Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive317
CozyandDozy
[edit]| CozyandDozy is topic banned indefinitely from editing in the area of post-1992 American politics and closely related people, and is also banned from editing any biography of a living person for six months from today's date, expiring 20 September 2023. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:54, 20 March 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 CozyandDozy[edit]
Discussion concerning CozyandDozy[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by CozyandDozy[edit]Hey. The stuff I was sanctioned for (or about to be sanctioned for) a couple years ago was a real violation of policy: I kept adding accurate information that, while supported by a source, was not supported by an RS, to a BLP. I am not going to defend myself there. Given that this was so long ago, I did not even remember the details of it until just now, when I read the original complaint by Gorillawarfare and refreshed my recollection. I will say that two years later, I have grown up and would not so glibly violate WP policy as I had before. Whether this sanction should still be imposed two years later (after a two-year "exile" from the encyclopedia) is up to the administrators, I imagine. This newest complaint is completely erroneous. All my edits on Mate are supported by reliable sources and various other editors at the page, two of which have reverted my edits back in since this report was made. The reporting editor is apparently biased in favor of Mate, and is using my two-year old policy violation as an excuse to try to get his way on the Mate page. CozyandDozy (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Statement by Doubletiberius[edit]Judging by the user's edit history on the Mate page, a reasonable person would doubt that their previous violations are not still indicative of their behavior, e.g, the edit summary of "re-adding well sourced material that was apparently deleted by Mate meat puppets" on the 16th, which is just one of 41 edits to the page from the same user within the last 23 days, with the first page edit from them happening on the 23rd of Feb. At initial glance none of their edits meet consensus, and they haven't used the talk page from what I can see. Doubletiberius (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Cambial Yellowing[edit]The phrase Statement by SPECIFICO[edit]This appears to be a weaponized content dispute. The non-Admin comments here are from two deeply involved Russia-related BLP editors whose history speaks for itself and from a third editor that's a brand new SPA. The "unsourced BLP content" allegation does, of course need Admin review. But looking at the talk page, I see experienced editors in good standing who dispute this characterization of the defendant's edits and who take issue with Cambial's aggressive presence on this page. Perhaps Admin Mitchell, whose view seems reasonable and appropriate, will volunteer to keep a close eye on this matter after a logged warning is issued. SPECIFICO talk 13:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Result concerning CozyandDozy[edit]
|
UnpetitproleX
[edit]| UnpetitproleX self-reverted. Problem solved.--RegentsPark (comment) 18:43, 26 March 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 UnpetitproleX[edit]
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan
The Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir article is under 1RR restriction which the user being reported has clearly violated. Both the reverts that UnpetitproleX made were of multiple edits in one go therefore they must be sanctioned to the fullest extent having already received the DS alert recently.
Discussion concerning UnpetitproleX[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by UnpetitproleX[edit]The editor is aiming reinstatement of removed (by someone else) contentious content (added originally by someone else). In my edit summary I explain why there is a misrepresentation of the sources; however they re-inserted the same sources in their edit. Their edits are contentious and I suggested here that they seek consensus first for the edits. As for the 1RR, I concede that it was out of confusion. I assure you that this was in no way intentional. I have self-reverted my own revert, and am beginning a talk page discussion per WP:BRD. I respect wikipedia's rules and regulations, and do not edit war. I have always strived for consensus and engaged in lengthy debates on talk pages for achieving it, using the best of sources. -- UnpetitproleX (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning UnpetitproleX[edit]
|
Harassed and intimidated by another
[edit]| Under discussion at ANI.--RegentsPark (comment) 18:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ErraticDrumlin I feel harassed by another editor. They deleting all my contributions. They have named me personally irl a couple of times. When barkeep49 said that there was no blp issues with my version, they reverted the article anyway. They won't consider my views, and keep dominating when I try to discuss my concerns with any other people, so I can't get a fair hearing. I haven't mentioned them. I deleted my question in the teahouse bc they followed me there to control, I just wanted advice. I hadn't named them, I just wanted advice. They've stopped the chance of anyone fairly considering my talk page requests. They dominated one, so someone told me how to request edits, and I did and they put see above, and started being over familiar, and mocking, and nasty, even mocking my command of English, and grammar. I feel harassed and bullied by them. They were looking at my contributions on other pages. I feel upset that they suggested who I may be irl and then said sorry but they named again to draw more attention and make me feel harassed. suggested who I am irl, deleted my entries even though others there had no problem for a month before. and now stop me from engaging fairly with others. I feel frightened by their oppression and obsession with this. I really am scared irl.they're being nasty and over familiar.why would a random stranger try to name me irl?and be watching my moves, and dominate every turn I take, and be so determined to assume control of this narrative. Going through everything to try to humiliate me. I deleted their contributions on another page and that was wrongful, but they've been looking at all my contributions, and are very over familiar. The biggest issue is the irl issue, and mocking my use of language, which is racist imo Please can you look into this.I really feel very upset by their behaviour. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC) |
Valjean
[edit]| Per the filer’s last comment, closing as no action needed. Courcelles (talk) 20:34, 27 March 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 Valjean[edit]
I wish it didn't come to this, but I feel Valjean is responding inappropriately to criticism over the way he talks about trans people, which I think violates expected standards of behaviour at WP:GENSEX topics. I find their responses to have been either patronizing (don't be so offended) or combative (accusations) rather than trying to understand my point of view over the terminology used.
Discussion concerning Valjean[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Valjean[edit]A bit of good faith and actually listening to my comments, their context, and my sincere attempts to thread the needle and run through this minefield would really help. Instead, I have been treated by my accuser like some transphobic offender, and that I am not. As a progressive, I am fully in favor of the LGBTQ and trans communities and all laws that protect their rights. I am an older guy trying to learn the best ways to communicate on the talk page, and am certainly imperfect at it, but I'm learning. My learning attempts are being treated as hostility and deliberate attempts to offend the transgender community. That lack of good faith toward me and my imperfections is not appreciated. If the only people allowed to discuss this topic are the minuscule portion of the population and editors who are absolutely perfect in every aspect of this topic, then people like my accuser here will indeed own the topic. This would create a walled garden where only LGBTQ and transgender persons and activists would be allowed to edit, even with their COI (I am NOT saying they shouldn't be allowed to discuss and edit those topics!). Bringing this to AE is overkill. To the best of my ability, I have tried to explain myself when an issue was brought to my attention. I am not impervious to complaints and have corrected my terminology when alerted to an issue. (I have feared using such a simple word as "woman" would result in an attack on me.) I learn from constructive criticism, but assumptions of bad faith are unhelpful and a violation of policy. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Statement by LokiTheLiar[edit]First of all, I think the first diff should actually be this. Second, I am not really familiar enough with the conflict above to say much, but I will say that reading the diffs above I'm definitely getting some weird WP:NOTFORUM vibes. No bright lines, but the third diff especially raised my eyebrows: the thing I was scanning for more than anything was if Valjean ever accused you of POV-pushing or other misconduct solely for being LGBT, and while he never quite crosses that line he gets pretty close in diff #3. (I do also want to point out that even outside the trans stuff, accusing a female editor of being too emotional is probably also inappropriate.) Loki (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Oh wait, I missed that Valjean actually explicitly suggested that LGBT editors have a COI in his defense. As such I think that, ironically, his defense here is actually a lot worse for him than any of the diffs. Loki (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Levivich[edit]Anyone who writes that needs a TBAN from GENSEX. I'd like to quote RoxySaunders's response: In as strong terms possible, I disagree with Valjean’s implication that Wikipedia has some obligation answer to invasive questions like “does this BLP subject currently have a penis” any more than “what is her deadname” or “what is her home address”. That whole thread, and all 15 of Valjean's comments on that talk page are worth reading to get the full context. The response here of "I'm still learning" doesn't match the comments on the talk page, which suggest anything but learning: they're lecturing other people on their behavior, etc. Basically, cis-splaining. Wikipedia editors shouldn't bear the burden of Valjean's education. Levivich (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Statement by RoxySaunders[edit]I took this to mean that not describing a Thomas's genitals (something I consider a matter of basic dignity) would be WP:CENSOR / WP:IDONTLIKEIT. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 23:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Statement by DanielRigal[edit]As a participant in the discussions those diffs were drawn from, I can't deny that some of the language Valjean has used has made me wince and I can absolutely see why Madeline feels aggrieved. What I don't see is disruption in the article space which makes me wonder whether a TBAN from GENSEX is required at this stage or, if it is, whether it has to be a long one. I do worry that if we carry on TBANning people from GENSEX then it may be the case that the last person left unbanned gets to write all the articles. (OK. Obviously, I'm exaggerating, but you get my drift.) Maybe a warning is enough if Valjean will agree to dial it back a notch or three? Anyway, my advice to Valjean, as one cis guy to somebody who I assume is another of a similar age, is to lay off activity in GENSEX for a while (except maybe in genuinely uncontroversial ways) but to keep on reading in the area. It is hard for people like us to get our heads around this stuff. It is not like we were taught any of it in school and much of what we get through the media is, to put it very mildly, less than helpful. The media focuses on trans women (generally to their detriment) and it can be hard to relate when we are neither trans nor women. This is why I think it can be particularly helpful to try to listen to trans men. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Statement by starship.paint[edit]Looking at the diffs I think this is, at most, a warning, on using more appropriate wording. starship.paint (exalt) 04:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Statement by filiforme1312[edit]There are a few concerning behaviors I noticed. One of the more glaring ones is the use of language, which I don’t feel is a result of not knowing proper terminology. The following quotes are examples of Valjean knowingly misgendering the subject of a BLP and occurred after being warned by an editor that such comments would be a BLP violation. These also read as a hostile and antagonistic reaction to the editor who informed Valjean of the potential violation.
I think it's common for editors to use improper terminology on trans issues and the acceptable reaction is to take note, read relevant policy, and remove the text if necessary, not double down and antagonize other editors. I also feel accusing Thomas of being an aggressor and calling Maddyfromceleste emotional are inappropriate in ways other editors have detailed. The idea that trans editors and LGBT sources have a COI or bias has come up A LOT in this corner of wiki. It's been pretty frustrating and derailed multiple conversations. Statement by Springee[edit]I don't think there is much merit to this complaint. Could Valjean have been more sensitive in how he phrased things? Yes. That is almost always going to be true in discussions with disagreements. While I appreciate that transgender people do have a recent history/current issues with discrimination, there is a big difference between reasonable disagreement regarding how we discuss an issue, and trying to hurt etc while discussing a legitimate editorial/content question. Valjean's COI comment was poorly worded but it is a reasonable question any time an article gets a lot of interest from groups that have a strong interest in the subject (positive or negative). Such concerns are frequent on topics like firearms, left vs right politics, Arab-Israeli conflict topics etc. I agree with the response that if we booted everyone who had strong feelings about any topic area out we wouldn't have many articles. Anyone who has interacted with Valjean over the years will know they are very concerned about progressive causes etc. It seems most of their misdeeds are with respect to how to deal with details in a topic area where reasonable people may not realize "acceptable" has changed. As I see the conflict, Valjean raised what seemed like reasonable content questions on the article talk page. The replies to at least some of his questions suggested (not stated) his motives may be less than just improving wikipedia. In an effort to further explain his thinking other editors seem to get more frustrated and ended up bring things here, a placed where it certainly didn't need to go. Since it was brought here I would say Valjean's replies should address any concerns and this can be closed with no action. Springee (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Statement by Gråbergs Gråa Sång[edit]About Valjean and editing in the WP:GENSEX area, there's an episode I'd like to mention here. Emily St. John Mandel had some LGBT-related media-coverage in December 2022 (it was in The Signpost). An editor added LGBT-categories to the article then which I removed here:[5]. Another editor added an LGBT-category again in March, I reverted [6], and Valjean reverted me [7]. So far, so good, and time for the next step of BRD: Talk:Emily_St._John_Mandel#WP:BLPCAT_BRD. In this discussion, Valjean tells me that removing these categories meant "an insult to her and all LGBTQ people to deny her open identity this way." and "bringing their oppression here. That Wikipedia allows the erasure of LGBTQ people here is reprehensible." IMO, this language was uncalled for in context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Beccaynr[edit]From my view, having been involved in various discussions, Valjean received feedback from several editors about language used, i.e. the content, not the editor. I recognize how Valjean could feel a need to defend themselves personally, but from my view, there has been a level of defensiveness that seems to have been trending towards disruptive and a battleground approach. In the adjacent RSN discussion, Valjean's comment Special:Diff/1146313008 03:05, 24 March 2023 Special:Diff/1146313200 (ping added) 03:07, 24 March 2023, Special:Diff/1146313367 (small revision) 03:08, 24 March 2023 includes Valjean also posted an apology at Maddy from Celeste's userpage at 23:01, 24 March 2023, and from my view, the discussion that followed includes Maddy providing requested feedback to Valjean, and Valjean telling Maddy to
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Valjean[edit]
|
Soibangla
[edit]| Withdrawn by filer. Bishonen | tålk 21:29, 29 March 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 Soibangla[edit]
Editor has over a hundred edits to the talk page and article, it is disingenuous to claim the edit was merely WP:BOLD and not WP:POINTY to further a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. In fact, if not for their feigning of ignorance on both the talk page and user talk page, a report would not be necessary. The conflict between editor's words and the logs strain WP:AGF. Given their inability to see the issue of their conduct, further discussion will not bear fruit and so, refer to the admins.
Discussion concerning Soibangla[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Soibangla[edit]Mr Ernie, a very active participant on the article, wrote on my Talk about my edit, in part:
Mr Ernie just struck those comments, then added:
Given the exhaustive/exhausting discussion on the article Talk, I can understand how that misunderstanding might happen, and I wonder if Slywriter had the same misunderstanding. soibangla (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Statement by Firefangledfeathers[edit]The over-beaten dead horse in the room is any suggestion that the laptop did not belong to Biden. Soibangla's edit didn't really touch that at all, instead mentioning that part of the narrative is that Biden dropped the laptop off at a Delaware repair shop. I think it's fair to separate the issue of ownership from the issue of who dropped it off. As far as I'm aware, there has not been discussion about whether or not to mention the second issue in the lead. I admit to sometimes skimming the walls of text that have been produced at that talk page, so I may have missed something. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Statement by SPECIFICO[edit]The bold edit by accused editor Soibangla related to whether it is verified that the laptop was abandoned by Biden at a repair shop. Although that has been discussed -- briefly as I recall -- on the talk page, this complaint is weaponizing the separate and distinct issue of ownership of the device. The aggressive comments here on Soibangla's talk page and this precipitous AE filing fit the longstanding pattern that has driven editors away from this article and blocked ordinary collaboration and improvement. If I were to confirm this by pinging the list of those editors who've quit the article after being bludgeoned, attacked, and ridiculed on the talk page, I would be accused of canvassing. So I'll stop here. SPECIFICO talk 14:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Statement by Objective3000[edit]I suggest that the filer strike the two claims of “feigned ignorance”. Particularly since Soibangla stated: Statement by starship.paint (regarding Soibangla)[edit]@Slywriter: - could you link to all the discussions objecting to content on whether the laptop was
Statement by Muboshgu[edit]Whether or not the laptop belonged to Biden has indeed been discussed ad nauseam on the talk page. Whether or not Biden abandoned it has not. I don't recall any discussion of it, but I imagine that it has been touched on briefly. I do not believe there is any consensus on whether or not Biden dropped off the laptop. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Statement by Valjean 2[edit](Heading is numbered because there is another "Statement by Valjean" above it.) This filing is based on confusion and should be closed. As Firefangledfeathers notes, the matters of (a) laptop ownership and (b) its delivery to the repair shop are two different issues. Soibangla was totally open to being corrected, but that did not happen, rendering this a tendentious dud. Drama boards should only be used after all other avenues of dispute resolution have been exhausted. There should exist a near consensus of a serious problem before opening such a case. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Comment by GoodDay[edit]Seeing as it's been requested that this AE report be withdrawn. I would say the waters have calmed. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Soibangla[edit]
|
Ferahgo the Assassin
[edit]| No action necessary. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:39, 31 March 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 Ferahgo the Assassin[edit]
See above
Enough is enough. We know it is a bugbear for this user. And yet the trolling continues. There is no net-benefit to letting this user continue to be active in these areas. Reinstate the topic ban. Seeing them "helpfully" comment on the latest RfArb was the last straw for me. To offer a bit of clarity: this user had their topic ban lifted and immediately returned to what I would consider trolling the topic area. It strikes me as a kind of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing that tends to make things more difficult in the topic area. The WP:SPA nature of the contributions at this point seems tiresome to me... one can almost predict that if anything happens in R&I that the user will show up to say/insinuate the same party line which is identifiably associated with scientific racism. @SFR: I am not privy to the private dealings of arbcom when the decision was handed down to remove the restrictions. Assurances were apparently made that there would be no more POV-pushing. I think I have provided evidence that this trust was misplaced.
Discussion concerning Ferahgo the Assassin[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Ferahgo the Assassin[edit]
|
Marcelus
[edit]| Pofka subject to a one-way interaction ban with Marcelus and given a final warning that any further misconduct will almost certainly result in a topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:59, 9 April 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 Marcelus[edit]
There also was a report two months ago regarding Marcelus's editing of content in Lithuania, Poland topics (see: archived discussion). Multiple users agreed that Marcelus violated WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:POVPUSH, WP:GRUDGE, WP:ICANTHEARYOU, WP:NOTHERE by trying to insert claims to the article that Zigmas Zinkevičius (personally described by Marcelus as " Since limited scope, time sanctions don't stop Marcelus, I think indefinite WP:TOPICBAN should be applied in Poland, Lithuania, Eastern Europe topics.
Discussion concerning Marcelus[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Marcelus[edit]Pofka created WP:RMT ([22]) regarding the Paweł Holszański page, undoubtedly knowing that this is a controversial move that needs to be discussed, as it is not the first discussion about what name should be used in article about historical figure of similar background. I protested againt RMT by checking the results from Google Search and Scholar in English (per WP:COMMONNAME, in short: we use English sources) which were radically different ([23], [24]). When this was moved to WP:RM#C I reiterated this argument ([25]), I also gave a brief historical context as to why I think the Polish-sounding version of PH's name is so popular, then a bit later I also added results from Google Books ([26]). In the meantime, I expanded the article on the basis of the sources available to me ([27]) and told Pofka that he would find the answer to his question about the sources there ([28]). On March 11, 2022, Pofka received a total ban for Lithuania and Poland for attacks on me ([29]), but also for previous offenses (similar situation as now, I explain why the "Polish" name is popular Pofka attacks me for Polish nationalism, etc.) Pofka since October 12, 2022 is also blocked completely on lt.wiki for personal attacks ([30]). The ban on en.wiki was lifted on January 5, 2023, which I supported ([31]), Pofka declared: Contrary to what Pofka says the Zinkevičius case did not end "without a clear decision." - Pofka also used my 0RR to get the upper hand in content discussions (1, 2,3. When I asked him to stop doing this, he simply deleted my question from his talk page). There were also some occassional WP:HOAX accusations ([32]), but these are thigns I used to when interacting with Pofka. I reported this to HJ_Mitchell without asking for any sanctions on Pofka, because I think there is no problem for both of us to edit on Wikipedia, even more so in a topic where there are not many active users. I still hope so.
Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]Is there a revert here? The restriction on Marcelus is 0RR. But all the diffs provided by Pofka are ... talk page comments. This is just a complaint that Marcelus dares to disagree with Pofka (on talk pages, civilly). Pofka also, when referencing the restriction, quotes only irrelevant portions (that it's indefinite etc) but manages to omit what the restriction actually is. Maybe a WP:BOOMERANG is in order. Volunteer Marek 01:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC) The exact comment from the admin on their talk page [33], made on March 14, was: " Your two posts between them are over a thousand words. If you want me to take any action, please make your point concisely. Preferably a tenth of that length. Otherwise you can file at WP:AE but note that walls of text are not accepted there either.". Volunteer Marek 01:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Statement by TB[edit]There is nothing to see here. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Shadow of the Starlit Sky[edit]Hello, I am an editor who in uninvolved with these interactions between Marcelus and Pofka. However, I have collaborated with Pofka once before while WP:NPOV-ing Gediminas. I would like to say that I have looked through Pofka's edit history, block log and global account log. It seems as if Pofka has been indef banned in other wikis in the past for incivility and ad hominem attacks ([34]). And, Marcelus isn't immune to blame, either. This interaction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marcelus#Your_evidence) seems like an indication of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to me. Not to mention his past conflicts regarding Polonization of Lithuanian names somewhat suggests a WP:NATIONALIST mentality regarding this user too. I think that an interaction ban between Pofka and Marcelus may be necessary at this point. Shadow of the Starlit Sky (Talk) 03:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Ppt91[edit]This case has little if any merit. In addition to what others have already said about Pofka misinterpreting the extent of/nature of the original sanction, I am also troubled by Pofka's overall framing of these spelling disputes which to me exhibits a degree of WP:RGW mentality. From the diffs presented, the most inappropriate and inflamed comment by Marcelus I see is the one including the term Statement by GizzyCatBella[edit]
I'm noticing consensus tipping slightly towards the restoration of the topic ban among you admin folks. I understand that, and I understand that Pofka did precisely what they promised not to do in their Topic Ban appeal but can I ask you, admin folks, to offer Pofka another chance? A powerful logged warning + a one-way interaction ban with Marcelus for example? (with possibility of appeal in 6 months) Pursuing that particular editor (Marcelus) appears to be the cause of Pofka's problems. We have only a few editors interested in Lithuania's topic area (it's a small country), and I believe Pofka's contributions are important. In my humble opinion, if they stay away from Marcelus, that will be enough. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Statement by Cukrakalnis[edit]@Shadow of the Starlit Sky This is relevant: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1104#User:Marcelus repeatedly breaking WP:NPA and doubling-down on it. I myself asked for
Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Result concerning Marcelus[edit]
|
InedibleHulk
[edit]| InedibleHulk site banned for one year. No prejudice against any other admin adding an indef and/or topic ban(s) on top if desired. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:36, 13 April 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 InedibleHulk[edit]
Many of InedibleHulk's talk page contributions are very likely WP:BLPTALK violations. While Hale died during the shooting, BLP continues to apply for some time after death. This type of disruption has a serious impact upon other editors, and can lead to them disengaging from the article and talk page due to stress and aggrivation. These diffs show a pattern of bludgeoning discussions, making unsubstantiated controversial claims about a recently deceased person, and making incivil comments from InedibleHulk, that have resulted in a massive disruption to the editing of 2023 Covenant School shooting and its talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning InedibleHulk[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by InedibleHulk[edit]Police, old friends and Audrey Hale's mother seem to believe she was a woman, and though she seems to have perhaps denied this implicitly by preferring male pronouns online, she also has a reliably sourced history of lying offline. It doesn't seem like misgendering to agree with the majority of those who knew and cared for her. It seems like gendering. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC) Considering BDP only applies to material with implications (presumably meaning negative) for living friends and relatives, I think telling a woman who told ABC News "I think I lost my daughter today" her daughter was a man (if she reads that page) is probably erring on the side of least caution (and contradicting her teammates, who one said were "like a family", second least). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Also, I haven't been disrupting editing by any of my comments, the page is locked (I've probably edit-conflicted a few people by making minor followups, and I'm sorry for that, as always). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC) Keep in mind, too, trusting a dead mass murderer (not even always the kind who kill children at random) when he, she or they seem to be the only one who ever shared an opinion on a matter is a slippery slope toward all kinds of fringe bullshit being treated as the opposite of fringe. Even if it's only applied to "Aiden", for some reason, there's still a lot of manifesto to leak or be released. Will we be so sympathetic if the coward blames Christianity? Bullies? The American educational system? A living Tennessee politician or two? TV? Straight people who just don't understand? The victims? God? Living relatives police say she may have also planned to kill? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC) I don't know if I'm supposed to ping Maddy or what, but: "This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise." The "person" in question is not in a phase of life nor legally recognized as a person. The accusations of transphobia against these particular parents (who are people) were made by an anonymous source to The Daily Mail and propped up by OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC) While I'm here, I may as well challenge anyone to find an edit which even hints at an anti-trans sentiment from me since 2006. I'm only in this mess because this article started off as one about the next big shooting, which is my bag here, historically. If it weren't the mountain of evidence that nobody alive today with firsthand experience seems to believe Audrey Hale was a man, even after learning she disagreed, I'd appreciate how this is misgendering. I've accidentally used the wrong pronoun on a colleague once or twice, and made sure enough to not do it again, out of common human decency. I don't edit articles about trans people or topics very often at all, not through any active avoidance, but just through their scarcity. I think the idea of switching gender identities is cool. But the dead have no identities, including gender-related. I've always known this, it just hasn't needed explaining to so many people yet, by chance. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC) No, Feathers, I'm not confused. "This" refers to the preceding guideline and "holds for any phase of the person's life" pretty clearly implies it does not hold beyond that point. And yes, Hale did have a life, and this would have applied to it then, while she was a person. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC) Since my opinion on this particular former person is broadly (though wrongly) construed as something against every single trans person, current or former, I can see how keeping my voices away from that subject might seem warranted. But banning me from all gun, living people and American politic articles would be too much, given the reported problem here. And rebanning someone for previously having served a ban would be a double jeopardy in the real world. It would be more (but still not) reasonable to keep me away from churches, schools and Nashville. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Finally, that "pop culture banality" diff should be taken to mean don't let your children grow up to be mass murderers, not don't let them question or answer their genders (that goes for other living relatives, too). InedibleHulk (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Only one of Sideswipe's latest diffs refers to them, the next two to the content. I also find it disturbing how closely they still watch my page, after I asked them to unwatch already. For what, laying in wait? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC) I quit. Those who don't trust me can do whatever on top of it. Those who do, thanks again. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Statement by Maddy from Celeste[edit]It isn't a BLP violation to point out that parents often misgender their children, and that only the subject's own identification counts for MOS:GID. InedibleHulk, on the other hand, has been consistently incivil in his edit summaries and comments on that page. Also, the more he comments, the more I feel he is opposed to the MOS:GID guideline and will make that everyone's problem. his current arguments about the shooter's credibility, for example, seem like a useless distraction from our established practice of not misgendering people. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Firefangledfeathers[edit]IH, are you genuinely confused about GID? Hale did have a life, and GID applies to every part of it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Funcrunch[edit]Based on our initial interactions on the 2023 Covenant School shooting talk page, as well as on my own talk page, I believed that InedibleHulk was acting in good faith. But his continued, insistent, deliberate misgendering of Hale with she/her pronouns has made it very stressful for me as a transmasculine editor to continue participating in the discussion, the outcome of which I believe has important implications for this encyclopedia. As I said in a comment on one of the page's RFCs, I am saddened when contributors do not take into account the emotional well-being of Wikipedia's trans and non-binary editors. (ETA: I now see that Sideswipe9th linked to this comment of mine in the original arbitration request as well.) Funcrunch (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by FormalDude[edit]The biggest problem I see here is that IH continues to use she/her pronouns for Hale numerous times well after a consensus was developed that Hale takes he/him pronouns. Having been informed of this multiple times, I don't know how it can be construed as anything other than intentional misgendering. Obviously that is not compatible with editing in GENSEX. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by LilianaUwU[edit]I'll have to echo FormalDude's statement here: the constant misgendering of Aiden Hale despite being asked multiple times not to do so is unacceptable, and incompatible with Wikipedia editing. So is being very aggressive in edit summaries. This reminds me of the Athaenara situation, but I'd say this is worse: InedibleHulk has repeatedly posted that type of comments, and they're much more blatant than Athaenara's comment (the use of she to refer to a trans man is constant across IH's messages). LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 21:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Silverseren[edit]I think this diff given by Sideswipe9th originally above is really exemplary of the issue here. To quote the two comments therein:
It seems pretty clear that InedibleHulk has no intention of editing neutrally in this contentious topic area and is quite open about that. SilverserenC 21:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC) Statement by Kcmastrpc[edit]I believe a TBAN is inappropriate in this instance. This is an unusually charged issue that I suspect anyone involved with editing has some emotional feelings towards, additionally, we have a large number of reliable sources who continue to use Hales birth name further aggravating the situation and creating what some might argue is a conflict with wikipedia principles. Perhaps we should ask IH to step away from editing this article in general and show grace for everyone involved (assuming he agrees to step away)? Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC) Statement by Zaathras[edit]Observations. One, in Sideswipe9th's 3rd listed point, InedibleHulk's commentary-via-edit-summary is their modus operandi. Ranging from antagonistic to pop culture banality, it is honestly becoming un-collegial. Two, this is reminiscent of GooDday's AE. If one cannot be respectful of the gender of Wikipedia editors and/or subjects of Wikipedia articles, they really do not belong in the topic area. A topic ban is most appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaathras (talk • contribs) 22:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC) Statement by starship.paint[edit]To me it seems like at most a transgender topic ban. Anything else is stale and/or not that serious. starship.paint (exalt) 15:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Statement by Nableezy[edit]A site ban???? Ok, so we have a topic that for whatever noble reasons has this established carve out from our normal rules on sources and due weight, but to edit in opposition to that carve out is now cause for a site ban? Yall wildin. nableezy - 17:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Also, wait a minute, AE cant do an indefinite block, or a site ban, it can do an indefinite block that is downgraded to a normal admin action block after a year. It takes a lot more than an admin or three to site ban an editor from the English Wikipedia. nableezy - 21:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Statement by EvergreenFir[edit]I have blocked EH in the past so I thought I should chime in. I think a topic ban (or bans) is appropriate given the conduct. I am honestly a bit fond of EH, though I understand he can be disruptive. InedibleHulk's does not seem to be maliciously or tendentiously disruptive, just annoyingly so in most cases. I'd rather not indef block this user as I don't think he is a harm to the project as a whole. But it is clear he needs to be restricted from certain areas. IMO, he's a WikiPossum; makes a mess of your trash and bothers folks at times, but is not generally harmful. Just my 2 cents. Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning InedibleHulk[edit]
|
JCJC777
[edit]| Indef blocked, 1st year as AE action. Courcelles (talk) 16:36, 14 April 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 JCJC777[edit]
Specifically (emphasis mine):
The above diffs 3-6 demonstrate 4 reverts in a 24 hour period which restore this user's preferred version.
In summary, this user is doing basically the same thing here at Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing as they were previously doing at Multiple Sclerosis, behaviors which got them indefinitely blocked from editing that page. (using poor quality non-MEDRS sources to make medical claims e.g. PRIMARY, news-org, using bare URLs, disregarding advice from editors on the talk page, disruptively blanking, edit warring, etc.) When they were confronted about these issues on their talk page, they simply replied "many thanks" before disrupting some more ([93][94]) and then adding the Retired template to their talk. This is a common behavioral pattern for this user (having similarly gone "dormant" right before they were blocked in 2021). Perusing their talk page, they always just respond " I see no reason why this behavior should be tolerated at a contentious topic page when it was so clearly not tolerated at a featured article. This user very clearly has a WP:IDHT/WP:CIR problem. They apparently cannot simply format their own citations, follow MEDRS, or understand the consequences of a contentious topic. The time-sink they provide on these articles is reason enough to sanction. I recommend a page-block from Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing at a minimum, TBAN from pseudoscience Clarification 19:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC): I am not opposed to a site-wide indef, it just isn't my first choice in this particular situation. I wish this user could get the message that these behaviors are not okay, and resume their past editing in less-contentious areas, with more knowledge of the PAGs. But I also acknowledge that has not been their response at every previous juncture.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Also pinging other involved users: User:MrOllie, User:LokiTheLiar, User:Bon courage, User:Cedar777, User:Roxy the dog, User:Firefangledfeathers, User:Feoffer, User:XOR'easter, User:Darknipples, User:Bakkster Man, User:fiveby— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning JCJC777[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by JCJC777[edit]I've retired, so outcome of this immaterial and I'd suggest you good people don't waste your energy ahd time on it.
Imagine what a massive increase in wiki editing resources could occur if we enabled - those who want to to play offence (spotting wiki articles that are hurting people out there by being wrong, proposing good new content, proposing elimination of bad content) and - those who want to to play central midfield (gatekeeping on wiki rules, maintaining disciplines ahd standards, mopping up errors). Arguably that might work by the offence people proposing content on the article Talk page, but that seems a slow way of moving. The offence people (Loki they're probably often Chaotic Good alignment) will lose interest and go. Wiki needs to encourage them and help them operate. Statement by LokiTheLiar[edit]I oppose this action on two grounds. First of all, all of the linked edits have been on the page for EMDR. While there are a few sources that call parts of EMDR pseudoscientific, the overwhelming consensus of the field as shown by the WP:MEDORG sources is that EMDR is an evidence-based treatment for PTSD, and that's especially true in more recent sources. As such, I don't believe that the PS contentious topic area fits here. Second and probably more important is that if JCJC777 has been edit warring, so has every other editor on the page, including the filer. The following diffs are all reverts made by Shibbolethink on EMDR since the beginning of April:
And he's not even the worst offender; several other editors on the page have made a habit of mass reverting the page to their preferred version. Many of them characterize these mass reverts against "whitewashing", as the filer does above, when they are instead often reverting the addition of high quality sources (like, again, the NHMRC source above) that simply don't support their POV. (To clarify, like I say on the talk page, I don't really agree that anyone involved is edit warring at the current time. Most edits to the page have been building on top of edits of editors opposing them in the underlying topic dispute rather than reverting them. But also there have been a lot of unjustified reverts, and JCJC777 has not really been a major offender here, in my view.) Just in general, the state of the article is not good and this is not JCJC777's fault. JCJC777 certainly is a clumsy editor, but he's also added a bunch of sources that really are valuable and WP:MEDRS quality in some of these edits, only to have the entire edit mass reverted. Loki (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by MrOllie[edit]Pseudoscience absolutely applies here. As has been extensively discussed on the talk page, the MEDORG sources Loki cites don't actually comment on whether the topic is pseudoscience or not. But even leaving that aside, the common thread of JCJC777's editing is to remove or downplay statements to the effect that EMDR is pseudoscientific, so the case obviously applies. Also, contrary to Loki's statement above, the majority of JCJC777's citations do not meet WP:MEDRS - they are primary sources - single studies, as well as cites to other Wikipedia articles. Here they added an essay written by GPT to the talk page - the reasoning is unclear, but they seemed to think it supported their position before walking that back in the face of criticism. JCJC777's editing really is disruptive, and IMO worse than anyone else editing the article on either side of the argument. I may be a shade biased on that, though, since JCJC777 did come by my user talk page to make personal attacks ([95] and [96]). - MrOllie (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Bon Courage[edit]This is a fairly obvious case of an editor blanking 'negative' content and attempting to POV-skew an article in a WP:PROFRINGE manner, almost to the extent where it seems deliberately provocative. With the earlier problems at Multiple sclerosis it looks to me like JCJC777 is not helping to build the encyclopedia. Bon courage (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC) I would also add, by-by-by, that JCJC777 is not the only problem editor here. By restoring[97] JCJC777's entire huge edit, and invoking "MEDRS quality sources" in the edit summary when in fact the sources are - yes - "the Hollywood Reporter, Vice magazine and the German Wikipedia" (and a predatory journal also), LokiTheLiar is acting as an enabler in a similarly problematic manner. Bon courage (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning JCJC777[edit]
|
NeuroZachary
[edit]| No action needed at this time. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning NeuroZachary[edit]
Discussion concerning NeuroZachary[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by NeuroZachary[edit]Statement by Sideswipe9th[edit]NeuroZachary strikes me as an editor who is textbook WP:NOTHERE. In addition to the diffs from Gays Against Groomers linked above, I've also had to revert two edits relating to human conception and abortion ([107], [108]). Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Aquillion[edit]Just a note that it does seem like they're likely to successfully appeal their indef with the constraint that an indefinite AP2 topic ban will be applied instead. Aside from that, I agree that there are WP:DUCK issues suggesting they may at least not be a new user, but without more concrete reason to think they're a specific user and are violating WP:SOCK it's always unclear what to do with that. --Aquillion (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning NeuroZachary[edit]
|
Request to lift Topic ban
[edit]| Withdrawn appeal, per user talk. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 00:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I am asking the community and/or administrators to allow me to edit in the ARBPIA area, rescinding the current topic ban, a ban which I unsuccessfully appealed here, but which allowed me to edit ARBPIA pages without diverging into political issues. This freedom, too, was taken away from me when I wrote a new Wikipedia article entitled “Outline of Jerusalem,” which you can see here I first want to say that I made an honest mistake. Since my topic ban actually permitted me (as one can see here), to edit pages bearing the Arab-Israel (ARBPIA) tag, I felt that I could do so on a page entitled “Outline of Jerusalem”, mentioning both Jewish and Arab cultural sites, following the format of Outline of Munich, without touching on the political intricacies besetting the Israeli and Palestinian Arab peoples. In fact, I simply mentioned while editing that page the name of the current government over Jerusalem, which information the page in its format had actually called for (and what information is presently known by all). My freedom to edit pages bearing the ARBPIA label gave me a sense “unfounded” confidence that it would not be a breach of my topic ban (which prohibited me from engaging in issues involving the area of conflict) if I were to write the name of the government currently in charge of the city, as the page format requested. I made an honest mistake and am asking for the opportunity to renew editing in the ARBPIA area by rescinding my current ban. I can assure my colleagues here that I will do my utmost to abide by all Wikipedia policies, and act in Good Faith when editing. This will allow me the opportunity to help promote articles in the ARBPIA field to good article status, as well as to add historical data, whenever needed. Secondly, I wish to say that my original topic ban in the ARBPIA field involved a dispute that I had with another editor, but that this dispute has since been resolved. I wish to remind all those here that I have NEVER once made any statement on Wikipedia that incites violence against any of my Arab or Palestinian countrymen, nor have I ever hoped that harm come upon them. My editing history will prove this without any doubt.Davidbena (talk) 07:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Per David's last comment here, he appears to want to reformulate this using the template. Id collapse this as withdrawn myself but sadly you all have not seen fit to grant me an admin bit, but I request that be done now. nableezy - 00:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC) |