Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive243: Difference between revisions
OneClickArchiver adding 1l2l3k |
OneClickArchiver adding Warkosign |
||
Line 448: | Line 448: | ||
* Cleaned up the format of the request and moved a comment by Gobulls to their section as it was misplaced in this one. No opinion otherwise. [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]], [[Special:CentralAuth/Jo-Jo Eumerus|contributions]]) 17:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC) |
* Cleaned up the format of the request and moved a comment by Gobulls to their section as it was misplaced in this one. No opinion otherwise. [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]], [[Special:CentralAuth/Jo-Jo Eumerus|contributions]]) 17:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC) |
||
*{{u|Gobulls}}, for sanctions to be possible, you must show that the editor against whom you are requesting sanctions has been made aware ''in one of the prescribed ways''. I do not see that the editor has received a discretionary sanctions alert ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:1l2l3k&action=history&tagfilter=discretionary+sanctions+alert]), so unless you can show awareness in one of those ways, not just by asserting they are, this complaint will have to be dismissed. (Of course, by having been the subject of an AE request, {{u|1l2l3k}} will be considered aware going forward, but they must have been aware at the time the claimed violation occurred.) [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 22:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC) |
*{{u|Gobulls}}, for sanctions to be possible, you must show that the editor against whom you are requesting sanctions has been made aware ''in one of the prescribed ways''. I do not see that the editor has received a discretionary sanctions alert ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:1l2l3k&action=history&tagfilter=discretionary+sanctions+alert]), so unless you can show awareness in one of those ways, not just by asserting they are, this complaint will have to be dismissed. (Of course, by having been the subject of an AE request, {{u|1l2l3k}} will be considered aware going forward, but they must have been aware at the time the claimed violation occurred.) [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 22:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC) |
||
{{hab}} |
|||
{{Clear}} |
|||
==Warkosign== |
|||
{{hat|1=Not actionable (deficient request). <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 13:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)}} |
|||
<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 Warkosign=== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Gobulls}} 01:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WarKosign<p>{{ds/log|Warkosign}} |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#WP:A/I/PIA]] : |
|||
[[WP:A/I/PIA]] |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Muslims_for_Palestine&diff=868377354&oldid=868363773 November 11, 2018] violating revert (in my opinion, from my understanding of the situation) |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Muslims_for_Palestine&type=revision&diff=868354951&oldid=868197504 November 11, 2018] original revert |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Muslims_for_Palestine&type=revision&diff=868173363&oldid=868035631 November 10, 2018] original author |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
|||
Unknown |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]): |
|||
He was aware of the rule, as is evident here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=prev&oldid=867566165 |
|||
*Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above. |
|||
*Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. |
|||
*Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on [http://Difflink1 Date] by {{admin|Username}}. |
|||
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. |
|||
*Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [http://Difflink1 Date] |
|||
*Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [http://Difflink1 Date]. |
|||
*Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [http://Difflink1 Date]. |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
I informed him on his talk page. |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
===Discussion concerning Warkosign=== |
|||
<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 WarKosign==== |
|||
{{u|Gobulls}} did not specify what my supposed violation is, so I can't respond to that. |
|||
This is the second time in less than a week the user fills a garbled enforcement request against an editor that happens to disagree with them. As with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#1l2l3k 1l2l3k above] there doesn't seem to be any real violation. The user misinformed you that they notified me about this request: the user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WarKosign&diff=next&oldid=864579060 wrote] on my talk page that they might report me, but not that they actually did. I was surprised to find my name here after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WarKosign&diff=868450255&oldid=868409386 responding] to the message on my talk page. |
|||
Please [[WP:BOOMERANG|review]] Gobulls's behavior. To me it seems that such an inexperienced editor is not supposed to be editing in the area at all due to 500/30: they have 610 edits, 87 of them on I/P articles and many of these made before they had 500 edits. They have battleground mentality, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palestine&diff=867577134&oldid=867576548 accusing] users who happen to disagree with them of vandalism and sock puppetry, reporting first 1l2l3k and then me for bogus violations. The user repeatedly inserted ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Muslims_for_Palestine&diff=867416416&oldid=867287885] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Muslims_for_Palestine&diff=868188762&oldid=868173363] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Muslims_for_Palestine&diff=868354951&oldid=868197504]) the same content despite several editors explaining on the talk page that it violates NPOV. [[User_talk:WarKosign|“]][[User:WarKosign|WarKosign]][[Special:Contributions/WarKosign|”]] 10:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Jonney2000==== |
|||
Someone should warn {{user|Gobulls}} about making inaccurate complaints.[[User:Jonney2000|Jonney2000]] ([[User talk:Jonney2000|talk]]) 08:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Icewhiz==== |
|||
Diff #2 in Gobulls's report is misleading, as Gobulls's "original revert" was on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Muslims_for_Palestine&diff=868188762&oldid=868173363 15:57, 10 November 2018]. Gobulls reverted the content a second time on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Muslims_for_Palestine&type=revision&diff=868354951&oldid=868197504 17:32, 11 November 2018] - which is misleadingly labelled as the "original revert".[[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz]] ([[User talk:Icewhiz|talk]]) 13:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC) |
|||
===Result concerning Warkosign=== |
|||
:''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. --> |
|||
* I am closing this as not actionable because the request is too confused for me to make out which specific remedy has allegedly been violated, and why. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 13:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
{{hab}} |
Revision as of 02:43, 17 November 2018
Soibangla
No action. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:46, 15 October 2018 (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 Soibangla
Discussion concerning SoibanglaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SoibanglaI am beginning my statement now, but it is not yet complete, I will provide notice when it is Accusation: "Adds an excessive amount of non-neutral material to the lead of Donald Trump" It was one paragraph, three sentences, supported by three reliable sources. If there had been a consensus reached that the lede had been somehow "locked down," I was not aware of it. The added paragraph was certainly relevant to Trump's BLP, whereas the two subsequent paragraphs, which had evidently reached consensus before this apparent "lock down," are more suitable for the Trump presidency article, not his BLP. Accusation: "Poor referencing style (linking to a Tweet about a WSJ story)" The WSJ uses a paywall for most stories, so linking directly to WSJ will not allow users to check the ref. However, WSJ chooses to bypass their paywall when they tweet an article, so I linked to those WSJ tweets so users can access the whole thing. This is just the way WSJ chooses to make their content available, I am doing nothing devious. Accusation: "Adding suspicious denials to the lead section of George Soros while an RFC on the inclusion of that material was ongoing" There was nothing suspicious about it, nor was it a denial. Another user had unilaterally declared that consensus had been reached, made an edit reflecting that perceived consensus, and then I made a subsequent edit that complied with that perceived consensus. Accusation: "edits at QAnon, Hillary Clinton email controversy, and Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination are all vaguely concerning, though I have no specific diffs to call out" "vaguely concerning" but "I have no specific diffs to call out"? What does that mean, exactly? I have contributed an enormous amount of high-quality edits to WP and I find the call for me to be topic banned from American Politics to be outrageously egregious. I will have more to say, pressed for time right now. soibangla (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by BullRangiferThis is an absurd filing. Lesser methods of DR should be used, and differences of opinion and complaints about a sourcing style don't belong here. Soibangla does much excellent work. I think you should reserve drastic measures like this for genuinely tendentious editors. Occasional mistakes are par for the course for any editor, even the best. We deal with them on the talk pages. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by MelanieNI am WP:INVOLVED in this situation. I was the one who removed Soibangla's full-paragraph addition to the lede in the Donald Trump article, and when I took it to the talk page, I said I thought that adding it without discussing it first was "highly inappropriate". In no way did I mean that to indicate any sort of violation of the DS. Soibangla made a bold edit, it was challenged, they have not restored it - where is the violation? I am hopeful that Power~enwiki will withdraw this referral, as is being suggested at the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by DaveThis board should be a last resort not the first!, DR or ANI is thataway →. –Davey2010Talk 01:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Soibangla
|
Enforcing administrator discussion – Debresser
Debresser formally warned. AGK ■ 17:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Opening statement by AGKI am raising this topic separately to request views from colleagues about the use of enforcement processes by Debresser.
I am concerned in general at an increasing use of AE for reprisal – and, in this case, at a scattergun or careless approach to enforcement requests. AGK ■ 21:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by Debresser
Question@Kurtis Is this sequence of edits the kind of report that would be too broadly interpreting WP:ARBPIA3? Or is that reserved for "sustained aggressive point-of-view editing and edit-warring" only? Debresser (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC) @Roland What is disruptive about this section? It needs to be clear if Kurtis proposes reporting a straightforward WP:ARBPIA3 violation is acceptable, and wants a restriction only regarding reporting "sustained aggressive point-of-view editing and edit-warring" (since that is obviously more prone to interpretation)? That is apart from the question if other admins will endorse his proposal. Debresser (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC) @Roland And let's be honest, if this is indeed, as I think, a straightforward violation, then it will be very interesting to see if admins will have the moral integrity to act on it. Based on my experience with some of the admins here, I have my doubts. Debresser (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC) @Nableezy In reply to this edit: October 22 18:50 - October 22 09:16 = 09:34 < 24h. QED. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC) @Nableezy In reply to these edits: You are right. Debresser (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by Kurtis
Statement by Huldra
Statement by Sir JosephThis page is not the right place for this discussion. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by SerialjoepsychoThese sanctions are set up as a destructive way to end disruption that has not been reasonably taken care of by other means. When sanctions are placed the situation is generally, "enough is enough". If this is becoming a game that is in itself highly disruptive. Everyone here is a volunteer, from editor to admin but we don't have a shortage of editors. The opinion however has been bumped around a time or two that we have a shortage of admins. Admins time aside we also don't want to run off good editors. If -insert any editors name- is coming here for retaliation or any nonsense then the appropriate action should be taken, what ever that may be. A warning, the stated purpose of this noticeboard, or some punitive action. Case by case due to the facts of the situation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by RolandRSurely Debresser's latest comments above[1][2][3] are Statement by Icewhiz@RolandR: - Debresser isn't under any topic ban, you should strike your assertion. Icewhiz (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by NableezyUhh, Debresser, you claim the revert you made was undoing a "straightforward WP:ARBPIA3 violation". That kind of demonstrates the point that you have no idea what an ARBPIA3 violation is, the edit you reverted was emphatically not a revert. You just did a blanket revert without even a semblance of an explanation, and have as of yet declined to even pretend to justify it anywhere. You seem incapable of actually identifying what a revert is, in addition to the problem of understanding exactly how long 24 hours is. nableezy - 17:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Discussion among uninvolved admins
On a number of occasions, Debresser has improperly presented requests for arbitration enforcement. Taken as a pattern, Debresser's actions are an abuse of process that is serving to inflame tensions in topic areas that already are heated. Furthermore, whilst Wikipedia process pages are internal, conduct such as abuse of process itself, indirectly, affects the external topic area that is subject to arbitration enforcement. Conduct such as Debresser's is therefore equivalent in seriousness to tendentious or disruptive editing of content pages. I therefore formally warn Debresser that continuing such conduct will result in enforcement action, such as restrictions from requesting enforcement, blocks, and topic bans. This action will be logged as an enforcement action for future reference. AGK ■ 17:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC) |
13zmz13
Blocked for a week. Sandstein 11:21, 22 October 2018 (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 13zmz13
I (and another editor) have tried to make 13zmz13 understand that they shouldn't edit the IP articles (see here), alas they seem to think that rules are only for lesser mortals than themselves. Huldra (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning 13zmz13Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 13zmz13I have yet to receive even one iota of evidence that suggests Shurat HaDin is "related to the Arab-Israeli conflict"... 13zmz13 (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by Shrike
Statement by RolandR
Statement by Zero0000This article is about an Israeli organization that fights "Israel's enemies" (mostly Arabs and Iranians) by means of law suits. Of the law suits prominent enough for their own article sections, approximately 75% directly concern the Arab-Israeli conflict. So the claim by 13zmz13 that it doesn't know the article is "related to the Arab-Israeli conflict" is absolutely unbelievable. Even the specific section edited by 13zmz13 (most recently with an additional revert after this case was filed, also violating 1RR) concerns a law suit against "Palestinian solidarity activists". Please give this contempt for the truth the reception it deserves. Zerotalk 10:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning 13zmz13
|
ScienceApe
Science Ape is indefinitely topic banned from Elizabeth Warren for bludgeoning and unpleasantness on article talk and edit warring at the article. The user may appeal the ban no more frequently than every six months. (by User:Bishonen) |
---|
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 ScienceApe
These personal attacks by itself show this editor needs a break from Elizabeth Warren (or a block) at the very least, but he has also engaged in edit warring (4 [6][7][8][9] reverts in 30 hours), where he cried "synthesis" despite being explained how the source supports the sentence, and his conduct at the section shows self-evidently poor behaviour and ignoring what the sources are saying or people's responses. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning ScienceApeStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ScienceApeStatement by (username)Result concerning ScienceApe
|
Onceinawhile
Onceinawhile topic banned, 3 months. AGK ■ 21:58, 2 November 2018 (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 Onceinawhile
@Power~enwiki: Because only they broken the provision its his revert that violated our polices and started the edit war.Had he waited 24H and discuss this wouldn't happened --Shrike (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
[12] --Shrike (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC) Discussion concerning OnceinawhileStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by OnceinawhileI was not aware of the change in the rules. The banner was changed in a subtle but important way in May this year, ostensibly to clarify that the 24-hour rule for new edits applies from the point of the revert, not from the point of the original edit. I now see the change at ARBPIA took place even earlier than this, but it was not put on the banner until May this year. No-one ever notified me of these changes to ARBPIA, and I don't have the banner on my watchlist. I am not sure how I am supposed to keep up with these changes, but I apologize for not doing so. If I had been informed of the rule, I would have immediately self-reverted. I would like to make a show of good faith now, but I am not sure how I can. The only evidence I can offer is that that revert was my last edit to the page, and I did not participate in the ensuing edit war. I made 20 edits to the talk page instead. As to powerenwiki's comments, the nominator's subsequent participation in what had by then become a classic edit war puzzled me, because he and I had reasonably constructive set of discussions during the prior week on the article talk page, with no suggestion that he objected to the 5,622 bytes of information now in question, and also because he made no subsequent talk page contribution to justify his change of heart. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by power~enwikiI see at least 6 different editors edit-warring over this change. Why is this the only editor that should be subject to Discretionary Sanctions? power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Onceinawhile
|
Malik Shabazz
No action taken. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:40, 9 November 2018 (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 Malik Shabazz
The diffs below are possibly stale and less clear cut, but are presented to show a possible pattern of edits around the conflict during the TBAN:
This complaint is about the 7 November edits - the October diffs are possibly stale and are are not as clear cut, however they were added to show a possible pattern.
Discussion concerning Malik ShabazzStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Malik ShabazzDespite Icewhiz's assertions, every mention of the state of Israel is not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If Sandstein had intended to ban me from anything related to Israel, I think he would have said so. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by NableezyI very much disagree with the notion that removing an ARBPIA template from a page where it does not belong and was added without discussion by an involved editor in the topic area is covered here. If an uninvolved admin decides that a biblical concept is part of a conflict that began in the last hundred years or so then they can do it, but that is not what happened here. The second diff is wholly unrelated, neo-Nazis in the United States not exactly being a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. nableezy - 16:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Statement by WarKosignWhile Sandstein is correct in noting that "it is conceivable that there is non-Arab antisemitic anti-Zionism", the edit in question was removing reference to this article, which discusses anti-Semitism in regard to I-P conflict. Moreover, the user was banned from editing "anything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict", and while anti-Semitism can be practiced by anyone, it is very much related to the conflict. “WarKosign” 12:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Malik Shabazz
|
1l2l3k
There is no indication that 1l2l3k was made aware of discretionary sanctions prior to the violations. By being the subject of an AE request, 1l2l3k is, going forward, considered aware and advised to comply with any discretionary sanctions in place. If anyone believes that sanctions against the filer are warranted, this should be the subject of a separate request. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:28, 9 November 2018 (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 1l2l3k
User:1l2l3k
Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit.
The user is well-aware. The page is in the middle of an edit war and one user has been suspended for it already.
I don't understand how to request it. This is my first time, and I would like some assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobulls (talk • contribs) (I've moved this post here from the admin section where it was misplaced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC))
I have notified him on his talk page. Discussion concerning 1l2l3kStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 1l2l3kMy two reverts were done at a distance of 4 days, not 24 hours. The first one was on 2 November and the second one on 6 November. Still, I self reverted, after seeing this report, for the sake of the peace among wikipedians who are discussing in the talk page, in order to promote a better working environment, and also since the reporting party is so upset about my revert. Further, when a discussion is ongoing, the reporting party should refrain from making edits, that's why I did my second revert (4 days after the first one). Also, I don't see any diffs above in his report to be able to say anything else. I'll get back to this report when the diffs are clearer as to what exactly I did wrong. --1l2l3k (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by IcewhizNot a violation - 1l2l3k didn't originally author anything - he reverted on 2 November, and again on 6 November - and regardless self reverted. In addition, one should note that filer has engaged in personal attacks and casting aspersions - on the Wikiproject Palestine page - 16:38, 6 November 2018, had edited in violation of the general prohibition on 18:03, 23 October 2018 (becoming extended confirmed due to subsequent editing on unrelated topics), and has also played loose with 1RR - performing reverts 24 hours + 13 minutes apart - 15:59, 5 November 2018, 16:12, 6 November 2018. Icewhiz (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by Shrike
Result concerning 1l2l3k
|
Warkosign
Not actionable (deficient request). Sandstein 13:44, 12 November 2018 (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 Warkosign
Unknown
He was aware of the rule, as is evident here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=prev&oldid=867566165
I informed him on his talk page.
Discussion concerning WarkosignStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by WarKosignGobulls did not specify what my supposed violation is, so I can't respond to that. This is the second time in less than a week the user fills a garbled enforcement request against an editor that happens to disagree with them. As with 1l2l3k above there doesn't seem to be any real violation. The user misinformed you that they notified me about this request: the user wrote on my talk page that they might report me, but not that they actually did. I was surprised to find my name here after responding to the message on my talk page. Please review Gobulls's behavior. To me it seems that such an inexperienced editor is not supposed to be editing in the area at all due to 500/30: they have 610 edits, 87 of them on I/P articles and many of these made before they had 500 edits. They have battleground mentality, accusing users who happen to disagree with them of vandalism and sock puppetry, reporting first 1l2l3k and then me for bogus violations. The user repeatedly inserted ([19] [20] [21]) the same content despite several editors explaining on the talk page that it violates NPOV. “WarKosign” 10:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by Jonney2000Someone should warn Gobulls (talk · contribs) about making inaccurate complaints.Jonney2000 (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Statement by IcewhizDiff #2 in Gobulls's report is misleading, as Gobulls's "original revert" was on 15:57, 10 November 2018. Gobulls reverted the content a second time on 17:32, 11 November 2018 - which is misleadingly labelled as the "original revert".Icewhiz (talk) 13:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC) Result concerning Warkosign
|