Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
→Request concerning Evildoer187: fix link |
EdJohnston (talk | contribs) →Darkness Shines: DS is warned under ARBPIA. Closing |
||
Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
==Darkness Shines== |
==Darkness Shines== |
||
{{hat|1=Darkness Shines is warned under ARBPIA for his inappropriate comment. Nobody was lying; there was a glitch in Google Books. No other action taken. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 17:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC) }} |
|||
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' |
|||
===Request concerning Darkness Shines=== |
===Request concerning Darkness Shines=== |
||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : [[User talk:Nableezy|Nableezy]] 00:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC) |
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : [[User talk:Nableezy|Nableezy]] 00:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC) |
||
Line 172: | Line 171: | ||
* for reference [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sean.hoyland&diff=prev&oldid=526864520 link to the apology] — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ? </font>]]</span></small> 17:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC) |
* for reference [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sean.hoyland&diff=prev&oldid=526864520 link to the apology] — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ? </font>]]</span></small> 17:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC) |
||
*At this point, I'd concur with EdJohnston. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい</font>]]) 03:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC) |
*At this point, I'd concur with EdJohnston. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい</font>]]) 03:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC) |
||
*Result: Darkness Shines is warned for his bellicose and profane comment about Sean's editing. Nobody was lying. There was a glitch in Google Books. No other action taken. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 17:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
==Evildoer187== |
==Evildoer187== |
Revision as of 17:36, 8 December 2012
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}}.
|
Cla68
Reminders and instructions given to both Cla68 and Mathsci; no further actions now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Cla68
I accept the closing advice, as summarised by Future Perfect at Sunrise, for how to handle these matters, if they ever arise in the future. I have asked him to clarify whether by "private communication" he means by wiki-email or on a user talk page. Either or both is fine. Mathsci (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC) Discussion concerning Cla68Statement by Cla68Admins, could you please do something about this? I think this is the third or fourth enforcement action Mathsci has filed against me. Do you need the links? Admins User:Timotheus Canens and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, I'm especially interested in what you have to say. You helped make this mess. Cla68 (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Cla68As an administrator who doesn't frequent AE I'm commenting here. It would have been better if Mathsci hadn't filed this request. It would also have been better if Cla68 hadn't responded to this request. Cla68 is of course entitled to comment on Arb motions that name him as an affected party, but that doesn't mean he has carte blanche to make snarky comments against Mathsci, especially ones that refer to medical conditions. As far as I can see, Mathsci's editing affects Cla68 only insofar as Cla68 chooses to make it an issue. If Cla68 would decide to ignore Mathsci's posts to Arbspace, and ignore Mathsci's removal of sock posts, would there be an issue? Similarly, if Mathsci would decide to ignore Cla68's posts to Arbspace, annoying as they may be, would there be a problem? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved A Quest for KnowledgeI've been watching this sorry mess for the last few months with dismay, and this constant disruption needs to end. Sadly, this RfE is another example of Mathsci's battleground conduct. I don't know if this is best handled at AE or by ArbCom, but I don't see how this is going to end without a topic ban for Mathsci and an extension of the 1 way interaction bans to both ways. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Result concerning Cla68
Right. In the interest of getting this over with, and (I believe) in consensus with most of the other commentators here, I'll close this as follows:
Did I get that right? If somebody feels the wording should be tweaked, let me know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Darkness Shines
Darkness Shines is warned under ARBPIA for his inappropriate comment. Nobody was lying; there was a glitch in Google Books. No other action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Darkness Shines
Following a series of disputes, at Israeli settler violence and a DRV of an article created by DS that I nominated for speedy deletion (and before anybody accuses me of hounding, I saw the notification of the redirect for speedy on his talk page, saw the article redirected to, and saw the AfD, and made the obvious determination that the target article also qualified for speedy deletion. I emphatically did not go through his contributions to get there), DS goes on a bizarre tirade about restoring a source that is verified through google books because he has a different version in pdf form, in which he also accuses an editor of being dishonest. He then closes an AfD of an article in the topic area that had already relisted for lack of consensus as an obvious keep, an AfD that I had been involved in. @KC: 4 for the edit to Talk:Israeli settler violence, disruptive editing for the AfD close, which as far as I understand is covered under the standard discretionary sanctions (6). nableezy - 15:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Darkness ShinesStatement by Darkness ShinesAll this does is show nableezy has a serious battlefield mentality. Let me know when I actually break a rule which can be brought to AE. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Darkness ShinesThere is currently a discussion at AN regarding this same matter. I believe a contentious non-admin closure of an AfD would fall more closely under the purview of AN or ANI than AE. Seems the other issues would be better handled together with that in the AN discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Reading this, I'm not sure which part of the arbitration decision was violated. It just seems like two complaints. Was anything actually violated? Ryan Vesey 01:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
@KC Darkness does not have to violate a specific arb ruling. Any violations of policy in the topic area can lead to the use of discretionary sanctions. I will say that profanity is not prohibited under any policy and it shouldn't be fucking prohibited. On AfD the relevant guideline is WP:NACD. It was clearly a contentious close and the wording of the close is rather absurd. Even an admin closing it that way would meet with some heat.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Comment by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge@Darkness Shines: You clearly cannot be dropping the F bomb or accusing other editors of lying. These are violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. You also appear to have closed an AfD on an article in a topic space that your involved with. Discretionary sactions require that you adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, including expected standards of behavior and editorial process. Your opening statement doesn't seem to acknowledge these mistakes, so I'm left wondering why you shouldn't be sanctioned? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Comment by ShrikeDS already said sorry to Sean so I don't think any harsh sanctions are warranted here.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Comment by Sean.hoylandI guess I should comment. There are thousands of profanity filled insults that would have had a degree of accuracy. DS picked exactly the wrong one. This calls his competence into question. He made a mistake. So did I by not spotting a mismatch between google books 'about this book' info and the actual book that the google page scans come from. He apologized. Nobody died. I'm not familiar with DS so I can't really comment on anything else. I will say though as a rule of thumb, having edited in the topic area for a long time, people who come into conflict with me (or Nableezy for that matter) are usually either sockpuppets or they have confused Wikipedia with a propaganda/public relations department and are here to advocate for some inanely divisive cause. Either way, just blocking them saves time. DS is not a sockpuppet. I don't know whether he is an advocate who makes consistently biased edits. Since he is a fan of plain speaking perhaps someone should ask him. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Result concerning Darkness Shines
|
Evildoer187
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Evildoer187
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Evildoer187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 11:42, December 8, 2012 - No edit summary
- 00:32, December 8, 2012 - - No edit summary
- 08:11, December 7, 2012 - The documentation is right in front of you, you just choose to ignore it
- 16:54, December 6, 2012 - No edit summary
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- Warned on 12:34, December 7, 2012 by Moxy (talk · contribs)
Warned(reminded of the 1 revert rule) on 06:11, December 8, 2012 by Nishidani (talk · contribs)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Not sure this is the best way to proceed as there are many involved in the edit war. However after this post to quote "I have just reverted your edit (it's been 24 hours, I believe)". 24 hours is not the point - 1 revert rule is in place to make editors talk - not a invitation to revert at will after 24 hours. I believe we need to get all talking over editing and I believe this will send a message to all involved to talk it out.17:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Notification here
Discussion concerning USERNAME
Statement by USERNAME
Comments by others about the request concerning USERNAME
Result concerning USERNAME
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.