Scientelensia is given a logged, only warning for disruption in the PIA topic area. Any further comments like the ones at issue here, or other PIA disruption, may lead to a topic ban, block, or other sanction without further warning. -- Tamzin[ cetacean needed (they|xe|she) 19:35, 28 October 2023 (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 Scientelensia
Scientelensia has been accusing multiple users of bias/prejudice, which is uncivil and is very much against WP:AGF.
I advised them to strike their comments, but Scientelensia ignored me and continued calling users biased.
And then resumed calling users biased
Edit: Re Iskandar323, I’m confused by your comment. You said I didn’t speak with Scientelensia, yet my conversation with them, where I advised them to strike their comments, as well as their response, is included in this filing. Not only that, you linked to it in your post where you tagged Nableezy. Edit:Iskandar323, I recommend reading through that thread you’re linking to, as well as the admin warning of a boomerang. Edit: Nableezy, can you explain why you’re linking to an outdated diff that was very quickly struck/clarified within about 10 minutes? Doing so is very misleading. Drsmoo ( talk) 15:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning ScientelensiaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ScientelensiaYou can see my innocence from the excerpts; I have tried to contribute positively but this user has brought me into a needless situation. I would in fact call into question the user ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Drsmoo_and_WP:BATTLEGROUND_behaviour) who reported me and their actions. Also, if you actually view the contents of the diffs, you can see that I am actually right although I know now I should not have said so. The stuff the opposing people on there were saying was much worse: I have been taken out of context (!). Context will prove that I have only been trying to do good. See the talk page on the ‘genocide against Palestinians’ to see this. People are always going to argue on Wikipedia, but by impassioned discussion the best result can be produced. I believe everyone has a bias, and if I can discern people’s I will say so. Once people overcome their prejudices editing is easier. I obviously have bias too as everyone does, so if they tell me it is only for my benefit, regardless of the way in which it is said. I suspect that Drsmoo’s annoyance with me is the product of our different stances on how to run the page. Drsmoo has perhaps been engaging in off-putting and hypocritical editing for some time (e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive76), though this may be a significant stretch. Glances at the talk page and SJ’s talk page show that I have been acting in a good and productive manner. I take Seraphimblade’s comments and will learn from them. On Kathy Hochul, user Muboshgu says I have a “pro-Palestinian bias”. Firstly, by the rules which have just been explained to me, one should not say these things. Secondly, I used a reliable source and this is what it said. Just because an affair in one side, does not always mean it is biased. In the source, there is nothing to say that Hochul said bad things about Israeli Americans: just because the sentence was not in favour of Israelis, does not mean that there was an unfair bias against them. That the content was re-added suggests that it was useful and relevant and unbiased and that a consensus was reached on this, and thus that the revert was unnecessary and even plain wrong. I strongly reject the unfair characterisation that I am biased. Since I first saw the page on the alleged genocide, I have tried hard to maintain a stance of neutrality where others have not. For instance, I was the one who added these sourced sentences: “The characterization has been rejected by many, but not all, Israelis.”, “Some Israelis reject the characterization of genocide, saying such accusations are antisemitic.”. I also modified the phrase “Both Israel and Palestine frequently accuse the other of planning a scheme of genocide.” I also added a rejection of characterisation section which was removed. I have also made sure that it was clear that it was not an official genocide by using language such as ‘argues’, ‘claim’, ‘belief’, ‘characterisation’ and ‘seems’: “Genocide against Palestinians is a characterization of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict which argues that Israel has carried out and/or is carrying out some kind of genocide against the Palestinian population, sometimes related to the view that Israel is a settler colonial state. The view also includes the belief that the system with which Israel governs the Palestinians is one of racial segregation and apartheid. The characterization has been rejected by many, but not all, Israelis.” Neutrality has always been important to me, which is probably why I pointed out people’s biases, though this was wrong. My conduct on the talk pages may have been wrong on parts yet I am willing to make amends and I believe that I have never contributed badly or destructively in this topic. So while users such as User: Muboshgu will call me biased and others such as User:HJ Mitchell will find this concerning, I refute this strongly. If anything, I believe that throughout the page’s construction, others, possibly including the person who referred me here (hypocrite anyone https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1180084227?), have been acting very much worse than me with more one-sided edits and wild accusations such as ‘blood libel’ (can’t remember who that was) in the talk page. I feel that in receiving a punishment I am the victim of a collective punishment. This is wrong. I admit I was naive when I received a harsh (as admitted by the person who gave it to me) GENSEX ban, and it is in my opinion wrong to bring it into the result. Please hear my case. Edit: sorry if my statement is too long, this was not intended.
Yes, I have done some wrong but looking on the Genocide against Palestinians page you can see that others who are not being punished our doing much worse. I’m anxious of a result and quite unhappy as I believe I deserve another chance and believe that the user who referred me here may also be in the wrong (see all the statements above). Please read my statement… Scientelensia ( talk) 20:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC) Moved from uninvolved admins' section. Threaded discussion is not permitted at AE, please comment only in this section. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by Iskandar323First off, yes. Scientelensia would do well do curb their accusations of bias. We all have bias, we all know it (hopefully), and though this is plainly obvious, constantly accusing other editors of bias does not adhere to AGF or general principles of civility and is a distraction from the activity of actually editing. At the same time, I find it disheartening that Drsmoo would raise this AE just two months after being cautioned in an extremely similar filing Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive321#Nishidani. Drsmoo also does not appear to have attempted to have a single conversation with the accused on their talk prior to this AE filing. It is worth noting that most of these comments by the accused come in the context of one of several fraught discussions at Talk:Genocide against Palestinians, where the editor that launched the thread spoke of "blatant Hamas propaganda", in which context it is rather obvious that the discussion is awash with bias, with hardly a need to mention it. As noted here by Nableezy, what Drsmoo has avoided mentioning is the rather extreme tone of the discussions on the page, with claims of antisemitism and blood libel letting fly in all directions. This does not mitigate the point that personal accusations of bias are to be avoided, but the context here is an exceptionally bias-fraught discussion. The user, who is relatively new, and I believe very new to the space, just needs to internalize their thoughts here and allow the transparent bias is such topic areas to speak for itself without the need to descend to commentary on individual editors. The issue here is a mundane behavioural one that could have been addressed at ANI and may require a slap on the wrist, but it does not rise to the level of an AE-worthy prosecution. Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Statement by nableezyThat entire talk page is full of accusations of racism, blood libel (!), antisemitism, and bias. Drsmoo said he did not see those instances, which kind of surprises me as he responded in a thread that opened with an accusation it was made (by Buidhe for the record) in "abuse of power in order to manipulate public opinion regarding current Israel-Hamas war. Raises serious concerns regarding potential political motives that seeks to legitimize Hamas actions against Israelis." All users should focus on the article content, but this selective outrage is just too much. Given something like this remains on the talk page with no admonishment to be found. Oh and, eyeroll emoji. nableezy - 15:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Statement by MuboshguI just reverted an edit by this user exhibiting their pro-Palestinian bias on Kathy Hochul. [1] They may not be able to participate in Israeli/Palestinian articles and discussions on Wikipedia. – Muboshgu ( talk) 04:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC) Comment by A Quest for KnowledgeTo play devil's advocate, Scientelensia is a somewhat(?) new editor who made their first edit on November 13 of last year. [2] It's possible that they don't understand things like WP:AGF and that they should address article content, not editor's conduct or suspected motivations. Perhaps a warning and an explanation of why their conduct was lacking might be in order? (That's assuming that they are willing to listen and learn.) A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by SelfstudierLess of the bias stuff would be good. Afaics, the edit referred to by Muboshgu has been reintroduced and is not something I would get overly excited about on its own. As for being provocative take a look at the filer here. A warning is sufficient I think. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC) Result concerning Scientelensia
|
Withdrawn |
---|
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 Zanahary
N/A
Notified of the sanctions on 19 October, removed and assumed read shortly after, with later acknowledgment of understanding of the policies
The user is misrepresenting a source, which specifically says violence was carried out against suspected collaborators, and another user agreed was correct. Instead of correcting the issue, the user is engaged in OR ( again) and personal attacks (linked above). I assumed good faith that they would correct an issue when brought to their attention, they have declined to do so. Source misrepresentation is not a content issue, it is a behavioral one as this board has previously found. nableezy - 20:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning ZanaharyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ZanaharyStatement by (username)Result concerning Zanahary
|
Retaliatory filing without merit. Filer Carter00000 indeffed by theleekycauldron as a regular admin action. -- Tamzin[ cetacean needed (they|xe|she) 07:32, 3 November 2023 (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 GWA88
Under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4
Under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any:
Discussion concerning GWA88Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GWA88I'm sorry but this seems like blatant WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour from an editor who is known to try and get people blocked he has had issues with. Since that original block in July (my one and only block over a 9 year period of editing), I have not been blocked once, whereas Carter00000 has been blocked from the portal again for "edit-warring on P:CE subpages" and making "controversial re-writes to blurbs and enforce your preferred wording.". To be honest, I did expect this to happen as soon as his most recent block ended. He has also left passive aggressive templates on my talk page, introducing me to topics I've made hundreds of edits on over the years and he knows it. I hope admins can see my contributions to the Current Events: Portal are positive and that no else aside from Carter00000 seems to have an issue with me editing there. Thanks. GWA88 ( talk) 13:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Furthermore, I would just like any admin seeing this to take a look at my overall contributions, and not just the diffs cited. You can see I'm just an editor who has made thousands of good faith edits over a decade, and I've always tried to steer clear of drama on Wikipedia and stick to my hobby of editing, which is why I rarely if ever leave messages on user's talkpages. And with regards to dispruting Wikipedia, I've had very few disputes in this last year, and the only notable one was with Carter00000, the author of this request. I'll admit, I'm not as savvy at Wikilawyering as Carter00000, but I always try my best to stick to the general guidelines. I hope you close this without a sanction as I do believe this is also motivated by some sort of personal grudge against me. Thank you. GWA88 ( talk) 17:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by Iskandar323 (uninvolved)I inspected this filing, and upon looking at "Incident 1" what jumped out at me was how absolutely correct GWA88 was, in A) correctly placing events in their verifiable chronological setting, and B) clearly outlining the undeniable logic of it (presumably when prompted) - that the OP thinks these edits are problematic, and indeed, reverted this fix, in defiance of any obvious common sense when editing a timeline of dated events, well, this hints more at WP:CIR issues on the OP's part than anything else. Iskandar323 ( talk) 08:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning GWA88
|
Appeal declined. Contentious topics require more than playing the NPOV game. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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 ghostlystaticI am a Jewish person and I said some uncivil things to people who I believed wanted to hide the 10/07 attacks from the Pogrom page because they wanted to downplay what happened. I didn't mean to be uncivil, but I can only play the NPOV game for so long, especially when there are some editors on here that complain that they openly can't support Palestinian terrorist groups. Kind of biased and NPOV as it is. I like this encyclopedia. If you decide to ban me, I won't stop liking it. Ghostlystatic ( talk) 04:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by scottishfinnishradishUse your discretion they said. Certainly it won't create even more time sinks. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 04:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by ghostlystaticStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)Result of the appeal by ghostlystatic
|
Appeal declined. Contentious topics require an ability to engage with other editors with more than debating techniques. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Notification of that administrator : [6] Statement by Infinity Knight
Statement by TamzinKeeping in mind that (1) is presented on background, we have three cases here of attempting to weaponize Wikipedia processes in opposition to topic-area opponents or, in the last case, an administrator they perceive as one. I can AGF that Infinity Knight is not actively trying to use the system to promote their preferred POV, but even if that is the case, they've shown that they lack the ability to participate in administrative processes about this topic area with due detachment. (I did briefly consider a TBAN only from admin processes regarding ARBPIA, but deemed that unworkable.) I think Bishonen's warning was exceptionally generous, and I wish Infinity Knight would have borne more in mind
the comic that Bish linked. Comments like Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Infinity KnightStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Riposte97I initially made this comment on Infinity Knight's talk page, prior to this appeal. It struck me as unfair that a person apparently genuinely trying to adhere to policy should be sanctioned. I reproduce it here:
Riposte97 ( talk) 07:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)Result of the appeal by Infinity Knight
|
Appeal declined. The appeal does not address the issue that edit warring over a WP:BLP issue is not permitted. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Statement by JaydoggmarcoI didn't violate an arbitration decision on Zoe McLellan because the noticeboard discussion on whether or not to include the info of her child abduction case has not made a decision or reached a consensus to include or not include the information. Jaydoggmarco ( talk) 11:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC) copied from talk page HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by HJ MitchellStatement by caeciliusinhortoBy my count Jaydoggmarco made nine reverts on this page in well under 12 hours: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Even if this weren't a contentious topic, any admin would be well within their discretion to block here. Whether or not a consensus had or had not been reached, there's no justification for reverting nine times in the face of edits by four different editors. They clearly know about the rules on editwarring: they invoked it at WP:BLPN#Zoe McLellan in their initial post! Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 13:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by JaydoggmarcoStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)Result of the appeal by Jaydoggmarco
|
Block endorsed, largely per rationale of ScottishFinnishRadish (blocking admin). theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 18:26, 3 November 2023 (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 and substantial 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 AtypicalPhantomHello. It seems I have been permanently banned from editing Wikipedia because of my conduct in the Israel-Hamas conflict page. I am not sure what got me banned specifically, but I would like some transparency if possible. I don't make inflammatory comments, and my last comment was to 0300 objective. I was merely adding context to his comment which in of itself was pretty inflammatory. I see multiple users on that talk page, specifically 0300 objective, who are openly pushing their agenda rather harshly, and I obviously have a pro-Israel lean, but I am respectful with my comments. Having a nuanced discussion is integral to Wikipedia. My comment was to shed light on what was a misunderstanding. With that said, if anything I have said is overtly disallowed, I accept that, and I apologize. I can still contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia and I can exclude myself from the Israel-Hamas conflict page. I would like for the adjudicators to reevaluate my ban. If you come to the same conclusion after reevaluating my activity, you can ban me from discussing this topic, but at least grant me the opportunity to contribute to other articles. AtypicalPhantom ( talk) 00:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Copied from their talk page per their request here and here. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 01:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Statement by ScottishFinnishRadishI probably could have gone with a NOTHERE block and avoided this, but since most of the edits were in ARBPIA I went with that. [17] [18] shows the caliber of edits we're dealing with. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 02:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Objective3000 (involved?)Only commenting as I was mentioned by the appealing user. I endorse the block. But I personally don’t have a problem with an A-I TBan for AtypicalPhantom, perhaps after a cooling off period and assuming they see the problem. I say this despite their comment:
Statement by SPECIFICOI’m not familiar with the most recent discussions on this article page, but I briefly edited the article, which has lots of problems. Notwithstanding the disorderly process on that page, this AE individual's appeal should not be the place to discuss the larger need for improvements to the page restriction or AE process, which should proceed in their own space. Looking at some of appellant’s edits, I see various good-faith content views that are reasonable but which would be strengthened by documentation and source links. I also see some personalized comments that are clearly off-limits for article talk, that undermine the appellant’s content arguments, and that merit an AE sanction. Per WP:NOTHERENORMS, I do not see any basis for the blocking Admin to ‘’ex post’’ escalate the complaint against the appellant by insinuating that they are NOTHERE. That sounds like casual disparagement, suggesting that they’re lucky to have gotten the lesser sanction they received. This good faith NOTHERE surmise could be the examined in a separate AE thread, but it’s not helpful to the appeal of the current sanction. I don’t see that Appellant’s edit here, while poorly worded, is so disruptive as to be deleted by another user or Admin. It would help a new editor to improve their talk page conduct to know exactly why certain of their edits is not allowed. All in, I would favor a TBAN of a week or two during which I hope Admins or others would advise the appellant as to WP:TPG, WP:V, edit summaries, etc. and other things that new editors in contentious areas often do not understand. That plus WP:ROPE should address the conduct problem. P.S. While it's true for each individual Admin that time spent on tutoring and support of new users does take away from time spent on enforcement or other Admin roles - opportunity cost - this is not true for the Admin corps as a whole. There are hundreds of Admins who are not actively day-to-day engaged in patrolling AE or vandalism whose time may not be fully occupied on those tasks. Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by AtypicalPhantomStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor Infinity Knight)Was pointed to this discussion here. When it comes to the dilemma of viewing newcomers as a "waste of editors' time," my preference is for administrators to give the "let's provide them with guidance" approach a shot. If we start seeing new editors as a time sink, how's the topic area ever gonna draw in any new contributors? Infinity Knight ( talk) 19:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Statement by HemiaucheniaI endorse the block and I don't think the appeal is enough to remove it. While the disruption by non-autoconfirmed and to a lesser extent non ECP users is significantly reduced than it was when the 7 day semi-protection was implemented on the 16 October, largely due to the decrease in viewers as the war progresses, I wouldn't oppose semi-protecting the page again, especially if there is an uptick in commenters following the Israel ground offensive. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by NableezyInfinity Knight's repeated attempts to insinuate wrongdoing or bias have become disruptive. They were given some useful advice by Bishonen here, it appears that has gone unheeded. Add to the generally obtuse and obstructive editing in such sections as this in which they repeatedly reverted against an obvious consensus, with their contributions to the discussion being a series of not really without ever addressing the content, and I would suggest that the negative in net negative has been met several times over. nableezy - 15:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by Nil EinneI don't feel the appeal is sufficient. I note in particular this comment ' Statement by (uninvolved editor 5)Result of the appeal by AtypicalPhantom
|
Appeal declined. There is consensus among uninvolved administrators to decline this appeal at this time as it does not adequately address the reason for/substance of the block and how appellant will avoid the issue in future. I would recommend the appellant review WP:AAB. -- TheSandDoctor Talk 00:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Statement by HumilatedGoanI want to acknowledge my mistakes in violating Wikipedia:ARBECR, and I sincerely apologize for the trouble i caused. i assure you that I have learned from my mistakes and i am committed to avoiding them in the future. please consider unblocking my account. HumilatedGoan ( talk) 16:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC) copied from Special:Diff/1183168077 Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 20:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by IvanvectorI have copied the user's statement from their talk page as requested. I also must report that the user is believed to have a second account; please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BlueFreee. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 20:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC) I also was distracted by the SPI after mostly filling this out, and saved before I realized that 331dot already declined the appeal on the user's talk page. I'm going to leave it to a reviewer to decide what to do about that. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 20:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by TamzinHG was warned to stop doing this, kept doing this without changing their behavior, and then sent me an appeal by email that was obviously written by AI. (If they dispute this characterization, I am happy to share the email with other admins.) This appeal does not, to me, show any understanding of what was wrong with what they did, or of why we can trust the issue won't recur. -- Tamzin[ cetacean needed (they|xe|she) 01:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by HumilatedGoanStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)Result of the appeal by HumilatedGoan
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
Edit warring over whether aspects of the infobox should be collapsed at 2023 Israel–Hamas war:
Move warring over the title of 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip:
General 1RR violations:
These are all comparatively minor, and I wouldn't have come here except for the fact that when I approached Ecrusized about the issue they declined to self-revert or address the issue in any way, instead
removing my comment saying Stop leaving me talk page messages please
. I had previously approached them about some minor canvassing issues in the topic area; they also
removed that comment, saying Do not leave blank template warnings on user accounts talk pages
.
There are also some WP:ONUS issues, restoring the live map despite an ongoing dispute about whether it is verifiable and no affirmative consensus to do so. However, the edit to restore the map was not a 1RR violation.
They left me 4 separate blank warning templates on my talk page regarding this, despite me telling them to stop bothering me after each one
Ecrusized, I left you four notices. It was after the third that you asked me to "Stop leaving me talk page messages please":
Per our policies, you are able to ban me from your talk page yourself, with the exception of required notifications such as #1 and #4, and if this is what you want please say. However, this is a double edged sword; any issues, even if they are as minor as a single 1RR violation (for a post-report example, this revert is a 1RR violation), must be taken to a forum like this one rather than being resolvable through a talk page conversation. I would recommend against this, but it is your choice. 14:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Do not leave blank template warnings on user accounts talk pages- which makes me wonder if they even read the messages I left, as the warning about canvassing included a custom note.
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
User BilledMammal has been harassing me on my talk page since yesterday morning over a single revert I made which they did not agree on. They left me 4 separate blank warning templates on my talk page regarding this, despite me telling them to stop bothering me after each one. They then resolved to examining my contributions from the previous week in an effort to find violation that they might use against me (in bad faith). Hence they've opened this notice in an effort to have me blocked. Again edits here are wholly unrelated to the dispute they've had with me. I wished to stay away from this notice entirely in the hope that the user would go away. I have no further comments and do not wish to be involved in this at all. Ecrusized ( talk) 11:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
User @ Veggies: have told them to take a breather because of the battleground behavior they've shown in the same said dispute they've had with me. It might be appropriate to give them a temporary topic ban from the said article. I would also like to have them blocked from editing my talk page because of their constant harrasment. Ecrusized ( talk) 11:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Ecrusized is WP:AWARE of "arbitration enforcement Israel Palestine" a/o Oct 17 Special:Diff/1180609306, Special:Diff/1180609996. Levivich ( talk) 20:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Appeal declined. Infinity Knight is cautioned that further appeals made prior to six months from today's date are likely to be considered disruptive and lead to further sanctions, up to and including an indefinite block. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Previous appeal
Notification of that administrators : Statement by Infinity Knight
Statement by NableezyDidnt we just do this? nableezy - 19:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by TamzinThis catches me midway through my drive to WikiConference North America, so I can't respond at length, but I think my response to last week's appeal still applies. -- Tamzin[ cetacean needed (they|xe|she) 20:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by Objective3000I don't see how this materially differs from the previous appeal. As Johnuniq said in the that appeal: Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Infinity KnightStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)Result of the appeal by Infinity Knight
|
Brandmeister is topic-banned from all Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict-related articles, broadly construed. Number 5 7 15:04, 14 November 2023 (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 Brandmeister
Last month, Brandmeister was given a page ban for an Armenia-Azerbaijan article, for making offensive statements ( comparing ethnic cleansing victims to economic migrants), misciting sources to push a POV, forum shopping, and boomerang after reciving a logged warning. [23] [24] The consensus of the previous AE discussion was that another warning would be insufficent, but a broad indef topic ban would be too much at that point. And now, a few weeks later, Brandmeister made a huge POV pushing edit on the Battle of Shusha (2020) article lead just in time for it to appear on the main page for "on this day". Brandmeister claimed to be removing excessive details, but the edit didn't even do that because the article still has the same 6 paragraphs when it should be 4 at most ( MOS:LEADLENGTH). In actuality, Brandmeister's edit removed mention of Melikdoms of Karabakh, Siege of Stepanakert, and the Shusha massacre from the lead, but lines like "Until the middle of the 19th century, the city was considered the cultural and political centre of the regional Azerbaijani population" were kept in the lead. It would've been one thing if this were a true trimming edit that condensed the background of the lead, but Brandmeister removed the massacre of Armenians in 1920 and the siege in 1991-92 that are directly relevant to the conflict, while keeping that the city was considered so special by Azerbaijanis in 1800. This is very clear POV pushing. -- KhndzorUtogh ( talk) 00:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning BrandmeisterStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by BrandmeisterRegarding the edit in question MOS:INTRO says clearly that "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article" and that "Editors should avoid [...] overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article". Here quite clearly melikdoms of Karabakh, siege of Stepanakert and the Shusha massacre are not directly related to the 2020 battle itself and belong to the Shusha article itself. From a NPOV point too, it's better to explain such details within relevant context rather than in the succinct summary style of the lead section. All three topics are already mentioned below in the article anyway, so if anything, this should be discussed at article's talkpage rather than bringing the issue here. Brandmeister talk 00:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC) theleekycauldron, for the record, the wording "self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh" is not my introduced change, it was already present in the article's previous version as edited by KhndzorUtogh. The Republic of Artsakh article itself defines it as a breakaway state. Brandmeister talk 11:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC) theleekycauldron, HJ Mitchell, I provided an edit summary for my edit, particularly citing WP:DETAIL. On a general note, it strikes me that a single edit after which I dropped the issue is suddenly considered a sanctionable POV pushing. WP:POVPUSH has been clear on that: "the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view", with an italic emphasis on the word "aggressive". Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3#Tendentious editing also describes it as "sustained aggressive point-of-view editing". Personally I've never reported a user over a single edit during my 10+ years of editing. Brandmeister talk 20:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by GrandmasterI don't think that trimming of excessive background information from the lede by Brandmeister was selective. He removed the details that had no direct relation to the 2020 event, but left the part that said: Until the middle of the 19th century, the city was considered the cultural and political centre of the regional Azerbaijani population, as well as one of the two main cities of the Transcaucasus for Armenians. As one can see, significance for both Azerbaijani and Armenian population remained briefly mentioned after the edit by Brandmeister. The lede is not supposed to contain too much information on the history of the conflict, which I believe was the purpose of Brandmeister's edit. Grand master 09:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC) For the record, "self-declared / self-proclaimed" is a regular term used to describe this entity by the mainstream international media, for example CNN: [26], BBC: [27], Al Jazeera: [28], Reuters: [29], The Financial Times: [30], The Washington Post: [31], etc. Grand master 14:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Brandmeister
|
Tgeorgescu is hereby warned for disruptive editing in the form of battleground behaviour and incivility in the area of pseudoscience; continued battleground behaviour will result in further sanctions. It is suggested to SamwiseGSix that their editing abilities might be better used elsewhere. Both SamwiseGSix and Tgeorgescu are warned to follow/respect the conduct rules related to the AE venue. -- TheSandDoctor Talk 04:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning SamwiseGSix
If Anthroposophy cannot be called pseudoscience and quackery, then nothing can. @ Theleekycauldron: I have posted at WP:FTN and WP:RSN about it, but most people don't seem to care.
And the point of my They want to insert a wedge between WP:PSCI and WP:NPOV. All their edits are like asking a Catholic church to preach Salafism, or asking a Baptist church to preach Santeria. In the end, Wikipedia has a POV, and that POV is WP:MAINSTREAM. About [36]: for me it is crystal-clear that they consider the guideline WP:FRINGE as an affront to Anthroposophy. My remark was making them clear that they cannot eat their cake and still have it. E.g., I don't like the article abortion. But since I'm not editing it, I don't create troubles in respect to such topic. Have you read "Why Does Wikipedia Want to Destroy Deepak Chopra?" If Anthroposophists don't complain that Wikipedia wants to destroy Rudolf Steiner, we are doing a bad job. If anything can be said about the two men is that Chopra is considerably less fringe than Steiner. Chopra never belonged to völkisch Wagner clubs, and has never claimed to be a clairvoyant. "but not specifically warned against mentioning x-risk yet " ( [37])? See [38]. This farce has gone too far. I'm not mocking a living person, but a guru who died almost a century ago.
@
JPxG: They have toned down their initial proposal. What I objected is that they wanted Wikipedia to endorse the ontology and the epistemology of Anthroposophy, and I consider their wish totally not done. What others have objected is that their proposed edits fail
WP:V. Full context is: Bona fide offer: [41]. I talk too much, so restricting the number of words is a good idea. @ Tamzin: There is a lot of vitriol in fringe/pseudoscience topics. I'm by far not the worst offender, many others go unnoticed. Sometimes I do feel offended by what other editors say about what should be included. Of course, that's not an excuse for mocking their POVs, but some POVs really do not belong at Wikipedia. And I don't have a neat solution for telling them that their POV is unwelcome. @ Theleekycauldron: I don't beat around the bush: I know that some POVs are unwelcome. I don't know how to make this clear to those having those POVs. Maybe they simply cannot get this point. I think the very attempt to persuade them they're Wikipedically wrong is fundamentally wrong. Yes, I did employ irony, but it was an attempt at persuasion. Perhaps persuasion is wrong. I think this is the lesson from WP:AE: I should not try to persuade them. That's a sad truth about human rationality. It seems that my whole approach based upon rational persuasion is flat-out wrong. I was wrong: some people don't want to learn that their POVs are unwelcome, nor what WP:FRINGE means, nor how to WP:CITE WP:RS which do WP:V their claims ( [42]). Formerly at WP:CIR used to be a section about biased-based failures to comply with our rules. So, I don't say that SamwiseGSix is irrational, but they simply cannot get the point due to their own bias. I wasn't even trying to persuade them they are wrong in the real-objective world, but simply wrong according to Wikipedia. My mistake is thinking that every newbie is eager to learn how to edit Wikipedia according to the WP:RULES. But many newbies simply want a quick fix to a PR issue. @ Ealdgyth: I do recognize that my approach was wrong. Although I did not do it out of bad faith. It was wrong for me to try to convince them they're mistaken. I should have used dispute resolution instead of trying to convince them they're wrong. I realize now that asking an antivaxxer or germ theory denialist to understand that their POV is doomed according to WP:NPOV is too much to ask. Their whole worldview prevents them from learning that WP:NPOV does not endorse their POV, instead it dooms it. Failing to notice this was a big mistake on my behalf. I can get the point that my POV is unwelcome at abortion, other people can't.
I'm not baiting the other party. I was simply explaining that my attempt to convince people of things they are not prepared to understand was wrong. I told them real facts about Wikipedia, but they cannot comprehend those facts. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SamwiseGSixStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SamwiseGSixHello everyone - simply seeking a rational and reasonably balanced NPOV here leveraging mainstream academic research, as the first intro sentence of the second paragraph is currently classifying the topic of the article flatly and comprehensively as 'racist pseudoscience' despite the founder's many leading anti-racist statements for his time, as both academic critics and proponents acknowledge. A more balanced WP:NPOV with fair recognition of WP:PSCI would arguably concede classifications of pseudoscience in many areas ('much of Anthroposophy is pseudoscientific') as currently written in the first intro paragraph, but avoid a comprehensive classification of 'racist pseudoscience' [period .] as currently written in 2nd which would be ignoring the academic research; much of which highlights the many leading anti-racist statements for the founder's time, often well ahead of his contemporaries/predecessors (President Wilson, K. Marx/Engalls et al on race etc) often still cited academically today. This flat/comprehensive classification results in unfair spin, arguably not adhering with the WP:NPOV standard for the Encyclopedia. I hope this makes sense overall? Not seeking to flout any rules or 'whitewash' (this term generally implies the coverup of a scandal or crime of some kind, right) in any way but rather simply seeking to bring a reasonable, balanced NPOV standard into play including in intro of second paragraph. In considering the science, a significant amount of peer reviewed academic research has been published empirically measuring the positive affects of applying these insights in fields including education (3000 Waldorf Schools around the world, NYTimes and Independent.co.uk coverage etc), environmental conservation (Rachel Carson 'Silent Spring' impact w/ Marjorie Spock et al), banking (economists co-published with admins at central banks etc) and more. Although some of the related ideas from the movement are classifiable as 'pseudoscientific' by today's standards (as the intro paragraph does) there are many aspects of the body of work here that are scientifically measurable by our academic standards and significant minority opinions today. The comprehensive and wholesale classification of the entire movement and body of knowledge as just flatly 'racist psuedoscience' [.] is then arguably very unfair, and very arguably does not adhere to Wikipedia's very important WP:NPOV community standard. Please do let me know what your thoughts are - I do very much hope to be able to continue contributing constructively to Wikipedia including on this important page, which also deserves the treatment of a fair NPOV standard, thank you for your time and consideration. (I had not denied atomic theory or sought to drive any implications in this area - neither had I requested a sweeping endorsement of all ontology or epistemology. I had however been as a new editor consistently mocked/insulted and quite constantly subjected to highly inappropriate and disruptive battleground conduct etc though by the filing editor - hopefully this would be addressed with logged warning as discussed and actively prevented including with reasonable possible restrictions going forward as well) I consistently WP:CITE extensive WP:RS for WP:V and WP:NPOV without bias in accordance with the WP:RULES. As quick final supplement this journal article helps highlight the anti-racist statements and also underscores through deep rationality the importance of a fair NPOV for this page in this pivotal time/moment, including helping solve for human 'x-risk' which I thought I'd not been warned against mentioning as a keyword specifically, and which is also very arguably directly relevant/critical still to improving the article: "The Urgency of Social Threefolding in a World Still at War with Itself".. https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1069/1723 SamwiseGSix ( talk) 01:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC) I am not anti-vax nor am I here to discuss germ theory, abortion, atomic theory, or any of the other unrelated subjects the filing editor continues seeking to bring up, a practice which those reviewing have already raised concerns about - yes this does appear to be a baiting attempt of some kind. I am here to address the misapplication of NPOV standard the filing editor has attempted to enforce on this page in seeking to classify the entire body of knowledge around page topic flatly/comprehensively as 'racist pseudoscience', despite the many academic sources demonstrating the contrary including through a vast body of documented anti-racist statements, generally far ahead of contemporaries/predecessors including US President W. Wilson and K Marx/Engels et al. Statement by caeciliusinhorto
tgeorgescu says Statement by (username)Result concerning SamwiseGSix
|
82.45.48.180 hard blocked for 3 months. -- TheSandDoctor Talk 04:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning 82.45.48.180
Notifed at 14:44, October 30, 2023
This editor has been using a variety of IP addresses since February 2023, including 82.46.125.57 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 81.141.173.209 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 109.158.169.88 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). I have created a page at User:Kathleen's bike/IPs that shows the editing similarites between the IPs, a sockpuppetry report would achieve little at preseent since people are allowed to use different IPs. However it does demonstrate the long history of disruption from this editor. They have been directed to WP:LABEL/ WP:TERRORIST three occasions by three different editors, on 13:05, April 30, 2023, 14:58, May 11, 2023 and 14:44, October 30, 2023. Their user talk page messages of 09:46, April 30, 2023 and 14:58, May 11, 2023 show they receive messages, so there can be no excuse of being unaware of the objections to their edits. The history of the four known IPs show this disruptive editing has been going on for a long time, and in my opinion needs to be curtailed.
Discussion concerning 82.45.48.180Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 82.45.48.180Statement by (username)Result concerning 82.45.48.180
|
Based guyy blocked by Rosguill for 1 week for ARBPIA violations, notified about ARBEE. -- TheSandDoctor Talk 18:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Based guyy
This may be a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU issue. But on the other hand their edit summaries clearly show they are aware of the fact that someone reverted them.
User talk:Based guyy#Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion Discussion concerning Based guyyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Based guyyStatement by (username)Result concerning Based guyy
|
No action necessary. RegentsPark ( comment) 18:32, 21 November 2023 (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 Vaikunda Raja
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Contentious_topic_designation
Vaikunda Raja requests Deletion Review of Annamalai Kuppusamy. This is not disruptive at this point: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1183108503&oldid=1183086709 A lengthy reply which ends Another call to act responsibly: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1183155615&oldid=1183153859 A rambling post that says nothing: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1183335678&oldid=1183256322 Admits that their lack of command of English may contribute to excessive length of posts: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1183486377&oldid=1183485221 Another reply, which is by this point in bludgeon territory: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1183782213&oldid=1183656692 A long argument with Daniel, who had said to leave the article deleted rather than restore it: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1185845826&oldid=1185776564
None to the best of my knowledge
This editor is bludgeoning a Deletion Review about an article on an Indian politician, and has been cautioned by multiple editors that their posts are too long, and are not useful. They have replied to the effect that their English is limited, and this requires them to use more words. This raises competence issues, as well as the battleground nature of replying to almost every post.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AVaikunda_Raja&diff=1185934338&oldid=1171460010
Discussion concerning Vaikunda RajaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Vaikunda RajaStatement by CrypticAs the user directly being bludgeoned at in some of the diffs above - and having just stumbled across this quite by accident - I advise leniency. This didn't directly affect any articles, it was well within DRV participants' ability to handle, and part of the fault was mine: since I read DRV mostly in diffs, I didn't immediately recognize the google links in the initial drv request as attempts to link to coverage in specific news sources and so was more dismissive than I ought to have been in my first response. The second diff above (the first of two Robert labels "act responsibly") was their first edit to the page after that response. — Cryptic 10:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Vaikunda Raja
|
No action taken, but a reminder to watch the tone of edit summaries and discussions. We're dealing with articles about real people and real suffering. Please keep that in mind. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 20:23, 22 November 2023 (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 Wee Curry Monster
N/A
I would have left this unreported, but the user declined to self revert and simply removed the notification on their user talk of the violation. Additionally, the second revert listed here was removed on such spurious grounds that had there already been an ARBPIA notification prior to it I think it would have merited sanctions by itself, with a user claiming a video that the NYTimes says they conducted extensive independent verification of was obviously faked ... appallingly bad acting. But regardless of that, this is a 1RR violation that the user has declined to correct.
im fine with that too. nableezy - 23:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Wee Curry MonsterStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Wee Curry MonsterI didn't believe I'd violated the 1RR restriction. As far as editing goes, I have long maintained a personal policy of sticking to 1RR in general. The only exception is to revert obvious vandalism. [47] I removed what I genuinely believed were fake videos, that were self-published on Instagram and appeared to be a violation of WP:SPS. I was somewhat surprised to be reverted, so took to the talk page. After I received an explanation for their presence with reference to the NYT article I remain sceptical but accepted the explanation and was quite prepared to leave it at that point. This was clearly a WP:BOLD edit following by WP:BRD and its more than a stretch to claim I was revert warring. I accepted Iskandar323's explanation; you might wish to note I thanked [48] Iskandar323 for their help. I was then subjected to personal attacks eg [49] by the person making this report. These seem to be an attempt to bait me, so after I initially responded I disengaged leaving Nableezy to have the WP:LASTWORD, which they duly did [50]. I'm not the only person to have felt the tone of the discussion directed at me was unnecessary and unhelpful [51]. It is also untrue that I was continuing to make a non-policy based argument for removal. I made no further argument for removal, I was responding to comments, which I now recognise was a mistake. I also further clarified this morning I was not arguing for removal or intending to make a case for removal. [52]. I invite AE to make their own conclusion why my comments are being misrepresented [53] yes this is a revert, 1RR. I have no intention of making further reverts per my personal policy. I also note that it misrepresents what the person said by omitting crucial context. I also clarified my misunderstanding of 1RR with Cryptic this morning, because I made a 1RR report after 3 of my edits were reverted by another editor in 3 consecutive edits. I acknowledge that in my report my understanding of 1RR was flawed. And I'll be honest I didn't look at the diffs, presuming they referred to 2 consecutive edits I made at the time. On my talk page, I have long had a policy of removing notices, I don't tend to archive them, there is a clear message on my page to that effect.
I drew attention to this in my edit summary [54] rm per my normal policy. If I were to acknowledge a mistake here, which is worthy of a WP:TROUT, is that I should have ignored the niggling and remained disengaged. I'm not going to put AE into an awkward position, so I'll reluctantly restore what I know is misleading. Hopefully an editor in good standing will remove it. W C M email 21:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Wee Curry Monster
|
Appeal declined. This is the wrong venue to ask ArbCom to clarify something. 89.206.112.10 is advised that the WP:ECR restriction is indeed generally interpreted so as to ban almost all non-EC editing of talk pages. Galobtter ( talk) 03:25, 23 November 2023 (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 and substantial 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 89.206.112.10I an attempt to comply with a Request for Comment, I was notified that when an article is subject to extended confirmed restriction, all non- EC editors are banned not only from editing the article, but from contributing to the talk pages as well. I therefore ask the Committee to clarify its intened ruling with regards to the extended confirmed restriction procedure insofar as it states thatThis is a classic example of an amibiguous prepositional phrase, that can be understood to either mean in the "Talk:" namespace, nothing other than an edit request may be madeor edit requests may not be made anywhere else than in the "Talk:" namespace. In case that this ruling is meant to mean that non-EC users are banned from participating in the discussion of any decreed topic area, I propose this to be made clearly visible on the Request for Comments' entry of such topics, before effort is wasted to make a constructive contribution even though it was prohibited from the onset anyway. In case that this ruling is meant to mean that non-EC users are allowd from participating in the discussion of any decreed topic area, I propose the procedure to be clarified with instructions on how to contribute constructively when the talk page is protected. 89.206.112.10 ( talk) 09:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by {{{User imposing the sanction}}}Statement by GrandmasterI don't think it makes much sense to allow IPs to vote in RFCs/AFDs on contentions topics. It opens doors to votestacking, canvassing, etc, as anyone can use an anonymous IP account to participate in a voting. The RFCs should be reserved for established users with a minimum of 500 edits history, which I understand was the idea behind this decision. Grand master 15:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by 89.206.112.10Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SelfstudierWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 125#Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction refers. The revised wording of is clear that the talk page can only be used for edit requests although previously, there was a specified list that included RFCs. Suggested best practice is to remove any contravening edits with an edit summary that at a minimum points to WP:ARBECR. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000I think that the ARBCOM motion was highly unsatisfactory and a case at ARCA is needed. As well as re-opening the door to anon/new editor disruption at AfDs and noticeboards, the part about article talk pages is poorly written and unworkable. The OP correctly noted an ambiguity, and also the definition of what is allowed is unclear. The link to WP:Edit requests suggests that only template-driven "change X to Y" requests are allowed, but good-faith new editors should be allowed to note a problem and leave it to experienced editors to decide how to fix it. If the strict definition of WP:Edit requests is not intended, then pretty much anything related to article content can be called an edit request. Zero talk 11:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC) If I understand this request, it is about participation in an RfC on an article talk page in ARBPIA. That was forbidden to IPs both before and after the recent rule changes so the appeal should be denied. Zero talk 12:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by (uninvolved editor)Result of the appeal by 89.206.112.10
|
Scientelensia is given a logged, only warning for disruption in the PIA topic area. Any further comments like the ones at issue here, or other PIA disruption, may lead to a topic ban, block, or other sanction without further warning. -- Tamzin[ cetacean needed (they|xe|she) 19:35, 28 October 2023 (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 Scientelensia
Scientelensia has been accusing multiple users of bias/prejudice, which is uncivil and is very much against WP:AGF.
I advised them to strike their comments, but Scientelensia ignored me and continued calling users biased.
And then resumed calling users biased
Edit: Re Iskandar323, I’m confused by your comment. You said I didn’t speak with Scientelensia, yet my conversation with them, where I advised them to strike their comments, as well as their response, is included in this filing. Not only that, you linked to it in your post where you tagged Nableezy. Edit:Iskandar323, I recommend reading through that thread you’re linking to, as well as the admin warning of a boomerang. Edit: Nableezy, can you explain why you’re linking to an outdated diff that was very quickly struck/clarified within about 10 minutes? Doing so is very misleading. Drsmoo ( talk) 15:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning ScientelensiaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ScientelensiaYou can see my innocence from the excerpts; I have tried to contribute positively but this user has brought me into a needless situation. I would in fact call into question the user ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Drsmoo_and_WP:BATTLEGROUND_behaviour) who reported me and their actions. Also, if you actually view the contents of the diffs, you can see that I am actually right although I know now I should not have said so. The stuff the opposing people on there were saying was much worse: I have been taken out of context (!). Context will prove that I have only been trying to do good. See the talk page on the ‘genocide against Palestinians’ to see this. People are always going to argue on Wikipedia, but by impassioned discussion the best result can be produced. I believe everyone has a bias, and if I can discern people’s I will say so. Once people overcome their prejudices editing is easier. I obviously have bias too as everyone does, so if they tell me it is only for my benefit, regardless of the way in which it is said. I suspect that Drsmoo’s annoyance with me is the product of our different stances on how to run the page. Drsmoo has perhaps been engaging in off-putting and hypocritical editing for some time (e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive76), though this may be a significant stretch. Glances at the talk page and SJ’s talk page show that I have been acting in a good and productive manner. I take Seraphimblade’s comments and will learn from them. On Kathy Hochul, user Muboshgu says I have a “pro-Palestinian bias”. Firstly, by the rules which have just been explained to me, one should not say these things. Secondly, I used a reliable source and this is what it said. Just because an affair in one side, does not always mean it is biased. In the source, there is nothing to say that Hochul said bad things about Israeli Americans: just because the sentence was not in favour of Israelis, does not mean that there was an unfair bias against them. That the content was re-added suggests that it was useful and relevant and unbiased and that a consensus was reached on this, and thus that the revert was unnecessary and even plain wrong. I strongly reject the unfair characterisation that I am biased. Since I first saw the page on the alleged genocide, I have tried hard to maintain a stance of neutrality where others have not. For instance, I was the one who added these sourced sentences: “The characterization has been rejected by many, but not all, Israelis.”, “Some Israelis reject the characterization of genocide, saying such accusations are antisemitic.”. I also modified the phrase “Both Israel and Palestine frequently accuse the other of planning a scheme of genocide.” I also added a rejection of characterisation section which was removed. I have also made sure that it was clear that it was not an official genocide by using language such as ‘argues’, ‘claim’, ‘belief’, ‘characterisation’ and ‘seems’: “Genocide against Palestinians is a characterization of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict which argues that Israel has carried out and/or is carrying out some kind of genocide against the Palestinian population, sometimes related to the view that Israel is a settler colonial state. The view also includes the belief that the system with which Israel governs the Palestinians is one of racial segregation and apartheid. The characterization has been rejected by many, but not all, Israelis.” Neutrality has always been important to me, which is probably why I pointed out people’s biases, though this was wrong. My conduct on the talk pages may have been wrong on parts yet I am willing to make amends and I believe that I have never contributed badly or destructively in this topic. So while users such as User: Muboshgu will call me biased and others such as User:HJ Mitchell will find this concerning, I refute this strongly. If anything, I believe that throughout the page’s construction, others, possibly including the person who referred me here (hypocrite anyone https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1180084227?), have been acting very much worse than me with more one-sided edits and wild accusations such as ‘blood libel’ (can’t remember who that was) in the talk page. I feel that in receiving a punishment I am the victim of a collective punishment. This is wrong. I admit I was naive when I received a harsh (as admitted by the person who gave it to me) GENSEX ban, and it is in my opinion wrong to bring it into the result. Please hear my case. Edit: sorry if my statement is too long, this was not intended.
Yes, I have done some wrong but looking on the Genocide against Palestinians page you can see that others who are not being punished our doing much worse. I’m anxious of a result and quite unhappy as I believe I deserve another chance and believe that the user who referred me here may also be in the wrong (see all the statements above). Please read my statement… Scientelensia ( talk) 20:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC) Moved from uninvolved admins' section. Threaded discussion is not permitted at AE, please comment only in this section. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by Iskandar323First off, yes. Scientelensia would do well do curb their accusations of bias. We all have bias, we all know it (hopefully), and though this is plainly obvious, constantly accusing other editors of bias does not adhere to AGF or general principles of civility and is a distraction from the activity of actually editing. At the same time, I find it disheartening that Drsmoo would raise this AE just two months after being cautioned in an extremely similar filing Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive321#Nishidani. Drsmoo also does not appear to have attempted to have a single conversation with the accused on their talk prior to this AE filing. It is worth noting that most of these comments by the accused come in the context of one of several fraught discussions at Talk:Genocide against Palestinians, where the editor that launched the thread spoke of "blatant Hamas propaganda", in which context it is rather obvious that the discussion is awash with bias, with hardly a need to mention it. As noted here by Nableezy, what Drsmoo has avoided mentioning is the rather extreme tone of the discussions on the page, with claims of antisemitism and blood libel letting fly in all directions. This does not mitigate the point that personal accusations of bias are to be avoided, but the context here is an exceptionally bias-fraught discussion. The user, who is relatively new, and I believe very new to the space, just needs to internalize their thoughts here and allow the transparent bias is such topic areas to speak for itself without the need to descend to commentary on individual editors. The issue here is a mundane behavioural one that could have been addressed at ANI and may require a slap on the wrist, but it does not rise to the level of an AE-worthy prosecution. Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Statement by nableezyThat entire talk page is full of accusations of racism, blood libel (!), antisemitism, and bias. Drsmoo said he did not see those instances, which kind of surprises me as he responded in a thread that opened with an accusation it was made (by Buidhe for the record) in "abuse of power in order to manipulate public opinion regarding current Israel-Hamas war. Raises serious concerns regarding potential political motives that seeks to legitimize Hamas actions against Israelis." All users should focus on the article content, but this selective outrage is just too much. Given something like this remains on the talk page with no admonishment to be found. Oh and, eyeroll emoji. nableezy - 15:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Statement by MuboshguI just reverted an edit by this user exhibiting their pro-Palestinian bias on Kathy Hochul. [1] They may not be able to participate in Israeli/Palestinian articles and discussions on Wikipedia. – Muboshgu ( talk) 04:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC) Comment by A Quest for KnowledgeTo play devil's advocate, Scientelensia is a somewhat(?) new editor who made their first edit on November 13 of last year. [2] It's possible that they don't understand things like WP:AGF and that they should address article content, not editor's conduct or suspected motivations. Perhaps a warning and an explanation of why their conduct was lacking might be in order? (That's assuming that they are willing to listen and learn.) A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by SelfstudierLess of the bias stuff would be good. Afaics, the edit referred to by Muboshgu has been reintroduced and is not something I would get overly excited about on its own. As for being provocative take a look at the filer here. A warning is sufficient I think. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC) Result concerning Scientelensia
|
Withdrawn |
---|
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 Zanahary
N/A
Notified of the sanctions on 19 October, removed and assumed read shortly after, with later acknowledgment of understanding of the policies
The user is misrepresenting a source, which specifically says violence was carried out against suspected collaborators, and another user agreed was correct. Instead of correcting the issue, the user is engaged in OR ( again) and personal attacks (linked above). I assumed good faith that they would correct an issue when brought to their attention, they have declined to do so. Source misrepresentation is not a content issue, it is a behavioral one as this board has previously found. nableezy - 20:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning ZanaharyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ZanaharyStatement by (username)Result concerning Zanahary
|
Retaliatory filing without merit. Filer Carter00000 indeffed by theleekycauldron as a regular admin action. -- Tamzin[ cetacean needed (they|xe|she) 07:32, 3 November 2023 (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 GWA88
Under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4
Under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any:
Discussion concerning GWA88Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GWA88I'm sorry but this seems like blatant WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour from an editor who is known to try and get people blocked he has had issues with. Since that original block in July (my one and only block over a 9 year period of editing), I have not been blocked once, whereas Carter00000 has been blocked from the portal again for "edit-warring on P:CE subpages" and making "controversial re-writes to blurbs and enforce your preferred wording.". To be honest, I did expect this to happen as soon as his most recent block ended. He has also left passive aggressive templates on my talk page, introducing me to topics I've made hundreds of edits on over the years and he knows it. I hope admins can see my contributions to the Current Events: Portal are positive and that no else aside from Carter00000 seems to have an issue with me editing there. Thanks. GWA88 ( talk) 13:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Furthermore, I would just like any admin seeing this to take a look at my overall contributions, and not just the diffs cited. You can see I'm just an editor who has made thousands of good faith edits over a decade, and I've always tried to steer clear of drama on Wikipedia and stick to my hobby of editing, which is why I rarely if ever leave messages on user's talkpages. And with regards to dispruting Wikipedia, I've had very few disputes in this last year, and the only notable one was with Carter00000, the author of this request. I'll admit, I'm not as savvy at Wikilawyering as Carter00000, but I always try my best to stick to the general guidelines. I hope you close this without a sanction as I do believe this is also motivated by some sort of personal grudge against me. Thank you. GWA88 ( talk) 17:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by Iskandar323 (uninvolved)I inspected this filing, and upon looking at "Incident 1" what jumped out at me was how absolutely correct GWA88 was, in A) correctly placing events in their verifiable chronological setting, and B) clearly outlining the undeniable logic of it (presumably when prompted) - that the OP thinks these edits are problematic, and indeed, reverted this fix, in defiance of any obvious common sense when editing a timeline of dated events, well, this hints more at WP:CIR issues on the OP's part than anything else. Iskandar323 ( talk) 08:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning GWA88
|
Appeal declined. Contentious topics require more than playing the NPOV game. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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 ghostlystaticI am a Jewish person and I said some uncivil things to people who I believed wanted to hide the 10/07 attacks from the Pogrom page because they wanted to downplay what happened. I didn't mean to be uncivil, but I can only play the NPOV game for so long, especially when there are some editors on here that complain that they openly can't support Palestinian terrorist groups. Kind of biased and NPOV as it is. I like this encyclopedia. If you decide to ban me, I won't stop liking it. Ghostlystatic ( talk) 04:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by scottishfinnishradishUse your discretion they said. Certainly it won't create even more time sinks. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 04:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by ghostlystaticStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)Result of the appeal by ghostlystatic
|
Appeal declined. Contentious topics require an ability to engage with other editors with more than debating techniques. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Notification of that administrator : [6] Statement by Infinity Knight
Statement by TamzinKeeping in mind that (1) is presented on background, we have three cases here of attempting to weaponize Wikipedia processes in opposition to topic-area opponents or, in the last case, an administrator they perceive as one. I can AGF that Infinity Knight is not actively trying to use the system to promote their preferred POV, but even if that is the case, they've shown that they lack the ability to participate in administrative processes about this topic area with due detachment. (I did briefly consider a TBAN only from admin processes regarding ARBPIA, but deemed that unworkable.) I think Bishonen's warning was exceptionally generous, and I wish Infinity Knight would have borne more in mind
the comic that Bish linked. Comments like Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Infinity KnightStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Riposte97I initially made this comment on Infinity Knight's talk page, prior to this appeal. It struck me as unfair that a person apparently genuinely trying to adhere to policy should be sanctioned. I reproduce it here:
Riposte97 ( talk) 07:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)Result of the appeal by Infinity Knight
|
Appeal declined. The appeal does not address the issue that edit warring over a WP:BLP issue is not permitted. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Statement by JaydoggmarcoI didn't violate an arbitration decision on Zoe McLellan because the noticeboard discussion on whether or not to include the info of her child abduction case has not made a decision or reached a consensus to include or not include the information. Jaydoggmarco ( talk) 11:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC) copied from talk page HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by HJ MitchellStatement by caeciliusinhortoBy my count Jaydoggmarco made nine reverts on this page in well under 12 hours: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Even if this weren't a contentious topic, any admin would be well within their discretion to block here. Whether or not a consensus had or had not been reached, there's no justification for reverting nine times in the face of edits by four different editors. They clearly know about the rules on editwarring: they invoked it at WP:BLPN#Zoe McLellan in their initial post! Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 13:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by JaydoggmarcoStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)Result of the appeal by Jaydoggmarco
|
Block endorsed, largely per rationale of ScottishFinnishRadish (blocking admin). theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 18:26, 3 November 2023 (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 and substantial 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 AtypicalPhantomHello. It seems I have been permanently banned from editing Wikipedia because of my conduct in the Israel-Hamas conflict page. I am not sure what got me banned specifically, but I would like some transparency if possible. I don't make inflammatory comments, and my last comment was to 0300 objective. I was merely adding context to his comment which in of itself was pretty inflammatory. I see multiple users on that talk page, specifically 0300 objective, who are openly pushing their agenda rather harshly, and I obviously have a pro-Israel lean, but I am respectful with my comments. Having a nuanced discussion is integral to Wikipedia. My comment was to shed light on what was a misunderstanding. With that said, if anything I have said is overtly disallowed, I accept that, and I apologize. I can still contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia and I can exclude myself from the Israel-Hamas conflict page. I would like for the adjudicators to reevaluate my ban. If you come to the same conclusion after reevaluating my activity, you can ban me from discussing this topic, but at least grant me the opportunity to contribute to other articles. AtypicalPhantom ( talk) 00:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Copied from their talk page per their request here and here. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 01:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Statement by ScottishFinnishRadishI probably could have gone with a NOTHERE block and avoided this, but since most of the edits were in ARBPIA I went with that. [17] [18] shows the caliber of edits we're dealing with. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 02:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Objective3000 (involved?)Only commenting as I was mentioned by the appealing user. I endorse the block. But I personally don’t have a problem with an A-I TBan for AtypicalPhantom, perhaps after a cooling off period and assuming they see the problem. I say this despite their comment:
Statement by SPECIFICOI’m not familiar with the most recent discussions on this article page, but I briefly edited the article, which has lots of problems. Notwithstanding the disorderly process on that page, this AE individual's appeal should not be the place to discuss the larger need for improvements to the page restriction or AE process, which should proceed in their own space. Looking at some of appellant’s edits, I see various good-faith content views that are reasonable but which would be strengthened by documentation and source links. I also see some personalized comments that are clearly off-limits for article talk, that undermine the appellant’s content arguments, and that merit an AE sanction. Per WP:NOTHERENORMS, I do not see any basis for the blocking Admin to ‘’ex post’’ escalate the complaint against the appellant by insinuating that they are NOTHERE. That sounds like casual disparagement, suggesting that they’re lucky to have gotten the lesser sanction they received. This good faith NOTHERE surmise could be the examined in a separate AE thread, but it’s not helpful to the appeal of the current sanction. I don’t see that Appellant’s edit here, while poorly worded, is so disruptive as to be deleted by another user or Admin. It would help a new editor to improve their talk page conduct to know exactly why certain of their edits is not allowed. All in, I would favor a TBAN of a week or two during which I hope Admins or others would advise the appellant as to WP:TPG, WP:V, edit summaries, etc. and other things that new editors in contentious areas often do not understand. That plus WP:ROPE should address the conduct problem. P.S. While it's true for each individual Admin that time spent on tutoring and support of new users does take away from time spent on enforcement or other Admin roles - opportunity cost - this is not true for the Admin corps as a whole. There are hundreds of Admins who are not actively day-to-day engaged in patrolling AE or vandalism whose time may not be fully occupied on those tasks. Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by AtypicalPhantomStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor Infinity Knight)Was pointed to this discussion here. When it comes to the dilemma of viewing newcomers as a "waste of editors' time," my preference is for administrators to give the "let's provide them with guidance" approach a shot. If we start seeing new editors as a time sink, how's the topic area ever gonna draw in any new contributors? Infinity Knight ( talk) 19:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Statement by HemiaucheniaI endorse the block and I don't think the appeal is enough to remove it. While the disruption by non-autoconfirmed and to a lesser extent non ECP users is significantly reduced than it was when the 7 day semi-protection was implemented on the 16 October, largely due to the decrease in viewers as the war progresses, I wouldn't oppose semi-protecting the page again, especially if there is an uptick in commenters following the Israel ground offensive. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by NableezyInfinity Knight's repeated attempts to insinuate wrongdoing or bias have become disruptive. They were given some useful advice by Bishonen here, it appears that has gone unheeded. Add to the generally obtuse and obstructive editing in such sections as this in which they repeatedly reverted against an obvious consensus, with their contributions to the discussion being a series of not really without ever addressing the content, and I would suggest that the negative in net negative has been met several times over. nableezy - 15:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by Nil EinneI don't feel the appeal is sufficient. I note in particular this comment ' Statement by (uninvolved editor 5)Result of the appeal by AtypicalPhantom
|
Appeal declined. There is consensus among uninvolved administrators to decline this appeal at this time as it does not adequately address the reason for/substance of the block and how appellant will avoid the issue in future. I would recommend the appellant review WP:AAB. -- TheSandDoctor Talk 00:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Statement by HumilatedGoanI want to acknowledge my mistakes in violating Wikipedia:ARBECR, and I sincerely apologize for the trouble i caused. i assure you that I have learned from my mistakes and i am committed to avoiding them in the future. please consider unblocking my account. HumilatedGoan ( talk) 16:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC) copied from Special:Diff/1183168077 Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 20:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by IvanvectorI have copied the user's statement from their talk page as requested. I also must report that the user is believed to have a second account; please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BlueFreee. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 20:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC) I also was distracted by the SPI after mostly filling this out, and saved before I realized that 331dot already declined the appeal on the user's talk page. I'm going to leave it to a reviewer to decide what to do about that. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 20:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by TamzinHG was warned to stop doing this, kept doing this without changing their behavior, and then sent me an appeal by email that was obviously written by AI. (If they dispute this characterization, I am happy to share the email with other admins.) This appeal does not, to me, show any understanding of what was wrong with what they did, or of why we can trust the issue won't recur. -- Tamzin[ cetacean needed (they|xe|she) 01:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by HumilatedGoanStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)Result of the appeal by HumilatedGoan
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
Edit warring over whether aspects of the infobox should be collapsed at 2023 Israel–Hamas war:
Move warring over the title of 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip:
General 1RR violations:
These are all comparatively minor, and I wouldn't have come here except for the fact that when I approached Ecrusized about the issue they declined to self-revert or address the issue in any way, instead
removing my comment saying Stop leaving me talk page messages please
. I had previously approached them about some minor canvassing issues in the topic area; they also
removed that comment, saying Do not leave blank template warnings on user accounts talk pages
.
There are also some WP:ONUS issues, restoring the live map despite an ongoing dispute about whether it is verifiable and no affirmative consensus to do so. However, the edit to restore the map was not a 1RR violation.
They left me 4 separate blank warning templates on my talk page regarding this, despite me telling them to stop bothering me after each one
Ecrusized, I left you four notices. It was after the third that you asked me to "Stop leaving me talk page messages please":
Per our policies, you are able to ban me from your talk page yourself, with the exception of required notifications such as #1 and #4, and if this is what you want please say. However, this is a double edged sword; any issues, even if they are as minor as a single 1RR violation (for a post-report example, this revert is a 1RR violation), must be taken to a forum like this one rather than being resolvable through a talk page conversation. I would recommend against this, but it is your choice. 14:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Do not leave blank template warnings on user accounts talk pages- which makes me wonder if they even read the messages I left, as the warning about canvassing included a custom note.
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
User BilledMammal has been harassing me on my talk page since yesterday morning over a single revert I made which they did not agree on. They left me 4 separate blank warning templates on my talk page regarding this, despite me telling them to stop bothering me after each one. They then resolved to examining my contributions from the previous week in an effort to find violation that they might use against me (in bad faith). Hence they've opened this notice in an effort to have me blocked. Again edits here are wholly unrelated to the dispute they've had with me. I wished to stay away from this notice entirely in the hope that the user would go away. I have no further comments and do not wish to be involved in this at all. Ecrusized ( talk) 11:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
User @ Veggies: have told them to take a breather because of the battleground behavior they've shown in the same said dispute they've had with me. It might be appropriate to give them a temporary topic ban from the said article. I would also like to have them blocked from editing my talk page because of their constant harrasment. Ecrusized ( talk) 11:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Ecrusized is WP:AWARE of "arbitration enforcement Israel Palestine" a/o Oct 17 Special:Diff/1180609306, Special:Diff/1180609996. Levivich ( talk) 20:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Appeal declined. Infinity Knight is cautioned that further appeals made prior to six months from today's date are likely to be considered disruptive and lead to further sanctions, up to and including an indefinite block. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Previous appeal
Notification of that administrators : Statement by Infinity Knight
Statement by NableezyDidnt we just do this? nableezy - 19:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by TamzinThis catches me midway through my drive to WikiConference North America, so I can't respond at length, but I think my response to last week's appeal still applies. -- Tamzin[ cetacean needed (they|xe|she) 20:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by Objective3000I don't see how this materially differs from the previous appeal. As Johnuniq said in the that appeal: Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Infinity KnightStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)Result of the appeal by Infinity Knight
|
Brandmeister is topic-banned from all Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict-related articles, broadly construed. Number 5 7 15:04, 14 November 2023 (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 Brandmeister
Last month, Brandmeister was given a page ban for an Armenia-Azerbaijan article, for making offensive statements ( comparing ethnic cleansing victims to economic migrants), misciting sources to push a POV, forum shopping, and boomerang after reciving a logged warning. [23] [24] The consensus of the previous AE discussion was that another warning would be insufficent, but a broad indef topic ban would be too much at that point. And now, a few weeks later, Brandmeister made a huge POV pushing edit on the Battle of Shusha (2020) article lead just in time for it to appear on the main page for "on this day". Brandmeister claimed to be removing excessive details, but the edit didn't even do that because the article still has the same 6 paragraphs when it should be 4 at most ( MOS:LEADLENGTH). In actuality, Brandmeister's edit removed mention of Melikdoms of Karabakh, Siege of Stepanakert, and the Shusha massacre from the lead, but lines like "Until the middle of the 19th century, the city was considered the cultural and political centre of the regional Azerbaijani population" were kept in the lead. It would've been one thing if this were a true trimming edit that condensed the background of the lead, but Brandmeister removed the massacre of Armenians in 1920 and the siege in 1991-92 that are directly relevant to the conflict, while keeping that the city was considered so special by Azerbaijanis in 1800. This is very clear POV pushing. -- KhndzorUtogh ( talk) 00:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning BrandmeisterStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by BrandmeisterRegarding the edit in question MOS:INTRO says clearly that "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article" and that "Editors should avoid [...] overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article". Here quite clearly melikdoms of Karabakh, siege of Stepanakert and the Shusha massacre are not directly related to the 2020 battle itself and belong to the Shusha article itself. From a NPOV point too, it's better to explain such details within relevant context rather than in the succinct summary style of the lead section. All three topics are already mentioned below in the article anyway, so if anything, this should be discussed at article's talkpage rather than bringing the issue here. Brandmeister talk 00:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC) theleekycauldron, for the record, the wording "self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh" is not my introduced change, it was already present in the article's previous version as edited by KhndzorUtogh. The Republic of Artsakh article itself defines it as a breakaway state. Brandmeister talk 11:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC) theleekycauldron, HJ Mitchell, I provided an edit summary for my edit, particularly citing WP:DETAIL. On a general note, it strikes me that a single edit after which I dropped the issue is suddenly considered a sanctionable POV pushing. WP:POVPUSH has been clear on that: "the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view", with an italic emphasis on the word "aggressive". Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3#Tendentious editing also describes it as "sustained aggressive point-of-view editing". Personally I've never reported a user over a single edit during my 10+ years of editing. Brandmeister talk 20:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by GrandmasterI don't think that trimming of excessive background information from the lede by Brandmeister was selective. He removed the details that had no direct relation to the 2020 event, but left the part that said: Until the middle of the 19th century, the city was considered the cultural and political centre of the regional Azerbaijani population, as well as one of the two main cities of the Transcaucasus for Armenians. As one can see, significance for both Azerbaijani and Armenian population remained briefly mentioned after the edit by Brandmeister. The lede is not supposed to contain too much information on the history of the conflict, which I believe was the purpose of Brandmeister's edit. Grand master 09:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC) For the record, "self-declared / self-proclaimed" is a regular term used to describe this entity by the mainstream international media, for example CNN: [26], BBC: [27], Al Jazeera: [28], Reuters: [29], The Financial Times: [30], The Washington Post: [31], etc. Grand master 14:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Brandmeister
|
Tgeorgescu is hereby warned for disruptive editing in the form of battleground behaviour and incivility in the area of pseudoscience; continued battleground behaviour will result in further sanctions. It is suggested to SamwiseGSix that their editing abilities might be better used elsewhere. Both SamwiseGSix and Tgeorgescu are warned to follow/respect the conduct rules related to the AE venue. -- TheSandDoctor Talk 04:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning SamwiseGSix
If Anthroposophy cannot be called pseudoscience and quackery, then nothing can. @ Theleekycauldron: I have posted at WP:FTN and WP:RSN about it, but most people don't seem to care.
And the point of my They want to insert a wedge between WP:PSCI and WP:NPOV. All their edits are like asking a Catholic church to preach Salafism, or asking a Baptist church to preach Santeria. In the end, Wikipedia has a POV, and that POV is WP:MAINSTREAM. About [36]: for me it is crystal-clear that they consider the guideline WP:FRINGE as an affront to Anthroposophy. My remark was making them clear that they cannot eat their cake and still have it. E.g., I don't like the article abortion. But since I'm not editing it, I don't create troubles in respect to such topic. Have you read "Why Does Wikipedia Want to Destroy Deepak Chopra?" If Anthroposophists don't complain that Wikipedia wants to destroy Rudolf Steiner, we are doing a bad job. If anything can be said about the two men is that Chopra is considerably less fringe than Steiner. Chopra never belonged to völkisch Wagner clubs, and has never claimed to be a clairvoyant. "but not specifically warned against mentioning x-risk yet " ( [37])? See [38]. This farce has gone too far. I'm not mocking a living person, but a guru who died almost a century ago.
@
JPxG: They have toned down their initial proposal. What I objected is that they wanted Wikipedia to endorse the ontology and the epistemology of Anthroposophy, and I consider their wish totally not done. What others have objected is that their proposed edits fail
WP:V. Full context is: Bona fide offer: [41]. I talk too much, so restricting the number of words is a good idea. @ Tamzin: There is a lot of vitriol in fringe/pseudoscience topics. I'm by far not the worst offender, many others go unnoticed. Sometimes I do feel offended by what other editors say about what should be included. Of course, that's not an excuse for mocking their POVs, but some POVs really do not belong at Wikipedia. And I don't have a neat solution for telling them that their POV is unwelcome. @ Theleekycauldron: I don't beat around the bush: I know that some POVs are unwelcome. I don't know how to make this clear to those having those POVs. Maybe they simply cannot get this point. I think the very attempt to persuade them they're Wikipedically wrong is fundamentally wrong. Yes, I did employ irony, but it was an attempt at persuasion. Perhaps persuasion is wrong. I think this is the lesson from WP:AE: I should not try to persuade them. That's a sad truth about human rationality. It seems that my whole approach based upon rational persuasion is flat-out wrong. I was wrong: some people don't want to learn that their POVs are unwelcome, nor what WP:FRINGE means, nor how to WP:CITE WP:RS which do WP:V their claims ( [42]). Formerly at WP:CIR used to be a section about biased-based failures to comply with our rules. So, I don't say that SamwiseGSix is irrational, but they simply cannot get the point due to their own bias. I wasn't even trying to persuade them they are wrong in the real-objective world, but simply wrong according to Wikipedia. My mistake is thinking that every newbie is eager to learn how to edit Wikipedia according to the WP:RULES. But many newbies simply want a quick fix to a PR issue. @ Ealdgyth: I do recognize that my approach was wrong. Although I did not do it out of bad faith. It was wrong for me to try to convince them they're mistaken. I should have used dispute resolution instead of trying to convince them they're wrong. I realize now that asking an antivaxxer or germ theory denialist to understand that their POV is doomed according to WP:NPOV is too much to ask. Their whole worldview prevents them from learning that WP:NPOV does not endorse their POV, instead it dooms it. Failing to notice this was a big mistake on my behalf. I can get the point that my POV is unwelcome at abortion, other people can't.
I'm not baiting the other party. I was simply explaining that my attempt to convince people of things they are not prepared to understand was wrong. I told them real facts about Wikipedia, but they cannot comprehend those facts. tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SamwiseGSixStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SamwiseGSixHello everyone - simply seeking a rational and reasonably balanced NPOV here leveraging mainstream academic research, as the first intro sentence of the second paragraph is currently classifying the topic of the article flatly and comprehensively as 'racist pseudoscience' despite the founder's many leading anti-racist statements for his time, as both academic critics and proponents acknowledge. A more balanced WP:NPOV with fair recognition of WP:PSCI would arguably concede classifications of pseudoscience in many areas ('much of Anthroposophy is pseudoscientific') as currently written in the first intro paragraph, but avoid a comprehensive classification of 'racist pseudoscience' [period .] as currently written in 2nd which would be ignoring the academic research; much of which highlights the many leading anti-racist statements for the founder's time, often well ahead of his contemporaries/predecessors (President Wilson, K. Marx/Engalls et al on race etc) often still cited academically today. This flat/comprehensive classification results in unfair spin, arguably not adhering with the WP:NPOV standard for the Encyclopedia. I hope this makes sense overall? Not seeking to flout any rules or 'whitewash' (this term generally implies the coverup of a scandal or crime of some kind, right) in any way but rather simply seeking to bring a reasonable, balanced NPOV standard into play including in intro of second paragraph. In considering the science, a significant amount of peer reviewed academic research has been published empirically measuring the positive affects of applying these insights in fields including education (3000 Waldorf Schools around the world, NYTimes and Independent.co.uk coverage etc), environmental conservation (Rachel Carson 'Silent Spring' impact w/ Marjorie Spock et al), banking (economists co-published with admins at central banks etc) and more. Although some of the related ideas from the movement are classifiable as 'pseudoscientific' by today's standards (as the intro paragraph does) there are many aspects of the body of work here that are scientifically measurable by our academic standards and significant minority opinions today. The comprehensive and wholesale classification of the entire movement and body of knowledge as just flatly 'racist psuedoscience' [.] is then arguably very unfair, and very arguably does not adhere to Wikipedia's very important WP:NPOV community standard. Please do let me know what your thoughts are - I do very much hope to be able to continue contributing constructively to Wikipedia including on this important page, which also deserves the treatment of a fair NPOV standard, thank you for your time and consideration. (I had not denied atomic theory or sought to drive any implications in this area - neither had I requested a sweeping endorsement of all ontology or epistemology. I had however been as a new editor consistently mocked/insulted and quite constantly subjected to highly inappropriate and disruptive battleground conduct etc though by the filing editor - hopefully this would be addressed with logged warning as discussed and actively prevented including with reasonable possible restrictions going forward as well) I consistently WP:CITE extensive WP:RS for WP:V and WP:NPOV without bias in accordance with the WP:RULES. As quick final supplement this journal article helps highlight the anti-racist statements and also underscores through deep rationality the importance of a fair NPOV for this page in this pivotal time/moment, including helping solve for human 'x-risk' which I thought I'd not been warned against mentioning as a keyword specifically, and which is also very arguably directly relevant/critical still to improving the article: "The Urgency of Social Threefolding in a World Still at War with Itself".. https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1069/1723 SamwiseGSix ( talk) 01:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC) I am not anti-vax nor am I here to discuss germ theory, abortion, atomic theory, or any of the other unrelated subjects the filing editor continues seeking to bring up, a practice which those reviewing have already raised concerns about - yes this does appear to be a baiting attempt of some kind. I am here to address the misapplication of NPOV standard the filing editor has attempted to enforce on this page in seeking to classify the entire body of knowledge around page topic flatly/comprehensively as 'racist pseudoscience', despite the many academic sources demonstrating the contrary including through a vast body of documented anti-racist statements, generally far ahead of contemporaries/predecessors including US President W. Wilson and K Marx/Engels et al. Statement by caeciliusinhorto
tgeorgescu says Statement by (username)Result concerning SamwiseGSix
|
82.45.48.180 hard blocked for 3 months. -- TheSandDoctor Talk 04:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning 82.45.48.180
Notifed at 14:44, October 30, 2023
This editor has been using a variety of IP addresses since February 2023, including 82.46.125.57 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 81.141.173.209 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 109.158.169.88 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). I have created a page at User:Kathleen's bike/IPs that shows the editing similarites between the IPs, a sockpuppetry report would achieve little at preseent since people are allowed to use different IPs. However it does demonstrate the long history of disruption from this editor. They have been directed to WP:LABEL/ WP:TERRORIST three occasions by three different editors, on 13:05, April 30, 2023, 14:58, May 11, 2023 and 14:44, October 30, 2023. Their user talk page messages of 09:46, April 30, 2023 and 14:58, May 11, 2023 show they receive messages, so there can be no excuse of being unaware of the objections to their edits. The history of the four known IPs show this disruptive editing has been going on for a long time, and in my opinion needs to be curtailed.
Discussion concerning 82.45.48.180Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 82.45.48.180Statement by (username)Result concerning 82.45.48.180
|
Based guyy blocked by Rosguill for 1 week for ARBPIA violations, notified about ARBEE. -- TheSandDoctor Talk 18:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Based guyy
This may be a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU issue. But on the other hand their edit summaries clearly show they are aware of the fact that someone reverted them.
User talk:Based guyy#Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion Discussion concerning Based guyyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Based guyyStatement by (username)Result concerning Based guyy
|
No action necessary. RegentsPark ( comment) 18:32, 21 November 2023 (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 Vaikunda Raja
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Contentious_topic_designation
Vaikunda Raja requests Deletion Review of Annamalai Kuppusamy. This is not disruptive at this point: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1183108503&oldid=1183086709 A lengthy reply which ends Another call to act responsibly: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1183155615&oldid=1183153859 A rambling post that says nothing: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1183335678&oldid=1183256322 Admits that their lack of command of English may contribute to excessive length of posts: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1183486377&oldid=1183485221 Another reply, which is by this point in bludgeon territory: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1183782213&oldid=1183656692 A long argument with Daniel, who had said to leave the article deleted rather than restore it: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1185845826&oldid=1185776564
None to the best of my knowledge
This editor is bludgeoning a Deletion Review about an article on an Indian politician, and has been cautioned by multiple editors that their posts are too long, and are not useful. They have replied to the effect that their English is limited, and this requires them to use more words. This raises competence issues, as well as the battleground nature of replying to almost every post.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AVaikunda_Raja&diff=1185934338&oldid=1171460010
Discussion concerning Vaikunda RajaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Vaikunda RajaStatement by CrypticAs the user directly being bludgeoned at in some of the diffs above - and having just stumbled across this quite by accident - I advise leniency. This didn't directly affect any articles, it was well within DRV participants' ability to handle, and part of the fault was mine: since I read DRV mostly in diffs, I didn't immediately recognize the google links in the initial drv request as attempts to link to coverage in specific news sources and so was more dismissive than I ought to have been in my first response. The second diff above (the first of two Robert labels "act responsibly") was their first edit to the page after that response. — Cryptic 10:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Vaikunda Raja
|
No action taken, but a reminder to watch the tone of edit summaries and discussions. We're dealing with articles about real people and real suffering. Please keep that in mind. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 20:23, 22 November 2023 (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 Wee Curry Monster
N/A
I would have left this unreported, but the user declined to self revert and simply removed the notification on their user talk of the violation. Additionally, the second revert listed here was removed on such spurious grounds that had there already been an ARBPIA notification prior to it I think it would have merited sanctions by itself, with a user claiming a video that the NYTimes says they conducted extensive independent verification of was obviously faked ... appallingly bad acting. But regardless of that, this is a 1RR violation that the user has declined to correct.
im fine with that too. nableezy - 23:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Wee Curry MonsterStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Wee Curry MonsterI didn't believe I'd violated the 1RR restriction. As far as editing goes, I have long maintained a personal policy of sticking to 1RR in general. The only exception is to revert obvious vandalism. [47] I removed what I genuinely believed were fake videos, that were self-published on Instagram and appeared to be a violation of WP:SPS. I was somewhat surprised to be reverted, so took to the talk page. After I received an explanation for their presence with reference to the NYT article I remain sceptical but accepted the explanation and was quite prepared to leave it at that point. This was clearly a WP:BOLD edit following by WP:BRD and its more than a stretch to claim I was revert warring. I accepted Iskandar323's explanation; you might wish to note I thanked [48] Iskandar323 for their help. I was then subjected to personal attacks eg [49] by the person making this report. These seem to be an attempt to bait me, so after I initially responded I disengaged leaving Nableezy to have the WP:LASTWORD, which they duly did [50]. I'm not the only person to have felt the tone of the discussion directed at me was unnecessary and unhelpful [51]. It is also untrue that I was continuing to make a non-policy based argument for removal. I made no further argument for removal, I was responding to comments, which I now recognise was a mistake. I also further clarified this morning I was not arguing for removal or intending to make a case for removal. [52]. I invite AE to make their own conclusion why my comments are being misrepresented [53] yes this is a revert, 1RR. I have no intention of making further reverts per my personal policy. I also note that it misrepresents what the person said by omitting crucial context. I also clarified my misunderstanding of 1RR with Cryptic this morning, because I made a 1RR report after 3 of my edits were reverted by another editor in 3 consecutive edits. I acknowledge that in my report my understanding of 1RR was flawed. And I'll be honest I didn't look at the diffs, presuming they referred to 2 consecutive edits I made at the time. On my talk page, I have long had a policy of removing notices, I don't tend to archive them, there is a clear message on my page to that effect.
I drew attention to this in my edit summary [54] rm per my normal policy. If I were to acknowledge a mistake here, which is worthy of a WP:TROUT, is that I should have ignored the niggling and remained disengaged. I'm not going to put AE into an awkward position, so I'll reluctantly restore what I know is misleading. Hopefully an editor in good standing will remove it. W C M email 21:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Wee Curry Monster
|
Appeal declined. This is the wrong venue to ask ArbCom to clarify something. 89.206.112.10 is advised that the WP:ECR restriction is indeed generally interpreted so as to ban almost all non-EC editing of talk pages. Galobtter ( talk) 03:25, 23 November 2023 (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 and substantial 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 89.206.112.10I an attempt to comply with a Request for Comment, I was notified that when an article is subject to extended confirmed restriction, all non- EC editors are banned not only from editing the article, but from contributing to the talk pages as well. I therefore ask the Committee to clarify its intened ruling with regards to the extended confirmed restriction procedure insofar as it states thatThis is a classic example of an amibiguous prepositional phrase, that can be understood to either mean in the "Talk:" namespace, nothing other than an edit request may be madeor edit requests may not be made anywhere else than in the "Talk:" namespace. In case that this ruling is meant to mean that non-EC users are banned from participating in the discussion of any decreed topic area, I propose this to be made clearly visible on the Request for Comments' entry of such topics, before effort is wasted to make a constructive contribution even though it was prohibited from the onset anyway. In case that this ruling is meant to mean that non-EC users are allowd from participating in the discussion of any decreed topic area, I propose the procedure to be clarified with instructions on how to contribute constructively when the talk page is protected. 89.206.112.10 ( talk) 09:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by {{{User imposing the sanction}}}Statement by GrandmasterI don't think it makes much sense to allow IPs to vote in RFCs/AFDs on contentions topics. It opens doors to votestacking, canvassing, etc, as anyone can use an anonymous IP account to participate in a voting. The RFCs should be reserved for established users with a minimum of 500 edits history, which I understand was the idea behind this decision. Grand master 15:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by 89.206.112.10Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SelfstudierWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 125#Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction refers. The revised wording of is clear that the talk page can only be used for edit requests although previously, there was a specified list that included RFCs. Suggested best practice is to remove any contravening edits with an edit summary that at a minimum points to WP:ARBECR. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000I think that the ARBCOM motion was highly unsatisfactory and a case at ARCA is needed. As well as re-opening the door to anon/new editor disruption at AfDs and noticeboards, the part about article talk pages is poorly written and unworkable. The OP correctly noted an ambiguity, and also the definition of what is allowed is unclear. The link to WP:Edit requests suggests that only template-driven "change X to Y" requests are allowed, but good-faith new editors should be allowed to note a problem and leave it to experienced editors to decide how to fix it. If the strict definition of WP:Edit requests is not intended, then pretty much anything related to article content can be called an edit request. Zero talk 11:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC) If I understand this request, it is about participation in an RfC on an article talk page in ARBPIA. That was forbidden to IPs both before and after the recent rule changes so the appeal should be denied. Zero talk 12:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by (uninvolved editor)Result of the appeal by 89.206.112.10
|