| Belteshazzar has been blocked for a month by Ymblanter -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 01:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Belteshazzar ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Claims that they have dropped the stick: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Topic ban violations: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] Threads where Belteshazzar was repeatedly warned to stop violating the topic ban:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
|
Request for page restrictions enforcing civility on Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
| Filer advised about the limits of WP:ACDS. Not much we can do here, I'm afraid. El_C 03:26, 17 January 2021 (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.
Multiple editors have implied that they would like to have voiced an opinion on a recent discussion but the hostile climate prevented them from doing so [21] [22] [23]. I'm concerned that the current culture of hostility is suppressing debate and intimidating people from speaking up, analogous to cancel culture off-wiki. I personally have faced personal attacks on my motivation and character, rudeness, swearing, and unwarranted accusations of bad faith behavior, causing significant emotional distress and causing me to delete my previous account before changing my mind and rejoining the community [24]. I gently asked offending editors to stop several times [29] [30] [31] With regards to WP:BOOMARANG, several editors have called my own behaviour disruptive. I'm not sure yet if I agree but after discussion with MJL I have volunteered to refrain from editing controversial topics for three months while I mull that over and re-review policies and best practices. I'm definitely open to constructive feedback on this front. I propose that an uninvolved administrator put page restrictions enforcing civility on the Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez page.
Not applicable here, I'm requesting new page restrictions to be placed on the page, not enforcement of existing restrictions. In particular, I am not requesting action be taken against any user. Statement by (username)Discussion concerning request for page restrictions enforcing civility on Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-CortezStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Non-administrator comment) The filer is a declared sock of Pretzel butterfly. I see them POV-pushing, IHateAccounts being direct in their objections, and no "civility" issues. I'm not sure a boomerang is needed. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC) Result concerning Forbidden History
|
| User:Forbidden History is banned from all topics related to the Balkans. EdJohnston ( talk) 01:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Forbidden History
I originally started an AN/I incident report regarding the editor's POV editing actions. It was suggested that, since this is a sanctioned topic area and the user has reverted a number of times (and has similar incidents on a number of other articles), that a report be filed here instead. I am requesting a topic ban for the user in the area of interest, as it appears they come into conflict with other editors in these articles on a frequent basis, ever since they first created their account. Silver seren C 22:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Editor notified. Discussion concerning Forbidden HistoryStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (SeriousCherno)ForbiddenHistory is not an editor that likes to discuss his edits instead he results to edit warring even after he has been requested and warned to stop. It is a particularly big problem since the user adds information with sources that do not support the information added. This is also not helped by the fact that he acts in a very rude and aggressive way despite the majority of the editors that interact with him being respectful and cordial towards him. -- SeriousCherno ( talk) 23:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by JingibyThis user does not listen to other editors. He does not use reliable sources. His edits are biased and lack neutrality. He behaves defiantly and impolitely. In the field in which he is active, namely the Macedonian question, his edits are often destructive and as a whole they do not lead to an improvement of the articles. Topic-ban will be a reasonable step. Jingiby ( talk) 03:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by Veni MarkovskiAgree with statements above by SeriousCherno and Jingiby, as they are similar to my own experience, which I gained when interacting with Forbidden History in the span of two days on the main article and the talk page of Bitola inscription. The user seem to confuse opinions with facts, and would get into attempts for off-topic discussions, instead of staying closer to the subject. If needed, I could add more details, but the talk page of the above quoted article provides enough information to any objective reader. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски ( talk) 18:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by Forbidden HistorySince, I have replied about this situation here, please read before making your final decision. My interest is history and archaeology of the Balkan region and those are the articles in which I see myself working. My edits were provoked of the editors above and are explained in the link above. I will respect your decision for the things you may find me guilty of. Thanks,-- Forbidden History ( talk) 19:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by MJLI was the first person who suggested this be moved here. I didn't think it was going to get any administrative action from the community, but this is a clearcut report from an WP:AE standpoint. A topic ban is very much welcomed in my view just looking at Forbidden History's constant pushing to include to census data for the Macedonian Bulgarian community on
Law for the Protection of Macedonian National Honour.
[32]
[33]
[34]
Statement by (username)Result concerning Forbidden History
|
| Appeal closed procedurally, as the sanction in question has expired without a consensus that it was inapporpriate. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:06, 19 January 2021 (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 CaltonRequested on talkpage SQL Query me! 17:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC) I didn't think this petty ideological game-playing nonsense was worth dealing with, but given this ludicrous over-reaction to REVERTING OBVIOUS VANDALISM, it's time. or administrators' noticeboard. I reverted OBVIOUS VANDALISM, sport. If you don't think it is, I invite you to restore it Statement by GuerilleroThe obvious vandalism carve out is for things such as "foo is gay" or "bar has a small penis" and not edits that are, at their core, editorial decisions such as removing scare quotes. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Calton
Result of the appeal by Calton
|
| CatCafe is warned against casting aspersions. They are instructed that doubting the tenure of any account, may only be conveyed through the filing an WP:SPI report. Otherwise, going on to effectively badger these editors with queries to that effect is inappropriate. El_C 14:33, 17 January 2021 (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 CatCafe
This was my first interaction with said user where I explained that I was working with IHA on civility issues as part of our mentorship program. Practically speaking, such training would be a lot easier if CatCafe could just drop the stick when it regards my adoptee and these issues they seem to have at Talk:Irreversible Damage. Normally, I would just discuss this with the editor in question myself, but (as previously mentioned) I am banned from their talk page. Trust me, I wouldn't be here for this if I could avoid it (-_-). – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 02:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@ El C: Sorry, here are the posts (in diff form). As for the Manning thing, the intention there was to clarify that trans issues like misgenderings and whatnot fall under Gamergate. At this point, it might be better to just consider Gamergate to mean Gender disputes since that is basically how the remedies passed there are treated. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 04:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
[41] Done. Discussion concerning CatCafeStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by CatCafeMJL misled above stating a particular diff was their first interaction with me. Their first interaction was this [42] and in that post I found hurtful comments made by MJL toward me were a repeat of the hurtful comment previously made by IHateAccounts. The hurtful comments by MJL were repeated directly after I had expressed concern I had been insulted. [43]. So doing what MJL did was being purposely inflaming.
Statement by (username)Result concerning CatCafe
|
| Onceinawhile is warned to focus on content instead of contributors and cautioned about WP:BLUDGEONing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awilley ( talk • contribs) 05:19, 20 January 2021 (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 Onceinawhile
04.12.20 Alert. 11.2020, created page with sanctions notice. 5.2020, initiated discussion on sanctions Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
Stats on Talk:West_Bank_bantustans Stats on talk shows 173 edits and 67,739 bytes of text by Onceinawhile who is repeating themselves over and over again with toxic verbiage. They are also consistently comparing Israel/Palestine situation with Nazi/Holocaust concepts ( [51], [52], [53]). This is inflammatory and derails discussion.
If Onceinawhile's many offensive Holocaust comparisons and personal attacks against more than 5 editors are not sufficient, they are continuing their battleground conduct while this request is open:
All this while they are on their best behaviour, make concilliatory statements on user talk to User:El C and User:Awilley. Onceinawhile did not apologise for calling editors who disagree with him racist. Onceinawhile did not apologise for making offensive Holocaust comparisons. 11Fox11 ( talk) 05:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning OnceinawhileStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by OnceinawhileIt is correct that I pointed out what I believe to be a number of anti-Palestinian statements made in the discussions over the last two months re West Bank bantustans; fortunately the heated nature of these discussions has mostly cooled in recent weeks. I never made such statements against the editors themselves, primarily because I consider the bar for calling a person racist to be extremely high, and I don't know anywhere near enough about anyone here to make such judgements. I have always been told that it is important to point out statements which are racist in nature, but it is not my place to judge whether there was intent. If doing so contravenes our rules I am happy to adjust my behavior, but I do not believe it does. I must also note that the editor who posted this has not pointed out the dozens of accusations of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic made by editors in these same discussions, creating an odd picture of the discussions. Ironically, the post itself is simultaneously complaining about my characterization of some statements as anti-Palestinian whilst itself making numerous implied claims that some of my statements have been anti-semitic (that is the implication of the repeated reference to "comparisons", which I explained at one of the comments posted above [55]). If we could have a moratorium on unnecessary accusations of anti-this and anti-that, I think that would be better, but the important thing is that both sides are treated equally. Onceinawhile ( talk) 08:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate Levivich having taken the time to dig out the fact that I explicitly told Reneem in our little tangent discussion that "I am assuming good faith in terms of your intent". Onceinawhile ( talk) 19:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Zero0000 I also made that same resolution many years ago; the analogies are not accurate and it's simply too sensitive a part of history. It's just not necessary. I have tried to track back my train of thought here; it seems that I started making the linguistic point about ghettos and pogroms generically ( [65], [66]) but at some point figured I needed a specific example. Unfortunately we do not have a single example of an article about a place entitled "ghetto" that was not in Italy (needed to be outside Italy for the loanword point to work) and that were not during the Holocaust. So I went for Warsaw, as the most well known, and at some point I condensed my arguments so that the separation I had tried to maintain became less clear. I should have noticed it and just picked a different analogy. Onceinawhile ( talk) 02:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Awilley to try to respond to your request, as briefly as possible:
Onceinawhile ( talk) 03:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ Liz: thanks for your reminder on 7 Jan re comment limits; since then I have refrained from adding to my statement. Since then a number of new claims have been made here since 7 Jan, all by editors who held a different perspective to me at the article discussion. I have shown that those claims are misleading in a couple of threads which have sprung up at User_talk:El_C#Advice and User_talk:Onceinawhile#Notification, although I would prefer this evidence to be here so it is clear for everyone. How would you like me to proceed? Onceinawhile ( talk) 13:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by selfstudierThe matter referred to in Diff 1 was closed without action at ANI Selfstudier ( talk) 16:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC) This has all come about once the word "bantustan" appeared in an IP context. I could look back at all the ensuing discussions and likely find myself as well guilty of generating more heat than light on occasion and I would extend that to nearly everyone here and some that are not. The anti-this and -that is a good example of the OTT commentary. It's not for me to decide the matter but imho, this should be a case of handshake all around, keep a lid on it and move on. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC) ImTheIP makes a valid argument, at least up to a point. I am not precisely clear whether the filing editor is filing for himself or has been appointed group lawyer in a class action but 7 of the 16 relevant diffs are (on behalf of?) editor Reenem, who has chosen not to testify. I still believe, absent a detailed autopsy, that there is more than enough blame to go around here and if a warning should be given, then it ought not be expanded into a laundry list such that it appears as if that editor was the only guilty party. Selfstudier ( talk) 15:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by DrsmooIt's hard to imagine how there could be anything wrong with asking someone to stop making Holocaust and pogrom references, particularly in this topic field, where those analogies are particularly likely to feel pointed. It would not have been hard for them to choose another analogy. Instead, I'm accused of racism for voicing displeasure. Drsmoo ( talk) 19:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Statement by LevivichAdditional comments by Onceinawhile at Talk:West Bank bantustans, not included in the list above:
It's great to see Onceinawhile's commitment to focus on edits not editors. Another aspect of this report that hasn't been addressed yet is WP:BLUDGEON. 53 editors have edited Talk:West Bank bantustans; here's the pie chart: [80]. Once has made 178 edits, about 23% of edits and text. That's more than the bottom 50 editors combined. (Once and two other editors have made ~60% of the edits/text on the talk page.) It was the same pattern at the AFD. Once cites this in their statement here, noting they've made over 200 edits to those two pages combined. @
El C and
Awilley: I have concerns about
this comment Once made on their talk page a couple days ago: The discussion about the article title has been very difficult because, for example, Onceinawhile started the poorly-framed RFC (with ~40 choices), which nevertheless had a clear result ("Palestinian enclaves"), and then they closed that RFC themselves and started the RM, which again has a clear result, and have been posting 200+ comments. When those problems were raised by other editors, Onceinawhile ignored them. When they were raised here at AE, Onceinawhile cites the AE, and their own RM and RFC, and their 200 comments, as mitigating factors. Another example is Talk:West Bank bantustans#NPOV concerns, where I raised particular concerns in connection with an NPOV tag, and Onceinawhile replied by saying some of my concerns weren't concerns and marking them {{ done}}, which is just a bit presumptuous, and WP:OWNery. It's hard to discuss NPOV concerns with the other 52 editors when Onceinawhile is taking it upon themselves to mark them "done" based on whether they agree or disagree. (To their credit, Once did address some of the other concerns they marked done, so it's not all bad, it's a mix of collaborative and uncollaborative behavior.) It's hard to have a discussion about anything when Once is posting 200 times, and deciding when RFCs and RMs get launched and closed, all unilaterally. If this ends with a logged warning, I'd ask that the warning address not just civility and WP:FORUMing, but also bludgeoning and WP:OWNership, behavior. (I'm probably over 500 and requesting extension for this post.) Levivich harass/ hound 18:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by AlmostFrancisMy dealings with Onceandawhile have been unpleasant and slightly odd. First they lied about me confirming a sources citation level, while at the same time implying I was an ultra-nationalist. I never even mentioned the citation level so no clue why they thought that would slip by. After being called out they then tried a little gaslighting saying that all they meant was that I had supplied a source. Even though they had already acknowledged I had not brought any sources for the article, forcefully I might add. They then added a source to the article implying I had recommended it. This is the organization sponsoring the essay and this is the publisher, no one could honestly believe I was recommending it. I am not the only one they are doing this too. Just today after user explained how if there is not a common name we should follow NPOV, Onceandawhile replies "Agreed. Bantustan is the clear common name". I can believe a closer would fall for that but still its annoying. AlmostFrancis ( talk) 20:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000To editor El C: I made a personal resolution more than 30 years ago to never use Holocaust-related analogies in arguments about the Middle East, and I've stuck to that. I think that Onceinawhile made a big mistake in choosing such an analogy to illustrate his/her case. However, I believe that the majority of readers would take this and this to be accusations by 11Fox11 that Onceinawhile was making antisemitic arguments. There is no difference between an explicit charge and a carefully crafted invitation for readers to draw the same conclusion. I don't understand how you can construe them as less deplorable than the things that Onceinawhile wrote. Zero talk 01:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC) I would like to say that Onceinawhile is one of the most conscientious editors that work in the I/P area. I don't need all the fingers of one hand to list those who work so hard to bring the best possible sources and get the facts right. Of course s/he has a POV, but so does every single one of those who have written against him/her here (not including the admin section). Usually Onceinawhile is exceptional for his/her politeness and many times I've seen him/her respond seriously to argument that I didn't think deserved it. In the case of this messy talk page (which I was not involved in), Onceinawhile became emotionally involved and wrote in a manner that is not in character. I know that s/he understands this and will be more careful in the future. Zero talk 01:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by Jr8825I was uncomfortable with a conversation on my talk page in which Onceinawhile incorrectly accused me of canvassing for the AfD I opened regarding their article. They called my actions "unacceptable" and wrote "why are you working hard to bury it [the topic]" ( diff). At the time, I felt this was a smear intended to undermine the AfD, as an editor with their experience should know better than to make accusations without understanding the relevant policy. While this warning may have been a genuine mistake, Onceinawhile did not apologise after several uninvolved editors at the AfD pointed out that the accusation was incorrect and continued the conversation on my talk page, making comments including "sorry to say this but it all feels like anti-Palestinian racism" ( diff) – later amended to "unintended racism" – directly after I had asked them to "focus on the content, rather than me as an editor". Elsewhere, I've found working with Onceinawhile to be productive but sometimes challenging. They tend to insist that points they disagree with are invalid/unsourced, repeatedly. This behaviour is frustrating but can be put down to genuine disagreement within a contentious topic. In my (relatively limited) experience of ARBPIA articles, I've come across several other editors behaving this way; it's unconstructive and contributes to an unpleasant atmosphere but is not unique. Onceinawhile made accusatory comments about my motives on a small number occasions, such as diff #17. This happened one or two other times at most. I've had civil discussions with Onceinawhile regarding content. Looking through past discussions, I can see they have always made efforts to be constructive once we've engaged in detailed discussion. I think these discussions and Onceinawhile's contributions in the topic area are valuable. Jr8825 • Talk 04:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by HuldraJust a note that the Talk:West Bank bantustans-page has looked ugly, a long time, and has attracted some editors usually not seen in the I/P area. I wonder if this is because the article and Onceinawhile has been targeted in off-wiki Israeli sources: link (Redacted) Also, when people use the results from googling "apartheid canard" "form of incitement" "expression of racism" (see this used in this edit)....that doesn't look like anywhere near objective editing to me. Huldra ( talk) 21:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC) PS: I cannot get the Haaretz links to work correctly, here are the "bare" urls:
Statement by ChipmunkdavisAll of these edits are part of a single recent content dispute surrounding the creation of the article West Bank bantustans, which I am aware of due to reviewing its submission to WP:DYK. This has generated reams of discussion that was never well organised (and has not really touched on the article content) and steadily devolved. Regarding anti-semitism, my understanding is that Onceinawhile interpreted other editors calling the title they had chosen as antisemitic as their editing being antisemitic. This interpretation was probably influenced by the previously noted external attention and the immediate battleground attitude by other editors such 11Fox11, who described Onceinawhile's edits to the page as having an "extremist viewpoint" and "endorsing Palestinian hard-line rejectionism of the peace process". Remedies should reflect the clear breaches of PA and soapbox provided by the opening diffs, while keeping in mind their emergence from a single extended content dispute where a bit of soap and a lack of attention to the article content has been pervasive from the very beginning. CMD ( talk) 04:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by Shrike@
Awilley: The problem is not only that article but his attitude is to
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as it evidence by his statement two years ago
[81]
So the last article is just part of the trend. I don't think that other editors should check his edits to see if the article that he want to promote to main page is to complaint to WP:NPOV policy. In my view this editor is not suitable to edit in the area to the very least he should not propose articles to the main page in area of the conflict. -- Shrike ( talk) 10:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC) @ Awilley: Its ok to have POV I have it too the problem is not with POV but how your edit if you write one sided article and cherry pick the sources to present only POV your like and then run to put it to to the WP:MAINPAGE that an example of WP:TE. -- Shrike ( talk) 06:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by ImTheIPI poured over 11Fox11 edit history. Before this AE trial I could not find a single complaint about Onceinawhile's behavior. Certainly not about the diffs listed by 11Fox11. It seems to me that collegial editing obliges one to give the other party a chance to make amends before taking it to trial. I looked at the edit histories of the other users who write that they were wronged by Onceinawhile. I cannot find any of them complaining before this process began (though the discussion at Talk:West Bank bantustans is massive so perhaps I've missed it). 11Fox11 filed a charge against me at AN/I last December. I was warned, which may have been deserved, but the process was similar in that 11Fox11 didn't explain what their grievance was before filing the charge. I'm sure that if someone would have told Onceinawhile that they felt that their edits were disrespectful, they would have changed their tone. ImTheIP ( talk) 14:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Onceinawhile
|
| AnonQuixote is warned against editing —especially in such a sensitive topic area as WP:AP2— in a manner which is contrary to a consensus which was arrived at through a dispute resolution request closure. The way to challenge that is through a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Greater care is expected on their part from now on. El_C 19:57, 17 January 2021 (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 AnonQuixote
AnonQuixote has been edit-warring over the wikilink in the "charges" field of the infobox at Second impeachment of Donald Trump, which they have continued today even after a consensus was reached against their preferred version in a discussion they started and participated in extensively. They had opened discussions in three venues to address this issue, where their argument that piping a link from "incitement of insurrection" to sedition is WP:SYNTH was mostly rejected. The BLPN discussion was recently closed by Eggishorn with a consensus that linking to sedition is acceptable. In that discussion, AnonQuixote demonstrated a general failure to get what others were saying. I gave them a DS alert during that discussion, after they had already been warned for violating WP:3RR. Despite these warnings, and the consensus at the BLPN discussion, they edited Second impeachment of Donald Trump today in violation of the consensus. Pinging participants in BLPN discussion. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning AnonQuixoteStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AnonQuixoteThe BLP/N consensus was that "equating 'inciting insurrection' to 'sedition' is fine" in the second impeachment of Donald Trump article. The discussion also established that no known reliable source supports this claim. The sequence of events after the discussion was closed were as follows:
I believe these edits are consistent with Wikipedia's policies, but it's possible that when making the changes the second time I violated some revert restriction, in which case I apologize for that. Edit 2 is a comment in a related discussion, which is clearly not edit warring in any way, but a constructive contribution to the discussion. I believe the fact this was included demonstrates that the real goal of these accusations is to silence my dissenting opinion. As my edit history attests, I have made many constructive edits to the article in question and other related articles. I do not believe sanctions are justified. AnonQuixote ( talk) 05:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Statement by EggishornAnonQuixote is a new user who has jumped into an area which is contentious both in real life and on-wiki. This is what we want to see happen but there is a learning curve and some gentle counselling is likely needed. They say above that the BLP/N discussion's result is that "equating 'inciting insurrection' to 'sedition' is fine" when this is not an actual quote from the close. I closed the thread with the result "...the piping of "Incitement of insurrection" to the Sedition article is supported." The differences between those two statements are significant in terms of what would and would not be valid edits. To remove the piping with an edit that claims to implement that consensus and double-down on that mistake here is plainly not following WP:CONSENSUS. To continue to claim that there is no support for the claim when every other editor in a thread they started disagreed is a very good example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I don't think that AQ needs any DS leveled at this time but they do need to develop a better understanding of how consensus and the core content policies work. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by Tartan357@ El C and Eggishorn: at RfD, AnonQuixote is continuing to claim that equating "incitement of insurrection" with "sedition" is "misleading". This is now the fourth venue they've made this argument in. They are also falsely claiming there that I've made ad hominem attacks against them and have attempted to get them banned. I would like to see AQ accept that the BLPN thread was closed with a clear consensus, and not continue to WP:FORUMSHOP and litigate this issue elsewhere. ― Tartan357 Talk 20:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC) Result concerning AnonQuixote
|
| Appeal declined. — Newslinger talk 10:11, 21 January 2021 (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 AnonQuixoteThis sanction arose from a dispute surrounding the second impeachment of Donald Trump. I raised concerns about whether Wikipedia should state or imply that Trump was impeached for "sedition".
The outcome of the AE request was that my edit was reverted by El_C and I was warned to discuss before making further edits. Since that time, I do not believe I have done anything non-constructive. I have refrained from anything that could be considered edit warring and stuck to raising the issue on relevant talk pages and related discussions. Although I believe El_C's initial actions were fair, this admin appears to have become personally involved in the dispute and is now unjustly interpreting my actions as disruptive. They have themselves made several improper actions, demonstrating their bias against me:
I believe this admin is enforcing an arbitrary policy that I am not allowed to discuss this issue further. However the issue still needs to be discussed as there is still no consensus on the central question: whether Wikipedia can state that "Trump was impeached for sedition". I request this ban be revoked by an uninvolved admin and that El_C be asked to refrain from further participation in this issue.
Specific edits alleged to be disruptive by El_C:
Since all of these edits are civil and constructive, I believe this clearly demonstrates that El_C's claims of disruptive behavior are false and the ban is unjustified. AnonQuixote ( talk) 20:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Statement by El_C
Statement by Tartan357
Statement by Gwennie-nyanAs an editor who has seen issues with this editor regarding this case and attempted to notify them of issues while trying to steer them in a better path, I think this implementation of ACDS was generous and appropriate. (I've seen less behavior been given short blocks at ANI.) Since joining this wiki less than three weeks ago, this issue with Trump, sedition, and incitement wording has been something they've been oddly attached to. No matter what other editors say, even El C formally warning them to tread lightly, hasn't resulted in much deviation from WP:ICANTHEARYOU-type behavior. Their behavior confuses my good-faith brain enough I wonder if it's simply not possible for them to behave in a manner consistent with being WP:HERE. I also concur that this editor has engaged in poor behavior in response to attempt to gently correct or criticize them. Please decline this appeal. ~Gwennie🐈｟ 💬 📋｠ 04:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Statement by WingedserifPlease decline. I was on the receiving end of AQ's potent combination of WP:Wikilawyering and WP:IDHT on the Talk:Sedition discussion, which carried over to the BLPNoticeboard—I had to leave to avoid getting heated. I very much appreciated the contributions of Tartan357 and Gwennie-nyan to those discussions. — WingedSerif ( talk) 04:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My KenI concur with Awilley's final sentence below. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 19:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by AnonQuixote@ AnonQuixote - I am sorry, but I don't see those diff's as an "involvement". I also believe that attacking hard-working and trusted administrators to get sanctions lifted is not the way to go. I'm sympathetic to your appeal since I was topic banned for a very long time, and I know how challenging it is to have that imposed. Still, I would advise you to strike the attacking part and focus more on your behavior and seek to convince reviewing administrators that this will not occur again. Good luck. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 02:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@ AnonQuixote try to learn from this experience regardless of this appeal outcome; it will help so much if you are planning to be a good, long-term contributor.. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 02:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Result of the appeal by AnonQuixote
|
| Appeal declined. — Newslinger talk 10:28, 21 January 2021 (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 DebresserThere was no gaming involved. After 28 hours I asked the other editor's permission in the section above on my talkpage [101] and I even asked other editors for their opinions at WP:AE, [102] and after another 4 hours had passed, making that 32 hours after my original revert, and the other editor had agreed there was no 1RR violation involved, [103] and no objections were raised at WP:AE, I made my edit. I think that calling such upfront behavior "gaming the system" is doing me an injustice. Please also notice that he whole WP:AE report has been run by only one admin so far, and although I have only good things to say about them, I'd like to see other admins' take on this. (In addition, I see no reason to limit my editing privileges at other articles, surely not for such an exorbitant length of time, and I thank Onceinawhile for his sentiments in this regard.) Debresser ( talk) 16:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by El_CAs mentioned, I've warned Debresser multiple times over the years about gaming the system and wikilawyering concerning their conduct revolving around ARBPIA (or near-ARBPIA) pages and edits. As also mentioned, their latest violation, which followed a self-revert (noted at 12:00 UTC) only to then immediately have it followed by seeking to undo that very same self-revert (posed at 12:02 UTC), and which was finally acted upon a few hours later, is just a step too far for me. I believe I am well within my discretion to apply Committee-authorized sanctions to interpret this as a WP:GAME violation which warrants the present sanction. As I also feel it would be within my discretion to impose a broadly construed topic ban on Debresser from the topic area, overall, if he were to fail to provide some pretty strong assurances that he'll be able to exercise better judgment in the future. El_C 18:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Sir JosephI haven't checked the logs or timeline, but isn't GAME for something like 24+1 or 25-26 hours past the 24 hour deadline? If it is as Debresser said, 32 hours, is that now also considered gaming? In addition, after the 24 hours, he did post on the talkpage, it should not be considered gaming, especially when posting something that is BLUE. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Debresser
Result of the appeal by Debresser
|
Debresser blocked for 2 weeks for violating
WP:GAME, also noting that without some pretty strong assurances that he'd be able to exercise better judgment in the future, a
broadly construed topic ban from the ARBPIA topic area is likely. Supreme Deliciousness is also warned (
logged) to watch for
WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct in this as well as other sensitive topic areas. Finally, Debresser has appealed my sanction (
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Debresser), an appeal which at the moment remains pending.
El_C 18:36, 16 January 2021 (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 Debresser
Has been warned many times about the 1rr at his talkpage: [105] [106] [107] [108] [109]
PackMecEng, it definitely does meet WP:AWARE: "2. They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed)" You are right about the Maqluba edits so I have removed it. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 00:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Sir Joseph, he is not allowed to violate the 1rr in a content dispute. Also, the Birthright Israel website mentions the trip going to old Jerusalem and Golan heights: [110] neither of these are internationally recognized as Israel, so he is violating the 1rr to violate npov which is a wikipedia policy. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 00:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC) El_C, relax and be calm, I made 1 single revert at the article and I used the edit summary to explain my reasoning for the edit: [111]. So there was no need to open a discussion at the talkpage at that point of time because it would have been the same as I wrote in my edit summary. As it has now been reverted again, I am now planning to discuss at the talkpage before any further changes to the article. Thats the next step I was planning to do, to open discussion at the talkpage if my explanation in the edit summary was disagreed. Concerning "absent the customary self-revert request"... is this a compulsory rule I'm not aware of? I was actually thinking about asking him to self revert first but then when I saw his giant block log almost all of it for edit warring and the large amount of warnings he has gotten from numerous editors for edit warring: [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] I decided to open a 1rr enforcement as he has a long history of not following the 1rr. Why warn him again after all the warnings he has received over the years? When is enough enough?
Discussion concerning DebresserStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DebresserNo problem, Self-reverted. 1RR had completely slipped my mind, especially with other editors' edits in between. Sorry. Debresser ( talk) 12:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Sir JosephThis is more of SD's MO of making the IP conflict area into a battleground. RS say Birthright is a trip to Israel. Indeed, the ref right at the end of the sentence says that a few times. We're always told that Wikipedia is RS (not necessarily truth), it should also apply when you write Israeli themed articles. Regardless, even if SD thinks this is a violation, it's the custom in the IP area to let the person know first and give a chance to self-revert. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by PackMecEngTwo things,
Statement by NableezyBright line rule violation, in addition to an absurd edit. As far as awareness, the 1RR does not require awareness to be enforced. He should of course be offered the opportunity to self-revert. But this is a straightforward violation of a restriction Debresser has been sanctioned for violating repeatedly (see the block log). nableezy - 01:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah thats a definite gaming the system. Knowingly edit-warring to purposely violate NPOV is not a good look imo. nableezy - 14:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by OnceinawhileWhilst he has clearly made a mistake, this doesn't look like intentional game-playing to me, on the basis of his edit comment. More like a misunderstanding, followed by some over-zealousness. The 2 week block strikes me as surprisingly harsh. FYI Debresser and I usually find ourselves on opposing sides of discussions in this topic area. Onceinawhile ( talk) 18:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Result concerning Debresser
|
| Withdrawn by OP. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:06, 22 January 2021 (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 GoodDay
At
Donald Trump, there is a messy situation regarding the phrasing of the lead paragraph now that he has left office. An
attempt to agree on consensus for wording a month in advance of the inauguration stalled after
no one stepped up to close it, leading to an unstable situation with no clear articulation of the status quo to fall back on. The lead has been modified numerous times since then and a bunch of
overlapping talk page discussions have sprung up scrambling to figure something out. One sticking point among several that has emerged is whether to use
Discussion concerning GoodDayStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GoodDayI wasn't aware that I breached anything, when I put into the article Donald Trump, "served as", in place of "was". PS - I humbly apologise for that blunder. GoodDay ( talk) 21:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC) FWIW, I restored the previous version (now that I'm aware of the apparent seriousness of my previous edit) & promise to leave it as such. GoodDay ( talk) 21:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by ChrisahnThe situation at Donald Trump is indeed very messy. We haven't been able to develop a consensus about the first sentence. Sdkb says there has been "prevailing consensus" for using the word "was" instead of "served as", but that has been disputed, and the relevant item #17 on Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus currently simply says "Note that this item is obsolete given that Trump is no longer the current president". Sdkb argues that in the absence of consensus, we should try to stay close to the status quo, which was "Donald Trump is the 45th president of the United States", and replace "is" by "was" while changing little else. That's a reasonable position. But others have argued that in the absence of consensus, we should try to stay close to the wording in other articles about former US presidents, which is "X is an American [occupation] who served as [n]th president of the United States". That's also a reasonable position. So the problem is that we neither have a consensus for a long-term solution, nor a consensus for an interim stop-gap solution. In the last two days, several users (roughly half a dozen) changed the first sentence to "served as", and Sdkb repeatedly changed it back to "was" ( here, here, and here). Sdkb added warnings about edit warring and sanctions on other users' talk pages ( here, here, and here), using the words "you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree". But these words would also be a correct description of Sdkb's actions on Donald Trump in the last two days. Now Sdkb is trying to sanction other users. But based on the same criteria, other users would be justified to try to sanction Sdkb. In conclusion: Yes, the situation at Donald Trump is messy, but neither "was" nor "served as" is a terrible solution for the first sentence. As long as we don't have a consensus, it will probably be changed back and forth a few more times. But let's not make the situation even messier by starting a back and forth of enforcement requests. Let's cool down, everyone. (Disclosure: I had previously made basically the same edit as GoodDay. Sdkb later reverted it and warned me that I might be sanctioned for it. I hope I managed to provide a reasonably neutral perspective anyway.) — Chrisahn ( talk) 22:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning GoodDay
|
| Belteshazzar has been blocked for a month by Ymblanter -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 01:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Belteshazzar ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Claims that they have dropped the stick: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Topic ban violations: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] Threads where Belteshazzar was repeatedly warned to stop violating the topic ban:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
|
Request for page restrictions enforcing civility on Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
| Filer advised about the limits of WP:ACDS. Not much we can do here, I'm afraid. El_C 03:26, 17 January 2021 (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.
Multiple editors have implied that they would like to have voiced an opinion on a recent discussion but the hostile climate prevented them from doing so [21] [22] [23]. I'm concerned that the current culture of hostility is suppressing debate and intimidating people from speaking up, analogous to cancel culture off-wiki. I personally have faced personal attacks on my motivation and character, rudeness, swearing, and unwarranted accusations of bad faith behavior, causing significant emotional distress and causing me to delete my previous account before changing my mind and rejoining the community [24]. I gently asked offending editors to stop several times [29] [30] [31] With regards to WP:BOOMARANG, several editors have called my own behaviour disruptive. I'm not sure yet if I agree but after discussion with MJL I have volunteered to refrain from editing controversial topics for three months while I mull that over and re-review policies and best practices. I'm definitely open to constructive feedback on this front. I propose that an uninvolved administrator put page restrictions enforcing civility on the Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez page.
Not applicable here, I'm requesting new page restrictions to be placed on the page, not enforcement of existing restrictions. In particular, I am not requesting action be taken against any user. Statement by (username)Discussion concerning request for page restrictions enforcing civility on Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-CortezStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Non-administrator comment) The filer is a declared sock of Pretzel butterfly. I see them POV-pushing, IHateAccounts being direct in their objections, and no "civility" issues. I'm not sure a boomerang is needed. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC) Result concerning Forbidden History
|
| User:Forbidden History is banned from all topics related to the Balkans. EdJohnston ( talk) 01:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Forbidden History
I originally started an AN/I incident report regarding the editor's POV editing actions. It was suggested that, since this is a sanctioned topic area and the user has reverted a number of times (and has similar incidents on a number of other articles), that a report be filed here instead. I am requesting a topic ban for the user in the area of interest, as it appears they come into conflict with other editors in these articles on a frequent basis, ever since they first created their account. Silver seren C 22:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Editor notified. Discussion concerning Forbidden HistoryStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (SeriousCherno)ForbiddenHistory is not an editor that likes to discuss his edits instead he results to edit warring even after he has been requested and warned to stop. It is a particularly big problem since the user adds information with sources that do not support the information added. This is also not helped by the fact that he acts in a very rude and aggressive way despite the majority of the editors that interact with him being respectful and cordial towards him. -- SeriousCherno ( talk) 23:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by JingibyThis user does not listen to other editors. He does not use reliable sources. His edits are biased and lack neutrality. He behaves defiantly and impolitely. In the field in which he is active, namely the Macedonian question, his edits are often destructive and as a whole they do not lead to an improvement of the articles. Topic-ban will be a reasonable step. Jingiby ( talk) 03:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by Veni MarkovskiAgree with statements above by SeriousCherno and Jingiby, as they are similar to my own experience, which I gained when interacting with Forbidden History in the span of two days on the main article and the talk page of Bitola inscription. The user seem to confuse opinions with facts, and would get into attempts for off-topic discussions, instead of staying closer to the subject. If needed, I could add more details, but the talk page of the above quoted article provides enough information to any objective reader. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски ( talk) 18:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by Forbidden HistorySince, I have replied about this situation here, please read before making your final decision. My interest is history and archaeology of the Balkan region and those are the articles in which I see myself working. My edits were provoked of the editors above and are explained in the link above. I will respect your decision for the things you may find me guilty of. Thanks,-- Forbidden History ( talk) 19:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by MJLI was the first person who suggested this be moved here. I didn't think it was going to get any administrative action from the community, but this is a clearcut report from an WP:AE standpoint. A topic ban is very much welcomed in my view just looking at Forbidden History's constant pushing to include to census data for the Macedonian Bulgarian community on
Law for the Protection of Macedonian National Honour.
[32]
[33]
[34]
Statement by (username)Result concerning Forbidden History
|
| Appeal closed procedurally, as the sanction in question has expired without a consensus that it was inapporpriate. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:06, 19 January 2021 (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 CaltonRequested on talkpage SQL Query me! 17:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC) I didn't think this petty ideological game-playing nonsense was worth dealing with, but given this ludicrous over-reaction to REVERTING OBVIOUS VANDALISM, it's time. or administrators' noticeboard. I reverted OBVIOUS VANDALISM, sport. If you don't think it is, I invite you to restore it Statement by GuerilleroThe obvious vandalism carve out is for things such as "foo is gay" or "bar has a small penis" and not edits that are, at their core, editorial decisions such as removing scare quotes. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Calton
Result of the appeal by Calton
|
| CatCafe is warned against casting aspersions. They are instructed that doubting the tenure of any account, may only be conveyed through the filing an WP:SPI report. Otherwise, going on to effectively badger these editors with queries to that effect is inappropriate. El_C 14:33, 17 January 2021 (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 CatCafe
This was my first interaction with said user where I explained that I was working with IHA on civility issues as part of our mentorship program. Practically speaking, such training would be a lot easier if CatCafe could just drop the stick when it regards my adoptee and these issues they seem to have at Talk:Irreversible Damage. Normally, I would just discuss this with the editor in question myself, but (as previously mentioned) I am banned from their talk page. Trust me, I wouldn't be here for this if I could avoid it (-_-). – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 02:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@ El C: Sorry, here are the posts (in diff form). As for the Manning thing, the intention there was to clarify that trans issues like misgenderings and whatnot fall under Gamergate. At this point, it might be better to just consider Gamergate to mean Gender disputes since that is basically how the remedies passed there are treated. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 04:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
[41] Done. Discussion concerning CatCafeStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by CatCafeMJL misled above stating a particular diff was their first interaction with me. Their first interaction was this [42] and in that post I found hurtful comments made by MJL toward me were a repeat of the hurtful comment previously made by IHateAccounts. The hurtful comments by MJL were repeated directly after I had expressed concern I had been insulted. [43]. So doing what MJL did was being purposely inflaming.
Statement by (username)Result concerning CatCafe
|
| Onceinawhile is warned to focus on content instead of contributors and cautioned about WP:BLUDGEONing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awilley ( talk • contribs) 05:19, 20 January 2021 (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 Onceinawhile
04.12.20 Alert. 11.2020, created page with sanctions notice. 5.2020, initiated discussion on sanctions Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
Stats on Talk:West_Bank_bantustans Stats on talk shows 173 edits and 67,739 bytes of text by Onceinawhile who is repeating themselves over and over again with toxic verbiage. They are also consistently comparing Israel/Palestine situation with Nazi/Holocaust concepts ( [51], [52], [53]). This is inflammatory and derails discussion.
If Onceinawhile's many offensive Holocaust comparisons and personal attacks against more than 5 editors are not sufficient, they are continuing their battleground conduct while this request is open:
All this while they are on their best behaviour, make concilliatory statements on user talk to User:El C and User:Awilley. Onceinawhile did not apologise for calling editors who disagree with him racist. Onceinawhile did not apologise for making offensive Holocaust comparisons. 11Fox11 ( talk) 05:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning OnceinawhileStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by OnceinawhileIt is correct that I pointed out what I believe to be a number of anti-Palestinian statements made in the discussions over the last two months re West Bank bantustans; fortunately the heated nature of these discussions has mostly cooled in recent weeks. I never made such statements against the editors themselves, primarily because I consider the bar for calling a person racist to be extremely high, and I don't know anywhere near enough about anyone here to make such judgements. I have always been told that it is important to point out statements which are racist in nature, but it is not my place to judge whether there was intent. If doing so contravenes our rules I am happy to adjust my behavior, but I do not believe it does. I must also note that the editor who posted this has not pointed out the dozens of accusations of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic made by editors in these same discussions, creating an odd picture of the discussions. Ironically, the post itself is simultaneously complaining about my characterization of some statements as anti-Palestinian whilst itself making numerous implied claims that some of my statements have been anti-semitic (that is the implication of the repeated reference to "comparisons", which I explained at one of the comments posted above [55]). If we could have a moratorium on unnecessary accusations of anti-this and anti-that, I think that would be better, but the important thing is that both sides are treated equally. Onceinawhile ( talk) 08:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate Levivich having taken the time to dig out the fact that I explicitly told Reneem in our little tangent discussion that "I am assuming good faith in terms of your intent". Onceinawhile ( talk) 19:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Zero0000 I also made that same resolution many years ago; the analogies are not accurate and it's simply too sensitive a part of history. It's just not necessary. I have tried to track back my train of thought here; it seems that I started making the linguistic point about ghettos and pogroms generically ( [65], [66]) but at some point figured I needed a specific example. Unfortunately we do not have a single example of an article about a place entitled "ghetto" that was not in Italy (needed to be outside Italy for the loanword point to work) and that were not during the Holocaust. So I went for Warsaw, as the most well known, and at some point I condensed my arguments so that the separation I had tried to maintain became less clear. I should have noticed it and just picked a different analogy. Onceinawhile ( talk) 02:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Awilley to try to respond to your request, as briefly as possible:
Onceinawhile ( talk) 03:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi @ Liz: thanks for your reminder on 7 Jan re comment limits; since then I have refrained from adding to my statement. Since then a number of new claims have been made here since 7 Jan, all by editors who held a different perspective to me at the article discussion. I have shown that those claims are misleading in a couple of threads which have sprung up at User_talk:El_C#Advice and User_talk:Onceinawhile#Notification, although I would prefer this evidence to be here so it is clear for everyone. How would you like me to proceed? Onceinawhile ( talk) 13:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by selfstudierThe matter referred to in Diff 1 was closed without action at ANI Selfstudier ( talk) 16:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC) This has all come about once the word "bantustan" appeared in an IP context. I could look back at all the ensuing discussions and likely find myself as well guilty of generating more heat than light on occasion and I would extend that to nearly everyone here and some that are not. The anti-this and -that is a good example of the OTT commentary. It's not for me to decide the matter but imho, this should be a case of handshake all around, keep a lid on it and move on. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC) ImTheIP makes a valid argument, at least up to a point. I am not precisely clear whether the filing editor is filing for himself or has been appointed group lawyer in a class action but 7 of the 16 relevant diffs are (on behalf of?) editor Reenem, who has chosen not to testify. I still believe, absent a detailed autopsy, that there is more than enough blame to go around here and if a warning should be given, then it ought not be expanded into a laundry list such that it appears as if that editor was the only guilty party. Selfstudier ( talk) 15:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by DrsmooIt's hard to imagine how there could be anything wrong with asking someone to stop making Holocaust and pogrom references, particularly in this topic field, where those analogies are particularly likely to feel pointed. It would not have been hard for them to choose another analogy. Instead, I'm accused of racism for voicing displeasure. Drsmoo ( talk) 19:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Statement by LevivichAdditional comments by Onceinawhile at Talk:West Bank bantustans, not included in the list above:
It's great to see Onceinawhile's commitment to focus on edits not editors. Another aspect of this report that hasn't been addressed yet is WP:BLUDGEON. 53 editors have edited Talk:West Bank bantustans; here's the pie chart: [80]. Once has made 178 edits, about 23% of edits and text. That's more than the bottom 50 editors combined. (Once and two other editors have made ~60% of the edits/text on the talk page.) It was the same pattern at the AFD. Once cites this in their statement here, noting they've made over 200 edits to those two pages combined. @
El C and
Awilley: I have concerns about
this comment Once made on their talk page a couple days ago: The discussion about the article title has been very difficult because, for example, Onceinawhile started the poorly-framed RFC (with ~40 choices), which nevertheless had a clear result ("Palestinian enclaves"), and then they closed that RFC themselves and started the RM, which again has a clear result, and have been posting 200+ comments. When those problems were raised by other editors, Onceinawhile ignored them. When they were raised here at AE, Onceinawhile cites the AE, and their own RM and RFC, and their 200 comments, as mitigating factors. Another example is Talk:West Bank bantustans#NPOV concerns, where I raised particular concerns in connection with an NPOV tag, and Onceinawhile replied by saying some of my concerns weren't concerns and marking them {{ done}}, which is just a bit presumptuous, and WP:OWNery. It's hard to discuss NPOV concerns with the other 52 editors when Onceinawhile is taking it upon themselves to mark them "done" based on whether they agree or disagree. (To their credit, Once did address some of the other concerns they marked done, so it's not all bad, it's a mix of collaborative and uncollaborative behavior.) It's hard to have a discussion about anything when Once is posting 200 times, and deciding when RFCs and RMs get launched and closed, all unilaterally. If this ends with a logged warning, I'd ask that the warning address not just civility and WP:FORUMing, but also bludgeoning and WP:OWNership, behavior. (I'm probably over 500 and requesting extension for this post.) Levivich harass/ hound 18:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by AlmostFrancisMy dealings with Onceandawhile have been unpleasant and slightly odd. First they lied about me confirming a sources citation level, while at the same time implying I was an ultra-nationalist. I never even mentioned the citation level so no clue why they thought that would slip by. After being called out they then tried a little gaslighting saying that all they meant was that I had supplied a source. Even though they had already acknowledged I had not brought any sources for the article, forcefully I might add. They then added a source to the article implying I had recommended it. This is the organization sponsoring the essay and this is the publisher, no one could honestly believe I was recommending it. I am not the only one they are doing this too. Just today after user explained how if there is not a common name we should follow NPOV, Onceandawhile replies "Agreed. Bantustan is the clear common name". I can believe a closer would fall for that but still its annoying. AlmostFrancis ( talk) 20:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000To editor El C: I made a personal resolution more than 30 years ago to never use Holocaust-related analogies in arguments about the Middle East, and I've stuck to that. I think that Onceinawhile made a big mistake in choosing such an analogy to illustrate his/her case. However, I believe that the majority of readers would take this and this to be accusations by 11Fox11 that Onceinawhile was making antisemitic arguments. There is no difference between an explicit charge and a carefully crafted invitation for readers to draw the same conclusion. I don't understand how you can construe them as less deplorable than the things that Onceinawhile wrote. Zero talk 01:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC) I would like to say that Onceinawhile is one of the most conscientious editors that work in the I/P area. I don't need all the fingers of one hand to list those who work so hard to bring the best possible sources and get the facts right. Of course s/he has a POV, but so does every single one of those who have written against him/her here (not including the admin section). Usually Onceinawhile is exceptional for his/her politeness and many times I've seen him/her respond seriously to argument that I didn't think deserved it. In the case of this messy talk page (which I was not involved in), Onceinawhile became emotionally involved and wrote in a manner that is not in character. I know that s/he understands this and will be more careful in the future. Zero talk 01:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by Jr8825I was uncomfortable with a conversation on my talk page in which Onceinawhile incorrectly accused me of canvassing for the AfD I opened regarding their article. They called my actions "unacceptable" and wrote "why are you working hard to bury it [the topic]" ( diff). At the time, I felt this was a smear intended to undermine the AfD, as an editor with their experience should know better than to make accusations without understanding the relevant policy. While this warning may have been a genuine mistake, Onceinawhile did not apologise after several uninvolved editors at the AfD pointed out that the accusation was incorrect and continued the conversation on my talk page, making comments including "sorry to say this but it all feels like anti-Palestinian racism" ( diff) – later amended to "unintended racism" – directly after I had asked them to "focus on the content, rather than me as an editor". Elsewhere, I've found working with Onceinawhile to be productive but sometimes challenging. They tend to insist that points they disagree with are invalid/unsourced, repeatedly. This behaviour is frustrating but can be put down to genuine disagreement within a contentious topic. In my (relatively limited) experience of ARBPIA articles, I've come across several other editors behaving this way; it's unconstructive and contributes to an unpleasant atmosphere but is not unique. Onceinawhile made accusatory comments about my motives on a small number occasions, such as diff #17. This happened one or two other times at most. I've had civil discussions with Onceinawhile regarding content. Looking through past discussions, I can see they have always made efforts to be constructive once we've engaged in detailed discussion. I think these discussions and Onceinawhile's contributions in the topic area are valuable. Jr8825 • Talk 04:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by HuldraJust a note that the Talk:West Bank bantustans-page has looked ugly, a long time, and has attracted some editors usually not seen in the I/P area. I wonder if this is because the article and Onceinawhile has been targeted in off-wiki Israeli sources: link (Redacted) Also, when people use the results from googling "apartheid canard" "form of incitement" "expression of racism" (see this used in this edit)....that doesn't look like anywhere near objective editing to me. Huldra ( talk) 21:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC) PS: I cannot get the Haaretz links to work correctly, here are the "bare" urls:
Statement by ChipmunkdavisAll of these edits are part of a single recent content dispute surrounding the creation of the article West Bank bantustans, which I am aware of due to reviewing its submission to WP:DYK. This has generated reams of discussion that was never well organised (and has not really touched on the article content) and steadily devolved. Regarding anti-semitism, my understanding is that Onceinawhile interpreted other editors calling the title they had chosen as antisemitic as their editing being antisemitic. This interpretation was probably influenced by the previously noted external attention and the immediate battleground attitude by other editors such 11Fox11, who described Onceinawhile's edits to the page as having an "extremist viewpoint" and "endorsing Palestinian hard-line rejectionism of the peace process". Remedies should reflect the clear breaches of PA and soapbox provided by the opening diffs, while keeping in mind their emergence from a single extended content dispute where a bit of soap and a lack of attention to the article content has been pervasive from the very beginning. CMD ( talk) 04:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by Shrike@
Awilley: The problem is not only that article but his attitude is to
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as it evidence by his statement two years ago
[81]
So the last article is just part of the trend. I don't think that other editors should check his edits to see if the article that he want to promote to main page is to complaint to WP:NPOV policy. In my view this editor is not suitable to edit in the area to the very least he should not propose articles to the main page in area of the conflict. -- Shrike ( talk) 10:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC) @ Awilley: Its ok to have POV I have it too the problem is not with POV but how your edit if you write one sided article and cherry pick the sources to present only POV your like and then run to put it to to the WP:MAINPAGE that an example of WP:TE. -- Shrike ( talk) 06:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by ImTheIPI poured over 11Fox11 edit history. Before this AE trial I could not find a single complaint about Onceinawhile's behavior. Certainly not about the diffs listed by 11Fox11. It seems to me that collegial editing obliges one to give the other party a chance to make amends before taking it to trial. I looked at the edit histories of the other users who write that they were wronged by Onceinawhile. I cannot find any of them complaining before this process began (though the discussion at Talk:West Bank bantustans is massive so perhaps I've missed it). 11Fox11 filed a charge against me at AN/I last December. I was warned, which may have been deserved, but the process was similar in that 11Fox11 didn't explain what their grievance was before filing the charge. I'm sure that if someone would have told Onceinawhile that they felt that their edits were disrespectful, they would have changed their tone. ImTheIP ( talk) 14:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Onceinawhile
|
| AnonQuixote is warned against editing —especially in such a sensitive topic area as WP:AP2— in a manner which is contrary to a consensus which was arrived at through a dispute resolution request closure. The way to challenge that is through a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Greater care is expected on their part from now on. El_C 19:57, 17 January 2021 (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 AnonQuixote
AnonQuixote has been edit-warring over the wikilink in the "charges" field of the infobox at Second impeachment of Donald Trump, which they have continued today even after a consensus was reached against their preferred version in a discussion they started and participated in extensively. They had opened discussions in three venues to address this issue, where their argument that piping a link from "incitement of insurrection" to sedition is WP:SYNTH was mostly rejected. The BLPN discussion was recently closed by Eggishorn with a consensus that linking to sedition is acceptable. In that discussion, AnonQuixote demonstrated a general failure to get what others were saying. I gave them a DS alert during that discussion, after they had already been warned for violating WP:3RR. Despite these warnings, and the consensus at the BLPN discussion, they edited Second impeachment of Donald Trump today in violation of the consensus. Pinging participants in BLPN discussion. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning AnonQuixoteStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AnonQuixoteThe BLP/N consensus was that "equating 'inciting insurrection' to 'sedition' is fine" in the second impeachment of Donald Trump article. The discussion also established that no known reliable source supports this claim. The sequence of events after the discussion was closed were as follows:
I believe these edits are consistent with Wikipedia's policies, but it's possible that when making the changes the second time I violated some revert restriction, in which case I apologize for that. Edit 2 is a comment in a related discussion, which is clearly not edit warring in any way, but a constructive contribution to the discussion. I believe the fact this was included demonstrates that the real goal of these accusations is to silence my dissenting opinion. As my edit history attests, I have made many constructive edits to the article in question and other related articles. I do not believe sanctions are justified. AnonQuixote ( talk) 05:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Statement by EggishornAnonQuixote is a new user who has jumped into an area which is contentious both in real life and on-wiki. This is what we want to see happen but there is a learning curve and some gentle counselling is likely needed. They say above that the BLP/N discussion's result is that "equating 'inciting insurrection' to 'sedition' is fine" when this is not an actual quote from the close. I closed the thread with the result "...the piping of "Incitement of insurrection" to the Sedition article is supported." The differences between those two statements are significant in terms of what would and would not be valid edits. To remove the piping with an edit that claims to implement that consensus and double-down on that mistake here is plainly not following WP:CONSENSUS. To continue to claim that there is no support for the claim when every other editor in a thread they started disagreed is a very good example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I don't think that AQ needs any DS leveled at this time but they do need to develop a better understanding of how consensus and the core content policies work. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by Tartan357@ El C and Eggishorn: at RfD, AnonQuixote is continuing to claim that equating "incitement of insurrection" with "sedition" is "misleading". This is now the fourth venue they've made this argument in. They are also falsely claiming there that I've made ad hominem attacks against them and have attempted to get them banned. I would like to see AQ accept that the BLPN thread was closed with a clear consensus, and not continue to WP:FORUMSHOP and litigate this issue elsewhere. ― Tartan357 Talk 20:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC) Result concerning AnonQuixote
|
| Appeal declined. — Newslinger talk 10:11, 21 January 2021 (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 AnonQuixoteThis sanction arose from a dispute surrounding the second impeachment of Donald Trump. I raised concerns about whether Wikipedia should state or imply that Trump was impeached for "sedition".
The outcome of the AE request was that my edit was reverted by El_C and I was warned to discuss before making further edits. Since that time, I do not believe I have done anything non-constructive. I have refrained from anything that could be considered edit warring and stuck to raising the issue on relevant talk pages and related discussions. Although I believe El_C's initial actions were fair, this admin appears to have become personally involved in the dispute and is now unjustly interpreting my actions as disruptive. They have themselves made several improper actions, demonstrating their bias against me:
I believe this admin is enforcing an arbitrary policy that I am not allowed to discuss this issue further. However the issue still needs to be discussed as there is still no consensus on the central question: whether Wikipedia can state that "Trump was impeached for sedition". I request this ban be revoked by an uninvolved admin and that El_C be asked to refrain from further participation in this issue.
Specific edits alleged to be disruptive by El_C:
Since all of these edits are civil and constructive, I believe this clearly demonstrates that El_C's claims of disruptive behavior are false and the ban is unjustified. AnonQuixote ( talk) 20:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Statement by El_C
Statement by Tartan357
Statement by Gwennie-nyanAs an editor who has seen issues with this editor regarding this case and attempted to notify them of issues while trying to steer them in a better path, I think this implementation of ACDS was generous and appropriate. (I've seen less behavior been given short blocks at ANI.) Since joining this wiki less than three weeks ago, this issue with Trump, sedition, and incitement wording has been something they've been oddly attached to. No matter what other editors say, even El C formally warning them to tread lightly, hasn't resulted in much deviation from WP:ICANTHEARYOU-type behavior. Their behavior confuses my good-faith brain enough I wonder if it's simply not possible for them to behave in a manner consistent with being WP:HERE. I also concur that this editor has engaged in poor behavior in response to attempt to gently correct or criticize them. Please decline this appeal. ~Gwennie🐈｟ 💬 📋｠ 04:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Statement by WingedserifPlease decline. I was on the receiving end of AQ's potent combination of WP:Wikilawyering and WP:IDHT on the Talk:Sedition discussion, which carried over to the BLPNoticeboard—I had to leave to avoid getting heated. I very much appreciated the contributions of Tartan357 and Gwennie-nyan to those discussions. — WingedSerif ( talk) 04:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My KenI concur with Awilley's final sentence below. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 19:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by AnonQuixote@ AnonQuixote - I am sorry, but I don't see those diff's as an "involvement". I also believe that attacking hard-working and trusted administrators to get sanctions lifted is not the way to go. I'm sympathetic to your appeal since I was topic banned for a very long time, and I know how challenging it is to have that imposed. Still, I would advise you to strike the attacking part and focus more on your behavior and seek to convince reviewing administrators that this will not occur again. Good luck. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 02:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
@ AnonQuixote try to learn from this experience regardless of this appeal outcome; it will help so much if you are planning to be a good, long-term contributor.. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 02:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Result of the appeal by AnonQuixote
|
| Appeal declined. — Newslinger talk 10:28, 21 January 2021 (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 DebresserThere was no gaming involved. After 28 hours I asked the other editor's permission in the section above on my talkpage [101] and I even asked other editors for their opinions at WP:AE, [102] and after another 4 hours had passed, making that 32 hours after my original revert, and the other editor had agreed there was no 1RR violation involved, [103] and no objections were raised at WP:AE, I made my edit. I think that calling such upfront behavior "gaming the system" is doing me an injustice. Please also notice that he whole WP:AE report has been run by only one admin so far, and although I have only good things to say about them, I'd like to see other admins' take on this. (In addition, I see no reason to limit my editing privileges at other articles, surely not for such an exorbitant length of time, and I thank Onceinawhile for his sentiments in this regard.) Debresser ( talk) 16:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by El_CAs mentioned, I've warned Debresser multiple times over the years about gaming the system and wikilawyering concerning their conduct revolving around ARBPIA (or near-ARBPIA) pages and edits. As also mentioned, their latest violation, which followed a self-revert (noted at 12:00 UTC) only to then immediately have it followed by seeking to undo that very same self-revert (posed at 12:02 UTC), and which was finally acted upon a few hours later, is just a step too far for me. I believe I am well within my discretion to apply Committee-authorized sanctions to interpret this as a WP:GAME violation which warrants the present sanction. As I also feel it would be within my discretion to impose a broadly construed topic ban on Debresser from the topic area, overall, if he were to fail to provide some pretty strong assurances that he'll be able to exercise better judgment in the future. El_C 18:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Sir JosephI haven't checked the logs or timeline, but isn't GAME for something like 24+1 or 25-26 hours past the 24 hour deadline? If it is as Debresser said, 32 hours, is that now also considered gaming? In addition, after the 24 hours, he did post on the talkpage, it should not be considered gaming, especially when posting something that is BLUE. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Debresser
Result of the appeal by Debresser
|
Debresser blocked for 2 weeks for violating
WP:GAME, also noting that without some pretty strong assurances that he'd be able to exercise better judgment in the future, a
broadly construed topic ban from the ARBPIA topic area is likely. Supreme Deliciousness is also warned (
logged) to watch for
WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct in this as well as other sensitive topic areas. Finally, Debresser has appealed my sanction (
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Debresser), an appeal which at the moment remains pending.
El_C 18:36, 16 January 2021 (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 Debresser
Has been warned many times about the 1rr at his talkpage: [105] [106] [107] [108] [109]
PackMecEng, it definitely does meet WP:AWARE: "2. They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed)" You are right about the Maqluba edits so I have removed it. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 00:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Sir Joseph, he is not allowed to violate the 1rr in a content dispute. Also, the Birthright Israel website mentions the trip going to old Jerusalem and Golan heights: [110] neither of these are internationally recognized as Israel, so he is violating the 1rr to violate npov which is a wikipedia policy. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 00:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC) El_C, relax and be calm, I made 1 single revert at the article and I used the edit summary to explain my reasoning for the edit: [111]. So there was no need to open a discussion at the talkpage at that point of time because it would have been the same as I wrote in my edit summary. As it has now been reverted again, I am now planning to discuss at the talkpage before any further changes to the article. Thats the next step I was planning to do, to open discussion at the talkpage if my explanation in the edit summary was disagreed. Concerning "absent the customary self-revert request"... is this a compulsory rule I'm not aware of? I was actually thinking about asking him to self revert first but then when I saw his giant block log almost all of it for edit warring and the large amount of warnings he has gotten from numerous editors for edit warring: [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] I decided to open a 1rr enforcement as he has a long history of not following the 1rr. Why warn him again after all the warnings he has received over the years? When is enough enough?
Discussion concerning DebresserStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DebresserNo problem, Self-reverted. 1RR had completely slipped my mind, especially with other editors' edits in between. Sorry. Debresser ( talk) 12:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Sir JosephThis is more of SD's MO of making the IP conflict area into a battleground. RS say Birthright is a trip to Israel. Indeed, the ref right at the end of the sentence says that a few times. We're always told that Wikipedia is RS (not necessarily truth), it should also apply when you write Israeli themed articles. Regardless, even if SD thinks this is a violation, it's the custom in the IP area to let the person know first and give a chance to self-revert. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by PackMecEngTwo things,
Statement by NableezyBright line rule violation, in addition to an absurd edit. As far as awareness, the 1RR does not require awareness to be enforced. He should of course be offered the opportunity to self-revert. But this is a straightforward violation of a restriction Debresser has been sanctioned for violating repeatedly (see the block log). nableezy - 01:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah thats a definite gaming the system. Knowingly edit-warring to purposely violate NPOV is not a good look imo. nableezy - 14:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by OnceinawhileWhilst he has clearly made a mistake, this doesn't look like intentional game-playing to me, on the basis of his edit comment. More like a misunderstanding, followed by some over-zealousness. The 2 week block strikes me as surprisingly harsh. FYI Debresser and I usually find ourselves on opposing sides of discussions in this topic area. Onceinawhile ( talk) 18:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Result concerning Debresser
|
| Withdrawn by OP. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:06, 22 January 2021 (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 GoodDay
At
Donald Trump, there is a messy situation regarding the phrasing of the lead paragraph now that he has left office. An
attempt to agree on consensus for wording a month in advance of the inauguration stalled after
no one stepped up to close it, leading to an unstable situation with no clear articulation of the status quo to fall back on. The lead has been modified numerous times since then and a bunch of
overlapping talk page discussions have sprung up scrambling to figure something out. One sticking point among several that has emerged is whether to use
Discussion concerning GoodDayStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GoodDayI wasn't aware that I breached anything, when I put into the article Donald Trump, "served as", in place of "was". PS - I humbly apologise for that blunder. GoodDay ( talk) 21:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC) FWIW, I restored the previous version (now that I'm aware of the apparent seriousness of my previous edit) & promise to leave it as such. GoodDay ( talk) 21:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by ChrisahnThe situation at Donald Trump is indeed very messy. We haven't been able to develop a consensus about the first sentence. Sdkb says there has been "prevailing consensus" for using the word "was" instead of "served as", but that has been disputed, and the relevant item #17 on Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus currently simply says "Note that this item is obsolete given that Trump is no longer the current president". Sdkb argues that in the absence of consensus, we should try to stay close to the status quo, which was "Donald Trump is the 45th president of the United States", and replace "is" by "was" while changing little else. That's a reasonable position. But others have argued that in the absence of consensus, we should try to stay close to the wording in other articles about former US presidents, which is "X is an American [occupation] who served as [n]th president of the United States". That's also a reasonable position. So the problem is that we neither have a consensus for a long-term solution, nor a consensus for an interim stop-gap solution. In the last two days, several users (roughly half a dozen) changed the first sentence to "served as", and Sdkb repeatedly changed it back to "was" ( here, here, and here). Sdkb added warnings about edit warring and sanctions on other users' talk pages ( here, here, and here), using the words "you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree". But these words would also be a correct description of Sdkb's actions on Donald Trump in the last two days. Now Sdkb is trying to sanction other users. But based on the same criteria, other users would be justified to try to sanction Sdkb. In conclusion: Yes, the situation at Donald Trump is messy, but neither "was" nor "served as" is a terrible solution for the first sentence. As long as we don't have a consensus, it will probably be changed back and forth a few more times. But let's not make the situation even messier by starting a back and forth of enforcement requests. Let's cool down, everyone. (Disclosure: I had previously made basically the same edit as GoodDay. Sdkb later reverted it and warned me that I might be sanctioned for it. I hope I managed to provide a reasonably neutral perspective anyway.) — Chrisahn ( talk) 22:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning GoodDay
|