Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 504: | Line 504: | ||
===Result concerning Dan Palraz=== |
===Result concerning Dan Palraz=== |
||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
|||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
|||
* |
|||
==Jim Michael 2== |
|||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
|||
===Request concerning Jim Michael 2=== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Red-tailed hawk}} 17:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Jim Michael 2}}<p>{{ds/log|Jim Michael 2}}</p> |
|||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Discretionary sanctions, as authorized by [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#May 2014]] <small>(as amended by [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)]]</small> |
|||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
|||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> |
|||
{{u|Jim Michael 2}} has been [[WP:ARBBLUDGEON|bludgeoning]] a discussion on [[Talk:2022]] with extremely repetitive comments regarding whether or not a recently deceased person, [[Barbara Walters]], warrants mention in our [[2022]] article. He has continued to do so, despite repeated warning from other editors on both on his user talk page ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jim_Michael_2&diff=next&oldid=1135746004 26 January 2023]) and in the discussion itself ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022&diff=prev&oldid=1136273074 29 January 2023], again on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022&diff=prev&oldid=1136284263 29 January 2023], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022&diff=prev&oldid=1136475202 30 January 2023]). For the sake of convenience, I've broken out some of the repetitive diffs by type. A number of diffs from {{u|Jim Michael 2}} contain responses to multiple users, so they may be repeated in the different subsections below: |
|||
''Repeating the same stuff about Christiane Amanpour over and over:'' |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1134044646 16 January 2023] {{tq|You're greatly overstating her international influence. You portray her as having been at the top of her field, but '''her international notability is well below that of [[Christiane Amanpour]].'''}} |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1134082095 16 January 2023] {{tq|...but few know much about her because she's primarily a domestic figure. '''Amanpour is far more international,''' but most people don't know much about her. }} |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1135108256 22 January 2023] {{tq|...'''Amanpour is significantly more internationally notable'''}} |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1135734962 26 January 2023] {{tq|compare her to the '''more internationally notable Amanpour,''' or say why Walters should be included but Amanpour shouldn't. }} |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1136278200 29 January 2023] {{tq|I '''need to mention [[Christiane Amanpour]] again'''. No-one here has tried to refute that '''she outdoes Walters in everything but length of career'''}} |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1136292777 29 January 2023] {{tq|I '''mention Amanpour's notability to refute claims that Walters''' is - as some here claim/imply - the most notable female journalist}} |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1136469374 30 January 2023] {{tq|'''Amanpour is far more international & often broadcasts in both countries'''}} (and in a response to another editor in the same diff) {{tq|'''Amanpour''' - whose career is in the UK & US - will receive a great deal of media coverage in many countries when she dies.}} |
|||
''We don't do tokenism/quotas/discrimination:'' |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1135125170 22 January 2023] {{tq|'''We don't have quotas''' & don't practise [[tokenism]] or [[positive discrimination]]}} |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1135127418 22 January 2023] {{tq|If you mean 'positive' discrimination, '''quotas or tokenism, we won't be doing anything like that'''.}} |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1135734962 26 January 2023] {{tq|There's '''no quotas, tokenism or positive discrimination,''' nor should there be.}} |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1135798961 26 January 2023] {{tq|a few people want to radically change things '''by using quotas'''}} |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1136292777 29 January 2023] {{tq|I agree that '''there shouldn't be quotas'''}} |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
|||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> |
|||
*N/A |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]): |
|||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> |
|||
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jim_Michael_2&diff=prev&oldid=1135746004 26 January 2023] (see also the system log linked to above). |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
At the time of my writing, he has responded to precisely zero of these warnings, and has continued to bludgeon the discussion at will. Long-term editors generally shouldn't need to be warned by four separate editors that they are bludgeoning ''the exact same discussion'' in order to knock it off, and I'd ask that the user be given a logged warning as a discretionary sanction as a formal reminder to not bludgeon future discussions involving recently deceased people and a deterrent against repeating this sort of behavior in the future. |
|||
On a more procedural note, it looks like {{u|Jim Michael 2}} has made [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Jim%20Michael%202/1/2022 exactly 20 diffs] in this RfC when the one at 2023-01-16 00:46 is included. I am requesting an extension in both length of my complaint and in number of diffs I can link to (if need be; I'm not sure if my linking to the warning diffs counts) so that I can better demonstrate the extent of bludgeoning present. |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
===Discussion concerning Jim Michael 2=== |
|||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
|||
====Statement by Jim Michael 2==== |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
===Result concerning Jim Michael 2=== |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
Revision as of 17:15, 30 January 2023
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
![]() | Important information Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
SashiRolls
Closed with no action. SashiRolls is reminded of the broad terms of their IBAN. Please review and take notice of the feedback from this discussion. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2023 (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 SashiRolls
It's a relatively small thing, to "thank" someone, and on the face of it, not something one would normally expect to result in sanctions. But, our WP:IBAN policy says: Under the circumstances, though, it seems to me that he should have made it his business to know what the IBAN rules are. And there was no particular reason for him to have thanked me for that edit I made ([4]). It was completely unrelated to anything I'm aware of him doing, and I don't see him making an edit in that RfC after I made that formatting fix. From my end, it feels creepy, like he was following edits I made and letting me know that he was seeing them. Although I'm under no restrictions under the 1-way ban, I actually have no idea what edits, if any, SashiRolls has been making, because I'm not concerning myself with that, and I sure didn't ask for that blue notification that brings me here. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SashiRollsStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SashiRollsI had no intention of having any contact whatsoever with my accuser. I think this must have been due to a careless swipe closing a window while looking through the RfC on Vector 2022 last night. When blocked, the giant 'thanks' button did not appear at the bottom of the screen on the phone app, so I'm used to just swiping from bottom to top to make the app disappear. I am aware that thanking someone is not permitted and would not have done it intentionally. It is my assumption that wp:banex allows me to reply to this immediate escalation. I will look into this further when I get home from the hospital this evening, as normally I thought you had to confirm to give thanks, which I certainly did not do... unless the dialog box was also swept away in the effort to close the window. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 16:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC) I have just checked and indeed no confirmation is necessary on Android... You have two seconds to cancel if you misclick / mis-swipe. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 16:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Please do not accuse me of lying. I guarantee you I just thanked SFR and was given only 2 seconds to cancel using Chrome on Android. Talk about a gotcha' filing and a wp:agf failure. :/. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 17:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Again, please do not accuse me of lying. I just thanked Bishonen for her comment and was unable to take a screenshot of the tiny line of text appearing beneath the BIG BLUE BUTTON at the lower right of the screen where your thumb goes to swipe Chrome into the background on Android. It disappeared that quickly. I may have mispoken when using the word "app". It is for Commons that I sometimes use the App, but apparently I need to redownload it because it hasn't worked for months now. I assure you, I had absolutely no intention whatsoever of interacting with him. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 18:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Nableezy: on pages with significant amounts of text scattered all over the place (such as in the Vector 2022 RfC) I find the easiest way to read, by far, is by going to the top diff and then clicking "previous diff" so that I have enough context to understand what's going on. Perhaps in future, this method of reading would be best avoided as it apparently makes inadvertent errors such as this one possible. Thanks to those who compensated for my incompetence in video capturing using my phone! -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 19:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Statement by KoAAnd here I just caught myself earlier today thinking I hadn't heard anything about SR since their unban (and hadn't gone looking either until I saw this). All I'll say is that multiple editors in the unban discussion did mention one of SR's issues is a sort of stalking of targets that warranted the sanctions in the first place. That context matters even if it were just a little thing that wasn't directly spelled out in ban policy instead of this. Tryptofish was correct to come here in part because there is no other realistic option to discuss an I-ban violation even when it's one-way. Otherwise, it would be like someone who caused a car crash (accident or not) chastising one of those who got hit for asking the cops to get involved. Regardless of intent or accident, SR already knows they are supposed to steer clear of Tryptofish, and WP:BANEX is not an excuse for sniping. Instead, SR used this AE as an opportunity to launch into loaded language to lay it on thick like Others that can test it can assess the validity of the Vector 2022 comments, but what led to the interaction can also become a red herring from later behavior, so that's why the comments caught my eye. KoA (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Statement by ShibbolethinkWithout making any other statement or claim as to this filing, I just wanted to point out, @ScottishFinnishRadish @Isabelle Belato-- @SashiRolls is talking about using the mobile site on the Android Chrome app. Not using the Wikipedia for Android App. Very different interfaces on iOS between these two so I can imagine it's similarly very different on Android. I just tested it (on @Tewdar Statement by TewdarIf you view a diff using a mobile web browser (Chrome, Firefox, Opera...) and hit "thank", it gives you two seconds to cancel, without confirmation. Tewdar 18:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Statement by NableezyWhat was the diff Tryptofish? Because personally I'd be willing to buy it was an accident that I will make sure will never be repeated if it was a diff from a discussion SR was involved in, but if they just randomly trolling through Tryptofish's contributions to go through them for god knows what then I personally would say it doesnt matter if it was an accident, block for the IB vio anyway. nableezy - 18:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Objective3000I’m no fan of Sashi, !voted neutral with TBan last time and block on all previous times. I’ve also been sarcastically “thanked” in the past by another editor. But, my feeling on this is Meh. Sashi will have to try harder than this to get blocked again. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Sideswipe9thI've just sent two videos to ScottishFinnishRadish demonstrating the two different ways that en.m.wikipedia handles sending thanks for contributions. If you're looking at the history for a page, there is a confirmation requirement prior to sending thanks. However if you're browsing by the diff views, sending thanks has no confirmation, and only a 2 second window to cancel as other editors have said. I don't know of any other ways to send thanks via the mobile site. I'd be happy to send these videos by email to any other admins who'd want to see, but I don't want to upload them to files/commons if I can avoid it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Mr ErnieLet me at least use this opportunity to thank everyone who chooses to contribute to Wikipedia. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Statement by FloqWould the same uninvolved admin who closes this with an assumption that this was an unfortunate coincidence and a weak reminder that SR shouldn't thank TF also remind SR that using terms like "accuser", "immediate escalation, "gotcha filing", and "agf failure" above, about someone they're ibanned from, is also an iban violation? I presume this is SR on their best behavior, and they still can't help but test the boundaries. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Statement by BuffsError or not, the worst punishment appropriate here is a WP:Trouting, but more appropriately "be more careful". I recognize that Tryptofish effectively has no other recourse and find no fault bringing it here. As with above, I too thank all the people who have made solid edits to Wikipedia (since when is such gratitude a punishable offense? If he were spamming with "thanks" all over the place, you'd have a point, but two things that appear to be nothing more than a misclick? Tempest in a teapot perhaps?). As for reading through old posts, I know I've done so to see where I could have done better and that means looking through diffs to see what others said too. It seems to be a reasonable mistake...SR, please avoid being even close to such behavior in the future. Buffs (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Statement by PolitrukkiTryptofish claims Based on the timeline of SashiRolls's edits and Tryptofish's edit, it could be argued that Tryptofish creepily followed SashiRolls to the page, but I think if TF wished to annoy SashiRolls, TF could have found a better way. Even though a technical violation happened, the filing is unnecessary escalation. As the two-way IBAN is yet to be reinstated, a peaceful resolution could have been reached by assuming good faith and leaving a message to SashiRolls asking them to refrain from using "thank" function. Moreover, Tryptofish, your claim that SashiRolls shouldn't say they were accused of lying if they weren't accused of lying, but I believe this is moot after their last comment. What more there is to be done? Close with no action. Politrukki (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Statement by Cullen328I guess that I am involved because I have commented on the conduct of SashiRolls in the past although not in the recent unblock request, where I was sincerely undecided and chose to remain silent. As is pretty well known, I edit using the fully functional desktop site on Android smartphones, and my thank function requires an affirmative verification before it goes through, because I choose to use fully functional software instead of slipshod WMF software deviations. All that being said, I am perfectly willing to accept that WMF software botchery may well yield a less acceptable result when using any of their less than fully functional sites and apps. But what really concerns me here is the snide, confrontational remarks by SashiRolls that Floquenbeam points out above. This editor is fresh off a lengthy block for this type of behavior, and I was prepared to assume that this editor would refrain from stuff like this, but I guess that I was wrong. Maybe they will now stop behaving this way, or maybe they will continue and get blocked again, this time forever for real. Time will tell, I suppose, but after the comments by SashiRolls above, I am not optimistic about their future as a Wikipedia editor. Cullen328 (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC) Statement by starship.paint@Isabelle Belato, ScottishFinnishRadish, Bishonen, Tamzin, and Vanamonde93: - can we wrap this up? starship.paint (exalt) 07:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning SashiRolls
|
Minaro123
Minaro123 is limited to maximum of one revert per 24 hours on all articles and limited to using articles for creation for creating new articles on any topic.--RegentsPark (comment) 18:54, 28 January 2023 (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 Minaro123
I argue that Minaro123 has a CIR issue; his contributions are essentially disinformation and the noise-to-signal ratio is too high to be a net positive. Right after being subject to a sanction, he is misrepresenting sources and defending the same using ridiculously tortous arguments! He can either be indefinitely blocked from the project or sanctioned with an indefinite T-Ban from anything that has to do with Brokpas (broadly construed). I, Joshua Jonathan, and others have wasted sufficient editorial resources in the process of engaging him and trying to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Discussion concerning Minaro123Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Minaro1231[1]
I have welcomed TrangaBellam to welcome a have a constructive critisim here regarding the Map and i told him I could be wrong ,[2] and since Indian book deport was established before 1936 [3],i added it only in a talk section to have a opinion about others editor.
My major contribution related to the topic of Aryan valley is: [12] In a old revision of Brokpa page ,the population of the Brokpa was false however i have discussed in Brokpa talk section [13]title=Brokpa&oldid=1124611839 And add a corrected it . The Aryan valley articles was created by me and was nominated for deletion by kautilya3 and was suporting by TrangaBellam , [14], However me and Elinruby have provided evidence to save it. However after the decision of Aryan valley was to keep, k3 and TB has did a edits without having a discussion on a talk. Thank you Minaro123 (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Statement by ElinrubyThe thing that strikes me the most here is the utter certitude of TB and K3 of the correctness of their actions. Bookku is correct in saying that this is fundamentally a content dispute. My issue is the way it's been addressed. I first became aware of the article at AfD, where the rationale was that the residents of Aryan Valley weren't *really* Aryan. Nobody in this story here claims that they are, mind you, but the important part is that the article survived AfD because it was about a place, not a people. That night it was edited into an article about how the people of the area are not really Aryans, over repeated attempts to discuss, as recent as yesterday. I did want to address Bookku's concern about quality. Recent deletions include cited work by me about apricot and barley cultivation, and cited ethnography]. Nobody is suggesting that the article should not meet normal standards, which is why I suggested AfC. I would not oppose requiring him to publish that way, if my assurances that I will help don't seem sufficient. Meanwhile, having edited Aryan Valley into something unrecognizable, TB filed a 3RR complaint, and this complaint, and is currently trying to redirect another village article to the article about how the people who live in Aryan Valley aren't really Aryan. all within the last couple of days. Elinruby (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC) (Earlier) Minaro123 wants to write an article(s) about a group of villages. I was under the impression that we encourage that. He is willing to learn the standards and apply them. For example, Wikipedia does indeed have a list of perennial sources. I don't know where "exhaustive" came from. He really does need to figure out how to run spell-check however, yes. I remain baffled as to Trangabellam's goal. I think Mindaro123 should work on his articles, offline if necessary, and publish them through AfC. I will continue to help him. TB should be admonished about newbie, biting, and encouraged to find something else to do.(later: besides the Aryan-ness of the Minaro, that is) The current version of Aryan Valley should be moved to Aryan Valley (problems Trangabellam has with the name) The central issue here is however that it isn't up to TB to decide whether Minaro123 is competent or what ethnic group he belongs to. To the extent that he's a problem, it's being addressed. At this point it may as well be in Draft, since the article he was writing is gone. At that point the AfC process can be a failsafe, if anyone is worried about his English. I don't think he realizes how bad it is, but I do and will work with him on ways to deal with that, by editing the article myself if need be.Elinruby (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC) TB reverting my statementCould someone please explain to TB that they are involved? I'm under the impression that the policy they cited doesn't apply here. If I'm wrong about that, I will rework the statement to include the words they questioned, although it all seems off-topic to me. I would appreciate a clarification that TB is a party here. I now need to be offline for a while, will address this on my return. Elinruby (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC) HousekeepingTB presents themself as a subject matter expert, so it did not occur to me that this editor would not realize that Minaro123, participant in many a discussion about the oral history of the Minaro, is a member of the Minaro ethnic group. Apparently TB believes that the above account somehow accuses them of outing an editor who has their name and all of the IP addresses they have used on their user page. It would not have occured to me that it could be read this way. I am not interested in TB. I just want Minaro123 to be allowed to contribute an article. Hopefully this clears up any confusion. Elinruby (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC) @Kautilya3:. Yes. My question is why? Elinruby (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC) @Bishonen: Thanks. I stand by it fine. I just think it's off-topic. But by all means if somebody disagrees. @TrangaBellam: (trying again) You keep telling Minaro123 that the Minaro are Bropka Elinruby (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC) @RegentsPark: sure. That is why I called the whole ethnicity thing off-topic. Just saying, my neighbors would get upset if someone assigned them some other ethnicity. Some exasperation is understandable, especially when it was cited ethnologists that were getting dismissed, not just the elders of Dha. All of the effort that went into discussion here was completely one-sided. I don't pretend to understand what TB is trying to accomplish, but they essentially gutted the Aryan Valley article and are now piously lecturing me on my talk page about the integrity of content. I will be offline most of the day but will check this when I get back to see if there are questions Elinruby (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC) @Bookku: I strongly support the adoption of the articles. I am particularly concerned about Aryan Valley, which was transformed overnight into something other than the article that survived AfD. By the people calling his objections disruptive editing. Please let me know if I can help. @RegentsPark: I noticed you crossed out the part about Minaro123 taking a break. He has exams coming up and needs to take a break. I am encouraging him to focus on his exams. He is upset about this episode however. As for what to do about this complaint, yeah, I proposed the AfD restriction. I have said I'll help him, but a formal process won't hurt him, since we agree that there's a problem there, and nothing is stopping me from helping him on a draft. I would like to mention that when I first encountered him at the AfD, he was citing the elders of Dha, so the fact that he is citing ethnologists is vast progress in a couple of weeks, and he does learn. I have some concerns about 1RR however, since I would have thought that it would apply in any event to all parties given that the area in question abuts the Line of Control. Could you please clarify what discretionary sanctions apply to these articles? And that they apply to all editors? I'd appreciate it. Elinruby (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC) @RegentsPark: I admit that I am out of my area of expertise here, but frozen or not, that conflict is ongoing, is it not? Kargil, one of the villages in question, is *on* the line of control and is occupied by the Indian Army. Dah is 40-some miles from the front. I don't claim to fully understand this dispute, but I can understand why Minaro would object to repeatedly being told that his ethnic group believes they are Aryan. The point I don't understand is why TB is so adamant in saying it, based on that one sociologist they keep citing, to the point of promo. Clearly, strong feelings are involved, is all I am saying, and if DS is going to be applied then I personally think it should be applied to all involved. Thank you for your previous reply, btw. I am not trying to give you a hard time, but I'm just not sure that the proposed solution addresses the entire problem. I will of course abide by whatever you decide and will try to help Minaro123 to do so. I do think there is a lot of merit in Bookku's suggestion, fwiw. Elinruby (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC) Statement by BookkuUninvolved opinion.
Bookku (talk) 07:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Kautiya3I am not writing a full statement here since the user seems to be voluntarily withdawing. But to drive home the CIR issue, he was told on 20 November 2022 the need for WP:Full citations and the guidelines for WP:RS. Yet, he provided within the last 24 hours this link (a book titled "My Unskooled Year" by a certain "Sagarikka", published by "Notions Press"). The user has been editing for more than a year and is extended-confirmed. If he still appears to Elinruby as a "newbie", that itself is an indication of a CIR issue. We have also had to face edit-warring/tag-teaming from apparent members of the ethnic group, who are variously called Brokpa/Dard/Minaro/Aryan. So this doesn't stop with one supposedly "newbie" editor. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Result concerning Minaro123
|
CanterburyUK
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 CanterburyUK
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Shibbolethink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- CanterburyUK (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
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- Within the past month or so, has become a quasi-WP:SPA promoting favorable descriptions of Jordan Peterson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). In doing so, they have violated DS (1RR) and WP:TPG in numerous ways.
- Violates 1RR to re-insert preferred text with more favorable descriptions of Peterson and disfavorable of others:
[8][9][10]Edit: [ See diffs below ] See also: [11] and second 1RR vio:[12][13][14]Edit: [ See diffs below ] (also adding meta-commentary to page [15]) - bludgeons discussions by repeatedly raising arguments in new sections (user has made 15+ on talk in the past 20 days) ([16][17][18] - more diffs available upon request) despite warnings by myself and others: [19][20][21]. Forcing others to fix fragmentation [22]
- placing their comments above others or otherwise increasing prominence [23]
[24][24][25] - replying to multiple users' with the same argument ([26][27][28][29]) and demanding users respond to past arguments when users have already replied (WP:AGF and WP:SEALION).
- adds "close and summary" to thread they started, ignoring others' comments and asserting preferred outcome [30] [31]
- Repeatedly placing usernames in talk section headings in violation of WP:TPG: [32][33][34] despite warnings [35]
- Using blatantly unreliable sources: Google drive, twitter, "countersignal", "thepostmillenial" to support pro-Peterson insertions [36][37] despite warnings [38] [39]
- Justification for behavior is to make the page "most helpful to the reader" [40] and to "rebalance the bad influence the page has been" [41] AKA righting great wrongs.
- This is not the first time they've been brought to a conduct board regarding NPOV, sources, TPG, and edit warring (though it was a long time ago, 2017): [42] or warned about disruption (2018)
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
N/A
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- User received alerts about DS in these areas in the last twelve months, on 8 January 2023 and 12 January 2023.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
In summary, per the diffs above, this user has recently focused a single-minded effort on providing more favorable coverage of Jordan Peterson (righting great wrongs), violating 1RR, using very low quality sources, SYNTH, and POV text to do so. In the process of arguing for these insertions, they have strayed into WP:SEALION territory, repeatedly arguing their points and adding many multiple new sections, in essence taking over the talk page for their campaign. They have violated numerous other talk page guidelines despite warnings, and appear to have no interest in fixing these behavioral problems, raising WP:CIR and WP:IDHT concerns. Several editors have advised the user this is a contentious area, not a good place for those unfamiliar with the guidelines or policies. It appears the user is too invested in this topic to comply with WP:PAG, especially considering how complex, sensitive, and treacherous this topic area is. Perhaps worst of all, their conduct in the area has become a massive drain on others' time and effort, as calmly answering their many long and drawn out threads, reviewing their edits, etc. has taken up many hours of nearly a dozen experienced editors.
I propose the user be indefinitely topic-banned (or page-banned) from Jordan Peterson, as the most narrowly-targeted remedy which would stop this disruption. Thank you for your time and attention.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)(06:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC) edited to strike confusing diffs, replace, and lay it out in chronological order below)
Note: I apologize for the number of diffs and words. I think I have probably exceeded the 20 diff limit. I request an exception in this case given that the behavior in question from this user involves many repeated actions which require diff evidence for each. Happy to remove some of the repeat diffs and/or reduce word count as requested. Thanks — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Pinging other editors involved in the linked discussions
|
---|
@Firefangledfeathers, Trakking, Sideswipe9th, ScottishFinnishRadish, Newimpartial, Girth Summit, Tacyarg, Springee, Snow Rise, North8000, and Aquillion:— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC) |
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- @Mr Ernie
- Evidence of 1RR vios
-
- 22:32, 6 January 2023[43] CUK inserts header, cites twitter, Daily Mail, and other deprecated sources.
- 22:57, 6 January 2023 SFR reverts to stable.
- 14:55, 8 January 2023[44] CUK reinserts header and deprecated sources. (That's revert #1)
- 15:50, 8 January 2023 I revert to stable.
- 22:00, 8 January 2023 CUK again reinserts header and deprecated sources. (That's revert #2)
- Later....
- 11:53, 12 January 2023 CUK reinserts header and adds protest content with unreliable source (That's revert #1 - the header)
- 16:03, 12 January 2023[45] FFF removes header and the UNDUE protest content
- 23:07, 12 January 2023 CUK reverts FFF trimming of UNDUE (That's revert #2)
- 23:16, 12 January 2023 SS9 restores stable
- 24:19, 12 January 2023 CUK re-inserts Poilievre comments (part of the content block from 6 January 2023) (That's revert #3)
- 1RR says:
An editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period
(emphasis mine) Neither of these were "consecutive reverts" aka sequential edits, to my understanding. Unless I'm missing something? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 06:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC) - Sorry for the delay, I was waiting to see if CUK would respond! But I suppose he's had 48 hours now, and hasn't popped in. Regardless, I am not sure his response would change much about this situation. I am inclined to agree with Sideswipe, FFF, and Girth Summit, the degree of passion CUK has displayed here, and the WP:IDHT tendencies on their talk page, together lead me to believe they will likely spread these behavioral problems onto another related page. That said, I don't think we lose that much if we default to the PBAN for now, and revisit at that future junction, if it comes to pass. Worth giving them a chance I suppose. More than anything, this should serve as a warning for CUK to slow down, read the WP:PAGs, and consider carefully how they behave on talk pages and in reverts/bold edits in controversial areas. Hopefully they correct they behavior and nothing else will be necessary! Thanks for all the help and input here, I think the PBAN will at least serve to stabilize that article space for the future.Best,
Shibb — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning CanterburyUK
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 CanterburyUK
Statement by Sideswipe9th
My thoughts on CanterburyUK mirror much of what Shibbolethink has said, so I'll keep this brief for now. I think a PBAN or TBAN from the Jordan Peterson article and talk page would be the narrowest remedy that applies here. However with Canterbury's propensity for sealioning and repetitive arguments, I do worry that such a narrow sanction would just shift this problem to another article and talk page in the same content areas. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- As I said before, while a PBAN from the Peterson article and talk page is the narrowest remedy that'd apply in the circumstances, I do fear that such a narrow sanction will just shift this behavioural problem to another article and talk page, in the same or closely related content areas. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Statement by North8000
(Pinged) I did a quick read of the entire talk page and a quick scan of the edit history of the article. I did not analyze anything related to 1RR nor do an in-depth analysis. I don't see sanctionable behavior. The "favorable" coverage described looks like mostly straightforward informative info, something that persons desiring a negative article on him would want left out. The "above other editors" posting looks like proper talk page protocol where doing otherwise would have been wrong. While IMO the current level of talk page activity is IMO not problematic, my advice to CanteburyUK would be to dial it back a bit. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Mr Ernie
I’m not seeing a clear 1RR violation in the posted diffs (sequential edits are considered to be counted as one). And the bludgeon thing can be a bit subjective. Shibbole you made a couple hundred edits to a recent AN thread, and nobody really thought that was sanctionable. That said, I would support a warning related to making sure to use reliable sources. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Firefangledfeathers
I doubt advising CanterburyUK to "dial it back a bit" will work. I worked hard to help them understand 1RR after their first violation (discussion), ending with a warning "not to make it the beginning of a pattern". They broke the rule four days later.
Shibbolethink tried here to get them to dial back their talk page section creation, but they've created four more since. I'd be less (though still plenty) concerned about the bludgeoning if they didn't take silence as agreement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- North8000, did you only review the first diff when it comes to
The "above other editors" posting
? The second diff is problematic; I'd be surprised to learn you countenance that behavior. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)- @Firefangledfeathers: Thanks for pointing that out, I looked at the second one too quickly and missed that. North8000 (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Girth Summit
I think that Shibbolethink is correct that this user's contributions do essentially amount to disruptive sealioning. The issues first came to my attention when I realised that they had added some stuff to 'balance' critical comments in the article about a meat-only diet, when the source was actually comparing vegetarian diets to diets that contain some meat - in other words, it was irrelevant, and a misuse of the source to push a particular POV. A rookie error, perhaps, and not really something to worry about, but the have continued in the same vein, attempting to crowbar in Peterson-friendly material using primary sources, Tweets and so on, and their habit of adding numerous, needlessly verbose and repetitive comments have turned the talkpage into a completely impenetrable wall of text. This habit is a bad combination with their willingness noted above by Firefangledfeathers to interpret silence as consensus - the impression I get is of someone trying to wear everyone else down by relentless argumentation, in hopes that other editors will let them get on with what they want to do out of sheer exhaustion. Some time away from this article, and editing others that they are less personally invested in, might help them develop their understanding of how talk page discussions and the consensus-building process work here. Girth Summit (blether) 13:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Bishonen - I can't speak for Shibbolethink, but I predict that a TBAN will ultimately be necessary to stop this spreading elsewhere. I'm happy to wait and see, and will be happy to be proved wrong, but I can't say 'I told you so' if I didn't tell you so. Girth Summit (blether) 18:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Snow Rise
I'm a little torn here. On the one hand, the issues with the bludgeoning on the talk page (at least such as I observed in the brief window of my recent participation there) are quite pronounced, with the impact of the sheer number of rapid fire discussions opened (and the high volume of responses to other editors in those discussions) being further exacerbated by the size and wall-of-text nature of those replies, as well as a problematic unfamiliarity with standard talk page formatting and protocol. To understand what I mean, one need only do a superficial, high level visual review of the state of the TP as it presently reads. And that is before one even explores the details of what CanterburyUK actually advocates for, which to my eye, seem to suggest a fairly consistent confirmation bias when reviewing the sourcing, such as to exclude information which casts Peterson in anything less than a hagiographic light, regardless of the overall WP:WEIGHT of RS.
On the other hand, we are talking about a relatively inexperienced editor here: yes, they have been on the project since 2008, but have only logged a little under 600 edits in that time, with gaps up to years in duration. With a pattern of involvement like that, it's possible that this is a sleeper sock account running parallel to others during that time, but I've seen no suggestion of that by any other community member, and absent at least that, I AGF this is just someone who occasionally gets the bug to edit on very particular political/BLP topics with hyperfocus over bursts of time: we do afterall get some genuine serial-SPA editors in that respect. That being the case, I'm not seeing a whole lot in terms of brightline policy violation just of yet. Obviously something substantial needs to change with regard to this editor's approach, and their talk page is kind of a mixed bag of concessions to that fact when engaging with some editors who have used a softer approach, while verging on WP:IDHT with some other community members who have been more blunt. But for a certainty, over the last couple of weeks, Canterbury's volume of engagement on the Peterson talk page has reduced dramatically, following the discussions opened on their personal talk page. So there seems to be some positive progress.
Perhaps Bish's action in implementing the current pageban is the correct approach in threading the needle, removing CanterburyUK from a very narrow space (where they are being particularly activist) for the time being, while maintaining most of their editorial permissions. Again, afterall, I can't say that I don't think that was where we were headed eventually anyway. But by the same token, had I arrived here before that action was taken, I think on the balance of things I would have advocated for no formal action just yet, purely to be pro-forma with giving this editor time to adjust their approach short of sanction. SnowRise let's rap 21:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yeeps, had to shorten this after I realized I had blown past the word count: in order to expedite that process, I simply removed an entire paragraph, in addition to other cuts, no doubt leaving my comments a little disjointed: anyone interested can see my original un-amended comments here. SnowRise let's rap 22:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning CanterburyUK
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I've page-blocked CanterburyUK indefinitely from Jordan Peterson and Talk:Jordan Peterson per Shibbolethink's diffs. That seems both obvious and minimal. Leaving this open in case somebody thinks there needs to be a topic ban as well, to prevent the Jordan Peterson-related disruption from moving to other pages. What do you say, @Shibbolethink:? Bishonen | tålk 13:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC).
- Everything here relates just to the JP page, so I think Bishonen's page block is sufficient for now. If further issues develop in other related articles, we could consider a TBAN at that point, but it feels a little overbroad to me at this juncture. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Since the evidence presented here relates to just the Jordan Peterson article and its talk page I agree that action only about that page is needed. @Bishonen: I'd suggest an indefinite page ban instead of a partial block due to the limitation with partial blocking - that is, if CanterburyUK is temporarily blocked for something else it'll override and effectively remove the partial block whereas a page ban will remain in place. But that's about the method of paperwork rather than resolving the issue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, the page ban, a rare bird. Something for the paperwork feinschmecker. Of course you're right about the page block problem. On the other hand, the problem with page bans is that it's up to the user to abide by them — there's nothing technical keeping them off the page. That's awkward when there's a bit of a CIR issue. We don't want to set the user up for a series of escalating blocks just because they don't understand their ban. How about this: I try to keep an eye on CanterburyUK and their block log, to hopefully notice any shorter siteblock that destroys the partial blocks, and after such a shorter block expires, I restore the partials. Of course that would need a bit of bookkeeping, but I've done it before. Bishonen | tålk 12:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC).
- Sounds good to me. I guess you could also do both too. The page ban is the sanction and the partial block effectively enforces it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- I was thinking "both" myself. But surely that would make it even harder for the user to understand. The bureaucracy of sanctions is hard enough to grasp for experienced editors. I have talked with several who assume page blocks also imply topic bans (one today by e-mail, actually). In fact, I'd sooner keep an eye on the partials than do any more <expletive removed> explaining. Bishonen | tålk 15:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC).
Dan Palraz
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 Dan Palraz
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Tombah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Dan Palraz (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
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Dan Palraz has been exhibiting what I see to be extremely disruptive conduct and agenda-pushing on ARBPIA matters for a considerable amount of time. He is often edit warring to push his own viewpoints:
Six Day War: see
In addition to the obvious edit-warring, he occasionally refuses to leave edit summaries despite repeated requests (see here and here), and when he does, he often just mentions the minor changes rather than the major ones (see this edit for example, while claiming to only update the population, he removed a chunk of information from the article).
Moreover, Dan moves pages without any discussion, despite the fact that it is undoubtedly required in those cases:
- Rock-cut tombs in ancient Israel was moved to Rock-cut tombs in ancient Palestine
- Ring Neighborhoods, Jerusalem was moved to Ring Settlements, East Jerusalem
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
Dan had been blocked twice in the past:
- block 1 - for edit warring
- block 2 - from editing International recognition of the State of Palestine, for refusing to abide by ARBPIA after it's been explained
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Me and other editors have warned him about his disruptive behavior previously (for example: #1, #2, #3, and by an admin, Doug Weller, right here), but each time he chooses to remove warnings as if nothing had occurred rather than responding and regretting his actions, often blanking his page (two examples: here and here).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Dan Palraz
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 Dan Palraz
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Dan Palraz
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Jim Michael 2
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 Jim Michael 2
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Jim Michael 2 (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
- Discretionary sanctions, as authorized by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#May 2014 (as amended by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Jim Michael 2 has been bludgeoning a discussion on Talk:2022 with extremely repetitive comments regarding whether or not a recently deceased person, Barbara Walters, warrants mention in our 2022 article. He has continued to do so, despite repeated warning from other editors on both on his user talk page (26 January 2023) and in the discussion itself (29 January 2023, again on 29 January 2023, and 30 January 2023). For the sake of convenience, I've broken out some of the repetitive diffs by type. A number of diffs from Jim Michael 2 contain responses to multiple users, so they may be repeated in the different subsections below:
Repeating the same stuff about Christiane Amanpour over and over:
- 16 January 2023
You're greatly overstating her international influence. You portray her as having been at the top of her field, but her international notability is well below that of Christiane Amanpour.
- 16 January 2023
...but few know much about her because she's primarily a domestic figure. Amanpour is far more international, but most people don't know much about her.
- 22 January 2023
...Amanpour is significantly more internationally notable
- 26 January 2023
compare her to the more internationally notable Amanpour, or say why Walters should be included but Amanpour shouldn't.
- 29 January 2023
I need to mention Christiane Amanpour again. No-one here has tried to refute that she outdoes Walters in everything but length of career
- 29 January 2023
I mention Amanpour's notability to refute claims that Walters is - as some here claim/imply - the most notable female journalist
- 30 January 2023
Amanpour is far more international & often broadcasts in both countries
(and in a response to another editor in the same diff)Amanpour - whose career is in the UK & US - will receive a great deal of media coverage in many countries when she dies.
We don't do tokenism/quotas/discrimination:
- 22 January 2023
We don't have quotas & don't practise tokenism or positive discrimination
- 22 January 2023
If you mean 'positive' discrimination, quotas or tokenism, we won't be doing anything like that.
- 26 January 2023
There's no quotas, tokenism or positive discrimination, nor should there be.
- 26 January 2023
a few people want to radically change things by using quotas
- 29 January 2023
I agree that there shouldn't be quotas
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- N/A
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 26 January 2023 (see also the system log linked to above).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
At the time of my writing, he has responded to precisely zero of these warnings, and has continued to bludgeon the discussion at will. Long-term editors generally shouldn't need to be warned by four separate editors that they are bludgeoning the exact same discussion in order to knock it off, and I'd ask that the user be given a logged warning as a discretionary sanction as a formal reminder to not bludgeon future discussions involving recently deceased people and a deterrent against repeating this sort of behavior in the future.
On a more procedural note, it looks like Jim Michael 2 has made exactly 20 diffs in this RfC when the one at 2023-01-16 00:46 is included. I am requesting an extension in both length of my complaint and in number of diffs I can link to (if need be; I'm not sure if my linking to the warning diffs counts) so that I can better demonstrate the extent of bludgeoning present.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Jim Michael 2
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 Jim Michael 2
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Jim Michael 2
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.