Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive231) (bot |
JosephusOfJerusalem (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 512: | Line 512: | ||
:*That is my impression also - I'd close this with a warning against future 1RR / 24h violations. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 14:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC) |
:*That is my impression also - I'd close this with a warning against future 1RR / 24h violations. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 14:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
::*Though a quick look through this user's edits is not impressive. [[Special:Diff/840655159|This]] and [[Special:Diff/840655045|this]] is pretty naked canvassing; [[Special:Diff/840656236|this edit]] is pretty clear retaliation for [[Special:Diff/840656146|this]]. There's some good editing in there as well, but I'd advise them to go careful. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 14:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC) |
::*Though a quick look through this user's edits is not impressive. [[Special:Diff/840655159|This]] and [[Special:Diff/840655045|this]] is pretty naked canvassing; [[Special:Diff/840656236|this edit]] is pretty clear retaliation for [[Special:Diff/840656146|this]]. There's some good editing in there as well, but I'd advise them to go careful. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 14:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
==Capitals00== |
|||
<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> |
|||
===Request concerning Capitals00=== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|JosephusOfJerusalem}} 07:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Capitals00}}<p>{{ds/log|Capitals00}} |
|||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced:[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard_discretionary_sanctions]]: |
|||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
|||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2018_May_10&diff=prev&oldid=840524935 You can keep the wikilawyering nonsense with yourself] [[WP:PERSONALATTACK]] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2018_May_10&diff=prev&oldid=840521426 Making up nonsense would result in sanctions against you. You know that NadirAli has WP:CIR issues, just like you do] [[WP:PERSONALATTACK]]. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2018_May_10&diff=prev&oldid=840521426 Looks like he told you to come here and misrepresent the entire issue for him.] He is casting [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] on a senior editor in good standing [[Samee]]. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Discoverer&diff=prev&oldid=840176288 Your WP:CIR issues are not even limited to this. You had exhibited similar incompetence on entire Sino-Indian conflicts.] Rudeness and incompetence accusations during content disputes with editor [[The Discoverer]]. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TripWire&diff=prev&oldid=837827322 Given you have been a totally disruptive editor from the get-go] More bad-faith accusations in content disputes. Also a [[WP:PERSONALATTACK]]. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=837689212 Misrepresenting Indian position when you believe it will help you pushing your POV,] Bad-faith accusations. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=837689212 so why you are engaging in this disruption now? You have issues with WP:CIR and WP:IDHT and that's the only issue] More display of bad faith and accusations in content disputes. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=837693699&oldid=837693237 now it is being followed by your typical WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior and repeating same boring refuted arguments.] More accusations and personal attacks. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=826697391&oldid=826696486 Mar4d Stop engaging in this usual IDHT ] Same as above. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siachen_conflict&diff=826658021&oldid=826656350 I was only refuting your senseless excuses for denying Indian victory] Clear [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]] attitude and [[WP:PERSONALATTACK]]. |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
|||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ACapitals00] The block log shows a history of blocks for edit war, disruptive and tendentious editing. |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Capitals00&oldid=802245857#Discretionary_sanctions]): |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
This user has a tradition of accusing any editors he has disagreements with to be ″incompetent″, abusing [[WP:IDHT]] in content disputes and general [[WP:INCIVIL|incivility]]. There's a lot of bad-faith comments and ad hominem personal attacks coming from him. The environment this user is creating throughout the project, regardless of topic area, is unhealthy for Wikipedia editing. The block log shows that this historic behaviour is not improving. Which is why I think a very long block is in order. [[User:JosephusOfJerusalem|JosephusOfJerusalem]] ([[User talk:JosephusOfJerusalem|talk]]) 07:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Capitals00&diff=840800273&oldid=840203335] |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
===Discussion concerning Capitals00=== |
|||
<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> |
|||
====Statement by Capitals00==== |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
===Result concerning Capitals00=== |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
|||
<!-- 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. --> |
|||
* |
Revision as of 07:14, 12 May 2018
E-960
E-960 will voluntarily refrain from editing the article for 72 hours. If disruptive tagging is an issue, another request should be made, with evidence that will allow admins unfamiliar with the sources to understand the issue. --NeilN talk to me 02:27, 8 May 2018 (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 E-960
4 reverts on a 1RR article. There are also BLP and RS issues for some of the information added. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 240#Holocaust history: Polish ambassador facebook post covered by wpolityce, and op-ed by Piotr Zaremba and various discussions at Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland such as Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Should Grabowski be removed ?.
Additional comments by IcewhizRE E-960's comments below -
Discussion concerning E-960Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by E-960I'd like to respectfully object to user Icewhiz's reporting of me, as his "Reverts" were done under a false and misleading pretense. In this example [1] user Icewhiz reverted text containing two RELIABLE reference sources, and in his Edit Summary writing in that these are "FRINGE source[s]" (and here [2] the unture claim was made that the same text was ORIGINAL RESEARCH). Yet, both these reference sources are two of the biggest newspapers in Poland, and in the case of Gazeta Wyborcza, the reference was the actual INTERVIEW with historian Jan Grabowski, and the removed text was what the historian said himself. To call these sources "FRINGE" unfortunately comes across as nothing more than an excuse to arbitrarily remove the text. Also, to back up this suspicion users Icewhiz and François Robere continue to tag bomb the article (here: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) and revert text back-up by reliable reference sources using the 'IJUSTDONTLIKEIT shame tagging' tactic, and they have been warned about it and their tags reverted by other editors such as GizzyCatBella, Nihil novi, and Volunteer Marek, as this keeps occurring. In any case, I can apologize for my knee jerk reaction to restore the text, and confirm that in the future I'll keep in mind that this article is under the tighter scrutiny of the 1RR rule. But, also I'd like to ask the Admins to remind users Icewhiz and François Robere that automatically adding un-warranted tags or removing statements containing RELIABLE reference sources by labeling them as FRINGE, can come across as disruptive. --E-960 (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by GizzyCatBella(writing in progress...will finish today)GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC) I'll hold off on my comment and keep my word for future later use if necessary. NeilN's recommendation [10] is very fair in my opinion.GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Result concerning E-960
|
Salvidrim!
Salvidrim! made and caught their own mistake, so other than a massive TROUT there's nothing to do other than kicking the page back to the draft space and letting someone else review it. Primefac (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2018 (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 Salvidrim!
D'oh! I was casually looking up this game, found a draft in Draftspace that looked fine, moved it to mainspace and wikified it a bit. Then choked on my coffee when I recalled I was currently
My face has been notified by my palm. Discussion concerning SalvidrimStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Salvidrimre Tony: I guess my first thought was that self-reverting might be seen as "yet another attempt to avoid scrutiny"? Maybe I'm just being paranoid, apologies if this is a bit of a timewaster. Another one. Plus I couldn't self-revert anyways since I left a redirect at the draftspace title per usual practice. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by TonyBallioniCan you just re: draftify and slap an AfC tag on it for someone else to review? I appreciate the self-reporting here, but this seems like a bit of a waste of time. When someone accidentally violates an AE sanction, the norm is just to self-revert. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Salvidrim
|
Crawford88
Crawford88 is strongly cautioned to follow closely what sources actually state, be aware of WP:ASSERT, and not to overreach when writing article content based on reliable sources. --NeilN talk to me 21:55, 11 May 2018 (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 Crawford88
At this point, I reverted the edits, once again describing the problems with them, and left a warning on this user's page, describing the specific problems with reinstating the edits. They essentially brushed off this warning.
No previous sanctions.
Editor was alerted to discretionary sanctions in January 2017. While this was 15 months ago, it is a bit of a stretch to suggest they are therefore unaware of the sanctions, having edited in this topic area continuously since.
There's several incorrect statements and fundamental misunderstandings in Crawford88's statement.
Discussion concerning Crawford88Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Crawford88The two separate edits for which Vanamonde93 is crying foul are:
But, as this is an AE proceeding, the things I said about, which ideally should have been part of the discussions on the specific page's talk page discussion, are not relevant. This proceeding is a gross misuse of administrative privileges of Vanamonde93 which he uses to randomly targets well meaning Wikipedia users who do not tag his line. There has been two reverts by me (on two different days) and I have been careful of not violating any Wikipedia policy. So, instead of having a meaningful dialogue about why he considers there is WP:NPOV and absence of WP:V, Vanamonde93 jumps straight into threatening me of an AE proceeding (which to his credit he did). This is what (s)he's claiming to be constructive feedback, "blatant original research, non-neutral wording, and dodgy sources." without any specific instances or reasons. Highhandedness by Wiki moderators and administrators will only reduce the already waning credibility of Wikipedia in being neutral and welcoming of new editors and users. Crawford88 (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by SitushThe example given by Vanamonde93 may be part of a pattern. I come across Crawford88 from time to time and have often thought them to be at best an apologist for Hindutva and at worst an outright proponent of it. Nothing wrong with holding an opinion, of course, but when one's political etc philosophy becomes self-evident in one's edits across a range of articles then it suggests that neutral editing is unlikely to be at the forefront. Recent examples include a spat (with associated edit warring) at Talk:Koenraad_Elst#Feb,_2018 and unexplained removals of categories relating to far-right politics in India around 18 April, eg here and here. Let's not make any bones about it: Hindu nationalism is regularly described as a fascist philosophy and anyone who thinks otherwise is going to have to work hard to support their opinion. We are not censored; Crawford88 should not be censoring. - Sitush (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Crawford88
|
DanaUllman
As pointed out, this was a community sanction which replaced an expired or expiring ArbCom sanction. I will take it to ANI. Guy (Help!) 07:37, 9 May 2018 (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 DanaUllman
I think DanaUllman should be sitebanned for violation of sanctions under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy
DanaUllman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account, he is, by admission, Dana Ullman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a tireless promoter of homeopathy. He has made exactly one mainspace edit since his 2008 topic ban, and that was promoting a purveyor of bogus diagnostics, an article in the alternative medicine topic area and also potentially related to his business (he uses a radionics machine). He has been allowed to make comments regarding his own biography, but that has now been deleted. His edit history speaks for itself. The only time he strays from promoting homeopathy is when he is promoting himself. That is what he does off-wiki, as is his right. He has no such right here, and his editing history has been consistently problematic. The only topic in which he is interested, is one where he may not edit, and he has consistently tested and pushed beyond the boundaries of that ban. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning DanaUllmanStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DanaUllmanStatement by (username)Statement by Spartazthis is the link for the closed discussion confirming the sanction. Curiously, the tban is a community sanction reimposing the arbcom tban. Buggered if I know whether its out of scope as a community not arbitration sanction or not. Spartaz Humbug! 22:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by EdJohnstonPer the 2012 Arbcom motion, it appears that Homeopathy sanctions were rolled into Pseudoscience. So this enforcement request should be handled as if it was asking for Pseudoscience enforcement. The 2012 motion was in effect dropping sanctions in some areas such as Gibraltar but for other topics, such as Cold Fusion and Homeopathy, it was reshuffling them under new headers. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Result concerning DanaUllman
|
Icewhiz
Editors directed to WP:RSN to discuss Chodakiewicz. GizzyCatBella directed to write Icewhiz's name properly and reminded that communications on the English-language Wikipedia need to be in English. --NeilN talk to me 13:18, 9 May 2018 (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 Icewhiz
Misconduct in two matters subject to discretionary sanctions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons
The editor acted in a troublesome manner by targeted removal of references to the particular historian (Marek Chodakiewicz - a living person) on 12 different E. Europe related articles. Seldom in a threshold of 2 minutes in between edits. These appear to be thoughtless edits in a sole purpose of removing the historian as a source.
On March 8 the editor Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started [18] to make edits to the page of the living Polish historian Marek Chodakiewicz in a profoundly critical fashion. Edits continued until today. [19] Then On May 8th, they went into a frenzy cruse removing any reference to Chodakiewcz from 12 separate Poland and the Holocaust articles under false or no valid justifications at all. GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning IcewhizStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by IcewhizI have indeed been reviewing use of Chodakiewicz as a source - going over most of the uses of him on enwiki. Chodakiewicz is a highly WP:BIASED source (more below) even when writing in a peer-reviewed reviewed setting. While some of his writings have been published academically (in journals and more reputable publishers), much of what he writes is not published academically - varying from non-academic publishers, Polish newspapers of a particular bent, and his various blogs. I am willing to defend each and every one of those diffs if needed (and I'll note - GCB hasn't bothered to discuss) - in some cases I removed highly-biased statements that were made in Wikipedia's voice while representing a rather fringe view, in others I removed sourcing to blog posts, and in a few cases - I removed information that wasn't even in the cited source. It has been my impression that when editors resort to using a source such as Chodakiewicz - there are often other problems involved (both NPOV and V). As for Marek Jan Chodakiewicz -
Reviewing use of sources is what we do on Wikipedia - per WP:V, WP:NPOV. I submit that per WP:BIASED review of the use of Chodakiewicz is more than warranted, and obviously removing what doesn't pass WP:V - e.g. this diff GCB presents - in which we were ascribing to Chodakiewicz a claim he did not actually write in his political blog - is required per V policy as well and WP:BLP given we were falsely ascribing a statement to Chodakiewicz.Icewhiz (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Boomerang proposal: GizzyCatBella repeatedly introducing information from a self-published book by a questionable author that was refutedNote that the editor using GCB as a handle has admitted to editing as an IP as well - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GizzyCatBella - admission here and elsewhere. Editing as one of the IP's in GCB's range in April, GCB introduced the following - text and source. This was discussed as a source with GCB in Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Your Life is Worth Mine: How Polish Nuns Saved Hundreds of Jewish Children in German-occupied Poland, 1939-1945 - E. Kurek (where this didn't receive support). In conjunction, we also discussed Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#"only German-occupied European country" with death penalty - in which Poland being the only country with the death penalty for helping Jews was outright refuted. Ewa Kurek is mainly covered for making stmts such as "Polish author Ewa Kurek, has claimed that Jews had fun in the ghettos during the German occupation of Poland during World War II."[28][29][30]. And does not hold a significant academic appointment.[31][32]. So far - one use of a questionable source. However, GCB then added a self-published book (iUniverse) in a number different articles -
I'll also note, given the circumstances that Poeticbent Revision as of 13:19, 25 April 2018 also re-added Kurek. GCB has not discussed this at the relevant article talk page (complaining instead on the wall of text - see Talk:Irena Sendler#Use of Ewa Kurek as a source and Talk:The Holocaust in Poland#Use of Ewa Kurek as a source) - and instead has been reverting. Use of a WP:SPS is a clear no-go, when it is a questionable author as well, making a claim that has been clearly refuted - it is even less acceptable. Repeated reversions of this without discussion are WP:IDHT. In an area with discretionary sanctions - editors are supposed to adhere to Wikipedia policy on WP:RS and WP:V - which is clearly not the case in the diffs above. Note I did open a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Holocaust in Poland: Ewa Kurek & Mark Paul after the last revert - however this shouldn't have gotten to this - an editor re-inserting a self-published book, by a questionable author, with a false claim, repeatedly - in a sanctioned area!Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Beyond My KenStatement by (username)Result concerning Icewhiz
|
Page restriction for infobox addition and infobox discussion at Stanley Kubrick
Infobox restriction posted at Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Bishonen | talk 10:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC). |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I'm not sure whether page restrictions have ever been placed per the "Civility in infobox discussions" discretionary sanctions, so I thought I'd ask uninvolved admins here before I try it. There's been a long-running war about whether or not to have an infobox at Stanley Kubrick, with new discussions and "straw polls" erupting again and again on the talkpage, and with an infobox being repeatedly added to the article, and then promptly removed. The last explicit consensus on the matter (=no infobox) was back in 2015. I'm considering placing the following page restriction:
The template will also automatically add this text in smaller font: My rationale is that we shouldn't abandon articles and contributors to endless bickering, but put the new discretionary sanctions to use, as I assume ArbCom intended when they set them. The general infobox RfC at the Village Pump has run into the sands and nobody seems up for closing it, which I don't wonder at. God, no. There was an unsuccessful attempt within that RfC to set a limit of six months for starting yet another infobox discussion on an article talkpage. As you can see, I'm offering a restriction of four months on Talk:Stanley Kubrick, where yet another straw poll has just started and been closed, after there was one in early April... Thoughts? Pinging Laser brain, who just posted an appeal for an infobox discussion break on Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Bishonen | talk 07:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC).
Discussion concerning the page restrictionsStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by FrancisDon't know whether any of these variants would be less convoluted:
(the infobox of that particular article, mentioned in The Wall Street Journal two days ago, is way beyond a "default" option, that being the topic of the current RfC, so I wouldn't connect timing to that RfC) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Laser brainI think this is a good idea. I've informally requested on the article talk page that it be given a break multiple times, but there is no sign of a stoppage of the series of proposals. Good-faith editors who are completely unaware of the history stumbling onto the page are one thing, but Hentheden, byteflush, and Siliconred have each opened proposals in the last two months with full awareness of the rocky road the article's been on for several months. It is becoming disruptive and I'd like to see some calm on this page. --Laser brain (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning the page restriction
|
GizzyCatBella
Withdrawn by filer. Bishonen | talk 08:36, 10 May 2018 (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 GizzyCatBella
Revision as of 10:41, 19 February 2018
(+given sanction +filed case on 9 May on ARBEE).
WP:POINTy DS alert in violation of alert.dup, particularly that given their own AE filing today - GizzyCatBella was asserting I was aware of the sactions.Icewhiz (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning GizzyCatBellaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GizzyCatBellaI sincerely missed the previous alert that was given to Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and entered the template in good faith. I even wrote that I couldn't see it before inserting the alert template. [37] I wrote:
If I could find the alert and I knew that it had existed already I would refer to it yesterday ->[38] I didn't because I couldn't find it and wrote this instead:
It's evident that I honestly missed the alert when I was looking for it, and I was honestly thinking that I'm doing the proper thing.[41] User Icewhiz instead has chosen to retaliate and possibly take revenge for me filing a complaint against him yesterday. He could have just told me about the fact that he already has been informed instead of coming here. I would remove the template. His hostile attitude is very troublesome.GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning GizzyCatBella
|
Rafe87
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 Rafe87
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Rafe87 (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
- WP:1RR of ARBPIA :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Moreover, the section of anti-Arabism in Israel falls into ARBPIA. Therefore, per , if an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit.
User was supposed to wait at least 24 hours after my revert before reinserting his disputed content full of POV-pushing, unreliable sources, labels and Op-Eds. But a mere 14 hours later he restored it anyway.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Rafe87
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 Rafe87
Statement by Shrike
NeilN This is correct but now that he know.He have a chance to self revert.--Shrike (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think in general everyone should have a chance to self-revert especially if its 1RR--Shrike (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by TheGracefulSlick
GoldenRing this editor has been blocked for edit warring, been brought to AE before for 1RR, and warned about 1RR several times over. How many more can/should be afforded to them before we understand that they are ineffective?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- NeilN I had a dull moment. I was looking at the diffs like יניב הורון was the one being reported. Since this looks like the editor's first warning, disregard my previous statement.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Rafe87
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- יניב הורון, as far as I can see, these edits came before the mandatory discretionary sanctions alert and Raf87 has not edited since. Is that correct? --NeilN talk to me 13:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Shrike:
Not really as they stopped editing before the alert and their edit has already been reverted.Looked at wrong article. I'll wait for a statement from Rafe87. --NeilN talk to me 13:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC) - @TheGracefulSlick: Search is still broken here. When was Rafe87 brought to AE? --NeilN talk to me 21:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- That is my impression also - I'd close this with a warning against future 1RR / 24h violations. GoldenRing (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Though a quick look through this user's edits is not impressive. This and this is pretty naked canvassing; this edit is pretty clear retaliation for this. There's some good editing in there as well, but I'd advise them to go careful. GoldenRing (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Shrike:
Capitals00
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 Capitals00
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- JosephusOfJerusalem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Capitals00 (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/India-Pakistan#Standard_discretionary_sanctions:
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- You can keep the wikilawyering nonsense with yourself WP:PERSONALATTACK
- Making up nonsense would result in sanctions against you. You know that NadirAli has WP:CIR issues, just like you do WP:PERSONALATTACK.
- Looks like he told you to come here and misrepresent the entire issue for him. He is casting WP:ASPERSIONS on a senior editor in good standing Samee.
- Your WP:CIR issues are not even limited to this. You had exhibited similar incompetence on entire Sino-Indian conflicts. Rudeness and incompetence accusations during content disputes with editor The Discoverer.
- Given you have been a totally disruptive editor from the get-go More bad-faith accusations in content disputes. Also a WP:PERSONALATTACK.
- Misrepresenting Indian position when you believe it will help you pushing your POV, Bad-faith accusations.
- so why you are engaging in this disruption now? You have issues with WP:CIR and WP:IDHT and that's the only issue More display of bad faith and accusations in content disputes.
- now it is being followed by your typical WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior and repeating same boring refuted arguments. More accusations and personal attacks.
- Mar4d Stop engaging in this usual IDHT Same as above.
- I was only refuting your senseless excuses for denying Indian victory Clear WP:TENDENTIOUS attitude and WP:PERSONALATTACK.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- [45] The block log shows a history of blocks for edit war, disruptive and tendentious editing.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [46])
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This user has a tradition of accusing any editors he has disagreements with to be ″incompetent″, abusing WP:IDHT in content disputes and general incivility. There's a lot of bad-faith comments and ad hominem personal attacks coming from him. The environment this user is creating throughout the project, regardless of topic area, is unhealthy for Wikipedia editing. The block log shows that this historic behaviour is not improving. Which is why I think a very long block is in order. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 07:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Capitals00
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 Capitals00
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Capitals00
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.