| Blocked for a week. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:56, 28 December 2018 (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 FkpCascais
levant sanctions, if any :
FkpCascais is currently topic banned from from everything related to the Balkans [4]. They are trying to have their topic ban modified (in order to be able to edit Balkan football articles) but there is no decision for modification yet [5]. A few days ago he was blocked for the same thing [6]. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 20:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning FkpCascaisStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by FkpCascaisOK, I really expect the worst now, like being banned forever or similar... Yes, some time ago I found out József Lakatos was a Hungarian footballer who played in Spain as well, and he was not Romanian as initially sugested as some Yugoslav sites. I have a passion for these first sportsman that played in different countries and I love to make them their articles with their complete story. I thought moving him from Romanian to Hungarian list want be a "Balkans issue" and I though no one will find it hurtfull... The first and second edits are just moving him to a right list. The third edit is inside my sandbox (am I banned from editing my sandboxes?). Anyway, it is nothing political or controversial. I really think the admins should start questioning why these few editors are so commited to get me eliminated from Wikipedia? I was recognised as awesome Wikipedian just a couple of month earlier. Now I am finding myself in this extremelly uncomfortable situation just because I was alone asking an unpleasent question in a historical article and I backed my claims with sources (at time I was in process of bringing more RS to the table). Wouldn´t proper Wikipedia protocolo just procede to a kind of RfC and bring a neutral editor to decide it, and we would be moving on? I want touch anything until a decition is made, I promise, cause I see otherwise i will be block and I am currently unabled from contributing to my area of speciallty. FkpCascais ( talk) 22:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC) Statement by 89.164.154.220@ Salvio giuliano and Sandstein:. I think that he is still violating TB by posting opinions like this [7]. I had to ping him so other editors can see that I pinged everyone who participated in the discussion. Then he went to put his opinion on the matter by trying to camouflage it as an "I can't respond" post. Were will we come if he will each time he is pinged leave an opinionated comment and say "I shouldn't respond." 89.164.154.220 ( talk) 21:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning FkpCascais
|
| Blocked for one week by GoldenRing ( talk · contribs). Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 02:47, 30 December 2018 (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 أمين
ARBPIA 30/500 Editors need to have 500 edits.
Discussion concerning أمينStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by أمينStatement by (username)Result concerning أمين
|
| Blocked for one week. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 13:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning أمين
Its clear that user can't differentiate what belongs to the conflict and what is not
Discussion concerning أمينStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by أمينStatement by (username)Result concerning أمين
|
| No action taken. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 00:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning DBigXray
Noting that there is a limit of "20 diffs", I am presenting recent diffs where DBigXray has falsely accused editors of paid editing, socking and violated other forms of WP:NPA/ WP:BATTLE:
All of these incidents came after a warning from ANI that this sort of behavior will result in block. I believe that these diffs qualifies as the clear evidence to establish that there is a recurring pattern of disruption. While there are issues with use of poor sources, wikihounding contributors, copyvio, and other problems, I decided to leave them due to limit of diffs. GenuineArt ( talk) 18:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Discussion concerning DBigXrayStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DBigXrayRelevant threads for the Dispute at Jaggi Vasudev
diffs have been copied and response inline for ease of reading.
To conclude my response on the above allegations, I never had any disputes with GenuineArts so far. He had made a complaint against me few days back at ANI with intentions to get me sanctioned. I am not sure, but based on the recent multiple threads that had been started against me at ANI by a particular set of editors, I see that as a part of a concerted effort by this set of editors with whom I am having ongoing content disputes on articles. All these attacks against me have begun since 29 October when I participated in the WP:RM discussion at Talk:Jaggi Vasudev and voted oppose against the proposal. I regularly participate at WP:RMT amd WP:RM discussions, I had never edited the page Jaggi Vasudev before my participation at its RM discussion. The content dispute with some of "these editors" are still ongoing at Talk:Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014, Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Talk:1984 anti-Sikh riots. "These editors", I am having disputes currently include Capitals00, MBlaze Lightning, Raymond3023, D4iNa4, Orientls, I note that 4 of these are also under indefinite India-Pakistan topic ban [55]. This thread at ARE is fifth such attempt (after 4 threads at ANI in a short period) in the ongoing efforts by participants of these content disputes, to bypass these content disputes by getting me sanctioned. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 23:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by WBGGArt; do you think your edit-summary over this edit is any conducive to maintaining a collaborative and collegial editorial atmosphere? ∯WBG converse 19:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC) Result concerning DBigXray
|
| Rajulbat ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from everything related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people for three months. Sandstein 12:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Snooganssnoogans
Snooganssnoogans primary purpose on Wikipedia appears to be to overload articles concerning conservative U.S. political figures or topics (examples: Mitch McConnell, Brigitte Gabriel, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Sebastian Gorka, Liberty University, etc.) with a negative slant. I ran into this user at the Mitch McConnell page. I looked up that congressman's article by chance when he was mentioned in the news. In subsequent discussion it became clear that he was only interested in reflecting one point of view. This led me to review his contributions in other articles, which led me to file a complaint at the ANI, where it was suggested that the appropriate venue is here. There have been over 11,000 edits since the last time his conduct was up for review here. His chronic NPOV issue has not been corrected.
Discussion concerning SnooganssnoogansStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SnooganssnoogansI'd just like to point out that in #14, I'm defending Tim Scott, the sole African-American Republican Senator, from poorly sourced attacks on his intellect and competence. [57] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by MrXNo evidence of sanctionable conduct has been presented. This seems to be an attempt to win a content dispute by dredging up a previous AE filing, casting aspersions, forum shopping and pinging a couple of sympathetic admins. - Mr X 🖋 13:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC) Note by Beyond My Ken@ Rajulbat: Please note that Mitch McConnell is not a "Congressman", he is a United States Senator. (Only members of the House of Representatives are called "Congressman", "Congresswoman" or "Congressperson".) Beyond My Ken ( talk) 17:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Cullen 328Since no evidence of any misconduct has been presented, this should be declined promptly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Davey2010I know the 24 hour wait was suggested in good faith but IMHO evidence should be provided with the case not 24 hours later, This should be closed now and if the OP wants to return then fine. – Davey2010 Talk 17:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by RandomGnomeI can't see how Snoogans has specifically violated the terms of the sanctions currently in place. The OP has additionally failed to provide evidence of other applicable misconduct. In the OP's defense however, I would concur with others who have stated that Snoogans is an editor who walks a very thin line between acceptable behavior and agenda activism. My own opinion is that when that line crossed, any editor needs to be
Statement by GalobtterThe filer has indicated they're not going to be providing the evidence requested, so I'd think this could be closed now. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 18:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by MONGOLack of diffs to prove the point makes this mute even though such diffs are readily available. Note to OP: don't go to court armed only with an opinion, even if the opinion is based on facts, as we need evidence in the form of diffs that will ensure a sanction can be determined.-- MONGO ( talk) 19:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by Objective3000Taking a very brief look, most of the “edit wars” look like minor skirmishes. #20 was clearly an edit war. But, two other experienced editors took Snoog’s “side” in the war against a new user, and then another brand new user joined against the experienced editors and was blocked. Not a good example for a case against Snoog. The claims of SYNTH don’t look very SYNTHy to me. They appear to be sourced either in the respective articles or a linked article. Perhaps Snoog could use a bit more patience with new users at times. But, this looks like a lot of disagreement over content. I’d suggest that the filer withdraw this complaint as it may not go as planned. O3000 ( talk) 22:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by JzGThe diffs presented do not indicate any problem rising to the level of sanctions. In fat in several cases a barnstar would be a more appropriate response. When sources call people alt-right, white supremacists or whatever, so do we. The fact that some folks don't like it is not our problem to fix. Guy ( Help!) 22:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by TParis
Statement by power~enwikiThere's nothing here. Snoogans is an editor who clearly is not a Trump supporter, which if you squint hard enough could be an NPOV concern; we might not have any editors left with that test. I also strongly dislike content additions like
[58]; A boomerang may not be necessary (as I doubt Rajulbat knew what they were getting into), but a short one (as either an AP2 TBAN or a ban on filing administrative complaints) wouldn't be harmful. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Snooganssnoogans
|
| No action. Filer blocked for socking. Sandstein 11:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Philip Cross
Whilst Riley is new to the political debate, her connection to George Galloway for which PC has been warned on before is clear. She had been in various news and media following her public spat with Galloway. See link A warning may be sufficient but it should at the very least be looked at. As you can see from Rachel Riley's page it is now highly political.
Discussion concerning Philip CrossStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Philip CrossStatement by (Alextiffin88)Cross intentionally edited an article on Rachel Riley despite knowing her entry into UK Political debate. Whilst it may seem minor it is still a breach of the ruling on post 1978 political articles. Whilst it may be on the fringe I believe that the connection to George Galloway is what is relevant in this case. The anti-Semitism debate which is well founded is currently a highly political event that PC would know Riley was involved in from the outset.
I have added further difflinks please see above. They show Cross editing articles related to UK politics. The reason I raised the request this way is so that it is public and fair. If I'm wrong so be it but it will be a learning experience regardless. Statement by IcewhizAt the time of Cross's edits - Rachel Riley (on Cross's last edit) had nothing about UK politics or antisemitism. The subject is primarily known for being a TV presenter (e.g. Countdown (game show)). Riley, who is Jewish, also recently spoke out against antisemitism and has been trolled by elements in the fringes of UK politics. It is far than obvious this makes her related to " post-1978 British politics" - it is even less obvious Cross should have known about this on 9 Jan, and Cross's edits ( combined diff) had nothing to do with politics - being copy edits, game show related stuff, marriage, veganism, being Jewish, etc. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by NSH001Philip Cross added a quote from Oliver Kamm 23 November 2018 to Wikipedia:Press coverage 2018. As Kamm, and the controversy about the relationship between Kamm and Cross was right at the heart of the Arbcom case, this is unquestionably a breach of his topic ban. -- NSH001 ( talk) 10:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
BU Rob13, re your block of Alex Tiffin, this does not look to me like the behaviour of a typical sockpuppet, but rather an innocent mistake by a relatively inexperienced user. See the discussion on my talk page. -- NSH001 ( talk) 08:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC) Right, I finally got round to looking at Rachel Riley's twitter feed. Here's one of her posts on 8 January: "For months now, I’ve been speaking out to highlight the growing problem of AS in the UK." Her tweets are full of abuse aimed at alleged antisemitism in the Labour Party, including calling "antisemites" many people who really aren't. This is part of a campaign which is attempting to use (in my opinion obviously bogus) claims of antisemitism in order to discredit Jeremy Corbyn. This had been going on for months before Cross edited the Rachel Riley article, and Cross, without doubt, would have been fully aware of this. The fact that her article had nothing of this when Cross edited it is irrelevant; anyone aware of the vast propaganda campaign against Corbyn would have been aware of her tweets. Her twitter feed contains stuff like "Fuck off George Galloway", and libellous material I won't repeat here. So I don't accept the claims below that the first diff doesn't relate to "post-1978 British politics, broadly construed", it obviously does. -- NSH001 ( talk) 11:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by Thryduulfposting here as although I'm not involved with Phillip Cross at all, I do not regard myself as impartial with regards British Politics Statement by {other editor}Result concerning Philip Cross
|
| Blocked 36 h and topic-banned for six months by GoldenRing. |
|---|
| 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 AndInFirstPlace
User has gone against 1RR three different times, reverting each specified time outlined above. David O. Johnson ( talk) 06:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Discussion concerning AndInFirstPlaceStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AndInFirstPlaceStatement by Beyond My KenFor the record, in their 5 day editing career AndInFirstPlace has
That's all within a five day period, which might be a record of some kind. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning AndInFirstPlace
|
| AmYisroelChai is indefinitely banned from all pages and edits related to post-1932 American politics, broadly construed and may appeal after six months. GoldenRing ( talk) 15:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning AmYisroelChai
Discussion concerning AmYisroelChaiStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AmYisroelChairegarding
Statement by (username)Result concerning AmYisroelChai
|
| Appeal declined and withdrawn. Sandstein 11:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found
here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved 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 KidAd
Statement by Ian.thomsonI hadn't quite thought that this would end up in front of ArbCom but I'm not sure if/how things would have gone differently. As Nil_Einne pointed out at ANI, in this edit, KidAd should have absolutely realized that he was editing an article that related to post-1932 American politics. Had I spotted that diff before carrying out the block, and had I known that KidAd was going to argue with a straight face that articles about American political journalists and spouses of American politicians and political consultants have nothing to do with American politics, I'd've just gone with an indef. I simply can't imagine simultaneous competence and good faith in the face of that (un)reasoning, just one or the other at most. Ian.thomson ( talk) 20:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by Innisfree987
Question by Beyond My Ken@
KidAd:
Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by KidAdPlease note that this appeal was heavily edited by KidAd after it was copied here. [72] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC) Related:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by KidAd
|
| The article edits in question do not fall within the scope of discretionary sanctions. To the extent that talk page comments strayed into DS scope, editors are reminded to edit collegially and to assume good faith. GoldenRing ( talk) 15:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning FeydHuxtable
Edit warring:
Battleground:
FeydHuxtable is more or less thumbing their nose at the 1RR and behavior discretionary sanctions involving WP:ASPERSIONS about pesticides, etc. while interjecting persistent battleground behavior. They initially edit warred this content back in 2017 after it was initially removed for exactly the same reasons as it was yesterday without gaining consensus on the talk page. I removed it again yesterday re-reminding them of the DS, WP:ONUS, and 1RR. They reinserted it anyways today without gaining consensus. The underlying content dispute involves their on a primary source related to insect species decline with underlying causes of agricultural land use, pesticides, etc. for an area of Germany. I've been trying to get across that there are plenty of peer-reviewed reviews that take priority and discuss insect biodiversity and changes to due to agriculture, pesticides, etc. or by how much at an appropriate summary level for articles like Insect#Diversity and Insect_biodiversity rather than editor synthesis zeroing in on one primary study that is given relatively little weight in secondary sources. That’s not to hash the content issue out further here, but just background since they are also casting aspersions claiming I'm trying to cover up the insect decline, fringe-POV pusher, etc. on the talk page section despite by suggesting the above. That kind of behavior became such a problem before the ArbCom case that arbs passed the GMO aspersions principle linked above as people coming in with that attitude commonly pull a bull in a china shop act like we’re seeing here and miss basic parts of the discussion lacking the ability to follow WP:FOC policy. Instead, FeydHuxtable goes into soapbox diatribes largely unrelated to the content, edit wars, lashes out at editors, etc. as outlined above and can be seen at
Talk:Insect#Biomass_decline. There’s also
this in response to warning of the DS: I'm at a loss for how to handle their behavior at the article alone any further since they've made it clear they don't care about the discretionary sanctions, and it's distracting from what should be basic content discussion. That kind of behavior often eventually leads to topic bans in this subject if allowed to keep up. This is low-key right now compared to some past problem editors, but the DS were directly imposed to keep this nonsense out of the topic. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 20:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Discussion concerning FeydHuxtableStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by FeydHuxtableLike user:Kingofaces43 Im at a loss at how to proceed. Our perspectives seem so different I see little chance of us finding common ground. So as per my last post on insect talk, I said I'd consider keeping out of Kings way, including not making further edits to articles about bugs. Had hoped that might be the end of our dispute. The dispute is about much more than a German study; the central issue is the global decline of the insect population. There seems to be unanimous scientific consensus that this is a major issues. A few scientists have argued that warnings of an impending ecological collapse due to bug decline may be exaggerated - but even they agree the decline is a problem that warrants further investigation and funding. Accordingly, I see the omission of the decline phenomena as an even greater NPOV violation than it would be to delete any mention of man-made global warning from climate change. Granted, King has never flat out claimed we should have zero coverage, but they have deleted all mention of it. Their talk page contributions seem such spurious wikilawyering nonsense that Ive not seen any way to productively engage. It's not true Im thumbing my nose at 1RR & DS. I am indifferent to whether Im indeffed, but its important to me to conduct myself with honour, which includes respecting our communities norms and other editors time. Even by King's own words, the applicability of the DS tag was "borderline" I see their use of the DS tag as possibly a feeble & manipulative ploy to help push a Fringe PoV. I dont recall mentioning pesticide or other biotech on insect or any other article. While I may sometimes remark about biotechs corrupting effect on science, it's also my opinion that biotech has and will continue to be a huge net +ve overall, essential to feeding & caring for the world's growing population. I had previously warned King that if they take this to the DS board, they may not like how it ends. I was prepared to argue they warrant a boomerang, due to the impression some of their edits create of them being a pro pesticide shrill. The thing is, per my last post on talk, Ive came to see it's possible they are posting from a sensible good faith perspective, just one I can't fathom. The fact they've chose to square up against me on the DS board makes me think its even more likely they are good faith. So I don't recommend any sanction against them, maybe just a gentle trout slap for wasting your time with this unneeded filing. As indicated, I was already planning to try & stay out of Kings way, so not sure there is any need for action here. Just in case you feel my behaviour warrants an indeff, my last words are to wish all fellow editors the very best of luck. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 21:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by CollectThis is a prime example of how "broadly construed" is easily turned into "anything at all." The edit is question was not about pesticides, therefore any reasonable construction would find it acceptable. "Broadly construed" would imply that the party could not even write about a person who was ever stung by a bee (deliberate example), or had an allergy to honey. It is long past time for the "broadly construed" superhighway to see its exist ramp, and this would be a good place to start. Collect ( talk) 15:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning FeydHuxtable
|
| Not actionable; content dispute. Sandstein 14:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Icewhiz
Background: Aya Maasarwe was a young woman, recently raped and murdered in Australia, see Killing of Aya Maasarwe. She was from Baqa al-Gharbiyye, Israel, and according to her family, "The family has contacted media organisations asking [..] to reflect their wish for her to be identified as Palestinian." link I have filed this report against Icewhiz, as he started the removal of the Palestinian identity (after the article have been mostly stable for days), but Shrike ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues his same edits. They refuse to undo their edits, even after being challenged on the article talk page, and being made aware of the Maasarwe family's wishes.
Discussion concerning IcewhizStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by IcewhizUnlike Huldra, I took the discussion to the article talk page opening a discussion after Huldra reverted. Mainstream outlets such as BBC and AP (WaPo reprint) use Arab-Israeli (without Palestinian - which is a highly charged political stmt for a citizen of Israel to say about themselves - many do - but many do not) - which is the standard term for Arab citizens of Israel. Huldra participated in Talk:Arab citizens of Israel#Requested move 2 September 2018 ( 20:59, 3 September 2018) and was acting against consensus by changing a piped link to that article. With 23:00, 21 January 2019 and 20:36, 28 January 2019, Huldra introduced an opinion piece (and attributed reporting on the op-ed by Khalik) - [75], [76] that challenged mainstream coverage (which quite widely did not say Palestinian) - to make an unattributed assertion on a BDP and BLPs. Icewhiz ( talk) 05:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by BellezzasoloJust as we don't allow article subjects to dictate the content of the article about them, we follow RSes, not the desire of the family. Given that the quality of sources was increased in the course of the edit, furthermore that Shrike has noted the family's desire, in a DUE manner. This is frankly a frivolous report stemming from a new content dispute. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by (TracyMcClark)What Icewhiz describes as "op-reds and reporting on advocacy - not a RS..." in their edit summary is actually sourced to a news report in the Guardian [80] in first place. Sure Belle, that was almost the same article going online 4 1/2 hours earlier before they knew more. Statement by Sir JosephThis is a frivolous request and should be closed as such. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by LevivichNo comment on the Killing of Aya Maasarwe edits, but regarding the removal of 149k from Israeli occupation of the West Bank, that was preceded by months of discussion at Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank about size and npov issues, including a recent thread about the article's DYK nomination potentially being in jeopardy due to the ongoing content dispute. Both Huldra and Icewhiz have participated in that discussion (as have I). Icewhiz posted to the talk page after making that edit, and since being reverted by Huldra, Icewhiz has continued discussion on the talk page (and hopefully Huldra will join the conversation, too). I see this edit as a bold move to try and break a logjam in discussion, not as a violation of DS. Leviv ich 06:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by Shrike@ Black Kite: My version is better because its actually follows our guideline WP:ETHNICITY.Also if my edits wasn't so good what do you think about removing "Israel" from the article [81] -- Shrike ( talk) 07:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by BellaSo..the deceased and the family identifies themselves as Palestinians. [82] Sources (removed by Icewhiz) also describe the dead as "..a Palestinian Arab of Israeli citizenship.." [83], "A Palestinian with Israeli citizenship" [84] "The 21-year-old was Palestinian, yet because of the title of her passport, she was described in news reports as Israeli or Arab-Israeli" [85] Icewhiz eliminated every word "Palestinian" from the article [86] including the sources and replaced it with "Israeli Arab" adding references of his choice, that don't identify Maasarwe as "Palestinian". Why not quote both classifications?? I don't believe this was a good faith edit. Sensitivity of the matter is quite obvious. It is natural to expect the opposing side being offended and provoked. GizzyCatBella ( talk) 08:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by E.M.GregoryJust for clarity, we have no source on how the deceased self-identified. All that we can source (beyond the fact of Israeli citizenship) is that the family identifies as Palestinian and that the family after her death asked the press to identify her as Palestinian. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by Stefka BulgariaIcewhiz seems to have continuously discussed edits on the relevant talk pages. If there was a disagreement in reaching consensus, perhaps a RfC could have helped, but this request is uncalled for. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 21:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Result concerning Icewhiz
|
| Referred to WP:ARCA. Sandstein 11:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning The Rambling Man
All I want is for him to stop yelling at other folks this way; the weeks since ARCA were blissfully friction-free, and I don't know why TRM felt the need to be rude today. Vanamonde ( Talk) 23:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Discussion concerning The Rambling ManStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by The Rambling ManUnclear as to why this has to go to Arbcom, demonstrates a serious lack of ability of the posting admin to go through standard approaches to content dispute and a really savage need to get me blocked. Tragic. The Rambling Man ( talk) 23:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by SoftlavenderI find TRM's statement puzzling. "Unclear as to why this has to go to Arbcom": Vanamonde already presented TRM's express directive to take it to ArbCom: [98], [99]. "Could I also see clear diffs where I have "post[ed] speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence." please?": Vanamonde already posted that: [100]. As for myself, it looks to me like Vanamonde's case is pretty cut-and-dried and airtight. Softlavender ( talk) 01:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC) @ Alex Shih: It sounds to me like you are trying to explain away what are clearly multiple violations of TRM's sanctions. There are no conditions on the very clear and specifically worded sanction, and you are trying to insert conditions, exceptions, and exemptions into it that do not exist. If you want there to be conditions, exceptions, and exemptions in the sanction, I suggest you file at WP:ARCA. -- Softlavender ( talk) 03:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by Alex ShihI think TRM was responding to the edit summary "
Statement by DrmiesDidn't realize we were here. We wouldn't have been, had it not been for that edit summary of TRM's. I think most everyone is familiar with his abrasive and dismissive commentary, his lack of respect for fellow editors and especially admins, and so am I. I'm sure someone can find the set of edit summaries in relation to that time, a few months ago, when I, meaning no harm, mentioned him in relation to some matter on DYK or ERRORS or something; TRM apparently needed some admin to help out with something, I didn't know how to do it, so I asked for a volunteer on AN and TRM blew his top cause OMG I mentioned his name. Since then I've completely disregarded him; I don't look at his edits, I don't look at his talk page, I don't try to assist him with ERRORS etc. (the record can show that I did), though I know he does a lot of good work there.But then this--I don't know if this is because I'm an admin, and we all suck, or because I'm me, and I suck. What I do know is that it's bad manners to display that kind of personal hostility in an edit summary. I don't care if he blasts me on his talk page (I don't look at it, and after he first pinged me and then told me to fuck off I haven't looked at it, though someone pinged me from it, I believe), I really don't. But don't take that hostility into edit summaries, for everyday viewers and editors to see. Alex, if you're wondering why I responded why I did, it's because that remark ("you don't know shit, there's a million references even though only one is cited") was in an edit summary, in what would everywhere else be called a personal attack or at least a lack of AGF. If my edit is wrong, he can explain this in human language, focusing on the edit, not on me--this is standard operating procedure: focus on the edit, not the editor. TRM used to be an admin; he should know this. I'm not sure I care much whether TRM gets slapped on the wrist or blocked for this, or whatever. Of course it's a violation, but meh. But if one of you could tell him that if he wants me to leave him alone, he should start by leaving me alone, that would be great. Seems straightforward to me. Drmies ( talk) 02:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning The Rambling Man
|
| Indefinitely blocked as a normal admin action by Bishonen. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 08:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Goosemuffin
I think the diffs speak for themselves. It seems that the editor is unable to deal with "Hindus" in general, or anybody that has different views from himself. He has been told politely, by third party editors to avoid personal attacks. His posts have been modified by deleting blatantly offensive bits and even reverted. He has received a user warning and a DS alert. Yet he is back here today with the same kind of attacks. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Discussion concerning GoosemuffinStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GoosemuffinStatement by (username)Result concerning Goosemuffin
|
| Withdrawn. Admins commenting agree these edits are not in the scope of climate change DS. Editors are reminded to edit civilly and collaboratively. GoldenRing ( talk) 10:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Boundarylayer
Boundarylayer does have a topic ban for pregnancy/abortion and various blocks. Since I'm only asking for a formal warning in the nuclear & energy topics I'm not going into the details of that prior history at this time.
Please close This was only a request for a warning. Two reasons to close are (A) admins think this was the wrong venue (my apologies) and (B) Boundarylayer says he will be away for an unknown number of weeks, anyway. Thanks for your attention, sorry about screwing up the venue choice. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 10:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Notified here
Discussion concerning BoundarylayerStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by BoundarylayerThis desire to drum up apocalyptic notions of attacks and battlefields, is simply part of the ongoing WP:STALK conduct of news and event guy which they have truly disturbingly engaged themselves in, these past weeks. As they curiously like to to invent scenarios that demonstrably did not take place and by doing so, generate these groundless and laughable vexatious complaints for cautions and other spurious nonsense. Let's take their attempted inversions, one by one. Here the WP:HOUNDing has involved the putting in block capitals to prime the arbitration viewers, into seeing what is to follow as MORTAL COMBAT, COMMENCE FIGHT. Well if it's in blocks, who can argue with that. lol. Yet actually it's just a re-iteration of what I wrote on the talk page, that thomas, the other editor needs to come back with secondary sources, that's how wikipedia works and they are indeed "disregarding" and "undermining" wikipedia policy by blanking an article and similarly engaging in absolute fantasy building by declaring consensus has formed, when in actual reality, no such consensus exists. That's you can all agree, the very definition, of what it is, to engage in fantasy. I would hope you'd agree? Here BL names another editor...for purpose of attack.For the purposes of attack? Really? Here guy is really seen in full, as attempting to fantasize events and motivations and cast those aspersions onto another editor, they are hounding? One truly wonders?
On the place point there again. Myself and Thomas are actually discussing on the talk page, not your fantasy notion of 'duking it out in the Edit sums' that you just concocted. One misrepresentaion from guy after another, could it be, for the purposes of WP:HOUNDing? Next, this is really where the weird WP:STALK campaign reaches some disturbing levels. As you can see, guy clearly came onto an article talk page, simply because I was there and then once he was there, with the most astounding case of motivated reasoning, guy personally decided toread-into what I wrote and continues to this very day, to believe, I was talking about him. Yet guy is neither mentioned, again contrary to what they just claimed. Nor is he the editor on that article, to whom I was referring. So can you tell us guy, what is your explanation for thinking this is about you? As you are neither named as you have disturbingly claimed here nor ar you implicitly labeled. - Whatever that means. Yet Mr. guy again has framed it, as apparent MORTAL COMBAT, where I'm in his fantasy, naming him. Neither of which are anything close to reality, nor are they even plausible. Guy has never explained why he insists with this fantasy of theirs and it's truly a little troublingly, at this stage, as you can imagine.
Claming people 'named you' and you were implicitly labeled a "quack editor", when you're in actuality [A]Not even an editor on the article you followed me to, and [B] in the real world, clearly not named, or even mentioned in passing by me there, at all. So can you explain to us, why you think, or really, why you want to build the fantasy, that this was me, talking about you? I'm genuinely getting worred about you man. While coming onto my talk page continuously with all this demonstrably fantastical stuff man, was actually good comedy, at one point. I'm taking this I want him to be punished arbitration, as the epitome of WP:HOUNDing.
Boundarylayer ( talk) 18:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Thomas pow sI am engaged in the dispute with BoundaryLayer in the EROI article. BoundaryLayer's conduct is frequently odd, in my opinion. For example, I provided three meta-analyses from notable researchers, which summed up data from 250+ scientific articles on a topic. BoundaryLayer insisted that the 250+ studies are written by paid solar power advocates as part of a grand swindle: "Pumping out reams of papers ostensibly to grease the wheels on the swindle train?... With their fantasy-world-building statistical tricks?" At the same time, BoundaryLayer suggests that the meta-anaylsis, dervied from many independent studies, was produced in a collective marijuana-induced haze: "The only nonsense here is believing that solar PV is whatever solar advocates say it is. Tomorrow if EROI is declared a zillion... You don't have to build anything man, the energy just flows, pass me a joint yo." Please note that the EROI for solar PV in the meta-analysis was 14.4, which is totally unremarkable and moderately lower than other sources of energy. It was not "declared a zillion" by people who were passing marijuana joints amongst themselves as part of a swindle train, nor was there any risk of that happening. BoundaryLayer appears to have a hysterical or histrionic debating style, including odd, fabricated personal accusations against researchers in the field. Often, BoundaryLayer posts odd, emotional accusations against the other editors of wikipeida. Much of what he writes consists of odd personal remarks. Sometimes he writes mildly insulting remarks toward the other editors ("Are you trying out to be a comedian next?" and so on). However, I'm not sure if it warrants disciplinary action. He's not horribly insulting or vicious. I think it might warrant a comment or remark from an admin, but nothing more serious than that. I doubt that any remark to him will have any effect anyway, since this appears to be an established behavior. Thomas pow s ( talk) 20:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC) As an example, BoundaryLayer just posted a remark that I have a "truly revealing level of fantasy-engagement". That is a comment about an EDITOR, not the topic. It's that kind of thing, which is happening all the time. That said, he posts nothing horribly insulting or vicious. Thomas pow s ( talk) 20:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Boundarylayer
|
| Blocked for a week. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:56, 28 December 2018 (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 FkpCascais
levant sanctions, if any :
FkpCascais is currently topic banned from from everything related to the Balkans [4]. They are trying to have their topic ban modified (in order to be able to edit Balkan football articles) but there is no decision for modification yet [5]. A few days ago he was blocked for the same thing [6]. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 20:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning FkpCascaisStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by FkpCascaisOK, I really expect the worst now, like being banned forever or similar... Yes, some time ago I found out József Lakatos was a Hungarian footballer who played in Spain as well, and he was not Romanian as initially sugested as some Yugoslav sites. I have a passion for these first sportsman that played in different countries and I love to make them their articles with their complete story. I thought moving him from Romanian to Hungarian list want be a "Balkans issue" and I though no one will find it hurtfull... The first and second edits are just moving him to a right list. The third edit is inside my sandbox (am I banned from editing my sandboxes?). Anyway, it is nothing political or controversial. I really think the admins should start questioning why these few editors are so commited to get me eliminated from Wikipedia? I was recognised as awesome Wikipedian just a couple of month earlier. Now I am finding myself in this extremelly uncomfortable situation just because I was alone asking an unpleasent question in a historical article and I backed my claims with sources (at time I was in process of bringing more RS to the table). Wouldn´t proper Wikipedia protocolo just procede to a kind of RfC and bring a neutral editor to decide it, and we would be moving on? I want touch anything until a decition is made, I promise, cause I see otherwise i will be block and I am currently unabled from contributing to my area of speciallty. FkpCascais ( talk) 22:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC) Statement by 89.164.154.220@ Salvio giuliano and Sandstein:. I think that he is still violating TB by posting opinions like this [7]. I had to ping him so other editors can see that I pinged everyone who participated in the discussion. Then he went to put his opinion on the matter by trying to camouflage it as an "I can't respond" post. Were will we come if he will each time he is pinged leave an opinionated comment and say "I shouldn't respond." 89.164.154.220 ( talk) 21:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning FkpCascais
|
| Blocked for one week by GoldenRing ( talk · contribs). Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 02:47, 30 December 2018 (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 أمين
ARBPIA 30/500 Editors need to have 500 edits.
Discussion concerning أمينStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by أمينStatement by (username)Result concerning أمين
|
| Blocked for one week. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 13:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning أمين
Its clear that user can't differentiate what belongs to the conflict and what is not
Discussion concerning أمينStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by أمينStatement by (username)Result concerning أمين
|
| No action taken. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 00:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning DBigXray
Noting that there is a limit of "20 diffs", I am presenting recent diffs where DBigXray has falsely accused editors of paid editing, socking and violated other forms of WP:NPA/ WP:BATTLE:
All of these incidents came after a warning from ANI that this sort of behavior will result in block. I believe that these diffs qualifies as the clear evidence to establish that there is a recurring pattern of disruption. While there are issues with use of poor sources, wikihounding contributors, copyvio, and other problems, I decided to leave them due to limit of diffs. GenuineArt ( talk) 18:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Discussion concerning DBigXrayStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DBigXrayRelevant threads for the Dispute at Jaggi Vasudev
diffs have been copied and response inline for ease of reading.
To conclude my response on the above allegations, I never had any disputes with GenuineArts so far. He had made a complaint against me few days back at ANI with intentions to get me sanctioned. I am not sure, but based on the recent multiple threads that had been started against me at ANI by a particular set of editors, I see that as a part of a concerted effort by this set of editors with whom I am having ongoing content disputes on articles. All these attacks against me have begun since 29 October when I participated in the WP:RM discussion at Talk:Jaggi Vasudev and voted oppose against the proposal. I regularly participate at WP:RMT amd WP:RM discussions, I had never edited the page Jaggi Vasudev before my participation at its RM discussion. The content dispute with some of "these editors" are still ongoing at Talk:Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014, Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Talk:1984 anti-Sikh riots. "These editors", I am having disputes currently include Capitals00, MBlaze Lightning, Raymond3023, D4iNa4, Orientls, I note that 4 of these are also under indefinite India-Pakistan topic ban [55]. This thread at ARE is fifth such attempt (after 4 threads at ANI in a short period) in the ongoing efforts by participants of these content disputes, to bypass these content disputes by getting me sanctioned. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 23:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by WBGGArt; do you think your edit-summary over this edit is any conducive to maintaining a collaborative and collegial editorial atmosphere? ∯WBG converse 19:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC) Result concerning DBigXray
|
| Rajulbat ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from everything related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people for three months. Sandstein 12:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Snooganssnoogans
Snooganssnoogans primary purpose on Wikipedia appears to be to overload articles concerning conservative U.S. political figures or topics (examples: Mitch McConnell, Brigitte Gabriel, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Sebastian Gorka, Liberty University, etc.) with a negative slant. I ran into this user at the Mitch McConnell page. I looked up that congressman's article by chance when he was mentioned in the news. In subsequent discussion it became clear that he was only interested in reflecting one point of view. This led me to review his contributions in other articles, which led me to file a complaint at the ANI, where it was suggested that the appropriate venue is here. There have been over 11,000 edits since the last time his conduct was up for review here. His chronic NPOV issue has not been corrected.
Discussion concerning SnooganssnoogansStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SnooganssnoogansI'd just like to point out that in #14, I'm defending Tim Scott, the sole African-American Republican Senator, from poorly sourced attacks on his intellect and competence. [57] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by MrXNo evidence of sanctionable conduct has been presented. This seems to be an attempt to win a content dispute by dredging up a previous AE filing, casting aspersions, forum shopping and pinging a couple of sympathetic admins. - Mr X 🖋 13:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC) Note by Beyond My Ken@ Rajulbat: Please note that Mitch McConnell is not a "Congressman", he is a United States Senator. (Only members of the House of Representatives are called "Congressman", "Congresswoman" or "Congressperson".) Beyond My Ken ( talk) 17:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Cullen 328Since no evidence of any misconduct has been presented, this should be declined promptly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Davey2010I know the 24 hour wait was suggested in good faith but IMHO evidence should be provided with the case not 24 hours later, This should be closed now and if the OP wants to return then fine. – Davey2010 Talk 17:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by RandomGnomeI can't see how Snoogans has specifically violated the terms of the sanctions currently in place. The OP has additionally failed to provide evidence of other applicable misconduct. In the OP's defense however, I would concur with others who have stated that Snoogans is an editor who walks a very thin line between acceptable behavior and agenda activism. My own opinion is that when that line crossed, any editor needs to be
Statement by GalobtterThe filer has indicated they're not going to be providing the evidence requested, so I'd think this could be closed now. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 18:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by MONGOLack of diffs to prove the point makes this mute even though such diffs are readily available. Note to OP: don't go to court armed only with an opinion, even if the opinion is based on facts, as we need evidence in the form of diffs that will ensure a sanction can be determined.-- MONGO ( talk) 19:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by Objective3000Taking a very brief look, most of the “edit wars” look like minor skirmishes. #20 was clearly an edit war. But, two other experienced editors took Snoog’s “side” in the war against a new user, and then another brand new user joined against the experienced editors and was blocked. Not a good example for a case against Snoog. The claims of SYNTH don’t look very SYNTHy to me. They appear to be sourced either in the respective articles or a linked article. Perhaps Snoog could use a bit more patience with new users at times. But, this looks like a lot of disagreement over content. I’d suggest that the filer withdraw this complaint as it may not go as planned. O3000 ( talk) 22:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by JzGThe diffs presented do not indicate any problem rising to the level of sanctions. In fat in several cases a barnstar would be a more appropriate response. When sources call people alt-right, white supremacists or whatever, so do we. The fact that some folks don't like it is not our problem to fix. Guy ( Help!) 22:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by TParis
Statement by power~enwikiThere's nothing here. Snoogans is an editor who clearly is not a Trump supporter, which if you squint hard enough could be an NPOV concern; we might not have any editors left with that test. I also strongly dislike content additions like
[58]; A boomerang may not be necessary (as I doubt Rajulbat knew what they were getting into), but a short one (as either an AP2 TBAN or a ban on filing administrative complaints) wouldn't be harmful. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Snooganssnoogans
|
| No action. Filer blocked for socking. Sandstein 11:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Philip Cross
Whilst Riley is new to the political debate, her connection to George Galloway for which PC has been warned on before is clear. She had been in various news and media following her public spat with Galloway. See link A warning may be sufficient but it should at the very least be looked at. As you can see from Rachel Riley's page it is now highly political.
Discussion concerning Philip CrossStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Philip CrossStatement by (Alextiffin88)Cross intentionally edited an article on Rachel Riley despite knowing her entry into UK Political debate. Whilst it may seem minor it is still a breach of the ruling on post 1978 political articles. Whilst it may be on the fringe I believe that the connection to George Galloway is what is relevant in this case. The anti-Semitism debate which is well founded is currently a highly political event that PC would know Riley was involved in from the outset.
I have added further difflinks please see above. They show Cross editing articles related to UK politics. The reason I raised the request this way is so that it is public and fair. If I'm wrong so be it but it will be a learning experience regardless. Statement by IcewhizAt the time of Cross's edits - Rachel Riley (on Cross's last edit) had nothing about UK politics or antisemitism. The subject is primarily known for being a TV presenter (e.g. Countdown (game show)). Riley, who is Jewish, also recently spoke out against antisemitism and has been trolled by elements in the fringes of UK politics. It is far than obvious this makes her related to " post-1978 British politics" - it is even less obvious Cross should have known about this on 9 Jan, and Cross's edits ( combined diff) had nothing to do with politics - being copy edits, game show related stuff, marriage, veganism, being Jewish, etc. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by NSH001Philip Cross added a quote from Oliver Kamm 23 November 2018 to Wikipedia:Press coverage 2018. As Kamm, and the controversy about the relationship between Kamm and Cross was right at the heart of the Arbcom case, this is unquestionably a breach of his topic ban. -- NSH001 ( talk) 10:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
BU Rob13, re your block of Alex Tiffin, this does not look to me like the behaviour of a typical sockpuppet, but rather an innocent mistake by a relatively inexperienced user. See the discussion on my talk page. -- NSH001 ( talk) 08:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC) Right, I finally got round to looking at Rachel Riley's twitter feed. Here's one of her posts on 8 January: "For months now, I’ve been speaking out to highlight the growing problem of AS in the UK." Her tweets are full of abuse aimed at alleged antisemitism in the Labour Party, including calling "antisemites" many people who really aren't. This is part of a campaign which is attempting to use (in my opinion obviously bogus) claims of antisemitism in order to discredit Jeremy Corbyn. This had been going on for months before Cross edited the Rachel Riley article, and Cross, without doubt, would have been fully aware of this. The fact that her article had nothing of this when Cross edited it is irrelevant; anyone aware of the vast propaganda campaign against Corbyn would have been aware of her tweets. Her twitter feed contains stuff like "Fuck off George Galloway", and libellous material I won't repeat here. So I don't accept the claims below that the first diff doesn't relate to "post-1978 British politics, broadly construed", it obviously does. -- NSH001 ( talk) 11:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by Thryduulfposting here as although I'm not involved with Phillip Cross at all, I do not regard myself as impartial with regards British Politics Statement by {other editor}Result concerning Philip Cross
|
| Blocked 36 h and topic-banned for six months by GoldenRing. |
|---|
| 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 AndInFirstPlace
User has gone against 1RR three different times, reverting each specified time outlined above. David O. Johnson ( talk) 06:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Discussion concerning AndInFirstPlaceStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AndInFirstPlaceStatement by Beyond My KenFor the record, in their 5 day editing career AndInFirstPlace has
That's all within a five day period, which might be a record of some kind. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning AndInFirstPlace
|
| AmYisroelChai is indefinitely banned from all pages and edits related to post-1932 American politics, broadly construed and may appeal after six months. GoldenRing ( talk) 15:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning AmYisroelChai
Discussion concerning AmYisroelChaiStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AmYisroelChairegarding
Statement by (username)Result concerning AmYisroelChai
|
| Appeal declined and withdrawn. Sandstein 11:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found
here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved 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 KidAd
Statement by Ian.thomsonI hadn't quite thought that this would end up in front of ArbCom but I'm not sure if/how things would have gone differently. As Nil_Einne pointed out at ANI, in this edit, KidAd should have absolutely realized that he was editing an article that related to post-1932 American politics. Had I spotted that diff before carrying out the block, and had I known that KidAd was going to argue with a straight face that articles about American political journalists and spouses of American politicians and political consultants have nothing to do with American politics, I'd've just gone with an indef. I simply can't imagine simultaneous competence and good faith in the face of that (un)reasoning, just one or the other at most. Ian.thomson ( talk) 20:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by Innisfree987
Question by Beyond My Ken@
KidAd:
Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by KidAdPlease note that this appeal was heavily edited by KidAd after it was copied here. [72] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC) Related:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by KidAd
|
| The article edits in question do not fall within the scope of discretionary sanctions. To the extent that talk page comments strayed into DS scope, editors are reminded to edit collegially and to assume good faith. GoldenRing ( talk) 15:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning FeydHuxtable
Edit warring:
Battleground:
FeydHuxtable is more or less thumbing their nose at the 1RR and behavior discretionary sanctions involving WP:ASPERSIONS about pesticides, etc. while interjecting persistent battleground behavior. They initially edit warred this content back in 2017 after it was initially removed for exactly the same reasons as it was yesterday without gaining consensus on the talk page. I removed it again yesterday re-reminding them of the DS, WP:ONUS, and 1RR. They reinserted it anyways today without gaining consensus. The underlying content dispute involves their on a primary source related to insect species decline with underlying causes of agricultural land use, pesticides, etc. for an area of Germany. I've been trying to get across that there are plenty of peer-reviewed reviews that take priority and discuss insect biodiversity and changes to due to agriculture, pesticides, etc. or by how much at an appropriate summary level for articles like Insect#Diversity and Insect_biodiversity rather than editor synthesis zeroing in on one primary study that is given relatively little weight in secondary sources. That’s not to hash the content issue out further here, but just background since they are also casting aspersions claiming I'm trying to cover up the insect decline, fringe-POV pusher, etc. on the talk page section despite by suggesting the above. That kind of behavior became such a problem before the ArbCom case that arbs passed the GMO aspersions principle linked above as people coming in with that attitude commonly pull a bull in a china shop act like we’re seeing here and miss basic parts of the discussion lacking the ability to follow WP:FOC policy. Instead, FeydHuxtable goes into soapbox diatribes largely unrelated to the content, edit wars, lashes out at editors, etc. as outlined above and can be seen at
Talk:Insect#Biomass_decline. There’s also
this in response to warning of the DS: I'm at a loss for how to handle their behavior at the article alone any further since they've made it clear they don't care about the discretionary sanctions, and it's distracting from what should be basic content discussion. That kind of behavior often eventually leads to topic bans in this subject if allowed to keep up. This is low-key right now compared to some past problem editors, but the DS were directly imposed to keep this nonsense out of the topic. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 20:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Discussion concerning FeydHuxtableStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by FeydHuxtableLike user:Kingofaces43 Im at a loss at how to proceed. Our perspectives seem so different I see little chance of us finding common ground. So as per my last post on insect talk, I said I'd consider keeping out of Kings way, including not making further edits to articles about bugs. Had hoped that might be the end of our dispute. The dispute is about much more than a German study; the central issue is the global decline of the insect population. There seems to be unanimous scientific consensus that this is a major issues. A few scientists have argued that warnings of an impending ecological collapse due to bug decline may be exaggerated - but even they agree the decline is a problem that warrants further investigation and funding. Accordingly, I see the omission of the decline phenomena as an even greater NPOV violation than it would be to delete any mention of man-made global warning from climate change. Granted, King has never flat out claimed we should have zero coverage, but they have deleted all mention of it. Their talk page contributions seem such spurious wikilawyering nonsense that Ive not seen any way to productively engage. It's not true Im thumbing my nose at 1RR & DS. I am indifferent to whether Im indeffed, but its important to me to conduct myself with honour, which includes respecting our communities norms and other editors time. Even by King's own words, the applicability of the DS tag was "borderline" I see their use of the DS tag as possibly a feeble & manipulative ploy to help push a Fringe PoV. I dont recall mentioning pesticide or other biotech on insect or any other article. While I may sometimes remark about biotechs corrupting effect on science, it's also my opinion that biotech has and will continue to be a huge net +ve overall, essential to feeding & caring for the world's growing population. I had previously warned King that if they take this to the DS board, they may not like how it ends. I was prepared to argue they warrant a boomerang, due to the impression some of their edits create of them being a pro pesticide shrill. The thing is, per my last post on talk, Ive came to see it's possible they are posting from a sensible good faith perspective, just one I can't fathom. The fact they've chose to square up against me on the DS board makes me think its even more likely they are good faith. So I don't recommend any sanction against them, maybe just a gentle trout slap for wasting your time with this unneeded filing. As indicated, I was already planning to try & stay out of Kings way, so not sure there is any need for action here. Just in case you feel my behaviour warrants an indeff, my last words are to wish all fellow editors the very best of luck. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 21:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by CollectThis is a prime example of how "broadly construed" is easily turned into "anything at all." The edit is question was not about pesticides, therefore any reasonable construction would find it acceptable. "Broadly construed" would imply that the party could not even write about a person who was ever stung by a bee (deliberate example), or had an allergy to honey. It is long past time for the "broadly construed" superhighway to see its exist ramp, and this would be a good place to start. Collect ( talk) 15:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning FeydHuxtable
|
| Not actionable; content dispute. Sandstein 14:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Icewhiz
Background: Aya Maasarwe was a young woman, recently raped and murdered in Australia, see Killing of Aya Maasarwe. She was from Baqa al-Gharbiyye, Israel, and according to her family, "The family has contacted media organisations asking [..] to reflect their wish for her to be identified as Palestinian." link I have filed this report against Icewhiz, as he started the removal of the Palestinian identity (after the article have been mostly stable for days), but Shrike ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues his same edits. They refuse to undo their edits, even after being challenged on the article talk page, and being made aware of the Maasarwe family's wishes.
Discussion concerning IcewhizStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by IcewhizUnlike Huldra, I took the discussion to the article talk page opening a discussion after Huldra reverted. Mainstream outlets such as BBC and AP (WaPo reprint) use Arab-Israeli (without Palestinian - which is a highly charged political stmt for a citizen of Israel to say about themselves - many do - but many do not) - which is the standard term for Arab citizens of Israel. Huldra participated in Talk:Arab citizens of Israel#Requested move 2 September 2018 ( 20:59, 3 September 2018) and was acting against consensus by changing a piped link to that article. With 23:00, 21 January 2019 and 20:36, 28 January 2019, Huldra introduced an opinion piece (and attributed reporting on the op-ed by Khalik) - [75], [76] that challenged mainstream coverage (which quite widely did not say Palestinian) - to make an unattributed assertion on a BDP and BLPs. Icewhiz ( talk) 05:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by BellezzasoloJust as we don't allow article subjects to dictate the content of the article about them, we follow RSes, not the desire of the family. Given that the quality of sources was increased in the course of the edit, furthermore that Shrike has noted the family's desire, in a DUE manner. This is frankly a frivolous report stemming from a new content dispute. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by (TracyMcClark)What Icewhiz describes as "op-reds and reporting on advocacy - not a RS..." in their edit summary is actually sourced to a news report in the Guardian [80] in first place. Sure Belle, that was almost the same article going online 4 1/2 hours earlier before they knew more. Statement by Sir JosephThis is a frivolous request and should be closed as such. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by LevivichNo comment on the Killing of Aya Maasarwe edits, but regarding the removal of 149k from Israeli occupation of the West Bank, that was preceded by months of discussion at Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank about size and npov issues, including a recent thread about the article's DYK nomination potentially being in jeopardy due to the ongoing content dispute. Both Huldra and Icewhiz have participated in that discussion (as have I). Icewhiz posted to the talk page after making that edit, and since being reverted by Huldra, Icewhiz has continued discussion on the talk page (and hopefully Huldra will join the conversation, too). I see this edit as a bold move to try and break a logjam in discussion, not as a violation of DS. Leviv ich 06:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by Shrike@ Black Kite: My version is better because its actually follows our guideline WP:ETHNICITY.Also if my edits wasn't so good what do you think about removing "Israel" from the article [81] -- Shrike ( talk) 07:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by BellaSo..the deceased and the family identifies themselves as Palestinians. [82] Sources (removed by Icewhiz) also describe the dead as "..a Palestinian Arab of Israeli citizenship.." [83], "A Palestinian with Israeli citizenship" [84] "The 21-year-old was Palestinian, yet because of the title of her passport, she was described in news reports as Israeli or Arab-Israeli" [85] Icewhiz eliminated every word "Palestinian" from the article [86] including the sources and replaced it with "Israeli Arab" adding references of his choice, that don't identify Maasarwe as "Palestinian". Why not quote both classifications?? I don't believe this was a good faith edit. Sensitivity of the matter is quite obvious. It is natural to expect the opposing side being offended and provoked. GizzyCatBella ( talk) 08:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by E.M.GregoryJust for clarity, we have no source on how the deceased self-identified. All that we can source (beyond the fact of Israeli citizenship) is that the family identifies as Palestinian and that the family after her death asked the press to identify her as Palestinian. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by Stefka BulgariaIcewhiz seems to have continuously discussed edits on the relevant talk pages. If there was a disagreement in reaching consensus, perhaps a RfC could have helped, but this request is uncalled for. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 21:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Result concerning Icewhiz
|
| Referred to WP:ARCA. Sandstein 11:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning The Rambling Man
All I want is for him to stop yelling at other folks this way; the weeks since ARCA were blissfully friction-free, and I don't know why TRM felt the need to be rude today. Vanamonde ( Talk) 23:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Discussion concerning The Rambling ManStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by The Rambling ManUnclear as to why this has to go to Arbcom, demonstrates a serious lack of ability of the posting admin to go through standard approaches to content dispute and a really savage need to get me blocked. Tragic. The Rambling Man ( talk) 23:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by SoftlavenderI find TRM's statement puzzling. "Unclear as to why this has to go to Arbcom": Vanamonde already presented TRM's express directive to take it to ArbCom: [98], [99]. "Could I also see clear diffs where I have "post[ed] speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence." please?": Vanamonde already posted that: [100]. As for myself, it looks to me like Vanamonde's case is pretty cut-and-dried and airtight. Softlavender ( talk) 01:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC) @ Alex Shih: It sounds to me like you are trying to explain away what are clearly multiple violations of TRM's sanctions. There are no conditions on the very clear and specifically worded sanction, and you are trying to insert conditions, exceptions, and exemptions into it that do not exist. If you want there to be conditions, exceptions, and exemptions in the sanction, I suggest you file at WP:ARCA. -- Softlavender ( talk) 03:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by Alex ShihI think TRM was responding to the edit summary "
Statement by DrmiesDidn't realize we were here. We wouldn't have been, had it not been for that edit summary of TRM's. I think most everyone is familiar with his abrasive and dismissive commentary, his lack of respect for fellow editors and especially admins, and so am I. I'm sure someone can find the set of edit summaries in relation to that time, a few months ago, when I, meaning no harm, mentioned him in relation to some matter on DYK or ERRORS or something; TRM apparently needed some admin to help out with something, I didn't know how to do it, so I asked for a volunteer on AN and TRM blew his top cause OMG I mentioned his name. Since then I've completely disregarded him; I don't look at his edits, I don't look at his talk page, I don't try to assist him with ERRORS etc. (the record can show that I did), though I know he does a lot of good work there.But then this--I don't know if this is because I'm an admin, and we all suck, or because I'm me, and I suck. What I do know is that it's bad manners to display that kind of personal hostility in an edit summary. I don't care if he blasts me on his talk page (I don't look at it, and after he first pinged me and then told me to fuck off I haven't looked at it, though someone pinged me from it, I believe), I really don't. But don't take that hostility into edit summaries, for everyday viewers and editors to see. Alex, if you're wondering why I responded why I did, it's because that remark ("you don't know shit, there's a million references even though only one is cited") was in an edit summary, in what would everywhere else be called a personal attack or at least a lack of AGF. If my edit is wrong, he can explain this in human language, focusing on the edit, not on me--this is standard operating procedure: focus on the edit, not the editor. TRM used to be an admin; he should know this. I'm not sure I care much whether TRM gets slapped on the wrist or blocked for this, or whatever. Of course it's a violation, but meh. But if one of you could tell him that if he wants me to leave him alone, he should start by leaving me alone, that would be great. Seems straightforward to me. Drmies ( talk) 02:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning The Rambling Man
|
| Indefinitely blocked as a normal admin action by Bishonen. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 08:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Goosemuffin
I think the diffs speak for themselves. It seems that the editor is unable to deal with "Hindus" in general, or anybody that has different views from himself. He has been told politely, by third party editors to avoid personal attacks. His posts have been modified by deleting blatantly offensive bits and even reverted. He has received a user warning and a DS alert. Yet he is back here today with the same kind of attacks. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Discussion concerning GoosemuffinStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GoosemuffinStatement by (username)Result concerning Goosemuffin
|
| Withdrawn. Admins commenting agree these edits are not in the scope of climate change DS. Editors are reminded to edit civilly and collaboratively. GoldenRing ( talk) 10:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Boundarylayer
Boundarylayer does have a topic ban for pregnancy/abortion and various blocks. Since I'm only asking for a formal warning in the nuclear & energy topics I'm not going into the details of that prior history at this time.
Please close This was only a request for a warning. Two reasons to close are (A) admins think this was the wrong venue (my apologies) and (B) Boundarylayer says he will be away for an unknown number of weeks, anyway. Thanks for your attention, sorry about screwing up the venue choice. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 10:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Notified here
Discussion concerning BoundarylayerStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by BoundarylayerThis desire to drum up apocalyptic notions of attacks and battlefields, is simply part of the ongoing WP:STALK conduct of news and event guy which they have truly disturbingly engaged themselves in, these past weeks. As they curiously like to to invent scenarios that demonstrably did not take place and by doing so, generate these groundless and laughable vexatious complaints for cautions and other spurious nonsense. Let's take their attempted inversions, one by one. Here the WP:HOUNDing has involved the putting in block capitals to prime the arbitration viewers, into seeing what is to follow as MORTAL COMBAT, COMMENCE FIGHT. Well if it's in blocks, who can argue with that. lol. Yet actually it's just a re-iteration of what I wrote on the talk page, that thomas, the other editor needs to come back with secondary sources, that's how wikipedia works and they are indeed "disregarding" and "undermining" wikipedia policy by blanking an article and similarly engaging in absolute fantasy building by declaring consensus has formed, when in actual reality, no such consensus exists. That's you can all agree, the very definition, of what it is, to engage in fantasy. I would hope you'd agree? Here BL names another editor...for purpose of attack.For the purposes of attack? Really? Here guy is really seen in full, as attempting to fantasize events and motivations and cast those aspersions onto another editor, they are hounding? One truly wonders?
On the place point there again. Myself and Thomas are actually discussing on the talk page, not your fantasy notion of 'duking it out in the Edit sums' that you just concocted. One misrepresentaion from guy after another, could it be, for the purposes of WP:HOUNDing? Next, this is really where the weird WP:STALK campaign reaches some disturbing levels. As you can see, guy clearly came onto an article talk page, simply because I was there and then once he was there, with the most astounding case of motivated reasoning, guy personally decided toread-into what I wrote and continues to this very day, to believe, I was talking about him. Yet guy is neither mentioned, again contrary to what they just claimed. Nor is he the editor on that article, to whom I was referring. So can you tell us guy, what is your explanation for thinking this is about you? As you are neither named as you have disturbingly claimed here nor ar you implicitly labeled. - Whatever that means. Yet Mr. guy again has framed it, as apparent MORTAL COMBAT, where I'm in his fantasy, naming him. Neither of which are anything close to reality, nor are they even plausible. Guy has never explained why he insists with this fantasy of theirs and it's truly a little troublingly, at this stage, as you can imagine.
Claming people 'named you' and you were implicitly labeled a "quack editor", when you're in actuality [A]Not even an editor on the article you followed me to, and [B] in the real world, clearly not named, or even mentioned in passing by me there, at all. So can you explain to us, why you think, or really, why you want to build the fantasy, that this was me, talking about you? I'm genuinely getting worred about you man. While coming onto my talk page continuously with all this demonstrably fantastical stuff man, was actually good comedy, at one point. I'm taking this I want him to be punished arbitration, as the epitome of WP:HOUNDing.
Boundarylayer ( talk) 18:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Thomas pow sI am engaged in the dispute with BoundaryLayer in the EROI article. BoundaryLayer's conduct is frequently odd, in my opinion. For example, I provided three meta-analyses from notable researchers, which summed up data from 250+ scientific articles on a topic. BoundaryLayer insisted that the 250+ studies are written by paid solar power advocates as part of a grand swindle: "Pumping out reams of papers ostensibly to grease the wheels on the swindle train?... With their fantasy-world-building statistical tricks?" At the same time, BoundaryLayer suggests that the meta-anaylsis, dervied from many independent studies, was produced in a collective marijuana-induced haze: "The only nonsense here is believing that solar PV is whatever solar advocates say it is. Tomorrow if EROI is declared a zillion... You don't have to build anything man, the energy just flows, pass me a joint yo." Please note that the EROI for solar PV in the meta-analysis was 14.4, which is totally unremarkable and moderately lower than other sources of energy. It was not "declared a zillion" by people who were passing marijuana joints amongst themselves as part of a swindle train, nor was there any risk of that happening. BoundaryLayer appears to have a hysterical or histrionic debating style, including odd, fabricated personal accusations against researchers in the field. Often, BoundaryLayer posts odd, emotional accusations against the other editors of wikipeida. Much of what he writes consists of odd personal remarks. Sometimes he writes mildly insulting remarks toward the other editors ("Are you trying out to be a comedian next?" and so on). However, I'm not sure if it warrants disciplinary action. He's not horribly insulting or vicious. I think it might warrant a comment or remark from an admin, but nothing more serious than that. I doubt that any remark to him will have any effect anyway, since this appears to be an established behavior. Thomas pow s ( talk) 20:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC) As an example, BoundaryLayer just posted a remark that I have a "truly revealing level of fantasy-engagement". That is a comment about an EDITOR, not the topic. It's that kind of thing, which is happening all the time. That said, he posts nothing horribly insulting or vicious. Thomas pow s ( talk) 20:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Boundarylayer
|