ScottishFinnishRadish (talk | contribs) →Ecrusized: clerking |
BilledMammal (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 440: | Line 440: | ||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
||
{{tq|They left me 4 separate blank warning templates on my talk page regarding this, despite me telling them to stop bothering me after each one}} |
|||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> |
|||
Ecrusized, I left you four notices. It was after the third that you asked me to "Stop leaving me talk page messages please": |
|||
#Alerting you that the Arab-Israeli conflict was a contentious topic area |
|||
#Warning you about canvassing, with a custom note |
|||
#Informing you that you had violated 1RR and asking you to self-revert |
|||
#Notifying you of this discussion. |
|||
Per our policies, you are able to ban me from your talk page yourself, with the exception of required notifications such as #1 and #4, and if this is what you want please say. However, this is a double edged sword; it means any issues, even if they are as minor as a single 1RR violation, must be taken to a forum like this one rather than being resolvable through a talk page conversation. I would recommend against this, but it is your choice. 14:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
||
Line 446: | Line 453: | ||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
||
===Discussion concerning Ecrusized=== |
===Discussion concerning Ecrusized=== |
||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
Revision as of 14:10, 5 November 2023
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by AtypicalPhantom
Block endorsed, largely per rationale of ScottishFinnishRadish (blocking admin). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by AtypicalPhantomHello. It seems I have been permanently banned from editing Wikipedia because of my conduct in the Israel-Hamas conflict page. I am not sure what got me banned specifically, but I would like some transparency if possible. I don't make inflammatory comments, and my last comment was to 0300 objective. I was merely adding context to his comment which in of itself was pretty inflammatory. I see multiple users on that talk page, specifically 0300 objective, who are openly pushing their agenda rather harshly, and I obviously have a pro-Israel lean, but I am respectful with my comments. Having a nuanced discussion is integral to Wikipedia. My comment was to shed light on what was a misunderstanding. With that said, if anything I have said is overtly disallowed, I accept that, and I apologize. I can still contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia and I can exclude myself from the Israel-Hamas conflict page. I would like for the adjudicators to reevaluate my ban. If you come to the same conclusion after reevaluating my activity, you can ban me from discussing this topic, but at least grant me the opportunity to contribute to other articles.AtypicalPhantom (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Copied from their talk page per their request here and here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Statement by ScottishFinnishRadishI probably could have gone with a NOTHERE block and avoided this, but since most of the edits were in ARBPIA I went with that. [2] [3] shows the caliber of edits we're dealing with. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Objective3000 (involved?)Only commenting as I was mentioned by the appealing user. I endorse the block. But I personally don’t have a problem with an A-I TBan for AtypicalPhantom, perhaps after a cooling off period and assuming they see the problem. I say this despite their comment:
Statement by SPECIFICOI’m not familiar with the most recent discussions on this article page, but I briefly edited the article, which has lots of problems. Notwithstanding the disorderly process on that page, this AE individual's appeal should not be the place to discuss the larger need for improvements to the page restriction or AE process, which should proceed in their own space. Looking at some of appellant’s edits, I see various good-faith content views that are reasonable but which would be strengthened by documentation and source links. I also see some personalized comments that are clearly off-limits for article talk, that undermine the appellant’s content arguments, and that merit an AE sanction. Per WP:NOTHERENORMS, I do not see any basis for the blocking Admin to ‘’ex post’’ escalate the complaint against the appellant by insinuating that they are NOTHERE. That sounds like casual disparagement, suggesting that they’re lucky to have gotten the lesser sanction they received. This good faith NOTHERE surmise could be the examined in a separate AE thread, but it’s not helpful to the appeal of the current sanction. I don’t see that Appellant’s edit here, while poorly worded, is so disruptive as to be deleted by another user or Admin. It would help a new editor to improve their talk page conduct to know exactly why certain of their edits is not allowed. All in, I would favor a TBAN of a week or two during which I hope Admins or others would advise the appellant as to WP:TPG, WP:V, edit summaries, etc. and other things that new editors in contentious areas often do not understand. That plus WP:ROPE should address the conduct problem. P.S. While it's true for each individual Admin that time spent on tutoring and support of new users does take away from time spent on enforcement or other Admin roles - opportunity cost - this is not true for the Admin corps as a whole. There are hundreds of Admins who are not actively day-to-day engaged in patrolling AE or vandalism whose time may not be fully occupied on those tasks. Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by AtypicalPhantomStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor Infinity Knight)Was pointed to this discussion here. When it comes to the dilemma of viewing newcomers as a "waste of editors' time," my preference is for administrators to give the "let's provide them with guidance" approach a shot. If we start seeing new editors as a time sink, how's the topic area ever gonna draw in any new contributors? Infinity Knight (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Statement by HemiaucheniaI endorse the block and I don't think the appeal is enough to remove it. While the disruption by non-autoconfirmed and to a lesser extent non ECP users is significantly reduced than it was when the 7 day semi-protection was implemented on the 16 October, largely due to the decrease in viewers as the war progresses, I wouldn't oppose semi-protecting the page again, especially if there is an uptick in commenters following the Israel ground offensive. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by NableezyInfinity Knight's repeated attempts to insinuate wrongdoing or bias have become disruptive. They were given some useful advice by Bishonen here, it appears that has gone unheeded. Add to the generally obtuse and obstructive editing in such sections as this in which they repeatedly reverted against an obvious consensus, with their contributions to the discussion being a series of not really without ever addressing the content, and I would suggest that the negative in net negative has been met several times over. nableezy - 15:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by Nil EinneI don't feel the appeal is sufficient. I note in particular this comment ' Statement by (uninvolved editor 5)Result of the appeal by AtypicalPhantom
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by ghostlystatic
Appeal declined. Contentious topics require more than playing the NPOV game. Johnuniq (talk) 08:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by ghostlystaticI am a Jewish person and I said some uncivil things to people who I believed wanted to hide the 10/07 attacks from the Pogrom page because they wanted to downplay what happened. I didn't mean to be uncivil, but I can only play the NPOV game for so long, especially when there are some editors on here that complain that they openly can't support Palestinian terrorist groups. Kind of biased and NPOV as it is. I like this encyclopedia. If you decide to ban me, I won't stop liking it. Ghostlystatic (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by scottishfinnishradishUse your discretion they said. Certainly it won't create even more time sinks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by ghostlystaticStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)Result of the appeal by ghostlystatic
|
GWA88
Retaliatory filing without merit. Filer Carter00000 indeffed by theleekycauldron as a regular admin action. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 07:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning GWA88
Under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4
Under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any:
Discussion concerning GWA88Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GWA88I'm sorry but this seems like blatant WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour from an editor who is known to try and get people blocked he has had issues with. Since that original block in July (my one and only block over a 9 year period of editing), I have not been blocked once, whereas Carter00000 has been blocked from the portal again for "edit-warring on P:CE subpages" and making "controversial re-writes to blurbs and enforce your preferred wording.". To be honest, I did expect this to happen as soon as his most recent block ended. He has also left passive aggressive templates on my talk page, introducing me to topics I've made hundreds of edits on over the years and he knows it. I hope admins can see my contributions to the Current Events: Portal are positive and that no else aside from Carter00000 seems to have an issue with me editing there. Thanks. GWA88 (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Furthermore, I would just like any admin seeing this to take a look at my overall contributions, and not just the diffs cited. You can see I'm just an editor who has made thousands of good faith edits over a decade, and I've always tried to steer clear of drama on Wikipedia and stick to my hobby of editing, which is why I rarely if ever leave messages on user's talkpages. And with regards to dispruting Wikipedia, I've had very few disputes in this last year, and the only notable one was with Carter00000, the author of this request. I'll admit, I'm not as savvy at Wikilawyering as Carter00000, but I always try my best to stick to the general guidelines. I hope you close this without a sanction as I do believe this is also motivated by some sort of personal grudge against me. Thank you. GWA88 (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by Iskandar323 (uninvolved)I inspected this filing, and upon looking at "Incident 1" what jumped out at me was how absolutely correct GWA88 was, in A) correctly placing events in their verifiable chronological setting, and B) clearly outlining the undeniable logic of it (presumably when prompted) - that the OP thinks these edits are problematic, and indeed, reverted this fix, in defiance of any obvious common sense when editing a timeline of dated events, well, this hints more at WP:CIR issues on the OP's part than anything else. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning GWA88
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Infinity Knight
Appeal declined. Contentious topics require an ability to engage with other editors with more than debating techniques. Johnuniq (talk) 08:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Notification of that administrator : [8] Statement by Infinity Knight
Statement by TamzinKeeping in mind that (1) is presented on background, we have three cases here of attempting to weaponize Wikipedia processes in opposition to topic-area opponents or, in the last case, an administrator they perceive as one. I can AGF that Infinity Knight is not actively trying to use the system to promote their preferred POV, but even if that is the case, they've shown that they lack the ability to participate in administrative processes about this topic area with due detachment. (I did briefly consider a TBAN only from admin processes regarding ARBPIA, but deemed that unworkable.) I think Bishonen's warning was exceptionally generous, and I wish Infinity Knight would have borne more in mind the comic that Bish linked. Comments like Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Infinity KnightStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Riposte97I initially made this comment on Infinity Knight's talk page, prior to this appeal. It struck me as unfair that a person apparently genuinely trying to adhere to policy should be sanctioned. I reproduce it here:
Riposte97 (talk) 07:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC) Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)Result of the appeal by Infinity Knight
|
Zanahary
Withdrawn |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Zanahary
N/A
Notified of the sanctions on 19 October, removed and assumed read shortly after, with later acknowledgment of understanding of the policies
The user is misrepresenting a source, which specifically says violence was carried out against suspected collaborators, and another user agreed was correct. Instead of correcting the issue, the user is engaged in OR (again) and personal attacks (linked above). I assumed good faith that they would correct an issue when brought to their attention, they have declined to do so. Source misrepresentation is not a content issue, it is a behavioral one as this board has previously found. nableezy - 20:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Notified Discussion concerning ZanaharyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ZanaharyIt’s not a misrepresentation. The source explicitly points out that the subjects of Operation Strangling Necks identified by Amnesty were Palestinians, and identifies them as including members of PA and Fatah, organizations which can be very reasonably described as Palestinian opposition/resistance to Hamas, since they are enemies. This editor was passive-aggressive in their reply to my question about why they would ask me to revert rather than reverting themselves (an earnest question—I didn’t know about rationing reverts for contentious articles), and I responded dismissively to their attitude because I, in good faith, disagree with their characterization of my edit as being misrepresentative of the source. I’m a good editor and I contribute constructively to Wikipedia. Statement by (username)Result concerning Zanahary
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Jaydoggmarco
Appeal declined. The appeal does not address the issue that edit warring over a WP:BLP issue is not permitted. Johnuniq (talk) 08:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Statement by JaydoggmarcoI didn't violate an arbitration decision on Zoe McLellan because the noticeboard discussion on whether or not to include the info of her child abduction case has not made a decision or reached a consensus to include or not include the information. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 11:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC) copied from talk page HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by HJ MitchellStatement by caeciliusinhortoBy my count Jaydoggmarco made nine reverts on this page in well under 12 hours: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Even if this weren't a contentious topic, any admin would be well within their discretion to block here. Whether or not a consensus had or had not been reached, there's no justification for reverting nine times in the face of edits by four different editors. They clearly know about the rules on editwarring: they invoked it at WP:BLPN#Zoe McLellan in their initial post! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by JaydoggmarcoStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)Result of the appeal by Jaydoggmarco
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by HumilatedGoan
Appeal declined. There is consensus among uninvolved administrators to decline this appeal at this time as it does not adequately address the reason for/substance of the block and how appellant will avoid the issue in future. I would recommend the appellant review WP:AAB. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Statement by HumilatedGoanI want to acknowledge my mistakes in violating Wikipedia:ARBECR, and I sincerely apologize for the trouble i caused. i assure you that I have learned from my mistakes and i am committed to avoiding them in the future. please consider unblocking my account. HumilatedGoan (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC) copied from Special:Diff/1183168077 Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by IvanvectorI have copied the user's statement from their talk page as requested. I also must report that the user is believed to have a second account; please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BlueFreee. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC) I also was distracted by the SPI after mostly filling this out, and saved before I realized that 331dot already declined the appeal on the user's talk page. I'm going to leave it to a reviewer to decide what to do about that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by TamzinHG was warned to stop doing this, kept doing this without changing their behavior, and then sent me an appeal by email that was obviously written by AI. (If they dispute this characterization, I am happy to share the email with other admins.) This appeal does not, to me, show any understanding of what was wrong with what they did, or of why we can trust the issue won't recur. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by HumilatedGoanStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)Result of the appeal by HumilatedGoan
|
Ecrusized
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 Ecrusized
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Ecrusized (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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Edit warring over whether aspects of the infobox should be collapsed at 2023 Israel–Hamas war:
Move warring over the title of 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip:
General 1RR violations:
- 21:12, 2 November 2023 - Removed Wagner group from infobox
- 08:11, 2 November 2023 - Restored "Current extent of the Israeli invasion of Gaza" to the infobox, as part of a broader reinstatement of the live map
- 20:35, 1 November 2023 - Changed "1,000+ militants killed" to "1,000+ killed"
- 11:56, 1 November 2023 - Removed "Clashes erupt at the Israeli–Lebanese border" from the infobox
- 09:50, 1 November 2023 - Removed citations from the restored inclusion of Houthi's in the infobox
- 18:24, 31 October 2023 - Removed Houthis from the infobox
These are all comparatively minor, and I wouldn't have come here except for the fact that when I approached Ecrusized about the issue they declined to self-revert or address the issue in any way, instead removing my comment saying Stop leaving me talk page messages please
. I had previously approached them about some minor canvassing issues in the topic area; they also removed that comment, saying Do not leave blank template warnings on user accounts talk pages
.
There are also some WP:ONUS issues, restoring the live map despite an ongoing dispute about whether it is verifiable and no affirmative consensus to do so. However, the edit to restore the map was not a 1RR violation.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 12:04, 4 November 2023 (see the system log linked to above).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
They left me 4 separate blank warning templates on my talk page regarding this, despite me telling them to stop bothering me after each one
Ecrusized, I left you four notices. It was after the third that you asked me to "Stop leaving me talk page messages please":
- Alerting you that the Arab-Israeli conflict was a contentious topic area
- Warning you about canvassing, with a custom note
- Informing you that you had violated 1RR and asking you to self-revert
- Notifying you of this discussion.
Per our policies, you are able to ban me from your talk page yourself, with the exception of required notifications such as #1 and #4, and if this is what you want please say. However, this is a double edged sword; it means any issues, even if they are as minor as a single 1RR violation, must be taken to a forum like this one rather than being resolvable through a talk page conversation. I would recommend against this, but it is your choice. 14:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Ecrusized
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 Ecrusized
User BilledMammal has been harassing me on my talk page since yesterday morning over a single revert I made which they did not agree on. They left me 4 separate blank warning templates on my talk page regarding this, despite me telling them to stop bothering me after each one. They then resolved to examining my contributions from the previous week in an effort to find violation that they might use against me (in bad faith). Hence they've opened this notice in an effort to have me blocked. Again edits here are wholly unrelated to the dispute they've had with me. I wished to stay away from this notice entirely in the hope that the user would go away. I have no further comments and do not wish to be involved in this at all. Ecrusized (talk) 11:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
User @Veggies: have told them to take a breather because of the battleground behavior they've shown in the same said dispute they've had with me. It might be appropriate to give them a temporary topic ban from the said article. I would also like to have them blocked from editing my talk page because of their constant harrasment. Ecrusized (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- I did not considers the edits of excessive citation cleanups as individual reverts. Rest of those reverts were made in coordination with users at the talk page.Edit warring over whether aspects of the infobox should be collapsed at 2023 Israel–Hamas war:, :Removed "Clashes erupt at the Israeli–Lebanese border" from the infobox (moved to location). Ecrusized (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Levivich
Ecrusized is WP:AWARE of "arbitration enforcement Israel Palestine" a/o Oct 17 Special:Diff/1180609306, Special:Diff/1180609996. Levivich (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Ecrusized
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Unless I'm missing something, the actions complained about took place on or before 2 November but they weren't alerted to CTOP until today (about 40 minutes before this request was made)? If so then there isn't anything to do here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Requesting CTOP sanctions demonstrates that they're clearly aware of the CTOP sanctions. I'm interested to read their statement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ecrusized, you have no statement on why you've broken 1RR multiple times? This isn't really an "ignore it and it goes away" situation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)