Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
→Result concerning Dr. Dan: hmpfh... |
|||
Line 236: | Line 236: | ||
* It was I who advised Piotrus to file an Arbitration enforcement request in relation to this incident, so I will recuse from formally taking action. But my primary comment here will be to say that I do not think comments such as {{plainlinks|1=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?diff=364149695&oldid=364099145|2=this}} to be acceptable. [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] 23:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC) |
* It was I who advised Piotrus to file an Arbitration enforcement request in relation to this incident, so I will recuse from formally taking action. But my primary comment here will be to say that I do not think comments such as {{plainlinks|1=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?diff=364149695&oldid=364099145|2=this}} to be acceptable. [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] 23:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
* Some of the diffs cited above illustrate [[User:Dr. Dan|Dr. Dan]]'s style of contributing to discussions. He is given to [[sarcasm]] and ''[[ad hominem|ad-hominem]]'' attacks, to [[intimidation]] and [[blackmail]], to [[verbosity]] that conveys little substantive content but that may impress naive or inattentive readers who confuse prolixity with profundity. An [[WP:civility|uncivil]] attempt by him to challenge an opponent may be found here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Chopin&diff=359390065&oldid=359377959]. [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 08:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC) |
* Some of the diffs cited above illustrate [[User:Dr. Dan|Dr. Dan]]'s style of contributing to discussions. He is given to [[sarcasm]] and ''[[ad hominem|ad-hominem]]'' attacks, to [[intimidation]] and [[blackmail]], to [[verbosity]] that conveys little substantive content but that may impress naive or inattentive readers who confuse prolixity with profundity. An [[WP:civility|uncivil]] attempt by him to challenge an opponent may be found here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Chopin&diff=359390065&oldid=359377959]. [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 08:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
=====Comments by Skäpperöd===== |
|||
;Regarding Dan's comments about Piotrus |
|||
*According to Piotrus' request above, Dan made a PA by discussing editors (not content). In fact, Dan discussed the question whether it is appropriate to continue a discussion that belongs to the article's talk page at the Poland noticeboard for the only reason to allow Piotrus to participate. That argument has merit and is not a PA. If arbcom had wanted Piotrus to participate in discussions at article talk pages, they would have unbanned him for these talk pages and not just for the Poland board. |
|||
*It is neither bad faith, nor uncivil, nor a PA to state that Piotrus is discredited and banned, because he is. In the final decision of the recent EEML arbcom case, he was desysopped, admonished for disruption, blocked and banned from topic areas he caused disruption in. To that add the prior arbcom cases which were decided in dubio pro Piotro because the evidence that led to his conviction in the EEML case was not yet available then. |
|||
;Regarding Dan's comments about Nihil novi |
|||
*That Dan addressed Nn as "compromised, sockpuppeteer" does not sound like Dan is just throwing out allegations for fun. Either, Dan has proof, or Dan mistook Nn for someone else. If the latter is the case, I am confident that he will withdraw the allegations once he is made aware, if the former is true however I am awaiting Dan substantiating the claim. |
|||
*The "satirical" part of Dan's statement (the "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Poland&action=historysubmit&diff=364150959&oldid=364149695 boorish]" remark) was actually a rebuttal of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Chopin&diff=362760415&oldid=362747377 PA of Nn: "Your gratuitous advice to "calm down" shows that your are as great a boor as you are a bore."] Dan was right to ignore the PA when it was made, but he is also in his rights to point out that the absence of further such PAs is not due to Piotrus' involvement, but rather to Nn refraining from continuing making them. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 10:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
===Result concerning Dr. Dan=== |
===Result concerning Dr. Dan=== |
Revision as of 10:29, 28 May 2010
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Important information Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
Divot
Divot blocked for 55 hours, placed on final notice, by AGK.
|
---|
Request concerning Divot
Discussion concerning DivotStatement by DivotComments by others about the request concerning Divot
Result concerning Divot
|
Future Perfect at Sunrise
Brandmeister, Grandmaster, John Vandenberg
Frivolous request, not actionable |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Brandmeister, Grandmaster, John Vandenberg
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Discussion concerning Brandmeister, Grandmaster, John VandenbergStatement by Brandmeister, Grandmaster, John VandenbergComments by others about the request concerning Brandmeister, Grandmaster, John VandenbergThis is forum shopping by a user who was (apparently properly) reverted by multiple other users, and eventually blocked for disruption related to the behavior he's complaining about. I recommend close, no behavior actually subject to AE sanctions involved. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
What Divot is reporting may not be actionable (except for Brandmeister) but see my remark here, there were more reverts than he reports, example for John Vandenberg when there in fact was 3 reverts. Also see the comment here by AGK. Nothing excuse Divot, he should have known better. On the other hand, I find Brandmeister overal contribution actionable. He had more than reasonable revert and Divot and Brandmeister should have both been sanctioned, on Karabakh Khanate for example, he reverted without giving specifics as to why the version was innacurate. I tried pleasing both sides by keeping Shusha and replaced Azeri with Turkic and not Iranian or Caucasus, and he reverted me twice and he never bothered using the talkpage. Even his first edit recently was a revert if we check the history of the article. Ionidasz (talk) 05:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Brandmeister, Grandmaster, John VandenbergAs noted by Georgewilliamherbert, this is a frivolous request and is closed as not actionable. The reported reverts to Khojaly Massacre appear to reflect a content dispute, which cannot be resolved through arbitration enforcement. It is not explained how they violate any applicable conduct norm. Divot was properly blocked by AGK (talk · contribs) for his part in that edit war and warned that he may be subject to discretionary sanctions if he continues disrupting Wikipedia. Such disruption may also include continued forum shopping. Sandstein 05:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC) |
NickCT
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning NickCT
- User requesting enforcement
- Breein1007 (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- NickCT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- # [26] Personal attack calling me a bigot when I wasn't even talking to him.
- [27] Failure to AGF, accusing an editor of gaming the system by POV pushing under the disguise of some good faith edits.
- [28] More incivility, after I asked him to AGF because he drew conclusions about the intentions of another editor and accused them of making valid changes only to mask supposed "POV pushing".
- [29] It gets as petty as following me around to other pages where he is completely uninvolved and attacking me with no clear purpose.
- [30] Edit warring Mossad as the perpetrator after consensus was reached 2 months ago (NickCT was part of the discussion on the talk page that reached this consensus) to only label them as a suspected perp.
- [31] Failure to AGF again, starting his comment with an accusation that "Breein is likely going to edit war this".
- [32] Personal attack against me in response to an admin warning him not to use personal attacks.
- [33] More of above.
- [34] Personal attack against me after I submitted a valid (CU was warranted), albeit incorrect SPI.
- [35] Edit warring - removing content two months after consensus called to keep it
- [36] Edit warring - same as above
- [37] After I warned him against removing sourced content against consensus (there was a long discussion on the talk page of the article and the agreement was the the sentence should not be removed - two months later he came back and deleted it again), he responded that if I submit an AE report it will be frivolous. I'm only including this one to show that I tried to warn him recently about the possibility of bringing this to AE, but he has continued with his disruptive and hostile behaviour since that warning.
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- # [38] Warning by Shuki (talk · contribs) Edit warring
- [39] Warning by Shuki (talk · contribs) 3RR Violation
- [40] Warning by 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Edit warring
- [41] Warning by Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Personal attacks
- [42] Warning by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) civility/AGF/NPA
- [43] Blocked by Ged UK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Personal attacks/Harassment
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- To be honest I'm not sure what is appropriate here. I have only encountered this negative behaviour in the Israeli-Arab area on Wikipedia, so maybe a topic ban would help. I don't know if he behaves similarly in other topic areas. If so, maybe an overall block is necessary. Either way, I trust that admins will be able to determine an appropriate way to guide NickCT to better editing habits.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- NickCT and I have a fairly long history, and we have had our share of bickering in the past. I have tried to avoid interacting with him because the past has proven that the two of us do not get along. He was previously blocked for harassing me with personal attacks, and the diff of the warnings and block of that are noted above. For a while, we stayed away from each other. Recently, our paths have crossed again and his personal attacks and harassment have resurfaced. It is highly frustrating and difficult for me to edit the encyclopedia and make positive contributions or attempt to collaborate with other editors when he butts in and interrupts with personal attacks wherever possible. It has gotten so bad that he has even followed me around to other user's talk pages to hound me (the diff is above). Not only are the personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and harassment disruptive, but they have led me to notice that he has been edit warring again. The most troubling edit warring is the instances where he has come back to articles after several months to edit war against consensus that he was originally part of attaining.
I encourage everyone to consider this case after reading the following sections of ARBPIA: Decorum, Editorial process, Editors reminded.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [44]
Discussion concerning NickCT
Statement by NickCT
Comments by others about the request concerning NickCT
It would have been helpful if this had been focused on recent behavior - some of the diffs are from December - but I agree with PhilKnight's block based on his two replies to you on Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy in the last two days - [45] and [46]. Those were clearly inappropriate behavior on his part ( WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL ) and entirely appropriate to bring to a noticeboard. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with the block. I have a different take than George as to what was listed -- Some sysops are fine just seeing recent diffs. But others would like to see a longer-term pattern of behavior. The above diffs should have satisfied both approaches, and I would suggest that George's well-meaning remark not be understood to reflect the approach all sysops will take. Reflecting both recent diffs, and longer-term diffs, is still IMHO the best approach, as it covers the spectrum of sysop preferences.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm. Useful feedback. Let me refocus a bit. It would have helped if the diffs were sorted into clearly labeled recent and historical lists, so we could see the current incident clearly and then the historical context. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate the fast response Phil, thank you. But to be honest, I was hoping to see some discussion first. While I understand that there isn't much discussion needed to determine that Nick was incivil and sent multiple personal attacks my way, and that a block is deserved after previous warnings and blocks, I still think this case deserves added attention. My reason is that I don't think a 48 hour block will reverse the disturbing edit warring, consensus-undermining removal of content, and complete opposition to collaboration, especially since the block was specifically given for the personal attacks. Can you Phil, or any other admins, please take a look and comment on the edit warring? In all honesty, I'd rather Nick keep berating me but stop edit warring and going against consensus. I'm here to improve the encyclopedia, so if it's a choice of being insulted and having good articles or having someone play nice but continue edit warring and deleting sourced content, I would choose the first one. Obviously the ideal is to fix both though... Breein1007 (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's on the record that he went way too far this time and has a history of having done so in the past several times as well. I hope he won't continue it, but the next admins along if he does should be able to take it from here. It might help to discuss it more on his talk page, specifically what was wrong etc, to try and defuse it though. Georgewilliamherbert (talk)
Result concerning NickCT
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Blocked 48 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Dr. Dan
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Dr. Dan
- User requesting enforcement
- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Dr. Dan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#General restriction & Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren# Discretionary sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 1 [47] & [48] - uncivil, bad faith, personal attacks (discussing editors) and thus creating unfriendly atmosphere (in particular, language like "compromised, sockpuppeteer", "highly discredited and banned". Please note that this edit was after a while removed by an editor who recognized it as a personal attack: [49]
- 2 [50] - not as uncivil, but still involves unnecessary commentary about my person ("the Prokonsul is banned from participating at that forum")
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- 1 [51] Warning by Ioeth (talk · contribs)
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- I am not fond of asking for an editors to be blocked. Perhaps an indef restriction on discussing other editors (unless they have started to discuss him first) would be better (why indef - see below). If it can be shown that I or anybody else has a habit of making similar comments about Dr. Dan, I would support such a restriction being two-sided (that said, I do not believe this is a case, and I would ask for anybody who would like to make such a point to start their own new AE thread).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Please note that this is not some exceptional slip - Dr. Dan was placed on the restriction in the first place because such comments are a continuing part of his behavior. In fact, this behavior has led to at least two editors leaving or vastly reducing their activity on that project: [52], [53]. I cannot speak for Nihil Novi, but speaking for myself, such comments as noted above certainly don't encourage me to keep contributing to this project. All I am asking is that the "Comment on content, not on the contributor." policy is enforced. Thank you,
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [54]
Discussion concerning Dr. Dan
Statement by Dr. Dan
Comments by others about the request concerning Dr. Dan
- It was I who advised Piotrus to file an Arbitration enforcement request in relation to this incident, so I will recuse from formally taking action. But my primary comment here will be to say that I do not think comments such as this to be acceptable. AGK 23:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Some of the diffs cited above illustrate Dr. Dan's style of contributing to discussions. He is given to sarcasm and ad-hominem attacks, to intimidation and blackmail, to verbosity that conveys little substantive content but that may impress naive or inattentive readers who confuse prolixity with profundity. An uncivil attempt by him to challenge an opponent may be found here: [55]. Nihil novi (talk) 08:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Comments by Skäpperöd
- Regarding Dan's comments about Piotrus
- According to Piotrus' request above, Dan made a PA by discussing editors (not content). In fact, Dan discussed the question whether it is appropriate to continue a discussion that belongs to the article's talk page at the Poland noticeboard for the only reason to allow Piotrus to participate. That argument has merit and is not a PA. If arbcom had wanted Piotrus to participate in discussions at article talk pages, they would have unbanned him for these talk pages and not just for the Poland board.
- It is neither bad faith, nor uncivil, nor a PA to state that Piotrus is discredited and banned, because he is. In the final decision of the recent EEML arbcom case, he was desysopped, admonished for disruption, blocked and banned from topic areas he caused disruption in. To that add the prior arbcom cases which were decided in dubio pro Piotro because the evidence that led to his conviction in the EEML case was not yet available then.
- Regarding Dan's comments about Nihil novi
- That Dan addressed Nn as "compromised, sockpuppeteer" does not sound like Dan is just throwing out allegations for fun. Either, Dan has proof, or Dan mistook Nn for someone else. If the latter is the case, I am confident that he will withdraw the allegations once he is made aware, if the former is true however I am awaiting Dan substantiating the claim.
- The "satirical" part of Dan's statement (the "boorish" remark) was actually a rebuttal of a PA of Nn: "Your gratuitous advice to "calm down" shows that your are as great a boor as you are a bore." Dan was right to ignore the PA when it was made, but he is also in his rights to point out that the absence of further such PAs is not due to Piotrus' involvement, but rather to Nn refraining from continuing making them. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Dr. Dan
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- Will await a statement from Dr. Dan, but I am minded to impose a civility/sarcasm parole for six months. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hummphf. A "sarcasm parole" is certainly something new. [Insert obvious joke about sarcasm here]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)