Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
→Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Oktayey: close as declined, with warning that further disruption may lead to an indefblock |
→Appeal Request by 3Kingdoms: close as downgrade to 0RR, liftable by any admin after 3mo |
||
Line 318: | Line 318: | ||
==Appeal Request by 3Kingdoms== |
==Appeal Request by 3Kingdoms== |
||
{{hat|1={{nobold|1=3Kingdoms' ARBPIA TBAN is downgraded to a 0RR, which may be lifted at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator after 3 months. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> (she|they|xe) 20:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)}}}} |
|||
<small>''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see [[WP:UNINVOLVED]]).''</small> |
<small>''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see [[WP:UNINVOLVED]]).''</small> |
||
Line 359: | Line 359: | ||
*{{ping|Nableezy}} You started the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive284#3Kingdoms|March 2021 AE]] request. Do you have any comments about this appeal? [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 23:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC) |
*{{ping|Nableezy}} You started the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive284#3Kingdoms|March 2021 AE]] request. Do you have any comments about this appeal? [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 23:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC) |
||
*I'm comfortable with 0RR liftable by any admin after 3 months. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 07:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC) |
*I'm comfortable with 0RR liftable by any admin after 3 months. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 07:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC) |
||
{{hab}} |
|||
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Oktayey== |
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Oktayey== |
Revision as of 20:27, 4 August 2023
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Important information Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
Appeal request by GoodDay
Appeal declined. GoodDay is advised to take on board the feedback given before making a future appeal. Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Appeal request by GoodDay (talk)Sanction, that appeal is being requested forAdministrator imposing the sanctionNotification of that administratorStatement by GoodDayWell, it' been a full year now, since my t-ban was imposed. I've been asked why appeal, if I'm going to avoid the topic anyway. Because, it's less stressful, if one edits a page (unknowingly) even remotely related to Gensex, without the possibility of breaching a formal t-ban. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Good catch @Courcelles:, I did appeal, six months ago. My apologies for the over sight. Since then, I've successfully had my t-ban modified. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC) @Sideswipe9th:, I've no plans to make any Gensex related edits or get involved in Gensex content disputes/discussions. If my appeal is successful? I would certainly walk away or stay away, from such disputes & undo any edits to main space, if seen as problematic. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC) @Swarm:, We've got links to both the July 2022 case & Jan 2023 appeal, I believe now. I would appreciate it, if you would point out, any other. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC) @Miesianiacal:, I'm fully aware, one must tread carefully around the GenSex topic & interaction with editors, when content disputes arise. Can I do better? There's only one way to prove if I can. That would be lifting the t-ban & giving me that chance. In the GenSex topic, I can prove I can do better, if I'm given the chance to 'walk the walk. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC) To administrators - I will not be argumentative around the GenSex topic, since I won't be giving input in GenSex topic disputes. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC) @Black Kite: & @Thryduulf:, thanks for pointing out, that the amendment has been successful. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC) Thryduulf. It's been a whole year since my t-ban was put in place. I was hoping that my ability to abide by the t-ban & the amendment (which I requested six months ago), would show I no longer needed to be t-banned. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC) @Thryduulf:, so I won't exhaust the process. When would I be allowed to request an appeal again, if the current request is turned down. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Hello @Tamzin:. I must ask the question (to all administrators) - If I've proven that I won't be a problem around GenSex. Why then keep me t-banned from the topic. The t-ban is a preventative measure. So the question remains. Is it still viewed, that I would continue to be a problematic editor in the topic-in-question, if the t-ban were lifted? Figuratively speaking - If one says they won't visit a certain town again, or at least not cause trouble in that town again. Should one still be barred from that town, in any form? FWIW, I've proven myself to be capable to adopt in the past, with two other t-bans (since lifted). The British/Irish political topics & the Diacritics topic, where I've toned down my behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC) For clarity's sake. Are administrators wondering why, I'm choosing to not go around the GenSex topic, if my t-ban is lifted? GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC) @Floquenbeam:, your observations may well have clarified much, for me. I already have apologised to the editor-in-question, whom I used the offensive pronoun against. I've no malice against the editor-in-question, but I'm not allowed to communicate with them, anymore. I was indeed site-banned for 13-months (2012–13), concerning being argumentative/disruptive in (I believe) three topic areas (I think the third area, was the Baltic states) -- but have since proven myself to the arbitrators who lifted that site-ban & eventually the topic-bans, that their faith in me wasn't misplaced. But, perhaps you're correct. Messing up in the GenSex area (yes I did this to myself), just might make future appeals 'dead on arrival'. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Floq, I understand what you're telling me & appreciate your honesty. I'm also aware, if the t-ban were lifted. I would continue to be under tight scrutiny. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Statement by Dennis BrownStatement by Sideswipe9thJust to note on the timeline, this is GoodDay's third appeal, having made and withdrawn an appeal in January 2023, and having made a successful amendment request in February 2023. I'm honestly not sure what Statement by TamzinBlack Kite raised the issue, in the thread where the TBAN was imposed, of "a moderate CIR problem". In light of the above—10 comments after which it still remains unclear why GoodDay, an editor of 18 years' tenure, wants the TBAN lifted, why he thinks the criteria for lifting are met, and whether he understands that the amendment already allows the kinds of edits he wishes to make—I do wonder if that's something that needs to be explored more seriously. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Statement by FloqGoodDay, I do not have time to research whether I'm "involved" regarding you, so I'll play it safe and post here (this should not be interpreted as agreeing I'm involved if it comes up in the future; I think I'm not involved). But to answer your question, I think the general philosophy might be that you too often refuse to let something go (to the point where at one point you were sitebanned because of it), and that you cannot necessarily be trusted when you say you're over it. That, combined with a persistently annoying and tone-deaf approach to these requests, means that most people are going to shrug and say "I'm not going out on a limb for this person". And finally, your reference to another human as "it" may strike some people as evidence of you being a hateful person, rather than a clueless one, and regardless of whether it is true or not, no one wants to go out on a limb for a potentially hateful person. You're acting like this is Kafkaesque, and that it's crazy that there's nothing you can say that would get you out of the topic ban. But I'd say it's more like you made your bed, now you have to lie in it. After so many disputes in so many areas, you should be prepared to hear "Just no. Never." Even if it seems excessive to you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal request by GoodDayStatement by FormalDudeWhy are you appealing the t-ban if you "would very much rather avoid" the topic area? ––FormalDude (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Statement by MiesianiacalCan GoodDay demonstrate he's learned from the mistakes he's made? Simply recognizing the topic is contentious isn't enough; an inability to recognize contentiousness wasn't even the problem that led to the t/ban in the first place. Given my own recent experience with GoodDay a couple of months ago, I'm highly skeptical of any claim that he's learned from his mistakes and "I'll just keep myself away from the topic" isn't very reassuring. My impression is GoodDay should elaborate on what he believes he did wrong and then on how he proposes to do things better going forward. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC) Result of the appeal request by GoodDay
|
Fowler&fowler
Fowler&fowler has taken on the advice provided by a number of editors in this thread. Closing with no further action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:42, 29 July 2023 (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 Fowler&fowler
Made 3 reverts on the main article of Mahatma Gandhi even after knowing that he got no support for his edits on the talk page concerning a 5 months-old content dispute. He resumed discussion on the talk page (by starting a new section instead of continuing on the existing one) only after reaching too close to making 4 reverts in 24 hours.[2][3][4] His talk page discussions have been toxic due to his personal attacks and he continues to show his failure to drop the stick.
His responses to editors who have raised issues on his talk page include " This is a long-term behavioral issue with Fowler, to impose his views and exhaust the patience of others. Experienced editors of this area have frequently condemned the behavior of Fowler,[8][9][10][11] with some deeming his actions as a "
Discussion concerning Fowler&fowlerStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Fowler&fowlerI shall not be responding to these allegations in any great detail. I suspect that Abhishek0831996 (talk · contribs), who appears to be more of a talk page editor—for they have made but two edits in Mahatma Gandhi, both over the weekend—have begun this request because their sources, which I am about to take to RS/N, (see here) will not pass muster there and the rug of their revisionist effort at Mahatma Gandhi will be pulled from under their feet. What better way to stop a content dispute from progressing than to sink it in the mire of behavior. The only other thing I'd like to note is that the exchange on my user talk page about "meatpuppetry" was in the nature of humor. I am being baited relentlessly by Wikipedia's Hindu nationalists, all in polite language, all in the best traditions of Wikilawyering. One such editor Fayninja (talk · contribs) has just been banned for sockpuppetry; another Meowkiti (talk · contribs) who made a meat-puppetry allegation on my user talk page has also been banned for sockpuppetry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
It seems that people who promote POV, especially some version of a nationalist or sub-nationalist- or Hindu-nationalist POV, are looking here for the redress of bruised egos from past interactions. The egos were bruised because they couldn't have their way in the face of reliable sources of due weight. UnpetitproleX, for example, attempted to lock horns over a sentence in Himalayas describing the disputed sovereignty of the mountain range in the Kashmir region. In the guise of another editor user:Pankykh they had waged the same battle with me earlier. After I voiced my suspicions, and not just once, an admin determined the two accounts to have been operated by the same editor, even during the same time. After the admin told Unpetit* to state this clearly on their user page, they were very reluctantly dragged into admitting it on user:UnpetitproleX in what remains a marvel of evasive off-handedness. I, after nearly 17 years, would not have the guts.
Then, after I made the error of using "his" for Unpetit* somewhere, they said I had misgendered them. I doubt they had stated this earlier either on their user page or in any interaction with someone else. In real life, we have three daughters, now in their early 30s. Carol Gilligan, moreover, was a hero in our household. Long ago I created the Wikipedia articles on Dorothy Burlingham (see here), stubs on Phyllis Greenacre and Anna Freud Centre, references to Edith Pechey in Herbert Musgrave Phipson and so forth, and I'm thinking to myself, "Is this for real?" People who have been buffeted by society on account of gender, race, a physical handicap, or other "difference" are never so full of bluster, nor so off-handed about these issues to use them as a Wikipedia tactic. They've mourned for their condition. With them, I have a different order of interaction. (See here for an example). Sadly, some people arrive on Wikipedia with more grandiosity and bias than skill. Their egos are bruised. Rather than taking it on the chin, developing skills, and moving on, in South Asia especially they harbor grudges for years. Whether this is the acting out of Louis Dumont's hierarchy-ridden society in Homo Hierarchicus, an All Chiefs and No Indian one, I can't say, but it is a sad, sad, fact. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Statement by RegentsPark(Involved because I have a long respected Fowler&fowler for their contributions.) Let me start by stating that, yes, we do have a Hindu nationalist sock problem (see this) on Wikipedia (though I don't see Abhishek0831996 as belonging to this group). And, as we can see by the blocking of editors like Fayninja, many of they are socks and they do target and bait Fowler. They do this because Fowler brings many good sources to the table and it is easier to bait him than it is to argue against those sources. What we end up with is endless discussions, a lot of needling, and, yes, a Fowler going off the rails. In defense of Fowler, they repeatedly ping various admins for help but, because the needling is subtle (you'd have to be a veritable Seneca if you're getting many comments like this one) there isn't much we can do (though Abecedare does try). I'd suggest closing this with the advice (to Fowler) to tone it down, try not to see Hindu nationalists everywhere, and ask admins for help directly (rather than using pings) with appropriate diffs. RegentsPark (comment) 14:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC) Statement by AbecedareMy overall opinion matches Regent Parks'. So instead of repeating what they said, I'll only add my read of the events that led to this report.The casus belli is this content dispute from March 2023, where despite the length, editors appear to be discussing sources and content in good faith. However, suddenly on July 20 Randy Kryn, who hadn't participated in that March discussion but had other editing disputes with F&f, decided to "removed incorrect information in lead and edited for brevity" based on that discussion while conceding in their full edit-summary that the discussion was still ongoing. This then led to:
My recommendation would be that the editor's involved in the original, largely health though frustrating, discussion use WP:DRN to resolve that dispute since its very length is likely to make an RFC unworkable and dissuade fresh participants. And as RP advised, tone it down, AGF, focus on content and avoid escalatory reverts and rhetoric. Yes there are trolls and POV pusher aplenty in this and the larger IPA area as my recap above shows, but the core group involved here are "just" having a good-faith content dispute. Abecedare (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC) Statement by Captain Jack SparrowThere are a few persistent issues with Fowler&Fowler, which they have repeatedly refused to address. I had added a note to this effect on their talk page (this has been referenced above). Fowler uses AGF as a suggestion, not policy - Casually accusing editors (including longtime editors) of "Hindu Nationalist" agendas, for no purpose other than to try and invalidate their arguments. Fowler also engages in weaponisation of previous on-wiki achievements - Frequently using their previous achievements (like FA articles and time on the site) to strike at other editors, rather than discussing on merits. This is quite egregious IMO, and directly against the spirit of a collaborative project.
And all of these are just from a very recent dispute they had at Mahatma Gandhi. This behaviour is not one off - It has been used so quite repeatedly in the past as well. An example of condescending incivility from an older discussion supplied by OP, which had very much the same pattern, is an illustrative tool here.
The issues go beyond this, to a general condescending tone, edit warring when they feel they are right -[24][25][26][27], [28][29] & [30][31] and hostility towards any disagreements; but these alone show that at this point, just ignoring the issue is no longer an option. When F&F has been brought to noticeboards previously, a few editors have cited some of their previous work in improving articles to shield them; Others have questioned their opponents behavior, and F&F has walked away mostly unscathed. When misbehaviour is long term, it cannot be brushed off as a result of a content dispute. I think continuing to allow this with just a warning, despite the last logged warning for incivility, is just affirming in F&F's mind that their behaviour is acceptable. At what point do we finally decide to tell an editor, longtime as they may be, that their behaviour is unacceptable? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Aman.kumar.goelI was pinged above. I would say that the entire response of Fowler&fowler is largely about what others might be doing rather than what they are doing themselves. Given that Fowler is showing WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior even on this noticeboard and assuming things that cannot be backed with evidence, I am sure it is sensible to assume that he is lacking collaborative approach to contribute in this contentious area. At least a restriction involving revert count (1RR) and civility should be in place, if not outright topic ban, to address the major behavioral issues such as page ownership and incivility. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC) Statement by CMDI have interacted with F&F across a small selection of WP:ARBIPA topics, and have directly asked them to adjust or withdraw comments at times. F&F lacks a diplomatic nuance, and has a particular verbosity which often does not help. That said, as RegentsPark notes F&F has had years of being baited on various topics, likely due to their proficiency in the content side in an area with persistent issues. It is often difficult for uninvolved parties to intervene on these disputes, as they often involve great detail and domain-specific knowledge. The current dispute at Talk:Mahatma Gandhi is one such example, it's a sprawling dispute that would take hours to properly peruse. It is clear though that F&F has referred to a number of sources, and while I have not analysed this particular dispute in detail, in previous unrelated discussions I have found their choice of sources and their analysis of said sources persuasive. Given the persistent issues surrounding ARBIPA and the detail of the topic, I do not hold the WP:1AM argument to have much weight here due to the difficulty of input from uninvolved editors. F&F does not always interact ideally, but I would be very impressed if they did given what goes on year after year. As I'm sure might be common knowledge, these areas with persistent disruption are challenges it is difficult for en.wiki to deal with. The ideal answer is (as it often is) more uninvolved eyes throughout the topic area, and a lesser step may be to force discussions into a more accessible and structured format somehow. Both difficult asks. CMD (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC) Statement by Bookku
-- Bookku (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Statement by UnpetitproleXThe biggest issue for me has been this editor casting aspersions against me in multiple discussions. ([34][35] [36]) I’m made to defend myself rather than focus on the discussion at hand (like here and here). There are instances of aspersions that are also wikihounding. They made these comments [37] on my featured picture nomination, essentially "warning" people at FPC about me (and recently made this accusation [38] regarding my work at FPC on an unrelated RfC). When I complained about their behavior (earlier, when they posted on my nom) they removed my message without any response [39] and continued to wikihound me.[40] They made this comment [41] on my post to another editor’s talk page, "warning" them against me. They have made several highly uncivil remarks on my gender and repeatedly insulted me—all snowballing from me asking them to use gender neutral pronouns for me. I asked them to not assume my gender the first time they referred to me as "he", in response to which they rudely asked me [42] to " After an intervention by an admin, where they again accused me [48] of scheming against them, they tendered a backhanded 'unconditional' apology for "hurting [my] feelings", though I doubt the sincerity of this apology because of its tone and because they later again said that my objections were too "wiki-lawyerish". And just yesterday, they accused me of sock-puppetry at SPI without providing any evidence at all. [49] -- UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Statement by JohnbodI agree with RegentsPark and Abecedare. I am involved as reverting to F&F's version, but I don't claim to have read all the long talk section on the dispute, or have specific knowledge of the point at issue. I have had many disagreements with F&F in the past, and he certainly does tend to mount his high horse, but I have great respect for his passion for keeping WP's Indian articles up to the highest standards, and his knowledge of the scholarly sources. I think everyone should calm down. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC) Statement by TamzinI will recuse with respect to the pronouns matter, as the primary author of WP:EDPRONOUNS, and comment here instead. @Fowler&fowler: I have no doubt of your prowess as a content creator, nor your commitment to women's rights. Until I got to Unpetitprole's comment, I was reading this from an admin perspective and inclined to close with RegentsPark's warning/reminder. I do want to say now, though, that it is basically never a good idea to question the sincerity of someone's gender/pronouns, outside of those rare cases where someone is blatantly trolling (e.g. certain far-right commentators). There is no outcome where that will tend toward building an encyclopedia. I understand the uncomfortable feeling of being called out in blunt terms, and there's a reason EDPRONOUNS advises against that. Unpetitprole's initial comment to you was testier than I'd advise, but then again, the essay also advises, I don't think anyone's trying to cancel you for assuming "he" on two occasions, but I would strongly discourage you from going down any road of whether someone actually identifies as a particular gender, and instead focus on content rather than contributors. And if you can take that on board as well as RegentsPark's comments, I think we can be done here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC) Statement by TrangaBellamF&F is almost always highly accurate on the aspects of content — a rarity that must be rewarded in such a contentious area — but as others say, the rhetoric needs to be toned down and above all, he needs to assume good faith of those who choose to disagree on occassions. Please keep comments focused on content; not on meta-issues. That said, while his discourse on UnpetitproleX's gender was (and is; what's with piggybacking on the essentialist Dumontian nonsense?) eggregiously poor, I do not see reason to doubt that he has taken Tamzin's advice to heart and perhaps, all of us can move on. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Fowler&fowler
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by BobNesh
Clear consensus to uphold sanction. Note that the AEblock becomes a regular block (subject to WP:UNBLOCK/WP:RAAA rules) on 2024-07-14. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by BobNeshI should be unblocked because in the meantime I haven't made any edits on main Wikipedia pages (for over a month!); because I think (or at least, I thought) that we should avoid double standards; because I think that Wikipedia should be objective and not to push someone's bias and agenda. Unfortuanly, this isn't the case with pages related to Ukrainian war. There are users that constantly treat other users that make good faith edits (citing Western mainstream media sources by the way) and revert their constructive edits. I personally never treated anyone. The treats and insults were directed towards me and towards other editors that make constructive edits in order to make Wikipedia articles as objective as possible. Numerous times they were called "dogs" on the talk page, but there are no sanctions for that. These insults remain to this day on "Battle for Bakhmut" talk page. Yes, I said that as written, Wikipedia article "Battle for Bakhmut" distorts the reality and negates the facts. But this was noticed by dozens of other users as well, not just me! They cite a number of Western sources that admit that the battle of Bakhmut ended, yet by bias-pushing, stealth canvassing users these claims are ridiculed and ignored. As a sign of good will, I will completely give up and won't edit even talk pages related to Ukrainian war, I promise. Time will take care of that. Thank you. BobNesh (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC) Statement by Courcelles
Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by BobNeshStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)Result of the appeal by BobNesh
|
Appeal Request by 3Kingdoms
3Kingdoms' ARBPIA TBAN is downgraded to a 0RR, which may be lifted at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator after 3 months. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Topic ban from the subject of Arab-Israeli conflict, imposed at [50], logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive284
Statement by 3KingdomsHow I acted back then was wrong, overly aggressive, and honestly embarrassing. I let my own personal frustrations spill over here which is never the right thing. Since I have come back, I feel that I have been a far more constructive editor and will not fall into the same habit as before. I have not engaged in edit-warring and have worked to talk out differences with other editors to achieve consensus. I would happily accept a 3-month 0revert order. I hope that I can have this sanction removed. Thank you Statement by NewslingerStatement by NableezyI hope 3Kingdoms has learned how to edit collaboratively in heated topics. I don’t really have any thoughts on if he has, just haven’t looked at his edits, but the request reads sincere enough that I don’t really have a reason to oppose it. nableezy - 00:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by 3KingdomsStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)Result of the appeal by 3Kingdoms
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Oktayey
Consensus that the restriction should stand, and if anything was quite generous. Oktayey is warned that several admins felt an indefinite block would have been appropriate, and that further disruption may result in such without further warning. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Oktayey(Apologies if this is formatted incorrectly!) I was in an RfC discussion when Zaathras collapsed it [54], claiming it was off-topic. For context, the RfC was about whether to state a couple claims in Wikivoice, and my discussion was about whether the provided sources could support the claims in Wikivoice. I twice reverted the collapse [55] [56], explaining in my edit summaries how it wasn't off-topic and asking for any explanation otherwise. The collapse was restored both times, first by Zaathras (again) [57], then DanielRigal [58], neither providing an explanation of how the discussion was off-topic. I left a message [59] on DanielRigal's talk page asking them to revert their collapse, who refused. I asked how the discussion was off-topic, and they accused me of sealioning. Denaar then restored the discussion [60], but it was collapsed once again by ScottishFinnishRadish [61]. Denaar challenged ScottishFinnishRadish on their talk page, and I chimed in [62]. It was then Doug Weller banned me [63] for "disruptive editing". I don't hide that I've made blatant mistakes on Wikipedia early on, but I've learned much since then, and this ban is ridiculous. I felt I was making great points in that discussion, and it absolutely was relevant. I reverted its collapse those two times because I was being given no explanation otherwise. I tried to give DanielRegal and ScottishFinnishRadish the benefit of the doubt by trying to resolve it on their talk pages before resorting to ANI, but was instead banned for supposed disruption. I request that this sanction be lifted, and I think at least a condemnation of Doug Weller's and ScottishFinnishRadish's conduct would be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oktayey (talk • contribs) 09:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Doug WellerThis feels a bit surreal. It's true I didn't reply to him on my talk page, ScottishFinnishRadish explained it and Courcelles told me that I should have indefinitely blocked. SFR has explained the issues again here as have other editors. If the problems aren't obvious I doubt anyone can convince them that they are the problem, not everyone else. What I've learned from this AE request is that I don't expect a change in this editor's conduct and that I should have indefinitely blocked, which would have saved a lot of people's time while still allowing them to appeal. Doug Weller talk 12:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC) Statement by ScottishFinnishRadishAlthough I consider myself uninvolved, as all of my actions have been made in an administrative capacity I'll put myself here instead of the uninvolved administrator section since some action is being called for against me. It seems they have an issue with my restoration of a hat of a non-constructive tangent during an RFC. I explained my action, and stand by the restoration of the hat. As I said when explaining my action, As for the (lenient) topic ban, it prevents the disruption that Oktayey is causing on the talk page and to the RFC, allows editing in other topic areas, and requires them to edit in other topic areas so they can return to the topic with broader experience on Wikipedia. It will also give the community the ability to judge whether they are disruptive in just this one topic area or in general. This may become an important piece of information in the future. This seems like a win-win as far as sanctions go. No one is blocked, the disruption is ended, the sanctioned editor has to gain more experience before returning to a contentious topic area where they are causing disruption, and the community will have a better baseline to judge Oktayey's behavior on if it becomes an issue in the future. As far as the disruption goes, there has been significant bludgeoning, IDHT, and general time wasting caused by their behavior. About a third of their total edits are to Talk:Gays Against Groomers, and their contributions amount to over 20% of the edits to that page, and nearly a quarter of all text added. They have constantly been beating the drum that the sourcing is inadequate, despite the clear and obvious consensus over the past several months that this is not the case. Wasting editor time by rehashing discussions where there is a clear consensus over the course of months is disruptive. I warned them in March that this behavior was becoming disruptive, where I said The collapsed text on the talk page related to bias in sourcing, with the first collapsed message reading, in part, They said above, Statement by ZaathrasI hatted a tangent that had gone way waaaaaay into the weeds. Far away from discussing the usage of sources in the article and into a meta-discussion regarding what it means to be a "biased" source and whether that alleged bias renders it unusable for a topic, despite it being deemed an otherwise WP:RS. This was ultimately upheld by an admin. I was not involved in that particular discussion, though I have participated elsewhere in the article talk page for the record. Oktayey is for all intents and purposes at present a single-purpose account. While the account itself is 6 years old, and it was once involved in many other articles, since 2 March, 2023 there have been around 250 edits by my rough count, with around 225 of them having to do with Gays Against Groomers. Either article, article talk, ANI or talk pages. Yikes. Back in April, I filed an ANI regarding the talk page of Gays Against Groomers being flooded with socks, Oktayey narrowly avoided being swept out the door when the sock drawer was closed. Oktayey is tipping close to a self-inflicted exile here. I've never seen one of these 30 days or 100 edits style of restrictions, it seems new. It also doesn't seem odious, and would demonstrate a commitment to other areas of the Wikipedia. Zaathras (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC) Statement by AquillionOktayey has essentially been repeating the same argument on talk, over and over, since March; large swaths of the talk page and far too many discussions eventually devolved into repetitive arguments with them, eg. here and here and here and here and here and here. This is WP:BLUDGEONING. Doing it again in the RFC intended to finally put most of that to rest was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Oktayey had the same opportunity to make their argument there that everyone else did; they didn't need yet another massive discussion on something that the talk page had been filled with for literally months. --Aquillion (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC) Statement by Sideswipe9th (Oktayey)When I first read the sanction I thought that it was an interesting way to approach this. A quick look at Oktayey's contributions shows that he has edited almost nothing but the Gays Against Groomers article and associated talk page since March 2023. I see this sanction as a good way to provide just a little rope to demonstrate whether he is fundamentally here or not here to build an encyclopaedia, as the floating nature of its duration (100 edits, or 30 days, whichever is longer) would require Oktayey to edit in another topic area to gain a better understanding of our relevant policies and guidelines. Yes there is a risk that the behaviours that he displayed (not dropping the stick, requiring that editors satisfy his requests, see comments by SFR and RegentsPark for diffs) will shift to other content areas, but with such a small footprint of edits to other articles it's extremely hard to tell if this problem is specific to just this article or is more widespread in Oktayey's general approach to editing. My suggestion would be that Oktayey should withdraw this appeal and take on this challenge in the manner that it was intended. Demonstrate that you are here to build an encyclopaedia, and can at the very least accept when the community consensus on how a PAG is interpreted even if you fundamentally disagree with that interpretation. There is a time and place to state your objections to the consensus interpretation of a PAG, and it is rarely on an article talk page. Otherwise the alternative from the comments here is clear that he will be indeffed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Ser!(I'm not sure if I'm counted as involved here as I've engaged on the talk section where this discussion happened, but not the hatted section itself, but I said I'd err on the side of caution and post here. If this isn't considered involved enough, feel free to move this to the uninvolved section.) As pointed out by a few above including Zaathras and Sideswipe, Oktayey has been skirting painfully close to being a WP:SPA for the last while; the sole purpose being pushing changes on the Gays Against Groomers page. They've dismissed reliable sources as "biased" and tried to use much weaker sources (including sites incredibly close to being Breitbart mirrors) to further push their points. There has been a long-running theme of this user having no willingness to drop the stick, in spite of having been asked specifically to drop it by editors above such as Sideswipe - hence, yknow, 134 (15 on page, 119 on talkpage) of Oktayey's 392 edits in total being to either GAG's article or its talkpage, and as Sideswipe noted in her response, around 80% of the editor's edits since March pertaining to this page. Combine this with the aforementioned WP:BLUDGEONing of the same point over and over without end or acknowledgement that they're outweighed by consensus and it's hard to see this pattern of tendentious editing and POV pushing as anything bar being WP:NOTHERE. Amidst the impending WP:BOOMERANG potentially resulting in an indef, I concur with others suggesting the user should withdraw this appeal. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by OktayeyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (Random person no 362478479)I agree with Zaathras that the discussion that was hatted had at the time reached a point where it was no longer constructive. I also agree with them that should Oktayey want to continue discussing the reliability/bias of sources taking the question to WP:RSN would be better. Where I disagree with Zaahthras is in labeling the discussion as off-topic. Oktayey challenged the reliability of quoted sources for the topic in question arguing that they are biased against the subject of the topic. In my opinion closing the discussion was justified, but the justification given missed the mark. (I voted in the RfC that triggered the discussion. As far as I understand the rules that does not make me involved. If I am wrong please move my comment to the section for involved editors.) -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC) Statement by Bookku (uninvolved editor 2 )I was around at ARE because of previous discussion. We were discussing importance of having more uninvolved eyes. Gender is my area of interest but I am less involved in Americas in general (though not totally) and uninvolved in the specific article for which RFC is going on. Also I am not admin @User:Oktayey The language of seeking condemnation is unnecessarily sounds strong and usually unhelpful; Unless you are sure to back up with very very strong evidence. It sounds like you are being aggressive right at ARE and may be over all aggressive. So this might be self defeating. Usually I would suggest to take back such language.
Referred to contested RFC discussion, User talk:Oktayey, and above explanations by involved users, admin actions of mentoring and the topic ban action from both the admin seem valid taking into account Oktayey's behaviour of repetitive argumentation over a period of time. Though @Oktayey seem to have good analytical skills and rationalism, but given With Wikipedia's well known structural limitations @Oktayey need to be pragmatic, avoid over reactions and persuasive advocacy with rhetorical manners. This suggestion might sound to Rappru. ironic but Rappru. need to be away from contentious topics for more number of edits and days than present topic ban and understand how policies are interpreted and understood by other users. Said that.
".. Where I disagree with Zaahthras is in labeling the discussion as off-topic. Oktayey challenged the reliability of quoted sources for the topic in question arguing that they are biased against the subject of the topic. In my opinion closing the discussion was justified, but the justification given missed the mark. .." IMO Contesting user need to have say in labeling of own discussion. Bookku (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Oktayey
|