Guerillero (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 266: | Line 266: | ||
====Statement by Jayron32==== |
====Statement by Jayron32==== |
||
Other than some salty language, at least 3 of your diffs were reverts from throw away accounts used by abusive bigots. Being told to leave with ''emphasis'' is exactly what should be done. I don't see anything there that rises to the level of sanctioning. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 23:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC) |
Other than some salty language, at least 3 of your diffs were reverts from throw away accounts used by abusive bigots. Being told to leave with ''emphasis'' is exactly what should be done. I don't see anything there that rises to the level of sanctioning. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 23:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
====Statement by Masem==== |
|||
Only noting that I know about the statement Jorm made in that discussion related to me and I just let it pass and still plan on letting it pass. Its disappointing that people want to dreg that up and assume bad faith when I try to argue on neutral stances on WP, but such is the case. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 00:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
====Statement by (username)==== |
Revision as of 00:26, 11 October 2020
Solavirum
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 Solavirum
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- GevHev4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Solavirum (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:ARBAA2 :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 27 September 2020 Backing a possible sockpuppet in an edit warring [1]
- 28 September 2020 harmful edit warring
- 23 September 2020 another harmful edit warring after he was asked to explain their edit at talk
- 28 September 2020 another unexplained revert
- 27 September 2020 another unexplained revert
- 17 September 2020 uses Khankendi nationalist site as a source
- 23 September 2020 uncivil remarks
- 23 September 2020 disruptive claims explaining their reverts
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 20:52, 20 July 2020 Partial block from 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASolavirum&type=revision&diff=884069839&oldid=883580559
- Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
User Solavirum persistently changes information using nationalist and dubious sources, with tendentious justification of their edit warring in edit summaries or without any explanations. This user has been repeatedly warned about this behavior but continues edit warrings, responds in uncivil manner to an opinion they didn't like and repeatedly made significant POV changes against consensus.
I am bringing this here, instead of ANI, as I don't think the user is NOTHERE, but the user is certainly not being constructive in the area of politics.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- noticed
Discussion concerning Solavirum
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 Solavirum
I object this. This user, for some unknown reason, has been targeting me since the July clashes. He even received a partial block for his efforts. For some reason, both Գարիկ Ավագյան and GevHev4 are accusing me sockpuppetry. I do not object an investigation. I have never been part of a sockpuppetry case before. My innocence is visible. This particle edit shows how GevHev4 removed my conversion of two separate sections into prose, as per WP:MOSFLAG. As visible here, I appealed for discussion, but for some reason this user has called this appeal "disruptive claims". GevHev4 clearly fails WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH and most of his appeals falls under the WP:IDONTLIKEIT, just as seen here. Also, this is an interesting response too. You can also see that some of the edits GevHev4 have presented here, are no arguments at all. Like in this, where I reverted a vandal edit. Anyways, I'm a regular editor here, and it is easy to guess why GevHev4 wants me to get blocked from editing on issues related to the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. Peace! --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Cabayi
My placement of the DS notice (for all editors on 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on 1 & 3 Oct) came after the infringements cited by GevHev4 (talk · contribs). The other was placed in Feb 2019, 18 months ago. Cabayi (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Solavirum
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- This seems to be more NPOV than the preceding edit --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs 1RR violations at Andy Ngo
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 Coffeeandcrumbs
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Springee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Coffeeandcrumbs (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
Andy Ngo is subject to 1RR as a DS under AP2 [[2]] The notice is on the top of Talk:Andy_Ngo
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 23:01, 30 September 2020 The descriptor "journalist" was recently (last two days) edit warred by several IP addresses. The term has been part of the intro sentence since January and has been discussed in the talk archives [[3]]. It was prat of the long standing version of the lead.
- 13:01, 1 October 2020 Adding "provocateur" can be seen as continuing the IP edit war that was trying to add the similar "propagandist". I will grant this is not a clear cut revert.
- 15:12, 1 October 2020, 16:19, 1 October 2020 One edit to remove "journalist" a second time. An hour later, after additional user and talk page discussion, the disputed label "provocateur" was restored. In the interim the editor replied to comments on their own talk page and on the article talk page. They even opened a RfC related to the label "journalist" but felt it was OK to keep "provocateur" in the lead.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Editor is aware of both BLP and AP2 DSs [[4]]
Dorsetonian and myself asked CC to self revert before the second set of edits were made [[5]] A talk page discussion related to CC's edits was also made prior to the second pair of edits [[6]] While the first two diffs could be seen as a single revert and the addition of new content, the second two reverts are clear. The second two don't have any reverts in between but given the discussions between the two reverts this seems like a questionable action on the editor's part. Even if they claim good faith in removing "journalist" they can't make the same claim for pushing "provocateur". Springee (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Several editors seem to be focused on the content dispute aspect. That is for the talk page. This is here because the editor violated 1RR. Springee (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Coffeeandcrumbs
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 Coffeeandcrumbs
- "provocateur" is significantly different than "propagandist". In these two edits, I tried to establish a neutral point from which editors can start a discussion to decide whether to include "journalist". As has been shown in previous discussions, the claim that he is a "journalist" is contentious and requires consensus for inclusion for WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Each edit I made was significantly different, and the last edit (after self-reverting on the bases of the claim of "provocateur" is not supported by RS) adds citations establishing that "provocateur" is based on reliable sources.
- I have in good faith started a RfC on the question of "journalist", which the OP ignores and tries to game the system by coming here to complain. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- The claim below by Wikieditor1992 ("
they are adding contentious labels to the opening sentence without sources
") is a complete falsehood. When I added "provocateur" the first time, the sources for that already existed in the § Career section. I self-reverted only on the basis of the claim by OP that it required additional sources. I self-reverted the self-revert adding sources in the lead. If a self-revert of a self-revert is a violation of 1RR, we are living in a bazaar world.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC) - Another falsehood, I opened the RfC a full hour before this opened. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- BLP is a double-edged sword. Not only does it require secondary sources for negative contentious claims, it also requires secondary sources for positive contentious claims. "Journalist" has a positive connotation, implying expertise, fairness, and fact checking. Multiple RS have established that Ngo does not meet that standard. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- I start the RfC about the "journalist" because that is the root cause of the POV issue. I added "provocateur" for WP:PARITY. I would have advocated for either removing both "journalist" and "provocateur" as I had done in my very first edit, or keeping both per NPOV. OP ignored the warning WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and restored the challenged claim, as if I am acting in bad-faith. I have also cited WP:3RRNO in my edit summaries. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- At the end of the day, if I did violate the 1RR, I apologize and will stay away from the article. I simply wanted "long-standing" to not be a justification for keeping a claim that is no longer supported by more recent RS, or consensus. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- The words "new consensus" appear nowhere in my statement. I have added a comma to the above. A good faith challenge to a claim from IP or experienced user, indicates that it is "no longer supported by ... consensus". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- OP's edit was itself in violation of BLP and so were Dorsetonian edits yesterday to restore "journalist" based only on "long-standing" consensus not supported by an inline citation. At the time, the article did not include citations to support "journalist" and the body in fact challenged that assertion calling him a "right-wing provocateur". AFAIK, it is not edit warring to remove claims on a BLP not supported by sources or to try a different word like "provocateur" instead of "propagandist" (which I never wrote). Editing is not reverting. Unlike Dorsetonian's edits yesterday, there is not a single diff presented that shows me reverting to a version the same as before (except the self-revert, which I restored with sources). --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Wikieditor19920
Not only is the reported user violating the DS at that page by breaking 1RR, they are adding contentious labels to the opening sentence without sources, and without even a nod to talk page discussion. I have spent some time at this article and this kind of disruptive editing gets in the way of positive changes and potential for consensus. CoffeeCrumbs suggests that it is "contentious" to call the subject a journalist, which is the language used by the New York Times, but defies common sense by stating that "provocateur" is not contentious label to which WP:LABEL applies, and which the highest quality sources on the subject, namely the WaPo and NYT, do not use. The editor clearly broke the DS at the relevant page and their reasoning here reverses the very meaning of BLP.
Update: It is baffling that C&C now opens an RfC "in good faith" and accuses Springee of "coming here to complain" only after they violated the pages discretionary sanctions. Springee was right to bring this report, and the RfC should've proceeded C&C's addition to the article, let alone edit-warring it back in over 1RR. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Contentious labels require citations, even in the lead. MOS:LEADCITE. And I will note that C&C's RfC does not address the most contentious of their changes, namely adding "provocateur" to the lead, and only asks about "journalist," a label that the NYT used to describe the subject. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't want to go over my limit here, but I am continually astounded by the justifications offered here. C&C suggests that BLP is a "double edged sword" which also applies to "positive" characterizations. I guess we are assuming "journalist" to be a positive label, but first, this is nowhere reflected in policy. BLP requires that material be accurate and well sourced and is particularly stringent when it comes to contentious material. The New York Times (see above) calls the subject a "journalist," so that is an open-and-shut matter. "Provocateur" is more consistently attributed to opinion columns and other non-secondary sources, yet C&C seems to suggest the two are on the same level—or that somehow the latter is appropriate but the former is not? I do not see this at all reflected in the sources or policy. None of this makes much sense to me, and I don't see it as offering any hint of justification for violating the DS at this page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- I appreciate the new sentiment by C&C that they will respect DS, but I have no idea what they are referring to by "new consensus" and "no longer supported by sources." The NYT piece supporting the label "journalist" was published in 2019. If there was such a "new consensus" for C&C's changes, then why are they just now opening an RfC? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Suggestion This was not acted on and is now basically a moot issue. However, I would encourage any reviewing admin to consider imposing a "consensus required" DS on the Andy Ngo page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Liz
I guess I should state that I reverted what I judged to be a reversion of a legitimate edit. I am aware of the continued efforts over the past few days by new editors to label Ngo a "propagandist", which is negative not based on reliable sources, but I thought "provocateur" was an appropriate descriptor. I was unaware of any conflict between these specific editors on this or other articles or talk pages. Liz Read! Talk! 17:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Objective3000
Like Liz, I also reverted propagandist. Like Liz, I also think provocateur is an appropriate descriptor. The two have very different meanings and provocateur and the like can be well sourced. Speaking of provocateur, I find some of the comments here and attempts to mess with the RfC provocative. I do see a technical 1RR vio. I say technical because it follows an IP edit war in the same wording and might be considered part of a cleanup. I suggest trout dinner all around (with social distancing) and using the RfC for agreement. O3000 (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Dorsetonian
- Yesterday the article in question was suffering a sustained attack from vandals repeatedly changing "journalist" to "propagandist". As an obvious BLP violation, this had to be promptly reverted and doing so was exempt from 1RR/3RR restrictions.
- Most of this vandalism came from IPs. Exceptions were Vautrinjr who twice restored "propagandist" ([7], [8]) - claiming on the second edit to have added a reference to support it (though did not) - and C&C who initially removed "journalist" and then subsequently added and re-added "provocateur" ([9], [10]).
- IMO, C&C was being a bit WP:POINTy in demanding a reference for "journalist" when it is patently clear from the existing references (a dozen of so of which describe him as a journalist in their quoted titles), and from the referenced career section ("Ngo was a writer and sub-editor at Quillette") that he is a journalist. Nevertheless, the fact was validly challenged and there are references now in place. I am not quite sure why C&C is still pursuing a campaign to remove "journalist" from the article, but that is not the issue here.
- I do not regard "provocateur" in anything like the same league as "propagandist". The latter is clearly intended to disparage the subject; the former merely describes someone who provokes controversy. Adding the term with references was not vandalism in the way that replacing "journalist" with "propagandist" was.
- Technically, Vautrinjr and C&C did exceed 1RR which applies to this article. However, I AGF that neither editor saw that this sanction was in place and do not support the use of any sanctions against them. The ongoing content dispute can play out on the article talk page. Dorsetonian (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Shinealittlelight
In the link provided by Springee, the matter of whether 'journalist' should be in the lead was off and on under debate from August 2019 to January 2020. Now C&C wades in and raises the tired issue yet again, and violates 1RR in the process. This is not complex. If C&C can't follow 1RR, Andy Ngo is not the right article for C&C to be editing. We don't need to continue the long discussion of the issue of the word 'journalist' at AE; 1RR is either a bright line to be enforced here or it isn't. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Coffeeandcrumbs
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I'm not going to comment here as I've just protected the article and no doubt someone would inevitably accuse me of being involved, just posting to note that the article is currently locked. Black Kite (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not impressed by the use of BLP as a club here --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Couldn't this have just stayed at article talk? There's no one ill-intentioned here. —valereee (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Peregrine Fisher
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 Peregrine Fisher
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- ItsPugle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Peregrine Fisher (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/Enforcement/Archive262#Peregrine Fisher: indefinite topic-ban from race and intelligence
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- Special:Diff/981587198: disputing the inclusion of white supremacy on Proud Boys despite reliable sources
- Special:Diff/981579424, Special:Diff/981586873, Special:Diff/981584062, Special:Diff/981581234, Special:Diff/981580770: disputing the inclusion of far-right and on Proud Boys despite reliable sources
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- Special:Diff/952615929: 72h block for talk page activity in a review for a race and intelligence page
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
- Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Special:Diff/952615929 by AmandaNP (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
- Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive262#Statement by Peregrine Fisher
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
While the talk discussion was not particularly malicious, Proud Boys is currently protected after the slew of vandalism and NPOV issues, primarily trying to remove the mention of white supremacy and neo-fascism. In their comments, Peregrine Fisher also exhibited general incivility, often making stark and blanket assertions that other editors are wrong.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Special:Diff/981911385
Discussion concerning Peregrine Fisher
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 Peregrine Fisher
Statement by MelbourneStar
I raised AE restrictions with the editor in question, here, after their query to the Proud Boys talk page with pertinence to white supremacy. Also, Proud Boys wiki-links to Race and Intelligence per this (although I'm not sure how, I can't find the link; if someone can find it that would be great). Thank you, —MelbourneStar☆talk 08:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Statement by ItsPugle
@Guerillero: Proud Boys have been designated as a racist hate group by the SPLC, often marketing themselves as "western chauvinists", with an "anti-white guilt" and "western superiority" agenda. ADL has called them Islamophobic and anti-Semitic with significant members sharing "white supremacist and anti-Semitic ideologies and/or engage with white supremacist groups". They're commonly called a white supremacy group by reliable sources, too (see the 11 sources provided in response to Peregrine Fisher's dispute). By all regards, the Proud Boys are a racist, white supremacist, violent political militia. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 05:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Nfitz
As Peregrine often doesn't edit for days (or sometimes weeks) at a time, probably best to leave this open for a week or so, in case they want to provide input. Nfitz (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Peregrine Fisher
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- What is the intersection between the Proud Boys and R&I --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- @ItsPugle: The DS are on "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed" not White Supremacy. Unless someone can offer a compelling argument to link the Proud Boys to the exact topic under sanctions, I think there is nothing we can do here per Newslinger --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- While the Proud Boys are covered by the post-1932 American politics discretionary sanctions, I do not believe they are covered by the race and intelligence discretionary sanctions. The topic of race and intelligence (defined in the arbitration remedy as "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed") is more of an academic subject than a political one. If a group is "far-right" or "affiliated with white supremacists" (as stated in the Proud Boys article), this by itself is not sufficient to link the group to the topic of race and intelligence.
Peregrine Fisher received a discretionary sanctions alert for post-1932 American politics on 4 October. Peregrine Fisher has not yet edited after receiving the alert, so I recommend this request be closed with no action. A future enforcement request can be filed under the post-1932 American politics discretionary sanctions, if needed. — Newslinger talk 10:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- As a note, the list of pages that link to "Race and intelligence" includes the Proud Boys article because the article contains the {{White nationalism}} template, which lists both Race and intelligence and the Proud Boys. — Newslinger talk 10:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that Proud Boys content does not inherently fall under R+I (though some elements may) and so there is no tban violation for those edits. I also agree that it does fall under AP2 but would need to see evidence of disruption after the template was placed. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl
Now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment § Amendment request: Portals. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Per the decision in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals#Remedies issues on 29 January 2020, BrownHairedGirl is prohibited from "engaging in discussions about portals anywhere on Wikipedia", and from "interacting with or commenting about Northamerica1000 anywhere on Wikipedia", both subject to appeal "in six months". BrownHairedGirl has studiously observed these restrictions for over eight months now, and has continued to contribute excellent work to the encyclopedia since then. Another editor and I are therefore preparing to renominate her for adminship. It is possible that either of the aforementioned issues will be raised by participants in the discussion, and I therefore request that the specified restrictions be lifted, either in their entirety, or at least to the extent needed for the purpose of fully engaging any issues that may arise during the course of the RfA. I am also informing User:Northamerica1000 of this request. BD2412 T 17:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
|
Jorm
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 Jorm
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Pudeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Jorm (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/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 8 August 2020:
fuck off with your transphobia shit
personal attack - 27 September 2020 :
Go fuck yourself, transphobe
personal attack - 1 October 2020:
The Gamergate Controversy is a bullshit set of terms used to describe a misogynist harassment campaign without actually calling it a "harassment campaign" while also not trying to hurt the feelings of a bunch of assholes. It was started by a bunch of chucklefucks--
Battleground attitude, personal attacks etc. - 8 October 2020:
go fuck yourself
personal attack - 8 October 2020:
Masem always argues that we put the propaganda first. They did it for Gamergate - so much so that those deplorable fucks refer to them as "Based Masem". Masem will always carry water like this. Keep that in mind while developing consensus.
Battleground attitude, personal attack
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Last alerted by SMcCandlish on 9 July 2020.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Diffs speak for themselves, and they are all related to the GamerGate/gender topics DS area. Especially the attack on Masem for his GamerGate editing had plenty of unneeded vitriol.
Someone opened a thread about "Attitude" on Jorm's talk page just last week. He responded with his usual "cool story, bro" shtick. --Pudeo (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Jorm
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 Jorm
Statement by Jayron32
Other than some salty language, at least 3 of your diffs were reverts from throw away accounts used by abusive bigots. Being told to leave with emphasis is exactly what should be done. I don't see anything there that rises to the level of sanctioning. --Jayron32 23:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Masem
Only noting that I know about the statement Jorm made in that discussion related to me and I just let it pass and still plan on letting it pass. Its disappointing that people want to dreg that up and assume bad faith when I try to argue on neutral stances on WP, but such is the case. --Masem (t) 00:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Jorm
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Looking over the diffs, the only one that is actionable is this personal attack on Masem. At this time I think that we don't need to do more than to remind Jorm to focus on the content not the contributor. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)