Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
→NickCT: hat |
|||
Line 256: | Line 256: | ||
=====Comments by Varsovian===== |
=====Comments by Varsovian===== |
||
I'm holding off on my full comments until I see Dr Dan's reply. However, I do find it interesting that after he has been "banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year" he is within one year engaging in discussion about whether the subject of an article should be described as wholly or partly Polish. Is Polish nationality not connected with Eastern Europe? [[User:Varsovian|Varsovian]] ([[User talk:Varsovian|talk]]) 11:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC) |
I'm holding off on my full comments until I see Dr Dan's reply. However, I do find it interesting that after he has been "banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year" he is within one year engaging in discussion about whether the subject of an article should be described as wholly or partly Polish. Is Polish nationality not connected with Eastern Europe? [[User:Varsovian|Varsovian]] ([[User talk:Varsovian|talk]]) 11:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
Further comment: Could Dr Loosmark kindly refrain from his standardous comments that I am a racist? [[User:Varsovian|Varsovian]] ([[User talk:Varsovian|talk]]) 15:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
=====Comments by Deacon of Pnpadetzim===== |
=====Comments by Deacon of Pnpadetzim===== |
Revision as of 15:12, 28 May 2010
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}}.
|
Divot
Divot blocked for 55 hours, placed on final notice, by AGK.
|
---|
Request concerning Divot
Discussion concerning DivotStatement by DivotComments by others about the request concerning Divot
Result concerning Divot
|
Future Perfect at Sunrise
Brandmeister, Grandmaster, John Vandenberg
Frivolous request, not actionable |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Brandmeister, Grandmaster, John Vandenberg
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Discussion concerning Brandmeister, Grandmaster, John VandenbergStatement by Brandmeister, Grandmaster, John VandenbergComments by others about the request concerning Brandmeister, Grandmaster, John VandenbergThis is forum shopping by a user who was (apparently properly) reverted by multiple other users, and eventually blocked for disruption related to the behavior he's complaining about. I recommend close, no behavior actually subject to AE sanctions involved. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
What Divot is reporting may not be actionable (except for Brandmeister) but see my remark here, there were more reverts than he reports, example for John Vandenberg when there in fact was 3 reverts. Also see the comment here by AGK. Nothing excuse Divot, he should have known better. On the other hand, I find Brandmeister overal contribution actionable. He had more than reasonable revert and Divot and Brandmeister should have both been sanctioned, on Karabakh Khanate for example, he reverted without giving specifics as to why the version was innacurate. I tried pleasing both sides by keeping Shusha and replaced Azeri with Turkic and not Iranian or Caucasus, and he reverted me twice and he never bothered using the talkpage. Even his first edit recently was a revert if we check the history of the article. Ionidasz (talk) 05:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Brandmeister, Grandmaster, John VandenbergAs noted by Georgewilliamherbert, this is a frivolous request and is closed as not actionable. The reported reverts to Khojaly Massacre appear to reflect a content dispute, which cannot be resolved through arbitration enforcement. It is not explained how they violate any applicable conduct norm. Divot was properly blocked by AGK (talk · contribs) for his part in that edit war and warned that he may be subject to discretionary sanctions if he continues disrupting Wikipedia. Such disruption may also include continued forum shopping. Sandstein 05:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC) |
NickCT
NickCT (talk · contribs) blocked 48 hours by PhilKnight |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning NickCT
I encourage everyone to consider this case after reading the following sections of ARBPIA: Decorum, Editorial process, Editors reminded.
Discussion concerning NickCTStatement by NickCTComments by others about the request concerning NickCTIt would have been helpful if this had been focused on recent behavior - some of the diffs are from December - but I agree with PhilKnight's block based on his two replies to you on Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy in the last two days - [45] and [46]. Those were clearly inappropriate behavior on his part ( WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL ) and entirely appropriate to bring to a noticeboard. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning NickCT
Blocked 48 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC) |
Dr. Dan
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Dr. Dan
- User requesting enforcement
- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Dr. Dan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#General restriction & Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren# Discretionary sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 1 [47] & [48] - uncivil, bad faith, personal attacks (discussing editors) and thus creating unfriendly atmosphere (in particular, language like "compromised, sockpuppeteer", "highly discredited and banned". Please note that this edit was after a while removed by an editor who recognized it as a personal attack: [49]
- 2 [50] - not as uncivil, but still involves unnecessary commentary about my person ("the Prokonsul is banned from participating at that forum")
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- 1 [51] Warning by Ioeth (talk · contribs)
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- I am not fond of asking for an editors to be blocked. Perhaps an indef restriction on discussing other editors (unless they have started to discuss him first) would be better (why indef - see below). If it can be shown that I or anybody else has a habit of making similar comments about Dr. Dan, I would support such a restriction being two-sided (that said, I do not believe this is a case, and I would ask for anybody who would like to make such a point to start their own new AE thread).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Please note that this is not some exceptional slip - Dr. Dan was placed on the restriction in the first place because such comments are a continuing part of his behavior. In fact, this behavior has led to at least two editors leaving or vastly reducing their activity on that project: [52], [53]. I cannot speak for Nihil Novi, but speaking for myself, such comments as noted above certainly don't encourage me to keep contributing to this project. All I am asking is that the "Comment on content, not on the contributor." policy is enforced. Thank you,
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [54]
Discussion concerning Dr. Dan
Statement by Dr. Dan
Comments by others about the request concerning Dr. Dan
- It was I who advised Piotrus to file an Arbitration enforcement request in relation to this incident, so I will recuse from formally taking action. But my primary comment here will be to say that I do not think comments such as this to be acceptable. AGK 23:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Some of the diffs cited above illustrate Dr. Dan's style of contributing to discussions. He is given to sarcasm and ad-hominem attacks, to intimidation and blackmail, to verbosity that conveys little substantive content but that may impress naive or inattentive readers who confuse prolixity with profundity. An uncivil attempt by him to challenge an opponent may be found here: [55]. Nihil novi (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Comments by Skäpperöd
- Regarding Dan's comments about Piotrus
- According to Piotrus' request above, Dan made a PA by discussing editors (not content). In fact, Dan discussed the question whether it is appropriate to continue a discussion that belongs to the article's talk page at the Poland noticeboard for the only reason to allow Piotrus to participate. That argument has merit and is not a PA. If arbcom had wanted Piotrus to participate in discussions at article talk pages, they would have unbanned him for these talk pages and not just for the Poland board.
- It is neither bad faith, nor uncivil, nor a PA to state that Piotrus is discredited and banned, because he is. In the final decision of the recent EEML arbcom case, he was desysopped, admonished for disruption, blocked and banned from topic areas he caused disruption in. To that add the prior arbcom cases which were decided in dubio pro Piotro because the evidence that led to his conviction in the EEML case was not yet available then.
- Regarding Dan's comments about Nihil novi
- That Dan addressed Nn as "compromised, sockpuppeteer" does not sound like Dan is just throwing out allegations for fun. Either, Dan has proof, or Dan mistook Nn for someone else. If the latter is the case, I am confident that he will withdraw the allegations once he is made aware, if the former is true however I am awaiting Dan substantiating the claim.
- The "satirical" part of Dan's statement (the "boorish" remark) was actually a rebuttal of a PA of Nn: "Your gratuitous advice to "calm down" shows that your are as great a boor as you are a bore." Dan was right to ignore the PA when it was made, but he is also in his rights to point out that the absence of further such PAs is not due to Piotrus' involvement, but rather to Nn refraining from continuing making them. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Comments by Loosmark
Skapperod's comments above are a bit unreal. Dan has not "discussed the question whether it is appropriate to continue a discussion that belongs to the article's talk page" as Skapperod claims above. Had he really wanted to do that he could have just said something one the lines that he feels the discussion belongs on the other talk page. Instead he launched a completely and totally unprovoked ad hominem attack calling people "discredited", "banned", "compromised", "sockpuppeteer" etc. Skapperod's interpretation of what the Arbcom wanted or did not want doesn't make sense either, please check Coren's comments on the WikiProject Poland page: [56], [57]. But of course now Skapperod knows better what the ArbCom intended than a sitting arbitrator...
Skapperod's claim above that Piotrus "was desysopped" is also false. Piotrus voluntary resigned his tools as soon as concerns about his actions were raised back then. Finally I have deep concerns about Skapperod's attempt to paint the ad hominem attack as some sort of "satirical" semi-innocent comment. It sets a dangerous precedent and frankly it's the last thing that topic area needs. Dr. Loosmark 11:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Further comment: I find it interesting that Skapperod, Varsovian and Deacon of Pndapetzim, all known for countless disputes with Polish editors in the past, all came here trying to get Dan off the hook by trying to divert attention on Piotrus. The reality of the matter is that the incident is in no way Piotrus' fault, he did not even mention Dan in any way shape or form, nothing - Dan started a totally unprovoked bashing of Piotrus and that is not acceptable. Period. I understand it's hard to defend Dan's ad hominem but come on blaming Piotrus seems to be a real Alice in wonderland theory. Dr. Loosmark 14:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Comments by Varsovian
I'm holding off on my full comments until I see Dr Dan's reply. However, I do find it interesting that after he has been "banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year" he is within one year engaging in discussion about whether the subject of an article should be described as wholly or partly Polish. Is Polish nationality not connected with Eastern Europe? Varsovian (talk) 11:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Further comment: Could Dr Loosmark kindly refrain from his standardous comments that I am a racist? Varsovian (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Comments by Deacon of Pnpadetzim
Piotrus' complaint here is in violation of his topic ban... "Piotrus (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This ban is consecutive to any editing ban."Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Piotrus_topic_banned He still has most of this to serve. Piotrus' ban from this kind of thing was not negligence on ArbCom's part ... it was precisely to give the community a break from this kind of forum-shopping. To illustrate, the warning posted noted by Piotrus above comes from 2007. If Dr. Dan is to get a censure for his words--and even this would be a way over-the-top intervention--he should at least be warned. AE listing is complete overkill (and an example of the kind of escalatory tendencies which have caused so many problems in the area). So, a block for Piotrus, and closure of this thread. If an admin wishes to review Dr Dan's "incivility" independently, he should be encouraged to do so; but this thread and Piotrus' failure to deal with his "complaint" in the spirit of collegiality shows that, despite his three month ban, it is still unlikely that Piotrus is interested in anything more than getting one of his "enemies" punished. Very disappointing. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Dr. Dan
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- Will await a statement from Dr. Dan, but I am minded to impose a civility/sarcasm parole for six months. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hummphf. A "sarcasm parole" is certainly something new. [Insert obvious joke about sarcasm here]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- As a rule I think civility paroles are a waste of time, but I suppose if it is felt that this user's only negative influence stems from his unpleasant way of wording comments then it's the best course of action. AGK 14:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hummphf. A "sarcasm parole" is certainly something new. [Insert obvious joke about sarcasm here]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)