Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
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}}.
|
PainMan
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 PainMan
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- PainMan (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:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Standard discretionary sanctions :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 03:33, 19 March 2020 Edits John Mitchel, a prominent Irish nationalist activist
- 03:35, 19 March 2020 Further edit to John Mitchel
- 03:51, 19 March 2020 Edits Young Irelander Rebellion of 1848, an Irish nationalist uprising against British rule
- 09:14, 19 March 2020 Edits Land War, which is again about Irish nationalism
- 03:47, 21 March 2020 Changes "Dáil Éireann" to "Dáil Éireann (Irish parliament)", edits like this got him topic-banned to begin with
- 03:48, 21 March 2020 Changes "Taoiseach" to "Taoiseach (prime minister)", edits like this got him topic-banned to begin with
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 20:25, 1 March 2020
You are indefinitely topic-banned from making edits relating to The Troubles, broadly construed
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Already subject to discretionary sanctions, see above section.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Standard discretionary sanctions makes it clear it isn't just limited to articles relating to The Troubles, but covering Irish nationalism in general.
- @In actu: I guess it depends how you define "broadly construed". As the discretionary sanction in the case says it covers Irish nationalism in general. While The Troubles definitely started in the 1960s they can't really be seen in isolation. In the 20th century alone before the Troubles there was the 1916 Easter Rising, 1919-1921 Irish War of Independence, 1939-1940 S-Plan, 1942-1944 Northern campaign (Irish Republican Army) and 1956-1962 Border campaign (Irish Republican Army), and Irish opposition to British rule didn't start in the 20th century. I wouldn't object to this being closed with a clear message to PainMan as to the extent of the topic ban, if his edits are seen as a good faith mistake. FDW777 (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Since this report has been made PainMan has made this edit (changing "Dáil Éireann" to "Dáil Éireann (Irish parliament)" and this edit (changing "Taoiseach" to "Taoiseach (prime minister)". That would appear to me to a continuation of the disruptive behaviour from before, albeit with a slight variation. FDW777 (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Swarm: I do not consider this report "erroneous". Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Standard discretionary sanctions, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Current areas of conflict and {{ArbCom Troubles restriction}} use the phrase
pages relating to The Troubles, Irish Nationalism and British Nationalism in relation to Ireland
, and I quite reasonably thought that "edits relating to The Troubles, broadly construed" was the same as that phrase. As I said at 15:29, 19 March 2020 I would have no objection to this being closed with a clear message as to the extent of the topic ban, since the original notification did not include the full definition as listed in multiple other places. FDW777 (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- In addition if they thought
Taoiseach (prime minister)
was an acceptable solution to objections raised to their previous edit, surely the correct course of action would have been to raise it at the discussion I started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles#Use of Taoiseach (which he was notified about here)? FDW777 (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- In addition if they thought
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning PainMan
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 PainMan
Comment from SN54129
Wrt to the nature of the edits. Most harmless, and indeed useful, e.g. adding wikilinks etc. On the other hand, edits such as translating common Irish terminology could be interpreted as pushing an anti-Irish/pro-British pov, which is very much at the core of DS:THE TROUBLES. As we know, PainMan holds strong views on things Troubles-related (and language is very much at the forefront of the ideological struggle, on both sides). So on the one hand, they are clearly capable of making helpful and useful edits, but on the other hand allow themselves to drift close to the TBan. the former is to be encouraged, the latter of course discouraged; can the TBan be tweaked (not necessarilly expanded a great deal) to encourage the fomer and act as a deterence from the latter?
Easier said than done, I know; perhaps just add Irish language to the scope?
And although not relevant to the scope of the request—but for the record—it's my opinion that PainMan's repeated refusal to comment here is damned rude if nothing else. ——SN54129 14:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
It's a content dispute
...PoV pushing—if that's what's going on—always is. ——SN54129 16:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- For the record, there's a statement available from PainMan, although it's at User talk:Serial Number 54129#PainMan rather than here. On the assumption you don't a have it watchlisted, pinging @Ivanvector, QEDK, Guerillero, Seraphimblade, Thryduulf, RexxS, Graham87, and Swarm:, with apologies if i've missed anyone. ——SN54129 14:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Levivich (PainMan)
Swarm is right.
This report was filed on Mar 19 based on four diffs. Diff #1 changed the incorrect plural "were" to the correct singular "was", in an article about a guy who died in 1848, over 100 years before The Troubles began. Diff #2, in the same article, changed the incorrect statement "The grand jury was called on to find against" to "The grand jury was called on to indict" (grand juries "indict", meaning they find there's enough grounds for a trial to proceed; grand juries do not make "findings against" the accused, so this is changing incorrect verbiage to correct verbiage). Diff #3 changed the beginning of a sentence from "1848..." to "The year 1848..." in accordance with MOS:NUMNOTES, in an article about an event in 1848. Diff #4 was piping a redirect in an article about an event that occurred in 1879–1923. These are all constructive edits, outside the TBAN topic, and for this reason, this report should have been closed as "no violation" on the day it was filed.
The "Taoiseach (prime minister)" edit (Diff #6) happened on Mar 21, after this report was filed. This edit is not the same as the edits for which PainMan was TBANed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive262#PainMan. That report was based on edits where PM was piping "[[Taoiseach]]" as "[[Taoiseach|prime minister]]", which, for the reader, changes "Taoiseach" to "prime minister". By contrast, the Mar 21 edit adds "(prime minister)" after "Taoiseach". It does not replace "Taoiseach". Also, PM did not edit war over this. The other Mar 21 edit (Diff #5) also adds an English explanation of an Irish term, but does not replace that term, and there was no edit warring. Neither of the Mar 21 edits were on articles within the scope of the TBAN. So, no violation in the Mar 21 edits, either.
There is no violation in any diffs presented in this report.
Also, there is no rule requiring an editor to participate in an AE report against them, so it wouldn't be kosher to sanction an editor for "ignoring" an AE report, especially if the report is based on diffs of constructive edits outside the TBAN topic.
Finally, does PainMan have an IDHT problem? Does he continue to make the same types of edits, in the same topic area, that led to the TBAN? NO! The editor is making different edits, which are constructive, to articles outside the Troubles. Compliance with a TBAN cannot be a violation of the TBAN!
I understand the filer's explanation that they thought those edits were within the TBAN topic, but they weren't. "The Troubles" is a 20th-century event, and PM isn't TBANed from everything Irish. As such, this report should be closed now as no violation. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Sir Joseph
The only question that you have to ask is if the edits are a violation of the TBAN. It's clear that consensus is that the edits aren't. So it seems rather unfair and out of scope to now seek to expand a TBAN for edits that were never in TBAN territory. And that should be the end of this AE action. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- @QEDK:If someone is TBANNED from India and they edit Pakistan that is not a violation of their TBAN. If one would say that is, then I can argue any article on Wikipedia is a violation of a TBAN because I can guarantee you I can connect any article to any subject broadly construed. "Broadly construed" is not some sort of magic wand we should use to ban people from this encyclopedia. "The Troubles" doesn't mean any article about Ireland and the UK, especially when the edits are not disruptive. Further, I stand by my claim that we should not be using AE to expand TBANs. If anything, this is an editing or content dispute and they can use the talk page or other noticeboards, but not AE. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Can I just point out that RS in the English speaking world does not use the term Taoiseach but uses Prime Minister? I find it hard to sanction someone who is adding (PM) after a term that most people will most likely not be familiar with. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Girth Summit
Just a note in response to Sir Joseph's assertion that RS in the English speaking world does not use the term Taoiseach but uses Prime Minister
. I found that jarring, since my impression from listening to BBC Radio's Today program every morning is that they generally use Taoiseach. Quick bit of Googling - the BBC News website generally use Taoiseach, followed by an explanatory '(Prime Minister)'; the Guardian (left-leaning) and Telegraph (right-leaning) both seem to just use Taoiseach without explanatory parenthesis. It might be different in the US, but I don't think that assertion about the norms in the English speaking world is correct. GirthSummit (blether) 16:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning PainMan
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I realize it may be contentious whether these articles fall under "The Troubles, broadly construed" so I'll leave this for more comments,
but in my opinion each of these edits is a clear violation of the topic ban and an AE block of no less than one month is warranted.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)- Partially struck. Not linked above AFAIK but the ban discussion is here. The pages presented as evidence of disruptive editing were Operation Flavius, Battle of the Bogside, Ulster Volunteer Force, Ulster Defence Association, Ulster Special Constabulary, and ETA (separatist group). All but the last of these fall within the scope of the ban as worded, and the last would not even if the scope were expanded. The disruptive behaviour was repeatedly changing "Taoiseach" to "Prime Minister of Ireland" (or variations) against consensus, and edit warring, across all of the articles. Since the topic ban PainMan has evidently respected it despite a series of outbursts on 9 March ([1], [2], [3]) and again yesterday ([4], [5], [6]). The pages they've edited since do not fall under that scope per other comments here, and they don't seem to be repeating the same disruptive behaviour, so I don't see the benefit of extending the topic ban and do not support it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC) (edited 19:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC))
- I think this is purposeful skirting of the ban conditions by editing topics which are contentious and related to the topic area, just not directly, although one can easily say: The Troubles -> irish nationalism, hence construed. I see two options here: 1) extend the ban to the entire remedy area of TT (found in the case) which includes British and Irish nationalism (et al.), and 2) AE block. I say the edits definitely violate the spirit of the TBAN, and maybe also its letter. --qedk (t 心 c) 13:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- Sir Joseph No such consensus as the one you stated has been established, it's not difficult to construe a connection to The Troubles, albeit it's a bit far. If an editor is TBANed from editing articles related to India, broadly construed and goes to edit Pakistan, would you classify that as a violation of the topic ban or not? There can be differing perspectives and this is one such case. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Sir Joseph: Hence, the term "broadly construed". Pakistan was a part of the Indian empire, had Indian founders, always had a cultural and social similarity with India as well as consistently opposing views in world politics where their actions depend on the other country. It's still very much intertwined with the topic of India, you would disagree but a lot of editors wouldn't, hence my example. --qedk (t 愛 c) 05:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Sir Joseph No such consensus as the one you stated has been established, it's not difficult to construe a connection to The Troubles, albeit it's a bit far. If an editor is TBANed from editing articles related to India, broadly construed and goes to edit Pakistan, would you classify that as a violation of the topic ban or not? There can be differing perspectives and this is one such case. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- To me, The Troubles started in the 1960s. So, the edits are not within the bounds of the topic ban. However, they weren't a great idea. I would extend the topic ban to all of Irish nationalism and not block --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 15:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- This looks to me to be clearly against the spirit of the topic ban, but not the letter of it. Accordingly I think the topic ban should be extended to match the extent of the DS authorisation (The Troubles, Irish nationalism and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed) with a warning to PainMan that any further boundary testing will result in sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
- According to our own article on the subject,
The Troubles (Irish: Na Trioblóidí) were an ethno-nationalist[13][14][15][16] conflict in Northern Ireland during the late 20th century
(emphasis added). I do not see these edits as violations, though I agree they're skirting rather close.Given that they were not apparently contentious or any type of misconduct, I would not extend the topic ban based upon them, but I would certainly warn PainMan that there will be no hesitation to do so if there's any trouble.Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)- Based upon the last two edits, I would now support expanding the topic ban. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- The text of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles #Standard discretionary sanctions separately names three areas:
"all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed."
So I concede that the sanction applied on 1 March 2020, "You are indefinitely topic-banned from making edits relating to The Troubles, broadly construed" doesn't strictly cover the other areas, although that may have been the admin's intention, and certain the spirit of the restriction, as Thryduulf so clearly reasons. I agree that an explicit extension of the topic ban to "You are indefinitely topic-banned from making edits relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed" would be a reasonable response to this request. That should then solve the issue one way or another. --RexxS (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)- I intentionally narrowed it (agreeing with the consensus formed and my own judgement) with the implied expectation that they would cease making contentious edits in the entire topic area. Apart from this, PainMan does not seem to understand that communication is required, the last time they did not participate in the AE request, then went to edit AE archives after their sanction to add a statement (which comes to me as a lack of WP:CIR), and for some reason, went to debate the sanction on Thryduulf's TP even though I was the sanctioning administrator (again, WP:CIR). Their justification last time was that they do not get talk page message notifications on their phone, which even if makes sense, talk page message notifs are also sent to emails and you can still access your talk page if not notified, it's a general expectation to do so.
The templateAnd yet again, PainMan has not participated in this AE request. --qedk (t 心 c) 10:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC){{Userlinks}}
also notifies editors on the mobile interface (correct me if I'm wrong).- @QEDK: I've just tested in my sandbox, and the {{userlinks}} template does generate pings if the edit adding it is signed. Notifications on the mobile web interface work as they do on desktop. On the Android app you have to explicitly look to see if you have notifications (which can only be done when viewing the main page I believe), but when you do look you do see notifications of pings and talk page messages (I presume the iOS app works similarly but I don't have any way of testing that). Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, struck. On a technical note, the mobile advanced web interface and the mobile desktop version both show notifications by the way. --qedk (t 心 c) 13:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- I've just looked at their contributions list, and it seems they only edit using the Android app so we can't be certain they've seen the notifications or talk page messages. They do not have an email set so that option isn't available, and I'm not certain what else we can do? Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, struck. On a technical note, the mobile advanced web interface and the mobile desktop version both show notifications by the way. --qedk (t 心 c) 13:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- @QEDK: I've just tested in my sandbox, and the {{userlinks}} template does generate pings if the edit adding it is signed. Notifications on the mobile web interface work as they do on desktop. On the Android app you have to explicitly look to see if you have notifications (which can only be done when viewing the main page I believe), but when you do look you do see notifications of pings and talk page messages (I presume the iOS app works similarly but I don't have any way of testing that). Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- I intentionally narrowed it (agreeing with the consensus formed and my own judgement) with the implied expectation that they would cease making contentious edits in the entire topic area. Apart from this, PainMan does not seem to understand that communication is required, the last time they did not participate in the AE request, then went to edit AE archives after their sanction to add a statement (which comes to me as a lack of WP:CIR), and for some reason, went to debate the sanction on Thryduulf's TP even though I was the sanctioning administrator (again, WP:CIR). Their justification last time was that they do not get talk page message notifications on their phone, which even if makes sense, talk page message notifs are also sent to emails and you can still access your talk page if not notified, it's a general expectation to do so.
- I've never commented in one of these things before but I think it's also worth considering these edits to Charles Boycott, another topic related to Irish nationalism, which I just reverted because I saw them as mostly detrimental. I don't want to get any further involved though ... I only have that article on my watchlist because I found his life story fascinating. Feel free to move this comment if it's in the wrong place. Graham87 05:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Do you really see these edits as disruptive? In one instance they changed "Boycott worked as a land agent for Lord Erne (John Crichton, 3rd Earl Erne), a landowner in the Lough Mask area" to "Boycott worked as a land agent for the the Earl Erne, a landowner in the Lough Mask area". The revision has an extra "the" but otherwise removing the awkward parenthetical seems like a reasonable improvement to me. You reverted stating "makes the text more stilted" but I think the reverse is true. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Graham says he saw them as "detrimental", not "disruptive". You have to remember not every English speaker shares the same idiomatic usages, and the phrase "a land agent for the Earl Erne" sounds archaic to me. Graham, who is Australian, might well find that a very odd use of a definite article. You wouldn't write "a land agent for the King George". Taking into account the overlinking, I have to agree with Graham that those edits were not an improvement to the article, and don't improve my confidence that PainMan's contributions outside of the strict range of their current topic ban are likely to be a net positive. --RexxS (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- Do you really see these edits as disruptive? In one instance they changed "Boycott worked as a land agent for Lord Erne (John Crichton, 3rd Earl Erne), a landowner in the Lough Mask area" to "Boycott worked as a land agent for the the Earl Erne, a landowner in the Lough Mask area". The revision has an extra "the" but otherwise removing the awkward parenthetical seems like a reasonable improvement to me. You reverted stating "makes the text more stilted" but I think the reverse is true. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
- While The Troubles discretionary sanctions are authorized so that they can be expanded beyond The Troubles, the relevant sanction here was not, the edits here do not violate the ban, even "broadly construed", nor do I see them as disruptive enough (or at all) to justify expanding the scope of the ban, even though we can. There is no violation here. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think the last two diffs are enough to warrant expanding the topic ban to "The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed". These edits are identical to some which prompted the topic ban being imposed in the first place, only on different pages. There is a widespread consensus that the use of these words is OK (e.g. here) which means that continuing to make these changes without discussion is disruptive. I agree that the other diffs don't reasonably relate to the Troubles, our article describes the Troubles as starting in the 1960s and nineteenth century history doesn't count. Just as a topic ban from the American Civil War wouldn't cover the entire history of race relations in the US. Hut 8.5 08:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
- We need to do something here, in any case. So unless there are any strong objections, it seems the general (though not unanimous) consensus here is to expand the topic ban accordingly. I'll leave this open for a bit to hear any objections, but otherwise will close with that result. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- Woah, woah, woah. We need to do something? Why? I mean I may still be missing something, but I'm honestly not seeing what behavior warrants expanding the sanctions. The diffs were reported as violations of the existing topic ban, and it has subsequently been established that they are not in scope. The secondary consideration is then whether the edits were disruptive on their own merits. Looking at the diffs I literally can't comprehend how anyone could say they are, even in the context of the past disruption. The user was sanctioned for making a contested edit and then engaging in an extreme edit war over it, and then he did not defend himself at AE. I get that. A fairly acute violation, but I get it. But none of the diffs are continuing that behavior. In fact, he's straightforwardly avoiding repeating the edit that got him into trouble. This report literally appears to be erroneous, based on a misunderstanding of the sanctions. None of the diffs are problematic on their own merits in any way. I don't know why you're chomping at the bit to railroad this guy for apparently doing nothing wrong! Like I said, if I am missing something, please explain it to me! But my current reading of the situation is that we'd literally be sanctioning a user for nothing, basically rubber stamping an erroneous report. It doesn't make sense. Yes I get that the last two edits look similar to the edits that got him sanctioned in the first place, but they're not the same edit, nor is there inherently anything wrong with simply providing a translation in good faith. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Because he was informed that Wikipedia refers to the Taoiseach as the Taoiseach, not the Prime Minister of Ireland and continued to add the English translation. I'm most worried about the edits on the 21st. The rest of the edits weren't a great idea, but aren't alarming. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- I mean should he have deleted the literal English word for something because he doesn't think people know what it means and then edit war over it in an ACDS area? No. Is that the same thing as adding a simple explanation after a relatively uncommon word that some people might realistically not know the definition of? No, it's not. It's not the same offense. There's quite simply nothing inherently disruptive in trying to explain what a "Taoiseach" is in good faith. Yes his methods in the past did become disruptive, by way of edit warring and not communicating, and he was correctly sanctioned for that. However he's not in violation of those sanctions, broadly construed, which means he's allowed to make bold, good faith changes to articles. No, he's not allowed to do so disruptively, but I have yet to see anyone actually allege that he did anything disruptive or in bad faith. Without wading into the actual content dispute of whether those edits should be made, they are not inherently disruptive. It's a content disagreement. ~Swarm~ {sting} 16:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- My primary concern is making very similar edits (and yes, as is apparent, calling the Taoiseach the "prime minister" is apparently contentious, as we clearly see here), in an area pretty well adjacent to one in which he's gotten sanctioned for making such edits. If he didn't know that would raise objections and be contentious, I believe he should have—but I suspect he rather did, especially after last time. That's the conduct issue. I don't really have any opinion on what the article ultimately should say, but I think it should have been clear to a reasonable person that those edits weren't a good idea. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Removing the term Taoiseach in favor of a "translation" when "Taoiseach" is the correct English word is understandably contentious from a content perspective, though it was primarily a problem because it was accompanied by edit warring and a failure to communicate, not because it's some inherently "bad" edit or part of some malicious POV-pushing campaign or whatever you're implying. As I said, the previous incident does not, by any stretch of the imagination, translate into some bizarre notion that calling the Taoiseach a "prime minister" in any way in any article is some sort of inherently disruptive edit. The Taoiseach is a prime minister, there's no beating around the bush, and just because "Taoiseach" is the technically correct term to use doesn't mean that it's not a relatively uncommon term and that everyone will magically know what it means and that any good faith efforts to explain that it is the prime minister are some horrible offense. That's not contentious. We don't need to be using AE to railroad some guy for making literally harmless attempts at improving a reader's understanding. ~Swarm~ {sting} 14:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- My primary concern is making very similar edits (and yes, as is apparent, calling the Taoiseach the "prime minister" is apparently contentious, as we clearly see here), in an area pretty well adjacent to one in which he's gotten sanctioned for making such edits. If he didn't know that would raise objections and be contentious, I believe he should have—but I suspect he rather did, especially after last time. That's the conduct issue. I don't really have any opinion on what the article ultimately should say, but I think it should have been clear to a reasonable person that those edits weren't a good idea. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- I mean should he have deleted the literal English word for something because he doesn't think people know what it means and then edit war over it in an ACDS area? No. Is that the same thing as adding a simple explanation after a relatively uncommon word that some people might realistically not know the definition of? No, it's not. It's not the same offense. There's quite simply nothing inherently disruptive in trying to explain what a "Taoiseach" is in good faith. Yes his methods in the past did become disruptive, by way of edit warring and not communicating, and he was correctly sanctioned for that. However he's not in violation of those sanctions, broadly construed, which means he's allowed to make bold, good faith changes to articles. No, he's not allowed to do so disruptively, but I have yet to see anyone actually allege that he did anything disruptive or in bad faith. Without wading into the actual content dispute of whether those edits should be made, they are not inherently disruptive. It's a content disagreement. ~Swarm~ {sting} 16:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Woah, woah, woah. We need to do something? Why? I mean I may still be missing something, but I'm honestly not seeing what behavior warrants expanding the sanctions. The diffs were reported as violations of the existing topic ban, and it has subsequently been established that they are not in scope. The secondary consideration is then whether the edits were disruptive on their own merits. Looking at the diffs I literally can't comprehend how anyone could say they are, even in the context of the past disruption. The user was sanctioned for making a contested edit and then engaging in an extreme edit war over it, and then he did not defend himself at AE. I get that. A fairly acute violation, but I get it. But none of the diffs are continuing that behavior. In fact, he's straightforwardly avoiding repeating the edit that got him into trouble. This report literally appears to be erroneous, based on a misunderstanding of the sanctions. None of the diffs are problematic on their own merits in any way. I don't know why you're chomping at the bit to railroad this guy for apparently doing nothing wrong! Like I said, if I am missing something, please explain it to me! But my current reading of the situation is that we'd literally be sanctioning a user for nothing, basically rubber stamping an erroneous report. It doesn't make sense. Yes I get that the last two edits look similar to the edits that got him sanctioned in the first place, but they're not the same edit, nor is there inherently anything wrong with simply providing a translation in good faith. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- His statement linked above is basically just saying that he's a WikiGnome who's not trying to cause any trouble nor get bogged down by disputes over his attempts at minor improvements, nor does he even want to remain engaged with the reporting editor in any sort of way. There's no indication that anything he's doing is in bad faith or anything other than trying to make uncontentious improvements to an article. The worst thing he's done is get into an edit war, which apparently was somehow reframed as some sort of malicious intent in the topic area, and it's being further reframed as such now, in spite of the uncontentious nature of his edits. If anything, the filer, and this board, need to be less reactionary and more cognizant of WP:AGF. ~Swarm~ {sting} 16:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, but the other side of the coin is that PainMan was only at AE six weeks ago, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive262 #PainMan, for doing exactly the same sort of edits that this complaint reiterates. They seem to have learned nothing and they insist that they are right that non-Gaelic speakers don't understand the word "Taoiseach". They are going to go about their gnoming, regardless of what anyone else says, even if it means edit-warring on 1RR AC/DS pages. Look at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles #Use of Taoiseach and contrast that with PainMan's talk page. I really don't want to see a long-term editor and valuable Wiki-gnome sanctioned, but they can't keep on doing things their way when nobody else agrees. What's the minimum needed to bring them round? --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- I mean I don't know how much more thoroughly I can argue that there's nothing inherently wrong with trying to explain what a Taoiseach is. His mistake was edit warring over it, and not engaging in discussion, but the edits themselves are not that big of a deal. It's not like anyone is alleging that he's some sort of POV-pusher, or is doing anything malicious or in bad faith. Taoiseach is not actually common word in English that we can necessarily expect the average reader to be familiar with, and the motivation for explaining it as being a "prime minister" is perfectly obvious as a reasonable, good faith attempt at improvement. Now, should we do so? That's a matter for a petty content dispute, nothing more, but the answer is not that we must not. ~Swarm~ {sting} 17:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- You can question the malintent of the edits, but to what purpose? PainMan has a 100% WP:IDHT approach in this area, for context see User talk:Johnuniq#PainMan situation. Their response to the initial TBAN and consequently, the entire affair is subpar and shows no understanding of why the initial TBAN was placed and why this AE request was also filed, if they had displayed a modicum of understanding with "I get why my edits were disruptive and I can see why my recent edits were questionable w.r.t the TBAN", I would be more willing to align with your perspective, I dislike sanctioning editors as-is. I'm questioning PainMan's competence given that 1) this already occurred once, 2) multiple editors have engaged with them since (as they also have), 3) they still don't accept or understand why they were (and are) being sanctioned. As such, I'm much less willing to believe that no preventive measures will be the correct way to deal with this. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- You're still invoking the disruption of a past incident, in which the user edit warred and failed to communicate, an incident which was formally reported, actioned and closed. It is always worthwhile to examine past context when there is current disruption. However, in this current report, there is not any current disruption. There is only uncontentious editing in good faith, none of which is in violation of any policy, sanction, or conduct expectation in a DS area, and as such is quite simply not actionable. No one is alleging that there is any existing problem tied to the subject area. Even the "similar" edits to the past incident, which some people are falsely claiming is some sort of offense, are obviously not contentious on their own merits, they were not even reverted over any major point of contention but merely because they are "not necessary", which the user has stated that they are fine with accepting and moving on without any fuss. There are quite simply no violations to be actioned here. If you feel that there is a larger competence problem, that's fine, I encourage you to pursue that in an appropriate way, but the alleged "violations" we are considering in this particular report are not reflective of any behavioral problem in the subject area in need of sanction. There's simply no violations. ~Swarm~ {sting} 22:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- You can question the malintent of the edits, but to what purpose? PainMan has a 100% WP:IDHT approach in this area, for context see User talk:Johnuniq#PainMan situation. Their response to the initial TBAN and consequently, the entire affair is subpar and shows no understanding of why the initial TBAN was placed and why this AE request was also filed, if they had displayed a modicum of understanding with "I get why my edits were disruptive and I can see why my recent edits were questionable w.r.t the TBAN", I would be more willing to align with your perspective, I dislike sanctioning editors as-is. I'm questioning PainMan's competence given that 1) this already occurred once, 2) multiple editors have engaged with them since (as they also have), 3) they still don't accept or understand why they were (and are) being sanctioned. As such, I'm much less willing to believe that no preventive measures will be the correct way to deal with this. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- I mean I don't know how much more thoroughly I can argue that there's nothing inherently wrong with trying to explain what a Taoiseach is. His mistake was edit warring over it, and not engaging in discussion, but the edits themselves are not that big of a deal. It's not like anyone is alleging that he's some sort of POV-pusher, or is doing anything malicious or in bad faith. Taoiseach is not actually common word in English that we can necessarily expect the average reader to be familiar with, and the motivation for explaining it as being a "prime minister" is perfectly obvious as a reasonable, good faith attempt at improvement. Now, should we do so? That's a matter for a petty content dispute, nothing more, but the answer is not that we must not. ~Swarm~ {sting} 17:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, but the other side of the coin is that PainMan was only at AE six weeks ago, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive262 #PainMan, for doing exactly the same sort of edits that this complaint reiterates. They seem to have learned nothing and they insist that they are right that non-Gaelic speakers don't understand the word "Taoiseach". They are going to go about their gnoming, regardless of what anyone else says, even if it means edit-warring on 1RR AC/DS pages. Look at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles #Use of Taoiseach and contrast that with PainMan's talk page. I really don't want to see a long-term editor and valuable Wiki-gnome sanctioned, but they can't keep on doing things their way when nobody else agrees. What's the minimum needed to bring them round? --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's best that an uninvolved administrator close this, it's been a while and there's no point keeping this open longer than necessary. I doubt PainMan will give us reponses other than via proxy and I don't think that'll change, and there's no point keeping this languishing around for more than two weeks. --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
GizzyCatBella
Warning issued. El_C 17:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning GizzyCatBella
Discussion concerning GizzyCatBellaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GizzyCatBella
Okay, enough is enough! This is an extremely ill-intended report - a continuation of block shopping attempts [71], followed by disgusting insinuations of antisemitism and support of a permanently banned user Icewhiz and his possible sock accounts. This bad-faith report should be dismissed and BOOMERANGED. I will additionally inform ARBCOM about this. Francois Robere has been hounding me and trying to get me blocked ever since the conclusion of the Icewhiz arbitration case (evidence to follow) Let me address the main accusations first: (none of the three diffs provided violate the topic ban)
Now the additional comments of Francois Robere:
In addition in 3 FR claims "I've checked all of the sources so marked (including one marked "OR" that was mentioned earlier), and all of them pan out". This is not true and it’s not clear why we should take his word for it. If the info is in fact in the sources he can make the argument on the talk page rather than come to WP:AE and try to get another editor sanction. The truth is that most of this content is indeed undue or not in the source, as has been noted by several editors. Francois Robere padded the report with multiple diffs in his “additional comments” section to create a false appearance of some kind of malfeasance. He knows these diffs are not violations else he would include them in his “violation” section. And these are indeed ridiculous. For example, there’s nothing wrong with noting that a Soviet communist was a Soviet communist [85].It’s also worth noting that this is again reverting edits by
I'm very upset with dishonest, disgusting insinuations of me being an Anti-Semite and continuation of the WP:HOUNDING Francois Robere has engaged in ever since the conclusion of the Icewhiz arbitration case and would like to see it fully stoped NOW.GizzyCatBella🍁 23:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Please take some time in reviewing my topic ban appeal that I’ll be posting here shortly. Thanks again for your time and great administrative work which is not easy, really apreciated.GizzyCatBella🍁 11:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Could somebody please look deeper into this whole thing. Thank you. GizzyCatBella🍁 23:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Background can be found here:[93] GizzyCatBella🍁 23:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Statement by PiotrusI concur with User:RexxS that the most applicable action is a warning to be more careful and a note that BANREVERT does not overrule a topic ban. Neither of the three topics is obviously related to Poland and WWII history, and I am rather concerned that good faith is nowhere to be found in this report. The one that's according to RexxS "most connected" to Poland, Alfred Rosenberg, doesn't even mention Poland outside a footnote. Yes, he governed some conquered EE territories, including part of Poland, for a while, but it is not common knowledge (I am quite interested in this topic area and I've never heard of him), and if one is reverting some vandalism and doesn't read an article carefully, it is a an easy fact to miss. We should assume good faith. GCG's edits were not concerned with anything connected with Polish WWII history. If the removed picture was related to this topic, yes, there would be a cause for concern. But it wasn't, and neither is this a biography one of a person significant in Polish history. I think a good rule of thumb for such cases is to check the lead of an article. If the lead doesn't seem to mention topics related to an edit ban, we should not expect the editor to read the entire article, to see if an unrelated edit might (such as adding or removing a picture that has no violation to the topic ban) be a borderline topic ban violation because of some minute fact mentioned somewhere deep in the article. The other two diffs are even further removed from this, how many degrees of separation one needs for something to even be borderline? That someone was born in Poland in WWII makes his or her article fall within a topic ban? C'mon. Neither is Latvian Legion related, it was about as involved in Polish WWII history as Greek partisans (which had a few Polish volunteers, you can always find a connection), US or UK armies (which did air drops in Poland and were war time allies), or the issue of Polish-Japanese relations (which to my surprise was actually subject to a study within WWII context: [95]), or the article about the continent of Europe itself. Sure, if you try to find a connection, you always will, for almost any edit ("Give me the man, there'll be a paragraph for him" [96]). Let's focus on the intention of the topic ban, which was to prevent GCB from editing topics related to Poland and WWII: she hasn't. No problems here - outside of the bad faith in the report itself. I am also concerned with the fact that the user making the report (FR) has not been editing the topic area much in the last few months, nor interacting with the editor reported (GCB). This report comes 'out of the blue', as the topics related to Poland, Polish-Jewish history and World War II have been peaceful for the last few months (no edit warring, protections, AE reports, prolonged content disputes of any kind, all "hotspots" have gone quiet), which can IMHO be easily explained as they become problematic only when the now-indef banned User:Icewhiz (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-10-31/In the media for context) became active in them around 2016/2017. Since his emergency ArbCom ban few months ago (for off wiki harassment and other misdoings) this area has been very quiet, just like for the years prior. So how come FR, not active in related topic areas, is reporting GCB, who seem to be doing a relatively good job not violating her topic ban? It seems rather strange for someone not active in the same topic areas as another editor, nor interacting with him, to nonetheless monitor his activities, log borderline diffs and file an AE. How come he didn't politely ask GCB to self-revert and be more careful, encouraging AGF and mending fences? I explicitly asked him to try to discuss things first with others before going to AE few months ago (User_talk:François_Robere#WP:BRD) and I sad my advice was apparently ignored. I see no desire to 'build the encyclopedia' in this report, only a sad intention to resurrect a smoldering WP:BATTLEGROUND. In fact, I don't even think this fits FR's personality, and I have a suspicion that this is an AE based on diffs and filled on behalf of the indef-banned Icewhiz, who tried socking few months ago (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz); the socks where caught in wide range blocks, but apparently they are still active here, monitoring their "enemies", and reaching out "from the wiki grave" with a desire to revenge. (PS. For what it is worth, I have came to the same MEATPUPPET conclusion before reading GCB's statement; I didn't want to color my analysis by reading the defendant point - yet we arrived at the same conclusion.) The best thing we can do is try to rebuild our pre-battleground, collegial atmosphere from before Icewhiz poisoned it, not try to resurrect it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by LepricavarkThis is too much of a 'gotcha' report for my liking. The filer doesn't seem to have presented the full story regarding the first diff and the other two are not unambiguous violations. Before we do anything further, somebody should ask GizzyCatBella to substantiate their accusations regarding Icewhiz and Francois. I'm not saying that Gizzy is right, but in the light of the questionable nature of this report and the well-informed testimony of Piotrus, this bears further investigation before any action is taken. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by MyMoloboaccountIn regards to the comments above I can confirm that Icewhiz has been stalking GizzyCatBella's edits on off-wikipedia forum. As the forum is involved in revealing real life personas of users I am hesitant to provide link here but I can send a copy to the Admins(I am not a member, but it can be read by guests). Unfortunately there is possibility here of FR acting here on behalf of perma-banned user. In regards to FR behaviour I concur that the editor has been engaging in questionable behaviour including avoiding discussion with other users and simply going to WP:AE asking for immediate ban instead of following attempts to discuss, acting confrontational towards these who were targeted by Icewhiz in the past;his ongoing snipes at my personal contributed to my decision to withdraw from Wikipedia and led me to even openly ask him to stop posting on my page[97], which was subsequently ignored [98] and requested him to stop harassing me on Wikipedia[99].If it would be confirmed as highly likely that FR edited on behalf of Icewhiz would it fall under proxing rules [100]] ? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Levivich@Awilley: Please rephrase
Statement by SarahSVFrançois Robere mentioned the recent newspaper article about Wikipedia in Gazeta Wyborcza by the Polish-Canadian historian Jan Grabowski. It's behind a paywall, so in case anyone wants to read it, please see the archived copy and Google Translate. SarahSV (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning GizzyCatBella
|
Fowler&fowler
No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Fowler&fowler
As an example of disruptive editing, Wikipedia's guideline includes Ownership of Content, which states:
After the "legalistic point" made below by Johnbod, who is not an administrator, that 2020 Delhi riots is not an "India-Pakistan" article, I offered at his user talk page to withdraw my complaint immediately if he could demonstrate that Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement is the wrong forum. I explained that administrator El C on 27 March 2020 advised Fowler&fowler and me: So please let me reiterate my offer accordingly. If an administrator assures me that I have filed in the wrong forum, I shall withdraw my enforcement request immediately, with apologies to everyone who has weighed in here, and especially to Fowler&fowler. NedFausa (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Fowler&fowlerStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Fowler&fowler
Statement by (slatersteven)I have thought Fowler&fowler has been overly aggressive in that discussion, but then he is not alone. Its produced as lot of heated discussion. An example might be this [[103]]. I assume they mean the statement about "drive by" which is not really much of an insult. I also note the page is now under special DS. This is a case of 6 of one half a dozen of the other.Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC) I think a warning might be in order for the filer.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by SN54129Per Slatersteven mostly. This is a topic with both heightened emotions and realife life implications. This means we should bear the forrmer in mind and give some leeway to editors working to uphold our P&G in such a difficult area.Agree with SS also per his addendum of a warning to the filer for attempting to weaponize and trivialise AE
Statement by SerChevalerieBeing one of the first contributors to the article (aside from retired user DBigXRay), I vouch for what is referred to as "Fowler&fowler's lead" to have introduced a great deal of quality to the article. His changes came about slowly and surely but had the effect of introducing a NPOV that even the multiple disruptors cannot break through. The article is still far to go from being perfect, but F&f's approach to building a good lead and then constructing a body around it is working slowly. Regarding his Talk page comments, I agree that they come off as being egotistical but in my personal experience he has offered reason when I have asked him to. I hardly think that this calls for AE. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by AnachronistIn my view, F&F has done good work, but the way he goes about it is disruptive and a source of conflict. I have advised him of alternate established approaches to modifying the lead section, which have fallen on deaf ears; he seems incapable of operating outside of his chosen mode, and appears to feel that guidelines (such as WP:LEAD and WP:MOS) can be freely disregarded. The article on 2020 Delhi riots now has a lead that is well written and well sourced but contains far too much detail for a lead, is too long, and doesn't serve as an overview (and there's already an "Overview" section that would work as a lead)... and the article is likely to remain in that confusing state for a long time. As to sanctions, I don't see what remedies would be appropriate, but I also don't want to see this editor continue being disruptive while going about making much-needed improvements. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC) Statement by Lingzhi2I've read the ten points listed above which are intended to describe F&F's allegedly punishable actions. I see little above a mild-to-moderate level of crankiness. After taking into account the emotionally-charged nature of the topic and the added charge that comes from the fact that it is very recent, I see nothing strange or unusual here. [Note that I have argued with F&F in the past too, at times sharply, and at times at a level approaching bitterness on my part.] I think someone should buy F&F a nice cup of tea and ask him to take a walk and get some fresh air. Above I see that the filer has only been on Wikipedia for 3 months, is that correct? Then we should be patient with him/her too, sit him/her down and explain the realities of Wikipedia and the nature of arbitration. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by Johnbod
Doug WellerDisappointing because this is an inappropriate use of AE. There's nothing sanctionable here. Yes, as has been said, F&F can be a bit impatient/short, but I've been watching this area and it's too often a disruptive mess. I'm still not sure about the filer as I haven't examined their edits in detail, but they are on thin ice here. Doug Weller talk 14:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by RegentsParkI'm not sure what the filer is trying to achieve with this complaint. This particular article has been plagued by waves of POV editors attempting to skew the article toward what appears to be an untenable POV. There has been off-wiki collaboration and a wikipedia editor has been doxed and harrased in RL in the process. Some level of acerbity is likely in a highly charged situation such as this one and I don't see fowler's acerbity at anywhere near sanctionable levels. Going through NedFausa's list, I barely see anything at all. Statements such as "Nickel and dimeing sentence fragments" are hardly bothersome (and might even be justified with requests like this one). Fowler appears to have done an great job getting the lead into shape, several admins (including myself) have suggested that editors leave the lead alone and focus on getting the body into shape but, apparently, the lead is way too magnetizing. I'm trying to assume good faith (and, in fairness, I've skimmed NedFausa's edits and cannot see any evidence that places them in the off-wiki collaboration camp), but this focus on the lead concerns me because it gives the appearance of trying to use minor edits as an entry point for getting a more non-neutral POV slant into the article. --regentspark (comment) 16:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Fowler&fowler
|
SPECIFICO
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 SPECIFICO
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Ergo Sum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- SPECIFICO (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
- WP:ARBAPDS
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 24 March 2020 Incivility
- 21 March 2020 Incivility
- 21 March 2020 Incivility
- 1 April 2020 Incivility and telling editors to stop editing
- 28 March 2020 Incivility
- 30 March 2020 Telling editors to stop editing
- 23 February 2020 Really creepy behavior that borders on harassment
- 7 February 2020 Personal attacks
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 22 April 2017 Violation of DS/1RR on 2016 United States election interference by Russia
- 4 October 2014 Topic ban applied to SPECIFICO expanded
Sanctions requested but declined or warning issued instead:
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict on 14 February 2020
- Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict on 23 March 2020
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Wherever this editor goes, conflict seems to follow. I do not bring this AE lightly, as I regard my own personal threshold is higher than what may be required by policy. I have only begun to interact with/observe SPECIFICO recently, and was quite astonished at the routine and pervasive bullying he/she engages in. What primarily motivates me are the off-wiki messages I received from editors heretofore unknown to me who thanked me for putting SPECIFICO on notice and described how SPECIFICO's repeated attacks have caused them to stop editing pages they are active on. Only afterwards did I realize that their user talk page archives are littered with civility warnings to which SPECIFICO responded with yet more caustic incivility. If ever there were a quintessential example of a person who is not here to build an encyclopedia and is instead interested in POV railroading and disruptive editing that has long flown under the radar, it is SPECIFICO. I am sad to say he/she is a perpetual bully; plain and simple.
Update: for those who find these diffs innocuous, I invite them to more thoroughly examine SPECIFICO's contributions and talk pages and ask whether their contributions are productive or create a more toxic and intimidating atmosphere on articles that are already plagued by negativity.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning SPECIFICO
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 SPECIFICO
Awilley's comment appears to be more in the vein of an involved editor citing evidence rather than an Admin evaluating this complaint and discussion. At any rate, most of Awilley's diffs are taken out of contexts that would show his concent is rather overstated. I'm not going to reply to these diffs case by case, but I think that taken together with what he advocates, they are rather misleading. That's unfortunate. SPECIFICO talk 01:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Respectfully, Admins, I object to the idea of a logged warning.
The logged warning in this case would only function as a Scarlet Letter that becomes a "fact" in itself that can be cited in the future -- look SPECIFICO has been warned before -- without reference to the underlying events, the actual facts, that IMO should never have been reported here. In the past month or so, I've been falsely accused of socking, told I had the intelligence of a goldfish, called a talk-page spammer, and many other choice things. I don't disrupt article pages. I cite Policy and Guidelines in talk page discussions. I disengage rather promptly on occasions when my comments are ignored or rejected. I don't follow editors who disparage and make false aspersions about me on BLPN and Admins' pages. I'm here for this complaint because a single editor got upset for whatever reason. I object to a logged warning that can be cited later as evidence of some level of misbehavior that did not occur.
Ergo Sum made an edit against the established logged talk page consensus #32 at Donald Trump. The edit was reverted, he tried to claim a new consensus had been reached one day later. Talk page posts confirmed no such consensus had been reached. He then launched a rather broadly defined RfC to establish a new consensus. We don't know how that will conclude, but it currently appears Ergo Sum has again failed to get consensus. In the course of this, Ergo Sum expressed his annoyance at my talk page and the talk page of @Scjessey: with a mini-dissertation on our alleged incivilities. Each of us replied briefly, without reciprocating his apparent level of agitation. I was quite surprised to see Ergo Sum's behavior from a longtime user and Admin, and even more surprised to see him bring it to this AE page. [[User:SPECIFICO | SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof
Essentially all of the claimed diffs are either not remotely uncivil, or are not diffs by SPECIFICO at all.
For example, this March 21 diff, the sum total of which is BS. please try to restate that clearly and specifically if you would like a response. It's unintelligible.
Calling someone's statement unintelligible may not be the most pleasant thing on Earth, but it's hardly uncivil.
Another March 21 diff, which states That's a blog-worthy narrative. Unfortunately it is not consistent with near-universal RS reporting. Not really helpful for this talk page.
There is literally nothing uncivil about that statement. Direct, sure, but not remotely uncivil.
This April 1 diff - Considering that no article content has been proposed, and that you appear to be uninformed on the longstanding discussion of this issue, I agree that it's just as well you do not comment further. Thanks for your thoughts.
Also not uncivil. Telling someone who declined to provide a reason for their position that "it's just as well you do not comment further" - yeah, that's not uncivil.
Another 30 March diff - Gee whillakers. Didn't I just say why? They are aware of it. They are investigating it. It would be big news if credible. We go with their judgment. That's the core of what WP editors do. If you are relying on a media suppression conspiracy theory to justify ignoring Wikipedia policies and guidelines, please take it to NPOVN or RSN or reddit.
Nothing uncivil there. Telling someone who rejects reliable sources to take their forum thoughts elsewhere is common practice on Wikipedia talk pages.
The 28 March diff - Ernie, get a grip. She swore an afadavit and presented it to a congressional committee, not a Wikipedia article. Anyway Chmn. Grassley referred her and Avenatti for prosecution. How did that turn out?
Telling someone to "get a grip" is also not uncivil. It's a common and non-offensive phrase in the English language and I think it's a wild stretch to presume that it violates anything in Wikipedia policy.
The 24 March diff is actually by the filing party, and includes a whole host of posts by a whole host of editors... I'm guessing the filing party screwed something up?
This is a naked attempt to throw a bunch of nothingburger diffs at the wall and hope that an admin just sees "oh hey lots of diffs, sanction time." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Valjean
I second the concerns raised by NorthBySouthBaranof. The diffs often ignore context.
Telling tendentious editors, whose edits and comments are opposed by numerous editors, to find a different topic to edit, where their edits will not be opposed, is perfectly reasonable. (That diff has now been removed.)
This one jumped right out at me because it's directly false:
- 1 April 2020 Incivility and telling editors to stop editing
"Stop editing"??? No, since the comment by admin Ergo Sum was not constructive, SPECIFICO suggested they "not comment further". Nothing about "stop editing". I'm sure that editing is okay, and comments that are constructive are also welcome. There was also an implied "get better informed before commenting" in the comment, which is good advice.
Similar for this one:
- 30 March 2020 Telling editors to stop editing.
Nothing about "stop editing" there, but rather some good advice.
This is a dubious filing. An admin should have better things to do than get irritated so easily. Is this worth a trout boomerang? -- Valjean (talk) 06:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Statement by MrX
Not a single one these diffs presented by Ergo Sum depict incivility or harassment as commonly understood on Wikipedia. In fact, most of them are evidence of amazing restraint on SPECIFICO's part against an onslaught of incomprehensible comments, fallacious arguments, POV pushing WP:SPAs, sock puppets, gaslighting, rehashing, and conspiracy theorizing by users, many of whom are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia.
Importantly, Arbcom gave examples of actual incivility at WP:ARBAPDS#MONGO. The SPECIFICO diffs bear no resemblance to the nasty comments in these examples.
The only action needed here is the administration of a trout for Ergo Sum and a suggestion that he recalibrate his civility radar to be considerably less sensitive. As an admin, perhaps Ergo Sum can do something about users filling discussions pages with with garbage talk causing annoyance and disruption of actual article improvement. - MrX 🖋 12:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Statement by MONGO
In a previous effort to rein in some of SPECIFICO's disruptive battlefield behavior, in August 2018 Administrator AWilley imposed several specialized American Politics 2 discretionary sanctions designed to allow SPECIFICO to continue contributing in the topic area but under a more strict set of behavioral standards as discussed here SPECIFICO was not pleased about these sanctions but they were at that time supported by admins Bishonen and Drmies. The sanctions were set to last one year, but perhaps somewhat angered SPECIFICO almost immediately ceased editing for 6 months, not returning until March 2019. Those sanctions were not applied just in the heat of the moment but after a long series of discussions and warnings that went unheeded, some of which can be seen in SPECIFICOs talkpage discussion just by scrolling up from that link I provided. Has there been any improvement since that self imposed 6 month sabbatical? None I can see:
- [104] Personalizing dispute, character assassination and bullying.
- [105] "Hi Ernie. I hope you are well and safely sheltered in a location that allows you to receive your favorite Fox News." IS a deliberate insult indicating that they think the person they are conversing with is a FoxNews watcher, which is rebuffed by the immediate response by MrErnie who claims the channel is not available where they reside.
- [106] "It may well pass WEIGHT but that doesn't mean it won't bog us down in footlong talkpage threads from a few Fox News fans here." Personalizing dispute, character assassination and bullying.
- [107] "Awilley, that response of yours reads very self-serving and convenient, without addressing the core issues of community and AE processes. Your words appear either disingenuous or so naive that you need to take an extended leave of absence from these American Politics articles. Similarly, your negotiation with Snoogs above looks too much like you bullied an editor under threat of sanction so that you could walk back your own misstep and avoid scrutiny at AE or ARBCA." That comment was responded to at SPECIFICO's talkpage here.
--MONGO (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Doubt a logged warning over an editor previously sanctioned in same arena will do much more then embolden behavior as already seen in there terse response above.--MONGO (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Objective3000
I am concerned by the filer’s comment: What primarily motivates me are the off-wiki messages I received from editors heretofore unknown to me who thanked me for putting SPECIFICO on notice and described how SPECIFICO's repeated attacks have caused them to stop editing pages they are active on.
Who are these editors making off-wiki comments that may be designed to stir up problems for an editor? As there are multiple such, do they appear coordinated? Is this something anyone else has noticed? Am I overreacting to this? O3000 (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- I anticipated such a comment would be made. As at least two of the editors expressed a fear of receiving further grief from SPECIFICO, I have no intention of providing their identities. I have recommended that they comment here if they feel it is appropriate to do so. Ergo Sum 16:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Well, if I were of a mind to stir up trouble against an editor I didn't like, I suppose I would also suggest:
a fear of receiving further grief
, and this would work better if there were multiple such anons. At the least, it doesn't seem appropriate to include anonymous, negative, off-wiki comments to which SPECIFICO cannot respond. O3000 (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)- @Lepricavark: And how are we to judge if they are acting in good faith and not engaging themselves in retribution? AE has been weaponized in the past, and all participants can have their own behavior scrutinized -- assuming they haven't found a loophole in remaining anonymous. I trust they are not engaging in ex parte communications with possible judges to the filing. I'm not weighing in on the substance of this filing one way or another. I'm just uncomfortable with the origin. O3000 (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Objective3000, this enforcement request is the subject of an active thread on a certain off-wiki site that talks about Wikipedia, and along with perfectly decent active users, is filled with blocked LTAs, SPAs, et cetera. Some of which, in all those categories, have likely sparred with SPECIFICO in the past. I’m assuming that’s where some of the users who thanked Ergo Sum were alerted to the existence of this request. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Symmachus Auxiliarus: I've no idea about this off-wiki thread. If it is relevant, could you please link to it? Ergo Sum 15:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Objective3000, this enforcement request is the subject of an active thread on a certain off-wiki site that talks about Wikipedia, and along with perfectly decent active users, is filled with blocked LTAs, SPAs, et cetera. Some of which, in all those categories, have likely sparred with SPECIFICO in the past. I’m assuming that’s where some of the users who thanked Ergo Sum were alerted to the existence of this request. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Lepricavark: And how are we to judge if they are acting in good faith and not engaging themselves in retribution? AE has been weaponized in the past, and all participants can have their own behavior scrutinized -- assuming they haven't found a loophole in remaining anonymous. I trust they are not engaging in ex parte communications with possible judges to the filing. I'm not weighing in on the substance of this filing one way or another. I'm just uncomfortable with the origin. O3000 (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- Well, if I were of a mind to stir up trouble against an editor I didn't like, I suppose I would also suggest:
Statement by Mr Ernie
I've been on the receiving end of SPECIFICO's rhetorical skills a few times now, and I usually never look back on those experiences fondly. It seems the sanctions by user:Awilley were effective. It is frustrating that no uninvolved administrators have weighed in yet - you can probably guess which way the involved editors commenting would lean before you read their statements - so it would be good to have neutral 3rd party review. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- Mr Ernie, I'm never too lazy or sleepy to place a big fat incivility block--but I just don't see anything blockable in those diffs, not even in their aggregate. Take care, Drmies (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Lepricavark
Some of the diffs provided by Ergo Sum and MONGO demonstrate that Specifico sometimes engages in battleground behavior. Perhaps a warning will be sufficient, but the contents of Specifico's sole response in this thread do not inspire confidence. When editors express concerns with one's behavior, it is better to take those concerns on board and seek to improve rather than trying to discredit the messenger. It is important that they refrain from personalizing disputes and that they make more of an effort to understand the viewpoints of those they are conversing with. I am specifically thinking of this diff, in which Specifico used the word "unintelligible" to describe a comment that is perfectly understandable if one takes the time to read it carefully. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Objective3000: I think you actually may be overreacting. While it's certainly true that editors sometimes go off-Wiki to make nefarious behavior more difficult to detect, it is equally true that there are good faith editors who have things to say that they are not comfortable saying publicly for fear of retribution. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Objective3000: it's essentially impossible for us to know. My aim was to bring out the other side of the coin by making a general statement, but I don't wish to speculate regarding the motives of the unknown persons involved in this specific case. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Buffs
I think everybody can agree that atmosphere in the American Politics topic area is toxic. Editors are increasingly (and understandably) exasperated with each other. The point is, I think SPECIFICO is making that problem worse, not better.
To be blunt/direct, I don't see it that way. These are contentious issues with strong feelings on both sides. People on both sides are attempting to wield policy as a sledgehammer to crush those who oppose their viewpoint. Putting a warning here for SPECIFICO only will further encourage such behavior. If a warning goes to SPECIFICO, WP:Boomerang should apply to the submitter as well. Most (if not all) of the evidence is VERY underwhelming and their effects immensely overstated. I concur that this was a "let's throw everything we can against the wall and see if it sticks in order to shut down an opposing viewpoint" attempt...that should not be overlooked. Buffs (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning SPECIFICO
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I don't really see much incivility here; some of the diffs presented are a bit fiery, but the whole thing is really exaggerated. For instance, the "creepy" behavior here is not very creepy, though it's silly--but it is in response to something equally silly by the other editor (someone not filing the request). (That diff is really weird, by the way--someone goes around putting no break spaces on talk pages?) There is no "personal attack" in this diff. This isn't remotely uncivil. I could go on, but I won't: this is already taking up too much time. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think Drmies is correct that there's not anything blockable in the diffs presented. There is, however, a good deal that is unhelpful. For example:
BS. please try to restate that clearly and specifically if you would like a response. It's unintelligible.
[108] (Better to say "I don't understand the point you're trying to make")Considering that no article content has been proposed, and that you appear to be uninformed on the longstanding discussion of this issue, I agree that it's just as well you do not comment further. Thanks for your thoughts.
[109] (Better to say nothing)Ernie, get a grip.
[110] (Better to make your point without the personal comments)You are either unable or unwilling to understand the basics of editing Wikipedia articles
[111] (Again, better to just make your point.)It is evident what you do not care about. Frankly, you got off to a bad start cramming a false narrative contrary to RS WEIGHT, into the lead. You were called out.
[112] (Better to just focus on content. Personal commentary generally isn't helpful on article talk pages.)- I can also understand why the OP might have wanted to get more eyes on this when all they got in response to their warning was this.
- I think everybody can agree that atmosphere in the American Politics topic area is toxic. Editors are increasingly (and understandably) exasperated with each other. The point is, I think SPECIFICO is making that problem worse, not better. For that reason I would support at minimum a specific logged warning against making personal comments on article talk pages. ~Awilley (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- User:Awilley: Can you propose the wording you would use for a specific logged warning to SPECIFICO? I agree that the comments highlighted in green above are not ideal. EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Drmies that a response to this request doesn't need to involve sanctions. Nevertheless the AP topic area is difficult to work in and I'd be happy to see SPECIFICO dial back the comments aimed at other editors. If others agree that a logged warning would help achieve that, I would not dissent. --RexxS (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- I find myself losing whatever sympathy I might have had when I now read SPECIFICO's comments here. @SPECIFICO: One "light-bulb moment" that I experienced at my RfA was that if I am sharp, snide, or bitey when addressing an editor I disagree with, it also has a big impact on neutral observers – far greater than I realised – and diluted the message I was trying to make. In short, if you want to be on the side of the angels, you have to behave like an angel. Tell us that you understand the concerns the admins here have, and that you'll genuinely make an effort not to take the bait, not to reply in kind, and not to escalate. It's not easy, but it's worth it. --RexxS (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
- I also support a firm warning to avoid personal comments as a necessary prerequisite to continued editing in this topic area. El_C 15:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)