Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
→Solavirum: And closing — last chance saloon |
m →Solavirum: amend for added clarity |
||
Line 338: | Line 338: | ||
==Solavirum== |
==Solavirum== |
||
{{hat|Last chance saloon for Solavirum against violating the topic ban yet again, in light of them |
{{hat|Last chance saloon for Solavirum against violating the topic ban yet again, in light of them proposing to avoid a much wider set of topics. As I note below, the next violation is almost certain to lead to sanctions of considerable severity. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 14:43, 27 August 2021 (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> |
||
Revision as of 14:59, 27 August 2021
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}}.
|
Hugo.arg and Kazimier Lachnovič
There seem to be little interest in reviewing this complaint, which seems to have migrated to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kazimier Lachnovič, anyway — and boy, is its OP long (kinda per usual, Pofka, which again, I think hurts your case more than helps it). Anyway, this appears to be a broader dispute among Belorussian and Lithuanians (or something). I've ARBEE-protected several pages pertaining to it since this report was filed (two at ECP level). Anyway anyway, not sure having this AE report remain open as a sort of placeholder is that useful of a thing to do right now. I'd give it a couple more weeks if I thought anything would come of it, but that seems doubtful. Dispute participants: please don't come to my talk page again with WP:TLDRs. I don't read these, anyway, and I've also reached my quota of suppressed revisions for the year. El_C 10:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Hugo.arg and Kazimier Lachnovič
User Kazimier Lachnovič is already well known for his national hatred against Lithuania and Lithuanians, so it is not surprising that he continues to perform disruptive edits in the Lithuanian topics. Here are his edits in which he called the Lithuanians as rubbish in a discussion concerning with Pahonia (1, 2, 3). He also recently performed an intensive edit warring before the Wikipedia:Consensus was reached (see edit history of article Pahonia from 3 April 2021). Also, Kazimier Lachnovič previously was warned that he is a full-time edit warrior already in 2010, and was even blocked for edit warring in Lithuanian topics (blocking message by an administrator ; report). Moreover, Kazimier Lachnovič was also blocked multiple times in the Lithuanian Wikipedia for his disruptive behavior (Kazimier's blocking history). Same with user Hugo.arg (see his blocking history).
I request to permanently lock article Pahonia in order to ensure the Wikipedia:Consensus reached by the Wikipedia community as nobody should be able to continue edit warring in the future in this disruptive article. WP:LISTEN.
Discussion concerning Hugo.arg and Kazimier LachnovičStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by CukrakalnisOne of the two nominated users, Kazimier Lachnovič, is a notoriously problematic user, whose behaviour has not changed an inkling following the DS applied to him. Instead of learning from them, he continues pushing his POV and personally insults those disagreeing. Instances of this are this, this and this, among many others. Looking at the evidence, it is clear that Kazimier Lachnovič should be issued a global block. --Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by FirefangledfeathersI am deeply uninvolved with this dispute and just have some housekeeping comments. I believe that the "Sanction or remedy to be enforced" should be Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Standard_discretionary_sanctions. If that is the case at hand, then Kazimier Lachnovič is formally "aware", having been alerted in this April edit. I do not believe Hugo.arg is aware, because:
I hope this has been helpful. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by Kazimier LachnovičFirst of all, as Belarusian I obviously have more important things to do now that to fight obvious absurd here. The deletion of the article about the national emblem of Belarusians is obvious vandalism and a clear manifestation of supporting the terroristic pro-Russian Lukashenko's regime by the English Wikipedia. So, many Belarusians are arrested and tortured by the regime for using Pahonia, that according to the English Wikipedia is just the emblem of the foreign state (Lietuva). Calling these people "traitors" is exactly what the regime does in its propaganda. So, thanks a lot for helping the Lukashenko's propaganda! Be sure, Belarusians will never forget such "help". --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC) jc37Besides merely closing the RfC, to my knowledge, I have no interaction with any of this. As of coming my online just now, it doesn't appear that Kazimier Lachnovič has continued reverting. If they had, I would have issued an immediate preventative block. As I don't regularly handle Arbitration enforcement requests, I am fine with leaving that with whomever addresses this here. For whatever it may be worth, please consider me notified and having given my "explicit prior affirmative consent", per the top of this page. (Though of course if I see continued WP:DE, I may sanction (block/protect/etc) as any uninvolved admin might, to help prevent disruption, etc.) - jc37 04:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Please also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kazimier Lachnovič - case opened by User:Pofka - jc37 17:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by YmblanterI will only be making a statement concerning the behavior of Kazimier Lachnovič, since Hugo.arg apparently have not been notified of discretionary sanctions, and also did not demonstrate long-term disruptive behavior. Concerning Kazimier Lachnovič, most of their recent contribution on the English Wikipedia is changing names of the files they have renamed on Commons, work a bot usually does, and outside of this activity they do not have so many contributions, therefore I will sometimes provide diffs from Commons, where their behavior is equally problematic. First, their statement, just above mine, clearly demonstrated battleground mentality. They participated in the edit-warring, leaving this edit summary (Vandalism based on illegal RfC closure, clear national discrimination of Belarusians), whereas the RfC was closed by a perfectly neutral administrator, and reverts were legitimate; this was their message at the talk page of the administrator. Indeed, in my observations, Kazimier Lachnovič only knows two methods of dispute resolutions: reverting forever (see this as an additional example to what is being discussed in this AE request) and insulting their opponents. Note them calling me Nazi in this Commons thread. When challenged against these insults, they first double down (like with this Nazi accusation), and then typically say that they only would be discussing anything with "reasonable users" (thus implying their opponents are unreasonable) and disappear, You can find the examples in the threads presenting by Cukrakalnis above. In the same threads, there is evidence of off-wiki coordination they participated in (which resulted in coordinated reverts on en.wiki). I have no opinion whether Pahonia must be an article or a redirect, but I know that this attitude is not compatible with the technical ability to edit the English Wikipedia, which, in my opinion, should be revoked.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Pofka (Kazimier Lachnovič sock puppetry investigation case)As already mentioned by jc37, following this report, Kazimier Lachnovič used sock puppetry to perform disruptive edits in the Lithuanian articles: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kazimier Lachnovič. -- Pofka (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Hugo.arg and Kazimier Lachnovič
|
Olden Creed
Olden Creed blocked one week for topic ban violation. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Olden Creed
Pretty clear-cut violation of a DS topic ban. Olden Creed did not acknowledge the ANI thread or topic ban and apparently has no intention of stopping their behavior in this topic area that led to the sanctions in the first place. DanCherek (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Olden CreedStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Olden CreedStatement by Vanamonde93This is a pretty blatant violation, but I'm also wondering if there's a serious communication issue here; I see they have made exactly 2 talk page edits, and 0 user talk edits, thus far. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Olden Creed
|
Vanlister
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 Vanlister
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Vanlister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:A/I/PIA
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 18:00, 19 August 2021 Rm the fact that Israel Defense Forces was behind the group Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners from the lead
- 22:23, 19 August 2021 The same
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 6 April 2021 blocked for his editing of Kenneth Roth#Israel.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I asked them to undo their last edit here, or they would be reported. Alas, they seem not to want to undo it, Huldra (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Besides the fact that you clearly broke the 1RR, you also misrepresent the underlying issue; there is no controversy over that fact that it was people inside the Israeli military who set up and ran the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners. Even now, you write "According to Ronen Bergman" in order to weaken the undisputed fact. It is not only "according to Ronen Bergman"; it is according to everyone else, too. You ought too be topicbanned for misrepresenting sources. Huldra (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Vanlister claims that what Bergman writes about the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners is "controversial".
- It isn't. At least I haven't seen anyone stating that it is (apart from some anon Wikipedia-editors.) When you claim that Bergmans' writing here is "controversial", then you should at least manage to point to one WP:RS that says so? But you have not done that. Q.E.D. Huldra (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- Note; Vanlister's first removal was not undoing an IP; (then the edit-line would have been [2]); instead Vanlister simply rm the stuff offending to them. (I somehow doubt that Vanlister knew who added the stuff that they removed.) Huldra (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Vanlister
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 Vanlister
I did revert one time, the first time was not reverting anyone prior. Huldra use of Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement requests is done instead of collaboration and in practice to bypass dialogue which is highly prejudicial, and a provocation (sending a message without letting the time to answer, etc). My modification was essentially to remove a highly controversial statement from the lead that wasn't presented as such ( but was presented as such in the text), Huldra should therefore justify his agressive revert instead of reverting other's without expressing motivations. (Also my past block was linked to a dispute concerning Chomsky views and antisemitism in UK not about Kenneth Roth) --Vanlister (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- They didn't leave me time to answer guys.--Vanlister (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- The source in question does not support your point of view in this comment. You didn't provide a source proving that there is a consensus as well. I solely moved a paragraph from the lead to where it was already in the article in a "controversy" section. Mouse and cat play. --Vanlister (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't want to receive messages from you. You made your point. I disagree. Done. I am not interested in your dispute, it was written as a controversy period. And it is obviously a controversial statement, and apparently you didn't manage to find other materials than what Bergman, a journalist, says. I am done with this. Not interested in your campaign. --Vanlister (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Selfstudier
- I have just recently come across this editor in a different context.Diff which was followed by a message on my talk page which message was repeated verbatim at the pages of two other editors whose pages are on my watchlist. Ordinarily I would hesitate to be unduly critical of a newish editor but looking at the editor's talk page and recent contributions makes one wonder if it is only a question of when the hammer falls rather than if. I think it needs to be made clear that productive editing is the right way to go not the current unproductive back and forth.Selfstudier (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Hippeus
@HighInBC:, Vanlister's first edit removed something that was added three years prior on 5 March 2018. Even if removal of a three year old edit is a revert, then it is still not a revert for 1RR purposes because it was added by an IP editor 174.89.44.169.
This complaint is vexatious and without merit, Huldra should know that reverting IP editors (from three years ago!) does not fall under the 1RR restriction that says: "Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion".
As Huldra should know better, Huldra should be facing sanctions here.--Hippeus (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- @HighInBC: the 500/30 restriction was in place from 2015 or 2016. It was just streamlined in the Palestine-Israel-4 page, but it existed from the Palestine-Israel-3 page. Huldra is all over the Palestine-Israel-3 page, Huldra presented evidence that led the committee to state that "The one revert rule that was added via a motion on March 10 2012 has been gamed. (Huldra's Evidence)". So Huldra should know that IP edits after 2015-6 are exempt from the 1RR rule.--Hippeus (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
The diffs by ZScarpia show some attribution being added and removed between 2018 and 2021 in front of the sentence. However, as far as I can tell, when Vanlister made their edit the sentence stood without attribution phrased almost identically to the blurb the IP added ([3] vs. [4]). I did not find any removal of this blurb prior to Vanlister's removal, so if this was a revert (of ages old material), it was a revert of the IP and no one else.--Hippeus (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Nomoskedasticity
Hippeus's point would be more persuasive if Vanlister had used an edit summary noting that his revert was exempt on this basis. As things stand, it just looks like a removal of sourced material. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Statement by ZScarpia
Hippeus: "Even if removal of a three year old edit is a revert, then it is still not a revert for 1RR purposes because it was added by an IP editor 174.89.44.169."
Between being added by an IP editor and removed by Vanlister, the text in question has been edited by registered users (for example: [5][6][7]).
Like Selfstudier, I don't want to seem to be seeking the sanctioning of a relatively new editor. However, I think it would be best to ensure that Vanlister understands that the first edit does count as a revert.
Hippeus: "This complaint is vexatious and without merit. ... As Huldra should know better, Huldra should be facing sanctions here." Incorrect and hyper-exagerrated.
← ZScarpia 16:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Shike
Its frivolous filing.Its long time practice that we don't count removal of long standing material as revert but an edit[8] --Shrike (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Vanlister
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- @Vanlister: I have moved your comments to your section—see "Statements must be made in separate sections". Johnuniq (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Vanlister, any edit that reverses the action of another editor is considered a revert. Removing part of the article is a revert because it is reversing the addition of that content to the article. I understand that this may not be intuitive. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 11:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you Hippeus. Given that the edit being reverted took place prior to the arbcom ruling, and that the arbcom ruling exempts the edits in violating of the 500/30 rule I think it is reasonable to say that he did not violated the spirit of the 1RR ruling. A stickler would point out that the IP edit was not in violation of the 500/30 rule because it was made before the the arcom ruling went into effect, but I don't think such an interpretation would be in the spirit of the rules. I support closing this case without action. I have no opinion on the motives of the user filing this case. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 12:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Plebian-scribe
Plebian-scribe blocked one week for topic ban violation. Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Plebian-scribe
Notified of topic ban on 28 April
Discussion concerning Plebian-scribeStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Plebian-scribeStatement by (username)Result concerning Plebian-scribe
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TillermanJimW
Appeal declined. Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Statement by TillermanJimWFor being unfair and overly draconian (a week?) if not punitive – particularly for a new user, and not taking into account a number of extenuating circumstances. While I will freely admit to having transgressed 3RR – mea culpa, shoot me at dawn – and will promise not to do so again (cross my heart and hope to die), I also think there are a number of extenuating circumstances that the blocking administrator neglected to consider. And first and foremost is that in the “notice of edit warring” posted by Crosstalk, he said “the editors removing his comment from the talk page were themselves in the wrong by removing a comment about content without justification”. While, as WP:GAB notes, two wrongs don’t make a right, those removals required me to use up two of my own reverts which seems rather unfair right out of the chute. But more importantly, the crux of the discussion – which was removed by those other editors including the blocking administrator – is that I had posted, as per WP:NPOVD, the requisite tag [POV] on the main page – which was reverted within 3 or 4 minutes before I’d even had time to complete the posting of the required explanatory section in the talk page called for in that NPOVD document. Which raises the question, regardless of my 3RR transgression, to what extent any of the editors who reverted my posts addressing the issue, including the blocking administrator himself, are justified in removing that NPOV tag. At least without some evidence of addressing the points presented – which did not happen at all. And particularly where Crosstalk himself acknowledged that “His comment above is about a particular phrase in the article and does make an argument against it, so misguided though it be, it is not a violation of BLPTALK, GENDERID, or NOTFORUM." Had kinda thought – on some evidence (Five Pillars) – that the NPOV policy was more or less trump and that it would have been sufficient to at least temper the application of that sanction – as I had said. But I hadn’t even realized a sanction was in force as Crosstalk’s post only talked about “a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring” – not that a sanction had been applied. Ignorance of the law is no excuse and all that, but it should count for something. In any case, when or if you rescind my block – sooner would be better as there are other edits I have in mind on less controversial issues – I’ll look into the possibility of taking that NPOV dispute re the Hubbard article to the NPOV noticeboard. However, as the putative POV transgression took place in the Hubbard article that seems to be where the discussion should take place. To that end, it might expedite things if you were to revert that POV tag and my justifications for it - if that is at all possible. Maybe even add a page block or protections or whatever else you might think is appropriate in the circumstances. But I think that issue has to be addressed in one place or another. So would appreciate the earliest rescinding of my block so I can proceed as soon as possible accordingly. Thanks for addressing these points. --TillermanJimW (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by GadfiumI blocked under the WP:ARBGENDER discretionary sanctions because TillermanJimW is tendentiously arguing about the difference between sex and gender at an article about an individual. The issue here that TillermanJimW takes issue with is that the article Laurel Hubbard says "she transitioned to female". This is the accepted way to express a gender transition. If they want to persuade the community to change the usual terminology, they need to do so on an appropriate WikiProject or policy talk page. My involvement here is as an editor on New Zealand topics, and Hubbard is a moderately prominent New Zealander especially because of the recent Summer Olympics. I'm not involved in transgender issues as such, so I'm not sure which would be the best place for TillermanJimW to express their views; perhaps one of the talk pages of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, WikiProject LGBT studies, or WikiProject Gender studies. I'm sure a brief and polite question on any of those talk pages would get a response advising of the most appropriate venue. The appeal does not give me any confidence that they understand the reason why they were blocked or that they intend to change their behaviour.-gadfium 08:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by NewimpartialI am involved in some sense, yes, but not in the reverts that led to Tillerman's 3RR. And I'm not weighing in here, either, except to offer convenient links for this editor's WP:IDONTHEARTHAT comments on their user Talk page after requesting this appeal: [10], [11], [12]. This doesn't seem promising. Newimpartial (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by TillermanJimWResult of the appeal by TillermanJimW
|
Solavirum
Last chance saloon for Solavirum against violating the topic ban yet again, in light of them proposing to avoid a much wider set of topics. As I note below, the next violation is almost certain to lead to sanctions of considerable severity. El_C 14:43, 27 August 2021 (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 Solavirum
Solavirum has violated their topic ban for the 3rd of 4th time now.[1] The tban was from pages relating to Armenia and Azerbaijan, broadly construed. A historic ruler of an Azerbaijani province falls under the ban area. Previously, in one of their tban violation blocks, the enforcing admin Drmies blocked them for 2 weeks saying that “many will consider that relatively mild”.[2] Arb enforcement log of their blocks.[3] Previous ANI cases involving Solavirum’s tban violations.[4], [5]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SolavirumStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SolavirumZaniGiovanni, I don't understand, why is this violation of the topic ban exactly? The article's topic is about an Iranian statesman. I don't have a topic ban on Iran related articles. There was no "Azerbaijani province" back in the 1600s. The Turkic Azerbaijan in the north of Aras only emerged in the early 20th century, before that the only "Azerbaijan" was in north of Iran (see Iranica). The topic is also about a non-Azerbaijani. The article itself isn't even in Wikiproject Azerbaijan, and to prove the contrary, please provide some WP:RS, because what you're doing is WP:OR. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 17:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Statement by MJL@Solavirum: Abbas Qoli-Khan was a beglerbeg of Ganǰa according to [14]. He's listed under Category:Safavid governors of Ganja. I agree that it is a bit silly that figures like Abbas Qoli-Khan (who's connection to the topic of the modern nation of Azerbaijan is rather incidental), but you really should've learned by now to be really careful regarding this kind of stuff.
Statement by (username)Result concerning Solavirum
|
GoodDay
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 GoodDay
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Tartan357 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- GoodDay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation#Discretionary_sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 26 August 2021
- 26 August 2021
- 26 August 2021
- 26 August 2021
- 26 August 2021
- 26 August 2021
- 26 August 2021
GoodDay has left notices at seven talk pages of articles that use Template:Infobox officeholder, asking editors to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#MoS_RfC_closure_challenge:_job_title_capitalization_in_infoboxes, a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE that I opened. GoodDay has made clear they strongly object to the challenge ([15], [16], [17], [18]). Given that this template is transcluded on over 183,000 pages, I'm suspicious of how these articles were selected. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE says: Users who try to subvert consensus by appealing to other venues than WP:AN should be aware of WP:FORUMSHOP
, so it is clear extra care is expected of users participating in these discussions. I believe these messages constitute WP:CANVASSING.
GoodDay says in the discussion that they know of a lot of articles where local editors will fight against lowercasing in the infoboxes' of their respective country's political offices
. I suspect that those are the articles they targeted with these messages.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I reached out to GoodDay on their talk page to inform them of my concern and ask them to revert. They have refused to do so. ― Tartan357 Talk 23:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
@Shibbolethink: Thanks for this. GoodDay has said they expect editors at Australian and American bios to object to lowercasing. That covers most of the articles they left these messages on: Gavin Newsom, Joe Biden, Scott Morrison, Kathy Hochul. WP:CANVASS doesn't require that the editors canvassed actually take the position the canvasser expects, only that the canvasser expects them to take a certain position. ― Tartan357 Talk 00:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning GoodDay
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 GoodDay
I've left neutral notices on seven highly profile bio article talkpages, concerning an WP:AN discussion which may affect them. There's absolutely 'no way', I can know which side of the argument, editors who frequent those bios, will chose. I'm not a mind reader. TBH, I find by filing this report, Tartan357 is over-reacting & breaching WP:AGF. PS - Why am I being reported here anyway? I'm not under any sanctions. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
PS: I must confess. I don't appreciate Tartan357's hostile attitude, towards me. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
If I remove the notices (which don't breach WP:CANVASS), would Tartan357 withdraw this report? GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Indeed @Shibbolethink:, those supposed pro-capitalize editors can easily turn out to be pro-lower case editors. Tartan357, might be killing a chance that he'll get support from editors at those seven bios. He's the one who's apparently assuming that they'll all chose 'capitalization'. Not me. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
FWIW: Tartan357 has 'mis-linked' my so-called refusal at my talkpage. My response was "Doubt it, as I have absolutely no way of knowing 'which' side those editors will take. I left a 'neutral' message on those 'seven' bios". If one's going to link to comments, they should do so correctly. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Again, Tartan357 gets it wrong. He's suggesting that I'm a mind-reader. If I were to say that "Donald Duck is going to get fired by Walt Disney Studios". How would I know that? GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
BTW @Tartan357:, you're suppose to respond to other editors in your own statement section. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Shibbolethink
I have no involvement in this dispute, and haven't interacted much with either of these editors, and have not participated in the RfC. However, I would like to lay out a concern I have after reading this discussion casually...
The filing editor (Tartan357) states the following:
- GoodDay is opposed to the RfC question (reading the RfC, this is true).
- GoodDay has posted on several (7) talk pages with the discussed infobox (true)
[There are] a lot of articles where local editors will fight against lowercasing in the infoboxes
(a statement that GoodDay indeed made, but that has not been actually verified as true).
- GoodDay has posted on those articles, and only those articles, which have local editors who fight against lowercasing. (unverified)
Tartan357, your argument has a hole in it. It would serve you well, in my humble opinion, to provide evidence of discussions on at least several of these 7 talk pages demonstrating such users who are en masse against lowercased professions in infoboxes, and thereby showing that this was actually CANVASSING.
The proof of the pudding is in the tasting, not the packaging.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Statement by 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99
I'm not involved in this incident but am generally dismayed that these disputes are still with us all these years on. There are unsurprisingly a heck of a lot of US and Australian biographies in the English Wikipedia. If there is a systematic preference among the editors of those articles to capitalize office names one way while the MOS says to capitalize another way, then it cannot be said that the MOS documents sitewide consensus on the matter. The "local consensus" being whined about is in fact local to the MOS, while the observable approaches of 1000s of articles all over the site are what is actually sitewide.
Therefore, if the bias that Good Day supposedly imputes to the contributors of those biographies really exists, then he has found an error or misrepresentation in the MOS that should be fixed, with our thanks. If the bias doesn't exist then he hasn't canvassed. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99 (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning GoodDay
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- First, this seems like a novel interpretation of the canvassing guideline. But beyond that, Tartan357: GoodDay is right in saying that they didn't refuse to discuss this with you. They just disagreed with your premise (allowed), and from that, you went straight to AE. There isn't even the pretense of engaging in some sort of dialogue. If I were more cynical, I'd say that this rather looks more like: once they'll disagree, I'll go to AE. My immediate sense is that this complaint isn't actionable and was likely submitted prematurely. El_C 11:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- I also am not seeing anything actionable here. It is a stretch to consider this canvasing. One would have to assume GoodDay had some sort of special knowledge about what people at these articles think and is being very sneaky. I see no reason to assume this. I also find a lack of attempt to work this out before coming here to AE. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 11:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm a little more sympathetic to the report than my colleagues above. GoodDay, you're surely aware that a close review is not meant to relitigate a discussion, but to assess whether consensus was judged correctly; and as such, it doesn't require more input from disputants as much as it does from people who know how to judge consensus? In this circumstance, it doesn't look very good to ask for input at the talk pages of a list of political figures, regardless of whether that list was random or carefully chosen. That said, I don't see an actual violation, and I don't think a sanction is warranted or justifiable. And this didn't need to come to AE. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)