Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
→Ihardlythinkso: move |
GoldenRing (talk | contribs) →Ihardlythinkso: closed; sanctioned |
||
Line 184: | Line 184: | ||
==Ihardlythinkso== |
==Ihardlythinkso== |
||
{{hat|[[User:Ihardlythinkso]] is indefinitely topic-banned from post-1932 American Politics, broadly construed. This sanction may be brought here for reconsideration after six months. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 01:03, 10 May 2017 (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> |
<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> |
||
Line 246: | Line 247: | ||
*Topic ban should be granted. GoldenRing, it is true that AP turns the heat up a little bit, but this is out of all proportion. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 00:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC) |
*Topic ban should be granted. GoldenRing, it is true that AP turns the heat up a little bit, but this is out of all proportion. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 00:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC) |
||
:*I wasn't trying to make excuses for him. And now we've got that statement.... wow. {{re|Ihardlythinkso}} Even if everything you say is true, your bias or point-of-view is not the problem here; the problem is the very combative an uncollegial way in which you approach this topic area. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 00:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC) |
:*I wasn't trying to make excuses for him. And now we've got that statement.... wow. {{re|Ihardlythinkso}} Even if everything you say is true, your bias or point-of-view is not the problem here; the problem is the very combative an uncollegial way in which you approach this topic area. [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 00:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC) |
||
{{hab}} |
Revision as of 01:03, 10 May 2017
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}}.
|
Proximity1
Proximity1 is topic banned for six months from Shakespeare Authorship Question and related pages, broadly construed. Bishonen | talk 19:48, 3 May 2017 (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 Proximity1
Open and shut, really. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Proximity1Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Proximity1RE: these allegations What you have here is a member attempting to shut down ordinary WP policy and procedure by appeal to this panel in bringing before it completely false claims in each of the items below:
[110] Asking for us to create artificial balance and give undue prominence to the authorship conspiracy theories I deny the accuracy of this claim. "Undue prominence" to alternatives to Shakespeare's authorship cannot be fairly alleged in a page devoted to "The Shakespeare Authorship Question" itself as titled-topic. If anything, "undue prominence" amounting to hostile and outright bias in support of the partisan view favoring Shakespeare is the case at this page.
[111] Pretty much claiming that because Argumentum ad populum is a thing, the "Stratfordian" view must be wrong I deny the accuracy of this claim. I claim, assert no such thing. [112] Mucking up an essay to promote the idea that believers of fringe positions should be the ones to write about fringe ideas. "Mucking up"? I answer: The WP policies require that, in the first instance, a member finding bias and lack of required neutrality first raise the issue in the relevant Talk-page of the article concerned. I deny the accuracy of this claim. Indeed, this is a patently hostile mischaracterization of my view-- which is that, indeed, in a partisan controverrsy, no partisan adherant should be allowed to stand in for, to represent for his or her adversaries, their points of view --whether those points of view be of the minority or of the majority. Every camp, every arguant's position should be reserved for explanation, presentation and clarification by partisans, and only by partisans, of each point of view concerned. I further propose to the Arbitration panel that it examine for good-faith grounds of the complaints being urged by the member bringing the complaint and review them for their possible hostile and suppressive intent and, if the panel finds thes complaints ill or un-founded, that it sanction the member having brought this complaint. Proximity1 (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by MjolnirPantsI just want to point out that disruption is disruption; whether it occurs at talk or in an article. If this user is being disruptive, then there's no reason why DS shouldn't apply, unless there's a disclaimer somewhere specifying that it only applies to article-space edits. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by XoverCurrent Arbs and mop wielders that were not directly involved with the case may wish to refresh their memory of WP:ARBSAQ. WP:BATTLEGROUND, polite POV pushing (the non-polite version is much easier to deal with), and WP:NOTHERE (righting great wrongs, fighting the "conspiracy of the mainstream Shakespeare establishment", etc.) were central themes of the case. I also encourage you try to trawl through Talk:Shakespeare authorship question archives; at the point you give up you'll realise what the problem was (its manifestation was on Talk pages more than in articles). This current AE request is slightly premature IMO (insufficient length of WP:ROPE), but it bears all the hallmarks of previous rounds. @Sandstein: I absolutely guarantee that DS is what's preventing ARBSAQ2 from being needed in relatively short order. It's not an issue that will fade away on its own. Case in point: the current AE (premature though it is, it would have ended up here pretty soon anyway). --Xover (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by RolandRNo-one seems to have responded to Proximity's argument that "in a partisan controverrsy, no partisan adherant should be allowed to stand in for, to represent for his or her adversaries, their points of view --whether those points of view be of the minority or of the majority. Every camp, every arguant's position should be reserved for explanation, presentation and clarification by partisans, and only by partisans, of each point of view concerned." This is so clearly against Wikipedia's norms and guidelines that it cannot be ignored. Wikipedia is based on a neutral point of view. This does not mean that editors may not hold particular points of view, but does mean that we must edit neutrally. We should not ignore and dismiss the point of view of those we disagree with, and nor may we present our own point of view as unquestioned fact. Wikipedia is not a debating chamber, and articles should not be a place where rival points of view are presented and voted on. If Proximity cannot accept this basic rule, then they have no business editing anywhere on Wikipedia, and least of all in such a highly contentious article. RolandR (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by JohnuniqEdits by Proximity1 to Shakespeare authorship question, each reverted:
The talk page section showing that consensus is against the external link was on 24 April 2017. The discussion leading to a major cleanup of external links was in February 2011. The above shows that a minimum of a final warning is required regarding edit waring and advocacy from WP:ARBSAQ single purpose accounts (Proximity1 has 76 edits since 16 March 2017, each of which focus on a particular SAQ theory, and 12 edits prior to that). Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Proximity1
|
81.104.12.193
Both pages indef semi-protected. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2017 (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 81.104.12.193
All edits revolve around the removal of the Irish name for the Northern Irish settlements of Lisburn and Hillsborough. These names are included per agreement at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles#Other_names with the names themselves verified to the official body for this topic at [8] and supplementary at [9]. These removals qualify as Troubles related as the Irish language is a strong bone of contention between loyalists and republicans, something recently in the press quite a lot.
The following three other IP's appear to be the same user but possibly from a different machine they don't have regular access too: Special:Contributions/86.153.244.5, Special:Contributions/82.7.125.216 and Special:Contributions/82.132.225.167, which combine for another 6 removals of the Irish name from the two articles. Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, 14 Mar 2017 by @Nfitz:.
@Daithidebarra: did their utmost to get the IP to engage in discussion as evident from their requests on the IP's talk page and the discussion initiated at Talk:Hillsborough,_County_Down#Irish_Language_name_for_area_known_in_English_as_.22Hillsborough.22_and_Request_for_Discussion, where the IP was explained in detail why their removal was wrong and why the Irish form of the places are included. Semi page protection would be pointless unless it was for a prolonged period of time as the editor is willing wait weeks or months before returning to redo their removal of the information. The same for an initial block as the editor may not return for a while in which time the block will have elapsed before it could even attempt to encourage them to rethink their behaviour. Also considering the IP has been editing since their appearance with a POV slant, and that over the past few months their edits only appear to be do with the unreasonable removal of the Irish names for Lisburn and Hillsborough and they are completely unwilling to partake in discussion over it I would say they are not contributing to Wikipedia in a meaningful way and a long-term block of the IP(s) should be considered.
User_talk:81.104.12.193#Arbitration_Committee_referral
Discussion concerning 81.104.12.193Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 81.104.12.193Statement by Mabuska@Black Kite:, what is PC1? I'm happy with whatever works best to stop the disruptive edits. Mabuska (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning 81.104.12.193
|
Ihardlythinkso
User:Ihardlythinkso is indefinitely topic-banned from post-1932 American Politics, broadly construed. This sanction may be brought here for reconsideration after six months. GoldenRing (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2017 (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 Ihardlythinkso
"Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited."
The diffs speak for themselves. This editor has once again ramped up the personal attacks and general battleground behaviour. The latest attacks directed at me include a ridiculous accusation of stalking after I reverted his reversion of what I considered a good edit. Of course, before accusing me of stalking, he reverted again.- MrX 21:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning IhardlythinksoStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by IhardlythinksoWhat do you want a response on? The Donald Trump page is left open to disparaging remarks about the bio subject's character; that page needs to be patrolled better by admins. It's hypocrisy or bias to stomp down on "equal time" remarks about his rival. (And nothing I posted was any worse than available RSs about the character of that person, proof is Jeanine Pirro's opening statement here.) The WP is already liberally biased and I'm seldom on the Donald Trump article Talk especially because of it. Notice editors like Anythingyouwant are ostracized there and nitpicked unendingly until chased away. MrX is part of that effort. He takes a front seat to bias that article, including elimination of me through lecture, reversion, stalking, and insult. (The hypocrisy of recently informing me that as editor I'm "insignificant" and "Good day!" followed by opening this case.) There is no doubt in my mind WP is overrun w/ liberal bias, even the Remembrance Project is laced with coloring the founder with ties and motivations connected somehow to Hitler. As far as battlegrounding with any of this bias, that is absurd, there is too much of it and it has gone on for too long and is too pervasive. No one rational would spend their time in attempt to NPOV it back to respectability for an encyclopedia. And I have no interest at that article except to peek once in awhile, and if I make a post about something it is becauase the absurdity & bias is so rampant, a comment saying the King has No Clothes was called for. So pick on me, go ahead. I do not really give a damn. It isn't about me, it is about the blatant bias that is and has been already there. Be proud. I am not. And would never recommend any friends of family to read WP political articles. I've already seen enough and discussed enough w/ people offline about this to know everything I've said is true. So I don't give a damn about your power to ban me from that article or even political articles. The editor with agenda are those that bias it. Look at my edit history to see if I have improved political articles and if so how. I do not add bias but I might revert it. At the Pruitt lede I reverted a new claim that Pruitt "intends to dismantle the EPA", even though it was not a summary of anything near that in the article, and the refs posted to support the contention lead with an opinion piece. The statement is equivalent to putting mind-reading in Wikipedia's voice, supported by op-ed. Blatant bias. When I specified that I reverted on those bases, MrX reverted me with only "it was a good edit". Wow. Do not blame me for the absurd bias of articles and the majority of liberal NPOV warriors out to denegrate Trump and anything associated with him. I know the hatred is there in MSM, and Wikipedia is a sort of MSM, also dominated by liberal POV. Now one of those warriors is out for blood. And I don't give a care if you give it too him, because as mentioned the status of things is already too-far gone, and I've never ever been a part of any generealized effort to reverse it, I have more realistic things to do w/ my time. But obviously this is very important to MrX and others who support the liberal bias, they outnumber any of the opposers like Anythingyouwant. (Who along with me was accused of "disruption" and "this must be stopped" simply from taking the position in discussion that if it is mentioned Trump did not win a majority of the popular vote, that his implied or stated main opponent didn't either. Somehow, the logic of that is impossible to see, or takes excruciating effort to see, as per comments at that Talk. Give me a break.) BTW, what was it I was supposed to respond to specifically? Another thing, the previous ban of me on the Donald Trump article was bogus and unfair (par for the course, good job Bish, I went to your Talk to complain about something else besides the ban you supported, and another user follows me to your Talk to harass me, a user whose biggest objection is that I added a blockquote to a quote greater than 40 words per MoS, and that I changed a piped link from an article specifically about history of women's rights in U.S., to an article about feminism in the U.S., which was more what the relevant article topic was about, and somehow I get blocked at her Talk when objecting to the user harassing me there). The article stated that Trump in the Hollywood tape referred to his assults against women, synonymous to admission of having committed crimes against them, when he never made any such admission, so why is WP stating so if MSM biased RSs exist that like/want to say so? (The answer is, because the editors dominating the article are just as biased and smear-enthusiastic as the MSM.) I did the right thing to protect a living BLP subject from such trashy statements, and what did I get? Banned. Good one. (And now use that ban as further evidence that I need another ban? Oh good one. That's so impressive! Not.) --IHTS (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Ihardlythinkso
|