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez...the bio on her etc. Seems that each block and this complaint focuses solely on the situation there.--MONGO (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC) The first set of diffs provided by EvergreenFir above are, aside from one ([87]) not specifically harmful unless they were part of a pattern of edit warring. Aside from one definitely bad example linked, they appear to be merely slight changes in wording and in some cases backed by RS. Again, all of the problematic edits are directly related to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as far as I can see.--MONGO (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC) @Awilley:...the only one in the diff you have suggested is the changing of the wording on the section on the Breitbart piece from misidentified to identified. The rest look like mostly word choices and not alarming. If you look at that diff the first blue highlighted change is merely removing the word "falsely" after the linked word Conspiracy Theory...but a conspiracy theory is by it's very definition, considered to be based on falsehoods...so what's wrong with taking out a double negative?MONGO (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC) I also take issue with Snooganssnoogans misrepresentarion of the issues mentioned by Pudeo above. Maybe JohnTopShelf could have provided better references as Pudeo has done rather than a primary one as he did and maybe he did not have consensus for that addition, but the fact is that RS clearly demonstrate the objectives of that political entity and to state that this is not the case is incorrect.--MONGO (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC) My concern is much more about protecting BLPs than the small potatoes other diffs that are relatively of small impact. It's a shame that AE has to always take the road of most destructive and draconian measures to silence people when it would be more Wikipedian to take warning a shot across the bow, topic ban him from the primary BLP in question and allow this to be the lesson for now. I will not hesitate here and now to say its immeasurably obvious that there is far more leniancy given to similar infractions by those who edit here from a left of center perspective. It pains me to say that and it's not intended as a insult but as a observation that can be easily demonstrated by a review of similar cases.--MONGO (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC) @Vanamonde93: those blocks all seem related to the editing issues this user has on Alexandria Ocasio-cortez. Eliminate their editing capacity on that BLP and maybe the problems will disappear.--MONGO (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by Objective3000[edit]JohnTopShelf: Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]Just to note the Vox article cited by Pudeo as "proof" that the DSA wants to abolish capitalism is an opinion piece representing the views of the author, a "former reporter". It is not a news piece. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC) Statement by Rusf10[edit]If JohnTopSelf has engaged in edit-warring, then so has Snooganssnoogans. [88] and [89] were done in less than a 48 hour period, so do they also violate the "spirit" of the 1RR? I think we probably could let both go, but the bigger issue here is Snooganssnoogans removal of content based on the fact he simply doesn't like the source. As per numerous discussion at WP:RSN, the community has decided that Fox News IS a reliable source. Yet, Snooganssnoogans frequently removes content simply because it has been sourced to Fox News. In the AOC article alone we have "remove rubbish source with misleading content" [90], "fox is not a rs for content related to this woman" [91]. In the talk page discussion he again asserts "This is a perfect example of why Fox News is not a RS, and how they're actively making shit up to smear AOC." [92] He then calls former ICE director Thomas Homan "not knowledgable about the issue in question" and "a partisan" without any source to back up the claim. While Fox News is his favorite target, it goes beyond this, he disparages any source that presents information that he does not like. He also called the New York Post "a bad faith actor" [93]. In other articles he called The Hill (also widely considered reliable) "non rs" [94], called Fox New a "non-rs" again [95]. It is clear to me that he goes against policy and consensus and evaluates reliability of sources simply based on whether he likes them or not.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Result concerning JohnTopShelf[edit]
|