→Statement by Wumbolo: wrong |
Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) →Statement by Fut.Perf.: blocked |
||
Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
=== Statement by Fut.Perf. === |
=== Statement by Fut.Perf. === |
||
Unless I hear some good reason not to, I'm going to block Wumbolo for a substantial period of time, for continuing to breach his topic ban with this very filing. Wumbolo is (as he has himself admitted) topic-banned from American politics. The article title in question is related to an individual whose only (hypothetical) reason for notability would be his (alleged) role in an American political scandal. Wumbolo is therefore banned not only from editing that article, but also from discussing it – including discussing its potential creation or administrative steps taken against such creation. He is also banned from filing this matter at Arbcom. This can't be stressed often enough: Arbcom isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card allowing people to continue pursuing conflicts they are not supposed to be pursuing. [[WP:BANEX]] allows only "engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, e.g. addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum". This does not include filing grievances about content issues you wouldn't be allowed to discuss elsewhere. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 16:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC) |
Unless I hear some good reason not to, I'm going to block Wumbolo for a substantial period of time, for continuing to breach his topic ban with this very filing. Wumbolo is (as he has himself admitted) topic-banned from American politics. The article title in question is related to an individual whose only (hypothetical) reason for notability would be his (alleged) role in an American political scandal. Wumbolo is therefore banned not only from editing that article, but also from discussing it – including discussing its potential creation or administrative steps taken against such creation. He is also banned from filing this matter at Arbcom. This can't be stressed often enough: Arbcom isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card allowing people to continue pursuing conflicts they are not supposed to be pursuing. [[WP:BANEX]] allows only "engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, e.g. addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum". This does not include filing grievances about content issues you wouldn't be allowed to discuss elsewhere. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 16:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC) |
||
: As per the above, and since Wumbolo was continuing digging himself deeper, I've blocked them for a week under discretionary sanction enforcement. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 17:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
=== Statement by Sandstein === |
=== Statement by Sandstein === |
Revision as of 17:24, 9 November 2019
Requests for arbitration
Drmies salting
Initiated by wumbolo ^^^ at 16:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Wumbolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Acroterion (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Statement by Wumbolo
I have been directed here by admin Ymblanter at ANI (see the discussion link).
In this case I will be referring to an article title as "XYZ" (without quotes). Unfortunately I will have to submit evidence to ArbCom privately. The evidence consists of the real title of XYZ. The reason for the evidence's privacy is oversighter and admin TonyBallioni's "oversight block" threat on my talk page.
XYZ is a mainspace article that has never been created. This fact has been corroborated by Drmies. Drmies salted XYZ anyway. That violates WP:SALT, a part of the WP:Protection policy. If anyone doesn't understand why, I can explain but honestly it's pretty obvious. This is extraordinary, since Drmies is an oversighter, and WP:Oversight requires very good knowledge of Protection Policy.
I asked Drmies on his/her talk page to unprotect the page because of WP:SALT. My request was reverted and WP:REVDELed by Acroterion.
I went to WP:RFPP to request unprotection on the basis of WP:SALT. My request was reverted and WP:REVDELed by Acroterion.
I gave Acroterion an "ultimatum" on his/her talk page. It was reverted and WP:REVDELed by Acroterion.
I finally went to ANI, where Ymblanter closed my thread and directed me to ArbCom. That's why I am requesting this case. wumbolo ^^^ 16:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: WP:NOTPOINTy. I did not disrupt Wikipedia in any related edit, and even if I did, it was clearly not on purpose. I am reporting a protection policy violation by an oversighter. There are checks and balances for non-oversight-related protection policy violations by OSers, and they are RfPP, ANI, ArbCom, etc. Your aspersions allegation is projection; by alleging aspersions without specific links, you are the one casting aspersions. wumbolo ^^^ 16:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Future Perfect at Sunrise's statement is an extreme WP:BLP violation. It's insane how I'm being revdelled without even mentioning anything related to politics, yet Fut.Perf. is here saying stuff that is oversightable according to Drmies and other editors. Selective enforcement of rules - not something I want at Wikipedia, so if this case is accepted, I would consider it justice. wumbolo ^^^ 16:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: I feel bad for casting aspersions, but I must. The evidence for the aspersions is oversightable, even though many editors are currently posting oversightable material without consequences. wumbolo ^^^ 16:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Drmies below admits that he/she will continue to violate WP:Protection policy in the future in the same way. I consider desysoping the only solution. wumbolo ^^^ 17:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Drmies is making a false statement about me. It is not ME who wants to publicize what shall not be publicized. It is admins like Fut.Perf. and several others here who want to publicize what shall not be publicized. wumbolo ^^^ 17:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
SN54129
No comment (obviously) on the oversighted material. But looking at the AN, what do we have? A very experienced editor, filing WP:POINTy ANi reports, casting aspersions, and boasting about breaching a topic ban. Really? If Wumolo has a problem with the actions of an OSer, there are checks and balances in place for him to utilise. But this approach is wholly unsatisfactory. ——SN54129 16:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Wumbolo, I've clarified precisely where you cast aspersions. Apologies for the previously vague link. ——SN54129 16:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Nick
Wumbolo seems to be causing a tremendous amount of trouble for someone who has retired. Accept, handle by motion, block Wumbolo, job done, with the additional benefit of aiding Wumbolo's retirement. Nick (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Fut.Perf.
Unless I hear some good reason not to, I'm going to block Wumbolo for a substantial period of time, for continuing to breach his topic ban with this very filing. Wumbolo is (as he has himself admitted) topic-banned from American politics. The article title in question is related to an individual whose only (hypothetical) reason for notability would be his (alleged) role in an American political scandal. Wumbolo is therefore banned not only from editing that article, but also from discussing it – including discussing its potential creation or administrative steps taken against such creation. He is also banned from filing this matter at Arbcom. This can't be stressed often enough: Arbcom isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card allowing people to continue pursuing conflicts they are not supposed to be pursuing. WP:BANEX allows only "engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, e.g. addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum". This does not include filing grievances about content issues you wouldn't be allowed to discuss elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- As per the above, and since Wumbolo was continuing digging himself deeper, I've blocked them for a week under discretionary sanction enforcement. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Sandstein
In July 2019, I topic-banned Wumbolo from US politics. It appears from the ANI thread that the page title they sought to have unprotected is related to current US politics, namely, the Trump-Ukraine scandal. If that is so, they violated the topic ban by making the unprotection request, and an enforcement block is appropriate. I will, however, leave this to admins who are able to access the relevant oversighted evidence. Sandstein 16:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Drmies
I have little to say about Wumbolo; I haven't yet checked if they were blocked or not. I don't think I was aware of Wumbolo's topic ban--it's possible that I was but I haven't been that interested in their editing. I do know them as an editor who is frequently on the edge of all kinds of POVs, and I've seen them cross that line. So this is not unexpected. Anyway, I have little to add to what is already said here. I consider Wumbolo's efforts (I have not checked all the diffs yet, except for one that Serial# posted--thank you) to be in poor taste, to say the least, and what I've seen appears to be a POV-driven BLP violation to me. As for the SALT, I did what I thought was the right thing considering our BLP, and while it was unusual (the less I say, the better, given the BLP), I would do the same thing the next time regardless of the political stance of the BLP subject, or whatever stance is ascribed to them. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Acroterion, thank you. I am now sure that Wumbolo's edits were also an effort to publicize what shouldn't have been publicized. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Statement by {Non-party}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Drmies salting: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Drmies salting: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)