| Per the consensus here, SashiRolls is indefinitely banned from the topic of post-1932 American politics. The ban will be appealable in the standard six months. Best regards, ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning SashiRolls
Assumption of bad faiths, WP:ASPERSIONS
The behavior documented here is unabated. At least four users: (MrX, Snooganssnoogans, Objective3000, and WMSR) are now the target of baseless accusations of being members of a cabal. This bellicose behavior damages reputations, disrupts discussions, and erodes trust and collaboration. - Mr X 🖋 14:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SashiRollsStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SashiRolls
-- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 14:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by SnooganssnoogansI will try to be brief:
Statement by WMSRTo be frank, the diffs cited by MrX and Snooganssnoogans don't even begin to scratch the surface of SashiRolls's constant incivility on talk pages and with regard to edit warring. Looking purely at Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders and Talk:Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign Sashi demonstrates pretty clearly their belief that WP:FOC to everyone except them. I recently raised issues about personal attacks at WP:ANI, but they were not addressed. That complaint contains several more diffs. -- WMSR ( talk) 17:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Objective3000
Sashi’s last comment this morning: If you attempt to engage Sashi in discussion, you can be certain of two things. Sashi will demand that you focus on content. Sashi will focus on you. Often both in the same edit. Sashi has racked up an array of blocks from an impressive number of admins and arbcom for personal attacks, harassment, uncollaborative editing, aspersions, battelground, intimidation, nothere, disruptive editing and Wikihounding; has lost talk page access three times, and lost email access. Clearly there is a problem with behavior towards other editors. Blocks haven’t worked. Perhaps an indef TBan from AP2 and BLP to see if this is a problem dealing with controversial arenas. Or will that just shove the problem elsewhere? O3000 ( talk) 17:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by PudeoIt seems that all the editors who SashiRolls says are tag-teaming have already submitted statements. SashiRolls' general position in the contentious topic ( Media coverage of Bernie Sanders) has decent acceptance, as the article survived two well-participated AfDs as "no consensus". It is evident without a doubt that there is tag-teaming at play here. After Snooganssnoogans recently brought up SashiRolls on Awilley's talkpage, MrX and Objective3000 commented there within an hour
[10]. I noticed this as well in an
AN/I thread last month. In two comments I posted there, both were replied to by MrX and Objective3000. Based on the
editor interaction tool with Objective3000 and MrX, it's fairly obvious they are following each other's edits to give back-up. They sometimes even reply for users on behalf of the other person:
[11]. O3000 further
states: The editor interaction tool can yield results for three different users
Comment by GoodDayI don't wish to elaborate, as it's difficult to pin down. But, it's frustrating to edit or discuss topics concerning the corporate-centrist -vs- progressive divide in the US Democratic Party. My experiences have left me feeling it's difficult to point out the DNC's & MSM's bias against progressives. Thus why I don't hang around these disputes, very often. GoodDay ( talk) 20:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by GMGIf I'm being honest, we have a user twice indeffed, and now subject to a one way IBAN, a two way IBAN, a TBAN, and a conduct restriction. Where exactly is the area where this user has contributed productively and collaboratively? Who is it this user has interacted with that hasn't been part of the cabal (myself included, four some odd years ago, which is exactly why I continue to generally avoid them, and most any article they're active on)? GMG talk 22:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by JusdafaxSashi Rolls may or may not deserve sanctions here. However, a look at the link to the editor interaction tool provided by Puedo does in fact show remarkable unanimity in timing between 3 editors on a wide range of articles. I'd say that this deserves further scrutiny as well. Jusdafax ( talk) 23:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by LevivichRecently I lamented at AN about how procedural fairness is not valued at AE. "Procedural fairness" includes not voicing an opinion on a sanction before the reported editor has even responded to the complaint. "Procedural fairness" means at least pretending that you're keeping an open mind until after you've heard from all parties and reviewed the evidence. Even if you don't think one of the parties deserves fairness, everyone else is watching, and they see that the decision makers do not have an open mind, and that has a predictable chilling effect, preventing editors from seeking help, and leaving problems to fester unaddressed. I'm not seeing personal attacks in the 12 diffs listed in this report, except for the "unemployed" bit. But that diff (along with others in this report) was already brought to a noticeboard, here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1029#User:SashiRolls's behavior at Media coverage of Bernie Sanders, and closed by an admin with the comment, "I see nothing sanctionable in SashiRolls's conduct." So is bringing the same diff here WP:FORUMSHOPPING? I've recently heard the opinion expressed that if you take something to ANI and it's closed as not actionable, bringing the same thing to AE is forum shopping. In fact, I think an editor was recently sanctioned for that. Do these forum shopping rules get applied equally to all editors? Or is it because WSMR filed the ANI (and pinged Snoog), but MrX filed this AE, that it's not forum shopping? Of course no one is surprised that the noticeboard reports against Sashi are made by the same group of editors (who insist there is no cabal), each of whom has conveniently been available to comment quickly on the others' noticeboard reports, and who have the helpful habit of restoring each others' reverted edits, so none of them are pestered by WP:1RR, WP:3RR, or WP:BRD. I agree with Sashi that this is one for Arbcom (who won't voice an opinion on a final decision until after the evidence phase), as there seems to be no chance that the tag-teaming issue will even be looked at, never-mind addressed, here. Leviv ich 16:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by JormSashiRolls and they way they operate actively prevents me from engaging in discussions or articles that they are involved in because I just don't want to deal with the headache. The editor is an absolute net negative to the project and a simple topic ban is only going to kick the can further down the road and we will be back here within a handful of months, wasting time yet again. Hopefully people will not be swayed by pages of text attempting to rationalize their conspiracy theories.-- Jorm ( talk) 16:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by Rusf10I am not going to review all the diffs because it would likely be a waste of time. The verdict was already delivered by biased admins before all the evidence was in anyway. How can anyone in good faith suggest a topic ban before the accused (SashiRolls) even had the chance to respond here? Levivich is right, if the admins cared about even having the appearance of objectivity, they would have given SashiRolls a reasonable amount of time to defend himself before calling for topic bans. I would tend to believe that there probably is some type of tag-teaming between MrX and Snoogans (and possibly others). Even this filing here has the appearance of a coordinated effort since SnoogansSnoogans posted a lengthy statement within one hour of the original filing. This probably needs to go to ArbCom.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 22:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by Sir JosephI want to echo Levivich. Some admins commented before Sashi replied which does not seem fair. How can you rule on an AE action without hearing from both sides? Further, as he pointed out, some of the diffs were already adjudicated. You can ban Sashi, but the net result will end up just making the articles in the area even more biased. There is a reason why people don't edit in certain topic areas. I for one, don't want to be faced with it, so I try not to edit in political areas anymore. And people know that political topics on Wikipedia are very skewed to the left. Perhaps take a look at who is filing the complaint and others providing diffs and see how often they are involved in disputes as well. See how often the same names show up in political disputes. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by JdcomixI've honestly tried to be uninvolved, but after they alleged me of harassment on their talk page even though I've only made 1 addition to it (look at the history), and skimming through the talk page at Media coverage of Bernie Sanders, I am strongly in support of sanctions. The editor being discussed is clearly not assuming good faith of the other editors on that article's talk page, and often makes baseless personal attacks against anyone who opposes them (see https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=939518348&oldid=939513414&title=Talk:Media_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders). I'd probably be supporting an AP2 topic ban if it came to that. 01:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by XenagorasMy opinion about SashiRolls: Disclaimer: I have never read the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders article or its talk page and am therefore unfamiliar with SashiRolls' conduct there. But I have witnessed SashiRoll's conduct towards myself on pages where I edit and found him to be friendly, productive and helpful. From my brief gazing at AfD discussions with SashiRolls' involvement, he seems to be an emotional individual which might cause him to have a low tolerance for getting annoyed. The Media coverage of Bernie Sanders article getting nominated for deletion three times caused SashiRolls distress. I would recommend SashiRolls to spend more time relaxing, not taking Wikipedia too serious, and in calm hours, read all the policies and guidelines about behavior and editing. And perhaps he can find a mentor who can help him handle difficult situations on Wikipedia more calmly and guide him on how to be and respond more disenganged. My opinion about content and/or conduct disputes with Snooganssnoogans, WMSR, MrX: I found it extremely time consuming, tedious and nearly impossible to insert pertinent reliably sourced content into articles when WMSR and/or MrX are opposed to it. Snooganssnoogans attempted to damage my reputation and discredit my future edits by making a false statement of fact about me [14]. He ignored my request to withdraw his damaging remark [15] and doubled down on it [16]. He also raised a false suspicion about me having a conflict of interest [17], for which he had zero evidence and no reason to believe I had a COI. For all of this I complained towards him [18], which he also ignored. MrX has caused severe content disputes for misrepresenting sources one month ago and his refusal to respond to me addressing his edits, and the disputes got more severe recently for his political censorship, tendentious editing and stonewalling. The most recent part of this long lasting dispute can be read here and I complained to him there [19] (many links to MrX' problematic edits and which policy they violate are included in my complaint). WMSR raised a false and baseless suspicion about me being sock puppet and requested a sock puppet investigation against me and 8 other editors. [20] As we all know, the penalty for sock puppets is an indefinite ban. He had zero evidence for his suspicion, for which his investigation request was thrown out of window by the admins/clerk. [21]. WMSR recently made several severe false accusations against me, including but not limited to his failure to assume the assumption of good faith and accusing me of casting aspersions and [22] and personal attacks [23], for which I complained to him [24], to which he reacted with denial and hostility. [25] WMSR participates in the same severe content dispute as described above for MrX. WMSR's edits include political censorship and stonewalling and other problems, which can be read here and for which I complained to him [26], to which he reacted with denial. [27] In this current content dispute, MrX, WMSR and Calton have been mirroring each other's arguments via edit summaries and talk page comments and repeated each other's reverts (which enhances the stonewalling referenced above by enabling them to prevent content from other editors getting into an article without violating WP:3RR themselves): MrX makes an unwarranted large 3-part revert
Additional interaction details on false "sock puppet" suspicions by WMSR and MrX:
WMSR raised false sock puppet suspicion against
Rotaryenginepete and
StanTheMan0131 at
ANI at
06:46, 26 December. MrX Rotaryenginepete was blocked at ANI for WP:NOTHERE on 31 December. Later, in February, after I told WMSR
[36] that I know he had raised a false, evidence free sock puppet suspicion against me, WMSR claimed
[37], Statement by AtsmeI agree for the most part with Levivich, Jusdafax, and Sir Joseph. The reason we have AE is to stop/reduce disruption in highly controversial topic areas that are subject to DS, and such actions should be executed without causing potential harm to NPOV. To single out one editor when all have been disruptive participants does not bring resolution to the heart of the problem, especially if our admins will/have reviewed the number of times each of the following named editors have been bringing opposing editors to AE, ARCA, ANI, AN, etc.; therefore, a plausible solution in this case (one that would send a loud message if our admins are treating all editors equally) would be a 6-month AP2 t-ban for the 3 key players here; i.e., MrX, Snoogans and Sashi. Each have a POV to contribute, and the only true way to reach NPOV is to engage in a civil level of debate/discussion on the TP, (and not t-ban an editor for participating in lengthy discussions that are required where DS/consensus required are imposed). Tag-team editing is a major annoyance and causes the editor being tag-teamed (perceived or otherwise) to become defensive - better yet, instead of referring to it as tag-teaming, let's call it collaborative editing among those with a similar POV who reject an opposing POV which carries with it the potential to be noncompliant with NPOV, so there is certainly justification for all 3 to experience a 6 mos t-ban. Atsme Talk 📧 20:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC) Result concerning SashiRolls
|
| Adrummond67 blocked for indefinite duration as arbitration enforcement-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Adrummond67
Based on articles edited and the edits made, they also edited as Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:AB9C:F100:C592:536:29F4:4D2F prior to creating an account. They are a single-purpose account dedicated to adding "monarch" fields to infoboxes. They were requested here to stop edit-warring and discuss their proposed changes on the relevant talk page of the articles concerned. They ignored this and made the edits noted above.
Discussion concerning Adrummond67Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Adrummond67Statement by (username)Result concerning Adrummond67
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Cleisthenes2
| The appeal is declined. Any future appeal is unlikely to succeed without evidence of productive collaborative editing in other topic areas. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Cleisthenes2I was topic banned from Toby Young after trying to work towards a satisfying compromise on the language of the lede. As I think the record shows, I repeatedly suggested alternative wordings that would restore NPOV (all were almost immediately rejected), was always calm and polite in my comments, and was consistently open to compromise wordings. I did try to counter repeated reverts and attacks from one user called Fae, and this got me banned (together with a good number of attacks from Fae herself and a couple of close allies). Though I'd rather not talk about other users, I think it's worth pointing out a) that Fae has a long record of disruption on articles of this sort, and was eventually banned from all articles to do with sex and gender and b) that she seems particularly incapable of neutrality or compromise when it comes to Young (see e.g. her comment on Young's talk page that "Young is absolutely desperate to appear controversial, when any real analysis shows he's just a sad troll that confuses right wing politics with hating all minorities"). Obviously, she has a right to her opinions, but I'm not sure that it's good for Wikipedia if someone with that kind of burning antipathy can get someone banned from editing a topic, especially someone who was working very civilly to move towards a change that it looked like most of the other users were sympathetic to. Thanks for considering this. If the ban is removed I intend to continue to work towards consensus in a reasonable way, but I also don't see why I shouldn't act to counter the kind of bullying that I was exposed to by Fae (and that many others on here have also apparently experienced). Cleisthenes2 ( talk) 19:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by GalobtterStatement by Black KiteI'm posting in the involved section because it was myself who raised the original WP:ANI report that led to the sanction (which can be seen here). My observations;
Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Special thanks to those reading this with an open mind, and a willingness to look back at the history of the entry on Young. Cleisthenes2 ( talk) 10:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by FæI have not been made a party to this case and did not know this request was made until a ping today. Adding to this section just because my name has been used so much, but I do not consider myself involved apart from attempting to handle the massive amounts of disruptive editing to the Toby Young article a year or so ago, which appeared to be a spin campaign and I was interested in checking against better sources using my access to LexisNexis. As far as I am aware, none of my activities over the last 10 months has been anywhere near Cleisthenes2, so there is no edit that could possibly be linked to that Cleisthenes2 could claim is an argument or dispute. Others have said enough, there is no extra evidence that I am aware of that would be useful to this case one way or the other. This is a single-purpose account, clearly with no interest in Wikipedia apart from repeatedly "massaging" the Young article in one direction. With regard to the claim about "bullying", this is a serious claim of harassment that should have serious evidence, but there are zero diffs because it's nonsense. An appeal that opens with tendentious griefing against another editor and promotes a secret-cabal conspiracy with "close allies", but offers no verifiable evidence, shows that this is not a meaningful appeal. By the way, this should be irrelevant considering how easy it is to avoid speculating about sex or gender of other editors when you are uncertain, but could everyone just stick to User:Fæ#Pronoun? Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 13:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC) With respect to the later (misplaced) statement from Cleisthenes2, the claim that I am a vandal is a personal attack. There are zero diffs because it's yet more nonsense deliberately misusing this Arbcom enforcement page to cast aspersions. The maligning of Black Kite and myself as being incompetent is bizarre. The decision to keep the simple fact that "[Toby Young] resigned over a week later after misogynistic and homophobic Twitter posts" is fully based on the best quality sources available and has been validated as a community decision after several lengthy discussions and votes. This has never been about "sides", getting the article in the best state possible has always been about reliable sources and BLP policies. That Cleisthenes2's default position is to demean other contributors and attempts even now to reuse self publications as sources to prefer over basic facts of precisely the words published over several years in Toby Young's own twitter stream, and how good quality journalists have correctly and factually summarised the controversy, shows this appeal is a non-starter. Wikipedia is tolerant of alternative viewpoints being expressed in order to ensure encyclopaedic articles are wide-ranging, but it should not tolerate the disruption caused by casting aspersions, or gaming the system. -- Fæ ( talk) 12:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Cleisthenes2Result of the appeal by Cleisthenes2
|
| Calton is reminded to not edit war and to engage civilly with others -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Calton
This is a long term editor with an extensive history of civility related blocks taking what should have been a simple Bold, Revert, Discuss and turning it into a personal attack. The Andy Ngo article is subject to DS and 1RR (reduced from BRD required 29 Dec [ [42]]). In both of the above incidents new edits were added by one editor then rejected by another then restored by Calton. In both cases I asked Calton to self revert in the spirit of BRD. In both cases I was met with bad faith comments on my talk page. The first diff I listed accused me of a "whitewashing crusade" via my talk page.
Two week later a similar situation occurs and Calton posts "Not my problem, POV pusher" to my talk page.
I'm afraid that Calton took the lack of response the first time as license to repeat the behavior. Calton has an extensive history of civility issues per their block log [ [62]]. Blocks related to civility on:
It is understood that some topics are inherently going to get people's emotions up. However, this is why it is critical to strictly follow rules like WP:FOC, WP:NOCON, WP:BRD etc. If new material has been rejected the next step should be take it to the talk page. Refusal to do so while posting bad faith comments to the talk pages of others should result in a topic ban or similar sanction. If the comments directed at me were isolated examples I would hope any admin would given them a mild rebuke with an understanding that they not do it again. Calton, however, has a long history of incivility and rather than taking my first admin talk page discussion as a sign they were crossing a line, they seem to take it as proof their posting to my talk page was OK to repeat. That is why I decided this should come to here (though I originally asked about ANI). Reply to Calton1. In both cases we had a clear disagreement between at least 4 editors regarding a revision. In both cases you were not restoring the long standing consensus version of the text per NOCON. In both cases you did not open or participate in a talk page dialog to justify why the edit should stand. In both cases I requested that you restore the previous consensus text absent any discussion to support the new text. 2. POV pushing example. One was a short term 1RR restriction from 5 years ago. The other is retracted warning. It was retracted once the admin saw that I wasn't the one who made the comment in question.[ [63]]. 3. Accusing others of being a POV pusher is an accusation that they are acting in bad faith.
Notification here [ [64]] Reply to BishonenBishonen, I understand. I admit this isn't some sort of egregious CIVIL violation (as well as a violation of NOCON). I would be content if the closing is no action but with a warning that this behavior is not acceptable and if it continues some type of action will be taken. My concern is that Calton's behavior is a catalyst for incivility. If others reply as they have we end up with edit wars, and larger scale CIVIL problems. I think this is exactly what Red Rock Canyon was concerned about. I think Wikipedia might be a more civil place if we were quicker to point out civility violations even if no administrative action (official warnings, blocks, tbans etc) are taken. Springee ( talk) 16:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Discussion concerning CaltonStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by CaltonUser:Springee -- long-time POV pusher ( two quick examples)-- twice came to my talk page to demand that I reverse my undoing of his reversions, which he could not do because 1RR. That's his problem, not mine. -- Calton | Talk 11:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Oh, and a reminder for Springee about the misuse of terms: it's "bad faith" in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Now, anyone who's edited in any topic touching on American Politics knows about Springee's POV pushing. I'm still getting over the flu so don't want to waste time on this, but if I have to, I can simply go through the noticeboards for more than theses tidbits picked up from the Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log regarding gun control and American politics. -- Calton | Talk 11:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC) P.S.: Maybe you shouldn't repeat that BS bit about "racist edit summaries", which was an absolute garbage claim. Statement by Red Rock CanyonThis looks pretty clear-cut to me. Calton edit-warred to reinsert challenged material without discussion and then attacked Springee when called on it. That article is an unpleasant enough place to edit already without behavior like what Calton has shown here. Additionally, there's this edit summary [65] ("pro-male myass") from a few weeks earlier. That certainly isn't sanctionable on its own, but it's clear from Springee's evidence and from Calton's reply above that this editor has exhibited a pattern of incivility, personal attacks, and battleground behavior and has no intention of changing. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 17:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Looking through the talk and article histories, it appears that Calton's only contributions to this article were reverts, and they have never once posted on the talk page to discuss those reverts. Some of those were justified, but as shown in Springee's evidence, they also repeatedly reverted against consensus to reinsert contested material. This article has been the subject of numerous edit wars and has been protected several times. Drive-by reverts and incivility only makes an already unpleasant situation worse. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 19:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Calton
|
| Oldstone James is blocked for a year as an AE block and then indefinitely as an admin block -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Oldstone James
I filed an AN3 and then realized that this is probably not going to work to fix the problems with this user's disruptive tendentiousness at R&I. Enough is enough. This user is a menace to the topic area and needs to be ushered to other more productive fields to work on at Wikipedia. Please extend his topic ban to race and intelligence to see if he can improve. jps ( talk) 18:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Oldstone JamesStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Oldstone JamesI would be happy to hear how my editing can be improved, without the need of an enforcement. If I've done something wrong, please tell me, and I will surely listen to you. Personally, I don't see how my editing is problematic: I don't edit-war, and I don't push a fringe POV on the talk page. If you think I am doing any of the two things, or that I am engaging in some other type of problematic behaviour, please let me know. But, as of right now, I am bit baffled as to why I, of all editors of the Race and intelligence article, am under consideration of a page ban (or even an indef ban?), aside from the fact that myself and jps haven't historically been on good terms. I believe the problems that exist, if they exist, can be solved by discussion without the need for any additional sanctions, as I am willing to listen to any suggestions as to how my editing strategy can be improved. Also, as per IP editor, please take a look at the proposer's behaviour as well, and particularly at their tendency to edit-war without consensus and unwillingness to collaborate in a civil manner. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲ J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅ 17:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by JzGI support this restriction. My impression of Oldstone James' edits has been that they are advancing fringe ideology, and his engagement on the talk page tends towards bludgeooning. Guy ( help!) 23:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by IP editor@ El C: Now that we're here at AE, I think the behavior of the person making this report needs to be examined as well, because it is worse than Oldstone James' behavior is. He has less tendency to edit war than Oldstone James does, but his activity on talk pages is constantly assuming bad faith about other editors, whereas Oldstone James is always civil. Here are a few diffs showing the problem:
Looking at ජපස's block log, he apparently has been sanctioned several times under the "fringe science" arbitration case. Not everyone considers race and intelligence a "fringe" topic, but he indicated in his post here that he personally considers it an example of that. Could you please examine whether ජපස is repeating the type of behavior he's been sanctioned for in the past? He was notified of the discretionary sanctions here, if that matters. 2600:1004:B117:10E5:D530:D014:5920:FA1 ( talk) 23:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by GrayfellI said at
AN/EW that this user was trying to game the system by selectively applying rules and policies. I still think that, but it appears to be unwitting. Oldstone James came very close to a fringe topic ban, and instead of learning from that or adjusting his behavior, he appears to have ignored the whole thing, which is unfortunate. At that AN discussion, Oldstone James
said, as part of a very lengthy comment, that " Statement by DlthewaveIt's becoming increasingly clear that Oldstone James is unwilling or unable to acknowledge and correct his behavior. "Just tell me what I'm doing wrong and I'll stop doing it" is a common refrain when one is facing a ban, but his recent comments show that he's been told plenty of times and refuses to listen. He actually
argued that OJ has established a pattern of setting special expectations for other editors that he refuses to follow himself. A recurring theme is insisting that editors gain consensus before making major edits, a restriction that is not in place at R&I. For example, I
removed an off-topic section from the R&I article on 14 February and
opened a discussion when it was challenged. OJ
reinstated the content, without participating in the discussion, on 15 February with the edit summary My final concern is a
comment made here,
Statement by ජපසI think this very enforcement page shows the problem in stark relief. Oldstone James refuses to listen to anyone who doesn't have the block button (
Statement by (username)Result concerning Oldstone James
|
| Per the consensus here, SashiRolls is indefinitely banned from the topic of post-1932 American politics. The ban will be appealable in the standard six months. Best regards, ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning SashiRolls
Assumption of bad faiths, WP:ASPERSIONS
The behavior documented here is unabated. At least four users: (MrX, Snooganssnoogans, Objective3000, and WMSR) are now the target of baseless accusations of being members of a cabal. This bellicose behavior damages reputations, disrupts discussions, and erodes trust and collaboration. - Mr X 🖋 14:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SashiRollsStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SashiRolls
-- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 14:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by SnooganssnoogansI will try to be brief:
Statement by WMSRTo be frank, the diffs cited by MrX and Snooganssnoogans don't even begin to scratch the surface of SashiRolls's constant incivility on talk pages and with regard to edit warring. Looking purely at Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders and Talk:Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign Sashi demonstrates pretty clearly their belief that WP:FOC to everyone except them. I recently raised issues about personal attacks at WP:ANI, but they were not addressed. That complaint contains several more diffs. -- WMSR ( talk) 17:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Objective3000
Sashi’s last comment this morning: If you attempt to engage Sashi in discussion, you can be certain of two things. Sashi will demand that you focus on content. Sashi will focus on you. Often both in the same edit. Sashi has racked up an array of blocks from an impressive number of admins and arbcom for personal attacks, harassment, uncollaborative editing, aspersions, battelground, intimidation, nothere, disruptive editing and Wikihounding; has lost talk page access three times, and lost email access. Clearly there is a problem with behavior towards other editors. Blocks haven’t worked. Perhaps an indef TBan from AP2 and BLP to see if this is a problem dealing with controversial arenas. Or will that just shove the problem elsewhere? O3000 ( talk) 17:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by PudeoIt seems that all the editors who SashiRolls says are tag-teaming have already submitted statements. SashiRolls' general position in the contentious topic ( Media coverage of Bernie Sanders) has decent acceptance, as the article survived two well-participated AfDs as "no consensus". It is evident without a doubt that there is tag-teaming at play here. After Snooganssnoogans recently brought up SashiRolls on Awilley's talkpage, MrX and Objective3000 commented there within an hour
[10]. I noticed this as well in an
AN/I thread last month. In two comments I posted there, both were replied to by MrX and Objective3000. Based on the
editor interaction tool with Objective3000 and MrX, it's fairly obvious they are following each other's edits to give back-up. They sometimes even reply for users on behalf of the other person:
[11]. O3000 further
states: The editor interaction tool can yield results for three different users
Comment by GoodDayI don't wish to elaborate, as it's difficult to pin down. But, it's frustrating to edit or discuss topics concerning the corporate-centrist -vs- progressive divide in the US Democratic Party. My experiences have left me feeling it's difficult to point out the DNC's & MSM's bias against progressives. Thus why I don't hang around these disputes, very often. GoodDay ( talk) 20:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by GMGIf I'm being honest, we have a user twice indeffed, and now subject to a one way IBAN, a two way IBAN, a TBAN, and a conduct restriction. Where exactly is the area where this user has contributed productively and collaboratively? Who is it this user has interacted with that hasn't been part of the cabal (myself included, four some odd years ago, which is exactly why I continue to generally avoid them, and most any article they're active on)? GMG talk 22:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by JusdafaxSashi Rolls may or may not deserve sanctions here. However, a look at the link to the editor interaction tool provided by Puedo does in fact show remarkable unanimity in timing between 3 editors on a wide range of articles. I'd say that this deserves further scrutiny as well. Jusdafax ( talk) 23:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by LevivichRecently I lamented at AN about how procedural fairness is not valued at AE. "Procedural fairness" includes not voicing an opinion on a sanction before the reported editor has even responded to the complaint. "Procedural fairness" means at least pretending that you're keeping an open mind until after you've heard from all parties and reviewed the evidence. Even if you don't think one of the parties deserves fairness, everyone else is watching, and they see that the decision makers do not have an open mind, and that has a predictable chilling effect, preventing editors from seeking help, and leaving problems to fester unaddressed. I'm not seeing personal attacks in the 12 diffs listed in this report, except for the "unemployed" bit. But that diff (along with others in this report) was already brought to a noticeboard, here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1029#User:SashiRolls's behavior at Media coverage of Bernie Sanders, and closed by an admin with the comment, "I see nothing sanctionable in SashiRolls's conduct." So is bringing the same diff here WP:FORUMSHOPPING? I've recently heard the opinion expressed that if you take something to ANI and it's closed as not actionable, bringing the same thing to AE is forum shopping. In fact, I think an editor was recently sanctioned for that. Do these forum shopping rules get applied equally to all editors? Or is it because WSMR filed the ANI (and pinged Snoog), but MrX filed this AE, that it's not forum shopping? Of course no one is surprised that the noticeboard reports against Sashi are made by the same group of editors (who insist there is no cabal), each of whom has conveniently been available to comment quickly on the others' noticeboard reports, and who have the helpful habit of restoring each others' reverted edits, so none of them are pestered by WP:1RR, WP:3RR, or WP:BRD. I agree with Sashi that this is one for Arbcom (who won't voice an opinion on a final decision until after the evidence phase), as there seems to be no chance that the tag-teaming issue will even be looked at, never-mind addressed, here. Leviv ich 16:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by JormSashiRolls and they way they operate actively prevents me from engaging in discussions or articles that they are involved in because I just don't want to deal with the headache. The editor is an absolute net negative to the project and a simple topic ban is only going to kick the can further down the road and we will be back here within a handful of months, wasting time yet again. Hopefully people will not be swayed by pages of text attempting to rationalize their conspiracy theories.-- Jorm ( talk) 16:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by Rusf10I am not going to review all the diffs because it would likely be a waste of time. The verdict was already delivered by biased admins before all the evidence was in anyway. How can anyone in good faith suggest a topic ban before the accused (SashiRolls) even had the chance to respond here? Levivich is right, if the admins cared about even having the appearance of objectivity, they would have given SashiRolls a reasonable amount of time to defend himself before calling for topic bans. I would tend to believe that there probably is some type of tag-teaming between MrX and Snoogans (and possibly others). Even this filing here has the appearance of a coordinated effort since SnoogansSnoogans posted a lengthy statement within one hour of the original filing. This probably needs to go to ArbCom.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 22:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by Sir JosephI want to echo Levivich. Some admins commented before Sashi replied which does not seem fair. How can you rule on an AE action without hearing from both sides? Further, as he pointed out, some of the diffs were already adjudicated. You can ban Sashi, but the net result will end up just making the articles in the area even more biased. There is a reason why people don't edit in certain topic areas. I for one, don't want to be faced with it, so I try not to edit in political areas anymore. And people know that political topics on Wikipedia are very skewed to the left. Perhaps take a look at who is filing the complaint and others providing diffs and see how often they are involved in disputes as well. See how often the same names show up in political disputes. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by JdcomixI've honestly tried to be uninvolved, but after they alleged me of harassment on their talk page even though I've only made 1 addition to it (look at the history), and skimming through the talk page at Media coverage of Bernie Sanders, I am strongly in support of sanctions. The editor being discussed is clearly not assuming good faith of the other editors on that article's talk page, and often makes baseless personal attacks against anyone who opposes them (see https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=939518348&oldid=939513414&title=Talk:Media_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders). I'd probably be supporting an AP2 topic ban if it came to that. 01:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by XenagorasMy opinion about SashiRolls: Disclaimer: I have never read the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders article or its talk page and am therefore unfamiliar with SashiRolls' conduct there. But I have witnessed SashiRoll's conduct towards myself on pages where I edit and found him to be friendly, productive and helpful. From my brief gazing at AfD discussions with SashiRolls' involvement, he seems to be an emotional individual which might cause him to have a low tolerance for getting annoyed. The Media coverage of Bernie Sanders article getting nominated for deletion three times caused SashiRolls distress. I would recommend SashiRolls to spend more time relaxing, not taking Wikipedia too serious, and in calm hours, read all the policies and guidelines about behavior and editing. And perhaps he can find a mentor who can help him handle difficult situations on Wikipedia more calmly and guide him on how to be and respond more disenganged. My opinion about content and/or conduct disputes with Snooganssnoogans, WMSR, MrX: I found it extremely time consuming, tedious and nearly impossible to insert pertinent reliably sourced content into articles when WMSR and/or MrX are opposed to it. Snooganssnoogans attempted to damage my reputation and discredit my future edits by making a false statement of fact about me [14]. He ignored my request to withdraw his damaging remark [15] and doubled down on it [16]. He also raised a false suspicion about me having a conflict of interest [17], for which he had zero evidence and no reason to believe I had a COI. For all of this I complained towards him [18], which he also ignored. MrX has caused severe content disputes for misrepresenting sources one month ago and his refusal to respond to me addressing his edits, and the disputes got more severe recently for his political censorship, tendentious editing and stonewalling. The most recent part of this long lasting dispute can be read here and I complained to him there [19] (many links to MrX' problematic edits and which policy they violate are included in my complaint). WMSR raised a false and baseless suspicion about me being sock puppet and requested a sock puppet investigation against me and 8 other editors. [20] As we all know, the penalty for sock puppets is an indefinite ban. He had zero evidence for his suspicion, for which his investigation request was thrown out of window by the admins/clerk. [21]. WMSR recently made several severe false accusations against me, including but not limited to his failure to assume the assumption of good faith and accusing me of casting aspersions and [22] and personal attacks [23], for which I complained to him [24], to which he reacted with denial and hostility. [25] WMSR participates in the same severe content dispute as described above for MrX. WMSR's edits include political censorship and stonewalling and other problems, which can be read here and for which I complained to him [26], to which he reacted with denial. [27] In this current content dispute, MrX, WMSR and Calton have been mirroring each other's arguments via edit summaries and talk page comments and repeated each other's reverts (which enhances the stonewalling referenced above by enabling them to prevent content from other editors getting into an article without violating WP:3RR themselves): MrX makes an unwarranted large 3-part revert
Additional interaction details on false "sock puppet" suspicions by WMSR and MrX:
WMSR raised false sock puppet suspicion against
Rotaryenginepete and
StanTheMan0131 at
ANI at
06:46, 26 December. MrX Rotaryenginepete was blocked at ANI for WP:NOTHERE on 31 December. Later, in February, after I told WMSR
[36] that I know he had raised a false, evidence free sock puppet suspicion against me, WMSR claimed
[37], Statement by AtsmeI agree for the most part with Levivich, Jusdafax, and Sir Joseph. The reason we have AE is to stop/reduce disruption in highly controversial topic areas that are subject to DS, and such actions should be executed without causing potential harm to NPOV. To single out one editor when all have been disruptive participants does not bring resolution to the heart of the problem, especially if our admins will/have reviewed the number of times each of the following named editors have been bringing opposing editors to AE, ARCA, ANI, AN, etc.; therefore, a plausible solution in this case (one that would send a loud message if our admins are treating all editors equally) would be a 6-month AP2 t-ban for the 3 key players here; i.e., MrX, Snoogans and Sashi. Each have a POV to contribute, and the only true way to reach NPOV is to engage in a civil level of debate/discussion on the TP, (and not t-ban an editor for participating in lengthy discussions that are required where DS/consensus required are imposed). Tag-team editing is a major annoyance and causes the editor being tag-teamed (perceived or otherwise) to become defensive - better yet, instead of referring to it as tag-teaming, let's call it collaborative editing among those with a similar POV who reject an opposing POV which carries with it the potential to be noncompliant with NPOV, so there is certainly justification for all 3 to experience a 6 mos t-ban. Atsme Talk 📧 20:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC) Result concerning SashiRolls
|
| Adrummond67 blocked for indefinite duration as arbitration enforcement-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Adrummond67
Based on articles edited and the edits made, they also edited as Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:AB9C:F100:C592:536:29F4:4D2F prior to creating an account. They are a single-purpose account dedicated to adding "monarch" fields to infoboxes. They were requested here to stop edit-warring and discuss their proposed changes on the relevant talk page of the articles concerned. They ignored this and made the edits noted above.
Discussion concerning Adrummond67Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Adrummond67Statement by (username)Result concerning Adrummond67
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Cleisthenes2
| The appeal is declined. Any future appeal is unlikely to succeed without evidence of productive collaborative editing in other topic areas. Thryduulf ( talk) 13:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Cleisthenes2I was topic banned from Toby Young after trying to work towards a satisfying compromise on the language of the lede. As I think the record shows, I repeatedly suggested alternative wordings that would restore NPOV (all were almost immediately rejected), was always calm and polite in my comments, and was consistently open to compromise wordings. I did try to counter repeated reverts and attacks from one user called Fae, and this got me banned (together with a good number of attacks from Fae herself and a couple of close allies). Though I'd rather not talk about other users, I think it's worth pointing out a) that Fae has a long record of disruption on articles of this sort, and was eventually banned from all articles to do with sex and gender and b) that she seems particularly incapable of neutrality or compromise when it comes to Young (see e.g. her comment on Young's talk page that "Young is absolutely desperate to appear controversial, when any real analysis shows he's just a sad troll that confuses right wing politics with hating all minorities"). Obviously, she has a right to her opinions, but I'm not sure that it's good for Wikipedia if someone with that kind of burning antipathy can get someone banned from editing a topic, especially someone who was working very civilly to move towards a change that it looked like most of the other users were sympathetic to. Thanks for considering this. If the ban is removed I intend to continue to work towards consensus in a reasonable way, but I also don't see why I shouldn't act to counter the kind of bullying that I was exposed to by Fae (and that many others on here have also apparently experienced). Cleisthenes2 ( talk) 19:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by GalobtterStatement by Black KiteI'm posting in the involved section because it was myself who raised the original WP:ANI report that led to the sanction (which can be seen here). My observations;
Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Special thanks to those reading this with an open mind, and a willingness to look back at the history of the entry on Young. Cleisthenes2 ( talk) 10:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by FæI have not been made a party to this case and did not know this request was made until a ping today. Adding to this section just because my name has been used so much, but I do not consider myself involved apart from attempting to handle the massive amounts of disruptive editing to the Toby Young article a year or so ago, which appeared to be a spin campaign and I was interested in checking against better sources using my access to LexisNexis. As far as I am aware, none of my activities over the last 10 months has been anywhere near Cleisthenes2, so there is no edit that could possibly be linked to that Cleisthenes2 could claim is an argument or dispute. Others have said enough, there is no extra evidence that I am aware of that would be useful to this case one way or the other. This is a single-purpose account, clearly with no interest in Wikipedia apart from repeatedly "massaging" the Young article in one direction. With regard to the claim about "bullying", this is a serious claim of harassment that should have serious evidence, but there are zero diffs because it's nonsense. An appeal that opens with tendentious griefing against another editor and promotes a secret-cabal conspiracy with "close allies", but offers no verifiable evidence, shows that this is not a meaningful appeal. By the way, this should be irrelevant considering how easy it is to avoid speculating about sex or gender of other editors when you are uncertain, but could everyone just stick to User:Fæ#Pronoun? Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 13:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC) With respect to the later (misplaced) statement from Cleisthenes2, the claim that I am a vandal is a personal attack. There are zero diffs because it's yet more nonsense deliberately misusing this Arbcom enforcement page to cast aspersions. The maligning of Black Kite and myself as being incompetent is bizarre. The decision to keep the simple fact that "[Toby Young] resigned over a week later after misogynistic and homophobic Twitter posts" is fully based on the best quality sources available and has been validated as a community decision after several lengthy discussions and votes. This has never been about "sides", getting the article in the best state possible has always been about reliable sources and BLP policies. That Cleisthenes2's default position is to demean other contributors and attempts even now to reuse self publications as sources to prefer over basic facts of precisely the words published over several years in Toby Young's own twitter stream, and how good quality journalists have correctly and factually summarised the controversy, shows this appeal is a non-starter. Wikipedia is tolerant of alternative viewpoints being expressed in order to ensure encyclopaedic articles are wide-ranging, but it should not tolerate the disruption caused by casting aspersions, or gaming the system. -- Fæ ( talk) 12:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Cleisthenes2Result of the appeal by Cleisthenes2
|
| Calton is reminded to not edit war and to engage civilly with others -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Calton
This is a long term editor with an extensive history of civility related blocks taking what should have been a simple Bold, Revert, Discuss and turning it into a personal attack. The Andy Ngo article is subject to DS and 1RR (reduced from BRD required 29 Dec [ [42]]). In both of the above incidents new edits were added by one editor then rejected by another then restored by Calton. In both cases I asked Calton to self revert in the spirit of BRD. In both cases I was met with bad faith comments on my talk page. The first diff I listed accused me of a "whitewashing crusade" via my talk page.
Two week later a similar situation occurs and Calton posts "Not my problem, POV pusher" to my talk page.
I'm afraid that Calton took the lack of response the first time as license to repeat the behavior. Calton has an extensive history of civility issues per their block log [ [62]]. Blocks related to civility on:
It is understood that some topics are inherently going to get people's emotions up. However, this is why it is critical to strictly follow rules like WP:FOC, WP:NOCON, WP:BRD etc. If new material has been rejected the next step should be take it to the talk page. Refusal to do so while posting bad faith comments to the talk pages of others should result in a topic ban or similar sanction. If the comments directed at me were isolated examples I would hope any admin would given them a mild rebuke with an understanding that they not do it again. Calton, however, has a long history of incivility and rather than taking my first admin talk page discussion as a sign they were crossing a line, they seem to take it as proof their posting to my talk page was OK to repeat. That is why I decided this should come to here (though I originally asked about ANI). Reply to Calton1. In both cases we had a clear disagreement between at least 4 editors regarding a revision. In both cases you were not restoring the long standing consensus version of the text per NOCON. In both cases you did not open or participate in a talk page dialog to justify why the edit should stand. In both cases I requested that you restore the previous consensus text absent any discussion to support the new text. 2. POV pushing example. One was a short term 1RR restriction from 5 years ago. The other is retracted warning. It was retracted once the admin saw that I wasn't the one who made the comment in question.[ [63]]. 3. Accusing others of being a POV pusher is an accusation that they are acting in bad faith.
Notification here [ [64]] Reply to BishonenBishonen, I understand. I admit this isn't some sort of egregious CIVIL violation (as well as a violation of NOCON). I would be content if the closing is no action but with a warning that this behavior is not acceptable and if it continues some type of action will be taken. My concern is that Calton's behavior is a catalyst for incivility. If others reply as they have we end up with edit wars, and larger scale CIVIL problems. I think this is exactly what Red Rock Canyon was concerned about. I think Wikipedia might be a more civil place if we were quicker to point out civility violations even if no administrative action (official warnings, blocks, tbans etc) are taken. Springee ( talk) 16:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Discussion concerning CaltonStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by CaltonUser:Springee -- long-time POV pusher ( two quick examples)-- twice came to my talk page to demand that I reverse my undoing of his reversions, which he could not do because 1RR. That's his problem, not mine. -- Calton | Talk 11:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Oh, and a reminder for Springee about the misuse of terms: it's "bad faith" in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Now, anyone who's edited in any topic touching on American Politics knows about Springee's POV pushing. I'm still getting over the flu so don't want to waste time on this, but if I have to, I can simply go through the noticeboards for more than theses tidbits picked up from the Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log regarding gun control and American politics. -- Calton | Talk 11:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC) P.S.: Maybe you shouldn't repeat that BS bit about "racist edit summaries", which was an absolute garbage claim. Statement by Red Rock CanyonThis looks pretty clear-cut to me. Calton edit-warred to reinsert challenged material without discussion and then attacked Springee when called on it. That article is an unpleasant enough place to edit already without behavior like what Calton has shown here. Additionally, there's this edit summary [65] ("pro-male myass") from a few weeks earlier. That certainly isn't sanctionable on its own, but it's clear from Springee's evidence and from Calton's reply above that this editor has exhibited a pattern of incivility, personal attacks, and battleground behavior and has no intention of changing. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 17:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Looking through the talk and article histories, it appears that Calton's only contributions to this article were reverts, and they have never once posted on the talk page to discuss those reverts. Some of those were justified, but as shown in Springee's evidence, they also repeatedly reverted against consensus to reinsert contested material. This article has been the subject of numerous edit wars and has been protected several times. Drive-by reverts and incivility only makes an already unpleasant situation worse. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 19:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Calton
|
| Oldstone James is blocked for a year as an AE block and then indefinitely as an admin block -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Oldstone James
I filed an AN3 and then realized that this is probably not going to work to fix the problems with this user's disruptive tendentiousness at R&I. Enough is enough. This user is a menace to the topic area and needs to be ushered to other more productive fields to work on at Wikipedia. Please extend his topic ban to race and intelligence to see if he can improve. jps ( talk) 18:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Oldstone JamesStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Oldstone JamesI would be happy to hear how my editing can be improved, without the need of an enforcement. If I've done something wrong, please tell me, and I will surely listen to you. Personally, I don't see how my editing is problematic: I don't edit-war, and I don't push a fringe POV on the talk page. If you think I am doing any of the two things, or that I am engaging in some other type of problematic behaviour, please let me know. But, as of right now, I am bit baffled as to why I, of all editors of the Race and intelligence article, am under consideration of a page ban (or even an indef ban?), aside from the fact that myself and jps haven't historically been on good terms. I believe the problems that exist, if they exist, can be solved by discussion without the need for any additional sanctions, as I am willing to listen to any suggestions as to how my editing strategy can be improved. Also, as per IP editor, please take a look at the proposer's behaviour as well, and particularly at their tendency to edit-war without consensus and unwillingness to collaborate in a civil manner. O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲ J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅ 17:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by JzGI support this restriction. My impression of Oldstone James' edits has been that they are advancing fringe ideology, and his engagement on the talk page tends towards bludgeooning. Guy ( help!) 23:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by IP editor@ El C: Now that we're here at AE, I think the behavior of the person making this report needs to be examined as well, because it is worse than Oldstone James' behavior is. He has less tendency to edit war than Oldstone James does, but his activity on talk pages is constantly assuming bad faith about other editors, whereas Oldstone James is always civil. Here are a few diffs showing the problem:
Looking at ජපස's block log, he apparently has been sanctioned several times under the "fringe science" arbitration case. Not everyone considers race and intelligence a "fringe" topic, but he indicated in his post here that he personally considers it an example of that. Could you please examine whether ජපස is repeating the type of behavior he's been sanctioned for in the past? He was notified of the discretionary sanctions here, if that matters. 2600:1004:B117:10E5:D530:D014:5920:FA1 ( talk) 23:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by GrayfellI said at
AN/EW that this user was trying to game the system by selectively applying rules and policies. I still think that, but it appears to be unwitting. Oldstone James came very close to a fringe topic ban, and instead of learning from that or adjusting his behavior, he appears to have ignored the whole thing, which is unfortunate. At that AN discussion, Oldstone James
said, as part of a very lengthy comment, that " Statement by DlthewaveIt's becoming increasingly clear that Oldstone James is unwilling or unable to acknowledge and correct his behavior. "Just tell me what I'm doing wrong and I'll stop doing it" is a common refrain when one is facing a ban, but his recent comments show that he's been told plenty of times and refuses to listen. He actually
argued that OJ has established a pattern of setting special expectations for other editors that he refuses to follow himself. A recurring theme is insisting that editors gain consensus before making major edits, a restriction that is not in place at R&I. For example, I
removed an off-topic section from the R&I article on 14 February and
opened a discussion when it was challenged. OJ
reinstated the content, without participating in the discussion, on 15 February with the edit summary My final concern is a
comment made here,
Statement by ජපසI think this very enforcement page shows the problem in stark relief. Oldstone James refuses to listen to anyone who doesn't have the block button (
Statement by (username)Result concerning Oldstone James
|