Arbitration enforcement action appeal by POVbrigand
Appeal declined. Sandstein 07:03, 8 March 2013 (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, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" 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 POVbrigandI would like to get the chance to show the community that a topic ban is no longer needed. My interest has always been to improve WP, make it more valuable for the readers. I do not want to waste my time or anybody else's time. The appeal contingent that I publicly reveal my old account was discussed here User_talk:Roger_Davies/Archive_26#POVbrigand and as far as I understood no longer required, the account has since been retired.
--POVbrigand (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Statement by The Blade of the Northern LightsApologies for not commenting earlier; I've been completely detached from the normal goings-on around here and had to take some time to refresh my memory on this case. To the extent this appeal is directed at me, I decline it; Sandstein's rationale is essentially mine, so I won't repeat it except to emphasize that the very small number of edits since the imposition of the ban is discouraging. To the extent it's directed at other admins, I would advise them to decline it as well. Being an SPA isn't inherently a bad thing; however, when it's laced with the problems such as those demonstrated in the original thread, there needs to be strong evidence there won't be a recurrence upon allowing an editor back into the topic area. I see very little total editing from POVBrigand since the imposition of the band, and this statement does not address the issues laid out by Sandstein below. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Statement by uninvolved A Question for KnowledgePOVbrigand: You're supposed to demonstrate that your topic ban is no longer needed before filing an appeal. We typically don't give second chances to topic-banned editors unless:
AE: Given the lack of the above, that POVbrigand is apparently an SPA, and that POVbrigand has virtually no contributions to Wikipedia since their topic-ban, I respectfully recommend that the AE admins decline this request. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Statement by IRWolfie-This editors constant POV pushing on this topic wasted everyones time (mine included) before he was topic banned. Consider also that this is not POVbrigand's only account, rather it is purely a SPA. This account is specifically to edit Cold Fusion and related articles [1]: "I found out that my account is best described as a Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account. I have / had another account since mid 2004 that I currently do not use. I might use it again after my interest for "cold fusion" goes away." We currently have the fairly weird situation where this editor is topic banned, but we don't know his original account! I find this really puzzling, but one of the conditions for POVbrigand being able to make an appeal was that he reveal his previous account: [2]. There was no consensus at User_talk:Roger_Davies/Archive_26#POVbrigand that the requirement to reveal the account be removed (someone merely expressed their view on it, but that's not the same thing). As an aside, perhaps can an arbcom member perhaps double check his other account to make sure it has not become active again in any future appeal? POVbrigand has broken his topic ban previously, and retiring your account isn't the same as closing it. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by POVbrigandResult of the appeal by POVbrigand
|
Fyunck(click)
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 Fyunck(click)
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 19:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#All parties reminded and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Discretionary sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 6 March 2013 Re-re-re-pushing an anti-diacritics agenda yet again (which isn't problematic at the AE level, probably, in itself), at Wikipedia talk:Article titles, with a comment (detailed below) that is difficult to interpret except as a jingoistic attack on non-native English speakers categorically, and as such as a WP:ARBATC violation.
- Other diffs (below) are relevant for demonstrating that this is part of a general long-term pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUNDing, with regard to diacritics, which the editor is returning to after a period of comparative peace; they're probably too old for action as AE issues themselves. Then again, a case can be made that comments like this on the editor's own talk page aren't likely to be noticed immediately, unless someone were being a talkpage stalker.
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- Not required, since WT:AT has a prominent WP:ARBATC warning atop it. But has been warned anyway:
- Warned on 16 November 2012 by HandsomeFella (talk · contribs) for editwarring about diacritics. Fyunck(click) reacted with noted hostility.
- Effectively warned on in November 2012 by being mentioned at and participating in a WP:ANI report against LittleBenW (talk · contribs) who was subsequently topic-banned from diacritics debates for anti-diacritics campaigning. To his credit, Fyunck(click)'s participation at this ANI thread came across as reasonable and distancing from the diacritics debate, but the editor has clearly returned to the topic in force.
- Others (below) relevant for pattern-establishment purposes, but are not "fresh".
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
The statement at issue is: "The only place I've seen huge amounts of diacritics is here on wikipedia, but with so many non-English-first editors these days that shift is to be expected." It seems to be a violation of WP:ARBATC's "personalizing style or title disputes" prohibition. While it could theoretically be interpreted as a poorly worded concession that Fyunck(click) recognizes per WP:BIAS that diacritics are valid in article titles and text, and is thus is announcing he'll WP:JUSTDROPIT, this is unfortunately clearly not actually the case; it's a condemnatory "there goes the neighborhood"-style complaint; the statement is juxtaposed in the same post with an array of rehashed anti-diacritics arguments, so it is certainly not any such concession. I don't think it deserves a block or topic ban under ARBATC discretionary sanctions – AE is far too ban-happy of late – but certainly calls for an explicit administrative warning with regard to them.
- (The remainder of the request has been removed by a reviewing administrator because it exceeded the 500 word limit indicated at the beginning of the section. Sandstein 19:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC))
— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 19:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
19:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC) by SMcCandlish
Discussion concerning Fyunck(click)
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 Fyunck(click)
Wow. I'm not exactly sure where the heck this came from... sort of out of the blue. In an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Use_of_accent_marks_in_titles I give a single opinion on an unsettled debate and out shoots an Arbitration Enforcement. I checked out SMcCandlish because of this and see he was admonished just the other day so I guess the frustration is to take it out on me. Under sanction/remedy to be enforced I have no idea what Mr. SMcCandlish is talking about - so no comment.
- under diff of edits:
- 1. An editor asks a query and gets responses across the board. I make one comment... one... and I wind up here. Does having an opposing view to SMcCandlish really warrant me having to go through this? Or is this simply his anger at his recent warning coming through and I just happened to be an easy target?
- 2. I really don't know what to say here either. Is everyone who participates in any diacritic conversation "battlegrounding?" If so that would certainly include SMcCandlish and hundreds of others. Is SMcCandlish really asking for the muting of all opposing views on wikipedia? That seems a bit harsh to me.
- under Diffs of notifications
- 1. I have no idea exactly what this is - so no comment
- 2. He really wants to bring HandsomeFella into this? An editor who's been blocked many times warns me for something that did not happen, and you bring that up here. This is an editor I've had problems with in the past with things he left on my own talk page. And the things that were being contested were not diacritics. How much combing and how how far back and how many ashtrays did SMcCandlish have to look under to bring this frivolous request here?
- 3. Absolute falsehood. And "clearly returned to the topic in force" is another ridiculous statement by SMcCandlish. Can he really do this with no consequences? In that ANI someone said that SMcCandlish was "intimidating me" on my talk page. I came over to the ANI to say he wasn't intimidating me. Goodness. But let me state right now... SMcCandlish is intimidating me now. This is like bullying and it must stop.
- 4. This is just grasping at straws by SMcCandlish. I was not blocked for edit warring over diacritics but a content dispute, and the person on the other side of the coin was also blocked. The other person was also blocked again. What a content dispute in July has to with this is beyond me.
Disclosure: I may disagree with SMcCandlish's diacritics position on both logical and policy grounds, but not enough to bully or intimidate as he is doing to me now. And I can't help what others write on my page but I do try to answer to the best of my ability. If someone wants to cherry pick those answers without the context that goes with them then there's not a lot I can do. But to open up wikipedia today and be hit with this "out-of-the-blue" kind of filing by SMcCandlish is really an eye-opener. I had no idea he would go to these lengths and I believe he should not be allowed to do this type of thing to others in the future. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Fyunck(click)
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
I've shortened the request to the extent it exceeded the 500 word limit indicated at the beginning of the section. Indicating why a warning or notice is required should well be doable within 500 words. SMcCandlish may re-submit the request in a shortened version if he does so before Fyunck(click) responds to it. I'm waiting for a statement by Fyunck(click) before commenting on the merits. Sandstein 19:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Soosim
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 Soosim
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Soosim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:ARBPIA#PRINCIPLES
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 7 March 2013 09:23 Undoes previous edit on Amiram Goldblum
- 8 March 2013 08:03 Undoes previous edit on Amiram Goldblum, thus a violation of 1RR
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- Warned on 13 December 2011 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
One edit relates to the Israeli occupation, the other to Peace Now. Both are clearly connected to I/P. If you look at the recent history of NGO Monitor, you'll see another violation of 1RR: first this, then this, both on 6 March.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Soosim
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 Soosim
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Soosim
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.