| Mzajac (Michael) has been topic banned for one year from anything to do with Kyiv, broadly construed. Yesterday, I found to my disappointment, that Michael has continued to edit disruptively in the topic area, even as participants (including yours truly) patiently awaited his reply here. A highly unusual (and frankly, bizarre) thing to do, not to mention for someone with advanced permissions. Certainly, not to his credit. Earlier today, Michael made a brief statement that offered no explanation for, well, anything. That, too, is not to his credit. As has also been discussed in this report, because Michael is an admin, he may yet face further scrutiny and censure from the Committee itself. El_C 02:23, 16 December 2020 (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 Mzajac
Recently, a RM at Talk:Kyiv was closed as move to Kyiv. Mzajac is a strong proponent of the name Kyiv. He immediately started indiscriminate move all instances of Kiev in all articles to Kyiv. Many users objected ( an example ) but he would not stop claiming that the real name of the city is Kyiv and this is how it should be referred to in every context. Finally, users who objected the replacements opened a number of RfCs/RMs, for example, here, here, or here. In all of them Mzajac actively participating pushing his arguments and ignoring the arguments of the opponents. In the diffs above, he added an unneeded usage of Kyiv in the article and then argued that consistence requires that other spellings were changed to Kyiv. He perceived attempts to discuss his behavior as personal attacks (e.g. this ANI thread where he posted in a topic which had no relation to Ukraine). The main RfC (at Talk:Kiev) was closed as no consensus to use Kyiv in historical context, as a guideline everything before 1991 should use Kiev, and BRD must be observed in all cases. Subsequently, the RfC at Talk:Territorial evolution of Russia was closed as no consensus. The first thing Mzajac did (see diffs above) was to open a new topic at the same page stating that there is a clear consensus that this is not a historical article, and therefore the usage must be Kyiv. When I removed the unneeded use of 2014 Kyiv, he said that I "failed to convince the editors that the RfC applies to this article" and restored Kyiv for the two instances of the 18th-century usage. The RfC was opened specifically about historical usage, and now Mzajac claims that this RfC was only about articles which are fully about historical period, and does not apply to Territorial evolution of Russia. This is clear wikilawyering. Note that Mzajac's understanding of which historical sources are reliable and which are not is substandard ( this is a good example). The cycle I describe by the diffs above (A makes an edit, B reverts, A opens an RfC, D closed RfC as no consensus, A interprets "no consensus" as "I revert back") is not a valid dispute resolution avenue.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 19:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning MzajacStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Mzajac[Waiting for admin action on the request, which exceeds the 500-word limit. — Michael Z. 15:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)]
I am writing my response now. User:El_C, as the result seems to be a moving target and I’m not sure everyone is on the same page, would you please explain with precision what the proposed “Kyiv Kiev ban” constitutes? And as a long conversation at user talk:El_C#Some thoughts about the recent AE case appears to be vital to your decision, can we have it moved here, for other admins to read and for me to respond to? (I have not read through it yet.) Thanks. — Michael Z. 15:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC) Statement by Paul SiebertIncident 1. I made this edit. Without introducing any new source, I replaced an existing inaccurate descriptive statement with more correct one. We had the following exchange. Mzajac's edit summary says blatant OR (accusation that lack evidences are personal attack). I explained my search procedure and proposed Mzajac to do the same search by himself. In a case if his search results would be different I was ready to apologize for source misinterpretation, otherwise I expected him to apologize for wrong accusations of doing OR. IMO, that was fair. No apology followed. Mzajac's aggressive tone was, most likely, the reason why a very good user:TaivoLinguist decided to abandon this topic. (If Taivo does not want his name to be mentioned here, I will withdraw the last statement and ask admins to disregard it). I concede Mzajac's contributions are sometimes very good, but Taivo seems to be even more valuable asset for Wikipedia. Incident 2. To the references that directly support a totally neutral and descriptive statement that Kiev is an English name for the city, Mzajac added numerous commentaries that imply that the sources demonstrate growing usage of the word "Kyiv". That may be correct of wrong, but the sources cited do not say that, so that is a pure OR. That is especially noteworthy keeping in mind the accusation Mzajac himself is throwing (see #1). Incident 3. Per our policy, the change of the name of one article does not automatically affect the names of related articles. That is a policy, and, being an experienced user, Mzajac is supposed to know that. However, he used the Kiev->Kyiv renaming as a pretext for renaming a large number of articles and even categories. Incident 4. This recent incident affected my decision to comment here. This is a good summary of Mzajac's editorial behaviour. He charctersises me "genuinely naïve or intentionally demeaning" and provides the evidences of ostensibly wide usage of "Kyivan": google scholar, google books and Wikipedia. However, Mzajac totally fails to understand the following:
That means Mzajac either cannot properly use search tools and doesn't know our policy, or he is deliberately ignoring our policy and misusing search tools to advocate some specific POV. That means he, probably, does not fully meet the expectations listed in guide.expect. Fresh evidences. this edit introduced a totally ahistorical and very infrequently used spelling into English Wikipedia. I am a little bit puzzled why Mzajac has time for editing Wikipedia, but has no time to respond on this page. Statement by (username)Result concerning Mzajac
|
Requesting removal of sanctions on Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory
| Declined. It seems unconvincing that the restrictions are no longer necessary, or that removing them is necessary to facilitate copyediting, and the user has not put forth any argument to support either claim. Consensus of admins here is also against removing the restrictions. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, so a removal of sanctions (even if temporary) would be kind to the Copy Editors. Also, the article was extremely edited in November, hence the sanctions, but has a single edit (Done by me in preparation for the copy editors) in December. Thinking the sanctions are unnecessary at this point. Thanks, Elijahandskip ( talk) 21:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Discussion regarding request to remove sanctionsHow would the current page restrictions hamper straightforward copyediting?
SPECIFICO
talk 00:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My Ken
Result regarding request to remove sanctions
|
| Topic banned from Complementary and Alternative Medicine, broadly construed -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 16:39, 21 December 2020 (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 Belteshazzar
Belteshazzar has been disrupting the Bates method article and talk-page since 11 March 2020 and related articles that mention anything to do with the Bates method. His agenda has been to get the term "ineffective" removed from the lead of the article or other skeptical references about the Bates method removed. This user argues against scientific consensus, disagrees with Wikipedia policies regarding fringe (WP:FRINGE) and pseudoscience. There have been two discussions about Belteshazzar disruptive edits on the Admin Noticeboard Incidents (WP:ANI). JzG reported Belteshazzar on 8 July and I reported Belteshazzar on 8 November where I explained in detail how problematic his edits have been. I previously had reported his vandalism (on the Aldous Huxley and other article) on the Fringe theories noticeboard in June 2020 [4]. If you look at the history of the talk-page for Bates method, we can see hundreds of edits from Belteshazzar going back months. It's basically the same thing every time. He claims there is some legitimate mechanism to how the Bates method works, he wants the term ineffective removed from the lead or he criticises the Quackwatch reference as using old sources. He has created many discussions on this "ineffective". This obsession of his runs back months and months [5] yet he continues to create new sections on the talk-page making the same pro-Bates arguments or on other users talk-pages. If we check a recent discussion on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard we can see this user has not changed his behavior. He still thinks there is legitimate evidence for the Bates method and he wants the Quackwatch reference removed [6] This user is still claiming other users are wrong and the entire scientific community is wrong. This is not good faith because this user was blocked If you check this user's talk-page I have not seen anything else quite like it when it comes to repeated chances. There seems to be endless attempts of many users trying to give him advice about how Wikipedia works going back to May 2020 but he ignores it all [7]. I believe Belteshazzar's obsession with the Bates method whilst ignoring scientific consensus on the subject and advice from administrators and other users is a case of WP:NOTHERE. I believe a topic ban on anything related to eyesight would be justified because this user has caused too much disruption on the talk-page it is wasting other users efforts and editing time. In the block log in June 2020 an admin said it was the last chance for WP:POINTy behaviour but it is clear Belteshazzar is still up to their old tricks and pointy behavior because they are making the same arguments for the Bates method in their recent edits this week. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 14:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning BelteshazzarStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by BelteshazzarFrom June 2019 to February 2020, four established users removed "ineffective": [9] [10] [11] [12] Had perceptual learning been brought up during that time, this removal might well have stuck. I wasn't quite aware of perceptual learning as a vision mechanism until August or September. After bringing it up and getting nowhere, I was going to let this go, but then put together the aforementioned diffs and concluded that "ineffective" did not have nearly as strong a consensus as it appeared; people had simply given up. Thus I doubled down and pointed out how controlled studies might have gone wrong. Others seemed to ignore the mechanism that I had highlighted, but recently, someone showed a clear understanding of it and still supported keeping "ineffective". Thus I dropped the stick. My subsequent comment in that thread was only a response to a new comment by Guy Macon. If Psychologist Guy is referring to my recent comments regarding Quackwatch, "he wants the Quackwatch reference removed" is a misrepresentation. I was simply trying to fix the citation. The Quackwatch page in question reproduces a chapter from a 1956 book. Both ANI threads were opened after I did something perfectly legitimate, though I acknowledge that my behavior has been problematic at other times. I answered other points in those threads. Mainly due to what is known about perceptual learning, I think there is a non-negligible chance that the Bates method will become less fringe in the future. As it turns out, this view was also expressed years ago by one of the users who last year removed "ineffective". In such an eventuality, we will have to ask ourselves whether it was ever correct for Wikipedia to summarily deem the Bates method as "ineffective" or "discredited". That was my reason for this. I wasn't proposing changes to policy now, just leaving that for the future. Belteshazzar ( talk) 22:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC) Statement by JmcBelteshazzar now [20 Dec 2020) appears to have embarked on a more general crusade against 'ineffective'. In an edit to Mickey_Sherman[ [13]], he/she replaced 'ineffective with 'inadequate', even though 'ineffective' was the term used in the referenced source, with the edit summary "Of course it was "ineffective" if he was found guilty. I guess I don't like the word "ineffective"". -- Jmc ( talk) 00:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Result concerning Belteshazzar
|
| Գարիկ Ավագյան is reminded that some pages within discretionary sanctions areas are under WP:1RR, and is asked to exercise caution and check before reverting. If Գարիկ Ավագյան violates 1RR in the future they are reminded to self-revert and discuss. Գարիկ Ավագյան is warned that future violations could result in sanctions, including a topic ban from the conflict area. TonyBallioni ( talk) 13:38, 25 December 2020 (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 Գարիկ Ավագյան
--
Wanted to pass this as WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, but the user was involved with such edits since the conflict began. He even failed to address the talk he was referring to in this edits. Also, it seems like he's aware of the enforced sanctions.
@ Steverci: Stop misusing the sources. The France24 article, citing a single French doctor, stated that Azerbaijan could have used the munition, that doesn't mean that this particular media outlet confirms its use. And a claim by a French doctor isn't enough for such remarks. Before accusing others, check the source you actually give reference to. Yet there are many claims on the article made only by Azeri government sources and no one else, yes. They are written in a rhetoric to show that it is indeed a claim by the government. No footage from the Azerbaijani government claim was written as 100% fact and the truth. Again, there's not enough independent confirmation of that being a white phosphorus munition. Accusing others of edit war is also absurd, as the definition of edit war suggest that the Armenian user had engaged in the edit war, not me. This isn't even the issue. We're talking about how the user has surely violated the sanctions. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 08:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Statement by SteverciYou say that there is " not enough independent confirmation of that being white phosphorus", yet it there is a citation that it has been reported by France 24. You object to including the video just because it was published by the Armenian government, yet there are many claims on the article made only by Azeri government sources and no one else. And on the talk page, the only evidence presented about it not being white phosphorus is three unverified Twitter accounts. It seems the requesting user just doesn't like the video and started an edit war to remove it. -- Steverci ( talk) 23:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Statement by CuriousGolden@ Steverci: None of what you just said justifies the fact that the mentioned user reverted 2 edits on an article where sanctions are valid and only 1 revert is allowed. If you don't agree with the edit, take it to the talk page and discuss it (to date, none of the objectors have said anything in the actual talk page discussion). — CuriousGolden (T· C) 07:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC) Statement by ArmaturaI will leave the revert counts to the uninvolved admins. However, I would like to highlight that removing one of the few Armenian editors of the article would leave the editorial workforce of the article in question more unbalanced than it already is. I disagree with the removal of the white phosphorus video without reaching a fair consensus, such unilateral removals by the user who opened this appeal have previously sparked revert cycles. Regards, Armatura ( talk) 14:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My KenRegarding Armatura's response above: I do not think it should ever be a consideration for Wikipedia's admins to make decisions based on an editor's presumed ethnicity or nationality -- and I do not believe I've ever seen that be the case. The only consideration should be whether the editor can edit in a NPOV manner in accordance with basic Wikipedia policies. If an Armenian editor can do so, fine, if a Azeri editor can do so, also fine, if any editor of any stripe cannot do so, then they should be prevented from editing. What that does to the "balance" of editors working on a particular article is irrelevant, and is also ephemeral, as editors come and go. Therefore, Armatura's point is not an appropriate one. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Statement by Գարիկ ԱվագյանDear Solavirum, this is not the first time that you have been warned for your biased edits. We have asked you many times not to be a biased editor on the English Wikipedia. Unfortunately, your edits suggest otherwise. In our last discussion, you categorically argued that your edits were justified, and even without finding a consensus, you still made your edits, where, in the end, the decision was made not in your favor. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. We are all volunteers here and must adhere to the rules of Wikipedia and respect each other. From the very beginning of the 2020 Nagorno Karabakh conflict, after seeing that you were spending 24/7 on articles related to Nagorno-Karabakh, I sent a letter to the administrators of the English Wikipedia with a request to involve neutral editors to maintain the neutrality of the article from biased edits. I also have concerns that blocking Armenian users has become your priority. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան ( talk) 08:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, it says on this talk page that "the Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia". If you look at the edits in this article, which were done by me, is about absolutely respecting the rules of Wikipedia. I'm terribly surprised that violating 1RR may lead to the topic ban for 3-6 months, which I definitely couldn't imagine myself. Also, there are no accusations. If you look at my and Solavirum's contributions you can see that we had disagreements on different topics. As for the phosphorus video, the discussion on the page is not finished yet and I think here is not the right place to continue such discussion. I would suggest to continue discussion with you and Solavirum on the use of the white phophorus video on the talk page of the article. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան ( talk) 15:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Dear TonyBallioni, I apologize for breaking the rule WP:1RR which I didn't know about the sanction and about 1 revert within 24 hours. I assure you that in the future and beginning from this moment I will be more attentive and will use self-revert in such cases. And thank you for your time. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան ( talk) 10:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC) Result concerning Գարիկ Ավագյան
|
| The subject of this complaint, who has a total of only six edits, has made no contributions for about a week. They're probably gone (at least this latest incarnation). El_C 18:29, 4 January 2021 (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 Dadanke
Notified, Huldra ( talk) 22:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning DadankeStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DadankeThe source cited by Huldra (Khalidi) is not a reliable source, as the review "here". states. As for the POV of Huldra, there is a plethora of information in her contribution page showing their non-neutral stance towards the Arab-Israeli conflict. In their edits in "here"., they added "citation needed" remarks and then simply removed them. Judging by the fact that they also did this in a number of other articles, such as "here"., "here"., and "here"., I am suspicious the user will return to delete the "unverified" information and keep their own information there which reflects negatively on Israeli towns (where the history section would indicate the town was "depopulated" and then remove any information which is not negative). Furthermore, Huldra requests citation for mundane statements in those articles, such as in the article of question (Neve Monosson), where they requested a citation for "In later years it became popular with the families of airline pilots and is today an independent-minded middle class community 20 minutes drive from central Tel Aviv, to where most of its workers commute." For this example in particular, this is a case of WP:OVERCITE, given that the town is geographically close to the Ben Gurion airport and it is reasonable to assume the statement is true. Nevertheless, I added citations for the administrative status of the town for some of the statements Huldra marked with citation needed by using governmental sources. However, Huldra still reverted all changes and stated that the article pertains to the Arab-Israeli conflict and therefore I cannot edit due to the 30 day/500 edit rule as stated "here".. However, I don't see why the entire article of the Israeli town is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict (the town is in the Tel-Aviv Metropolitan area, an area not largely related to the Israeli-Arab conflict). I reverted once more by stating that the town is unrelated to the conflict, and called for a discussion on the article's Talk page with the edit-line This is an Israeli town, this doesn't belong to the Arab–Israeli conflict, 30/500 doesn't apply. Please discuss on talk page. Had Huldra explained to me why the book should be used, I would have been okay with including the information as well as my citations, but instead they reverted my edit once more, stating the article belongs in the Arab-Israeli conflict per WP:ARBPIA, and warning me with a report to WP:AE. As a new editor to Wikipedia, I don't believe my first edits constituted for vandalism, and I sincerely believe they did not cause damage to Wikipedia, as detailed "here"., so they should not have been reverted outright. Beyond questionable edits by Huldra, their contribution history reveals a non-neutral record, such as their removal of Jewish related terms seen "here". and the Israeli War of Independence as seen "here".. The user has removed information related to Israel and Judaism from other articles, and added in unnecessary and disruptive information to the point where others complained on their talk page, "here".. I believe that the user in engaging in disruptive editing per WP:DE by bringing in unrelated topics to WP:ARBPIA, and given the evidence I have shown, I do not believe the grounds for sanctioning me are solid, and I do not believe Huldra is acting with good faith. To respond to Huldra's claims, no, I have no previous accounts. Statement by RolandRWell, I have seen a lot of tendentious editing in my time on Wikipedia, but that must be the first time I have seen an editor try to discredit a major work from a respected academic by quoting an Amazon customer review. And to justify an edit by stating that "it is reasonable to assume the statement is true" is further evidence of ignorance about or total disregard for Wikipedia's guiding principle of verifiability. For the avoidance of doubt, removing a sourced statement about the 1948 occupation and depopulation of the village is unquestionably related to the Israeli-Arab conflict, and within the remit of the arbitration. I find it hard to believe that this is a new editor, and note that they have not responded to Huldra's legitimate question about previous accounts. RolandR ( talk) 00:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Beyond My KenARBPIA4 has a 500/30 clause, and the editor in question has 4 edits, at least under this account name. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC) Statement by ShrikeThe editor shouldn't edit of course till he reach 500 edits per policy but what more worrying is the diff that was brought by the new editor [21] this was not just a innocent copy editing but a clear WP:POVPUSH with false edit summary -- Shrike ( talk) 20:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Dadanke
|
| Blocked for 2 weeks by Cullen328 and the content has been RevDel. Additional actions are at the discretion of individual admins -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:45, 4 January 2021 (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 Jokestress
The simple fact of the post in clear and obvious violation of the topic ban is grounds for a lengthy block and removal of the post. On top of that, however, the post exhibits the very same WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TE problems that led to Jokestress getting her topic ban reaffirmed and clarified in November 2019. [22] It contains no difflinks whatsoever, but rather, conspiracy theories about an "editing collective", as well as baseless lies like "most transgender editors in particular have been driven from the project due to unrelenting hostility by this edit group" as well as numerous WP:ASPERSIONS and violations of WP:NOTTHEM. This situation is very similar to this one. That user likewise violated a ban from the same topic by posting at an ArbCom page (about the election) and attacked a candidate while doing so. This was judged by the community to be a clear violation of the topic ban, and because they claimed not to understand their restriction, their resulting block was indefinite until they did. As intentional disruption, Jokestress' post should be revision deleted per WP:DENY. Crossroads -talk- 19:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC) Jokestress says she intends to email ArbCom with "private evidence" about the case. [23] This is a statement of intention to violate the topic ban further, and actually emailing would be such a violation. Crossroads -talk- 21:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning JokestressStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by JokestressStatement by (username)Result concerning Jokestress
|
| Blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action. El_C 18:18, 4 January 2021 (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 Roy McCoy
Using Wikipedia to promote conspiracy theories:
As far as I know, only one block in relation to accusing other editors (27 August).
I would like to note that involvement in conspiracy theories is a recent trend, starting with Griffin. McCoy edited constructively with interest in languages (Esperanto), music, the manual of style and misc. random article improvements. I propose a topic ban in the area of conspiracy theories or US politics rather than a WP:NOTHERE block.
Discussion concerning Roy McCoyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Roy McCoyI congratulate PaleoNeonate on a fine and professional presentation of the case against me. His citations are all accurate and I retract none of the statements concerned, though I do deny that the positions I have defended are actually conspiracy theories, and I protest and reject Wikipedia's abuse of the language in this regard. I've suspected for some time that Wikipedia simply gets rid of dissidents (this explaining their notable absence on current talk pages), and eliminating me as well would appear to be a confirmation of that suspicion. This is all right with me, as Wikipedia can demonstrate itself to be a propaganda ministry all it wants. Some people will get this and some won't. I have been in the process of washing my hands of it, and this seems to be coming to a conclusion now. Perhaps needless to say, the so-called conspiracy theories are regularly more true and substantiated than the fictional official narratives to which they provide more credible alternatives, and the individuals smeared as conspiracy theorists are often honorable and intelligent persons telling the truth and not deserving of the insulting, inaccurate and misleading characterization they are branded with in their articles. Yet the insistent, across-the-board libel and mischaracterization continue. What am I do suspect other than a consistent, deliberate policy, presumably executed by paid agents of moneyed interests (or by persons so moneyed themselves), with periodic support and assistance from deluded laypersons who are uninformed, unintelligent, unperceptive or inattentive, hypnotized/mind-controlled, and/or to some degree deranged? I'm surprised to see my recent "General consensus > mainstream account" post cited as evidence against me, however. [25] I plead guilty to the general charge (though with the "conspiracy theory" qualification above) and don't mean to mount a defense, but I think this post is in some ways a model talk-page contribution toward the end of improving an article in accordance with approved sources. An editor had made a controversial and unsupported change to 9/11 Truth movement last August, [26] [27] and I documented that this was not only not supported by the cited sources but contradicted by them. This was roughly the same thing I had done at Stop the Steal, where Feoffer and his collaborators were insistently and erroneously terming the campaign a conspiracy theory. This was simply illiterate and could rightfully have been corrected as a simple copyedit, but in addition it was also in contradiction to the cited sources as I described in detail there also, both in an edit summary [28] and in the talk. The proper change was finally implemented by Anachronist, and Feoffer's blustering accusation of edit-warring apparently did not lead to a sanction, or at least has not to date. As I've stated in one place or another, you can get rid of me and I suppose you will. I request, however, that you not block me in the manner proposed by PaleoNeonate, but rather obliterate, as much as possible, my entire association with your shady propaganda agency that used to be to a degree reputable before it got taken over by whoever or whatever, whenever that occurred. As I've also said in one place or another, I suppose I can still come in and correct commas and misspellings on unprotected pages anonymously if I feel like it (as will likely occur, given my predisposition toward this kind of thing and the fact that I'll presumably continue to consult Wikipedia even though I don't like it), and that this won't bother anyone. I also understand that if I were to "vandalize" anything my IP address could be blocked, though I don't understand the technical details of this. In any event it will not bother me to no longer be morally compromised by association with your ethically seedy and intellectually dishonest operation. I hope a true history will judge you by your merits. – Roy McCoy ( talk) 17:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by (slatersteven)I think the response indicates that in fact, a TBAN is not going to work. It's hard to see why they have decided to make an issue of Wikipedias (perceived) POV bias. Nor (as they are not a new editor) why they think this kind of attitude is acceptable (indeed it almost reads like they want to be banned, and are doing their damndest to get it done). This all reds more like some game. It needs to be put a stop to. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Roy McCoy
|
| CozyandDozy has announced their retirement 5 days ago and have not edited since. If they return to editing, broad AP2 and BLP restrictions should be immediately imposed, referencing this report. El_C 23:01, 6 January 2021 (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 CozyandDozy
CozyandDozy does not seem to understand that sources are not optional when editing, particularly when it comes to American politics BLPs. I have repeatedly observed them adding unsourced claims, often controversial, and often to the lead of an article (but it's not a LEADCITE issue; the claims are new information not sourced elsewhere in the article). They have been warned about this repeatedly, as well as about issues with edit warring and not following discretionary sanctions. Cozy's talk page shows a long list of warnings about edit warring and disruptive edits on American politics-related articles, such as Milo Yiannopoulos, Richard B. Spencer, and others. Best to look at the history of the page, as they have cleared some of these warnings and don't appear to archive their talk page. I compiled a breakdown of these incidents before realizing it would take me far over the diff/word limits, but can provide it on request. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Noting that CozyandDozy has
said they are retiring:
Discussion concerning CozyandDozyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by CozyandDozyHi. I must concede that I have respect for the intellect and seriousness of admin User:GorillaWarfare, so I was surprised to see her file this complaint, and have read it carefully. Anyway, upon reflection I would agree that my conduct has not been unimpeachable; far from it. My biggest offense appears to be adding contentious claims about living persons without a direct citation. I accept that this is not a trivial mistake; I can and should be criticized and perhaps sanctioned on these grounds. However, I must note some compelling facts in mitigation. I haven't added anything (nor am I accused of adding anything) that is erroneous/false about a BLP. Moreover the "unsourced" content about BLPs mentioned here appear in other reliable sources cited in the article. For example, take the Lauren Southern edit about which Gorilla complains. The fact that she has a non-white husband and child is mentioned in the documentary White Noise; the documentary was produced by the RS The Atlantic, and was previously cited in the article by someone else. What I did is use the same source to flesh out a claim in the lede, although I failed to add an explicit citation. I admit that I was lazy in not learning how to cite documentaries; I should have done that and cited the specific part of the documentary where these claims are corroborated. But I was using a reliable source (the Atlantic) As for my edits to the BLP of neo-Nazi Mike Enoch, the misconduct detailed by Gorilla is more serious. Let me explain. The underlying statement I have tried to add to the article, the fact that neo-Nazi Mike Enoch was mocked when his last name was revealed because it shows he is of Serbian heritage (and Serbs were considered sub-humans by the Nazis), is absolutely true. In addition to Andrew Marantz, The chemist and skeptic author Myles Power notes this too on his blog: "Mike was using a pseudonym to hide his Serbian heritage, because the Nazi regime – and therefore presumably his audience – classified Serbs as subhuman." https://mylespower.co.uk/2020/08/19/defending-my-work-debunking-holocaust-denialism-against-white-nationalist-and-neo-nazi-mike-enoch/ The problem, and herein lies my most serious offense, is that I used the RS Andrew Marantz book to cite this claim without verifying my recollection that the Serbian surname issue was mentioned by him in there, when in fact I am not certain of this (RS Marantz absolutely mentioned this, but he may have mentioned it in a podcast or blog). I accept that my conduct in this regard amounted to a serious violation of policy. But given that the claim I was trying to add is true, and that it is corroborated by Marantz and some forum or another, I believe that my conduct was hardly reprehensible or irredeemable. I believe I should be given a second chance, rather than topic banned; I do not defend my conduct, but would distinguish it from the promotion of lies or misinformation about BLPs. (My claims are all true and backed by RS.) Regardless, I am pleased with my contributions to the project, and will retire without commotion if my head rolls. tl;dr: There is a case to be made against my conduct. But it doesn't rise to the level of formal sanctions, much less a topic ban, at this time; though I do not think a temporary block would be unreasonable. I am humbled by this complaint, and hope to continue my contributions in my sphere of interest alongside Gorilla and other more experienced and policy-savvy editors. CozyandDozy ( talk) 03:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning CozyandDozy
|
| Appeal declined. User may appeal again no sooner than 6 months. ~ Awilley ( talk) 00:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved 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 BelteshazzarBefore the case was filed, I dropped the stick, as someone who clearly understood the concept in question nevertheless supported keeping "ineffective". My subsequent comment in that thread was only a response to a new comment. What I did after that seems to have been misrepresented. Psychologist Guy said "If we check a recent discussion on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard we can see this user has not changed his behavior. He still thinks there is legitimate evidence for the Bates method and he wants the Quackwatch reference removed [30] This user is still claiming other users are wrong and the entire scientific community is wrong. This is not good faith because this user was blocked". Regarding the Quackwatch reference, I was simply trying to fix a citation, as the Quackwatch page in question reproduces a chapter of a 1956 book. I do think the apparent scientific consensus here is likely wrong, and if that someday turns out to be the case, that will raise questions about whether it was ever correct for Wikipedia to summarily label the Bates method as "ineffective" or "discredited". That's why I suggested that policy might be changed in the future. I was not proposing such changes now. Belteshazzar ( talk) 20:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC) @ Tgeorgescu: But I dropped the stick before the case was filed. [31] [32]. My subsequent comments were just responses to others' comments, and an attempt to fix the aforementioned citation (an attempt which was misrepresented in the case). Belteshazzar ( talk) 01:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC) @ PaleoNeonate: I did it now because at least one point (regarding the Quackwatch/Pollack link) was misrepresented in the case. Belteshazzar ( talk) 04:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Since people are still commenting on this, let me make this clear: no one had shown a real understanding of perceptual learning as a vision mechanism until Location did here. After that, I dropped the stick. Belteshazzar ( talk) 11:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC) Statement by GuerilleroI think my topic ban was within process and was done as a read of the discussion of uninvolved admins -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 20:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Statement by TgeorgescuEvery WP:PROFRINGE POV-pusher argues that they are right and the Wikipedia is wrong, starting with WP:LUNATICS, WP:GOODBIAS, WP:ARBPS, WP:PSCI, WP:UNDUE, WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE, and so on. So, insisting that they will be proven right some day promises nothing good. I suggest that he was properly topic banned and that the ban should stay. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 01:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC) @ Belteshazzar: That's only a matter of procedure. We're not a bureaucracy. The topic ban is precisely to the point because you still insist at WP:AE that you are right and the rest of us are wrong, and that that will be shown to everyone sometime in the future. You don't have the right mindset to edit SCAM industry topics. You would just go on and on, wasting everybody's time. Prove that you can edit constructively and cooperatively, abiding by WP:PAGs before we allow you to edit SCAM subjects again.
— Broca's Brain (1979), Carl Sagan Copy/paste from WP:FLAT. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Statement by PaleoNeonateThis is not a suggestion to endorse or decline, just a note to Belteshazzar. If this appeal fails, it was likely made too hastily. The next one would be more convincing after evidence of a few months of constructive editing in other areas. — Paleo Neonate – 04:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by BelteshazzarResult of the appeal by Belteshazzar
|
| Blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action. El_C 18:32, 8 January 2021 (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 RKOwens444
New user that seems to be WP:NOTHERE, but specifically causing disruption to articles about alien abduction and UFO conspiracy theories. Refuses to engage on talkpage. See also discussions at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Haim Eshed
Discussion concerning RKOwens444Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by RKOwens444Statement by (username)Result concerning RKOwens444
|
Warnings logged for both Mandruss and Objective3000, but with mitigating circumstances and objections noted (see log entry at:
Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2021#American_politics_2). Though I am making it a point to acknowledge the especially high-quality work at the AP2 topic area on the part of both editors, and though this closure and log entry isn't intended to serve as a blemish on their respective records, I still strongly feel that the violation itself needs to be formally recorded.
El_C 22:05, 8 January 2021 (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 Mandruss
I informed Mandruss about the policy and encouraged them to self-revert [37]; Mandruss refused [38]. User Tataral likewise informed Mandruss and urged them to self-revert [39]; Mandruss again refused and even told Tataral to take it to WP:AE, showing they are well aware of the situation [40].
Mandruss's conduct at Donald Trump has been combative and disruptive recently. In response to User SPECIFICO hatting an irrelevant comment by Mandruss, Mandruss (by their own admission) hatted the comment of a third user just to show that "two can play your little game" [41]
.
Notification [50]
Discussion concerning MandrussStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MandrussPreliminary response: The 24-hour 3RR block in 2015 was not in the AP2 area (or any DS area for that matter), therefore doesn't belong in "previous relevant sanctions", and its inclusion there says something about the filer's objectivity in my opinion. The spin in the filer's comments is I suppose par for the course in this venue. The diffs presented largely speak for themselves, but I will respond within 12 hours to any questions. ― Mandruss ☎ 01:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Oh, and the filer has presented the same diff as two successive reverts, making it appear like they were identical. They were not; in fact they differed by 2,219 bytes while intersecting. No doubt this was an honest mistake. ― Mandruss ☎ 02:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC) @ Objective3000: Done. [51] ― Mandruss ☎ 02:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC) @ El C: On your first point, if one of the most experienced, most level-headed, most law-abiding editors in the project (O3000) can get that so egregiously wrong, I'd say the error is far less outrageous than you claim. On your second: Ok, it appears my second revert was wrong, I got lost in the tangled labyrinth of rules, and I'll take my lumps. I'm not one to say that ignorance is an excuse, or that being in the right on content excuses being wrong on process. ― Mandruss ☎ 03:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC) @
Objective3000: I'm trying very hard not to think about all the times I've witnessed editors re-revert identical edits at that article, causing far more disruption than I did, and get off scot-free, apparently because nobody had the time, energy, knowledge, and capacity-for-stress to file an AE complaint with no guarantee that it will have any beneficial effect. In my experience, the discretion conferred on admins by DS means very little in the practice of enforcing its rules. That was worth bringing up in an ArbCom venue, but I want to be clear that it is not meant to excuse my mistake. I don't blame my failures on the failures of others, and in fact my greatest peeve is that that is routinely tolerated and even encouraged by the community. My parents taught me that two wrongs don't make a right, and the destructive results of a system where they do are quite clear to me. ― Mandruss ☎ 15:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC) @ El C: I can't believe you just cited an essay as proof that O3000's action was "outrageous". ― Mandruss ☎ 20:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC) @
El C: @
El C: "This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." To borrow your words, El_C, I'm surprised and disappointed to see such a dismissive response from you. No, I'm not going to follow you down that path. You win as far as I'm concerned. ― Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC) @ Objective3000: Well it's clear that good faith ignorance is not an excuse for you or me. We are expected to be cognizant of everything relevant or we get a logged warning or worse. I failed to have mastered all of the rules after seven years. Neither Jeppiz nor Tataral managed to cite the passage from WP:EW that made it clear I was in the wrong in this uncommon and complicated situation, so I wasn't aware of it until this was filed and El_C commented. I'd be surprised if there aren't still a rule or three that I've yet to learn. And you weren't aware of what went on at my UTP. Shame on both of us, and we deserve black marks on our records for being less than perfect. That's ok with me, since such black marks apparently merely flag an editor as being both imperfect and unlucky. I don't expect one such black mark, or two or three, will ultimately affect my ability to edit Wikipedia, and my eventual departure will be on my terms. ― Mandruss ☎ 21:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by Objective3000@ Mandruss: Self-rvt and I’ll rvt (or someone else if I’m asleep). @ Jeppiz: Yes, something belongs. But, take to the talk page, have patience, and avoid running to drama boards. Let us not mimic the politics we document. O3000 ( talk) 02:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Guy MaconWikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." The lead of Donald Trump is far too long. Those who wish to trim it down are following our guidelines. Those who wish to keep it excessively long are violating our guidelines. They should instead work on getting consensus for changing the guideline. This is not to say that dodgy behavior while enforcing a guideline is OK, but the issue would have never come up if not for certain editors thinking that WP:MOSLEAD doesn't apply to them. (I will be without Internet access soon, possibly for weeks, so may not be able to respond.) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by DarouetMandruss has apologized:
Statement by SPECIFICOAwilley, I believe the concern was that Mandruss had violated your 24-hour BRD restriction and then declined to self revert when approached about it on his talk page. Perhaps it's time to remove that page restriction? SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Mandruss
|
| Ceedub88 is indefinitely partially blocked from editing the Donald Trump article. — Newslinger talk 01:30, 11 January 2021 (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 Ceedub88
Discretionary sanctions American Politics2 WP:ARBAP2; and/or Biographies of Living Persons WP:ARBBLP
Donald Trump article history search for edits by Ceedub88 currently returns 7 results. The edits are identical, they apply a category, that category explicitly states This category is for people who have been clinically diagnosed, and constitutes a clear BLP violation unless unless Ceedub88 provides sufficient Reliable Sourcing of clinical diagnosis.
AP & BLP alerts issued by Mandruss 03:38, 19 July 2020
I recall no interaction with Ceedub88, other than being (un)lucky enough to spot and revert their latest Trump edit. I was going to generously Twinkle a level 4 BLP FINAL WARNING on their talk page and move on, but decided action was mandatory when I discovered how persistent this problem was.
Notification (and insignificant cleanup edit to fix the accidental double section heading). Discussion concerning Ceedub88Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Ceedub88Statement by PaleoNeonateOther than the BLP issues, this is an obvious case of slow edit warring against consensus. These edits were reverted by at least four different editors. I fail to see any attempt to discuss it at the article's talk page. I see few warnings but there was a clear one on 19 July 2020. — Paleo Neonate – 04:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Ceedub88
|
| Warlightyahoo has been partially blocked from editing 2021 storming of the United States Capitol and Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol for 1 week by Bishonen, as a standard administrative action. — Newslinger talk 01:07, 11 January 2021 (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 Warlightyahoo
Editor is aware of the AP2 DS [52] by template.
Many of these article edits look okay, but there's probably some kind of subtle disruption in there that isn't obvious; the NOTFORUM talk page posts about time travel and flip phones look like a bad faith editor here to annoy us or to prove some other point.
Discussion concerning WarlightyahooStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by WarlightyahooStatement by Beyond My KenAlthough this appears to be a clear WP:NOTHERE case, I don't think this complaint has the gravitas for AE, it's a better candidate for WP:DENY (delete and ignore), or for reporting at WP:AIV if it continues. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Warlightyahoo
|
| Several participants have argued for an indefinite block as a normal admin action. After some deliberation, I have now done so. As I noted to Bigbaby23, if they manage to successfully appeal this block, an AE topic ban from anything WP:FRINGE or WP:ARBPS will immediately come into effect. El_C 02:53, 12 January 2021 (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 Bigbaby23
User has been complaining about the way Wikipedia handles subjects relating to UFOs and was WP:BOOMERANGed on WP:ANI. While I could have appealed to WP:ANEW, I fear that a simple block which was already enacted is not enough. User was warned about discretionary sanctions already so stronger measures may be useful. jps ( talk) 20:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Bigbaby23Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Bigbaby23I have made an unintended error not realizing I have already reached a 3rd revert. I admit to this and apologies. That being said, my meticulously researched properly cited additions, done in the spirit of accomplishment WP:LOSE2WIN (What motivates contribution?) have been reverted few times with complete disregard to WP:ONLYREVERT and WP:NPOVFAQ (Common questions/Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete) and so many times by way of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing ("Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources"). I have a past of even headed editing in controversial articles such as Ching Hai (added all the scholarly refs) and in Water fluoridation (added the EU position and the notable oppisition view) despite very strong POV pushing editorial opposition. Also in Influenza vaccine (added EU position), where there was quite a robust POV discussion. Was even commended by one of my discussion opponents, an Administrator Special:MobileDiff/782699643 My turn to ANI was due to my past experience with this kind of behaviour, and in this case specifically, blatant WP:NPOV violating editors, and trying to avoid this: "In Wikipedia, debates can be won by stamina. If you care more and argue longer, you will tend to get your way. The result, very often, is that individuals and organizations with a very strong interest in having Wikipedia say a particular thing tend to win out over other editors who just want the encyclopedia to be solid, neutral, and reliable."( Criticism of Wikipedia Criticism of process#Consensus and the hive mind). My first encounter with this article presented me with an obvious and quite shocking WP:STICKTOSOURCE policy violation, on the very first citation. Reverting editors ignoring this, got me dismased and quite upset. My basic question to ANI was what do you do when WP:FACTION is so evident in violating the above through Concensus if not let ANI deal with it? Does Concensus overide WP policy? according to WP:CONLIMITED the answer is no. ANI didn't come to a conclusion regarding this, but did give me a 48 hour ban for edit waring. My next option (recommended by commenters on ANI) was an RfC that I started (proccess I'm not so familiar with technically) in order to get other editors input other than from the small group that exhibited classic WP:OWNERSHIP of the article applying constant WP:GAMING (which I consider this WP:AE attempt as one) and WP:LAWYERING. Editors commenting on the RfC explained my formative errors in the RfC request and recommended I start a new one. And so I did, today. All I ask of this inquiry panel(?) Is to just look at this RfC which has an easy to see comparison of current article and my additions, and decide if I'm some kind of pseudoscience pusher with disregard to Wikipedia's Policies & guidelines. Or not. Talk:Pentagon_UFO_videos#RfC_regarding_an_edit_to_the_article_and_it's_compliance_with_WP_Policies I think you will find that I'm doing my very best in the spirit of WP:PURPOSE.Thank you Bigbaby23 ( talk) Statement by JoJo AnthraxAlong with the edit warring presented above and insistence upon using unreliable sources (for example, here), User:Bigbaby23 has in this topic area cast aspersions and assumed bad faith against editors in good standing here, here (see the subject line), here, here, and here. This editor has also explicitly rejected seeking consensus for their edits (see the edit summary here). JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 22:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My KenIt's that fact-based reality-biased cabal again, causing trouble for Bigbaby23. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Statement by MrOllieThis diff is emblematic of the battleground attitude BigBaby23 brings to this topic: [59]. Please topic ban. - MrOllie ( talk) 22:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by Levivich (Bigbaby)Forget the TBAN. Indef as a normal admin action for the diff MrOllie shared. Let them make an unblock request and they can negotiate the terms of a TBAN as an unblock condition. Over-the-top comments like that, plus the other disruption == editing privileges revoked, IMO. They should not be able to edit at all, and should have to earn their way back to a TBAN, based on their recent conduct. Levivich harass/ hound 17:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by PaleoNeonateEl C: The editor was new to me, it was the first such offense I was aware of, so I only replied not thinking it was worth reporting. Before the ufology campaign, Bigbaby23 was active in other areas, like martial-arts related BLPs, so I'm not sure it's a definite NOTHERE case. — Paleo Neonate – 17:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by LuckyLouieThere's some indication the latest disruptions at Pentagon UFO videos and Haim Eshed are part of a long term pattern of opposing consensus regarding pseudoscience and fringe science content (with resultant edit warring).
So a TBAN might be the most effective remedy here. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Bigbaby23
|
| Swarm has recorded the sanction as a standard community-imposed topic ban (AP2, broadly construed) at WP:RESTRICT. To be perfectly clear, that includes any AP2-related page (talk pages, AfDs, drafts, anything whatsoever). JazzClam is also warned that any further violations of the revised topic ban are almost certain to be met with severity. El_C 00:12, 12 January 2021 (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 JazzClam
The following edits are all topic ban violations (emphasis added):
On 3 December 2020, SebastianHelm warned JazzClam about previous violations of this topic ban. — Newslinger talk 00:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning JazzClamStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by JazzClamNewslinger I was not under the impression that commenting on the QAnon articles and the 2021 storming of the capitol was against my sanction. Also, I did make, admittedly make under full knowledge of my sanction on the 2021 Storming of the United States Capitol article, an edit. The edit regarded changing baseless to false. There was a conversation where consensus was reached to change baseless to false. I believed that since that edit was relatively uncontroversial and popular amongst editors in the consensus discussion, I made it. I personally believe that trying to penalize me for comments and a simple, uncontroversial, non-major, and popular edit in an article is absolutely draconian and bogus.
Statement by SebastianHelmTo be fair, it needs to be said that the template I posted only spoke of articles, not of talk pages. (Although the linked WP:TBAN does explicitly say “all pages (not only articles)”.) I would therefore recommend for the discussion to focus on the one edit in article space. In this context, I would like to know what JazzClam referred to by "This conversation" in the edit summary. ◅ Sebastian 18:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Reply to Swarm: Yes, I made a couple of mistakes, and I'm sorry about that. However, the situation is not as dire as you are depicting it: JazzClam has in user talk:JazzClam#December 2020 been clearly made aware that even small edits to articles on post-1932 American politics “are violations of the ban, even if ... they are uncontroversial [and that they] could get blocked” for them. So, maybe I'm missing something, but I fail to see how, as you say, “this user technically isn't in the wrong”. ◅ Sebastian 20:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning JazzClam
|