Mr Unsigned Anon (talk | contribs) |
Mr Unsigned Anon (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 355: | Line 355: | ||
Your statement bather me as you sounds uninformed about me, and my case at AE. Have you read it at all? Have you read Jiujitsuguys ignorant ramblings and done some reserch about them? And about the 'helpfull' user [[User:Tyw7|''Tyw7'']] who starting up the first AE case after I asked him for help against Jiujitsuguys ramblings?. If you going to adress any of Jiujitsugus accusations against me you better find out if there is any substanse behind them or just a morons ramblings, yes ban me now damnit. [[User:Mr Unsigned Anon|Mr Unsigned Anon]] ([[User talk:Mr Unsigned Anon|talk]]) 08:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC) |
Your statement bather me as you sounds uninformed about me, and my case at AE. Have you read it at all? Have you read Jiujitsuguys ignorant ramblings and done some reserch about them? And about the 'helpfull' user [[User:Tyw7|''Tyw7'']] who starting up the first AE case after I asked him for help against Jiujitsuguys ramblings?. If you going to adress any of Jiujitsugus accusations against me you better find out if there is any substanse behind them or just a morons ramblings, yes ban me now damnit. [[User:Mr Unsigned Anon|Mr Unsigned Anon]] ([[User talk:Mr Unsigned Anon|talk]]) 08:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
* |
*Further response to [[User:Enigmaman|'''<font color="blue">Enigma</font>''']] |
||
If you mean what you say and topicban atleast as many you threaten to do, perhaps even more of the povfilled editors on both sides, I guess that involve me. And I am positive to a solution like that. Let it be the night of the long blades. And I say sinserly, that would be the best to happen for wikipedia regarding IP-conflict related articles any administrator can do ever. [[User:Mr Unsigned Anon|Mr Unsigned Anon]] ([[User talk:Mr Unsigned Anon|talk]]) 11:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC) |
If you mean what you say and topicban atleast as many you threaten to do, perhaps even more of the povfilled editors on both sides, I guess that involve me. And I am positive to a solution like that. Let it be the night of the long blades. And I say sinserly, that would be the best to happen for wikipedia regarding IP-conflict related articles any administrator can do ever. Just be sure not to throw out any babies with the water. [[User:Mr Unsigned Anon|Mr Unsigned Anon]] ([[User talk:Mr Unsigned Anon|talk]]) 11:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
'''Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:'''<br> |
'''Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:'''<br> |
Revision as of 11:34, 2 November 2009
Requests for enforcement
Nableezy
Re: Nableezy
I have asked AGK to review his decision as I believe it is needlessly harsh. Even assuming that one accepts that Nableezy's behaviour at Gaza War has been disruptive (which many do not) the fact Nableezy pledged not to edit that article again should have been sufficient to allay any fears regarding future disruptions. There is no need for a topic ban, nor was any evidence presented that would suggest one would be necessary.
I would ask that AGK as well as other admins please review this decision. Nableezy's contributions to articles related to the I-P arena have been valuable to the project and this decision seems needlessly punitive. We have suffered the loss of many good contributors over the last couple of years because of overzealous rulings done without sufficient investigation into the background of the disputes in question. Other eyes would be much appreciated. Tiamuttalk 09:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that this ruling is way out of bounds, apparently made in haste, and I second the request that it be reviewed. Jgui (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
My advice to both editors above is=
(But I would strongly support any appeal of this ruling.) The Squicks (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Request concerning Irvine22
- User requesting enforcement
- --Domer48'fenian' 09:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Irvine22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles
- Sanction or remedy that has been violated
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy
- Revert #1 Revert #2
- Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue
- 2 reverts in less than 24 hours, which is a violation of 1RR
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- Unsure
- Additional comments
- Irvine22 is well aware of 1RR since they have been an active participant [108][109][110][111][112][113][114] in this ongoing discussion here were this issue is outlined.
Discussion regarding this request
Left open for discussion.
The difficulty I see here is that the 1RR restriction is intended to force communication; but a number of editors seem to have decided that Irvine22 is a "disruptive editor" or "troll" and to decline to substantively engage (see edit summaries and talk page on the page in question, Pat Finucane (solicitor)). This is not how the restriction is supposed to work. If Irvine22 is indeed displaying a pattern of disruptive behaviour (there does seem to be a certain history of edit warring and excessive boldness on this sensitive topic, besides a now-settled sock-puppet issue), then that broader context needs addressing, perhaps via WP:RFC/U, rather than picking out a single infraction for Arbitration Enforcement. Rd232 talk 12:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I do seem to be the target of tag-team editing, with the reporting editor a member of the tag team. However, I wouldn't make too much of that - I always prefer not to complain. In this case, I will say two things: first, there is in fact only one revert here. The first action within the past 24 hours was a manual deletion of an advertising link. This followed a discussion on the talk page that seemed settled. This was reverted by RepublicanJacobite, and I reverted the revert. That's one revert, surely? Second: my understanding was that the various revert rules did not apply to removing obvious advertising links, such as the one I removed, which was a link to the business webpage of a firm of solicitors.Irvine22 (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.--Domer48'fenian' 15:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- And Wikipedia is not supposed to be a venue for advertising the services of firms of solicitors. Irvine22 (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- The discussion regarding Pat Finucane was hardly concluded, and there most certainly was not consensus for the removal of the link. The last comment in the discussion was you saying that the website is amateurish, which is utterly irrelevant. Most of the discussion prior to that involved your use of a term that was wholly inappropriate and a violation of WP:BLP. There had been next to no discussion as to the merits of the link, in part because you seem to find it difficult to engage in serious, helpful discussion. In an article about a living person, an article which concentrates on his career as a solicitor, a link to the webpage of his legal firm is not at all inappropriate. Just as there is a link to the General Motors website in the external links of the article about said corporation, and so on in dozens of other articles about corporations. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- You should have made these points on the article's talk page. If you had done so, I would have pointed out that GM is a notable corporation. Madden & Finucane is a non-notable firm of solicitors. Irvine22 (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- The discussion regarding Pat Finucane was hardly concluded, and there most certainly was not consensus for the removal of the link. The last comment in the discussion was you saying that the website is amateurish, which is utterly irrelevant. Most of the discussion prior to that involved your use of a term that was wholly inappropriate and a violation of WP:BLP. There had been next to no discussion as to the merits of the link, in part because you seem to find it difficult to engage in serious, helpful discussion. In an article about a living person, an article which concentrates on his career as a solicitor, a link to the webpage of his legal firm is not at all inappropriate. Just as there is a link to the General Motors website in the external links of the article about said corporation, and so on in dozens of other articles about corporations. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- And Wikipedia is not supposed to be a venue for advertising the services of firms of solicitors. Irvine22 (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- RJ, this is all they want another plathform! Irvine22 when on "Irish Unionist Alliance", where he's twice added a link to a non-notable organisation by the same name that was deleted per AFD, it shows his stance on "advertising" is dependent on who is being advertised. This is a 1RR report, and all we have had is excuses. --Domer48'fenian' 16:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Domer makes a good point, and here are the diffs for Irvine's repeated inclusion of that nonnotable and irrelevant link:
- It seems "advertising" is all in the eyes of the beholder, eh Irvine? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose there is one connection between the non-notable political organization in question and the non-notable firm of solicitors: both have had Wikipedia articles about them deleted. But there is also a rather obvious difference between them - only the website of the non-notable firm of solicitors advertises fee-based professional services. That is what I find inappropriate to link to, and I thought that was the settled view of Wikipedians. Anyway, as Rd232 points out, this could all have been aired on the article's talk page if you had engaged in good faith, instead of playing the tag-team silliness.Irvine22 (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Last things first, I am sick of your unfounded and bad faith accusations of "tag-team" editing. If you have proof that I and other editors colluded to revert your edits without cause, please present in this public forum. Otherwise, I suggest you drop it.
- But, to the substantive matter here, you are incorrect in your facts. The Finucane Solicitors AfD concluded that the article should be redirected, not deleted:
- There's a significant difference between a redirect and a deletion of a nonnotable political group that just happened to hijack the name of an earlier organization. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose there is one connection between the non-notable political organization in question and the non-notable firm of solicitors: both have had Wikipedia articles about them deleted. But there is also a rather obvious difference between them - only the website of the non-notable firm of solicitors advertises fee-based professional services. That is what I find inappropriate to link to, and I thought that was the settled view of Wikipedians. Anyway, as Rd232 points out, this could all have been aired on the article's talk page if you had engaged in good faith, instead of playing the tag-team silliness.Irvine22 (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- RJ, this is all they want another plathform! Irvine22 when on "Irish Unionist Alliance", where he's twice added a link to a non-notable organisation by the same name that was deleted per AFD, it shows his stance on "advertising" is dependent on who is being advertised. This is a 1RR report, and all we have had is excuses. --Domer48'fenian' 16:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
This is neither the forum for discussing issues like accusations of "tag-team" editing and other matters of general behaviour (RFC/U, or possibly other dispute resolution) nor of the content issues (article talk page). Rd232 talk 17:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
So Rd as long as we use the talk page we can breach 1RR (1RR restriction is intended to force communication), didn't know that, thanks for the heads up. BigDunc 18:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't say that at all. I'm merely pointing out that 1RR is (like 3RR) not merely intended to slow edit warring down to a slower speed - it's supposed to stop it by forcing communication. The rest of my comment I don't feel like repeating, I've said before that RFC/U should be used where there are longer-term concerns. Rd232 talk 08:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Dunc, notice also how RD feels they must below, make a pathetic and pointed comment at me, despite the fact that the discussion was closed having to ignore the notice "Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section" in order to make it. They also ignore the notices on the top of this page which says "The Committee does not look favourably upon comments that are intended to provoke reactions in others, and being incivil or provocative is counter-productive," in addition to "The golden rule of contributing to the project is to make an edit only where it actively benefits the project." So why would their ignoring and excusing of the 1RR here surprise us? Lets see how long RD's brand new rule lasts, we use the talk page we can breach 1RR! --Domer48'fenian' 19:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I felt the need to comment on your unhelpful remark, because it's a behaviour I've seen from you too often. I guess I shouldn't have, but it irked me. I didn't think about the "closed discussion" aspect enough because I was in a hurry to leave my computer. Whoa, two revelations in one comment: admins are volunteers with other demands on their time, and are human. Who knew? (And see reply to BigDunc re 1RR.) Rd232 talk 08:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note I've removed the text added after the discussion was closed. Sanctions will be applied if you decide that you can breach 1RR on talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Result regarding this request
- This is a credible AE request, as there was a clear 1RR violation. There is no weight to the claim that the "first" removal wasn't a revert, as Irvine had removed the link another time a few days before.[115] The matter was under discussion on the talk page, and sure it had gone quiet ... but it was obvious opposition remained when the reversion from RepublicanJacobite came. Irvine reverted again. Sorry Irvine, you knew the rules and chose to assume the risks of violating them. I'm giving you a week. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Request concerning Jdorney
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- User requesting enforcement
- --Domer48'fenian' 14:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Jdorney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles
- Sanction or remedy that has been violated
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy
- Revert #1 Revert #2 Revert #3
- Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue
- 3 reverts in less than 24 hours, which is a violation of 1RR. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- Unsure
- Additional comments
- Jdorney is well aware of the 1RR, having been given a final warning on their talk page here, which resulted from this report here.
Discussion regarding this request
Left open for discussion.
The only edits between those cited two edits by Jdorney are a number by Rockpocket (amounting to minor changes apart from the key term), and Jdorney's second edit didn't (as far as I can see) undo any of those, including Rockpocket's change in the lead term. It's not obvious who the relatively minor second edit is supposed to be reverting. In any case it probably makes more sense to count the two edits as one for the purposes of RR counting, in the same way as if there were no intervening edits. Rd232 talk 15:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.--Domer48'fenian' 15:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Result regarding this request
Clearly at least 2 reverts on that article. Blocked 1 week for this editor's second violation of 1RR on Troubles. Toddst1 (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Stellarkid
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Stellarkid
User requesting enforcement:
Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Stellarkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
- [116] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text without consensus 27 Sep 06:51
- [117] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text without consensus 27 Sep 17:02
- [118] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text without consensus during RfC 2 Oct 03:27
- [119] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text without consensus during RFC 6 oct 06:18
- [120] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text without consensus during RFC 6 oct 06:18
- [121] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text during 2:nd editwar 15 Oct 16:30
- [122] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text during 2:nd editwar 15 Oct 20:20
- [123] Complaining over his own editwar at admin, showing intent to continue 15 oct 20:23
- [124] Open AE against Nableezy 27 oct, ended 29 oct 21:00
- [125] Tryig to round up Cptnono "== G Massacre == Just curious as to why you won't engage on the page with Nableezy out? Your opinion matters" 31 Oct 22:47
- [126] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text 1 Nov 04:32
- [127] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text 1 Nov 05:41
All edit above is about the lead dispute in article [Gaza War] and about the single words 'Gaza Massacre'.
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
- [128] Warning by Tedder (talk · contribs)
- [129] Warning by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Requesting topicban
Additional comments by Mr Unsigned Anon (talk):
Stellarkid (talk) have as seen continued his editwarring after the topicban of nableezy - 21:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC) showing battlementallity whithout any sign of change.
- Response to Enigma
Your statement bather me as you sounds uninformed about me, and my case at AE. Have you read it at all? Have you read Jiujitsuguys ignorant ramblings and done some reserch about them? And about the 'helpfull' user Tyw7 who starting up the first AE case after I asked him for help against Jiujitsuguys ramblings?. If you going to adress any of Jiujitsugus accusations against me you better find out if there is any substanse behind them or just a morons ramblings, yes ban me now damnit. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Further response to Enigma
If you mean what you say and topicban atleast as many you threaten to do, perhaps even more of the povfilled editors on both sides, I guess that involve me. And I am positive to a solution like that. Let it be the night of the long blades. And I say sinserly, that would be the best to happen for wikipedia regarding IP-conflict related articles any administrator can do ever. Just be sure not to throw out any babies with the water. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[130]
Discussion concerning Stellarkid
Statement by Stellarkid
This has been a hard one for me to address and I will add a bit more tomorrow on specifics, but here is my more general statement.
I have been engaging in discussion in regard to this edit since Archive 58 & Archive 59 (long enough for my words to have been archived!) and on the current talk page. In fact, this particular edit has been argued almost since the first week of the article, as one can see by reading the archive. For the record, the archive is now going on 60 pages and the discussion regarding the Gaza "massacre" has been significant. There is not now, nor do I believe there has been, consensus to put this in the lede of the article.
That is why I spent considerable time discussing the policy issues involved, but was met consistently with the argument that "there is no consensus to remove the edit". There were even a couple of "no consensus" removals made by Mr Unsigned Anon himself [131] [132] . One editor said the sheer number of words on the talk pages would have made us rich if we were paid by the word, lol -- and I am confident he was referring to me.
If it is true as WP:EW says: "An edit war occurs when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each others' contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion," then I am innocent of the charge.
I did do a handful of reversions over the last month, but by no means did I try to override anyone's contributions "without attempting to resolve issues by discussion."
The problem is, just as there was no consensus to remove the material, as charged; neither was there a consensus to add it. This becomes a circular argument and inherently feeds an edit war. WP:CONSENSUS points out that Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality and verifiability in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on. Those were exactly the concerns that were brought out in argument on the archives and talk pages.
I tried to stay with policy based reasons, as did all the editors who objected to its inclusion, starting with WP:CCC which says that "no consensus" is not an appropriate reason for reverting. Some editors, as I did, complained that the sources did not support the contention WP:V, that the edit was WP:OR, some offered WP:NPOV, that the edit was not neutral. Some claimed it was neutral because it was an "alternative name", the other said it was not a name but a non-neutral description. One side said it was WP:CENSOR, the other said it was OK in the body, but not in the lede thus not censorship. Some wanted to use Arab sources and other editor/translators on Wiki and others quoted WP:NONENG. Another policy-based argument that was made was WP:LEADCITE which says: "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none."
WP:BURDEN says that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. If there is no consensus for an edit, the edit is controversial, seen as POV and offensive by some editors, unsupported by others, I believe it should be removed until there is consensus to include it, rather than included until there is consensus to remove it.
I'm not trying to be a policy wonk here but I think WP has these guidelines and policies for just such a reason, and believe in this case they support me rather than the complainant. Stellarkid (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Comments by other editors
Comments by Tedder
I'm in favor of the topic ban on Gaza War, Talk:Gaza War, and any other pages related to the subject. I've only become involved in mediating Gaza War since it came up on RFPP; I endorse a topic ban for this user to restore some civility to the article and talk page. Perhaps a time limit of a year should be put on the user, so they have an opportunity to be productive after then? tedder (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Comments by Cptnono
Of course he was trying to "round me up". I completely agree that Gaza massacre as it is used is incorrect. I'm trying to chill out from this page since it has gotten so out of hand, I need to cool down, and I thought Stellar's concise reasoning could handle the job just fine without me screwing it up. He didn't understand that WP:3RR included reversal of "actions of other editors, in whole or in part." It looks like he thought his reasoning was sufficient so the change was OK. It doesn't work that way. He juts got a warning from two admins about the same 3 reverts and I hope he takes it to heart. Being newer isn't an excuse but it should be taken into consideration. I also think a reminder of the motherly "2 wrongs don't make a right" is something would be nice. I think this AE is premature and Stellar will show that he is more than capable of following the rules and needs to go reread them. Punishing him to restore stability (which has never existed on the article unfortunately) is completely out of line. Asking him to not edit war over "massacre" should work but if you need justice (which isn't the point of this is it?) impose a 1rr. Cptnono (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Follow-up: The length of how long this has been going on should have no bearing on Stellar. He deserves a fair assessment without being lumped in with others. This recent wave (that is how it looks to me at least) involves editors who have not been involved with AE before or are newer to the article as well. Cptnono (talk) 07:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Gatoclass
Although I felt the decision concerning Nableezy above was uncomfortably one-sided, given that he was handed a stiff topic ban while Stellarkid, who had edit warred with equal enthusiasm since arriving at the page in question, got no sanction whatever, I had reluctantly decided to make no comment about it as I felt it best not to second guess the judgement of an uninvolved admin. At this point however, I feel something must be said.
I thought Stellarkid was extremely fortunate not to have also been topic banned in the previous case, given his sheer hypocrisy in bringing the case against Nableezy when he had been almost equally guilty of edit warring on the same article, but the fact that he has immediately resumed his edit war over the edit in question after just seeing another editor given a stiff penalty for doing so, demonstrates either an extraordinary lack of restraint or else a palpable contempt for this process. Either way, I think at this point Stellarkid must receive a sanction at least on par with that given to Nableezy (although as I understand it the length of Nableezy's ban is currently under review). This kind of behaviour is simply not acceptable. Gatoclass (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Jiujitsuguy
I oppose any sanction against Stellarkid. He is an excellent editor who has contributed greatly to the integrity of the article in question and has remained civil throughout. This is a common tactic that Mr Unsigned Anon employs. He attempts to silence and censor those he disagrees with by filing complaints and having them blocked or topic banned. If anyone deserves to be sanctioned it's Mr Unsigned Anon for the following reasons:
He has reverted me twice here [133] and here [134] within a span of less than 24 hrs. The second revert is particularly distressing becuase I was engaged in a debate with another editor who asked me to self revert here [135] and I was considering his request as evidenced by [136] Then Mr Unsigned Anon comes along and reverts me before the other editor even has a chance to respond to my proposal. Mr Unsigned Anon is very savvy and sophisticated when it comes to Wiki rules and procedure. He will push the envelope just far enough without bursting it. While technically, he's not in violation of 3R in letter, he's certainly in violation of spirit.
Moreover, he has engaged in a disruptive and infantile course of conduct
I've compiled a list of Diffs for your review concerning Mr Unsigned Anon. A review of these Diffs is important and sheds light on the nature of Mr Unsigned Anon.
Here [[137]] he is warned to stop engaging in disruptive reverts.
Here [[138]] he makes inquiries about my race.
Here [[139]] he accuses me of working for the Israeli government and also makes derogatory accusations based on alleged demographics.
Here [[140]] he asks me about the weather in Brooklyn based on his belief that I live there.
Here [[141]] he makes reference to my bank account on the Gaza discussion page.
Here [[142]] he taunts me to engage him in an edit war.
None of these comments are relevant, all of them are infantile and some of them are downright offensive. A sanction should therefore be imposed on Mr Unsigned Anon in the form of a lengthy topic ban.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Mr Unsigned Anon has just reverted yet again here [143] That would make three reverts in just over 24 hours. This is how he operates. Pushing the envelope just far enough. It is etremely frustrating to watch him take advantage of the rules to sanction another editor while he himself is an experienced edit warrior who will stop at nothing to censor those he disagrees with.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Enigmaman
This has been going on for months, with basically no progress. One reports another, it's generally ignored, rinse and repeat. Mr Unsigned Anon, for example, has been taken to AN/I several times, but no administrators really want to get involved in this mess. Topic bans should be meted out, starting with Mr Unsigned Anon. Remove one, see if anything changes, and then progress from there. The trouble, as with all I/P disputes, is that the only people who care to edit the pages are people with a very distinct POV, on one side or another. Enigmamsg 07:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Result concerning Stellarkid
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Betacommand
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Betacommand
User requesting enforcement:
IP69.226.103.13 (talk · contribs) 09:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Betacommand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand_2#Betacommand_instructed
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
- [144] I see no proof other than your word that your anything more than a 13 year old child Name calling is not civil.
- [145] "How about you actually read the instructions. Did you follow those directions? no. you where reverted because you cannot follow directions" Taunting a user who appears to be a newbie and didn't do something precisely to Betacommand's satisfaction is not civil.
- [146] "please stop being so condescending" is not civil.
- [147] "if there is a specific BRFA that you want reviewed let us know and we can take a closer look." Misrepresenting himself as a BAG member is not civil.
- [148][149] A comment that I am "forum shopping" for asking a specific question of bureaucrats on a specific board. I'm not forum shopping, the question belonged there and was appropriate. He's not a bureaucrat anymore than he's a BAG member.
- [150] An injunction to "stop being so aggressive." Not civil.
- [151][152][153] Apparently I didn't follow something 100% rigidly to his liking. Actually, what I did was failed to add a heading to the section, not failed to make a new section, as my section was indeed below the old.
- [154] Just more Betacommand provocations, calling my concerns about bots to be "ranting."
Betacommands last 30 or so edits are half about me, provoking me, personally attacking me, stalking me. I'm easy. Then he goes to AN/I and suggest something should be done about me[155] and his mentor, User:MBisanz comes back suggesting and indef block.[156]
This indef block against is way outside the bounds of how wikipedia explains block work. No warning, no proof offered, just Betacommand suggests something be done, his mentor suggests an indef block, and there it is, I'm indef blocked, while Betacommand can find some other user to stalk, taunt, provoke, and attack.
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
- [157] Warning by IP69.226.103.13 (talk · contribs)
- [158] Warning by IP69.226.103.13 (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Block.
Additional comments by IP69.226.103.13 (talk):
How many more chances does he get? I wasn't even given a chance to respond before I was indef blocked with no proof, no input form me, no evidence, just Betacommand and his mentor's say-so. Indef block seems to be the level of interaction on wikipedia, one chance and you're out. Betacommand has had many many chances. And, it's clear, he sees no incentive to be civil. It's a joke to him.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[159][160] Also his mentors.[161][162]
Discussion concerning Betacommand
Statement by Betacommand
Comments by other editors
The notice at the top of Betacommand's page suggests discussing concerns about enforcement with Betacommand and/or his mentors in advance of requests such as these. I can see diffs for Betacommand, but not for User:MBisanz or User:Hersfold - were they contacted with these concerns? Fritzpoll (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hersfold came to Betacommand's when I complained about his personally attacking me, he/she okayed Betacommand's comments to me, although granting that some of his comments should have been left out.[163] So, in other words, he/she has given Betacommand yet one more chance.
- MBisanz responded to Betacommand's suggestion at AN/I "something be done" about me by suggesting that I be indef blocked from editing wikipedia.[164] MBisanz is is one of the bot owners who goes after me at BAG and RFBA-he's not an uninvolved administrator, his request for an indef block gives the appearance of being retaliatory.
- Both of these users have knowledge of Betacommand stalking me at BOT boards. I have notified them of this enforcement request. Considering they were aware and participated in conversations with Betacommand calling me names, then MBisanz leaped, or gave the appearance of being very eager, at the opportunity to get someone to indef block me, there's no point in contacting them instead of a request for enforcement. --69.225.9.98 (talk) 10:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Result concerning Betacommand
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.