→Result concerning Volunteer Marek: comment |
|||
Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
||
*I‘m of the view that the admins who add these sanctions templates to articles should address violation complaints. Pinging {{ping|Coffee}} could you take a look? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 06:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC) |
*I‘m of the view that the admins who add these sanctions templates to articles should address violation complaints. Pinging {{ping|Coffee}} could you take a look? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 06:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC) |
||
* This complaint is confusingly presented; the diffs are not in chronological order, which makes it difficult to assess their legitimacy. Additionally, diffs #3 and #6 both link to the same edit, yet are presented as if they were two different edits and two different violations. I'm going to assume that this was an honest oversight rather than an attempt at deception, but it should be corrected by {{User|TheTimesAreAChanging}}.<p>Looking at the article and dispute in question, there is a clear-cut 1RR violation by {{user|James J. Lambden}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier&diff=809289756&oldid=809289694 06:21] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier&type=revision&diff=809291818&oldid=809291315 06:44], 8 Nov 2017). Given the black-and-white nature of the violation, and the aggravating factor that he accuses ''others'' of violating 1RR in the second edit summary, I would propose a block of the appropriate length for him.<p>As far as the complaint against Marek, I'm less clear. I see one clear-cut revert by him ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier&type=revision&diff=809291315&oldid=809291008 06:39]), and several other edits which appear to add new information or wording. It's possible that there's a 1RR violation there, but I don't quite see it and the complaint is not well-constructed enough to clarify. Does anyone else see one?<p>As for violations of the "consensus required" provision, it seems to me that there's a general reluctance to aggressively enforce this on all sides. Which makes sense; the provision seems like a good idea in theory, but easily game-able in practice (by reflexively reverting and then demanding "consensus", one tendentious editor could use this provision to basically hold a page hostage). I'm going to defer to other admins to interpret and, if appropriate, to enforce that remedy here. It's not immediately clear to me that the provision has been violated from the diffs provided in the complaint nor from my own review of recent editing on the page, but if others feel that there is a violation then they can certainly place the sanction that they think is appropriate. I would argue that if we (collectively) don't intend to enforce the restriction, then we should explicitly remove it to avoid confusion.<p>In summary, I'd propose a block of {{user|James J. Lambden}} for a clear-cut 1RR violation (aggravated by hypocrisy in accusing ''others'' of a violation), and will defer to anyone else's interpretation of the "consensus needed" provision. Thoughts? '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 06:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:49, 9 November 2017
Collect
Not actionable. Sandstein 07:46, 6 November 2017 (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 Collect
Not applicable
@GoldenRing and Black Kite: For what it's worth, there's a longstanding rumor that Ames, whose birthplace isn't public knowledge, was born in Russia so this doesn't meet the WP:BANEX "obvious" standard. (If it's true, it's a BLP violation but if the only thing missing from a factual claim is a reliable source, it's not an obvious violation.) And would either of you mind copying and pasting the specific, exact text you're citing at BANEX? I looked through BANEX for what User:GoldenRing called "standard exceptions" as well as what User:Black Kite "fixing an error" exception and, in light of the restriction at WP:EDR ("Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace"), couldn't find what you're referring to. CityOfSilver 01:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning CollectStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by CollectStatement by Shock Brigade Harvester BorisThis could be regarded as a violation of the ban only in the most extreme and rigid technical sense. I recommend declining this request as "silly." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Statement by Johnuniq@CityOfSilver: Wikipedia is not a game of gotcha. Is there a reason to dispute the edit in the week-old diff you provided? Is that edit the only problem? Why has no one reverted the edit if it is a problem? Why has no discussion occurred at the article talk page since 3 June 2017? Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Collect
|
Volunteer Marek
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 Volunteer Marek
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Volunteer Marek (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/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 05:34, 8 November 2017: Volunteer Marek adds content sourced from Business Insider to Donald Trump–Russia dossier.
- 06:21, 8 November 2017: James J. Lambden reverts the portion of Volunteer Marek's edit sourced to Business Insider, stating:
"trim; rm Business Insider, if accurate a reliable source should not be hard to find"
. - 06:39, 8 November 2017: Volunteer Marek reinstates the Business Insider source and all of the disputed content, violating the Discretionary Sanctions requirement that
"You ... must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article"
. - 05:36, 8 November 2017: Having been reverted for WP:BOLDly changing the lead in the middle of an ongoing RfC on November 2, Volunteer Marek again tries his hand at rewriting the lead to reflect breaking news.
- 06:20, 8 November 2017: Volunteer Marek's BOLD lead changes are reverted by James J. Lambden, stating:
"revert lede changes; consensus on talk is against"
. (James J. Lambden's concurrent edits at 06:20 and 06:21 count as a single revert.) - 06:39, 8 November 2017: Volunteer Marek violates DS to reinstate his prefered lead, apparently claiming immunity from DS because
"Lede change [is] based on new info"
.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 13 December 2016.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Volunteer Marek was just let off the hook for another clear-cut DS violation in October because—while all parties acknowledged the violation—no admin was actually willing to sanction him. Rather than admit error in this case, Volunteer Marek personally attacked James J. Lambden, calling him "obnoxious and creepy" and responding to James J. Lambden's DS warning as follows: "fuck off you creep you know you're not welcome". (James J. Lambden did not respond in kind to these and other aspersions by Volunteer Marek.) Volunteer Marek also belittled me and suggested that I was acting in bad faith for pointing out that his repeated DS violations are not appropriate, thus prompting me to file this report.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek
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 Volunteer Marek
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Volunteer Marek
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I‘m of the view that the admins who add these sanctions templates to articles should address violation complaints. Pinging @Coffee: could you take a look? Sandstein 06:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- This complaint is confusingly presented; the diffs are not in chronological order, which makes it difficult to assess their legitimacy. Additionally, diffs #3 and #6 both link to the same edit, yet are presented as if they were two different edits and two different violations. I'm going to assume that this was an honest oversight rather than an attempt at deception, but it should be corrected by TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs).
Looking at the article and dispute in question, there is a clear-cut 1RR violation by James J. Lambden (talk · contribs) (06:21 and 06:44, 8 Nov 2017). Given the black-and-white nature of the violation, and the aggravating factor that he accuses others of violating 1RR in the second edit summary, I would propose a block of the appropriate length for him.
As far as the complaint against Marek, I'm less clear. I see one clear-cut revert by him (06:39), and several other edits which appear to add new information or wording. It's possible that there's a 1RR violation there, but I don't quite see it and the complaint is not well-constructed enough to clarify. Does anyone else see one?
As for violations of the "consensus required" provision, it seems to me that there's a general reluctance to aggressively enforce this on all sides. Which makes sense; the provision seems like a good idea in theory, but easily game-able in practice (by reflexively reverting and then demanding "consensus", one tendentious editor could use this provision to basically hold a page hostage). I'm going to defer to other admins to interpret and, if appropriate, to enforce that remedy here. It's not immediately clear to me that the provision has been violated from the diffs provided in the complaint nor from my own review of recent editing on the page, but if others feel that there is a violation then they can certainly place the sanction that they think is appropriate. I would argue that if we (collectively) don't intend to enforce the restriction, then we should explicitly remove it to avoid confusion.
In summary, I'd propose a block of James J. Lambden (talk · contribs) for a clear-cut 1RR violation (aggravated by hypocrisy in accusing others of a violation), and will defer to anyone else's interpretation of the "consensus needed" provision. Thoughts? MastCell Talk 06:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)