Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
m Archiving 5 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive324) (bot |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 165: | Line 165: | ||
*:My biggest concern is the unwillingness to engage on their talk page. Editors must be able to engage when dealing with CTOPs. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 21:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC) |
*:My biggest concern is the unwillingness to engage on their talk page. Editors must be able to engage when dealing with CTOPs. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 21:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC) |
||
*::I wonder if they might be more willing to take advice from an uninvolved admin than from an editor they perceive as badgering them? If we can solve the problem with education and advice rather than enforcement, that would be my preference; which is not to say that we can't use the stick if the carrot is ineffective. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?</span>]] 21:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC) |
*::I wonder if they might be more willing to take advice from an uninvolved admin than from an editor they perceive as badgering them? If we can solve the problem with education and advice rather than enforcement, that would be my preference; which is not to say that we can't use the stick if the carrot is ineffective. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?</span>]] 21:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC) |
||
== Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Infinity Knight #2 == |
|||
; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Infinity Knight}} – [[User:Infinity Knight|Infinity Knight]] ([[User talk:Infinity Knight|talk]]) 19:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
; Sanction being appealed : You are indefinitely [[WP:TBAN|topic-banned]] from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. |
|||
:You have been sanctioned because you have repeatedly attempted to weaponize administrative processes within the topic area, after a previous warning: |
|||
# [[Special:Diff/1179705148|Attempt]] to sanction topic-area opponent for policy-compliant edit (I AGF on this one, but presented for context) |
|||
# [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141#Inappropriate_remark|Warned]] by [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] for [[WP:CPOV|civil POV-pushing]] in an attempt to sanction a topic-area opponent |
|||
# [[Special:Diff/1182430412|Attempt]] to sanction the same opponent as in (1), under the same misapplication of policy, for conduct that was even less objectionable than the first time. |
|||
# [[Special:Diff/1182651716|More selective misapplication of policy]], this time against the admin who told you that you were wrong in (3) |
|||
===Previous appeal=== |
|||
# [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive324#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Infinity_Knight]] |
|||
; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|Tamzin}} {{admin|Johnuniq}} |
|||
Notification of that administrators : |
|||
===Statement by Infinity Knight=== |
|||
:Regarding (1) & (3), I visited Tamzin's talk page under sub-section titled [[User_talk:Tamzin#Inquiry|Inquiry]] I used the phrase "Are there any concerns related to original research? Your input is appreciated". I did not support or recommend imposing sanctions on another user. |
|||
:Regarding (4), I acknowledge that exercised poor judgment in relation to (4). Tamzin mentioned that my involvement in administrative processes related to this topic area lacked the necessary detachment. Nevertheless, I hold the view that administrators should be accountable to the community. It is essential to emphasize that I did not endeavor to "misrepresent policy". |
|||
:{{u|Tamzin}} mentioned that my involvement in administrative processes related to this topic area lacked the necessary detachment. I was directed to the AE discussions by {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}} [[User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#Greetings|here]], the idea of "draconian" measures caught my interest. As a [[WP:Knight|WikiKnight]], my main objective is to foster a positive and harmonious editing environment on Wikipedia while upholding the platform's fundamental content policies, such as neutrality, verifiability, and reliability. |
|||
:Finally, I will abstain from commenting during AE discussions unless an administrator requests my input. |
|||
===Statement by (involved editor 1)=== |
|||
===Statement by (involved editor 2)=== |
|||
===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Infinity Knight === |
|||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
|||
====Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)==== |
|||
====Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)==== |
|||
===Result of the appeal by Infinity Knight=== |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
|||
<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the contentious topics log below where their sanctions is logged. --> |
Revision as of 19:40, 9 November 2023
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
![]() | Important information Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by HumilatedGoan
Appeal declined. There is consensus among uninvolved administrators to decline this appeal at this time as it does not adequately address the reason for/substance of the block and how appellant will avoid the issue in future. I would recommend the appellant review WP:AAB. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Statement by HumilatedGoanI want to acknowledge my mistakes in violating Wikipedia:ARBECR, and I sincerely apologize for the trouble i caused. i assure you that I have learned from my mistakes and i am committed to avoiding them in the future. please consider unblocking my account. HumilatedGoan (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC) copied from Special:Diff/1183168077 Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by IvanvectorI have copied the user's statement from their talk page as requested. I also must report that the user is believed to have a second account; please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BlueFreee. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC) I also was distracted by the SPI after mostly filling this out, and saved before I realized that 331dot already declined the appeal on the user's talk page. I'm going to leave it to a reviewer to decide what to do about that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by TamzinHG was warned to stop doing this, kept doing this without changing their behavior, and then sent me an appeal by email that was obviously written by AI. (If they dispute this characterization, I am happy to share the email with other admins.) This appeal does not, to me, show any understanding of what was wrong with what they did, or of why we can trust the issue won't recur. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by HumilatedGoanStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)Result of the appeal by HumilatedGoan
|
Ecrusized
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Ecrusized
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Ecrusized (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Edit warring over whether aspects of the infobox should be collapsed at 2023 Israel–Hamas war:
Move warring over the title of 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip:
General 1RR violations:
- 21:12, 2 November 2023 - Removed Wagner group from infobox
- 08:11, 2 November 2023 - Restored "Current extent of the Israeli invasion of Gaza" to the infobox, as part of a broader reinstatement of the live map
- 20:35, 1 November 2023 - Changed "1,000+ militants killed" to "1,000+ killed"
- 11:56, 1 November 2023 - Removed "Clashes erupt at the Israeli–Lebanese border" from the infobox
- 09:50, 1 November 2023 - Removed citations from the restored inclusion of Houthi's in the infobox
- 18:24, 31 October 2023 - Removed Houthis from the infobox
These are all comparatively minor, and I wouldn't have come here except for the fact that when I approached Ecrusized about the issue they declined to self-revert or address the issue in any way, instead removing my comment saying Stop leaving me talk page messages please
. I had previously approached them about some minor canvassing issues in the topic area; they also removed that comment, saying Do not leave blank template warnings on user accounts talk pages
.
There are also some WP:ONUS issues, restoring the live map despite an ongoing dispute about whether it is verifiable and no affirmative consensus to do so. However, the edit to restore the map was not a 1RR violation.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 12:04, 4 November 2023 (see the system log linked to above).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
They left me 4 separate blank warning templates on my talk page regarding this, despite me telling them to stop bothering me after each one
Ecrusized, I left you four notices. It was after the third that you asked me to "Stop leaving me talk page messages please":
- Alerting you of ARBPIA
- Warning you about canvassing
- Informing you that you had violated 1RR and asking you to self-revert
- Notifying you of this discussion.
Per our policies, you are able to ban me from your talk page yourself, with the exception of required notifications such as #1 and #4, and if this is what you want please say. However, this is a double edged sword; any issues, even if they are as minor as a single 1RR violation (for a post-report example, this revert is a 1RR violation), must be taken to a forum like this one rather than being resolvable through a talk page conversation. I would recommend against this, but it is your choice. 14:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Over two years ago I was blocked for 48 hours for overreacting to someone accusing me of being a sockpuppet. Regarding the current situation, I inspected your edits after you reverted me and engaged in canvassing. I would have preferred to resolve the identified issues on your talk page as I have with others. However, that stopped being an option when you declined to discuss the issue - although I believe this can still be resolved without sanction if you recognize your violation of 1RR and commit to doing better in the future. 14:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell: May I have 200 words to reply to your comment? BilledMammal (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal Certainly. Use what you need but try to be concise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, although Levivich beat me to it - and probably did a better job of it, too.
- What we have here are minor behavioral issues - canvassing and 1RR violations - that become serious when they refused to communicate about them. Further, they reacted this way immediately; message one and two were left together, and were the first messages I have ever left on their talk page. They immediately reverted them, with the edit summary
Do not leave blank template warnings on user accounts talk pages
- which makes me wonder if they even read the messages I left, as the warning about canvassing included a custom note. - I agree with Levivich that what needs to be done here is ensure that they are clued in about the requirements to communicate and to respond to valid behavioral concerns. Perhaps a trouting would be sufficient for this, although given their response on this page - throwing accusations of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE for bringing up these issues - makes me wonder if a formal warning is required to get it through to them that this behavior won't be tolerated in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 08:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Ecrusized
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Ecrusized
User BilledMammal has been harassing me on my talk page since yesterday morning over a single revert I made which they did not agree on. They left me 4 separate blank warning templates on my talk page regarding this, despite me telling them to stop bothering me after each one. They then resolved to examining my contributions from the previous week in an effort to find violation that they might use against me (in bad faith). Hence they've opened this notice in an effort to have me blocked. Again edits here are wholly unrelated to the dispute they've had with me. I wished to stay away from this notice entirely in the hope that the user would go away. I have no further comments and do not wish to be involved in this at all. Ecrusized (talk) 11:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
User @Veggies: have told them to take a breather because of the battleground behavior they've shown in the same said dispute they've had with me. It might be appropriate to give them a temporary topic ban from the said article. I would also like to have them blocked from editing my talk page because of their constant harrasment. Ecrusized (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- I did not considers the edits of excessive citation cleanups as individual reverts. Rest of those reverts were made in coordination with users at the talk page.Edit warring over whether aspects of the infobox should be collapsed at 2023 Israel–Hamas war:, :Removed "Clashes erupt at the Israeli–Lebanese border" from the infobox (moved to location). Ecrusized (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- Informing you that you had violated 1RR and asking you to self-revert This is blatantly false. You can only notify someone on 1RR's or 3RR's within 24 hours after that post. You decided to report my alleged violations from 2 days ago. Ecrusized (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal: Are you going to comment on anything about you deciding to inspect my edits all the sudden, within minutes after entering into a dispute with me? It seems that you were previously blocked for abusing the Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement just like you are right now. This is clearly WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE behavior. You are attempting to get users who disagree with you blocked by gaming the Wikipedia system WP:GAME. Since you were previously blocked for the same issue, it might be appropriate to have you permanently blocked. Ecrusized (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- If @ScottishFinnishRadish: is satisfied with my statement, I have no further comments on this issue. I will pay more attention to 1RR from now on, notably if they are regarding removal/change of citations, and/or single word reverts, for which I was not paying enough attention prior to this notice. Ecrusized (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- In response to the new statement my @Levivich: (who is an editor involved in the same said dispute I previously mention having had with @BilledMammal:).:
- I did not consider non controversial edits, such as excessive citation cleanups as reverts, as @HJ Mitchell: states. Such as this one. Nor this one, where another user had restored a file, but forgotten to restore it's legend. So I restored the legend as not to leave it incorrectly in the article in its current form, Levivich considers this another 1RR violation...
- As far as I know, non controversial moves do not require a move discussion. I moved, the title "ground operations" to "invasion" considering it a non controversial one. (Which might as well be since the article was moved to the said title with 15 support and 0 oppose under 24 hours in the subsequent discussion.) Something else to note here is that the moves listed 13-14 October are regarding a different article than the one following 27 October. Which is when the large scale ground incursion in Gaza began but the prior article was regarding limited raids. Hence the previous naming disputes. Ecrusized (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding @ScottishFinnishRadish:'s concern regarding my unwillingness to discuss this issue at my talk page with BilledMammal on Saturday, when this notice was opened.
- On that day, I made a revert and entered into a content dispute with user BilledMammal. Subsequently they left me 2 large blank template warnings on my talk page. This is despite them being aware of the fact that I was away from my PC, and having a busy Saturday. So I reverted their warnings from my talk page, which I found to be retaliatory filings for making a revert they did not condone. Afterwards, 2 more warnings, the one regarding the ECP disputes here were left on my talk page. Again, I considered these retaliatory filings by BilledMammal, noting the previous 2 warnings and reverted them. --- Had the ECP warnings been filed by BilledMammal prior to the previous 2 warnings preceding them or not being followed by the content dispute they've had with me, I would be more than willing to discuss it in my talk page. However, under this context, I automatically assumed it to be a retaliatory filing. As Levivich has stated, this is the first time I am participating in a Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement dispute, furthermore the Israel-Hamas war article is the first ECP article I have been extensively editing. Ecrusized (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- In response to the new statement my @Levivich: (who is an editor involved in the same said dispute I previously mention having had with @BilledMammal:).:
- If @ScottishFinnishRadish: is satisfied with my statement, I have no further comments on this issue. I will pay more attention to 1RR from now on, notably if they are regarding removal/change of citations, and/or single word reverts, for which I was not paying enough attention prior to this notice. Ecrusized (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Levivich
Ecrusized is WP:AWARE of "arbitration enforcement Israel Palestine" a/o Oct 17 Special:Diff/1180609306, Special:Diff/1180609996. Levivich (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- *adjusts spectacles*
- At 2023 Israel–Hamas war:
- addition by editor 1, 18:24 Oct 31 first revert by Ecrusized - that's Ecrusized's 1RR for the day
- addition by editor 2 (CB cite expansion), 09:50 Nov 1 revert - that's a 1RR violation, 2nd revert in 24hrs
- addition by editor 3, 11:56 Nov 1 revert - 2nd 1RR violation, 3rd revert in 24hrs
- "militants killed" and Israelis "abducted" had been in the article for at least 3 weeks (Oct 10), 20:35 Nov 1 revert removing "militants" and changing "abducted" to "captured," which is POV-ish, but also the 3rd 1RR violation, as this is the 3rd revert in the preceding 24hrs (09:50 Nov 1, and 11:56 Nov 1, are the other two)
- an edit by me, 08:11 Nov 2 revert, 4th 1RR violation, and 3rd revert in preceding 24hrs (11:56 Nov 1 and 20:35 Nov 1 are the other two)
- addition by editor 4, 21:12 Nov 2 revert, technically not a 1RR violation because the prior revert was 24hrs and 37 minutes prior.
- All of the above reverts are over infobox parameters.
- At 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip:
- Editor 1 moves from "invasion" to "ground operations" (Oct 13)
- Editor 2 from "ground operations" to "ground operation" (Oct 14)
- Editor 3 from "ground operation" back to "invasion" (Oct 14)
- Editor 1 from "invasion" back to "ground operations" (Oct 14)
- Ecrusized moves "ground operations" back to "invasion" (Oct 30) - no edit summary, but it's a revert
- Editor 4 moves back to "ground operations" (Oct 30)
- Ecrusized moves from "ground operations" to "ground offensive" (Oct 30) - 1RR violation, 2nd revert that day. Edit summary "Looking for a concise name until discussion is opened." which is odd because it's not any more concise than the previous title, but the rest of the edit summary, "Title should clarify a single ops for the time being.", which shows intent to revert the move to "ground operations" (plural)
- Ecrusized opens RM a few minutes later proposing a move from "offensive" to "invasion".
- Plain-old move warring, also moving a title from A to B, then opening an RM proposing a move from B to C, is kind of WP:GAMEy (because you'll get consensus for either B or C, with A not considered unless someone else notices and brings it up). It should have stayed at A and the proposal should have been from A to C. The RM ended up being SNOW-moved to C anyhow.
- Here is how Ecrusized describes this AE at the article talk page, which I think gives a window into the mindset. Infobox parameter edit warring and move warring are disruptive, but these examples aren't that disruptive and there are other good edits besides. I think as it's a first trip to AE for a relatively inexperienced editor, just needs to be clued in to expectations about these sorts of things in this topic are. Take 1RR seriously, especially invitations to self-revert. Don't blow them off. Levivich (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Ecrusized
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Unless I'm missing something, the actions complained about took place on or before 2 November but they weren't alerted to CTOP until today (about 40 minutes before this request was made)? If so then there isn't anything to do here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Requesting CTOP sanctions demonstrates that they're clearly aware of the CTOP sanctions. I'm interested to read their statement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ecrusized, you have no statement on why you've broken 1RR multiple times? This isn't really an "ignore it and it goes away" situation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ecrusized, please do not comment in other editors' sections. All replies should be in your own section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ecrusized, you have no statement on why you've broken 1RR multiple times? This isn't really an "ignore it and it goes away" situation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- A lot seems to hinge on how we define a revert here. By a strict definition, any removal of content could be a revert. Are there diffs of the edits that were reverted here? Especially as no two of the edits are the same. It doesn't seem like Ecrusized has been edit warring over the inclusion of exclusion of particular content. I'd also be interested in any evidence that these edits are disruptive in and of themselves if anyone wants to present any. Otherwise I'm not sure anything here is actionable, at least not beyond the level of words of advice from an admin about the 1RR and general expectations in CTOP areas. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- courtesy ping @Levivich and BilledMammal:. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- My biggest concern is the unwillingness to engage on their talk page. Editors must be able to engage when dealing with CTOPs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- I wonder if they might be more willing to take advice from an uninvolved admin than from an editor they perceive as badgering them? If we can solve the problem with education and advice rather than enforcement, that would be my preference; which is not to say that we can't use the stick if the carrot is ineffective. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Infinity Knight #2
- Appealing user
- Infinity Knight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Infinity Knight (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
- You are indefinitely topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed.
- You have been sanctioned because you have repeatedly attempted to weaponize administrative processes within the topic area, after a previous warning:
- Attempt to sanction topic-area opponent for policy-compliant edit (I AGF on this one, but presented for context)
- Warned by Bishonen for civil POV-pushing in an attempt to sanction a topic-area opponent
- Attempt to sanction the same opponent as in (1), under the same misapplication of policy, for conduct that was even less objectionable than the first time.
- More selective misapplication of policy, this time against the admin who told you that you were wrong in (3)
Previous appeal
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- Tamzin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Johnuniq (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrators :
Statement by Infinity Knight
- Regarding (1) & (3), I visited Tamzin's talk page under sub-section titled Inquiry I used the phrase "Are there any concerns related to original research? Your input is appreciated". I did not support or recommend imposing sanctions on another user.
- Regarding (4), I acknowledge that exercised poor judgment in relation to (4). Tamzin mentioned that my involvement in administrative processes related to this topic area lacked the necessary detachment. Nevertheless, I hold the view that administrators should be accountable to the community. It is essential to emphasize that I did not endeavor to "misrepresent policy".
- Tamzin mentioned that my involvement in administrative processes related to this topic area lacked the necessary detachment. I was directed to the AE discussions by ScottishFinnishRadish here, the idea of "draconian" measures caught my interest. As a WikiKnight, my main objective is to foster a positive and harmonious editing environment on Wikipedia while upholding the platform's fundamental content policies, such as neutrality, verifiability, and reliability.
- Finally, I will abstain from commenting during AE discussions unless an administrator requests my input.
Statement by (involved editor 1)
Statement by (involved editor 2)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Infinity Knight
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)
Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)
Result of the appeal by Infinity Knight
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.