→Result concerning JIJJRG: some thoughts and suggestions |
→JIJJRG: time to close |
||
Line 419: | Line 419: | ||
==JIJJRG== |
==JIJJRG== |
||
{{hat|The user has been CU-blocked, the filer has been indeffed as well, and the administrators who commented were not really impressed by the request. I formally close without action--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 22:43, 28 March 2020 (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 465: | Line 466: | ||
*{{u|NatroneDay}}, please proofread this request better. Thanks. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 19:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC) |
*{{u|NatroneDay}}, please proofread this request better. Thanks. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 19:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC) |
||
* This is a request from an account barely a fortnight old, whose stated single purpose is "to defend Pat Day and provide a factual accounting of his career and to counter the one-sided slanderous and malicious attacks against Pat Day by user JIJJRG". I would guess we're looking at a family member who is not happy with the description of [[Pat Day]] in our article. {{pb}} I have some sympathy, but this isn't a matter for Arbitration Enforcement. It's obviously difficult for a brand new editor to make progress in improving an article when faced with someone who has been editing the article for years. It must be particularly galling to see the content and sources they added [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Day&diff=947705356&oldid=947700453&diffmode=source reverted]. I'm not at all happy with the edit summary for JIJJRG's reversion: ''Don't remove reliably sourced content; and you need reliable sources cited correctly and properly for any new material you add into article; and all of what you added is already in the article, including Triple Crown race wins and Breeders Cup wins''. That is very BITEy; no experienced should be telling a new editor that they need "sources cited correctly and properly". They just need sources, and your job is to show them how to format them, not use it as an excuse to remove them. {{pb}} I see from the talk page that both {{u|Drmies}} and {{u|Eggishorn}} have shown interest in the article recently. I would like to encourage them to get NatroneDay to discuss their concerns on [[Talk:Pat Day]] with JIJJRG. I think this dispute really ought to be resolved there, not here or at ANI. I would suggest trying to get NatroneDay to list text that she thinks should be included and/or rephrased (e.g. there is a good argument in BLPs to change "ranking him well behind Eddie Arcaro" to "ranking him behind Eddie Arcaro" and "but often was criticized" to "but was sometimes criticized" if our sources don't make that strong a point), and encouraging JIJJRG to try to find a consensus that both of them can live with. {{pb}} Let's see if this can be resolved at the specific location with some neutral moderators. I think we should '''dismiss''' this request. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 22:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC) |
* This is a request from an account barely a fortnight old, whose stated single purpose is "to defend Pat Day and provide a factual accounting of his career and to counter the one-sided slanderous and malicious attacks against Pat Day by user JIJJRG". I would guess we're looking at a family member who is not happy with the description of [[Pat Day]] in our article. {{pb}} I have some sympathy, but this isn't a matter for Arbitration Enforcement. It's obviously difficult for a brand new editor to make progress in improving an article when faced with someone who has been editing the article for years. It must be particularly galling to see the content and sources they added [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Day&diff=947705356&oldid=947700453&diffmode=source reverted]. I'm not at all happy with the edit summary for JIJJRG's reversion: ''Don't remove reliably sourced content; and you need reliable sources cited correctly and properly for any new material you add into article; and all of what you added is already in the article, including Triple Crown race wins and Breeders Cup wins''. That is very BITEy; no experienced should be telling a new editor that they need "sources cited correctly and properly". They just need sources, and your job is to show them how to format them, not use it as an excuse to remove them. {{pb}} I see from the talk page that both {{u|Drmies}} and {{u|Eggishorn}} have shown interest in the article recently. I would like to encourage them to get NatroneDay to discuss their concerns on [[Talk:Pat Day]] with JIJJRG. I think this dispute really ought to be resolved there, not here or at ANI. I would suggest trying to get NatroneDay to list text that she thinks should be included and/or rephrased (e.g. there is a good argument in BLPs to change "ranking him well behind Eddie Arcaro" to "ranking him behind Eddie Arcaro" and "but often was criticized" to "but was sometimes criticized" if our sources don't make that strong a point), and encouraging JIJJRG to try to find a consensus that both of them can live with. {{pb}} Let's see if this can be resolved at the specific location with some neutral moderators. I think we should '''dismiss''' this request. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 22:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC) |
||
{{hab}} |
Revision as of 22:43, 28 March 2020
Race and intelligence
Consensus here is against unanimously implementing an IP ban. Continue to deal with issues on a case by case basis, and feel free to try to renegotiate this in the community forum. Regards, ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:46, 23 March 2020 (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 Race and intelligence
At Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Exclude IP accounts and the result of Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Dispute_resolution diff there seems to be some strong arguments made that this area should not be subject to IP editing for fear of sockpuppetry and its attendant abuses. Some commentary indicated that "community input" was needed, but as these pages are under DS, I request an administrator to step in and force the issue. Allowing IP editing on the talkpage is entirely disruptive and is additionally causing issues with respect to measuring consensus and being able to track history as one particular user is using a dynamic IP that changes essentially constantly. Previous requests to semi-protect the page were rebuffed at WP:RfPP since it was beyond their remit. I believe that judicious application of this remedy here via WP:AE would help in these disputes. It might also help to apply it to additional related pages, but I'll leave that to others to propose in due time. jps (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: I don't think the special contributions method works very well. It seems to me that there are a lot of false positives in this list of edits: [1] I feel like I'm in a catch-22 situation here where the admins are annoyed because I'm not providing a lot of evidence, but I'm having a hard time finding a way to actually collect the evidence. We're talking about an article under discretionary sanctions so if this isn't avoiding WP:SCRUTINY, what is it? jps (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Okay, so it looks like a lot of admins, with the possible exception of @RegentsPark: are coalescing around the idea of asking for a clarification from arbcomm. I wonder if arbcom might be open to making a decision by simple motion? Question for the admins: is there any debate here about whether WP:DS gives WP:AE the remit to do things like semi-protect talkpages? My interpretation was that this is in line with what standard discretionary sanctions are supposed to entail, but reading the admin discussion makes me wonder whether there is some confusion about this. On the other hand, maybe y'all are just too tired with the conflict and want arbcomm to step in and do some housecleaning? My basic point is, I think it best if an admin who thinks arbitration is needed would be the one to pose the problem to them because I am still unclear what exactly y'all think about this. Is it that you feel your hands are tied or is it that you don't have the necessary information to move forward? jps (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
[2].
Discussion concerning Race and intelligenceStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Mr rnddudeThis is forum-shopping. There is insufficient support for ejecting IP editors from being able to comment on Talk:Race and intelligence, and IP editors are already restricted from being able to edit the article. JPS's proposal failed to gain adequate traction. Wikipedia is not a dictatorship, we do not need autocratic measures. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by Levivich (R&I)Ivanvector just closed Talk:Race and intelligence#Exclude IP accounts as no consensus. No comment on whether this should be an AE thing or an RFC or what, but I think it's worth noting, on the numbers, that proposal looks like it went 10 opposed, 9 support. But of the opposes, two editors are now TBANed and/or indef'd, 2 are IPs, 2 are non-EC SPA accounts, and 4 are registered EC accounts. Discount non-EC !votes and it's 9 - 4 in support. (I didn't !vote but I would have supported it.) I think there is already consensus to semi-protect the talk page. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC) Talk:Race and intelligence#Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Race and intelligence (esp. the close) are recent examples. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC) @Ivanvector and El C: I'm sorry but Special:Contributions/2600:1004:b140::/44 does not capture all recent IP contribs. For example, that range omits the following IP addresses, each of which have edited Talk:Race and intelligence, or the dispute resolution page I linked to above, and/or some other related page (like Heiner Rindermann), within the last two weeks:
At the DR request, 2600:1012:B042:1ED6:89E2:C68C:38B:3A8 stated that they were a different editor than 99.48.35.129 or 2600:1004:B166:536E:8800:9BF8:FCBA:FABB. That was three days ago, and 2600:1012's only contribs are to the DR page. I have no idea how many people these IPs are. Does anyone? How do we have a discussion like this? I'm not sure what AE can do, but the problem is definitely a real problem. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC) 30/500 protection would help. Just look at all the SPAs (I just tagged them) at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#RfC on race and intelligence. Same thing with the DR request–new IPs just popping up to join that conversation? This is like IPA, not just the article, but the whole topic area should be 30/500. Also, an editor who cannot use cookies would not be able to log in to JSTOR, Gale, PubMed, or any other website on the web, so that begs the question, if you can't register an account because your device doesn't support cookies (and what kind of device doesn't support cookies?), then you can't read any of the sources, either, unless you have print copies of all of them, and if you can't read the sources, then how can you participate in discussions about the sources? Also, what kind of device doesn't support cookies but supports PDFs? I'm not really buying this claim. Anyway, 30/500 helps IPA, it'll help here, too. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by Dlthewave
Statement by SMcCandlishI agree with Levivich's analysis. This is a WP:FALSECONSENSUS situation (more precisely, a false failure to come to consensus). As a long-term though very intermittent patroller of this and related "race" articles, I know from long experience that the majority of input from anons there is not constructive and that their unconstructive input is frequent. I mean seriously 100 archive pages? The amount of editorial time wasted on trolls and socks and meat is probably the reason the article is in such not-exactly-FA-material shape. When sockpuppeteers are forced to create new accounts to do what they do, it's much easier to patrol them (if a new account's first edit is to run to this article and make posts that say the same things as the last 10 socks of Mikemikev that we blocked, we have a tidy WP:DUCK situation). If an anon who insists on remaining one is dead certain there's a policy/sourcing issue to raise about this article, they can do so at the appropriate WP:Noticeboard, which will also have sufficient uninvolved watchlisters to address the matter if legitimate, or get a disruptive socker blocked all the more quickly. But that article's talk page (very recent attention notwithstanding) is a backwater playground for trolling sockpuppets and has been for years. That's not what article talk pages are for. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by SirfurboyHaving been summoned by In actu (talk · contribs)'s ping, I must confess I am confused by: "I would like a firm argument as to why we haven't reached the point for the AE admins to file a request for a second review of the original case on WP:ARCA." What was the original case we are referring to? I don't think it was anything I was involved in unless you are referring to the AfD. As I am here though, El_C (talk · contribs) says: "I think (any) :2600 IPs should be seen as a single individual in the context of this topic area." 2600::/16 is about half of the ARIN IPv6 address space![3], and in this case conflates at least two editors. The recent IP editors to this or related pages are:
Sprayitchyo is a problem, and SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) makes a good case about past issues from other IP trolls, but let's be clear that we can identify "2600:1004:b1::/40" from the others, and the actual number of IP editors on this article at this time is at most 5 and almost entirely just the one editor. We cannot selectively allow one IP editor so the community must decide whether the loss of edits from one editor who has acted in good faith is acceptable in pursuing closing down of other IP socking issues. I make no !vote on that. I said before I would not take a side on this issue, and I will not do so now. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by Robert McClenonI will respond on behalf of DRN. We haven't had a position of coordinator for more than a year, and I cannot recall Nihlus ever actually mediating a dispute anyway. I closed a dispute request by an unregistered editor, concerning Race and Intelligence, for various reasons, including that at least two editors said that they did not think that DRN was in order, as well as that it is more difficult to conduct dispute resolution with an unregistered editor whose IP address changes. There are at least two unregistered editors in Race and intelligence, one using various IPv6 addresses in the 2600.1004.* range, and one using IPv4 addresses in either the 99.* range or the 73.* range. Also, I think that there was conflation of Dispute Resolution, which is a policy and a general process, and the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, which is a specific forum for carrying out the process. Some of the administrators here at Arbitration Enforcement said that the parties should be using Dispute Resolution rather than dragging their disputes to a conduct forum. I think that 2600.1004 thought that they had been told to go to DRN, which is only one of the forums for dispute resolution. DRN is voluntary. All of the dispute resolution processes are voluntary, except for Request for Comments, which has the advantage that it is binding. I would prefer to work with editors who have names and so whose handles do not change. However, if there is a dispute where editors and administrators agree that DRN involving one or more unregistered editors with dynamic IP addresses in blocks is the best way to resolve the dispute, I am willing to act as the mediator, at least if I have an administrator backing me up, that is, ready to intervene so that intervention is not necessary. User:Ivanvector? User:RegentsPark? User:Sirfurboy? Do at least two editors have a content dispute where they agree that moderated dispute resolution at DRN is the best way to resolve the dispute? Are they willing to abide by the usual rules? Or is this not really about DRN after all? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Recommendation by Robert McClenonMultiple attempts to resolve this dispute by the community and by the administrators at Arbitration Enforcement have been unsuccessful. I concur with the recommendation that the Arbitration Committee needs to be asked to open a full case. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by PaleoNeonate
Levivich seems right about the closure of the RFC that should probably be reviewed. —PaleoNeonate – 23:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by NihlusI am not sure why my name was brought up by Robert McClenon alongside an unnecessary and erroneous attack on my performance. The DRN removed the coordinator role long ago; although I would say the role should return as it is seemingly a mess at the current moment. I have no comments on this case as I am not familiar with its history. Nihlus 14:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Race and intelligence
|
PainMan
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.
Request concerning PainMan
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- PainMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Standard discretionary sanctions :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 03:33, 19 March 2020 Edits John Mitchel, a prominent Irish nationalist activist
- 03:35, 19 March 2020 Further edit to John Mitchel
- 03:51, 19 March 2020 Edits Young Irelander Rebellion of 1848, an Irish nationalist uprising against British rule
- 09:14, 19 March 2020 Edits Land War, which is again about Irish nationalism
- 03:47, 21 March 2020 Changes "Dáil Éireann" to "Dáil Éireann (Irish parliament)", edits like this got him topic-banned to begin with
- 03:48, 21 March 2020 Changes "Taoiseach" to "Taoiseach (prime minister)", edits like this got him topic-banned to begin with
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 20:25, 1 March 2020
You are indefinitely topic-banned from making edits relating to The Troubles, broadly construed
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Already subject to discretionary sanctions, see above section.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Standard discretionary sanctions makes it clear it isn't just limited to articles relating to The Troubles, but covering Irish nationalism in general.
- @In actu: I guess it depends how you define "broadly construed". As the discretionary sanction in the case says it covers Irish nationalism in general. While The Troubles definitely started in the 1960s they can't really be seen in isolation. In the 20th century alone before the Troubles there was the 1916 Easter Rising, 1919-1921 Irish War of Independence, 1939-1940 S-Plan, 1942-1944 Northern campaign (Irish Republican Army) and 1956-1962 Border campaign (Irish Republican Army), and Irish opposition to British rule didn't start in the 20th century. I wouldn't object to this being closed with a clear message to PainMan as to the extent of the topic ban, if his edits are seen as a good faith mistake. FDW777 (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Since this report has been made PainMan has made this edit (changing "Dáil Éireann" to "Dáil Éireann (Irish parliament)" and this edit (changing "Taoiseach" to "Taoiseach (prime minister)". That would appear to me to a continuation of the disruptive behaviour from before, albeit with a slight variation. FDW777 (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning PainMan
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.
Statement by PainMan
Statement by (username)
Result concerning PainMan
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I realize it may be contentious whether these articles fall under "The Troubles, broadly construed" so I'll leave this for more comments,
but in my opinion each of these edits is a clear violation of the topic ban and an AE block of no less than one month is warranted.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)- Partially struck. Not linked above AFAIK but the ban discussion is here. The pages presented as evidence of disruptive editing were Operation Flavius, Battle of the Bogside, Ulster Volunteer Force, Ulster Defence Association, Ulster Special Constabulary, and ETA (separatist group). All but the last of these fall within the scope of the ban as worded, and the last would not even if the scope were expanded. The disruptive behaviour was repeatedly changing "Taoiseach" to "Prime Minister of Ireland" (or variations) against consensus, and edit warring, across all of the articles. Since the topic ban PainMan has evidently respected it despite a series of outbursts on 9 March ([6], [7], [8]) and again yesterday ([9], [10], [11]). The pages they've edited since do not fall under that scope per other comments here, and they don't seem to be repeating the same disruptive behaviour, so I don't see the benefit of extending the topic ban and do not support it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC) (edited 19:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC))
- I think this is purposeful skirting of the ban conditions by editing topics which are contentious and related to the topic area, just not directly, although one can easily say: The Troubles -> irish nationalism, hence construed. I see two options here: 1) extend the ban to the entire remedy area of TT (found in the case) which includes British and Irish nationalism (et al.), and 2) AE block. I say the edits definitely violate the spirit of the TBAN, and maybe also its letter. --qedk (t 心 c) 13:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- To me, The Troubles started in the 1960s. So, the edits are not within the bounds of the topic ban. However, they weren't a great idea. I would extend the topic ban to all of Irish nationalism and not block --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 15:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- This looks to me to be clearly against the spirit of the topic ban, but not the letter of it. Accordingly I think the topic ban should be extended to match the extent of the DS authorisation (The Troubles, Irish nationalism and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed) with a warning to PainMan that any further boundary testing will result in sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- According to our own article on the subject,
The Troubles (Irish: Na Trioblóidí) were an ethno-nationalist[13][14][15][16] conflict in Northern Ireland during the late 20th century
(emphasis added). I do not see these edits as violations, though I agree they're skirting rather close.Given that they were not apparently contentious or any type of misconduct, I would not extend the topic ban based upon them, but I would certainly warn PainMan that there will be no hesitation to do so if there's any trouble.Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)- Based upon the last two edits, I would now support expanding the topic ban. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- The text of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles #Standard discretionary sanctions separately names three areas:
"all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed."
So I concede that the sanction applied on 1 March 2020, "You are indefinitely topic-banned from making edits relating to The Troubles, broadly construed" doesn't strictly cover the other areas, although that may have been the admin's intention, and certain the spirit of the restriction, as Thryduulf so clearly reasons. I agree that an explicit extension of the topic ban to "You are indefinitely topic-banned from making edits relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed" would be a reasonable response to this request. That should then solve the issue one way or another. --RexxS (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)- I intentionally narrowed it (agreeing with the consensus formed and my own judgement) with the implied expectation that they would cease making contentious edits in the entire topic area. Apart from this, PainMan does not seem to understand that communication is required, the last time they did not participate in the AE request, then went to edit AE archives after their sanction to add a statement (which comes to me as a lack of WP:CIR), and for some reason, went to debate the sanction on Thryduulf's TP even though I was the sanctioning administrator (again, WP:CIR). Their justification last time was that they do not get talk page message notifications on their phone, which even if makes sense, talk page message notifs are also sent to emails and you can still access your talk page if not notified, it's a general expectation to do so.
The templateAnd yet again, PainMan has not participated in this AE request. --qedk (t 心 c) 10:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC){{Userlinks}}
also notifies editors on the mobile interface (correct me if I'm wrong).- @QEDK: I've just tested in my sandbox, and the {{userlinks}} template does generate pings if the edit adding it is signed. Notifications on the mobile web interface work as they do on desktop. On the Android app you have to explicitly look to see if you have notifications (which can only be done when viewing the main page I believe), but when you do look you do see notifications of pings and talk page messages (I presume the iOS app works similarly but I don't have any way of testing that). Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, struck. On a technical note, the mobile advanced web interface and the mobile desktop version both show notifications by the way. --qedk (t 心 c) 13:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- I've just looked at their contributions list, and it seems they only edit using the Android app so we can't be certain they've seen the notifications or talk page messages. They do not have an email set so that option isn't available, and I'm not certain what else we can do? Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, struck. On a technical note, the mobile advanced web interface and the mobile desktop version both show notifications by the way. --qedk (t 心 c) 13:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- @QEDK: I've just tested in my sandbox, and the {{userlinks}} template does generate pings if the edit adding it is signed. Notifications on the mobile web interface work as they do on desktop. On the Android app you have to explicitly look to see if you have notifications (which can only be done when viewing the main page I believe), but when you do look you do see notifications of pings and talk page messages (I presume the iOS app works similarly but I don't have any way of testing that). Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- I intentionally narrowed it (agreeing with the consensus formed and my own judgement) with the implied expectation that they would cease making contentious edits in the entire topic area. Apart from this, PainMan does not seem to understand that communication is required, the last time they did not participate in the AE request, then went to edit AE archives after their sanction to add a statement (which comes to me as a lack of WP:CIR), and for some reason, went to debate the sanction on Thryduulf's TP even though I was the sanctioning administrator (again, WP:CIR). Their justification last time was that they do not get talk page message notifications on their phone, which even if makes sense, talk page message notifs are also sent to emails and you can still access your talk page if not notified, it's a general expectation to do so.
- I've never commented in one of these things before but I think it's also worth considering these edits to Charles Boycott, another topic related to Irish nationalism, which I just reverted because I saw them as mostly detrimental. I don't want to get any further involved though ... I only have that article on my watchlist because I found his life story fascinating. Feel free to move this comment if it's in the wrong place. Graham87 05:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Do you really see these edits as disruptive? In one instance they changed "Boycott worked as a land agent for Lord Erne (John Crichton, 3rd Earl Erne), a landowner in the Lough Mask area" to "Boycott worked as a land agent for the the Earl Erne, a landowner in the Lough Mask area". The revision has an extra "the" but otherwise removing the awkward parenthetical seems like a reasonable improvement to me. You reverted stating "makes the text more stilted" but I think the reverse is true. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Graham says he saw them as "detrimental", not "disruptive". You have to remember not every English speaker shares the same idiomatic usages, and the phrase "a land agent for the Earl Erne" sounds archaic to me. Graham, who is Australian, might well find that a very odd use of a definite article. You wouldn't write "a land agent for the King George". Taking into account the overlinking, I have to agree with Graham that those edits were not an improvement to the article, and don't improve my confidence that PainMan's contributions outside of the strict range of their current topic ban are likely to be a net positive. --RexxS (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Do you really see these edits as disruptive? In one instance they changed "Boycott worked as a land agent for Lord Erne (John Crichton, 3rd Earl Erne), a landowner in the Lough Mask area" to "Boycott worked as a land agent for the the Earl Erne, a landowner in the Lough Mask area". The revision has an extra "the" but otherwise removing the awkward parenthetical seems like a reasonable improvement to me. You reverted stating "makes the text more stilted" but I think the reverse is true. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- While The Troubles discretionary sanctions are authorized so that they can be expanded beyond The Troubles, the relevant sanction here was not, the edits here do not violate the ban, even "broadly construed", nor do I see them as disruptive enough (or at all) to justify expanding the scope of the ban, even though we can. There is no violation here. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think the last two diffs are enough to warrant expanding the topic ban to "The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed". These edits are identical to some which prompted the topic ban being imposed in the first place, only on different pages. There is a widespread consensus that the use of these words is OK (e.g. here) which means that continuing to make these changes without discussion is disruptive. I agree that the other diffs don't reasonably relate to the Troubles, our article describes the Troubles as starting in the 1960s and nineteenth century history doesn't count. Just as a topic ban from the American Civil War wouldn't cover the entire history of race relations in the US. Hut 8.5 08:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
SunCrow
SunCrow blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing as a normal admin action. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:12, 22 March 2020 (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 SunCrow
SunCrow is an active participant at talk:Unplanned, arguing from a hard-line anti-abortion POV. There is ongoing discussion of SunCrow's desire to change the statement noting that abortion in the US is safer than childbirth, to the status of assertion. There is no consensus for this change, but SunCrow has now made the change on at least five separate occasions. The content has a piped link to abortion in the United States, which includes, inter alia, the following:
References
In rebuttal to this, SunCrow states ([13]): So: SunCrow is repeatedly changing the documented medical fact, backed in the linked article by MEDRS, to a personal POV that is not backed by any RS but instead based on personal philosophy, and doing so despite knowing that there is no consensus for this change. In fact according to this revert by Symmachus Auxiliarus, Redux: SunCrow's personal opinion of abortion and those who perform it is driving content edits against consensus, and this is disruptive. Guy (help!) 12:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SunCrowStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SunCrowGuy's request for enforcement is deeply misleading.
I brought my concerns to the talk page (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unplanned#Safety_issue) in an effort to build consensus. The issue is that an assertion that abortion is safer than childbirth can only be considered accurate if one assumes that the safety of the fetus is not part of the equation. To be clear, my goal was not to remove the sentence, but only to edit it so that the contention it includes is made in the speaker's voice and not in the encyclopedia's voice. I proposed four (4) different solutions, each of which has been rejected.
Guy's assertion that I have "repeatedly changing the documented medical fact, backed in the linked article by MEDRS, to a personal POV that is not backed by any RS but instead based on personal philosophy, and doing so despite knowing that there is no consensus for this change" is--with the exception of the part about no consensus--false. The disputed sentence does not contain a medical fact. Also, I am not attempting to push a POV, but to make the encyclopedia neutral and balanced in a topic area that is highly charged and controversial. While I have pushed hard to edit this particular sentence and I acknowledge there is no current consensus to change it, the edit I am attempting to make is correct and in line with WP:NPOV. The encyclopedia should not take a position on the abortion issue, and the current version of the disputed sentence does exactly that. My attempts to gain consensus should be taken into account as well.
Statement by Doug WellerMy few experiences with SunCrow have been bad. Two years ago SunCrow changed the lead for the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood [14] I did some work on the section concerning a major statement it made, and then added one sentence to the lead (which at that point made no attempt to summarise the article).[15] SunCrow reverted my attempt to start improving the lead and add some balance[16] with the edit summary "removed material from lede that is adequately addressed below and is not notable enough to be placed in the lede". Not only is it obvious that we'd have barely no lead if it didn't contain material well addressed in the body of the article, the text was about the organisation's Nashville Statement which is clearly notable, read its article. I ran into him recently at Alan Sears where they removed a comment on a book by Sears[17] with the edit summary "remove POV material sourced to advocacy organization website", ie the SPLC. SunCrow objected at Talk:Alan Sears#Citation to SPLC Website arguing that the SPLC is " an advocacy group whose ideology is diametrically opposed to that of ADF (the organization Sears founded). I removed the material sourced to that website, but Doug Weller reinstated the material. I don't see this as a close call. The SPLC website isn't a reliable source for this page." I pointed out that we can use such groups so long as they are attributed and that they could raise this at RSN (where as we know its been discussed always with the same result, we can use it attributed). That was in January. On March 9th SunCrow removed text attributed to the SPLC[18] from David Barton (author) with the edit summary "not notable or reliable", whatever that meant, which I later restored. They used the same "notability' argument when removing a statement that Barton lectures at Glen Beck's Book University, "source does not establish notability".[19] Their edits on all three of these articles were basically whitewashing - not every edit, some were probably justified, but that was the basic result, and they seem to have a serious problem with understanding what sort of sources we can use and the concept of "notability". Or in a nutshell, pov editing with specious rationales. Any topic ban should be wider than just abortion. Doug Weller talk 20:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning SunCrow
|
GizzyCatBella
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.
Request concerning GizzyCatBella
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- François Robere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- 23:06, 25 June 2018 T-ban from "World War II history of Poland" :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 02:21, 21 March 2020 Restored a photo of the body of an executed war criminal who governed Eastern Europe (including half of Poland) on behalf of the Nazi regime. The restoration was justified as "reverting vandalism or test edit", but the removal was neither ("Portrait of a dead person").
- 01:00, 24 February 2020 Changed
[[Lviv]]
to[[Lwow|Lwów]], [[Second Polish Republic|Poland]]
. The time frame and place - 1943 in occupied Poland - fall strictly within the remit of the ban. The substance of the edit - the change of name from the Ukrainian Lviv to the Polish Lwów, and the mention of the then-dissolved Second Polish Republic - concerns the results of the 1939 invasion by Soviet and Nazi forces, so it too is part of the ban. - 22:04, 21 March 2020 Commented on Talk:Latvian Legion. The LL was involved in the 1945 Podgaje massacre of Polish forces, so part of "World War II history of Poland". More broadly, the subject of wartime enmities between the various Slavic nations is still charged enough (see eg. here) to merit caution if a T-ban is in place.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 23:06, 25 June 2018 T-ban from "World War II history of Poland".
- 12:50, 18 May 2019 Block for T-ban violation.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Despite sanctions, editor remains involved in the topic area.[24][25]
- In addition, the editor seems focused on Jewish Communists[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] and criminals,[34][35] adding bits of unsourced information[36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] to many articles (see admin's comment here). While one's choice of subjects on Wikipedia is not always a problem in its own right, Sandstein's original conclusion[44] that the editor "[edits] articles about the World War II history of Poland with a view to... making them more sympathetic to right-wing Poles, and less sympathetic to Polish Jews or left-wing Poles" raises questions in this case.
- The editor also seems focused on removing properly sourced information related to antisemitism[45][46][47][48][49] and prejudice[50][51][52][53][54][55] in Poland, usually stating that it was either "undue" or "not in source". I've checked all of the sources so marked (including one marked "OR" that was mentioned earlier), and all of them pan out.[56][57][58][59] Deferring to Sandstein again, who invited the editor to show "evidence of substantial, competent, prejudice-free editing in other topic areas".
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning GizzyCatBella
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.
Statement by GizzyCatBella
I’ll respond tonight or tomorrow (busy volunteering in our community - pandemic situation stuff)GizzyCatBella🍁 23:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay, enough is enough! This is an extremely ill-intended report - a continuation of block shopping attempts [61], followed by disgusting insinuations of antisemitism and support of a permanently banned user Icewhiz and his possible sock accounts. This bad-faith report should be dismissed and BOOMERANGED. I will additionally inform ARBCOM about this.
Francois Robere has been hounding me and trying to get me blocked ever since the conclusion of the Icewhiz arbitration case (evidence to follow)
Let me address the main accusations first: (none of the three diffs provided violate the topic ban)
- 1- I reverted IP account edit [62] that I viewed as vandalism. Please note that the same IP editor removed similar photos from 2 other pages and has been also promptly reverted by Antique Rosehere [63] and here [64]. So yes, it was a vandalism in our opinion. The fact that Francois Robere would try to get someone sanctioned over this legitimate revert of vandalism shows how bad faithed this is.
- 2 - This diff is completely unrelated to WW2 in Poland [65] has nothing to do with WW2 in Poland. A brand new account removed the birthplace of a composer who has not been involved in WW2 so I reverted that. And of top of all that this was clearly a sock puppet [66] of indef banned user Icewhiz [67]
- 3 - a Talk:Latvian Legion I commented on the talk page in support of K.e.coffman. Latvian Legion is unrelated to WW2 in Poland. It's about Latvia. The Legion might have done something in Poland at some point but this isn't the nature of the edit or the subject of the discussion. The Dutch soldiers of the Kampfgruppe Elster 48 SS took part in the Podgaje massacre I also didn't even discuss the issue of the WW2 murder in my comment. [68] Francois Robere is pretending that it is somehow related through some kind of 7 degrees of separation. Again, the fact that he brings this up and pretends that is a violation underscores the insanely bad faithed nature of this report. Which is worth of a boomerang alone.
Now the additional comments of Francois Robere:
- 1- I don't remain involved in WW2 Poland related topics since my ban advanced almost 2 years ago (!) This is a totally false and shameful fabrication.This [69] was a misunderstanding shortly after my ban was introduced and promptly explained by the imposing administrator and this [70] refers to Poland before WW2 that started 2 years later.
- 2 and 3 - are disgusting insinuations of me being an anti-Semite. Francois Robere was previously warned not to cast aspersions against me without convincing evidence. [71], he was warned by Bovlb not to accuse me of being racist, [72]. He was also advised by Black Kite to scale down with his accusations of antisemitism[73] and eventually was blocked [74] by TonyBallioni for insinuating without evidence that I'm an anti-Semite.
In addition in 3 FR claims "I've checked all of the sources so marked (including one marked "OR" that was mentioned earlier), and all of them pan out". This is not true and it’s not clear why we should take his word for it. If the info is in fact in the sources he can make the argument on the talk page rather than come to WP:AE and try to get another editor sanction. The truth is that most of this content is indeed undue or not in the source, as has been noted by several editors.
Francois Robere padded the report with multiple diffs in his “additional comments” section to create a false appearance of some kind of malfeasance. He knows these diffs are not violations else he would include them in his “violation” section. And these are indeed ridiculous. For example, there’s nothing wrong with noting that a Soviet communist was a Soviet communist [75].It’s also worth noting that this is again reverting edits by one of Icewhiz’s likely sock puppets [76]. Likewise this diff [77] concerns another one of Icewhiz’s socks [78],[79].
I realize that this would require a separate report but I wish to note that ever since Icewhiz was indefinitely banned, Francois Robere, who has formerly “co-edited” many articles with Icewhiz and never disagreed on any issue, has been protecting and enabling the multitude of Icewhiz socks. Icewhiz (and his other indef banned friend Yanniv Huron) have created over 80 socks to circumvent their bans. Francois Robere has repeatedly complained that these socks’ edits are reverted. This is part of this WP:MEATPUPPETing pattern. Francois Robere’s claim 3 in this section is especially problematic. Honestly, this as an attempt at provocation intended to make me lose my temper. It is a not so subtle insinuation of antisemitism, which is exactly the kind of false and vile accusation that led to Icewhiz’s topic ban and subsequent indef ban from the topic area. Most of these edits are again removals of the text inserted originally by Icewhiz or his sock puppets. Why is Francois Robere so blatantly and insistently WP:MEATPUPPETing for an indefinitely banned user?
I'm very upset with dishonest, disgusting insinuations of me being an Anti-Semite and continuation of the WP:HOUNDING Francois Robere has engaged in ever since the conclusion of the Icewhiz arbitration case and would like to see it fully stoped NOW.GizzyCatBella🍁 23:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- @RexxS Thank you for your review, I appreciate the fact that you took the time to study this case closely. I would like to reassure you that I didn't and don't have the slightest intention of breaching my topic ban and my edits were in good faith. Please note that my TP has been imposed almost 2 years ago with a possibility of appeal in 6 months. Meantime, I completed hundreds if not thousands of edits, including article creations, and if I was purposely trying to by-pass my TP by cheating it would be noticed by people other than Francois Robere. I didn't rush with an appeal because I'm enjoying editing other topic areas but due to these constant attempts of Francois Robere to get me blocked, using the topic ban as an excuse, I'll be appealing my TP soon on this page. Once again thank you for your time.GizzyCatBella🍁 03:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Black Kite - thank you, I'll take your good advice into the heart and thank you for your time examining the case.GizzyCatBella🍁 11:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Ymblanter - thank you for your time, I appreciate you inspecting it more thoroughly.GizzyCatBella🍁 11:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Awilley - Thank you, that's excellent advice. Never thought about it.. I think all people with topic ban limitations should follow that.GizzyCatBella🍁 23:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Please take some time in reviewing my topic ban appeal that I’ll be posting here shortly. Thanks again for your time and great administrative work which is not easy, really apreciated.GizzyCatBella🍁 11:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Piotrus
I concur with User:RexxS that the most applicable action is a warning to be more careful and a note that BANREVERT does not overrule a topic ban. Neither of the three topics is obviously related to Poland and WWII history, and I am rather concerned that good faith is nowhere to be found in this report. The one that's according to RexxS "most connected" to Poland, Alfred Rosenberg, doesn't even mention Poland outside a footnote. Yes, he governed some conquered EE territories, including part of Poland, for a while, but it is not common knowledge (I am quite interested in this topic area and I've never heard of him), and if one is reverting some vandalism and doesn't read an article carefully, it is a an easy fact to miss. We should assume good faith. GCG's edits were not concerned with anything connected with Polish WWII history. If the removed picture was related to this topic, yes, there would be a cause for concern. But it wasn't, and neither is this a biography one of a person significant in Polish history. I think a good rule of thumb for such cases is to check the lead of an article. If the lead doesn't seem to mention topics related to an edit ban, we should not expect the editor to read the entire article, to see if an unrelated edit might (such as adding or removing a picture that has no violation to the topic ban) be a borderline topic ban violation because of some minute fact mentioned somewhere deep in the article. The other two diffs are even further removed from this, how many degrees of separation one needs for something to even be borderline? That someone was born in Poland in WWII makes his or her article fall within a topic ban? C'mon. Neither is Latvian Legion related, it was about as involved in Polish WWII history as Greek partisans (which had a few Polish volunteers, you can always find a connection), US or UK armies (which did air drops in Poland and were war time allies), or the issue of Polish-Japanese relations (which to my surprise was actually subject to a study within WWII context: [80]), or the article about the continent of Europe itself. Sure, if you try to find a connection, you always will, for almost any edit ("Give me the man, there'll be a paragraph for him" [81]). Let's focus on the intention of the topic ban, which was to prevent GCB from editing topics related to Poland and WWII: she hasn't. No problems here - outside of the bad faith in the report itself.
I am also concerned with the fact that the user making the report (FR) has not been editing the topic area much in the last few months, nor interacting with the editor reported (GCB). This report comes 'out of the blue', as the topics related to Poland, Polish-Jewish history and World War II have been peaceful for the last few months (no edit warring, protections, AE reports, prolonged content disputes of any kind, all "hotspots" have gone quiet), which can IMHO be easily explained as they become problematic only when the now-indef banned User:Icewhiz (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-10-31/In the media for context) became active in them around 2016/2017. Since his emergency ArbCom ban few months ago (for off wiki harassment and other misdoings) this area has been very quiet, just like for the years prior. So how come FR, not active in related topic areas, is reporting GCB, who seem to be doing a relatively good job not violating her topic ban? It seems rather strange for someone not active in the same topic areas as another editor, nor interacting with him, to nonetheless monitor his activities, log borderline diffs and file an AE. How come he didn't politely ask GCB to self-revert and be more careful, encouraging AGF and mending fences? I explicitly asked him to try to discuss things first with others before going to AE few months ago (User_talk:François_Robere#WP:BRD) and I sad my advice was apparently ignored. I see no desire to 'build the encyclopedia' in this report, only a sad intention to resurrect a smoldering WP:BATTLEGROUND. In fact, I don't even think this fits FR's personality, and I have a suspicion that this is an AE based on diffs and filled on behalf of the indef-banned Icewhiz, who tried socking few months ago (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz); the socks where caught in wide range blocks, but apparently they are still active here, monitoring their "enemies", and reaching out "from the wiki grave" with a desire to revenge. (PS. For what it is worth, I have came to the same MEATPUPPET conclusion before reading GCB's statement; I didn't want to color my analysis by reading the defendant point - yet we arrived at the same conclusion.)
The best thing we can do is try to rebuild our pre-battleground, collegial atmosphere from before Icewhiz poisoned it, not try to resurrect it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Lepricavark
This is too much of a 'gotcha' report for my liking. The filer doesn't seem to have presented the full story regarding the first diff and the other two are not unambiguous violations. Before we do anything further, somebody should ask GizzyCatBella to substantiate their accusations regarding Icewhiz and Francois. I'm not saying that Gizzy is right, but in the light of the questionable nature of this report and the well-informed testimony of Piotrus, this bears further investigation before any action is taken. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by MyMoloboaccount
In regards to the comments above I can confirm that Icewhiz has been stalking GizzyCatBella's edits on off-wikipedia forum. As the forum is involved in revealing real life personas of users I am hesitant to provide link here but I can send a copy to the Admins(I am not a member, but it can be read by guests). Unfortunately there is possibility here of FR acting here on behalf of perma-banned user. In regards to FR behaviour I concur that the editor has been engaging in questionable behaviour including avoiding discussion with other users and simply going to WP:AE asking for immediate ban instead of following attempts to discuss, acting confrontational towards these who were targeted by Icewhiz in the past;his ongoing snipes at my personal contributed to my decision to withdraw from Wikipedia and led me to even openly ask him to stop posting on my page[82], which was subsequently ignored [83] and requested him to stop harassing me on Wikipedia[84].If it would be confirmed as highly likely that FR edited on behalf of Icewhiz would it fall under proxing rules [85]] ? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning GizzyCatBella
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Looks like we need a block here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- At the moment this isn't looking clear-cut to me. To save everyone checking here is the text of the topic ban:
That is pretty comprehensive, but I'm not convinced that all three diffs show blatant breaches of the topic ban. The first one was to the biography of "head of the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories", and GizzyCatBella ought not to be editing it; reverting what they think is vandalism isn't a defence against breaching a topic ban. The second was to a BLP of a Polish composer born in 1943. I understand the issues about Lviv (Ukraine) versus Lwów (Poland) but in my humble opinion, considering that particular area of dispute sufficiently related to "the World War II history of Poland" is a bit of a stretch. The third one about the Latvian Legion really doesn't seem to be directly related to Poland in WWII either. Nevertheless, an editor under a topic ban shouldn't be editing topics anywhere near their topic ban, and if it has to come down to an admin's opinion, rather than being a clear-cut "no violation", then the editor is skating on thin ice. I note that GizzyCatBella has received two blocks: for 3 days in 2018 for breaching WP:ARBEE 1RR; and for 7 days in 2019 for breach of their topic ban. My initial reaction would be to warn GizzyCatBella against going anywhere near topics that might be considered WWII-Poland, and to never rely on WP:BANREVERT or any other exemption as an excuse for breaching a topic ban. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise if others can see things that I've missed. --RexxS (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Your are topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from the World War II history of Poland. For the avoidance of doubt, this includes any acts of violence by, in or against Poland, or by or against Poles or Polish Jews, during or immediately prior to or after World War II, as well as persons known for their involvement in the World War II history of Poland.
- Agreed; these are a bit of a stretch, especially as the first one (which was the only obvious violation) was reverting disruptive editing. GizzyCatBella would be well advised to seek a second opinion on editing any article that comes anywhere near to the topic ban; and to report vandalism or disruption to an admin or a relevant noticeboard. Black Kite (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- User:GizzyCatBella, you really shouldn't even have articles covered by the topic ban on your watchlist. Just get rid of the temptation. A warning seems reasonable to me per Piotrus. I do see some POV pushing in the 11 diffs in the OP's point #3, but not enough to convince me that further sanction is our best option. ~Awilley (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
JIJJRG
The user has been CU-blocked, the filer has been indeffed as well, and the administrators who commented were not really impressed by the request. I formally close without action--Ymblanter (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2020 (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 JIJJRG
JIJJRG JIJJRG
Please block access of user JIJJRG to Pat Day page - he wars and vandalizes all of my additions which are factual and deeply researched and properly cited from the Associated Press, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, ESPN and other Wikipedia pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Day&action=history; Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pat_Day#WP%3AUNDUE_criticism_in_lead_and_%22Technique%22_section; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pat_Day#WP%3AUNDUE_criticism_in_lead_and_%22Technique%22_section*Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pat_Day&action=history; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
Discussion concerning USERNAMEStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by USERNAMEStatement by (username)Result concerning JIJJRG
|