| Questionable conduct by more than one editor, but no action taken at this time. Sandstein 22:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning SPECIFICO
Warned in
May 2016 by
Coffee,
December 2016 by
Sagecandor and
January 2017 by
Octoberwoodland.
Participated in numerous
WP:AE threads
Not only
SPECIFICO violates sanctions that he knows well, but he also neglects to self-revert when warned, ignores the arguments against his BLPVIO stance and only contributes to the ensuing editor discussion via vague innuendo against an imagined
cabal of "freaks and geeks" who are "glued to their computers 24/7" in order to "edit war BLP violations back into articles over and over". After other editors on both sides of the argument have exchanged some detailed and reasonable views, SPECIFICO comes back to say unconstructive stuff like: Admin note: Removed text exceeding 500 words. Sandstein 11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Filer's note: Removed extra material on the content dispute which I had provided in response to other editors' now-deleted statements. Reworded and shortened my further comments on the merits of the DS case vs BLPVIO claim. — JFG talk 19:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
References
Discussion concerning SPECIFICOStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SPECIFICOI want to keep this as brief and to the point as possible. I did not violate the DS on this article. The text in question constitutes an egregious BLP violation. I’m sorry to see CRYBLP mentioned here. It’s not at all applicable either to the content or to any of my behavior on WP. It’s not my bag. My view as to this BLP violation was supported by half a dozen editors on the article talk page. That doesn't happen when there's a disruptive or disingenuous CRYBLP event. On WP, I have learned that edit warring is pointless. I follow 1RR almost all the time on ‘’all’’ articles. If I see somebody undo a revert on a DS article, I ignore it or I go to their talk page and ask them to undo their error. That’s about as much as I engage with that behavior. Sometimes they thank me, sometimes they cuss. I don’t pursue it, and I don’t use such violations as an excuse to edit-war. I do cite wikilinks to policies in caps on article talk pages. I'm surprised to see that disparaged or mischaracterized as threats. I’m disappointed that JFG filed this groundless complaint, which appears to be retaliatory, coming 15 minutes after I cited some 1RR violations in Guccisamsclub’s recent case. Also, for the record, JFG states that I have initiated AE cases in the past. I have not. It’s a false and irrelevant aspersion responding to the simple question whether I know DS is in place. SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC) P.S. I just looked at the article talk page to find more disparaging personal remarks about me and OID, deflecting BLP policy principles to personal remarks at this recent edit: [2] JFG then linked to this, amazingly, on this AE page. This casts false aspersions and attributes views that neither OID nor SPECIFCO has ever voiced. It also appears to misrepresent article text as if one of us had edited it inappropriately. As the subsequent thread indicates, JFG instigated numerous misrepresentations and personal disparagement with his post. Under these circumstances, I do think it would help the editing environment if JFG were given, a TBAN from American Politics. His attacks, deflecting policy discussion to personal remarks and false aspersions have been going on for quite a while. SPECIFICO talk 02:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC) At this diff on this AE page] JFG again misrepresents me, falsely claiming that I requested a TBAN for him, when in fact I was endorsing the possibility of a boomerang mooted by one of the Admins here. SPECIFICO talk 03:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Volunteer MarekAdmin note: Statement removed because it contains no actionable evidence, in the form of dated diffs, relevant to the request. This is not a discussion forum. Sandstein 11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Thucydides411Admin note: Statement removed because it contains no actionable evidence, in the form of dated diffs, relevant to the request. This is not a discussion forum. Sandstein 11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by OIDAdmin note: Statement removed because it contains no actionable evidence, in the form of dated diffs, relevant to the request. This is not a discussion forum. Sandstein 11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
On the other hand we have JFG:
So Specifico has acted according to both policy and the sanctions and JFG clearly has not. And thats just the specific BLP issue, there is other material which has been discussed to be contentious which has also been reverted multiple times. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 12:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by GuccisamsclubAdmin note: Statement removed because it contains no actionable evidence, in the form of dated diffs, relevant to the request. This is not a discussion forum. Sandstein 11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
My list of quotes and diffs from the editor was meant to establish precisely that: a long-term pattern of nonsensical, unfocused, unsourced, fringe and inconsiderate contributions. This has been erased, due to the fact that most quotes lacked diffs. If this is really an issue here, I'd be glad to provide the diffs (which would take a couple hours to assemble given the sheer volume of contribs). Guccisamsclub ( talk) 16:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by DarouetPrior to SPECIFICO's removal the paragraph clearly couched all content in terms of Binney's and McGovern's views: SPECIFICO did not rectify the problem by simply quoting from the piece directly (as I did here), but removed it wholesale, and made no post on Talk to explain themselves. When they finally did comment, their explanation was so brief as to be incomprehensible. Contrast that with MelbourneStar's clear description of the problem, which allowed us to improve the wording.
Laser brain writes that JFG may be in breach of D/S by subtly but powerfully re-interpreting the D/S proscription: Guy: if SPECIFICO is in breach of D/S, I think the violation is trivial: realistically, it is very difficult to be certain of who is violating what when everybody is reverting. The more important issue is civility. The WP:ARBAP2 "Final Decision" states,
Now, consider this Talk comment made by SPECIFICO only yesterday, while they were simultaneously bringing an A/E request against Guccisamsclub:
At one point on Talk SPECIFICO incorrectly accused me and other editors of breaching D/S:
SPECIFICO repeated the same allegation on my talk page (as they have done several times to me and other editors, without ever, to me, providing diffs). When I responded on Talk, they extraordinarily chose to hat my comments in response to their allegations, writing absurdly, "words unrelated to article improvement." That is incredibly offensive. These kinds of behaviors are exactly what D/S are supposed to prevent. I think it would be foolish to sanction SPECIFICO for a revert when everyone is reverting, but the personal attacks and offensive behavior poison the tone of discussion and merit a strong warning. - Darouet ( talk) 15:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Statement by CaspringsThe reporter, JFG, has a history of violating 1rr to support his POV. One quick example is here. [5], [6] Casprings ( talk) 15:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Steve Quinn02:04, 14 February 2017. This was recently posted on the talk page by JFG The section title is "The alternative BLP-friendly encyclopedia according to SPECIFICO and OID". This is followed by a chart that describes sampled content in three high trafficked articles in the Amerian Politics 2 area. My interpretation is this edit is meant to be somewhat provocative, and I suppose, point out how wrong these two editors are. And an attempt to justify this edit is with WP:JDLI - which hardly supports such an edit. In fact, this type of thing is frowned upon. Here in Arbcom's GamerGate final decision under the "Battlefield conduct" section
I am not characterizing this as Battlefied behavior - far from it. However, this seems to be in pursuit of a quarrel pertaining to a statement and source no longer in the article at this time. However, what possible outcome could be expected from this? I know things get snarky, but this is not that. Talk page guidelines WP:TALK essentially say everybody should try to get along, right? In any case, I think this should be considered when evaluating whether or not a boomerang is appropriate. Statement by Space4Time3Continuum2xI didn't log in at all yesterday and only just now found found a notification that I was mentioned on this page. I don't see my name in here and I'm not sure if my comment is (still) requested. I don't have any complaint against SPECIFICO, and I usually find myself on the same side of the issues as SPECIFICO and on the opposing side of JFG. If arguments on both sides get a little "spirited" at times, it's still no reason to go running to teacher. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Result concerning SPECIFICO
|
| The user is OK with closing this, since the 24-hour topic ban has expired. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Statement by CaspringsI have been given a 24 hour sanction for this edit [8] . The block was done by User:El C here [9]. I appeal this in two regards. One, I was never made aware of the conversation to block me, which took place here. I feel that I should have at least been notified of the conversation that involved me. Moreover, I am unsure of the need to act quickly, as this was the only revert and I am unsure of the ongoing damage I was doing. Second, I think this is harsh. I reverted one edit by JFG and went to the talk page. That said, I understand the need to gain concensus and I have been working to do that, especially in this topic area. Casprings ( talk) 00:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
This is moot now because 24 hours have passed. Casprings ( talk) 15:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by El CAs I told the editor in question, there is no block. There is a 24 hour topic ban, both for Casprings ( Here) and My very best wishes ( Here) for breaching the reinstatement [of] any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page provision. Guccisamsclub was blocked ( Here) for 24 hours due to a 1RR violation. As for being unaware, I'm sorry, but as I found out myself, upon editing the article, the provision is clearly stated. Granted, it may not be that straightforward, which is why, again, at my discretion, there were no blocks issued for breaching it. But it came close. *** Basically, I felt everyone involved in the edit war needed a break from the article's subject. Return in 24 hours and carry on. El_C 02:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by (involved SPECIFICO)
This
[10] is what I understand editors currently to be following. If it has been updated at ARCA, I was unable to find the new version.
SPECIFICO
talk 04:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Steve Quinn
Statement by My very best wishesI think El_C exercised good judgement here. No objections from me. I just came back from a break and quickly made a few edits without looking carefully. My apology. All rules must be respected including 1RR and others. I do believe this editing restriction ("You...must not reinstate any challenged edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page") is unhelpful and brings more harm than good because it allows removing important and well sourced information, unless it has strong consensus for inclusion. This is frequently not the case simply because many people stay away of such pages, and there are simply not enough contributors willing to express their views on the article talk page (hence the consensus is not clear). If anyone made such restriction for all pages, that would be very harmful for the project. However, the rule must be followed as long as it remains on the page. My very best wishes ( talk) 03:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by CaspringsThe question of this particular sanction aside; it may be worth considering whether the "consensus required" and 1RR restrictions are fundamentally compatible (I believe they may not be, and that the "consensus required" alone may be preferable; 1RR is easily & often gamified); and it may worth considering whether there should be a lower limit on the duration of sanctions which can be appealed (I am ambivalent on this). - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Casprings
|
| The appeal of the 3 month block is declined. Ranze ( talk · contribs) is hereby indefinitely topic-banned from any page relating to (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found
here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by RanzePlease copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Laser linked to a decision in gamergate. All I did related to that recently was inquiring on talk:Zoe Quinn asking input if it would make sense to describe her as an activist given her site does that. Other news clarifies this as being an "anti abuse activist" or "anti harassment activist". It seems notable given being called upon to speak by the united nations to recognize that. Laser did not like the edits I made to people v. Turner and is wrongfully conflating that with gamerGate by deciding to consider it a "gender related dispute", as if sexual assault is limited to a single gender or something. I was respecting a request to voice concerns on the talk page over a disputed edit. Laser would not even allow this. I simply wanted to clarify what we knew about which specific sources made claims and the context in which they were made. This line of inquiry is called POV/agenda pushing by Laser. I do not believe those warnings or this punishment was justified. Laser is assuming bad faith simply for things like balancing an introduction by mentioning both parties were intoxicated and removing duplicated discussion about unconciousness since the witnees testimony about that followed right after. Ranze (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Laser brainNote: Ranze does not consider People v. Turner to be covered by the "gender-based controveries" topic area, from which he was topic banned for a year. During his last visit to AE, The Wordsmith and I both advised him that People v. Turner is indeed in this domain and the only reason he wasn't sanctioned is because his TB had elapsed. The content of his edits at the time wasn't really examined. This piece of background is critical if it's to be determined whether the current sanction is valid. Ranze bumped around for a while doing other things but then decided to return to editing at People v. Turner. I advised him that his edits show an agenda and that he should stay away from that topic. The following edits are of concern:
My impression is that Ranze's agenda is to soften Turner's image and marginalize the victim. He may believe he's editing neutrally but I think he's pushing a POV against the consensus established at this article. -- Laser brain (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Statement by KyohyiFirst, I think it is important to point out that three out of four of Laser brain's diff's are basically a content dispute. His comments here, his block rationale on Ranze's talk page [16], and his "warning's" [17], [18] demonstrate that his motivation for blocking Ranze was due to him disagreeing on content with Ranze's contributions. This is pretty clearly WP: INVOLVED behavior for an admin. Further, Ranze is not subject to any gender based topic ban at this time, the last topic ban expired April of 2016. [19] -- Kyohyi ( talk) 19:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (uninvolved editor MjolnirPants)This is just a quick interjection from someone uninvolved who has (probably stupidly) watchlisted this page. I looked through the edits in question and I agree that they demonstrate an agenda to minimize Turner's culpability, because the editor has made no edits to this page which had any other effect. The claim that these edits better reflected the sources does not account for the fact that we normally state uncontested claims from reliable sources in wikivoice to avoid stating facts as opinions. I'll recuse myself from sticking my nose further into this by unwatching the page, so please ping me if you have any questions or comments about my statement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Statement by CIreland@ Sandstein: You asked for it to be "made more clear how this is within the topic ban's scope" given that "The identity of the perpetrator and victim as male or female, respectively, does not seem to have been an issue in the case, nor their views on gender, or the case's impact on women or men in particular, or anything like that." I think your premise here is mistaken. Much of the coverage of People v. Turner in the press and elsewhere focused on the incident as a consequence of rape culture and our article mentions this fact. Additionally, there has been significant analysis following Turner's release of how the case reflects a normalization of violence against women and have specifically cast both the incident and the case as a gender issue. Here are some examples [20] [21] [22] [23]. I think the above is sufficient to demonstrate that Ranze's edits are within scope but there is a further point I wanted to mention: Sandstein, you seem to imply in your remarks that rape and sexual assault are not a gender issues. That is a reasonable and widely held opinion. However, there are also widely held opinions to the contrary. I think that you should weigh more cautiously this divergence of opinion on the matter and be careful not to base your decision only on your own perspective. CIreland ( talk) 19:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by PeterTheFourth@ Sandstein: In the event that you did remove Ranze's block, would you be doing so procedurally, because you believe Ranze's edits don't fall under the topic area of 'gender-related dispute or controversy', or would you be doing so because you truly believe that their actions were helpful to the goal of building an encyclopedia? PeterTheFourth ( talk) 19:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by NorthBySouthBaranofI will note that previous AE consensus determined that the Gamergate topic ban covered any articles or topics related in any substantive way to rape or sexual assault, and that I was thus prohibited from editing such articles while under that restriction. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 03:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by James J. LambdenI don't see justification for any sanction here. Whether the topic is covered by DS or not, the only disruptive behavior is one (debatably bad) revert. If that standard were applied consistently we'd have no editors left in edit American Politics or any other DS topic. The rest is down to content choices which is not a subject for AE or administrative action. James J. Lambden ( talk) 03:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by StrongjamWith regard to the discussion about whether the article falls under the DS topic. There was a previous clarification request regarding the GG sanctions and whether it applied to the Campus rape article which might be helpful. — Strongjam ( talk) 17:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by RanzeThe diffs provided by LB show no violation. Some of the edits were removing Wiki voice, such as the one where the sentence was referred to as light, is that Wiki's opinion or some people? And I do fail to see how that article should be subject to sanctions. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Ranze
|
| DrChrissy ( talk · contribs) is blocked for 1 month, per the Committee's procedure at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Enforcement of restrictions, for violating the two-way IBAN between himself and Jytdog. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning DrChrissy
Also see this
Not applicable
The report at ANI has been titled "reporting myself (and Jytdog)" for some time. It is specifically about Jytdog. It is unfathomable that posting in an ANI topic about another editor which you are banned from interacting with is not a violation of the ban. By posting there DrChrissy also precluded Jytdog from commenting in that portion of the topic. This could be seen as baiting.
Discussion concerning DrChrissyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DrChrissyStatement by TimothyjosephwoodSee also this recent thread. TimothyJosephWood 17:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My KenRegardless that the original title of the AN/I thread DrChrissy commented on was "Reporting myself", the thread was clearly about Slatersteven's interactions with Jytdog - indeed the first two words of the thread are "User:Jytdog". DrChrissy is banned from discussing Jytdog in any way, directly or indirectly, so their comments in that thread are quite clearly a violation of that ban, and it seems clear that DrChrissy is keeping a close watch on Jytdog, which is precisely the opposite of the effect an Interaction Ban is supposed to have.In the past, DrChrissy had his two topic bans (one from Arbcom, one from the community) tightened because of his tendency to poke at their borders, and received an AE block here for making a valueless report on another editor. And then there was this AN report, where DrChrissy managed to skate by without being blocked. DrChrissy does not seem capable of working within their sanctions and not exploring their boundaries. They should most certainly be blocked for their current comments, and some consideration ought to be given to whether DrChrissy is able to work under our policies at all. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 17:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Statement by Kingofaces43Again? In addition to Beyond My Ken's comments on DrChrissy's problems with following sanctions, they are just coming off their block for violating their GMO topic ban. Part of the GMO topic ban was because of the battleground behavior directed at editors by DrChrissy as well as a tendency to hound those editors on admin boards. That was especially a problem with DrChrissy and Jytdog interactions, which is why the interaction ban was added on with the topic ban. That block was supposed to be for a week, but their emails with Sandstein suggested a block was no longer needed and it was lifted early on Feb 1. That block should have indicated that kind of behavior was not ok, but now it's going on with someone DrChrissy has an actual interaction ban with. There's a such a long string of DrChrissy not abiding by their sanctions just in the GMO case and follow-up AEs (not to mention their other topic ban) that I'm quite frankly out of ideas that could help them now. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 18:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by CapeoWell, this is disappointing. It's unfortunately clear now that DrChrissy is watching anything that has to do with Jytdog like a hawk and seems to not want to drop the stick. There's this, the recent ANI report linked above where I tried to persuade DrChrissy to let it go, the recent, oddly timed emails to people Jytdog had some conflict with. It's all adding up to indicate DrChrissy is watching Jytdog's contributions, something someone under an Iban shouldn't be doing. Even jumping into KingofAces AE report above indicates they just can't let go of the results of the GMO Arb case and those editors involved. I'm not sure how to stop this from happening but it has to stop. Statement by (username)Result concerning DrChrissy
|
| Thucydides411 ( talk · contribs) is blocked for one week for violating the page restrictions in effect at 2016 United States election interference by Russia, by reinstating edits that had been challenged (via reversion) without obtaining or seeking consensus first. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Thucydides411
None
Also, keep in mind, two edits by Space Time were reverted with
Discussion concerning Thucydides411Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Thucydides411From the original complaint, it's unclear what, exactly, Steven Quinn is accusing me of. Steven Quinn writes that, I understand that working on contentious articles like 2016 United States election interference by Russia is frustrating, and can lead to a lot of bad blood, and that one side can get the impression that the other side simply isn't listening. But there are a number of editors working through the various issues raised in this complaint (and in OID's comment below) on the talk page. As can be seen in the above diffs (and in the talk page of 2016 United States election interference by Russia), I've been very involved in those discussions. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 18:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO: The interpretation of "longstanding" as referring to a length of time that a given text has been in the article comes from MelanieN's comments on the talk page ( [31]), and the discussion of 1RR that she directed us to: [32]. Specifically, NeilN referenced a timespan of 4-6 weeks for heavily edited articles: [33]. If you feel there are valid BLP concerns, you should bring them to the BLP noticeboard, as several editors have asked you to do. But you haven't gone to the BLP noticeboard, and you've responded to requests on the talk page that you clarify your concerns with personal attacks ( [34]), giving several editors the impression that you're using WP:CRYBLP to try to shield yourself from having to comply with 1RR. You should worry about WP:BOOMERANG as much as anyone here. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 19:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by OIDTimeline for Sandstein: 12 February 2017 Case against Specifico opened which includes explicitly that Specifico had removed content citing a BLP objection. 08:08 13 February 2017 Thucydides411 commented here in the previous case so was obviously aware it had been removed as BLP issue both from the article itself and that it was currently at an enforcement noticeboard. 11:32 13 February 2017 My first removal of material. (Note my removal was actually less than other editors at the article being concerned only with the BLP aspect, not the wider NPOV/UNDUE issue) 12:36 13 February 2017 You yourself noted here the removals by Specifico appeared to be good faith BLP concerns (in part). 16:52 13 February 2017 Thucydides411 reverts me, despite there being clear BLP arguments on the talkpage, this enforcement page, and in previous edit summaries on the article. So to sum up: Thucydides411 was aware at the time they were reverting there were BLP arguments as well as wider disputes over the entire section involving the Baltimore Sun opinion piece. They were also aware it had been raised here. So violating both the BLP policy as well as the discretionary sanctions on the page itself. While the above was closed with no action, Thucydides411 was still reverting *after the enforcement action had been opened* and after they were clearly aware multiple people, (including completely uninvolved editors like me) had problems with that specific material. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 13:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC) George, the article is already under a DS 1rr and the material was removed under a BLP rationale anyway. Statement by JFGAdmin note: Statement removed because it contains no new evidence in the form of diffs. Sandstein 13:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC) EdJohnston's comment of 16 February 19:11 UTC notes that Thucydides411 reverted Space4Time3Continuum2x arguing "No consensus for removal" and that Thucydides "had it backwards" because he should get a consensus for re-inserting instead. This reasoning ignores prior edits in this sequence whereby the original sourced and attributed statement, included for over a month, was first removed by SPECIFICO (BOLD) and reverted by me (REVERT), upon which SPECIFICO deleted the text again (violating DS but claiming a BLP exception) and I opened a discussion (DISCUSS). Subsequently, several editors chimed in on both sides of the central argument: deciding whether Binney's statement about Clapper's false testimony to Congress qualifies as a BLPVIO (and that discussion is not settled yet). Thucydides has been an active participant in the discussion, and accordingly should not be sanctioned for "violating the DISCUSS requirement". The unfortunate thing is that several editors also removed and restored the contentious material back and forth while the discussion was ongoing, prompting me to later open a DS/AE case that was just discussed and dismissed above. The DS behavioral question boils down to "who shot first", with Thucydides411 and others trying to enforce "return to status quo ante until consensus is obtained" per DS notice and guidance from admins NeilN [35] and Awilley [36], while SPECIFICO and others try to enforce removal of what they perceive as a BLP violation. Given lack of consensus on this question after a good week of comments and no less than three AE cases (Steve Quinn vs Guccisamsclub, JFG vs SPECIFICO and Steve Quinn vs Thucydides411), I agree with some other editors that the appropriate venue to settle the underlying dispute would be WP:BLP/N. — JFG talk 09:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC) I also would welcome official guidance to clarify whether NeilN and Awilley's interpretation of DS wording — A similar sequence just happened again:
I don't want to open a fourth AE case and we really need strong admin guidance on whether removing longstanding text is a challengeable edit or whether only text additions are challengeable (which would imho be an unbalanced restriction). — JFG talk 09:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by DarouetI'll post more after midnight UTC (am at work till then), but Steve Quinn has erased most of their complaint and left only examples of two instances of two contiguous edits.
WP:3RR clearly states, Thucydides411 has been perhaps the most active and constructive editor on the Talk Page, and consistently eschewed the bitter tone that has prevailed there: blocking in that context almost comes across like punishment of civility. It is furthermore inappropriate to treat WP:AE as a changing menu where if WP:BLP fails, WP:DS is invoked. This is especially ironic since from a purely technical perspective, Steven Quinn has themselves
by
@
Coffee: Can you be a little more specific in your reasoning? The
link you provided does not clarify why longstanding article text can be repeatedly removed without consensus, but that restoring that text violates DS. In fact it appears to state, per
Callanecc that the restriction applies to Statement by James J. Lambden@ EdJohnston: There's a difference between:
and the warning you reference:
The edit in this case - according to admins MelanieN [1] and NeilN [2] - would have been Space4Time3Continuum2x's removal of content, which Thucydides411 reverted, in line with the policy. Was the intent of the language to prohibit restoration of content? If so it really needs clarification because in some cases they mean the exact opposite and it's managed to mislead even experienced admins. James J. Lambden ( talk) 20:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
This is getting too confusing. @ Steve Quinn: See WP:3RR which defines a revert as:
Whether Thucydides411 hit the submit button once or a dozen times as long as his edits were sequential with no intervening edits, for the purpose of reverting they count as a single edit. @ Coffee: In the ARCA case (if I'm reading it correctly) Callenecc describes your restriction as a:
Both diffs in this complaint - and there are only two per the definition of revert above - show Thucydides411 as the "R" in "BRD" meaning they comply with your restriction. But in your comment below you say he's violated your restriction. Have I misread the case or your comment? We have a number of editors (and admins @ MelanieN: @ NeilN:) genuinely confused about what behavior the restrictions mandate. James J. Lambden ( talk) 04:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by SPECIFICOI'll present a single incident of Thucydides411's edit-warring and smug disregard for the DS consensus requirement. I removed a BLP violation at Thucydides411 ignored the BLP violation and instead of seeking consensus to restore the text, he reinserted it at Another editor, seeing the BLP violation, removed it. Then, on the talk page, @
Only in death: warned not to reinsert it. However Thucydides responded by falsely accusing OID of a 1RR violation. OID's warning was at Thucydides reinserted the BLP violation for the second time after Only in death's warning. The reinsertion is at I hope this is clear and to the point. SPECIFICO talk 20:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Now we're seeing a fog of somewhat imprecise claims about alleged ambiguity in the DS restrictions, as if any such ambiguity would permit an editor to aggressively edit within the circle of confusion rather than to stay extra far from the line or to seek clarification at Arbcom. The fact is that Thucydides reinstated a BLP violation after half a dozen editors warned him not to and after several editors had removed the violation in various forms under which it was edit-warred back in. And of course the comments on Thucydides' behalf on this AE thread are from a who's-who of those who, like Thucydides411, reinserted the content. SPECIFICO talk 01:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Most of the excuses for Thucydides' edit-warring are now based on equivocation about "longstanding..." But none of the text under discussion was longstanding in the sense that it had been discussed on talk and a consensus demonstrated. Many articles have a set of issues that have come up on talk over an extended period of time during which active editors have commented and addressed any concerns. That is simply not the case with this article. It's not credible to claim that text that's escaped challenge for one month is "longstanding" -- when editors are poring over the deep dense thicket of references, many of them cherry-picked obscure opinions. It would go against the purpose of ARBAP2 if editors were only able to remove all this bad content immediately, otherwise it's "longstanding". Contentious articles need more editors and a diverse set of editors, not ideologues who are obsessed with the topic, with their POV, or who deny the mainstream view and seek out marginal media snippets, UNDUE opinions, and the like. The "longstanding" thing is a straw man. Many editors warned about the BLP violation. Why did Thucydides think it so urgent that he disregarded this so as to re-insert the disputed text into the article? SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC) @ Thycydides411: I do not see a definition of "longstanding" at the link to @ MelanieN:'s talk page. If you have a definition that refutes my statement above, please provide the link. SPECIFICO talk 20:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by GuccisamsclubDo administrators agree that an edit can be either deletion of long-standing text or insertion of new text? If we agree on that, then:
The only excuse for SPECIFICO's behaviour is the putative BLP concern, which the editor failed to adequately justify in her edit summaries. Sanctioning Thucydides411 here is akin to yelling thief. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 02:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Result concerning Thucydides411
|
Block of user:CFCF
| Hatting this, as formal appeal is posted below. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 19:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Looking at Donald Trump–Russia dossier ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the block of CFCF for reinserting an image seems to me to be harsh. Per CFCF's talk, the edit appears to have been made in good faith, and at least I think it merits discussion here. Guy ( Help!) 18:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
|
| Unblocked and blocking admin is fine with unblock. Closed. -- regentspark ( comment) 00:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found
here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by CFCFThe sanctioned edit was performed in the faith that it was both uncontroversial and in line with the current consensus. It was also performed several days ago, and the action taken against me occurring now is quite far detached from my edit and acts in my view to be WP:PUNITIVE. I realize that this may on certain occasions be appropriate, but the idea that I was acting out of line did not occur to me at the moment. The ongoing discussion on the talk page was not concluded but weighted towards inclusion as per my reading. Judged together with: a discussion consisting of a mix of voting; with non-voting discussion preceding this: and some users who had engaging only in one of the two — it may have been rash for me to conclude that I could so quickly determine consensus. I admit that it may have been wrong in my interpretation, but do not believe this should have incurred sanction. I may also have been rash to conclude that since the image was present for a longer period before being removed, that would fall under the ordinarily interpretation of meaning it was less than controversial. Judging these together I consider I was acting in good faith when I believed my edit would not violate any sanctions. I realize that my actions can be interpreted as defying consensus, even though this was not my intent. However, the change was neither contested when it was made or in the period preceding this block, which I believe acts in my favor. No comments addressing me or that I was made aware of through a ping or similar were made. Any editor could have repeated the removal or commented with a differing interpretation of the consensus in a way that informed me. To me the block seems harsh, considering neither prior warning nor so much as a comment was directed towards me. Had anyone suggested I was acting incorrectly — the situation would have been very different and I would have attempted to rectify it immediately by self-reverting. These may be some of our most contentious articles, but I did not act believing I was in defiance of rules, policies or other regulations as set by ArbCom — and would very much like to resume editing as per usual. I believe this type of block is harmful in part because it strongly discourages me (or others) from working in controversial subject areas if such risks persist — and these areas need quite a few eyes. Since I consider editing Wikipedia to be very important to me I am especially careful to avoid risks, and believe this goes for many of us — and this impacts which concepts I feel I can engage in. I hope you accept my sincere apology and regret and hope you would reconsider this block so that I can resume using one of my rarer free evenings to edit. Please also rest assured this has been taken as a strong warning and I will act more carefully in the future. Statement by CoffeeStatement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by CFCFJust reiterating what I wrote above, the edit was a reinsertion of a challenged edit that had no consensus to reinsert. As such, a block was warranted. I do notice that the block was undone by Bishonen and that seems to me a clear violation of ARBCOM rulings, an ARBCOM block can only be undone by consensus. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by CFCF
|
| Appeal declined. Suggest to User:TheTimesAreAChanging that they wait until six months from the original sanction before appealing again. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 09:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found
here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by TheTimesAreAChangingI was indefinitely topic banned from American Politics per this AE request submitted by Casprings. I had not previously been sanctioned for my editing in this area, but I had been warned. There are several reasons why I believe the topic ban was excessive and unwarranted:
I fully admit to getting carried away with treating my userpage like a social media shitpost, and to referring tongue-in-cheek to Volunteer Marek as the "whitewasher-in-chief" (in the context of a discussion where he and I were in agreement, I was requesting his help, and he played along—though obviously my sense of humor may not translate well over the Internet), and have taken the time since my ban was imposed to reflect on my past mistakes. But I still think it was excessive. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 23:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Statement by SandsteinI don't have the time today to address this in detail, but I refer to the original discussion and recommend declining the appeal in light of it and Coffee's comment below. Sandstein 05:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by GuccisamsclubsIt is still not clear why TheTimesAreAChanging was banned. It is true that his user page indicated that he might be a drag on the project. BUT a look at his contribs shows he's anything but that. I've had plenty of acrimonious conflicts with this editor in the past and vehemently disagree with him on virtually every political issue. So I know him quite well, perhaps better than any other editor. I can say with 100% certainty that the quality of his user page did NOT reflect the quality of his edits and arguments. He's one of the few editors I know that routinely makes quality edits which contradict his POV. Moreover, he has a tendency to bring factual and sourced arguments to content disputes, rather than sterile and self-referential wikispeak. He reads his sources closely and avoids making baseless assumptions. In sum, he's a "reliable" editor. We desperately need more readers like Times on wikipedia, seeing as these are a dying breed in the age of Web 2.0. Times' interventions on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, mainly demonstrated his reading comprehension skills and his erudition. Why he got banned for those (apparently, that's where the ball got rolling) is beyond me. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 00:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by (SPECIFICO)TTAAC, in the interest of due and clear process, please provide the Admins here with a summary of your behavior subsequent to your TBAN. Specifically, please detail your block evasion, TBAN evasion, sockpuppetry, email solicitation of meatpuppetry, harassment, and the resulting 1 month block and revocation of talk page access by @ Bbb23:. It will be more straightforward if you do it yourself, rather than get other editors tangled up in this. I am notifying editors mentioned in TTAAC's plea above: @ Casprings: @ Volunteer Marek: @ MjolnirPants: @ MelanieN:. Also, TTAAC, your statement that there are not DS in effect at the Russian article is false – in case you wish to strike that. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC) TTAAC, please cover all the topics I listed above. "...My one month block..." Oh. And why were you blocked for a month, etc. Let's not turn this into another free-for-all. The facts will come out one way or another. Please just list the facts. SPECIFICO talk 02:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by TheTimesAreAChangingResult of the appeal by TheTimesAreAChanging
|
| Questionable conduct by more than one editor, but no action taken at this time. Sandstein 22:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning SPECIFICO
Warned in
May 2016 by
Coffee,
December 2016 by
Sagecandor and
January 2017 by
Octoberwoodland.
Participated in numerous
WP:AE threads
Not only
SPECIFICO violates sanctions that he knows well, but he also neglects to self-revert when warned, ignores the arguments against his BLPVIO stance and only contributes to the ensuing editor discussion via vague innuendo against an imagined
cabal of "freaks and geeks" who are "glued to their computers 24/7" in order to "edit war BLP violations back into articles over and over". After other editors on both sides of the argument have exchanged some detailed and reasonable views, SPECIFICO comes back to say unconstructive stuff like: Admin note: Removed text exceeding 500 words. Sandstein 11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Filer's note: Removed extra material on the content dispute which I had provided in response to other editors' now-deleted statements. Reworded and shortened my further comments on the merits of the DS case vs BLPVIO claim. — JFG talk 19:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
References
Discussion concerning SPECIFICOStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SPECIFICOI want to keep this as brief and to the point as possible. I did not violate the DS on this article. The text in question constitutes an egregious BLP violation. I’m sorry to see CRYBLP mentioned here. It’s not at all applicable either to the content or to any of my behavior on WP. It’s not my bag. My view as to this BLP violation was supported by half a dozen editors on the article talk page. That doesn't happen when there's a disruptive or disingenuous CRYBLP event. On WP, I have learned that edit warring is pointless. I follow 1RR almost all the time on ‘’all’’ articles. If I see somebody undo a revert on a DS article, I ignore it or I go to their talk page and ask them to undo their error. That’s about as much as I engage with that behavior. Sometimes they thank me, sometimes they cuss. I don’t pursue it, and I don’t use such violations as an excuse to edit-war. I do cite wikilinks to policies in caps on article talk pages. I'm surprised to see that disparaged or mischaracterized as threats. I’m disappointed that JFG filed this groundless complaint, which appears to be retaliatory, coming 15 minutes after I cited some 1RR violations in Guccisamsclub’s recent case. Also, for the record, JFG states that I have initiated AE cases in the past. I have not. It’s a false and irrelevant aspersion responding to the simple question whether I know DS is in place. SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC) P.S. I just looked at the article talk page to find more disparaging personal remarks about me and OID, deflecting BLP policy principles to personal remarks at this recent edit: [2] JFG then linked to this, amazingly, on this AE page. This casts false aspersions and attributes views that neither OID nor SPECIFCO has ever voiced. It also appears to misrepresent article text as if one of us had edited it inappropriately. As the subsequent thread indicates, JFG instigated numerous misrepresentations and personal disparagement with his post. Under these circumstances, I do think it would help the editing environment if JFG were given, a TBAN from American Politics. His attacks, deflecting policy discussion to personal remarks and false aspersions have been going on for quite a while. SPECIFICO talk 02:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC) At this diff on this AE page] JFG again misrepresents me, falsely claiming that I requested a TBAN for him, when in fact I was endorsing the possibility of a boomerang mooted by one of the Admins here. SPECIFICO talk 03:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Volunteer MarekAdmin note: Statement removed because it contains no actionable evidence, in the form of dated diffs, relevant to the request. This is not a discussion forum. Sandstein 11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Thucydides411Admin note: Statement removed because it contains no actionable evidence, in the form of dated diffs, relevant to the request. This is not a discussion forum. Sandstein 11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by OIDAdmin note: Statement removed because it contains no actionable evidence, in the form of dated diffs, relevant to the request. This is not a discussion forum. Sandstein 11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
On the other hand we have JFG:
So Specifico has acted according to both policy and the sanctions and JFG clearly has not. And thats just the specific BLP issue, there is other material which has been discussed to be contentious which has also been reverted multiple times. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 12:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by GuccisamsclubAdmin note: Statement removed because it contains no actionable evidence, in the form of dated diffs, relevant to the request. This is not a discussion forum. Sandstein 11:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
My list of quotes and diffs from the editor was meant to establish precisely that: a long-term pattern of nonsensical, unfocused, unsourced, fringe and inconsiderate contributions. This has been erased, due to the fact that most quotes lacked diffs. If this is really an issue here, I'd be glad to provide the diffs (which would take a couple hours to assemble given the sheer volume of contribs). Guccisamsclub ( talk) 16:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by DarouetPrior to SPECIFICO's removal the paragraph clearly couched all content in terms of Binney's and McGovern's views: SPECIFICO did not rectify the problem by simply quoting from the piece directly (as I did here), but removed it wholesale, and made no post on Talk to explain themselves. When they finally did comment, their explanation was so brief as to be incomprehensible. Contrast that with MelbourneStar's clear description of the problem, which allowed us to improve the wording.
Laser brain writes that JFG may be in breach of D/S by subtly but powerfully re-interpreting the D/S proscription: Guy: if SPECIFICO is in breach of D/S, I think the violation is trivial: realistically, it is very difficult to be certain of who is violating what when everybody is reverting. The more important issue is civility. The WP:ARBAP2 "Final Decision" states,
Now, consider this Talk comment made by SPECIFICO only yesterday, while they were simultaneously bringing an A/E request against Guccisamsclub:
At one point on Talk SPECIFICO incorrectly accused me and other editors of breaching D/S:
SPECIFICO repeated the same allegation on my talk page (as they have done several times to me and other editors, without ever, to me, providing diffs). When I responded on Talk, they extraordinarily chose to hat my comments in response to their allegations, writing absurdly, "words unrelated to article improvement." That is incredibly offensive. These kinds of behaviors are exactly what D/S are supposed to prevent. I think it would be foolish to sanction SPECIFICO for a revert when everyone is reverting, but the personal attacks and offensive behavior poison the tone of discussion and merit a strong warning. - Darouet ( talk) 15:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Statement by CaspringsThe reporter, JFG, has a history of violating 1rr to support his POV. One quick example is here. [5], [6] Casprings ( talk) 15:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Steve Quinn02:04, 14 February 2017. This was recently posted on the talk page by JFG The section title is "The alternative BLP-friendly encyclopedia according to SPECIFICO and OID". This is followed by a chart that describes sampled content in three high trafficked articles in the Amerian Politics 2 area. My interpretation is this edit is meant to be somewhat provocative, and I suppose, point out how wrong these two editors are. And an attempt to justify this edit is with WP:JDLI - which hardly supports such an edit. In fact, this type of thing is frowned upon. Here in Arbcom's GamerGate final decision under the "Battlefield conduct" section
I am not characterizing this as Battlefied behavior - far from it. However, this seems to be in pursuit of a quarrel pertaining to a statement and source no longer in the article at this time. However, what possible outcome could be expected from this? I know things get snarky, but this is not that. Talk page guidelines WP:TALK essentially say everybody should try to get along, right? In any case, I think this should be considered when evaluating whether or not a boomerang is appropriate. Statement by Space4Time3Continuum2xI didn't log in at all yesterday and only just now found found a notification that I was mentioned on this page. I don't see my name in here and I'm not sure if my comment is (still) requested. I don't have any complaint against SPECIFICO, and I usually find myself on the same side of the issues as SPECIFICO and on the opposing side of JFG. If arguments on both sides get a little "spirited" at times, it's still no reason to go running to teacher. Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 19:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Result concerning SPECIFICO
|
| The user is OK with closing this, since the 24-hour topic ban has expired. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Statement by CaspringsI have been given a 24 hour sanction for this edit [8] . The block was done by User:El C here [9]. I appeal this in two regards. One, I was never made aware of the conversation to block me, which took place here. I feel that I should have at least been notified of the conversation that involved me. Moreover, I am unsure of the need to act quickly, as this was the only revert and I am unsure of the ongoing damage I was doing. Second, I think this is harsh. I reverted one edit by JFG and went to the talk page. That said, I understand the need to gain concensus and I have been working to do that, especially in this topic area. Casprings ( talk) 00:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
This is moot now because 24 hours have passed. Casprings ( talk) 15:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by El CAs I told the editor in question, there is no block. There is a 24 hour topic ban, both for Casprings ( Here) and My very best wishes ( Here) for breaching the reinstatement [of] any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page provision. Guccisamsclub was blocked ( Here) for 24 hours due to a 1RR violation. As for being unaware, I'm sorry, but as I found out myself, upon editing the article, the provision is clearly stated. Granted, it may not be that straightforward, which is why, again, at my discretion, there were no blocks issued for breaching it. But it came close. *** Basically, I felt everyone involved in the edit war needed a break from the article's subject. Return in 24 hours and carry on. El_C 02:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by (involved SPECIFICO)
This
[10] is what I understand editors currently to be following. If it has been updated at ARCA, I was unable to find the new version.
SPECIFICO
talk 04:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Steve Quinn
Statement by My very best wishesI think El_C exercised good judgement here. No objections from me. I just came back from a break and quickly made a few edits without looking carefully. My apology. All rules must be respected including 1RR and others. I do believe this editing restriction ("You...must not reinstate any challenged edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page") is unhelpful and brings more harm than good because it allows removing important and well sourced information, unless it has strong consensus for inclusion. This is frequently not the case simply because many people stay away of such pages, and there are simply not enough contributors willing to express their views on the article talk page (hence the consensus is not clear). If anyone made such restriction for all pages, that would be very harmful for the project. However, the rule must be followed as long as it remains on the page. My very best wishes ( talk) 03:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by CaspringsThe question of this particular sanction aside; it may be worth considering whether the "consensus required" and 1RR restrictions are fundamentally compatible (I believe they may not be, and that the "consensus required" alone may be preferable; 1RR is easily & often gamified); and it may worth considering whether there should be a lower limit on the duration of sanctions which can be appealed (I am ambivalent on this). - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 02:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Casprings
|
| The appeal of the 3 month block is declined. Ranze ( talk · contribs) is hereby indefinitely topic-banned from any page relating to (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found
here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by RanzePlease copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. Laser linked to a decision in gamergate. All I did related to that recently was inquiring on talk:Zoe Quinn asking input if it would make sense to describe her as an activist given her site does that. Other news clarifies this as being an "anti abuse activist" or "anti harassment activist". It seems notable given being called upon to speak by the united nations to recognize that. Laser did not like the edits I made to people v. Turner and is wrongfully conflating that with gamerGate by deciding to consider it a "gender related dispute", as if sexual assault is limited to a single gender or something. I was respecting a request to voice concerns on the talk page over a disputed edit. Laser would not even allow this. I simply wanted to clarify what we knew about which specific sources made claims and the context in which they were made. This line of inquiry is called POV/agenda pushing by Laser. I do not believe those warnings or this punishment was justified. Laser is assuming bad faith simply for things like balancing an introduction by mentioning both parties were intoxicated and removing duplicated discussion about unconciousness since the witnees testimony about that followed right after. Ranze (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Laser brainNote: Ranze does not consider People v. Turner to be covered by the "gender-based controveries" topic area, from which he was topic banned for a year. During his last visit to AE, The Wordsmith and I both advised him that People v. Turner is indeed in this domain and the only reason he wasn't sanctioned is because his TB had elapsed. The content of his edits at the time wasn't really examined. This piece of background is critical if it's to be determined whether the current sanction is valid. Ranze bumped around for a while doing other things but then decided to return to editing at People v. Turner. I advised him that his edits show an agenda and that he should stay away from that topic. The following edits are of concern:
My impression is that Ranze's agenda is to soften Turner's image and marginalize the victim. He may believe he's editing neutrally but I think he's pushing a POV against the consensus established at this article. -- Laser brain (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Statement by KyohyiFirst, I think it is important to point out that three out of four of Laser brain's diff's are basically a content dispute. His comments here, his block rationale on Ranze's talk page [16], and his "warning's" [17], [18] demonstrate that his motivation for blocking Ranze was due to him disagreeing on content with Ranze's contributions. This is pretty clearly WP: INVOLVED behavior for an admin. Further, Ranze is not subject to any gender based topic ban at this time, the last topic ban expired April of 2016. [19] -- Kyohyi ( talk) 19:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (uninvolved editor MjolnirPants)This is just a quick interjection from someone uninvolved who has (probably stupidly) watchlisted this page. I looked through the edits in question and I agree that they demonstrate an agenda to minimize Turner's culpability, because the editor has made no edits to this page which had any other effect. The claim that these edits better reflected the sources does not account for the fact that we normally state uncontested claims from reliable sources in wikivoice to avoid stating facts as opinions. I'll recuse myself from sticking my nose further into this by unwatching the page, so please ping me if you have any questions or comments about my statement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Statement by CIreland@ Sandstein: You asked for it to be "made more clear how this is within the topic ban's scope" given that "The identity of the perpetrator and victim as male or female, respectively, does not seem to have been an issue in the case, nor their views on gender, or the case's impact on women or men in particular, or anything like that." I think your premise here is mistaken. Much of the coverage of People v. Turner in the press and elsewhere focused on the incident as a consequence of rape culture and our article mentions this fact. Additionally, there has been significant analysis following Turner's release of how the case reflects a normalization of violence against women and have specifically cast both the incident and the case as a gender issue. Here are some examples [20] [21] [22] [23]. I think the above is sufficient to demonstrate that Ranze's edits are within scope but there is a further point I wanted to mention: Sandstein, you seem to imply in your remarks that rape and sexual assault are not a gender issues. That is a reasonable and widely held opinion. However, there are also widely held opinions to the contrary. I think that you should weigh more cautiously this divergence of opinion on the matter and be careful not to base your decision only on your own perspective. CIreland ( talk) 19:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by PeterTheFourth@ Sandstein: In the event that you did remove Ranze's block, would you be doing so procedurally, because you believe Ranze's edits don't fall under the topic area of 'gender-related dispute or controversy', or would you be doing so because you truly believe that their actions were helpful to the goal of building an encyclopedia? PeterTheFourth ( talk) 19:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by NorthBySouthBaranofI will note that previous AE consensus determined that the Gamergate topic ban covered any articles or topics related in any substantive way to rape or sexual assault, and that I was thus prohibited from editing such articles while under that restriction. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 03:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by James J. LambdenI don't see justification for any sanction here. Whether the topic is covered by DS or not, the only disruptive behavior is one (debatably bad) revert. If that standard were applied consistently we'd have no editors left in edit American Politics or any other DS topic. The rest is down to content choices which is not a subject for AE or administrative action. James J. Lambden ( talk) 03:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by StrongjamWith regard to the discussion about whether the article falls under the DS topic. There was a previous clarification request regarding the GG sanctions and whether it applied to the Campus rape article which might be helpful. — Strongjam ( talk) 17:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by RanzeThe diffs provided by LB show no violation. Some of the edits were removing Wiki voice, such as the one where the sentence was referred to as light, is that Wiki's opinion or some people? And I do fail to see how that article should be subject to sanctions. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Ranze
|
| DrChrissy ( talk · contribs) is blocked for 1 month, per the Committee's procedure at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Enforcement of restrictions, for violating the two-way IBAN between himself and Jytdog. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning DrChrissy
Also see this
Not applicable
The report at ANI has been titled "reporting myself (and Jytdog)" for some time. It is specifically about Jytdog. It is unfathomable that posting in an ANI topic about another editor which you are banned from interacting with is not a violation of the ban. By posting there DrChrissy also precluded Jytdog from commenting in that portion of the topic. This could be seen as baiting.
Discussion concerning DrChrissyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DrChrissyStatement by TimothyjosephwoodSee also this recent thread. TimothyJosephWood 17:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My KenRegardless that the original title of the AN/I thread DrChrissy commented on was "Reporting myself", the thread was clearly about Slatersteven's interactions with Jytdog - indeed the first two words of the thread are "User:Jytdog". DrChrissy is banned from discussing Jytdog in any way, directly or indirectly, so their comments in that thread are quite clearly a violation of that ban, and it seems clear that DrChrissy is keeping a close watch on Jytdog, which is precisely the opposite of the effect an Interaction Ban is supposed to have.In the past, DrChrissy had his two topic bans (one from Arbcom, one from the community) tightened because of his tendency to poke at their borders, and received an AE block here for making a valueless report on another editor. And then there was this AN report, where DrChrissy managed to skate by without being blocked. DrChrissy does not seem capable of working within their sanctions and not exploring their boundaries. They should most certainly be blocked for their current comments, and some consideration ought to be given to whether DrChrissy is able to work under our policies at all. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 17:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Statement by Kingofaces43Again? In addition to Beyond My Ken's comments on DrChrissy's problems with following sanctions, they are just coming off their block for violating their GMO topic ban. Part of the GMO topic ban was because of the battleground behavior directed at editors by DrChrissy as well as a tendency to hound those editors on admin boards. That was especially a problem with DrChrissy and Jytdog interactions, which is why the interaction ban was added on with the topic ban. That block was supposed to be for a week, but their emails with Sandstein suggested a block was no longer needed and it was lifted early on Feb 1. That block should have indicated that kind of behavior was not ok, but now it's going on with someone DrChrissy has an actual interaction ban with. There's a such a long string of DrChrissy not abiding by their sanctions just in the GMO case and follow-up AEs (not to mention their other topic ban) that I'm quite frankly out of ideas that could help them now. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 18:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by CapeoWell, this is disappointing. It's unfortunately clear now that DrChrissy is watching anything that has to do with Jytdog like a hawk and seems to not want to drop the stick. There's this, the recent ANI report linked above where I tried to persuade DrChrissy to let it go, the recent, oddly timed emails to people Jytdog had some conflict with. It's all adding up to indicate DrChrissy is watching Jytdog's contributions, something someone under an Iban shouldn't be doing. Even jumping into KingofAces AE report above indicates they just can't let go of the results of the GMO Arb case and those editors involved. I'm not sure how to stop this from happening but it has to stop. Statement by (username)Result concerning DrChrissy
|
| Thucydides411 ( talk · contribs) is blocked for one week for violating the page restrictions in effect at 2016 United States election interference by Russia, by reinstating edits that had been challenged (via reversion) without obtaining or seeking consensus first. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Thucydides411
None
Also, keep in mind, two edits by Space Time were reverted with
Discussion concerning Thucydides411Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Thucydides411From the original complaint, it's unclear what, exactly, Steven Quinn is accusing me of. Steven Quinn writes that, I understand that working on contentious articles like 2016 United States election interference by Russia is frustrating, and can lead to a lot of bad blood, and that one side can get the impression that the other side simply isn't listening. But there are a number of editors working through the various issues raised in this complaint (and in OID's comment below) on the talk page. As can be seen in the above diffs (and in the talk page of 2016 United States election interference by Russia), I've been very involved in those discussions. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 18:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO: The interpretation of "longstanding" as referring to a length of time that a given text has been in the article comes from MelanieN's comments on the talk page ( [31]), and the discussion of 1RR that she directed us to: [32]. Specifically, NeilN referenced a timespan of 4-6 weeks for heavily edited articles: [33]. If you feel there are valid BLP concerns, you should bring them to the BLP noticeboard, as several editors have asked you to do. But you haven't gone to the BLP noticeboard, and you've responded to requests on the talk page that you clarify your concerns with personal attacks ( [34]), giving several editors the impression that you're using WP:CRYBLP to try to shield yourself from having to comply with 1RR. You should worry about WP:BOOMERANG as much as anyone here. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 19:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by OIDTimeline for Sandstein: 12 February 2017 Case against Specifico opened which includes explicitly that Specifico had removed content citing a BLP objection. 08:08 13 February 2017 Thucydides411 commented here in the previous case so was obviously aware it had been removed as BLP issue both from the article itself and that it was currently at an enforcement noticeboard. 11:32 13 February 2017 My first removal of material. (Note my removal was actually less than other editors at the article being concerned only with the BLP aspect, not the wider NPOV/UNDUE issue) 12:36 13 February 2017 You yourself noted here the removals by Specifico appeared to be good faith BLP concerns (in part). 16:52 13 February 2017 Thucydides411 reverts me, despite there being clear BLP arguments on the talkpage, this enforcement page, and in previous edit summaries on the article. So to sum up: Thucydides411 was aware at the time they were reverting there were BLP arguments as well as wider disputes over the entire section involving the Baltimore Sun opinion piece. They were also aware it had been raised here. So violating both the BLP policy as well as the discretionary sanctions on the page itself. While the above was closed with no action, Thucydides411 was still reverting *after the enforcement action had been opened* and after they were clearly aware multiple people, (including completely uninvolved editors like me) had problems with that specific material. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 13:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC) George, the article is already under a DS 1rr and the material was removed under a BLP rationale anyway. Statement by JFGAdmin note: Statement removed because it contains no new evidence in the form of diffs. Sandstein 13:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC) EdJohnston's comment of 16 February 19:11 UTC notes that Thucydides411 reverted Space4Time3Continuum2x arguing "No consensus for removal" and that Thucydides "had it backwards" because he should get a consensus for re-inserting instead. This reasoning ignores prior edits in this sequence whereby the original sourced and attributed statement, included for over a month, was first removed by SPECIFICO (BOLD) and reverted by me (REVERT), upon which SPECIFICO deleted the text again (violating DS but claiming a BLP exception) and I opened a discussion (DISCUSS). Subsequently, several editors chimed in on both sides of the central argument: deciding whether Binney's statement about Clapper's false testimony to Congress qualifies as a BLPVIO (and that discussion is not settled yet). Thucydides has been an active participant in the discussion, and accordingly should not be sanctioned for "violating the DISCUSS requirement". The unfortunate thing is that several editors also removed and restored the contentious material back and forth while the discussion was ongoing, prompting me to later open a DS/AE case that was just discussed and dismissed above. The DS behavioral question boils down to "who shot first", with Thucydides411 and others trying to enforce "return to status quo ante until consensus is obtained" per DS notice and guidance from admins NeilN [35] and Awilley [36], while SPECIFICO and others try to enforce removal of what they perceive as a BLP violation. Given lack of consensus on this question after a good week of comments and no less than three AE cases (Steve Quinn vs Guccisamsclub, JFG vs SPECIFICO and Steve Quinn vs Thucydides411), I agree with some other editors that the appropriate venue to settle the underlying dispute would be WP:BLP/N. — JFG talk 09:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC) I also would welcome official guidance to clarify whether NeilN and Awilley's interpretation of DS wording — A similar sequence just happened again:
I don't want to open a fourth AE case and we really need strong admin guidance on whether removing longstanding text is a challengeable edit or whether only text additions are challengeable (which would imho be an unbalanced restriction). — JFG talk 09:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by DarouetI'll post more after midnight UTC (am at work till then), but Steve Quinn has erased most of their complaint and left only examples of two instances of two contiguous edits.
WP:3RR clearly states, Thucydides411 has been perhaps the most active and constructive editor on the Talk Page, and consistently eschewed the bitter tone that has prevailed there: blocking in that context almost comes across like punishment of civility. It is furthermore inappropriate to treat WP:AE as a changing menu where if WP:BLP fails, WP:DS is invoked. This is especially ironic since from a purely technical perspective, Steven Quinn has themselves
by
@
Coffee: Can you be a little more specific in your reasoning? The
link you provided does not clarify why longstanding article text can be repeatedly removed without consensus, but that restoring that text violates DS. In fact it appears to state, per
Callanecc that the restriction applies to Statement by James J. Lambden@ EdJohnston: There's a difference between:
and the warning you reference:
The edit in this case - according to admins MelanieN [1] and NeilN [2] - would have been Space4Time3Continuum2x's removal of content, which Thucydides411 reverted, in line with the policy. Was the intent of the language to prohibit restoration of content? If so it really needs clarification because in some cases they mean the exact opposite and it's managed to mislead even experienced admins. James J. Lambden ( talk) 20:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
This is getting too confusing. @ Steve Quinn: See WP:3RR which defines a revert as:
Whether Thucydides411 hit the submit button once or a dozen times as long as his edits were sequential with no intervening edits, for the purpose of reverting they count as a single edit. @ Coffee: In the ARCA case (if I'm reading it correctly) Callenecc describes your restriction as a:
Both diffs in this complaint - and there are only two per the definition of revert above - show Thucydides411 as the "R" in "BRD" meaning they comply with your restriction. But in your comment below you say he's violated your restriction. Have I misread the case or your comment? We have a number of editors (and admins @ MelanieN: @ NeilN:) genuinely confused about what behavior the restrictions mandate. James J. Lambden ( talk) 04:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by SPECIFICOI'll present a single incident of Thucydides411's edit-warring and smug disregard for the DS consensus requirement. I removed a BLP violation at Thucydides411 ignored the BLP violation and instead of seeking consensus to restore the text, he reinserted it at Another editor, seeing the BLP violation, removed it. Then, on the talk page, @
Only in death: warned not to reinsert it. However Thucydides responded by falsely accusing OID of a 1RR violation. OID's warning was at Thucydides reinserted the BLP violation for the second time after Only in death's warning. The reinsertion is at I hope this is clear and to the point. SPECIFICO talk 20:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Now we're seeing a fog of somewhat imprecise claims about alleged ambiguity in the DS restrictions, as if any such ambiguity would permit an editor to aggressively edit within the circle of confusion rather than to stay extra far from the line or to seek clarification at Arbcom. The fact is that Thucydides reinstated a BLP violation after half a dozen editors warned him not to and after several editors had removed the violation in various forms under which it was edit-warred back in. And of course the comments on Thucydides' behalf on this AE thread are from a who's-who of those who, like Thucydides411, reinserted the content. SPECIFICO talk 01:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Most of the excuses for Thucydides' edit-warring are now based on equivocation about "longstanding..." But none of the text under discussion was longstanding in the sense that it had been discussed on talk and a consensus demonstrated. Many articles have a set of issues that have come up on talk over an extended period of time during which active editors have commented and addressed any concerns. That is simply not the case with this article. It's not credible to claim that text that's escaped challenge for one month is "longstanding" -- when editors are poring over the deep dense thicket of references, many of them cherry-picked obscure opinions. It would go against the purpose of ARBAP2 if editors were only able to remove all this bad content immediately, otherwise it's "longstanding". Contentious articles need more editors and a diverse set of editors, not ideologues who are obsessed with the topic, with their POV, or who deny the mainstream view and seek out marginal media snippets, UNDUE opinions, and the like. The "longstanding" thing is a straw man. Many editors warned about the BLP violation. Why did Thucydides think it so urgent that he disregarded this so as to re-insert the disputed text into the article? SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC) @ Thycydides411: I do not see a definition of "longstanding" at the link to @ MelanieN:'s talk page. If you have a definition that refutes my statement above, please provide the link. SPECIFICO talk 20:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by GuccisamsclubDo administrators agree that an edit can be either deletion of long-standing text or insertion of new text? If we agree on that, then:
The only excuse for SPECIFICO's behaviour is the putative BLP concern, which the editor failed to adequately justify in her edit summaries. Sanctioning Thucydides411 here is akin to yelling thief. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 02:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Result concerning Thucydides411
|
Block of user:CFCF
| Hatting this, as formal appeal is posted below. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 19:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Looking at Donald Trump–Russia dossier ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the block of CFCF for reinserting an image seems to me to be harsh. Per CFCF's talk, the edit appears to have been made in good faith, and at least I think it merits discussion here. Guy ( Help!) 18:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
|
| Unblocked and blocking admin is fine with unblock. Closed. -- regentspark ( comment) 00:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found
here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by CFCFThe sanctioned edit was performed in the faith that it was both uncontroversial and in line with the current consensus. It was also performed several days ago, and the action taken against me occurring now is quite far detached from my edit and acts in my view to be WP:PUNITIVE. I realize that this may on certain occasions be appropriate, but the idea that I was acting out of line did not occur to me at the moment. The ongoing discussion on the talk page was not concluded but weighted towards inclusion as per my reading. Judged together with: a discussion consisting of a mix of voting; with non-voting discussion preceding this: and some users who had engaging only in one of the two — it may have been rash for me to conclude that I could so quickly determine consensus. I admit that it may have been wrong in my interpretation, but do not believe this should have incurred sanction. I may also have been rash to conclude that since the image was present for a longer period before being removed, that would fall under the ordinarily interpretation of meaning it was less than controversial. Judging these together I consider I was acting in good faith when I believed my edit would not violate any sanctions. I realize that my actions can be interpreted as defying consensus, even though this was not my intent. However, the change was neither contested when it was made or in the period preceding this block, which I believe acts in my favor. No comments addressing me or that I was made aware of through a ping or similar were made. Any editor could have repeated the removal or commented with a differing interpretation of the consensus in a way that informed me. To me the block seems harsh, considering neither prior warning nor so much as a comment was directed towards me. Had anyone suggested I was acting incorrectly — the situation would have been very different and I would have attempted to rectify it immediately by self-reverting. These may be some of our most contentious articles, but I did not act believing I was in defiance of rules, policies or other regulations as set by ArbCom — and would very much like to resume editing as per usual. I believe this type of block is harmful in part because it strongly discourages me (or others) from working in controversial subject areas if such risks persist — and these areas need quite a few eyes. Since I consider editing Wikipedia to be very important to me I am especially careful to avoid risks, and believe this goes for many of us — and this impacts which concepts I feel I can engage in. I hope you accept my sincere apology and regret and hope you would reconsider this block so that I can resume using one of my rarer free evenings to edit. Please also rest assured this has been taken as a strong warning and I will act more carefully in the future. Statement by CoffeeStatement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by CFCFJust reiterating what I wrote above, the edit was a reinsertion of a challenged edit that had no consensus to reinsert. As such, a block was warranted. I do notice that the block was undone by Bishonen and that seems to me a clear violation of ARBCOM rulings, an ARBCOM block can only be undone by consensus. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by CFCF
|
| Appeal declined. Suggest to User:TheTimesAreAChanging that they wait until six months from the original sanction before appealing again. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 09:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found
here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by TheTimesAreAChangingI was indefinitely topic banned from American Politics per this AE request submitted by Casprings. I had not previously been sanctioned for my editing in this area, but I had been warned. There are several reasons why I believe the topic ban was excessive and unwarranted:
I fully admit to getting carried away with treating my userpage like a social media shitpost, and to referring tongue-in-cheek to Volunteer Marek as the "whitewasher-in-chief" (in the context of a discussion where he and I were in agreement, I was requesting his help, and he played along—though obviously my sense of humor may not translate well over the Internet), and have taken the time since my ban was imposed to reflect on my past mistakes. But I still think it was excessive. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 23:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Statement by SandsteinI don't have the time today to address this in detail, but I refer to the original discussion and recommend declining the appeal in light of it and Coffee's comment below. Sandstein 05:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by GuccisamsclubsIt is still not clear why TheTimesAreAChanging was banned. It is true that his user page indicated that he might be a drag on the project. BUT a look at his contribs shows he's anything but that. I've had plenty of acrimonious conflicts with this editor in the past and vehemently disagree with him on virtually every political issue. So I know him quite well, perhaps better than any other editor. I can say with 100% certainty that the quality of his user page did NOT reflect the quality of his edits and arguments. He's one of the few editors I know that routinely makes quality edits which contradict his POV. Moreover, he has a tendency to bring factual and sourced arguments to content disputes, rather than sterile and self-referential wikispeak. He reads his sources closely and avoids making baseless assumptions. In sum, he's a "reliable" editor. We desperately need more readers like Times on wikipedia, seeing as these are a dying breed in the age of Web 2.0. Times' interventions on Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, mainly demonstrated his reading comprehension skills and his erudition. Why he got banned for those (apparently, that's where the ball got rolling) is beyond me. Guccisamsclub ( talk) 00:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by (SPECIFICO)TTAAC, in the interest of due and clear process, please provide the Admins here with a summary of your behavior subsequent to your TBAN. Specifically, please detail your block evasion, TBAN evasion, sockpuppetry, email solicitation of meatpuppetry, harassment, and the resulting 1 month block and revocation of talk page access by @ Bbb23:. It will be more straightforward if you do it yourself, rather than get other editors tangled up in this. I am notifying editors mentioned in TTAAC's plea above: @ Casprings: @ Volunteer Marek: @ MjolnirPants: @ MelanieN:. Also, TTAAC, your statement that there are not DS in effect at the Russian article is false – in case you wish to strike that. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC) TTAAC, please cover all the topics I listed above. "...My one month block..." Oh. And why were you blocked for a month, etc. Let's not turn this into another free-for-all. The facts will come out one way or another. Please just list the facts. SPECIFICO talk 02:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by TheTimesAreAChangingResult of the appeal by TheTimesAreAChanging
|