Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive301

Clean Copy

Clean Copy is topic banned from Rudolf Steiner and antroposophy, broadly construed--Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2022 (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. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Clean Copy User who is submitting this request for enforcement Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Clean Copy (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:ARBPS WP:ARBCAM Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [1] 31 January 2022 Whitewashing Rudolf Steiner's pseudoscience ("termed" instead of "are pseudoscientific" or "he was a peddler of rank pseudoscience") [2] and [3] 30 January 2022: removing mention of Rudolf Steiner's pseudoscience. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. [4] Additional comments by editor filing complaint I have also reported the edit warring to WP:FTN. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC) I have replied to Clean Copy that a term does not have to be mentioned verbatim in order to fulfill WP:V requirements (the term termed isn't present in any of the cited RS, either). And if he still does not see why Steiner's ideas are rank pseudoscience, maybe one of us is in the wrong place. I mean: he does not have to agree with the mainstream view, just acknowledge the mainstream view for what it is. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC) The information that Steiner was a rank pseudoscientist is spread in various Wikipedia articles, but till now never got centralized at Rudolf Steiner. See e.g. [5]. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC) @Clean Copy: I did not edit war against termed or described. I would very much prefer are, but I will follow the consensus. And, yes, one can like or dislike Steinerian architecture, but that's a matter of taste, not an objective judgment. Also, at your 30 January edits, the Dugan reference had 3 (three) pages mentioned for verification. Of course, Google Books only shows one page. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [6] Discussion concerning Clean Copy 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 Clean Copy User:Tgeorgescu's original insertion of the text "He was also a peddler of rank pseudoscience" used a citation that linked to a specific page that said only, "Effects of the preparation have been verified scientifically." This clearly did not support the claim. It did not occur to me that the link he inserted (which was to page 32) was not to the page he meant to cite (page 31). Once the page reference was clarified, and further citations were added, I modified the language from "a peddler of rank pseudoscience," in which "peddler" and "rank" were loaded terms supported by no citation, and a clear violation of WP:EPSTYLE, to "His ideas have been termed pseudoscientific," which is clearly accurate and less strident. I am certainly open to other language that reflects the tone and content of the citations and appropriate to an encyclopedia. There has been no violation of WP:3RR, for example; I just made these two changes. Clean Copytalk 03:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC) There have been comments about my reference to ""Anthroposophy's uses of Goethean science "have been verified scientifically."" I want to clarify that User:Tgeorgescu linked specifically to this page in his citation. The page's only text relevant to Steiner's scientific status was this quote. It appeared such a flagrant misuse of a source that I quoted the actual text from the page he had cited. I would never have used such a source myself (I don't feel that popular works are particularly good sources, particularly when the authors of their articles are not recognized authorities in any relevant field). I genuinely had no idea that he had linked to a different page than the one he intended. I also want to point out that a vast range of serious work from verifiable sources is cited in the article; Steiner's work in education, philosophy, social reform, and many other areas is not remotely treated as pseudoscientific. To ignore this is one-sided. I do feel the statement, which I put in once there were more sources than the above, that "His ideas have been termed pseudoscientific" reflects that there is a wide range of opinion here. I also want to note that a topic ban based on a single edit removing a statement that admins agree was flagrantly in violation of the tone of an encyclopedia is a remarkably harsh response. Clean Copytalk 11:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by PaleoNeonate More a detail than a statement, I noticed Clear Copy recently when assessing the state of some related articles after a notice at FTN. My comment is to share these links in relation to a conflict of interest: 1, 2 (agreed 6-0 by ARBCOM at the time in 2006). —PaleoNeonate – 08:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Statement by Alexbrn For anyone not aware, the Clean Copy account was formerly named Hgilbert, and has a long history of strongly biased pro-Steiner editing.[7] Statement by an IP editor I have posted to WT:A/R and note that Alexbrn's comment that Clean Copy formerly edited as Hgilbert is confirmed. There were adverse findings of fact against Hgilbert in the 2006 ArbCom case ArbCom case Waldorf Education that included a finding of biased editing of the Rudolf Steiner article. Though this was a long time ago, it is relevant background when considering allegedly problematic / biased editing of the same article. It is also another remedy under which action might be considered and Clean Copy is aware of this case as a party to it. ArbCom are presently considering a motion regarding the utility of DS in the Waldorf Education topic, where editors might like to offer their perspectives. Anticipating any concerns: Yes, I have an account that I have stopped using. No, I was not involved in the Waldorf Education ArbCom case. No, I don't recall any interactions with Hgilbert / Clean copy, though I do believe that pseudoscience topics needs to reflect scientific reality. Further, I offer no comment on Clean Copy's edits... I am simply noting that, as Hgilbert, there were specific ArbCom findings in a previous case relating to the same article. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Clean Copy This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. This edit is an extremely misleading misuse of the source cited. It added a statement that "Anthroposophy's uses of Goethean science "have been verified scientifically."" Although the source is the The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, Volume 1, that phrase is taken from an extract from the website of the Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association, which the Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience quotes to illustrate what proponents of biodynamic agriculture believe. Nor is the phrase taken from the section on Goethean science but from the section on Biodynamics on the same page. Clean Copy then removed a statement that Steiner's ideas are considered pseudoscience, using this quote to argue that Steiner's work has been scientifically verified, rather than that the Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association doesn't think that biodynamic farming is pseudoscience. This does look like tenacious promotion of a fringe theory to me. Hut 8.5 19:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC) I sympathise with Clean Copy's opinion that "peddler of rank pseudoscience", stated in Wikipedia's voice, is overly strident phrasing. It shouldn't be in the article. However, Clean Copy's own misuse of the source, which Hut 8.5 describes, is hair-raising. It's very difficult to believe it was perpetrated in good faith. I recommend a topic ban from, at the least, Rudolf Steiner and anthrosophy, broadly construed. Bishonen | tålk 22:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC). You would think after Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education Clean Copy would be much more careful in this topic area. I support a topic ban here. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC) I am in broad agreement with Bishonen's analysis. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

71.114.58.144

Blocked as a standard admin action for 6 months -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:35, 3 February 2022 (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. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning 71.114.58.144 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Clayoquot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested 71.114.58.144 (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/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it January 14 BLP violation Jan 26 BLP violation that was revision-deleted by Drmies Feb 2 BLP violation Additional comments by editor filing complaint I filed a complaint about this user at WP:AIV; it was declined because the user's last warning was "stale". I requested protection for Steven Salaita and Steven Salaita hiring controversy at WP:RFPP; nothing was done because an administrator said there hadn't been enough disruptive activity to justify protection. I filed a complaint about this user at AN/I and the only outcome was that Drmies deleted some of this user's edits. So I am wondering how long this has to go on for before we do something to prevent this user from making further BLP violations. For the record, I do not personally agree with the views of Steven Salaita, but we have BLP standards that should be upheld. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [8] Discussion concerning 71.114.58.144 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 71.114.58.144 Statement by (username) Result concerning 71.114.58.144 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Hard to enforce DS with an ip, so I decided to be creative. The IP address is listed as dynamic, but a look at the contribs says it is remarkably stable (mine at the house hasn't changed in years either, so it happens). I have blocked the IP for 6 months as a standard admin action. I left a template on the IPs page to this effect. If they come back with another IP, we may look at semi-protecting the pages. Leaving this report open in case any admin wants to opine or change my actions, which I'm open to. Otherwise, any admin can just close it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

207.47.175.199

Closing with no action. At the same, let me warn 207.47.175.199 informally that bending rules [9] can lead to getting blocked if there is a pattern of doing so. Having a minority (or majority) opinion nor being an IP editor grants no special privilege or immunity. You might want to back off just a bit, as you are uncomfortably close to that cliff. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:06, 11 February 2022 (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. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning 207.47.175.199 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Kleinpecan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested 207.47.175.199 (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/COVID-19 Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Special:Diff/1022910385: soapboxing about COVID-19 lockdowns with a reference to  The Epoch Times (RSP entry); no relevance to the GBD Special:Diff/1022931757: "... in this article there is no science, just opinion from people who either are erring on the side of overabundant caution of authoritarian origin, or who are grinding axes in an effort to justify same." Special:Diff/1023681990: "In its place, so-called 'reputable sources' made up a fiction that a few dozen questionable signatures taint[] all 10's of thousands of signatures, which clearly is a biased POV ... The cost benefit for the fear mongering of the CDC, whose story changes as each abundance of caution POV is show[n] bogus on a nearly daily basis, is devastating people's lives." Special:Diff/1024964885: "OK, the CPSO, The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, whose job it is to license physicians in Ontario, Canada, has issued a dictatorial decree prohibiting discussion of anything that does not agree with their ruinous POV. ... Perhaps those who risk their careers by disagreeing with your authoritarian POV persuades you of nothing ... I am speaking up and occur a risk of being canceled. I hope for your sake you do not get what your are [sic] wishing for, a dictatorship wherein your neighbor can turn you in for 'counterrevolutionary ideas.'" This comment was removed by Hob Gadling for soapboxing. The IP has restored it and removed some parts but instead twice accused Hob Gadling of censorship. Special:Diff/1025472252: "Moreover, sources like Google and YouTube censor content and demote Covid therapies that do not agree with their biased political goals, so you cannot take any sources as unbiased without investigating policy for those sources. ... Hiding behind biased sources promoting fiction does not establish your POV as either common or more importantly real." Special:Diff/1025486875: "That statement [referring to the CPSO's "dictatorial decree"] is reminiscent of the reaction of the authors on this website: Totalitarianism with no descent [sic] acknowledged." Special:Diff/1069878899: "You should follow the money for the critics of the GBD if you want to see special interests. What I do not see here is any discussion of epidemiology and quarantine ... Failing that, there is no scientific content in this post. ... this post is just axe-grinding." Special:Diff/1069907948: complaint about the article's lack of "discussion of epidemiological models for disease"; no relevance to the GBD Special:Diff/1069926124: "The argument that SARS-CoV-1 has nothing to tell us about SARS-CoV-2 merely because it predates a politically charged discussion steeped in ad hominem bias is farfetched. ... You are badgering me by quoting rules of evidence that are irrelevant [referring to Alexbrn's and Slatersteven's note that the IP is engaging in synthesis]." Special:Diff/1070324389: complaint about Wikipedia's description of The Epoch Times as far-right; no relevance to the GBD Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any None. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Special:Diff/1069927988. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Special:Diff/1070719792. Discussion concerning 207.47.175.199 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 207.47.175.199 Statement by (username) Result concerning 207.47.175.199 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Dynamic IP but very stable. Discussions are sometimes heated, but on topic with sources backing the claims. Not editing article, just talk page. A bit on the WP:FORUM side but not overly so, the same as others, and it all applies to the article. Fairly civil, even if a bit snippy sometimes (then, so am I). They aren't trolling, others are engaging them. Total of 7 comments in the last few days, which isn't excessive. Annoying? Probably, but I'm not sure this rises to a level that justifies WP:AE action at this time. Minority opinions are welcomed if the editor is reasonable. I wouldn't recommend any action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Ypatch

There are no saints here. Closing without action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:35, 12 February 2022 (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. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Ypatch User who is submitting this request for enforcement Ali Ahwazi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Ypatch (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/Iranian politics#RfC moderation Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 15 May 2019 A now-banned user adds a section 17 December 2021 The content is removed after 2.5 years Here I and Vice Regent say that the removal of this old content needs consensus building. In truth, we say the user wasn't banned at the time that he added the content. Ypatch and The Dream Boat (outed himself to be a meatpuppet) say it ought to be removed due to the user. Ypatch keeps repeating that the content is added by a now banned user and hence should be removed. He edit wars against other users over this [10], [11], [12]. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 10 December 2019 Ypatch blocked for edit warring on an IRANPOL article. 27 April 2020 Topic banned from IRANPOL articles broadly construed, for 3 months. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) He knows there were some decisions. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Ypatch ought to create consensus for removing the old content, but instead of that, he is railroading other users by beginning a wrong RFC and I told him this. The user has reverted other users three times while he only commented once in talk about the dispute. AFAIK, because the content has been there since 2019 and the user adding the content had no problems at that time, Ypatch needed to make consensus before removing the section. Instead of that, he says inserting the content needs consensus. He has opened a RFC for insertion of the content while the RFC ought to be for removal of the content. Mr @Vanamonde93:: But the first line Wikipedia:Silence and consensus reads that "Consensus can be presumed to exist until disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing)." That content was there for 2 and a half year. More than one month later after Kazemita entered the content, Stefka (now banned) only changed the title of the section. So the consensus existed. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested I informed/notified the mentioned user Here Discussion concerning Ypatch 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 Ypatch I really don't want to get involved in this, but even those in favor of having this content in the article are saying the content needs improvements. Ypatch (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Perhaps I was too trigger tempted with the revert button, but i did not violate 3RR and Ali Ahwazi and Vice regent both reverted a few times too, yet they are reporting me for reverting (Vice regent received a warning in the recent ArbCom case for battleground behavior in this area). I opened the RFC hoping to solve the issue (about content that we ALL agree needs improving). Ypatch (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by Vice regent Vanamonde93, I agree that consensus is achieved through discussion, but I don't believe Ypatch's behavior has been constructive. I proposed a compromise version on 15:50, 24 December 2021 and again on 20:47, 27 January 2022. Ypatch didn't respond to either one. On January 27, I gave 4 policy-based reasons: (1) allegations are WP:DUE because they were made by multiple organizations, multiple journalists and covered in 11 secondary reliable newspapers[13], (2) Ypatch's proposed text was a violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE, (3) that one of the sources in this text was quoted incorrectly, hence a violation of WP:V, and (4) that another source was not WP:RS[14]. Ypatch didn't respond to any of these 4 arguments, but continued to edit war on January 28[15]. In fact, while Ypatch has reverted 3 times, they have made just two comments relating to this content. When you spend more time reverting than discussing, it's not a good sign. You credited Ypatch for starting an RfC, but Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Arbcom found that past RfCs attempted "to railroad preferred changes". Given that neither Ypatch nor Bahar have responded to my Jan 27 policy based objections (even though both visited the article on Jan 29), it does seem like voting is being used as a substitute for discussion. Other examples of Ypatch's recent unconstructive engagement: This discussion: I gave alternative English names of PMOI/MEK in the "Names" section, but was reverted. So I provided 25 RS in support (yes, 25!!) and gave ngram evidence that suggested one of these names may have been the most popular until the 1980s. The evidence was strong enough that it convinced not just Ghazaalch but also an uninvolved user[16]. But Ypatch opposed this[17] in a vague comment, not addressing any of the evidence above. I added a very relevant image, but Ypatch reverted it[18]. Ypatch insinuated a copyright violation[19] but the image's copyright is just fine. Ypatch tried to have the image deleted at Commons, but an administrator there found Ypatch's attempt "politically motivated"[20][21]. After Mario restored the image[22], Ypatch invoked WP:CRP[23]. Another example: on Jan 28, Ypatch claims "You haven't explained what is wrong with my summarisation", yet I gave a detailed explanation right above on Jan 15. This is WP:IDHT. Ypatch's behavior is demoralizing. I spend hours in crafting a thoughtful response (researching, wordsmithing proposals etc), only to be ignored, reverted and stonewalled.VR talk 17:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by Aquillion It is true that Ypatch shouldn't edit-war, but participation in a single brief edit war that hasn't breached the 3RR isn't sufficient to bring to WP:AE, especially when the filer also participated. It is also true that the text is longstanding; it was created (shortly) before the editor's other account was banned, so WP:BANREVERT doesn't apply, and we don't automatically revert someone's contributions just because they were later banned. But the article is extremely low-traffic, so even though the text has been there for a year it's also reasonable to conclude that it doesn't have a strong consensus behind it - at least not to the point of rushing to AE to defend that extremely low level of implicit consensus. Also, it is absolutely not the case that text is required to be left untouched while discussions or an RFC is ongoing, so Ypatch's reverts are at least not a violation of the specific RFC moderation sanction mentioned. But honestly everyone would benefit from worrying less about conduct at this stage and focusing more on content and the underlying dispute. --Aquillion (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by Bahar1397 VR and AA edit warred too, but it seems that if one doesn't agree with VR's version proposals then to him that's something that should be brought to AE. That seems like "civil battleground mentality", which apparently he has been warned to stop doing already[24]. Bahar1397 (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Ypatch This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. When will the lot of you learn that what you should be focusing on is discussing content, and not procedural wikilawyering about what version should exist while an RfC is under way? The content was added by a user subsequently banned. You've not provided any evidence that it had consensus at the time it was inserted; indeed, the page history suggests it didn't. As such, it requires consensus to be placed in the article. Yes, Ypatch is edit-warring, and he should be less trigger-happy with the revert button, but he's not the only one guilty of reverting before discussing, and he did in fact start the RfC, which was the right thing to do. In case anyone reading this decides I'm somehow favorably disposed toward Ypatch, I'll note that I have sanctioned him before for battleground conduct, of which I'm seeing plenty from several different users. I would close this with a warning to all parties about battleground conduct. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC) @Ali Ahwazi: You're missing the point, and repeating what I told you not to do. All content in an article requires consensus, and consensus is primarily built by discussion. The content in question has never had consensus reached via discussion, and as such there's no excuse not to discuss it. Under the circumstances, how long it's been in the article cannot change the need for discussion. It's only relevant to the status of the article while discussion takes place, which, as I've said, is a procedural matter, and not what the lot of you should be spending your energies on. We had a whole ARBCOM case about this; editors in the area who were not parties to that case would do well to read it, and not repeat the problematic behaviors identified there (this goes for both of you, and anyone else involved in this dispute). Please go discuss the substance of the content. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC) @Vice regent: I am seeing sub-par behavior from several parties, none of which quite rises to sanctionable behavior. Everyone involved could afford to engage more substantively with the sources, and to rely less on procedural objections, as I have said. I'm not going to go deeper into the history than the evidence provided here; I've spent what energy I have for it already. If another admin chooses to levy sanctions, I will not stand in the way, but as is par for the course here, the walls of text discourage anyone uninvolved from commenting. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC) @Bahar1397:, what's most concerning about your post is that you've come here to complain about Vice_regent, with no information that hasn't been posted here already, despite your involvement in this dispute being restricted to a single RfC comment, and no other engagement in the topic area in the last six months. Enforcement options exist for when behavioral problems disrupt ordinary consensus-building. I don't see much evidence of you attempting to engage in the substance of this dispute. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Less than ideal situation, like so many. I don't see a need for action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Unless an admin comments to the contrary in the next 24 hours, I'm very likely to close with no action. Assuming another admin doesn't beat me to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Iskandar323

Duration of topic ban is hereby reduced to "time served". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED). Appealing user Iskandar323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Iskandar323 (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Sanction being appealed Topic ban from the subject of the Israel-Palestine conflict, imposed here: User_talk:Iskandar323/Archive_1#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2021#Palestine-Israel_articles Administrator imposing the sanction Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Diff notifying the imposing administrator. (NB: They are now inactive and a former administrator.) Statement by Iskandar323 I would like the length of my topic ban to be modified on the basis that the enforcement process was interfered with by Icewhiz socks. While I understand and accept my fault in the matter, I think the length of my TBAN is worth reconsidering in light of the latest round of Icewhiz SPI revelations (those involving Eostrix), which subsequently saw the account that launched the enforcement appeal, 11Fox11, and the two supporting accounts, Geshem Bracha and Free1Soul, blocked as Icewhiz socks. Upon my appeal to Callanecc, the administrator who imposed the TBAN, they agreed that based on these SPI revelations there may be scope for a modification of the ban's length. In their last active edit on Wikipedia, Callanecc noted their willingness to reconsider the length of the ban "as no longer necessary (based on constructive editing) after 3 months from when it was imposed (so towards the end of December)". Unfortunately, Callanecc no longer appears to be active and recently had their administrator "CU" permissions revoked. However, in accordance with Callanecc's suggestion, I would now present as evidence of my constructiveness in the subsequent three months my elevation of an article to GA status [25], two DYK credits [26][27] various new pages [28][29][30] (among others) and a confirmed SPI case [31]. Thank you in advance for reviewing my appeal. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC) @Shrike: I don't see diffs made prior to the arbitration enforcement action in September (when I acknowledged certain issues with my understanding of process and my tone) as particularly pertinent to this appeal, which is based on the issue of sock involvement and my subsequent constructive editing. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC) @Vanamonde: Hi, I meant I understand my clear violation of the 1RR restrictions in place at the time, which was the reason for both AEs - in both instances because I was fairly rusty on Wikipedia and the stringent and broadly interpreted nature of the rules and discretionary sanctions in conflict areas, and blithely ran afoul of the parts about full/partial reverts, same or different material, etc., even when I thought (quite incorrectly) that I knew what I was doing. But also, in pushing up against what I thought were the limits of the 1RR restrictions, my editing also demonstrated a degree of impatience and impetuousness that was hardly a model of the preferred BRD approach to differences of opinion (even if, as is possible, I was intentionally bated into the whole situation by the socks). In any case, all of this was me 5,000 edits back. I would like to think I am at least a little wiser now, a little more patient and understanding of the need to let edits breath, and hopefully far less likely to allow myself to be drawn into situations that prove to be a waste of time for all involved. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by Callanecc Statement by Shrike Questions to Iskandar323 If someone points to you that you violated the policy do you still think[32],[33] its "drive-by disruption" and failing to assume AGF ? Do you still there are users that are antagonists [34]? Do you think this edit was ok [35] and why? It seems you recently received a warning about falling to assume WP:AGF [36] you have deleted the warning[37] could you please explain what happened? --Shrike (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Iskandar323 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 (uninvolved editor 1) Statement by (uninvolved editor 2) Result of the appeal by Iskandar323 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Callanecc still has the admin bit, they just haven't been active in a few months. And yes, on their talk page, they did seem very willing to consider modifying the tban after a few months of positive editing. I have not reviewed enough to have an opinion, but wanted to clear that one item up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC) This is tough. Your history over the last few months has had a couple of bumps (as Shrike points out) and the circumstances of the original tban was complicated by socks, but it's only been a few months. Given Callanecc's comments, and a fairly decent (but imperfect) civility record, I'm leaning towards a change is duration to "time served", but I really want more input from other admin, for a different perspective. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC) Let me restate my above comment: I'm not going to act unilaterally to lift or deny this ban. I would request another admin look at this. I'm on the fence, so I'm guessing I wouldn't find a fault in whatever they decided because it is a close call, imho. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Yes, I'm fine with that Vanamonde93, and in fact, feel better about it since their last statement. I agree on your solution, and will move out of the way so you can do the paperwork. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC) I'd be amenable to lifting this in principle, but I'm not entirely convinced by the appeal. Iskandar, you say you "understand and accept my fault in the matter", but neither here nor in the previous AE action do I see explicit indication of what that means. I don't expect you to grovel—that's unproductive—but what is going to be different going forward, aside from the absence of Icewhiz socks? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Iskandar, thank you for that. Given the above statement, and the involvement of the Icewhiz socks, I would be willing to shorten the TBAN to time served; i.e., not overturned on the merits, but lifted moving forward. Dennis Brown, I'd like to check that you're okay with this, and if so, I'll likely close this discussion soon; it's been open for a while. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)