Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive273: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussions from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. (BOT) |
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussions from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. (BOT) |
||
Line 1,474:
:IPs are not banned. The users behind them may be, but as a general rule the IPs themselves cannot be subject to a ban. In any case, it's blocked for 31h by {{user|Shirik}}. —<font color="228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small></sup> 05:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
::My proposed ban is for whoever is using the IP address to post the pornography. [[Special:Contributions/2602:306:3357:BA0:F988:206B:94E7:4AF4|2602:306:3357:BA0:F988:206B:94E7:4AF4]] ([[User talk:2602:306:3357:BA0:F988:206B:94E7:4AF4|talk]]) 05:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
== Appeal of topic ban ==
A little more than a year ago I was toppic banned ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive847#Antidiskriminator_2 link]). I hereby appeal for lifting this ban.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive269#Appeal_of_topic_ban This is a link to discussion] regarding my last ban appeal which was closed as "no consensus" because editors who participated in it did not appear to reach consensus to remove or alter the ban. At my last ban appeal I explained how many articles I created in the meantime, how many of them were approved as DYK articles, how many of them were start or C class articles. In the meantime the list is much longer with 69 new articles and 19 DYK approved. I will repeat that I want to return to the topic area because the subject of my particular interest (Ottoman Empire) is frequently related to post-1900 Serbs and Serbia and because sometimes I simply am able to constructively contribute to it, but can not due to restriction. I promise to continue to take a very good care not to violate wikipedia policies while editing articles related to the topic area from which I was banned as well as other topic areas. --[[User:Antidiskriminator|Antidiskriminator]] ([[User talk:Antidiskriminator|talk]]) 20:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
:The closing statement for the last discussion said "I recommend Antidiskriminator try again in a few months and demonstrates an understanding of why the ban is in place beyond "The ban was imposed because the community reached consensus to ban me"." - Can you demonstrate an understanding of why the ban was placed? This request, again, only states that you were topic banned. [[User:Samwalton9|'''S'''am '''W'''alton]] ([[User talk:Samwalton9|talk]]) 20:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
::Yes of course. I explained that in my last appeal, but little further in the text. Here it is: "The ban was imposed because the community reached consensus to ban me....The community reached consensus to ban me because of my talkpage behavior. I had numerous content and conduct related disputes with a group of editors. My communication with them was seen as disruptive (unproductive, unconstructive, annoyingly bizarre, unhelpful, mind-numbing, obstructing, stonewalling, ....). " Although most of the votes for the ban come from editors that I have been in conflict with, I do have a plan to avoid similar problems in this topic areas by strictly following wikipedia policies and avoiding both content and conduct disputes with other editors.--[[User:Antidiskriminator|Antidiskriminator]] ([[User talk:Antidiskriminator|talk]]) 21:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
=== Comments by Peacemaker67 ===
I appreciate that Antid is entitled to choose to appeal here as an alternative to AE, but the behaviour he was banned for was done under AE/ARBMAC. As someone who has had many extremely frustrating interactions with Antid over a couple of years, mostly on talk pages, but also in article creation, titling and similar issues, I have little confidence that Antid will have learnt his lesson, as the last time a topic ban was proposed, implemented and subsequently lifted in 2012 by {{u|EdJohnston}}, Antid went straight back to the same behaviour (which is why this ban imposed by {{u|Drmies}} is in place now). His initial approach above avoided even describing the topic ban or why it was imposed. If I was appealing, I would consider it necessary to demonstrate that I completely understood why I had been topic-banned, before asking for the ban to be lifted. He chose not to do that, and it had to be drawn out of him. It would also ensure admins could quickly understand what he thought it was imposed for. He also doesn't appear to accept that those that supported the ban and opposed its lifting last time had a case. He appears to think it is some sort of personal vendetta against him.
Since his last appeal, he may well have been productive in the Ottoman Empire period of Serbian history (pre-1900), but any productivity and acceptable wikibehaviour in that time period does not imply that he can achieve that in later time periods, which are far more contested, and I caution admins that if this ban is lifted, they need to be willing to consider a more stringent or even indefinite topic ban if he returns to his previous behaviour. I also think that Antid should be required to provide "behaviour references" from editors working in the area he is apparently productively editing in, including ones he has had disagreements with.
In the interests of fairness, and to give him some benefit of the doubt (something which I have had in short supply with him for several years due to his behaviour), I would be willing to support a small extension of the time period from 1900 to 1913 so that he can edit in the topic area period including the pre-World War I Balkan Wars. As far as his interest in the Ottoman Empire is concerned, this gives him everything except the period 1914-1918. I may live to regret this, but how about a modification of the topic ban to read "a ban on Antidiskriminator editing in topics involving 'Serbs and Serbia 1914-current' (broadly construed)". Regards, [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67#top|crack... thump]]) 01:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
:A probation period might be useful. I hope you guys are willing to act if he stays true to form, because you don't deal with him on a daily basis when he is free to roam the Balkans at will. Easy to AGF and agree to lift, but sometimes, when it comes to taking action against a recidivist who re-offends, all we can hear is crickets... So I'll ping you all if (when) he does. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67#top|crack... thump]]) 06:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
::And a point on the much- loved ROPE essay. Under "When not to use" it says "If a user has already been blocked numerous times for the same behavior, they've already gotten all the rope they need; the hangman is just asleep at the switch" and *Banned users – users blocked by community discussion or ArbCom"... So, not so much. I'm out. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67#top|crack... thump]]) 07:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
:::1RR is unlikely to be of much use. Most of Antid's most egregious behaviour was on talk pages rather than articles. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67#top|crack... thump]]) 12:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
::::Unless Antid addresses the concerns expressed by myself and others, showing he truly understands what he was doing wrong before and how he will avoid doing it in the future, I am moving to '''Oppose'''. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67#top|crack... thump]]) 02:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::The discussion which resulted in Antid being banned from the [[Pavle Djurisic]] article is at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive126#Antidiskriminator]], so no-one here can argue they didn't know his history. Cheers, [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67#top|crack... thump]]) 12:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
=== Opinions on lifting the ban ===
* I am comfortable with lifting the restriction on the basis that if the problem recurs, we can always re-impose it. It might be an idea to have a "probation" period during which any recidivism can go straight back to a restriction without the need for further debate. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 11:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
* Support lifting of restriction per [[WP:ROPE]]. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 13:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
*Two guys in a row...that's suspicious. Hmm. I personally have no real objection and am a firm believer in rope, though that has a somewhat negative figurative value. I'm somewhat biased, of course, since I think "Antidiskriminator" has a pretty cool (if kocky) user name. [[User:Drmies|Dr. "Not A Guy" mies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 14:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
::Whoever wrote that ROPE essay is a certified genius. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 01:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
::<small>& a tad Vainglorious to boot. ;) --[[Special:Contributions/64.85.217.37|64.85.217.37]] ([[User talk:64.85.217.37|talk]]) 11:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)</small>
*'''Oppose''' This request is pretty unconvincing. When asked to explain what led to the topic ban Antidiskriminator simply quotes themselves, and then blames being banned on "editors that I have been in conflict with": even if this is the case, to have got so many editors who are in good standing so seriously offside demonstrates that this wasn't some kind of vendetta, and implying that this was the case here as part of their request to have the topic ban lifted is a rather bad sign. Their "plan" to avoid the problems which led to the ban is also basically a motherhood statement which provides no details on how they will avoid the problems (for instance, by staying away from certain articles, adopting a voluntary 1RR restriction, making appropriate use of dispute resolution, looking for a mentor, etc). [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 11:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
* I certainly think a probation period and the 1RR are necessary to promote good behaviour. These topics have been very stable for the past year, I don't want to be dragged into conflicts yet again. As to whether the ban should be lifted or not, I don't think it is my place to say. [[User:IJA|IJA]] ([[User talk:IJA|talk]]) 12:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - Does Antidiskriminator understand why he/she was banned in the first place? Antidiskriminator hasn't given any examples as to why he/ she was blocked. Instead Antidiskriminator has stated that he/she was blocked because his/her edits were ''"'''seen''' as disruptive (unproductive, unconstructive, annoyingly bizarre, unhelpful, mind-numbing, obstructing, stonewalling, ....)"''. Antidiskriminator has basically said that he/she was blocked because other users viewed his/her edits as being "disruptive" and has listed a few examples of disruptive behaviour. Antidiskriminator still hasn't acknowledged any wrongdoing on his/her behalf. Whilst I support his/her right to appeal the ban, I'm not entirely convinced that Antidiskriminator understands why he/she was banned. I get the feeling that Antidiskriminator still believes that he/she was blocked because other editors were prejudice towards him/her (which is obviously not the case). I'm not sure that Antidiskriminator understands his/her wrong doing. I'm not sure that Antidiskriminator has learnt his/her lesson. Saying that other users viewed his/her edits as being disruptive, then listing a few examples of general disruptive behaviour is not sufficient. Perhaps Antidiskriminator could give us some examples of his/her wrong doing and explain why it was wrong? This way we can tell if the lesson has been learnt. [[User:IJA|IJA]] ([[User talk:IJA|talk]]) 16:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
* I see little in the way of assertion, let alone evidence, of reform here. AD was banned from the topic area because he was wikilawyering, and he now promises to strictly adhere to policies. I seem to recall that that's sort of exactly what happened the last time - he used every method imaginable that stayed roughly within the realm of a cursory interpretation of the policies, while still pushing his POV and gnawing at our collective patience. Just for example, we need to hear exactly what he would now do at the article about that Serbian general, I forget the name, who got that Nazi decoration that is disputed by some Serbian people (including AD), where he was banned from the talk page earlier and where his actions had led to a huge amount of acrimony. Explanation of any other specific example would be good, too. --[[User:Joy|Joy [shallot]]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 19:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
::Is it allowed to comment other editors (ie their ethnicity) on wikipedia {{u|Joy}}?--[[User:Antidiskriminator|Antidiskriminator]] ([[User talk:Antidiskriminator|talk]]) 21:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
:#@Joy - The name of the General is [[Pavle Đurišić]].
:#@AD - No one commented on ethnicity, Serb is the name of the ethnic group, Serbian people refers to people associated with Serbia regardless of ethnicity.
:#@AD - Don't avoid what is being said by intentionally going off top and changing the subject, that is the sort of tactic and behaviour which got you topic banned. [[User:IJA|IJA]] ([[User talk:IJA|talk]]) 00:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
::::Again, whether Joy is right or wrong to raise Antid's ethnicity, Antid immediately goes into wikilawyering mode, but makes no response on how he would deal with the issues he no doubt still has regarding the [[Pavle Đurišić]] article, which is the one Joy is refe rring to. Cheers, [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67#top|crack... thump]]) 00:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
::::: Mentioning ethnicity or rather the nation is perfectly pertinent here, because the topic area of the ban is strictly nationally defined. And I've no idea whatsoever why it would be disallowed to say that this historical person is Serbian or that that there are modern-day Serbian people who think something other than the consensus about that. That was one of the flash points in the disputes that led to earlier bans and this ban. I see no point in anyone second-guessing me trying talk about it, it would be an assumption of bad faith. Maybe AD is concerned that since he's not allowed to edit about the topic area generally, he's also not allowed to talk about it here? I'm pretty sure there's an exemption for that. --[[User:Joy|Joy [shallot]]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 08:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::I doubt that very much. He's wikilawyering about you raising his ethnicity in this context. I agree it is relevant, but I don't think it is necessary. He has worked against the lifting of the ban through his reticence to explain the real reasons why he was banned and by failing to address what he would do to avoid a recurrence. No doubt the page on which he lists all the things he doesn't like about various articles still exists, along with the list of articles he has quarantined himself from after being called out for his disruptive behaviour and wikilawyering. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67#top|crack... thump]]) 13:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::: He actually went the extra mile at [[User talk:Drmies#Ethnicity of other editors]]. If it needs to be said at this point, I implore the community not to lift the ban on this egregious abuser. --[[User:Joy|Joy [shallot]]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 14:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, {{U|Joy}}, they did, and everyone is welcome to see the exchange there. They will also see that I said that I think you have a serious problem if you can't distinguish between POV and heritage. I think that your commenting and speculating on someone's ethnicity is distasteful as well as wrong, if it's used to base a judgment on: you're suggesting "AD is a Serb so they got a Serbian POV". Listen, if you cannot make the point about a POV from the edits, if you have to go by way of ethnic hypothesis, then you should lose the argument. Talk about edits, not about the editor. Consider this a warning: hypothesizing about an editor's ethnicity inasmuch as you think it commandeers their POV is a lack of AGF, and thus blockable. Now zip it, and make an actual argument. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 21:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::: I made an argument, but because I used completely trivial terminology that can be misconstrued as an appeal to ethnic bias, you ignored it. The ethnicity, nationality, location and whatever other property of those people advocating the disruption of the Pavle Đurišić article is immaterial. The fact that it happened and may continue to happen in the future unless this is cleared up - is what is important in this discussion. --[[User:Joy|Joy [shallot]]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 07:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::: JFTR I explained further at [[User talk:Drmies#Ethnicity of other editors]] now. Let's link the old discussion here too: [[Talk:Pavle Đurišić/Archive 4#Iron cross controversy]]. That is about the "decoration that is disputed by some Serbian people (including AD)" from above. --[[User:Joy|Joy [shallot]]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 11:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
*I've been invited to comment by Antidiskriminator, so here's my 2c. I found myself on the receiving end of inappropriate conduct from the user on numerous occasions, and we've had disagreements more than once to say the least - but even so: '''support''' lifting the ban. While he isn't quite ''grovelling'' outright, my impression is he's serious. Plain and simple. That, and I can't bring myself to condone Joy's draconic "''Purges''", the standard vitriol notwithstanding. If he's ''stupid'' enough to actually continue in the same vein then I say t-ban him for good. Move that be made clear in any lifting of the sanction. Best regards to all (yes, even you Joy :)). <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- [[User:Director|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:Director|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></font> 18:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
:: If I was actually into draconic purges, perhaps I would have purged some of your meaningless flamewars over the years, but as we can see you're still here to flame me. --[[User:Joy|Joy [shallot]]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 19:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
:::Again, just zip it with the personal stuff. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 21:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
:::: Since the ban was introduced at his request, I don't think its "flaming" to point out Joy may be abusing his admin cred and going too far, demanding bans left and right. In fact - mostly "left", usually for those at odds with a Croatian right-wing point of view. Whereas he will defend his own to the point of distaste... As he (imo) made clear even in this thread, he is far from free of local ethno-political bias. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- [[User:Director|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:Director|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></font> 06:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
::::: Director, we have been on the same and different sides of arguments in the past, but in the recent past you have not been the one who has been dealing with Antid when he returns to type. Joy (and I) do, along with {{u|Tomobe03}} and {{u|23 editor}}. And others like IJA. It's nice that you (and others) think Antid should be given even more rope than he's already had from two increasingly-wide topic bans, but you won't be there dealing with it. I have no interest in nationalism on any side in the Balkans, and I am on the same page (if not the same paragraph) as Joy on this one. Far from grovelling, Antid shows no signs of contrition whatsoever, and has outlined no plan to avoid the same behaviour as got him banned in the past (twice). On that basis alone, he should be subjected to a "one strike and you're out" probation period at best, and retention of the t-ban as it is at worst. Please keep your conflicts with Joy out of this. Thanks, [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67#top|crack... thump]]) 06:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::: I really am. Peacemaker, this guy has been hammered twice: If he's a marginally ''sentient being'', he'll know to shut up and behave. If not, I say lower the boom on him. You absolutely have a point, I haven't been there recently, and I won't be dealing with him if he gets back (you know I appreciate the damage control you do) - but I'm NOT suggesting you be forced to deal with more of his disruption. If he starts again, you ought to be able to put a stop to it by the quick procedure. Hence, like I said: he seems serious, he seems like he cares about not getting further sanctions. Put him on probation, two years, something like that. And take this into consideration: if he really is as dumb as all that, he'll receive harsher, ''more appropriate'' sanction.
:::::: Then again, you are right in that it would make everyone more comfortable if Antid does actually SAY he understands why he's been sanctioned, and that he WILL ACCEPT the community position when opposed. [[User:Antidiskriminator|Antid]]? It doesn't look good at all, otherwise. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- [[User:Director|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:Director|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></font> 07:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
::::: Either I ''am'' abusing my admin cred and going too far, or I am not. There is no ''may''. ''May'' is just being tendentious. And accusing me of such a misdeed without evidence is casting aspersions. Typical Internet flaming, really, but prohibited by Wikipedia policies. --[[User:Joy|Joy [shallot]]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 11:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::: Indeed. In fact, why don't you propose a topic ban? Its not like your accusations of my "flame-warring" are in any way unsubstantiated or inflammatory in and of themselves.
:::::: Has it perhaps occurred to you that my using the (grossly provocative) word "may", might have something to do with the fact that that isn't my call to make? As for evidence, I think you ''may'' have done a decent job of displaying your bias on your own in this thread.
:::::: But now, in the best traditions of flame-warring, I think I'll withdraw from this discussion. At least with yourself. Bye. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- [[User:Director|<span style="color:#353535">Director</span>]] <span style="color:#464646">([[User talk:Director|<span style="color:#464646">talk</span>]])</span></font> 12:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
== Proposal for arbitration enforcement requests to have a more flexible focus ==
The template for submitting an AE request is currently geared to accept only a single name, with that name becoming the title of the AE request. Though a title can always be changed, there has nonetheless arisen a custom of one-person-per-case at AE. This has several disadvantages:
* It may induce a "pillory effect", with the title encouraging onlookers to put in their two cents on the individual in question, regardless of whether the input is relevant to the specifics of the case.
* The subject of an AE request may be unfairly singled out from other editors involved, despite a general understanding that [[WP:BOOMERANG]] applies.
* In a recent case where several editors submitted boomerang evidence, the case was closed with the suggestion that a separate AE request be made for the boomerang. This is a problem because:
** Those who submitted boomerang evidence are expected to be around to resubmit their evidence, assuming they somehow discovered that they need to do so.
** The summary dismissal of evidence may emit a contemptuous vibe; editors may not bother resubmitting even if they are available.
** With the decline in admin participation at AE, cases nowadays can drag on for weeks. Having boomerangs submitted separately only prolongs the process.
** AE requests are sometimes discounted or weighted less if they appear retaliatory. Thus there is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation: submit boomerang evidence in the self-same case, and it gets dismissed as needing a separate case; submit it as a separate case, and it gets dismissed as retaliatory.
* Having ''situations'' be the focus of enforcement requests will help engender the understanding that multiple editors may deserve scrutiny. The title and focus of an AE request may still be a single person, but that should not be a requirement, or the default.
* Practically speaking, this proposal only amounts to modifying {{template|Sanction enforcement request}} and related templates.
''[[User:Manul|Manul]] ~ [[User talk:Manul|talk]]'' 17:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
:Strongly concur. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 17:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
: Yes, this makes good sense. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 23:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
:Mixed feelings. While this makes sense in many ways, from a practical standpoint I'm concerned that it could lead to more sprawling cases that are harder to evaluate. Cases already linger for ''weeks'' before finally being acted upon (or going stale). [[User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|Short Brigade Harvester Boris]] ([[User talk:Short Brigade Harvester Boris|talk]]) 00:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
::The spinning off of multiple boomerang cases, as was recently done, looked disruptive to me, and almost surely resulted in more delay. I understand the point about sprawl, but spawning new yet closely related cases seems to be a worse instance of sprawl. Since admins should be following the related cases in order to understand the relationship between them, and since we don't want new admins to come in without that context, it seems better to have one case instead. A case can be organized with subsections containing diffs for each editor, and a redesigned template can set this up.
::The lack admins participating at AE is an issue on its own, though there's little that can be done about it, of course. They recently had their salaries doubled, and still no effect! It's part of the general decline in activity across the board, really. ''[[User:Manul|Manul]] ~ [[User talk:Manul|talk]]'' 13:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
| |||