Johnpacklambert (talk | contribs) |
Seraphimblade (talk | contribs) →Johnpacklambert: Closing |
||
Line 210: | Line 210: | ||
==Johnpacklambert== |
==Johnpacklambert== |
||
{{hat|{{u|Johnpacklambert}} blocked 1 month for violating the topic ban. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 17:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC) }} |
|||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
||
Line 295: | Line 296: | ||
*This is a clear violation, and I agree with the others above that there are no mitigating circumstances here so we need to take it seriously, particularly given multiple arbitrators were in favour of a site ban based on the 5 year history of JPL failing to heed warnings and violating previous restrictions so I support a block for a month. {{ping|Johnpacklambert}} regarding CfD, you asked that question on the proposed decision talk page and [[user:L235|L235]] gave you an unequivocal answer: {{tpq|CfDs and other XfDs are definitely covered (prohibited) by the topic ban.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Proposed_decision&diff=1101419902&oldid=1101419145&diffmode=source]. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC) |
*This is a clear violation, and I agree with the others above that there are no mitigating circumstances here so we need to take it seriously, particularly given multiple arbitrators were in favour of a site ban based on the 5 year history of JPL failing to heed warnings and violating previous restrictions so I support a block for a month. {{ping|Johnpacklambert}} regarding CfD, you asked that question on the proposed decision talk page and [[user:L235|L235]] gave you an unequivocal answer: {{tpq|CfDs and other XfDs are definitely covered (prohibited) by the topic ban.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing/Proposed_decision&diff=1101419902&oldid=1101419145&diffmode=source]. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC) |
||
**<small>{{ping|L235}} fixing the ping. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)</small> |
**<small>{{ping|L235}} fixing the ping. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)</small> |
||
{{hab}} |
Revision as of 17:55, 22 August 2022
SCNBAH
SCNBAH has been blocked as an Icewhiz sock by Tamzin, so nothing is left to do here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:01, 16 August 2022 (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 SCNBAH
N/A
Note that there isnt a single source for the idea this was a Hezbollah attack, but regardless Hezbollah is a primary article in the ARBPIA topic and all edits related to it are covered by 500/30. The article has the edit notice and talk page notice for related content, and the user was warned about this material specifically. Also note that a number of users with a handful of edits have returned after year+ long absences to become active in this dispute, eg SCNBAH and Smoking Ethel
Dennis, it was in there before, removed several times in fact. The first reinsertion was just a revert of my removal here. Which was followed by another revert of an edit by me. nableezy - 19:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Notified Discussion concerning SCNBAHStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SCNBAHStatement by ResearcherI will not defend SCNBAH's edits as I have not checked the sources they used or their edits. However, User:Dennis Brown, this is very large expansion of the Israeli-Arab conflict. Stabbing of Salman Rushdie has nothing to do with Israel, it is not part of the conflict. The claim that any edit mentioning Hezbollah in a context other than the conflict is a large overreach. Are 2022 Lebanese general election or 17 October Revolution, internal Lebanese affairs which involve Hezbollah, now conflict protected everywhere they mention Hezbollah? Hezbollah is a large player with 19.89% of the vote. Is every article on and in Israel now covered by the conflict? There are tens of thousands of Israeli biographies, institutions, organizations, sports, and so on that have nothing to with the conflict but they do mention Israel throughout. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning SCNBAH
|
SaintAviator
SaintAviator blocked indefinitely (as a normal admin sanction) for disruptive editing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:01, 19 August 2022 (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 SaintAviator
WP:NOTFORUM rants about their belief that Ukraine/Zelenskyy are Nazis/Hitler etc.; purposefully spreading misinformation. No attempts at, or interest in, constructive collaboration. They were topic banned under ARBEE for exactly the same behaviour in 2017.
Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Has a history of disruptively using talk pages and has been warned adequately over multiple years. Deliberately uses a misleading signature in order to confuse editors.
Discussion concerning SaintAviatorStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SaintAviatorStatement by (username)Result concerning SaintAviator
|
Newimpartial
No action taken. This appears to be outside of the AP2 discretionary sanctions authority, and there are no behavioral issues that require immediate use of standard admin actions either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:05, 19 August 2022 (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 Newimpartial
Newimpartial did not violate 3RR, but 3RR is a limit, not an entitlement. Newimpartial has continually exhibited almost every bullet point of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing over an extended period of time. Especially disruptive is Newimpartial's tendency to remove cited claims with inadequate explanation, and try to boomerang requests for clarification by alleging "sealioning". It is a strategy designed to stonewall. This is not a feature of their interaction with me, but a feature of their approach to the topic of the Frankfurt School. If administrators are interested, I can point to further diffs in 2020. While collecting diffs, something I found no evidence for is Newimpartial building encyclopedic content about Marxism when there wasn't an obvious culture war angle.
Discussion concerning NewimpartialStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by NewimpartialThis is very silly. WP:BOOMERANG, anyone?
Senallen is complaining about my partial reverts of their edits for which they have been unable to obtain consensus on the relevant Talk page.[8]
Their filing here seems either to misunderstand a large number of my edits. The issue in this minor removal, for example, is not whether
As far as the allegation that This filing appears to simply be Senallen's attempt to "punish" an opponent when they don't get their way on Talk; I do wonder about any WP:SPA on this topic area whether they have edited in it (or been banned from it) before, but my having wondered aloud about this last year is scarcely a ground for "punishment", then or now. As far as disrupting the topic area - Senallen's consistent POV pushing in article space, in spite of multiple editors' objections on Talk, is where disruption has been taking place; my refusal to WP:SATISFY them is not the real issue. Newimpartial (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by Sideswipe9thI may be mistaken, but are the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, Marxist cultural analysis articles and their associated talk pages actually subject to the AP2 DS? I've had a quick skim of the diffs provided for the contributions from this month, and cannot see anything obvious that is covered under AP2. What am I missing here? Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by FirefangledfeathersThis filing is erroneous from the start. The first diff is presented with "Their edit summaries did not explain the reverts", which is incorrect. Newimpartial's edit summary, Statement by AquillionEven if these were covered by WP:AP2, I fail to see how this is anything but a content dispute, or how Newimpartial's behavior could possibly be worse than Sennalen's own. Sennalen WP:BOLDly rewrote massive parts of the article over the course of several days; reverting a bold rewrite is entirely reasonable. Sennalen then revert-warred to retain their changes: [14][15][16] (note in the first revert, Sennalen implied that their proposed additions should remain in place during discussions.) The discussions on talk don't seem to be producing any clear consensus for Sennalen's changes, at a glance, which makes edit-warring them back in even worse. It seems like Sennalen believed that the fact that it was a few days before anyone raised objections means that their edits are now the WP:STATUSQUO, which is definitely not the case - there's some valid disagreement over when text has implicit consensus, but a few days is clearly insufficient. I don't think this has reached the point where it would be more than a content-dispute, but if there are conduct issues here then they concern Sennalen more than Newimpartial. Also, this is tangential, but glancing over the edits and talk-page discussions I'm extremely skeptical about Sennalen's assertion that their edits are focused on "explaining why the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is wrong." That is clearly not the locus of dispute, and the insistence that it is strains good faith. --Aquillion (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by TewdarAnybody new showing up to this article whose viewpoint diverges from the consensus (and by this, I do not mean making claims like "Marxists have taken over America by pushing drugs to students" or whatevs, but content based on academic sources, Sage Encyclopedia entries, OED definitions, that sort of thing, all of which have been either completely or partially excluded from the article at various stages because "WP:CONSENSUS") will be (explicitly or implicity, often explicitly) accused of being a believer in the conspiracy theory, a sockpuppet, a troll, or a racist, by a small group of editors who often seem to prefer to rely on their own unsourced original analysis of capitalization, or unorthodox quantification procedures, while the primary determinant of source inclusion seems to be whether it might be used by someone, somewhere, to somehow 'prove' that the conspiracy is 'true'. Blatantly obvious misrepresentation of sources, that any L1 English speaker can see are false, require a month-long RfC to remove. Getting rid of falsely attributed quotations takes serious effort and a lot of time, with resistance justified by statements that boil down to "I don't give a **** if we misrepresent a bunch of antisemites!" I appreciate the way the grizzled veterans are guarding the article against the edits of dodgy conspiracy theorists who show up quite regularly to moan on the talk page. But I think they're overdoing it a bit. Tewdar 08:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Newimpartial
|
Johnpacklambert
Johnpacklambert blocked 1 month for violating the topic ban. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:55, 22 August 2022 (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 Johnpacklambert
Discussion concerning JohnpacklambertStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Johnpacklambert
Statement by NableezyClear violation, should result in a block. nableezy - 00:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Statement by GoodDayIf you're going to be blocked? it should be for no more then one week. Because of the t-ban, you're going to be under extra scrutiny. Best bet? walk away entirely from anything to do with 'deletions'. GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC) A month block, for a mistake? That's too harsh, IMHO. These types of blocks are suppose to be "preventative" in nature, not "punitive". GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by Robert McClenonI believe Johnpacklambert when he says that he is sorry and that he honestly did not know that what he was doing was a violation of the ArbCom order. That isn't an excuse, but a problem. We apparently have an editor who doesn't understand the restrictions, maybe because he isn't capable of understanding or isn't trying to understand. I don't know what should be done, but I don't think that the usual pattern of escalating sanctions will be effective. I believe his statement, and that is a problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by ShibbolethinkUnfortunately, I do think this probably qualifies as a violation of the "spirit" of JPL's TBAN, if not the actual letter. I've been following this user's saga from the periphery, just as a lurker on the litany of ANI threads. I haven't really interacted with them otherwise.
One of the things I think we should all consider on AE threads is "Is there a better course of action the user could have followed, in good faith, to exercise the impulse they felt? If so, what would it have been?" In this case, JPL could have gotten clarification from an admin if the talk page comment would have run afoul of their TBAN. They could have posted about the page's actual issues (e.g. notability, etc) on a noticeboard or Wikiproject page, without juxtaposing it directly next to someone else talking about a PROD. etc. etc. As to the length or severity of this violation of a TBAN, though, I think some of the suggested durations are a bit harsh, aren't they? One month, for posting " I know it typically isn't the purview of commenting non-admins to discuss the length of such blocks, and they should be escalating in nature. But I would appeal to empathy. The user clearly did not intend to violate the TBAN, and it is also clearly a grey area that we all think is worth talking about.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Statement by FloqDo not believe JPL when he expresses remorse. Or, at least, do not assume that remorse correlates with a reduced likelihood of violating the ban in the future. I was suckered into believing how distraught he claimed to be during a previous block situation, and tricked into intervening which, in retrospect, likely saved JPL from a community ban at that time. I suggest imposing as long a block as uninvolved admins are willing to place. JPL is a timesink, and I imagine he has wasted more than a hundred person-hours of other people's time over the last half year, and probably more than half of that time wasting is due to my previous intervention preventing a community ban. I'm sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Johnpacklambert
|