User talk:Guerillero

Inconsistent DS?

I'm sure this was just an error, but after you said that you would be applying the same discretionary sanctions to each editor pinged, you then gave User:Binksternet a notice, rather than a sanction. Just in case you missed it. Anyway, looking forward to you suggestions, if any, on how to move forward with resolve the content problems. TheBlueCanoe 20:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@TheBlueCanoe: I can not sanction him due to the fact that was as never notified of the sanctions. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Explanation Required

Please explain in unambiguous terms how one single revert on a page in a decade constitutes edit warring, especially since a) the page's edit policy specified that an editor may not revert more than once every 24 hours, b) I have never been sanctioned or even warned about any kind of misbehavior in relation to the topic area, c) I have consistently advocated for civility, discussion and de-escalation of any battleground mentality on the talk page, and my only revert was directly related to fostering this approach. Bstephens393 (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bstephens393: You took part in the edit war that lead to the article being locked --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you please consider to cancel the topic ban added on me?

Admin: Upon the SI result of PatCheng/PCPP, Could you please consider to cancel my topic ban you issued? As I should not be banned based on a complaint by a user who is not allowed to make such a complaint. Thanks. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 01:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Marvin 2009, two wrongs don't make a right. While the sockpuppet investigation found that another editor engaged in policy violations, the community still expects you to:

1. Acknowledge that your conduct fell short of Wikipedia's behavioral standards, and
2. Show that you would edit constructively if you are allowed to return to the topic area that you are banned from

Part #2 requires you to make high-quality contributions in different topic areas. This is why I and others have advised you to refrain from appealing your topic ban for a minimum of six months at WP:AN § Appealing my topic ban – you'll need the time to demonstrate that you can edit constructively before you are able to make a strong appeal. Guerillero has the final word, of course, but it is commonly known that an appeal of a topic ban shortly after it is issued is highly unlikely to be successful. — Newslinger talk 06:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger: I appreciate you spent time investigating PatCheng/PCPP. May I ask whether you have checked the evidence on STSC and LucasGeorge provided in the end part of section A and C of the AN appeal, and section C, as well as the interesting results from Editor Interaction Analyser. I raised concerns on PCPP and PatCheng to admin Guerillero weeks ago. Guerillero's question on the strange 8 years break from 2011 to 2019 was reasonable, which inspired me for more investigations for the period. So i have those findings. Thanks. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 02:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Marvin 2009, requesting an investigation of these users with the provided links is actually a violation of the topic ban, since this matter is connected to the Falun Gong topic area, and sockpuppet investigations are not covered under the exceptions in WP:BANEX. Please take care to avoid the Falun Gong topic area entirely while the topic ban is in place. I was able to handle the PatCheng/PCPP investigation because Pudeo submitted the evidence in their own name. Nevertheless, I have to agree with Pudeo that the behaviorial evidence for STSC and LucasGeorge is not strong enough to show a connection to PatCheng/PCPP, since I already had examined these accounts during the PatCheng/PCPP investigation. — Newslinger talk 02:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger:, Thanks for the reminding. Let me remove the links. i mainly asked whether you have checked before. Now i got the answer. Thanks again for your effort. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 03:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Marvin 2009: Per Newslinger's comments, I am declining to reverse your topic ban at this time. Please show me that you can edit constructively in other areas of the encyclopedia without issue. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero: I edited other articles as well. The article Xu Pei was created by me in the May. i started to worked on it in my sandbox last year. I am also interested in engineering related topics like Heat pump and refrigeration cycle Refrigeration Adsorption refrigeration Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning etc. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 21:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Marvin 2009: Come back in 6-12 months. The more you are clamoring to return to the topic area and trying to find a wedge to overturn the topic ban, the more it seems that the topic ban was the correct call. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger and Guerillero:: In my responses to the complains and in my appeal, for the areas I fell short I did acknowledge, but I did not commit any of the 20+ wrongdoings alleged by Patcheng.

This AE case is nothing like the usual cases you experienced. 1. Patcheng had extremely bad records, as admin Newslinger have found. 2. The fact that it was launched and prepared by a sock puppet account shows that it was motivated by bad faith. 3. There is no merit. I refuted them one by one in User_talk:Marvin_2009/AEresponse#C._Responses_to_User_Pat_Cheng's_fake_accusations So, this AE case is exceptional. The content must be considered with skepticism, because the purpose of the author of that AE case is in serious question.

The point of a sock puppetry act is that the sock puppet is dispensable. By banning me and the sock puppet, I think that is what the sock puppet wanted. I think the admins on this AE case are playing right into his/her hands.

Sockpuppet_(Internet)#Block_evasion

One reason for sockpuppeting is to circumvent a block, ban or other form of sanction imposed on the person's original account. After access is restricted, people may try to get around the sanctions by using alternate accounts.

WP:Sockpuppetry

Evasion of sanctions: Sanctions apply to individual editors as people, not to accounts. Using a second account to edit in violation of an active block or community sanction will result in further sanctions, which may include removal of your contributions.

This AE case should not be seen as legitimate in the first place, as it was launched by TBAN user PCPP using sock puppet. The 6 months waiting time for an appeal might be okay for one who has indeed committed wrongdoings. For the unusual injustice in this unusual case even one day is too long. As it doesn't seem like any one has thoroughly reviewed my detailed response for Patcheng's accusations, you might not realize this.

In my latest appeal, I made detailed response to defend my edits on their merits. Yet comments were mainly “TL;DR”, “NOTHEM”, “Two wrongs do not make a right”. Although I agree with these points, hearing that tune tells me that no editor actually read my appeal in detail, at least they have not read past the first section. One would be aware that all my 7 edits were made in response to the disruptive edits from other users, if he or she could review the context.

My AE response and appeal were lengthy. I believe in simplicity and had no desire to write a long appeal if I could make it short in any way. Aside from my mastery of the language is not so adequate for making a concise and effective case, the matter that PatCheng's plotted and get me banned ran deep in many years involving at least one sock puppet of the TBAN user PCPP.

I feel that the element of bad faith surrounding the AE means that the accusations against me and my defense against them should at least, be viewed with care. I feel that that has not nearly been the case.

Before this year's AE report, I was following NPOV spirit for addressing WP:OR content brought in by another user. After I tried to prevent OR edits (detailed explanation of all my seven edits for the FLG article this year were in section B of the AN appeal), the AE report from a sock puppet was launched, and the resulting topic ban was enforced, aren't both the fruits from a poisonous tree?

It should have been a part of admins' responsibility to prevent a topic banned user from using a sock puppet and reporting on AE. I was a victim of the sock puppet circumventing the topic ban and the resulting erroneous ban, just because I tried to prevent disruptive POV edits on basis of NPOV principle. I am innocent to the accusations of being disruptive and casting aversion. I was the one who was attacked by POV editors. I did not cast any aversion here or anywhere. My topic ban was a huge mistake, so I hope that the existing mechanism in Wikipedia would correct the mistake.

At the end of the day, I feel that this administrative action has helped the sockpuppeter achieve his agenda. His target is eliminated. He gets away scot-free, with confidence and license to commit more of such acts in the future. The administrative action against me is setting a dangerous precedent.

I agree with your guys' advice on making high-quality contributions in different topic. Suppose I am cleared off the false accusations, I will try to mainly focus editing other human rights topics and engineering topics.Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 21:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero: You asked me to "how you can edit constructively in other areas of the encyclopedia without issue". I followed your instruction and provided evidence.

It seems that I was deeply misunderstood. Please be aware that I was not "clamoring to return to the topic area". In fact, prior to this June's 7 edits for addressing two users' Original Research issues, I have not touched FLG article for over a year. Neither did I try "to find a wedge to overturn the topic ban". I mainly reminded the illegitimacy of the AE report from a sock puppet going around his TBAN, and give the relevant parties opportunities to correct the errors.

I am, in your word, "clamoring", because I am genuinely bothered about the injustice and harm arising from this administrative action against me. In a case like this, the administrative decision is not just a harm to me, the way that it rewards the wrongdoer and punishes the victim harms the community on a whole. Precious Stone (Marvin 2009) 21:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Marvin 2009: My answer has not changed in the past 3 days, and I am not discussing this with you again until 2021. You are welcome to try your luck at AE again, but they tend to look dimly upon re-running appeals so close together. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Clarification sought

Hello - I see you have been fielding a few other questions from affected editors on the FLG stuff. My two main questions or issues are:

Why am I subject to sanctions when I did not actually edit war? An edit war means "repeatedly override each other's contributions", but I did a single revert of a fairly... let us say, unusual edit from Binksternet, and I left a comment on the talk page detailing the concerns. Bink's edit was quite singular, involving the removal of reference to the stated central teachings of the FLG and insertion of a conference paper saying that those beliefs were actually evasive tactics. This struck me as quite unusual (what with the central beliefs of the group being noted almost everywhere one reads about them in the lit). He reverted afterwards, and I didn't get back to the pages after that. Looking at the page history, I see the back-and-forth after that is indeed looking edit-warry, but I wasn't involved. I subsequently tried to make some of the language a bit more neutral, make language more accurate, and add sources. Not edit warring.

Secondly, it seems quite unreasonable to give blanket sanctions to everyone except the individual who kicked off the entire thing, doesn't it? You say that Bink was not formally notified of the sanctions... but obviously he knew. In that case, why was he not "formally notified"? Does the absence of a "formal notification" disable you from using your discretion to include him in the sanctions, or is that a hard rule you must follow? If it is a matter of your discretion, I would simply ask whether it appears that the same standard is being applied to everyone who interacts with these pages. I have seen editors like Doug Weller and others give quite aggressive notifications to other editors driving by. Was Bink not notified because he is a veteran of the community, and so would be assumed to know the rules? Does anyone actually doubt that he did not know about the discretionary sanctions the pages are under, despite the lack of a notification? It simply stands to reason that everyone should be treated in the same way. I'm struggling to come up with an interpretation of this that does not reveal differential treatment for different editors. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You participated in the extended multi-party edit war. Everyone involved that I could sanction was sanctioned. For the past few months, the article has become a mud fight of edit warring. I was considering handing out topic bans, but the 0RR sanction fit the current climate better.

Does the absence of a "formal notification" disable you from using your discretion to include him in the sanctions, or is that a hard rule you must follow? Yes. It is a hard rule. It is considered to be tool misuse to sanction people who have not been notified in the past 12 months. Talk to ArbCom about how their rewrote the way DS are enforced a few years ago. I would have had discretion before the change. Today, none. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

What exactly are Discretionary sanctions?

On WP:AE, some are proposing using those against me. I know that they apply to Eastern Europe, but I don't understand what DS actually are. I thought maybe you could clarify that? Notrium (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Notrium: from WP:AC/DS "Discretionary sanctions is a special system that creates an acceptable and collaborative editing environment for our most contentious and strife-torn articles. Discretionary sanctions may be placed by administrators within specified topics after the Arbitration Committee has authorised their use." --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I still do not understand what are DS. As far as I see from reading the linked page, it seems that DS policy just forbids stuff that is forbidden anyway. Could you explain, e.g., what is the difference between sanctions given for misbehavior on cats-related articles (just an example), as opposed to discretionary sanctions for Eastern Europe? Thank you. Notrium (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Notrium: DS fast tracks sanctions that would need a consensus to implement in other areas --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Notrium (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

FYI

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Falun Gong and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks,

Hi – just leaving this because the filing party didn't formally include you as a party, but this is your sanction. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)