Timotheus Canens (talk | contribs) OneClickArchiver adding SPECIFICO |
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement) (bot |
||
Line 200: | Line 200: | ||
*This report is frivolous. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 01:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
*This report is frivolous. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 01:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
*As my name's been invoked, I'm going to have to agree with Dennis above. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 07:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
*As my name's been invoked, I'm going to have to agree with Dennis above. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 07:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
{{hab}} |
|||
==Tlroche== |
|||
{{hat|{{user|Tlroche}} is banned indefinitely from all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed across all namespaces. {{user|SashiRolls}} is indefinitely prohibited from commenting on AE requests to which they are not a party. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 21:29, 16 December 2016 (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> |
|||
===Request concerning Tlroche=== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Sagecandor}} 05:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Tlroche}}<p>{{ds/log|Tlroche}} |
|||
<!--- 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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons#Special_enforcement_on_biographies_of_living_persons]] : |
|||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
|||
#[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29]] |
|||
#[[WP:BLPBAN]] as superseded by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=606946990#Motion:_DS_.282014.29_housekeeping_provisions motion]. |
|||
; [[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. --> |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia&diff=754887897&oldid=754886536 01:36, 15 December 2016] Adds info related to multiple [[WP:BLP]]s to source that fails [[WP:RELIABLE]] -- at page currently under 1RR arbitration restrictions. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia&diff=754898086&oldid=754897778 03:08, 15 December 2016] Reverts to add back in, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia&oldid=754898317#Undue_weight_for_consortiumnews.com_.3F against strong talk page consensus not to do so]. All users in that discussion except the party himself were in agreement ''not'' to have this material in the article. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia&diff=754909071&oldid=754899132 04:44, 15 December 2016] Violates the 1RR arbitration restriction, adds back material again to same article. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sagecandor&diff=754908313&oldid=754829221 04:38, 15 December 2016] Violates [[WP:No legal threats]], calls a talk page comment where I warned him about using someone else's signature without their permission as "[[slander]]". |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sagecandor&diff=754910827&oldid=754909911 05:00, 15 December 2016] Does same, again. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veteran_Intelligence_Professionals_for_Sanity&type=revision&diff=754886098&oldid=749355796 01:20, 15 December 2016] Violates [[WP:BLP]], adds material to sources that fail [[WP:RELIABLE]] about multiple living persons, example source Consortiumnews.com, reasoning why unreliable at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=754896775#Is_consortiumnews.com_a_reliable_source_at_article_2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia_.3F]. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veteran_Intelligence_Professionals_for_Sanity&diff=754907747&oldid=754898096 04:33, 15 December 2016], same, with edit summary of: ''revert vandalism, undo unreliable Fox News quote (retaining link)'' |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veteran_Intelligence_Professionals_for_Sanity&diff=754914481&oldid=754913358 05:35, 15 December 2016] Same, same article, same edit summary. Unfortunately, this version of [[WP:BLP]]-violating material to unreliable sources is in the article at present. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Veteran_Intelligence_Professionals_for_Sanity&diff=754914971&oldid=754913504 05:39, 15 December 2016] Violates [[WP:NPA]], violates [[WP:AGF]], with: ''I see no reason to seek approval from your rightwing cabal.'' |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=754919975&oldid=754917381 06:27, 15 December 2016] Disruption at the BLP noticeboard itself. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=754921374&oldid=754920479 06:39, 15 December 2016] Same, again. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=754923154&oldid=754922196 06:59, 15 December 2016] Same, again. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia&diff=754981784&oldid=754973217 15:56, 15 December 2016] Violates 1RR restrictions, again, at article under arbitration enforcement restrictions. This time was ''after having been notified of being reported here to arbitration enforcement''. Violated again anyways. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veteran_Intelligence_Professionals_for_Sanity&diff=754967877&oldid=754957399 14:09, 15 December 2016] Labels his disruptive editing as "revert vandalism". |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veteran_Intelligence_Professionals_for_Sanity&diff=754980117&oldid=754968745 15:46, 15 December 2016] Again, same. |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
|||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]): |
|||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia&diff=754661532&oldid=754661324 20:59, 13 December 2016] Large notice of discretionary sanctions placed at top of talk page. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Editnotices/Page/2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia&action=history 02:22, 14 December 2016] Big red edit-notice warning of 1RR per arbitration discretionary sanctions. Template created by {{u|EdJohnston}} before edits to the page by the user. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tlroche&diff=754893351&oldid=750807896 02:27, 15 December 2016] Discretionary sanctions alert. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia&diff=754898691&oldid=754898086 03:13, 15 December 2016] Notified via edit summary by {{u|MrX}}: ''Unacceptable source and READ THE EDIT NOTICE: Don't restore material that has been reverted uness there is consensus to do so.'' |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> |
|||
#User was aware of the discretionary sanctions. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tlroche&diff=754893351&oldid=750807896] |
|||
#User was aware of the 1RR restrictions. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Editnotices/Page/2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia&action=history] |
|||
#User was aware of talk page consensus against him, that the source in question that mentioned multiple [[WP:BLP]]s violated [[WP:RELIABLE]]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia&diff=754902581&oldid=754898317] |
|||
#User chose to add the offending material back in and violate the 1RR restriction, [[WP:BLP]], and [[WP:RELIABLE]], anyways. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia&diff=754898086&oldid=754897778] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia&diff=754909071&oldid=754899132] |
|||
Analysis by {{user|SashiRolls}} is wrong. Please see this explanation by {{u|Neutrality}} at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tlroche&diff=754975229&oldid=754923623], warning the user in question about misuse of word "slander". [[User:Sagecandor|Sagecandor]] ([[User talk:Sagecandor|talk]]) 17:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*{{Ping|Ks0stm}}Thank you for taking action here. Additionally, I object to {{user|SashiRolls}} using this page as a forum to cast aspersions against me, in unrelated matters. This is at least the second time SashiRolls has done this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=753538745 7 December 2016] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=754994713&oldid=754994266 15 December 2016]. The 7 December incident was in a completely unrelated section at this page for ''Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Hidden Tempo''. This clearly appears to be violation of [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:FORUMSHOP]]. [[User:Sagecandor|Sagecandor]] ([[User talk:Sagecandor|talk]]) 17:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*{{Ping|Ks0stm}}I was seeking out advice from admins as to how and where to report SashiRolls. The admins gave me helpful advice and told me ANI or AE. I have not done that. As for his repeated complaints against me, they were addressed at ANI and closed by {{u|Black Kite}} at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=754133024&oldid=754132319]. Now, unfortunately, he is again attempting to make yet another Arbitration Enforcement about me personally instead of the subject in question who was blocked. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=753538745] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=754994713&oldid=754994266]. [[User:Sagecandor|Sagecandor]] ([[User talk:Sagecandor|talk]]) 18:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*{{Ping|Ks0stm}}I have made zero frivolous filings to Arbitration Enforcement. After [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive205#Solntsa90 my report on Solntsa90], user was blocked three months by {{u|EdJohnston}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Solntsa90]. After [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive205#Ag97|my report on Ag97]], user was topic-banned by the community with close by {{u|KrakatoaKatie}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=754484272&oldid=754483669]. After [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=754996416#Tlroche my report on Tlroche], user was blocked by {{u|Ks0stm}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Tlroche]. [[User:Sagecandor|Sagecandor]] ([[User talk:Sagecandor|talk]]) 19:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*{{u|Timotheus Canens}}I agree with you about the first edit to [[WP:BLPN]] that it may have been innocuous and the subsequent [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=754923154&oldid=754922196 repeat edit] was not. I placed those in evidence hear to show ''overall'' a pattern of disruption, not that the first edit itself was disruption. My apologies that I did not make that more clear initially. [[User:Sagecandor|Sagecandor]] ([[User talk:Sagecandor|talk]]) 23:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tlroche&diff=754912765&oldid=754911363 05:18, 15 December 2016] Notification given. [[User:Sagecandor|Sagecandor]] ([[User talk:Sagecandor|talk]]) 05:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
===Discussion concerning Tlroche=== |
|||
<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 MrX==== |
|||
This out of control editor has also been reported to [[WP:ANEW]].This editor needs to be blocked, topic banned, or both. They are some sort of mission to promote Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, and I'm guessing they have a COI. They are brazenly ignoring multiple talk page warnings, edit summaries reverting their edits, article talk page discussion, and the prominent edit notice. There is no excuse for this type of behavior. |
|||
Their reaction to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tlroche&diff=prev&oldid=754975229 a polite, non-template message with diffs] from an admin asking them to be more careful: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tlroche&diff=prev&oldid=754979961 "false neutrality removed"]. |
|||
'''I wonder if this time we could actually use AE as it's intended and have an admin take the appropriate action to stop the blatant POV pushing, edit warring, and incivility. AE does not require consensus among admins, or lengthy discussion.''' - [[user: MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 17:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by SashiRolls==== |
|||
The merit of this case (or lack thereof) is best demonstrated by diff 4 where Sagecandor reproaches the accused (Tlroche) for saying they (Sagecandor) made a slanderous accusation. Careful analysis of the diffs provided by the accused show the accused to be right, Tlroche merely added a signature where Sagecandor forgot to sign. |
|||
This case should not be decided without looking more carefully into the accuser's history, especially this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive940#Sagecandors_by_Crossswords case at ANI] and this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASagecandor&type=revision&diff=754540508&oldid=754540478 talk page deletion] which together seem to indicate a strong aversion to transparency. (as in the bogus diff 4 & 5 above). [[User:SashiRolls|SashiRolls]] ([[User talk:SashiRolls|talk]]) 17:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Some characteristic diffs showing that Sagecandor is not at all averse to making personal attacks or denouncing people without transparency. (I'm not the only one who he's denounced without pinging -- more diffs available if necessary): |
|||
# Denounces me to my supervising admin (no ping): [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANuclearWarfare&type=revision&diff=753198066&oldid=753198000] |
|||
# Denounces me (without mentioning my name) to an admin I don't know (no ping): [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABlack_Kite&type=revision&diff=754266476&oldid=754231495]: [[User:Black Kite | Black Kite]]'s response is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Kite&diff=prev&oldid=754492269 here] (mine is visible as well). |
|||
# Denounces me (as a Russian propaganda account) on NPOV/N (no ping): [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Concerns_about_potential_influx_of_Russian_propaganda_users] -- [[User:SashiRolls|SashiRolls]] ([[User talk:SashiRolls|talk]]) 18:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Knowing the terrain, I understand why [[User:Tlroche|Tlroche]] could become frustrated as many editors have on those pages where Sagecandor is most active. Cf. [[Jimbo Wales#Systematic problems at US-Russia articles]], where nearly every page mentioned refers to this editor. (As has also been a recent trend on AE, if you look back through the recent bans & blocks. We mustn't forget [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive205#Solntsa90] in addition to those SC mentions (at AE)... there is method to this, if the AE administrators are willing to take the time to look into it, it may save embarrassment later. ) [[User:SashiRolls|SashiRolls]] ([[User talk:SashiRolls|talk]]) 18:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: It has been falsely claimed below that I have "cast aspersions". Merriam-Webster, a standard dictionary of American English, gives the following definition of "aspersions" : "a false or misleading charge meant to harm someone's reputation". I would ask anyone who has accused me of casting aspersions to either show that I have done so, by indicating how any of the above statements are false or misleading" or [[WP:REDACT|redact]] their statements as the unwarranted personal attacks that they are. I have cast no aspersions, I have simply cited verifiable and true facts (providing all the diffs necessary for verifiability). I have never filed an AE report, therefore it strikes me as unlikely I am wasting administrators time here. I also have not commented on any cases currently on the page except this one. This is not the case for several users. I have however provided proof, and I suppose that this is what is considered disruptive? (trying to understand why some editor's have more rights than others: sagecandor, for example, has commented on several cases he was not involved in, in addition to bringing this complaint (and being involved in creating the ambiance which created it) along with several others (4 weeks after creating his account). I, on the other hand, have avoided the most visibly contentious pages Sagecandor is working on because I could tell editing there would not be productive. [[User:SashiRolls|SashiRolls]] ([[User talk:SashiRolls|talk]]) 15:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::Timothy Joseph Wood, your link does not work. This link lists my edits ([https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/topedits/?user=SashiRolls&project=en.wikipedia.org&namespace=0&article= here]), but does not include AE, where as a matter of fact I *have* had to respond to a number of false claims (both in my own case and in other cases where people have brought things up to discredit me that were extraneous to the cases at hand: it was necessary to defend myself from the innuendos). Insofar as I was not an experienced editor when I was first brought here (and still am not); I thought it important to provide a great deal of evidence, which led me to contribute too much in that original case: and as such my defense was not read. But that is the main reason my edit count on this page is high: responding to innuendo. |
|||
::Here the question is whether this opened case should also '''boomerang''' against the OP for his role in angering Tlroche. I, obviously, think it should, based in part on the evidence presented above which show inappropriate personal attacks (#3) and inappropriate behavior (#1, #2) towards me. Again, the diff #4 presented by Sagecandor above is characteristic of the sorts of "misleading diffs" on offer: for making clear that he was not the author of Sagecandor's comment, Tlroche finds himself accused of forgery / acting with malicious intent. This is one sort of behavior that creates a poisonous editing environment. There are plenty of others that Wikipedia rules do prevent me from speaking of, but which are also clearly visible on the pages in question, and which have been noted by many editors, as I pointed out above. Many of these editors have been banned, rather than heard. [[User:SashiRolls|SashiRolls]] ([[User talk:SashiRolls|talk]]) 16:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Volunteer Marek==== |
|||
This is more in regards to SashiRolls' comments here. The relevant policies are [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] and [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. There's no reason for them to show up here and based on some flimsy excuse use this as a forum to attack another editor whom they happen to dislike.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 18:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Neutrality==== |
|||
I agree with MrX and Sagecandor. Particularly concerning re: Tlroche is his/her comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Veteran_Intelligence_Professionals_for_Sanity&diff=754914971&oldid=754913504 here]: "I see no reason to seek approval from your rightwing cabal. ... I will continue to add valuable content as I see fit." Tlroche basically has expressed an open disdain for consensus. |
|||
As to SashiRolls, I agree with Volunteer Marek and would merely note that this is part of a pattern of behavior. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 19:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Timothyjosephwood==== |
|||
If you don't count the page and talk they're TBANNED from, this is Sashi's [https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=SashiRolls&project=en.wikipedia.org sixth most edited page on Wikipedia]. They're off topic comments here have only resulted in more off topic comments (like this one). Support restricting AE comments on requests they are not a party to. Drama central is [[WP:ANI|that way]]. [[User:Timothyjosephwood|<span style="color:#a56d3f;font-family:Impact;">Timothy</span><span style="color:#6f3800;font-family:Impact;">Joseph</span><span style="color:#422501;font-family:Impact;">Wood</span>]] 15:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
===Result concerning Tlroche=== |
|||
:''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. --> |
|||
*'''Blocked''' 60 hours for violating the 1RR at [[2016 United States election interference by Russia]]. [[User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900">'''Ks0stm'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Guestbook|G]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Email|E]])</sup> 17:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
**Noting that I'll leave this open since there may be a case to be made for discussing a topic ban or some other remedy as well. [[User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900">'''Ks0stm'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Guestbook|G]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Email|E]])</sup> 17:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*Looking closer at the actual diffs, the tone, the aggressiveness....all this tells me this is someone who doesn't play nice with others. I would support an indef topic ban from American Politics 32+. I don't see this as something we can "fix" with shorter sanctions, so the goal is to remove him altogether so that more reasonable editors can do what they do. I would support a shorter Tban, but think indef is the right call here. This isn't saying there aren't other problems with other editors, which I may look at later. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 18:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
**As for SashiRolls, the more I look, the worse it becomes for Sashi. I'm not sure what is the best solution, but will just say that in general, I support sanctions that limit them from disrupting at AE. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 23:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
* The first two BLP noticeboard edits seem more like confusion to me rather than intentional disruption, but the subsequent [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=754923154&oldid=754922196 repeat edit] is more problematic as the issue had already been correctly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=754921946&oldid=754921689 fixed], so there's no conceivable justification for it. Sagecandor should avoid characterizing the occasional innocuous though misguided edit as disruption. <p> That said, I agree with Dennis that an indefinite topic ban is appropriate for Tlroche based on the rest of the diffs.<p>As for SashiRolls, I'm inclined towards a restriction prohibiting them from commenting in AE requests to which they are not a party. If they want to file a request against Sagecandor, they are free to do so, but casting aspersions in unrelated AE threads is utterly unhelpful. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 20:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*The obvious edit-warring behaviour against clear consensus is an indication that Tiroche doesn't respect how WP operates. I'd support an indef TBAN, although I would prefer a shorter one, say, one year, on the basis that some people can learn from their mistakes. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 09:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
==The Rambling Man== |
|||
{{hat|1=Re-instating previous close, no further action is forthcoming from this forum at this time. Per Floquenbeam's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=755184263&oldid=755171611 previous closing statement]: ''"Considering all the blocks, unblocks, AN threads, ANI threads, AE reports, and retirements in the last few days, it looks like everyone is finally exhausted from stabbing each other in the eye with forks. Well, that's not true, I think there are still a few unstabbed eyeballs and a few people with forks, but the community ''in general'' has probably had enough. Jauerback says "let it go", and that seems like excellent advice for a week ago, and pretty good advice now.''" |
|||
[[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 21:41, 16 December 2016 (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> |
|||
===Request concerning The Rambling Man=== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Mike V}} 15:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|The Rambling Man}}<p>{{ds/log|The Rambling Man}} |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The_Rambling_Man#The_Rambling_Man_prohibited]] : |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
|||
See below |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
In no less than 24 hours from the closure of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive206#The_Rambling_Man|previous AE filing]], it appears that TRM has continued to engage in inappropriate behavior. He has made personal attacks towards myself, including: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=755007918 not to mention his utter abject recalcitrance in redacting his accusations of lying ... To err is human, to completely reject any responsibility for false accusations is rogue admin], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=755010220 Mike will just use IRC and find an Arbcom/Mike-sympathetic admin to do the dirty work behind the scenes], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=755026434 Get him to write an error-free DYK, that would be a miracle. It is Christmas after all.], and equating my warning and block to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=755029256 lynching and character assassination]. |
|||
TRM's uncivil behavior has extended to DYK when another editor asked him a question and he responded in a belittling fashion: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=755019511 I'm gonna take a punt here: PREVENTING ERRORS FROM HITTING THE MAIN PAGE?]. It was followed up with: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=755031578 Impressive that you found such an appropriate yet shit article. You must have shares. Usual "belittling" caveat applies, although in your case, I couldn't give one, two or three fucks! Just kidding, obv!!!!!!!!!] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=755036429 No-one gives a fuck about the main page any more Martin. You know that.] |
|||
Finally, TRM has made insults towards some of the arbitration committee candidates: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=755041615 Hilarious, thanks. That someone who doesn't really edit Wikipedia and didn't answer the questions posed didn't come last, sums it all up perfectly!] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=755042728 Spectacular result. No wonder we trust Arbcom to understand what we do day-to-day around here!] |
|||
I am asking that you take a look at TRM's behavior and action it as appropriate. <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> [[User:Mike V|<b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b>]] • [[User_talk:Mike V|<b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b>]]</span> 15:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Rambling_Man&diff=755153057&oldid=755144574 Notification] |
|||
===Discussion concerning The Rambling Man=== |
|||
<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 The Rambling Man==== |
|||
Stellar waste of time, most diffs out of context or actually just statements of fact. Am on the road so can't respond for some time but hoping that we don't have another Mike V trigger finger block before I get a chance to respond. Mike V has still failed to respond to my request for him to redact the two accusations of lying, by the way. Perhaps we could ping the other people in those talk situations to see how "belittled" and/or insulted they felt! [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 15:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:This request is inextricably linked with Mike V's erroneous warning to me about infringing an IBAN. This also needs to be resolved, i.e. the report needs to be fixed to remove my name and the warning needs to be removed or caveated on my talkpage. Then the whole sorry saga is over until Mike V makes his inevitable return, having avoided any kind of admonishment by "disappearing". [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 18:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:For the avoidance of doubt, the erroneous post can be found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man|here]] where Mike V makes an untrue allegation about a "violation of [my] interaction ban". He was provided with plenty of evidence and time to redact this himself yet he failed to do anything about it whatsoever, and now he's "disappeared" it seems he's left the job to someone else to fix. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 18:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Mike V's "disappearing act" is a good way to avoid further scrutiny, as the premature closure of this thread has already indicated. It certainly strikes me that an individual that is apparently trusted with tools such as Checkuser and Oversight, on top of Admin, should not be behaving in this fashion. If we really, truly our admins to [[WP:ADMINACCT]] (and that's the main reason I was desysopped), and if we genuinely believe the super-tools are for those super-trusted users, I think we should have confidence that they won't embark on vendettas or stalk editors or use off-wiki methods to collude in blocking people, or ignore requests for accountability for 13 days. Whether Mike V returns or not is irrelevant; he should probably be stripped of all such functionary bits pending a clear indication that he will not do this kind of thing ever again, if only to protect the integrity of those other functionaries who don't do this kind of thing. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 19:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Amazingly, at [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Icestorm815 2|Mike's RFA]], he stated {{xt| In practically every situation on wikipedia, discussion is key.}} yet has since made so many drastic and undiscussed decisions. Irony, or just something he said to get the bit? [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 19:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:{{U| T. Canens}} you may ''personally'' feel that but the AE discussion and community consensus disagrees. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 21:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Fram==== |
|||
Appropriate action would be a block of Mike V. for baiting. Really, it seems as if everyone by now has said to you that the original warning yu gaev which started all this was wrong. Your defense has been (paraphrased, duh): "I am not wrong", "I had no time between handing out that warning and speedily giving a block two weeks later to the same user to attend to this", and "I am not wrong, and I can't hear you". His examples above include things like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=prev&oldid=755019511 I'm gonna take a punt here: PREVENTING ERRORS FROM HITTING THE MAIN PAGE?]. If he isn't allowed to say something like that any longer, then some people really have become way, WAY too thin skinned. But perhaps it is just an "admin" looking for an excuse to block the editor again who got him ridiculed at AN, ANI, AE, and a slew of user talk pages? |
|||
Mike V., you are only making a fool of yourself. Please '''boomerang close''' this. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 15:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
@Ritchie333: thanks, but I hope someone else will do the honour. I would be accused of being involved, being wikifriends with you (I have an archived ANI discussion from this year to prove them wrong though :-D ), and so on. Probably by the same people that claimed that MikeV wan't involved because they had no article conflict with TRM. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 15:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Ritchie333==== |
|||
Agree with the above. Fram, if you wish to block Mike V for stirring up trouble and skirting around a recently placed community ban, you have my support. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 15:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Ivanvector}} Would really rather I did not use any tools myself against Mike V lest it appear as a witch hunt, but you are right : a full protection of his talk page is against [[WP:PP|the protection policy]] (vis: "A user's request to have his or her own talk page protected is not a sufficient rationale to protect the page."). I would only sanction this if Mike V's page was being persistently vandalised by sockpuppets over the 30/500 limit, which definitely is not the case. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 16:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|Ivanvector}} I've unprotected the talk page, but not touched anything else as I only want to undo what is unambiguously against policy and nothing else. I think redirecting your talk page to userspace is okay (eg: see [[User:Scott/Talk]]) so I'll leave that. [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 16:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by 331dot==== |
|||
Agree with the above as well. It would be wonderful if we could move on from this war against TRM. I'd probably be frustrated too and say things I'd regret if I were him. I don't condone everything he has said, but it is concerning to me that criticism of an administrator's actions is considered a 'personal attack' by that person. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 15:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Davey2010==== |
|||
Agree with everyone above - Continuing this is waste of time and right now if anyone deserves blocking it's Mike!, I suggest this gets speedy closed and I would also suggest Mike moves on!. –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 15:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Jauerback==== |
|||
Let it go. <b>[[User:Jauerback|Jauerback]]</b><sup>[[User talk:Jauerback|dude?]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jauerback|dude.]]</sub> 16:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Ivanvector==== |
|||
It would probably be best for everyone if everyone just steps away from this dispute for a bit. However, I would ask that someone please undo {{ul|Mike V}}'s indefinite full protection of his own talk page ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mike_V&diff=755162869&oldid=755162846]), that is inappropriate. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 16:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:{{yo|Ritchie333}} that's what I meant by "inappropriate", yeah. Thanks for adding the policy link. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 16:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Sagecandor==== |
|||
Probably best for all involved to have a [[cup of tea]] at this point. I'm reminded of the phrase [[flogging a dead horse]]. [[User:Sagecandor|Sagecandor]] ([[User talk:Sagecandor|talk]]) 16:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by EEng==== |
|||
{{ping|The Wordsmith}} when you say "blocking a Functionary is unprecedented", I think what you mean is that it would be unprecedented to block a functionary ''and leave him a functionary''. This episode has left in tatters Mike V's fitness to perform even the public functions of an admin; that he be allowed behind-the-scenes functions such as CU, oversight, and supervising edit filters and Arbcom elections is now, IMO, beyond the pale. He not only lacks judgment, but refuses to accept that he's seriously mistaken when literally ''dozens'' of editors (including admins) tell him so directly. How can we trust him with hidden roles that support the very fabric of the community? Even if he avoids desysopping (and I hope that will be given serious consideration given his latest foray into wasting everyone's time) I submit he should be immediately stripped of all roles other than admin. |
|||
I think it's interesting that Mike V's response to being rebuked as an admin is to simply take his ball and go home, instead of returning to improving the encyclopedia in other ways{{snd}}except of course he has no experience doing that. That confirms my longstanding impression that he sees his role here not as to help in building an encyclopedia, but rather as playing enforcer. Sorry, but that's the way I see it. '''[[User:EEng#s|<font color="red">E</font>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<font color="blue">Eng</font>]]''' 18:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Tarage==== |
|||
Remove MikeV's bit. This temper tantrum is unbecoming of an administrator and frankly, continuing to let him behave this way only further proves the massive issues with the current administrative staff. --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 19:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by uninvolved Softlavender==== |
|||
As far as I can tell, I agree with some folks above who say that everyone simply needs to step away at this point. Apparently neither party has acted optimally. The moon is full and we're all going off the rails. Let's calm down for a bit. TRM is understandably frustrated that he has been desysopped and is unable to use his tools to fix the main page -- the accuracy of which he cares about ''passionately'', more than anyone else, and it is a very good thing that he does care passionately about it. The main page would probably be a mess without him. His frustration has come out in verbiage -- the style of which isn't going to change completely overnight, nor should we expect it to, given that he can't fix the things he could so easily fix before. (All of that said, maybe TRM could use a short break from the mainpage, just to clear his mind. Just thinking aloud here.) Mike V. has apparently been acting autocratically and vengefully and without consequences. I think he needs to back way off or an RFAR may be the next stop. To avoid all of these consequences, can we please all just drop it and cut everyone a little slack for the time being? [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 19:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Beyond My Ken==== |
|||
If the call to block Mike V is heeded here, it seems extremely likely that Mike V's response would be to go to ArbCom. Since desysopping appears to be the '''''actual''''' desired result of many commenting here, then the case would '''''have''''' to go to ArbCom, since they're the only ones that can do that. Therefore, I suggest that this case be closed (for whatever reason) and someone (TRM, Fram, Ritchie, whoever) file a desysop case with ArbCom, since that's the only place where it can be properly ajudicated. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 20:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
===Result concerning The Rambling Man=== |
|||
:''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. --> |
|||
*Mike's statement was originally posted on my user talkpage, and I pointed him here to the correct venue. That said, after looking at the diffs and how weak the majority of them are, this seems like retaliation for the rebuke Mike got at AN. Contrary to some of the opinions posted above I don't think a block of Mike V is called for at this time (not to mention that, as far as I know, blocking a Functionary is unprecedented). However, I think it clear that Mike needs to cool off for a while, before there ''is'' a serious push to block and/or remove the tools. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 16:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:*As a purely procedural comment, blocking of functionaries is certainly not unprecedented. On [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AFT2 at least one occasion] a serving arbitrator has been blocked for disruption (albeit it was overturned very quickly). ‑ [[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] 19:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::*Thank you, I wasn't aware of that. I believe we can safely say that this situation is ''nearly''-unprecedented. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 19:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:*{{ping|EEng}} You're largely correct. However, we need to think about what's going on here. This situation seems to have been following the ''Gamaliel'' pattern. However, it doesn't need to follow that through to its unfortunate conclusion. Mike has done a lot of good things for the project over the years, and I don't think anybody wants to lose him. I think the best thing to do would be to give him some breathing room and time to think. This pressure on him is certainly not helping. We may find that there are extenuating circumstances, or that after a few days he's willing to sincerely apologize for the lapse in judgment and move on. Then the community can decide how to proceed from there. I urge some calm and patience, and for everybody to please put down the [[WP:PITCHFORKS]]. All of this has happened before, but it doesn't have to happen again. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 19:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:*'''Proposal''' TRM has asked, repeatedly, for the log entries of the warning and block to be explicitly overturned, so that it can't be used as evidence in future issues. Personally, I think he's right, and that that would help in putting out this fire instead of adding more gasoline to it. Pinging admins who have already commented here {{ping|Iridescent|Drmies|Black Kite|Dennis Brown|Floquenbeam}} We may not be able to completely redact them within the bounds of policy, but we can vacate them by consensus and strikethrough the log entries. Thoughts? <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 20:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::*'''Strikethrough and/or annotate, don't delete outright'''. They need to be preserved in some form, as they'll be evidence in the near-inevitable Arbcom case resulting from this, but I agree that they need to be explicitly marked as invalid to prevent the mark-of-Cain effect. ‑ [[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] 21:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::*I'm OK with striking the interaction ban warning. I'm strongly against striking the block, which was more than justified by one of the diffs presented in that AE request, and overturned out of process. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 21:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*Functionaries (or admins, or arbs) are not above the law. I think [http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/in-stressing-error-of-clericalism-francis-calls-for-humble-priests-32780/ even Pope Francis] agrees with that. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 16:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
* This is a ridiculous waste of everyone's time. Mike V needs to take into account much of what was posted in the admin noticeboard thread. The only thing that is going to result from this is an ArbCom case debating whether to remove Mike V's admin bit, which quite frankly given this behaviour is an action I'd currently support. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:* On looking further, I note that Mike V currently holds CU and OS permissions. Given that we require holders of those permissions to hold to the highest levels of behaviour, I believe this needs to go to ArbCom, unless the situation described by The Wordsmith above transpires. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*This should be bumped up to Arb. We lack the tools and authority to review the real problem here. I'm not recommending harsh action, simply stating there is a problem that we can't address at AE. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 20:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*Since my close of this thread was reopened by TRM, my closing statement was removed (something that would have likely driven several people in this thread to hysteria if it had been done to them). But instead I'll just copy it here, for posterity: "''Considering all the blocks, unblocks, AN threads, ANI threads, AE reports, and retirements in the last few days, it looks like everyone is finally exhausted from stabbing each other in the eye with forks. Well, that's not true, I think there are still a few unstabbed eyeballs and a few people with forks, but the community ''in general'' has probably had enough. Jauerback says "let it go", and that seems like excellent advice for a week ago, and pretty good advice now. ''" I guess there are more people that still have forks than I'd hoped. Enjoy your Arbcom case, folks, I'm sure it will be a blast. I'm out. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 20:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*Who is going to adjust the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man]] log in relation to Mike V's erroneous claim that I infringed the IBAN please? This thread keeps getting closed without '''actually dealing with this issue which is as important as Mike V's status as a functionary'''. Can one of the admins so keen to shut this down please make an appropriate comment at the log to the effect that the community agreed that Mike V's assessment of my actions was '''incorrect'''. Thanks. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 21:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
So... numerous people call for sanctions against an administrator, including other administrators, and the result is "let's just stop talking about this"? Are you kidding me? Are you forgetting who brought this here in the first place? --[[User:Tarage|Tarage]] ([[User talk:Tarage|talk]]) 22:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:A couple of admins have tried to close this down a couple of times. It seems inevitable that the next approach is an Arbcom case to see Mike V relinquished of his tools. But of course, and as I've ''already been accused of multiple times'', that would be "sour grapes", not just "due diligence". Ho hum, not in the club. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 22:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
{{hab}} |
Revision as of 03:07, 24 December 2016
The Rambling Man
The Rambling Man is warned that continuing to use unnecessarily harsh language is likely to result in being blocked. No further action is taken. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning The Rambling Man
The Rambling Man resigned their admin status during the Arbcom case in October. They now seem to be increasingly agitated about the performance of other admins. No doubt it is frustrating that they are no longer able to perform such tasks themselves. But comments of this kind do not seem civil and seem to be what Arbcom had in mind when when placing this sanction.
notification of The Rambling Man
Discussion concerning The Rambling ManStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by The Rambling ManMessing with the main page should not happen. If admins aren't fully commensurate with how to do this, they should leave it to others. Admins who have been asked to respond to questions, in particular relating to accusing editors of lying, before then blocking them need to be held accountable for their misbehaviour. Everything else I have to say has already be said at either my talk page, AN or ANI. P.S. I still want MikeV's previous enforcement notice to be redacted too. And given the block has clearly been deemed "premature" if not downright "incorrect" and/or "involved", we need to make sure MikeV doesn't make such mistakes in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by BencherliteWe have Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:In the news for a reason - to help admins know what to do / what not to do. Apparently the big red capital letters used for "ATTENTION" and the flashing image, File:Blinking Stop hand.gif, that it uses are not enough to draw some admins' attention to the three simple warnings underneath. Suggestions for how this edit notice can be improved would be welcomed, I'm sure. Perhaps the link to Wikipedia:In the news/Administrator instructions and Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection need to be even bigger? In the meantime, admins not understanding that the main page is not the place to allow unprotected images *is* a big deal, given previous experience with unprotected images there and the instructions on how to do things, and I don't blame TRM for getting annoyed about this - particularly as this is not the only instance of unprotected main page images at ITN from the last few days. Nor do I blame TRM for getting annoyed about admins indicating that it's OK for admins who "don't know how do it" (not TRM's words) to make edits to the main page templates that need fixing by others who do know what they're doing. Robust and justified criticism of admins who edit our most high-profile page without following the long-standing instructions designed to help them is *not* the same as insulting or belittling. I'm commenting here rather than in the section for uninvolved administrators given my long-standing WP friendship with TRM. BencherliteTalk 00:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by WJBscribeI agree with Bencherlite. I am far more concerned about an admin having apparently added an unprotected image to the main page than with TRM for being forceful in pointing out the gaffe. We need admins to be careful editing the main page. That said I made the same mistake once - a fellow admin was kind enough to replace the unprotected image on commons with a photo of a piece of paper on which he'd written something along the lines of "Which idiot forgot to protect this image". I learned my lesson. I'm sure everyone involved in this incident has too. WJBscribe (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by 331dotI think it should be noted that TRM resigned his admin powers under threat of them being stripped from him. I don't see any insulting or belittling here, as Bencherlite and WJBscribe also state. I see annoyance, perhaps, but if TRM is going to be punished for being annoyed, then we all should be. Being annoyed is not the same thing as being insulting. 331dot (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Even if we accept that MikeV is not involved, he concedes that he wasn't aware of this discussion, and I think that was enough of a reason to reverse his block. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Comment by NewyorkbradThis may be a bit off-topic, but can't someone just write a script or edit filter that would automatically prevent unprotected Commons images from being added to the main page, and thereby prevent that aspect of the problem from recurring? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by EEngI share the concern about TRM's difficult mode of interation, but I'm almost as concerned about Mike V having interposed his own (not-always-unclouded) judgment even while this process is underway – six minutes, in fact, after the one admin who had commented here opined that action was inappropriate. Too often I've seen him lay his heavy hand on the block button from on high (including imposing a block – quickly overturned – on me). EEng 05:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by Patar knightI'm not an uninvolved admin because I reverted Michael Hardy's addition of the unprotected image at ITN. Keeping unprotected images off the Main Page is very important and is repeatedly mentioned in the editnotice, ITN admin instructions, etc. It seems unfair to block TRM for expressing frustration at other people's inability/unwillingness to follow clearly those laid out directions. I think an exception to the arbcom remedy, so that TRM is allowed to reasonably criticize other users for clear failures to follow procedure, should be read in. At best the last comment deserved a warning. Blocking this quickly seems like jumping the gun.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My KenI don't believe that TRM is forbidden to "criticize other users for clear failures to follow procedure" or any other reason, he's "prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors." That's an entirely different animal, since one can criticize without insulting or belittling. I'm not making a judgement about whether TRM violated his sanction or not, just pointing out a relevant distinction. Concerning EEng's point, I think considering the recent dust-up between TRM and Mike V apparent on TRM's talk page, Mike V should probably have passed on blocking TRM, as his block raises the impression that it might have been motivated by bad feelings between them rather than by TRM's action, and this discussion was already open. It might be a good idea for Mike V to consider lifting the block and allowing the admins at AE to determine what action, if any, needs to be taken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by FramDiscussion started at WP:ANI#Admin accountability and involvedness. Basically (independently) mirroring BMKs points above. Fram (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by Dweller
Statement by Andrew D.This is just the latest incident as, since the Arbcom case, TRM has shown no contrition, does not appear to accept the Arbcom rulings and his aggressive language seems just as bad as before. I agree with Lankiveil that telling KrakatoaKatie to "grow a pair" was quite unacceptable, especially as she is a woman. Her response to this tirade was "Well. I tried. Nice. Way to chase your new helpers off. – I'm out". This demonstrates the effect of such language – it drives people away. Sanctions are therefore appropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 12:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)I prev Statement by KatieI wasn't pinged when TRM went on his little tirade, nor was I pinged about this AE request. If one is going to tell me to do the anatomically impossible, the least one can do is notify me. For the record, I didn't do anything wrong at the ITN template. I saw the call for assistance at ERRORS several days ago and, with a couple of other admins, decided to try to help. I fixed the blurb and declined to change the image because I wasn't sure if there was consensus to change a blurb as significantly as what was proposed. Before I made the changes, I pored over the ITN instructions for hours – hours, because I didn't want to make a mistake. I previewed the template about eight times before I saved it. I marked the items done/not done, and kept the tab open so I could refresh the page to make sure I didn't screw up. I don't use the watchlist (haven't for years and years because it got to be several thousand pages), so when someone comments under me and whines about a mistake, I assume they're talking to me. If I had made a mistake, I would expect to be told in civil terms. I've made lots of mistakes across this project and I've almost always been notified in a calm manner. I don't think that will happen while TRM is patrolling that page, so I won't edit there again. I have other areas in which I can work where I know my contributions are valued. As tantrums go, this isn't very bad. My children have done better. I get rape threats, so TRM really needs to up his game if he's going to make me lose sleep. I don't care if he's blocked or unblocked. I suggest, however, that he not come to AN shouting about the lack of admins at ERRORS again. He's not likely to find many takers. Katietalk 14:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by IvanvectorThe remedy invoked states that TRM "is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors." I agree that Andrew Davidson's diffs show examples of The Rambling Man violating that remedy, and the remedy dictates that TRM "may be blocked" (emphasis mine). We ought to consider Andrew D.'s first two examples to be constructive criticism delivered by a frustrated editor (as other commenters have noted) in a matter of importance. The third example probably also qualifies, though the phrase "drive-by so-called admins" is belittling and does seem directed at particular users. Those three comments violate the letter of the remedy, but I can't imagine any other editor would earn a block for such mild comments and nor should TRM. However the fourth example, telling a female editor to "grow a pair" would be a borderline personal attack by any user. TRM, with an active remedy specifically prohibiting such comments, should earn an AE block for this comment. The purpose of that block does seem to have been served by Mike V's action, however. A note of clarification: if the committee determines that Mike V's (now overturned) block serves the purpose of a block that would have been warranted from this enforcement request, please specify whether Mike V's block counts as a first block under the remedy, or if in the committee's view TRM has not been blocked under the remedy. It's going to come up again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Now I'm going to ramble on a bit about WP:INVOLVED, if you'll indulge me. It's important that administrators be seen as neutral, for the good governance of the project, however we sometimes apply INVOLVED too liberally. It appears to me that Mike V is considered involved because he posted an administrative warning on TRM's talk page. I'm sure there's more to it judging by the number of commenters, but if that is all there is to it, Mike V is not involved. Furthermore, and this is more to my upcoming point, if any genuinely neutral administrator would have come to the same action, then an involved administrator's action is justified notwithstanding INVOLVED, and I think that that is the case here. So we're saying that TRM's block should be overturned only because the blocking administrator was involved, not because the rationale behind the block was wrong. We currently have only 526 active administrators; this year there have been 62 fewer promotions than demotions, and that gap is widening. The number of administrators available to be "uninvolved" in any particular issue is rapidly declining. If this trend continues of procedurally reversing administrative actions not because they are wrong but only because they were done by involved administrators, we will very soon be facing a situation where there are no administrators capable of acting against certain users and in certain topic areas. I encourage the committee and the community as a whole to consider this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC) trimmed for word count Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by Jayron32I'm not sure, at this point, if we can or should do anything further here. This particular AE filing has been tainted by the bad block (which has recently been undone by consensus at a WP:AN discussion). Whether or not TRM should or should not have been blocked stopped being the issue when the blocking admin jumped the gun and blocked him unilaterally and in contravention of the early stages of this discussion. It may have played out that consensus would have eventually been that TRM was in violation, and that a block would have been merited, but we'll never know. Officially, IAR is the only rule I follow 100% of the time, and I've never been accused of following policy for policy's sake, but pragmatically, when one oversteps policy in THIS way, it muddies the water and makes just enforcement impossible. It seems to me that the only thing to do is to let this go at this point, don't re-block TRM regardless of whether he did or didn't merit it. Per WP:ROPE either TRM will abide by the terms of his sanctions, or he won't. If he does, than this block was unnecessary. If he doesn't, then another block will be coming. But the current CF in no way is resolvable, and we should just shut this down and call it a day. Let WP:ROPE be our guidance here... --Jayron32 14:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by BanedonI'm of opinion this is similar to the examples I originally cited in the case request, and if this had happened prior to my filing the case I would've cited it as well. When the person you're talking to responds with "Welp. I tried. Nice. Way to chase your new helpers off" that must be a sign of going too far. Seriously TRM do you have to act like this ... your behavior on ITN improved to the point I was thinking of nominating you for adminship in a year's time, and then this happens ... as long as Katie and Michael Hardy fit WP:HERE, they, like the rest of us, are on your side. Do you really, really, have to bash them for trying to help? Banedon (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by Mr ErnieI find the 4th diff to be a violation of TRM's sanctions against insulting or belittling others. In light of MikeV's block and the subsequent unblock, I would suggest that we call this "time-served" and issue a strongly worded warning against future behavior. TRM has requested additional admin support at these main page venues, but insulting and belittling those who actually attempt good faith edits there does not seem like a sustainable way to improve involvement. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by Davey2010IMHO the 4th diff was a violation however because of the INVOLVED block I see no point in reblocking over it, Ofcourse like Jayron says had Mike not jumped the gun consensus may or may not have been to block but IMHO as it stands it's stupid to block someone, unblock them and then a few weeks later block them again ....., I would suggest we give TRM some rope (and a stern warning if it helps), close this and all move on. –Davey2010Talk 16:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by MasemInvolved only in so much as that I participate frequently at ITN. I think we all need to recognize editors are human and can make mistakes, even experienced ones. Yes, mistakes related to the main page are potentially more problematic, and editors are cautioned to avoid touching those templates if they are not sure on the process. But there is no need to chastise editors for a single mistake (its when it becomes a pattern after being toled about it before that we must become concerned), we're working collaboratively. I'm a bit worried about some of the above commentators putting the importance of the "sacred" nature of the main page over civility given the goals of this project. I would not say that the first three diffs are problematic on their own (others have shown the 4th being one of concern), but speaking as an ITN regular, TRM's attitude has started to creep up to where it was prior to the ArbCom case; it's not close, but the trend is very clear now. Otherwise ignoring the fourth diff, TRM should be TROUTED and reminded about the Arbcom case; but as to that 4th, I do feel a stronger statement should be made to caution TRM, but I don't have opinion if that should be anything more than a statement of concern to TRM. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning The Rambling Man
|
SPECIFICO
No violation has occurred. No action taken. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:05, 15 December 2016 (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 SPECIFICO
It's almost certainly not a coincidence that SPECIFICO reverted my edits in particular. Other users have noticed SPECIFICO's pattern of "misguided...at best" misrepresentation of my words and requesting "retaliatory and unwarranted" sanctions against me; shortly before the reverts, SPECIFICO told another user "TTAAC needs to be blocked or banned." SPECIFICO's only other revert at 2016 United States election interference by Russia was of material I expanded. (SPECIFICO's interest in baiting me into a ban appears to be motivated by SPIs I filed against User:Oneshotofwhiskey; they were all vindicated and Oneshot was indeffed, but SPECIFICO characterized them as "paranoid conspiracy theories about opponents," after having previously opposed a topic ban related to Oneshot's conduct at Dinesh D'Souza and complimented Oneshot's "constructive and usually policy-based ... edits and comments"—like this and this, presumably.)
I am also concerned by SPECIFICO's penchant for immediately threatening others users with sanctions on dubious grounds—which SPECIFICO has done twice just within the past several hours; User:Soham321 previously criticized SPECIFICO's proclivity for "frivolous threats" here at AE. (Note that in none of these three instances did SPECIFICO actually follow through and report the user they threatened, while SPECIFICO now denies "that's a violation of ARBAP2 and you might be surprised one day to be called on the carpet. Do be careful" was intended as a threat.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SPECIFICOStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SPECIFICOStatement by SagecandorSPECIFICO and I were able to work things out [9], and I assume good faith that the notification is just a notification with no ill intentions. As for this arbitration enforcement report itself, I agree with the analysis by Dennis Brown at [10]. Sagecandor (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging@Dennis Brown: This is where I plead ignorance. Recall that I did not report these reverts for the very reason you describe. However, SPECIFICO recently filed a frivolous 1RR "report" against me on your talk page, even though they never explained what I had supposedly "reverted" in the first diff cited. User:Volunteer Marek—who later struck out his comment after realizing I did not make the revert in question—attempted to draw a distinction between what you call "a single revert that used two edits" and what he dubbed "two different reverts." In that case, SPECIFICO seemed content to threaten me merely for making more than one edit to an article, and continues to insist that a second, unspecified revert occurred. (Obvious Oneshot socks have had no luck finding anyone that agrees with SPECIFICO's assessment; as User:Hut 8.5 remarked: "If you're going to accuse people of 1RR violations then you need to show that the edits in question were reverts, that is they undid something someone else did. There's nothing necessarily wrong with editing the article twice in 24 hours if the edits aren't reverts.") I confess to being frankly baffled by the DS on American Politics, because there seems to be no consistent criteria for how they are applied in practice. SPECIFICO has twice reverted two distinct edits of mine in two different sections of two articles and faced no penalty—but that same user pushed hard to have me topic banned not for violating 1RR, but rather the additional stipulation "You ... must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus" (which has been consistently abused by WP:BATTLEGROUND editors)—and, in your telling, came very close to succeeding (although non-admins were almost unanimously opposed). If I had made these reverts, it seems almost certain SPECIFICO would have reported me—after all, they've reported me for much less—and there's a very good chance I would not have escaped sanction. (Of course, the thrust of the complaint against me soon became a handful of uncivil edit summaries; should I add an appendix on uncivil remarks by SPECIFICO? Do you think I could get away with casually threatening editors the way SPECIFICO does, as documented above? How about the time SPECIFICO accused me of "tendentiously canvassing" another user by informing them of an SPI I had initiated against the IP they were interacting with? WP:CANVASS has a specific meaning, though I've never heard it applied to SPIs: Should SPECIFICO be allowed to use the word as a random insult if they have no intention of pursuing what would be a serious violation of Wikipedia policy? SPECIFICO has clearly been skirting on the edge of what is acceptable for a very long time now, and failing to warn against that sort of conduct will only encourage more of it.) So, you tell me: If these edits had been made by two different users, would SPECIFICO then have violated 1RR? What if SPECIFICO had reverted three or four edits of mine in quick succession? (Would that be "a single revert that used three or four edits"?) I'm deeply concerned that consistent standards are articulated here—not least of all because the total lack of consistency has allowed SPECIFICO to plausibly threaten users and coerce self-reverts even when the underlying policy rationale is far from obvious. (If SPECIFICO had asked me to self-revert rather than immediately running to you, I would have done so, even though I did nothing wrong.) It's as if the rules only apply to the outgroup, not the ingroup or the Wikilawyers; editors know where they stand and act accordingly.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning SPECIFICO
|
Tlroche
Tlroche (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed across all namespaces. SashiRolls (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from commenting on AE requests to which they are not a party. T. Canens (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2016 (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 Tlroche
Analysis by SashiRolls (talk · contribs) is wrong. Please see this explanation by Neutrality at [17], warning the user in question about misuse of word "slander". Sagecandor (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning TlrocheStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MrXThis out of control editor has also been reported to WP:ANEW.This editor needs to be blocked, topic banned, or both. They are some sort of mission to promote Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, and I'm guessing they have a COI. They are brazenly ignoring multiple talk page warnings, edit summaries reverting their edits, article talk page discussion, and the prominent edit notice. There is no excuse for this type of behavior. Their reaction to a polite, non-template message with diffs from an admin asking them to be more careful: "false neutrality removed". I wonder if this time we could actually use AE as it's intended and have an admin take the appropriate action to stop the blatant POV pushing, edit warring, and incivility. AE does not require consensus among admins, or lengthy discussion. - MrX 17:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by SashiRollsThe merit of this case (or lack thereof) is best demonstrated by diff 4 where Sagecandor reproaches the accused (Tlroche) for saying they (Sagecandor) made a slanderous accusation. Careful analysis of the diffs provided by the accused show the accused to be right, Tlroche merely added a signature where Sagecandor forgot to sign. This case should not be decided without looking more carefully into the accuser's history, especially this case at ANI and this talk page deletion which together seem to indicate a strong aversion to transparency. (as in the bogus diff 4 & 5 above). SashiRolls (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Some characteristic diffs showing that Sagecandor is not at all averse to making personal attacks or denouncing people without transparency. (I'm not the only one who he's denounced without pinging -- more diffs available if necessary):
Knowing the terrain, I understand why Tlroche could become frustrated as many editors have on those pages where Sagecandor is most active. Cf. Jimbo Wales#Systematic problems at US-Russia articles, where nearly every page mentioned refers to this editor. (As has also been a recent trend on AE, if you look back through the recent bans & blocks. We mustn't forget [27] in addition to those SC mentions (at AE)... there is method to this, if the AE administrators are willing to take the time to look into it, it may save embarrassment later. ) SashiRolls (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Volunteer MarekThis is more in regards to SashiRolls' comments here. The relevant policies are WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BATTLEGROUND. There's no reason for them to show up here and based on some flimsy excuse use this as a forum to attack another editor whom they happen to dislike.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by NeutralityI agree with MrX and Sagecandor. Particularly concerning re: Tlroche is his/her comment here: "I see no reason to seek approval from your rightwing cabal. ... I will continue to add valuable content as I see fit." Tlroche basically has expressed an open disdain for consensus. As to SashiRolls, I agree with Volunteer Marek and would merely note that this is part of a pattern of behavior. Neutralitytalk 19:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by TimothyjosephwoodIf you don't count the page and talk they're TBANNED from, this is Sashi's sixth most edited page on Wikipedia. They're off topic comments here have only resulted in more off topic comments (like this one). Support restricting AE comments on requests they are not a party to. Drama central is that way. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Tlroche
|
The Rambling Man
Re-instating previous close, no further action is forthcoming from this forum at this time. Per Floquenbeam's previous closing statement: "Considering all the blocks, unblocks, AN threads, ANI threads, AE reports, and retirements in the last few days, it looks like everyone is finally exhausted from stabbing each other in the eye with forks. Well, that's not true, I think there are still a few unstabbed eyeballs and a few people with forks, but the community in general has probably had enough. Jauerback says "let it go", and that seems like excellent advice for a week ago, and pretty good advice now."
Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning The Rambling Man
See below
In no less than 24 hours from the closure of the previous AE filing, it appears that TRM has continued to engage in inappropriate behavior. He has made personal attacks towards myself, including: not to mention his utter abject recalcitrance in redacting his accusations of lying ... To err is human, to completely reject any responsibility for false accusations is rogue admin, Mike will just use IRC and find an Arbcom/Mike-sympathetic admin to do the dirty work behind the scenes, Get him to write an error-free DYK, that would be a miracle. It is Christmas after all., and equating my warning and block to lynching and character assassination. TRM's uncivil behavior has extended to DYK when another editor asked him a question and he responded in a belittling fashion: I'm gonna take a punt here: PREVENTING ERRORS FROM HITTING THE MAIN PAGE?. It was followed up with: Impressive that you found such an appropriate yet shit article. You must have shares. Usual "belittling" caveat applies, although in your case, I couldn't give one, two or three fucks! Just kidding, obv!!!!!!!!! and No-one gives a fuck about the main page any more Martin. You know that. Finally, TRM has made insults towards some of the arbitration committee candidates: Hilarious, thanks. That someone who doesn't really edit Wikipedia and didn't answer the questions posed didn't come last, sums it all up perfectly! and Spectacular result. No wonder we trust Arbcom to understand what we do day-to-day around here! I am asking that you take a look at TRM's behavior and action it as appropriate. Mike V • Talk 15:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning The Rambling ManStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by The Rambling ManStellar waste of time, most diffs out of context or actually just statements of fact. Am on the road so can't respond for some time but hoping that we don't have another Mike V trigger finger block before I get a chance to respond. Mike V has still failed to respond to my request for him to redact the two accusations of lying, by the way. Perhaps we could ping the other people in those talk situations to see how "belittled" and/or insulted they felt! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Statement by FramAppropriate action would be a block of Mike V. for baiting. Really, it seems as if everyone by now has said to you that the original warning yu gaev which started all this was wrong. Your defense has been (paraphrased, duh): "I am not wrong", "I had no time between handing out that warning and speedily giving a block two weeks later to the same user to attend to this", and "I am not wrong, and I can't hear you". His examples above include things like I'm gonna take a punt here: PREVENTING ERRORS FROM HITTING THE MAIN PAGE?. If he isn't allowed to say something like that any longer, then some people really have become way, WAY too thin skinned. But perhaps it is just an "admin" looking for an excuse to block the editor again who got him ridiculed at AN, ANI, AE, and a slew of user talk pages? Mike V., you are only making a fool of yourself. Please boomerang close this. Fram (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC) @Ritchie333: thanks, but I hope someone else will do the honour. I would be accused of being involved, being wikifriends with you (I have an archived ANI discussion from this year to prove them wrong though :-D ), and so on. Probably by the same people that claimed that MikeV wan't involved because they had no article conflict with TRM. Fram (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by Ritchie333Agree with the above. Fram, if you wish to block Mike V for stirring up trouble and skirting around a recently placed community ban, you have my support. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Statement by 331dotAgree with the above as well. It would be wonderful if we could move on from this war against TRM. I'd probably be frustrated too and say things I'd regret if I were him. I don't condone everything he has said, but it is concerning to me that criticism of an administrator's actions is considered a 'personal attack' by that person. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by Davey2010Agree with everyone above - Continuing this is waste of time and right now if anyone deserves blocking it's Mike!, I suggest this gets speedy closed and I would also suggest Mike moves on!. –Davey2010Talk 15:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by JauerbackLet it go. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by IvanvectorIt would probably be best for everyone if everyone just steps away from this dispute for a bit. However, I would ask that someone please undo Mike V's indefinite full protection of his own talk page ([28]), that is inappropriate. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Statement by SagecandorProbably best for all involved to have a cup of tea at this point. I'm reminded of the phrase flogging a dead horse. Sagecandor (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by EEng@The Wordsmith: when you say "blocking a Functionary is unprecedented", I think what you mean is that it would be unprecedented to block a functionary and leave him a functionary. This episode has left in tatters Mike V's fitness to perform even the public functions of an admin; that he be allowed behind-the-scenes functions such as CU, oversight, and supervising edit filters and Arbcom elections is now, IMO, beyond the pale. He not only lacks judgment, but refuses to accept that he's seriously mistaken when literally dozens of editors (including admins) tell him so directly. How can we trust him with hidden roles that support the very fabric of the community? Even if he avoids desysopping (and I hope that will be given serious consideration given his latest foray into wasting everyone's time) I submit he should be immediately stripped of all roles other than admin. I think it's interesting that Mike V's response to being rebuked as an admin is to simply take his ball and go home, instead of returning to improving the encyclopedia in other ways – except of course he has no experience doing that. That confirms my longstanding impression that he sees his role here not as to help in building an encyclopedia, but rather as playing enforcer. Sorry, but that's the way I see it. EEng 18:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by TarageRemove MikeV's bit. This temper tantrum is unbecoming of an administrator and frankly, continuing to let him behave this way only further proves the massive issues with the current administrative staff. --Tarage (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by uninvolved SoftlavenderAs far as I can tell, I agree with some folks above who say that everyone simply needs to step away at this point. Apparently neither party has acted optimally. The moon is full and we're all going off the rails. Let's calm down for a bit. TRM is understandably frustrated that he has been desysopped and is unable to use his tools to fix the main page -- the accuracy of which he cares about passionately, more than anyone else, and it is a very good thing that he does care passionately about it. The main page would probably be a mess without him. His frustration has come out in verbiage -- the style of which isn't going to change completely overnight, nor should we expect it to, given that he can't fix the things he could so easily fix before. (All of that said, maybe TRM could use a short break from the mainpage, just to clear his mind. Just thinking aloud here.) Mike V. has apparently been acting autocratically and vengefully and without consequences. I think he needs to back way off or an RFAR may be the next stop. To avoid all of these consequences, can we please all just drop it and cut everyone a little slack for the time being? Softlavender (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My KenIf the call to block Mike V is heeded here, it seems extremely likely that Mike V's response would be to go to ArbCom. Since desysopping appears to be the actual desired result of many commenting here, then the case would have to go to ArbCom, since they're the only ones that can do that. Therefore, I suggest that this case be closed (for whatever reason) and someone (TRM, Fram, Ritchie, whoever) file a desysop case with ArbCom, since that's the only place where it can be properly ajudicated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning The Rambling Man
So... numerous people call for sanctions against an administrator, including other administrators, and the result is "let's just stop talking about this"? Are you kidding me? Are you forgetting who brought this here in the first place? --Tarage (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
|