→The Rambling Man: fix lks |
→Result concerning The Rambling Man: comments, blocking |
||
Line 246: | Line 246: | ||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
||
I note that The Rambling Man has declined to comment here, by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Rambling_Man&diff=prev&oldid=768796888 removing the notification diff] with the comment "from an admin who routinely abuses his position, this is nothing of interest to me I'm afraid. Focus on admins telling editors to "FUCK OFF" instead". |
|||
* |
|||
In my view, the request establishes clearly that The Rambling Man has continued the conduct from which they were prohibited, i.e., "insulting and/or belittling other editors", and even their reaction to this AE request constitutes a violation of this prohibition. Per the remedy at issue, if "The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy." According to that policy, administrators must consider "the severity of the behavior; [and] whether the user has engaged in that behavior before." |
|||
I conclude that the number of violations established in the evidence, together with the warning in the last AE request and the reaction to this request, establishes a pattern of recurring violations and amounts to a severe violation of the prohibition. Accordingly, to effectively deter The Rambling Man from continuing with this conduct, I am blocking them for a month. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 21:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:42, 5 March 2017
CatapultTalks
CatapultTalks (talk · contribs) is hereby banned, for 3 months, from editing any and all pages regarding post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning CatapultTalks
Starting with most recent
Previous: On Immigration policy of Donald Trump - This page is under a 1RR restriction due to discretionary sanctions of which CatapultTalks has been made aware
Depending on how you count it that's either three or two 1RR violations. On Executive Order 13769 - This page is under a 1RR restriction due to discretionary sanctions of which CatapultTalks has been made aware
This is at least four 1RR violations and pretty close to a straight up 3RR violation On Social policy of Donald Trump - This page is under a 1RR restriction due to discretionary sanctions of which CatapultTalks has been made aware
Then
So that's a few more 1RR violations and a 3RR violation. In addition to the persistent edit warring several of these edits violate the discretionary sanction which states: " All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." Several of CatapultTalks' edits have been challenged by several users via reversion, yet he persists in restoring his preferred version without much discussion, much less bothering to get consensus. See this previous 3RR report which was closed with "Report_should_be_made_at_WP:AE.2C_which_is_the_appropriate_forum_for_any_Discretionary_Sanctions_violations" (personally disagree, violating 3RR and 1RR is violating 3RR and 1RR, discretionary sanctions or not, but here it is) [25]
I think I really bent over backwards with this user. Here is the first notification. Here is the second notification. Here is the third and formal notification by User:Coffee. Here is the fourth notification. And here is one last ditch attempt to try and get the user to listen and actually make a pretense at observing the discretionary sanctions restrictions: Fifth notification. Pretty much the response the whole time has been "I'm right, you're wrong, take it to the talk page" (of course CatapultTalks didn't bother taking anything to the talk page themselves) Note that CatapultTalks' reply here sort of encapsulates the problem - he violates 1RR, 3RR and other discretionary sanctions and when you bring that up to him he tries to argue about how his edits were legit (on his own talk page, rarely on article page) and refuses to stop edit warring. I mean, discussion is good, but if you break the rules that everyone is suppose to abide by, people will get frustrated (especially after he's been notified, what, six times?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Isn't Mr.Ernie's comment below itself sanctionable, per WP:ASPERSIONS? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC) For the first three diffs in the "Starting most recent" section, the diffs are there and just those three are sanctionable. I will try to dig out the diffs for the older reverts tomorrow.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning CatapultTalksStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by CatapultTalksFirst, I strongly object to the allegations that I don't bother taking anything to the talk page. Here are examples where I started discussions on talk pages. You would notice that in some instances I agreed based on inputs from other editors that my initial edit could be wrong and we arrived at consensus. On Immigration policy of the Donald Trump administration: [26], [27], [28], [29] On Social policy of the Donald Trump administration: [30], [31], [32] On Executive Order 13769: [33], [34], [35] Here's why VolunteerMarek's allegations about my edits are wrong: Starting with most recent per VolunteerMarek's statement above
On Social policy of the Donald Trump administration:
On Immigration policy of Donald Trump:
To me, this looks like VolunteerMarek is reverting my sourced good faith edits just because they don't like the edits or that it wouldn't promote a certain narrative. Please note that none of these edits are vandal attempts or unsourced POVs. So there is no justification in reverting my edits without a good reason - especially given that I'm very open to discussion on talk pages. CatapultTalks (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Follow-up comment: I request administrators commenting/acting on this to please note that this problem has compounded because of VolunteerMarek's continuous disruptive reverts of my good edits. It is almost like VolunteerMarek is setting me up for failure, by reverting without basis and then asking me to go get consensus. I implore you to relook at the kind of reverts we are talking about. Especially this [49], this [50] and this [51]. Also note that I've had fewer problems with other editors in gaining consensus because they have participated in talk page discussions - something that VolunteerMarek hasn't done. I want to reiterate that I do respect the policies, processes of Wikipedia, but it is the bad discretion displayed by VolunteerMarek in reverting my good edits that I don't respect.CatapultTalks (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Mr Ernie
Statement by SPECIFICO
Statement by James J. Lambden@Sandstein: The archives indicate Mr Ernie is correct to claim Volunteer Marek has brought a number of editors with "opposing political viewpoint[s]" to this board. To be precise: 7 (now 8) since August of last year, more than any editor in the same period under ARBAP2: 8/2/2016, 10/8/2016, 10/27/2016, 11/21/2016, 11/25/2016, 12/21/2016, 12/26/2016 WP:ASPERSIONS cautions against claims without evidence or in inappropriate forums. This appears to be neither. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning CatapultTalks
|
The Rambling Man
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 The Rambling Man
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- The ed17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- The Rambling Man (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/The Rambling Man#The Rambling Man prohibited : "The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors."
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
The Rambling Man has continued insulting and belittling other editors since the last AE thread last December, where he was warned that "continuing to use unnecessarily harsh language is likely to result in being blocked."
- 4 March "If you're not interested in fixing this sort of thing, why not go and do something else rather than add useless comments?"
- 4 March "You are not productive. Your comment adds nothing at all here. Point not proven, please stop assuming bad faith in extremis, and get back to solving this project's major problems of utterly crap quality control." Also please note the edit summary: "what an unsurprising misinterpretation, packed with bad faith and clueless as to how to actually SOLVE THE PROBLEM, do us all a favour and come up with something helpful for a change"
- 4 March "[T]hanks, your bad faith mini-rant is noted, yet another apologist who can't tell the difference between absolute statement of fact and "soapboxing"."
- 4 March "We can get back to discussing it with people who are actually genuinely interested in making this a better place."
- 3 March "You summarily failed to answer my question, but I suppose we probably already have an inkling of the answer."
- 2 March "You don't have the first idea what you're talking about, but why let that get in the way of a good story and a weak threat, eh?"
- 24 February "... there are some users who are there simply to give their "opinion" on things, and seldom provide any kind of link or reference for their "opinions". Funnily enough, one of them is here in this thread. Until such scandalous and unencyclopedic behaviour is stopped ... The sooner you both get that idea sorted out in your heads, the better."
- 12 February "Another parade of article owners and credit-hungry users."
- 31 January Denigrating an ESL speaker. "That doesn't make any sense at all. Perhaps you should leave it to a native English speaker before making suggestions or claiming that "fell into oblivion" isn't neutral in tone."
- 29 January "You are a disgrace, an abhorrence to the role of an admin, let alone as an normal person." – I fully admit some culpability in this, but the reply was rather over the top.
- 29 January "Not at all. Your opposition is founded in ill-logic. But never mind."
- 25 January Straight chilling threats, regardless of admin's wrongness. "Your behaviour as an admin will be carefully scrutinised, as you well know. And as you well know, Arbcom take a very dim view of admins who are not willing to abide by ADMINACCT." + "Your refusal to acknowledge your responsibilities as an admin is evident, we'll need to keep an eye on that going forward."
- 4 January "No, I get it. You didn't even look at the article, I understand."
- 3 January "we need to be careful before paying heed to a user who simply seems to take the role of headmaster when he is abundantly ignoring the community wishes"
- 21 December "Now disappear while I set about fixing up the garbage that I've just found!"
- 16 December "Your hyperbolic criticism is indicative of one who is too emotional to contribute neutrally."
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 14 December AE thread closed as no action, but "The Rambling Man is warned that continuing to use unnecessarily harsh language is likely to result in being blocked"
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning The Rambling Man
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 The Rambling Man
Driveby comment by Iridescent
Given that the most recent diff of TRM being "belittling" was in reply to someone else saying "fuck you" to him, I think you can probably cut him some slack for that one. ‑ Iridescent 21:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning The Rambling Man
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I note that The Rambling Man has declined to comment here, by removing the notification diff with the comment "from an admin who routinely abuses his position, this is nothing of interest to me I'm afraid. Focus on admins telling editors to "FUCK OFF" instead".
In my view, the request establishes clearly that The Rambling Man has continued the conduct from which they were prohibited, i.e., "insulting and/or belittling other editors", and even their reaction to this AE request constitutes a violation of this prohibition. Per the remedy at issue, if "The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy." According to that policy, administrators must consider "the severity of the behavior; [and] whether the user has engaged in that behavior before."
I conclude that the number of violations established in the evidence, together with the warning in the last AE request and the reaction to this request, establishes a pattern of recurring violations and amounts to a severe violation of the prohibition. Accordingly, to effectively deter The Rambling Man from continuing with this conduct, I am blocking them for a month. Sandstein 21:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)