TonyBallioni (talk | contribs) →RevertBob: close |
|||
Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
==RevertBob== |
==RevertBob== |
||
{{hat|RevertBob is blocked for a week. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 14:25, 4 May 2019 (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 206: | Line 207: | ||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
||
*{{ping|TonyBallioni}}, this is your sanction, want to take a look? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 14:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC) |
*{{ping|TonyBallioni}}, this is your sanction, want to take a look? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 14:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
*The 1RR violation is bright line and I agree with {{u|Icewhiz}} that the edit summaries make it worse. Blocked for a week. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 14:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
{{hatb}} |
Revision as of 14:25, 4 May 2019
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dlthewave
Appeal declined. The requisite "clear and substantial consensus of [...] uninvolved administrators at AE" to overturn this discretionary sanction is not present. T. Canens (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Statement by Dlthewave
Statement by SandsteinAfter rereading User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles, I agree with the appellant that the page was not (quite) a violation of WP:POLEMIC because it did not name editors and did not make allegations of misconduct, except as implied in the title ("whitewashing"), but that alone probably doesn't merit a warning. Because that page was the reason for my warning, I am striking it and recommend that GoldenRing (talk · contribs) undelete the page. A case can perhaps be made for its deletion on grounds of copyright / attribution, but that's a matter for the deletion process. Sandstein 18:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Statement by SpringeeI'm clearly an involved editor. As I said before I think Dlthewave has a very strong POV on this topic and I frequently disagree with them. However, when push comes to shove, I don't think on good faith they viewed the page as a POLMIC. For what it's worth, I would support reverting Dlthewave's warning. Springee (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC) Other than supporting lifting of sanctions for Dlthewave, I've largely stayed out of this discussion. However, I think Dlthewave is contradicting themselves. In reply to BU Rob 13 they said, "however I think it's fair for me to be able to maintain a list of examples to back up the assertions that I made in the Signpost". As one of the editors quoted in the article in question I asked that my comments be removed [[3]]. I specifically noted the link between the Signpost article and this user page. Dlthewave declined noting in part, "any link between it and our joint Signpost submission is tenuous at best." [[4]]. This contradicts the claims made in reply to BU Rob 13. Furthermore, it specifically accuses others of "whitewashing" vs simply making unsound arguments. I view it as something that either needs to be acted on or deleted. In a similar vein I take a dim view of the "firearms" reaction list on the "Hall of Fame" page [[5]]. Collecting material like this is needlessly antagonistic even though I don't think that is Dlthewave's intent. Springee (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC) Statement by GoldenRingI disagree with Sandstein above and stand by this action. Dlthewave has stated right here that the purpose of this page is to document long-term problematic editing and policy is clear that such material is allowed only for dispute resolution and when used in a timely manner. I don't see the practical difference between, "so-and-so said this" (which the appellant seems to admit would be disallowed) and "someone said this and here's a link showing who it was" which is what they've actually done. GoldenRing (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Simonm223Marginally involved. I just found out about the removal of DLThewave's excellent summary of the challenges faced to bring firearms into compliance with WP:N including the way that a wikiproject has tried to present their MOS suggestions as policy. I've said as much at another venue, but this is definitely not a violation of WP:POLEMIC and should be undeleted for the valuable resource it is. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dlthewave
Result of the appeal by Dlthewave
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Roscelese
There is a clear consensus to decline this appeal. GoldenRing (talk) 08:36, 1 May 2019 (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 RosceleseOnce again, the reason for the block is false on its face - I very much did defend and argue for my conduct. As I said at AE, I discussed the reverts with the users who had made the edits I was reverting, sometimes even getting an explicit statement of agreement. The restriction was put in place to prevent edit-warring and reverting without discussion, not to prevent the reversion of drive-by destructive edits - which, when I reverted, I still explained fully in the edit summary. In fact, Newyorkbrad has specifically stated in the past, a propos of my restriction, that a talkpage thread which merely duplicates the contents of an edit summary should not be necessary. Moreover, the filing was pretty obviously bad-faith to begin with (Slugger falsely claimed that I wasn't discussing reverts on article talk which I did in fact discuss, and had never edited any of those articles before). My conduct was compliant with WP policy and with my own editing restrictions, and AE is not a block dispenser for winning what other users, oddly, seem to be seeing as personal battles rather than collaborative encyclopedia-building. In light of the fact that this is not the first time that Sandstein is blocking me on the supposed basis that I did not say things that I in fact did say, and of Sandstein's clear misinterpretation of the restriction, I'm pinging the admins involved in creating the restriction and the discussion that led to it. @DeltaQuad: @Salvio giuliano: @Courcelles: @Euryalus: @AGK: @Seraphimblade: @Doug Weller: @Guerillero: @Callanecc: @Bishonen: @Newyorkbrad: @Thryduulf: –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Statement by SandsteinI recommend that the appeal is declined. I refer colleagues to the reasons for which I imposed the block in the thread above. Sandstein 17:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by RosceleseResult of the appeal by Roscelese
|
RevertBob
RevertBob is blocked for a week. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning RevertBob
13:13, 1 September 2018 - blocked for violating 1RR on Jeremy Corbyn. 12:00, 31 August 2018 - alerted BLP. 19:07, 14 August 2018 - alerted ARBPIA (may be relevant for other conduct described below).
(Some of this may or may not fall under ARBPIA broadly or reasonably construed (always a topic of debate) - however I feel it is relevant for context here is any event). RevertBob is essentially a WP:SPA that only edits topics revolving around the antisemitism crisis in the Labour party (ignoring a mass of rapid fire minor edits back in July 2017). He also does quite a bit of reverting. I would like to point out the following behavior:
In summary - the 1RR violation above is a redline and clear violation. Misleading edit summaries are also clearly in BLP DS. Admins may also consider taking wider action in light of RevertBob's general editing practices and patterns.
Discussion concerning RevertBobStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by RevertBobThe diffs on the Jeremy Corbyn page are in relation to long-standing content dispute where editors are placing POV/opinion as facts. It's very difficult to engage with editors when the same arguments conflating RS with NPOV come up time and time again[13]. RevertBob (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Regarding additional comments by editor filing complaint: 1. This wasn't clear from the RfC close as they were closed as no consensus - no consensus for keeping or removing? 2. This was different text to the RfC as it had mixed outcome where for part of the text there may be potential consensus and part has no consensus. After seeking advice on ANI as further RfC was started here. 3. Already answered on point 1. 4. This was in response to blanket removal of content by here - a bit difficult to see the good faith removal amongst the blanket removal when done at such a brisk pace. 5. Icewhiz has templated me numerous times and gets a bit weary after a while. RevertBob (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning RevertBob
|