Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive293
WikiMonitor2021
[edit]| Indefinitely blocked as a normal admin action. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:58, 4 September 2021 (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 WikiMonitor2021[edit]
na
Additional diff added. FDW777 (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning WikiMonitor2021[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by WikiMonitor2021[edit]Hello everyone, thanks for joining in. I'm currently discussing this matter on social media, so your input will be appreciated. I write / blog about politics, crime, terrorism on the island of Ireland. This includes the Troubles. The type of people who read my work include politicians, journalists, experts on crime / terrorism. I (and other people) are curious as to why the names of the nine people killed in the Claudy bombings have been removed twice by FDW777. Names of victims are on other Troubles related pages (Such as Bloody Friday), so the intentional deletion on the Claudy page is inconsistent with accepted practice on other Wikipedia pages. It also creates the impression of politically motivated editing / deletion. Clearly this does not help the reputation of Wikipedia, as it puts a question mark over the credibility / reliability of content and the motivation of editors. So...would anyone like to comment? Could FDW777 also explain why another Wikipedia user was praising his work on the Provisional IRA? In light of the fact that FDW777 is delating the names of victims of an IRA bomb attack, this seems rather sinister. Thanks in advance. :)— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiMonitor2021 (talk • contribs) Statement by Thryduulf[edit]The combination of username and behaviour here is giving me very strong feelings that this user might be a sock of someone previously banned from this topic area. I couldn't tell you who, or even precisely why I feel this way, and so can provide no concrete evidence of anything (which is why I'm posting in this section). @HJ Mitchell: does this ring any bells for you? Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning WikiMonitor2021[edit]
|
Arqamkhawaja
[edit]| Blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:10, 4 September 2021 (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 Arqamkhawaja[edit]
n/a
Obviously a simple copy and paste move itself isn't a sanction-worthy problem, but given the disputed status of Kashmir, it is a problem if the Pakistan page is moved to Kashmir Premier League while leaving Kashmir Premier League (India). Although they seem to have stopped their Ahmadiyya related disruption, thought it sensible to bring it up here to show there's been wider issues than just the one page move.
I realise this seems to be heading in one direction only and this might be redundant, but the more I see from this editor the more I think they don't have the competence to edit Wikipedia. I didn't delve too deeply into their editing history or the history of their talk page, if I had I'd have seen this edit adding an unreferenced date of birth to an entertainment related article, and their reply of "Shivaji Satam was born on April 1950.it was true" to a warning about this edit sets alarm bells ringing. And since this report was filed, they've made another incompetent page move. The disambiguation page at Javed Iqbal lists two judges, so an additional disambiguator than just "judge" is used for both of them. Despite this, they moved one of them to "Jawed Iqbal (Judge)". FDW777 (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Arqamkhawaja[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Arqamkhawaja[edit]Statement by Kleuske[edit]I came across this user during their exploits in Kashmir Premier League and Maulana Tariq Jamil Foundation. I concur with MrsSnoozyTurtle (See AfD nom) that Arqamkhawaja is WP:GAMING the system, and for that reason, I do not think topic bans will suffice, since the users behavior trancends POV editing and out-of-control content disputes, but goes well into disruptive territory. For that reason, I would have preferred an AN/I case, but the problems are well summed up, here. Kleuske (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Arqamkhawaja[edit]
|
Huldra
[edit]| Huldra reminded to be cautious with the one revert rule in this topic area. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:19, 4 September 2021 (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 Huldra[edit]
@Callanecc: @Huldra: can still restore the material that she removed with her first edit. Huldra are you going to do it? --Shrike (talk) 06:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC) @Vanamonde93: She can still restore her first removal of material --Shrike (talk) 07:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Huldra[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Huldra[edit]Yes, I confess, I reverted stuff on the Tira article:
That was careless of me; I should of course have waited, (especially as I am fully aware that have half a dozen editors watching my every edit with hawk-eyes, and will report me if I get a word wrong) And yes, I was made aware of this at 23:09, 1 September 2021 But already at 21:24, 1 September 2021 the article had been edited again, making a self-revert impossible. (I tried), Huldra (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC) Statement by Nableezy[edit]Did you even ask for a self revert? nableezy - 17:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC) Statement by 11Fox11[edit]Wow. Just WOW. It doesn't get more blatant than this. Huldra goes after a newbie with a 1RR violation notice, right after Huldra broke 1RR herself with an undo 23 hours and 59 minutes (did Huldra thing 24 hours were up?) after this removal (with a false edit summary, removal of lots of content not a reword) that removed quite a bit including the complete removal of this recent edit a day before: ("Violence in the name of protecting "honor" is also a problem. In 2003, a Tira couple who took part in a pornographic film were attacker by a lynch mob in the town square, beaten and had to be hospitalized under police guard. Residents were of the opinion that the couple had brought this upon themselves, and were disappointed was that they were not killed by the mob. [1] References And if the lack of self awareness in warning Shadybabs for the 1RR rule Huldra just broke, Huldra was notified twice of this 1RR violation: on Shadybabs 's talk and on Huldra's talk. All this a week after Huldra filed a 1RR complaint here closed without action Huldra is behaving as if the 1RR rule applies only to other editors, but not Huldra. 11Fox11 (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC) Statement by MJL[edit]I'm looking at a diff 1 and diff 2. There is no overlap in content, so this can't really be considered a violation of WP:1RR. Considering that the given diffs are 23 hours and 59 minutes apart from each other (with like 25 intervening edits between them), I think it is safe to say that this report can be considered rather frivolous. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Statement by GizzyCatBella[edit]Should editors who made a single likely slip be cautioned first on their talk page about it, before running to this board? I don't understand such a "gotcha" approach. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Hippeus[edit]MJL, 1RR and 3RR applies to edits with no overlap this is spelled out in WP:4RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." This is particularly heinous given that Huldra was alerted to their violation, and that Huldra reported a new editor here a week ago for something that wasn't a violation and complained to Shadybabs that Shadybabs broke 1RR right after Huldra broke it. The same rules apply to Huldra, this should be sanctioned.--Hippeus (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000[edit]Huldra is meticulous about the rules, but here she slipped up. She would have self-reverted if she had realised soon enough, but by the time she was notified there were already intervening edits. There is no case for treating this as more than an innocent mistake. Zerotalk 04:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC) Result concerning Huldra[edit]
|
Wi Spa controversy
[edit]| Request Retracted By Author ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
@El C: previously protected Wi Spa controversy under standard semi-protection. In the past few days, the page talk and editing history has been much more heated. Given the controversial nature of this topic and previous implemention of GENSEX D/s, I am requesting semi-protection be elevated to ECP. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
|
Mikele99
[edit]| Mikele99 partial blocked by Bishonen as a normal admin action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:53, 9 September 2021 (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 Mikele99[edit]
n/a
Notified, also DS are explicitly mentioned in the page notice when editing.
Discussion concerning Mikele99[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Mikele99[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Mikele99[edit]
|
Concerns about Softlavender by ButterSlipper
[edit]| This does not seem related to an arbitration action. The correct venue is WP:ANI, you may post it there. Please note that this will also draw attention to your behavior. Consider reading WP:BOOMERANG first. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 07:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hi. Softlavender has been extremely aggressive towards me. Softlavender has
I tried to tell Softlavender about the personal attacks on their talk page instead of replying [15] because they would ignore my replies and then Softlavender made an entire post on my talk page agitating Acroterion to block me again [16]. Their claim was that I exercised "accusations, personal attacks, battleground statements, and quasi-legal threats" citing
Please help. Thanks. ButterSlipper (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TillermanJimW
[edit]| TillermanJimW blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action; appeal declined. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC) | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Reason given was “multiple incidences of disruption in the topic area including violations of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTADVOCACY), Wikipedia:Tendentious editing (WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS), and Wikipedia:Civility.” My “previous discretionary sanction block for the same behavior was taken into account when deciding on this topic ban”. Topic ban logged at Gender and sexuality and following “discussion” in the Gender section of my Talk page.
Think this is sufficient. Please advise if not. --TillermanJimW (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC) Statement by TillermanJimW[edit]I would like to at least see the topic ban modified to exclude my own Talk page but would much prefer it to be entirely removed for the following reasons. For one thing, I’m asking for a reconsideration of the whole topic ban as I don’t think the reasons HighInBC has given are particularly tenable. More particularly re “Not Advocacy”, I’m only advocating for putting the “controversies” front and center on the Gender page – as stipulated in the Lead Section of WP Better. And “tendentious editing” is rather much in the eye of the beholder and is largely the result of too many editors involved in this “debate” refusing to consider and properly address those controversies – definitely NOT NPOV. Further, I haven’t actually posted anything further on any actual article topics other than on a couple of user Talk pages, including my own, on the topic since the closure of the “Explicit criticism” section of the Gender topic by user Johnuniq about a week ago. So the “discretionary sanction block” HighInBC referred to is irrelevant and a red herring. And “Civility” is a bit of a joke and some evidence of bias given that another editor on my Talk page had first dismissed what I’d posted as justification for my arguments as “ But more particularly relevant to those controversies, and that dismissal of the RS I’ve posted as “ Further, other RS have pointed to particularly untenable aspects of “gender ideology” – “self-identification” in particular – due to the “magico-spiritual undertone” present in the “merging of science, magic, and religion in explaining children’s gender transition”. But more broadly, many other equally credible RS (here, here, & here) have argued (here & here) that there’s a substantial degree of “ideological bias in the psychology of sex and gender” and that much of that bias is little short of outright and egregious Lysenkoism – i.e., “any deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, religiously or socially desirable.” Rather disconcerting that too many Wikipedians, in trying to sweep those controversies under the carpet, seem to be engaged in precisely that “deliberate distortion”. Too many are engaged in Wikilawyering over picayune details & rules - "Wikipedia has no firm rules" - while repudiating fundamental principles. Wikipedia’s NPOV policy, at least when it comes to gender, seems to be listing heavily to port (left), if not dead in the water. You might consider rectifying that somewhat by removing my topic ban. --TillermanJimW (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
To GoodDay
To Newimpartial
To GeneralNotability:
To Firefangledfeathers:
To Deepfriedokra:
To Equivamp:
To GoodDay:
To Equivamp:
To Seraphimblade:
To GoodDay:
To Callanecc:
To Firefangledfeathers:
To Acroterion:
To Shibbolethink:
Statement by HighInBC[edit]I will expand on this later. For now in addition to the disruption that resulted in their first DS block which was appealed here, there is this gem where they suggest that sexual reassignment surgery is an "egregious euphemism" to "pander to the delusional" and turning "dysphoric and autistic children into sexless eunuchs". Given that this subject area is under a stricter standard due to discretionary sanctions I don't believe they are capable of meeting those standards. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 01:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC) Responding to TillermanJimW's concerns about me being involved. Prior involvement in an administrative capacity does not make me involved such that I cannot act as an administrator afterwards. That sort of involvement means involved in the underlying content dispute. As for being involved in this current DS action, that is another type of involvement where I am involved as the admin making the action. That is why I am posting here instead of the below section for uninvolved administrators. I was going to post more but between what others have posted, and what you yourself have posted, I think it is covered. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 03:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC) Statement by Newimpartial[edit]It would be difficult to formulate a more impressive worked example of WP:NOTTHEM than is found in the first four (!) paragraphs of Tillerman's statement above. And the subsequent section, beginning with If this isn't an object lesson in editing that is disruptive in the context of a DS area, I have trouble imagining what would be considered disruptive. Newimpartial (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC) Statement by Firefangledfeathers[edit]I suggested they retract their comment, and explained that it was uncivil. They refused and ranted instead about "offense". The last diff was twenty minutes after their TBAN notification – not, I think, a violation of the TBAN, but also not evidence that they learn from blocks/bans. A one-week block and a TBAN have not succeeded in persuading this editor to change their approach. I urge the denial of this request, and I submit that either an intermediate-term or indefinite block is needed to prevent future disruption. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Deepfriedokra[edit]It's pretty obvious from the dif's here that the TBAN is needed. I urge appellant to find areas in which to contribute where they can do so less disruptively. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC) @Equivamp: Yes, I'm getting that, too. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by TillermanJimW[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GoodDay[edit]
Statement by Equivamp[edit]
Statement by Shibbolethink[edit]I have not much to say except that I think this user's appeal demonstrates even more why the block and TBAN were a good idea. I would support an indef. This user has said:
To echo the user's sentiment, I believe Wikipedia has a right if not an obligation to ask itself if this user's contributions are a net positive for the project. From the evidence above, I do not believe they are. Wikipedia deserves better. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Result of the appeal by TillermanJimW[edit]
|
CorbieVreccan
[edit]| This report's complaint is not for a topic for which discretionary sanctions are authorized. The appropriate board for addressing edit warring is WP:3RR, and the board for addressing general behavioral disputes is WP:ANI. signed, Rosguill talk 23:34, 13 September 2021 (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 CorbieVreccan[edit]
User:CorbieVreccan appears to be closed-minded in this dispute about American Indian DNA section in History section because is personally against the, according to user, against the idea of "Indigenous identity is not defined by DNA.". He not gives any explanation about re-remove that section by are an "History" sub-section in the article and justs sends Warning template messages in a potential high tone ([29], [30]), anyway, in the summary of the first of that "Warning" template messages user puts this: "/* September 2021 */: article talk is preferable.", this is a truly high tone and a repetitive behavior in the user: [31].
Discussion concerning CorbieVreccan[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by CorbieVreccan[edit]User is a disruptive edit-warrior, fighting three established editors, currently at the 3RR board. See the edit history at Janiclett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), specifically all the warnings the user has blanked. And the current case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Janiclett reported by User:Heironymous Rowe (Result: Blocked one week). This is a retaliatory filing in response to us stopping this user's disruption. Also, I don't think this user is paying attention. They're accusing me of things that didn't happen. The content they blanked (mostly photos) has been re-instated. Other editors removed unrelated photos they added, for the most part. (Multiple, established editors are reverting this user.) The DNA section they moved up top was simply moved back to it's original place further down in the article, where it's been for years. No one deleted the DNA section. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning CorbieVreccan[edit]
|
TheGunGuru73
[edit]| TheGunGuru73 blocked indef as a normal admin action by Tedder. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:25, 14 September 2021 (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 TheGunGuru73[edit]
n/as
Editor was given two opportunities at User talk:TheGunGuru73 to self-revert, but refused. Their username is obviously problematic.
Discussion concerning TheGunGuru73[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by TheGunGuru73[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Statement by (slatertsteven)[edit]I agree we should not bite the Newbies, but their edits, their attitude and their user name all scream wp:nothere. So I agree we should wait, I also think they will end up getting sanctioned or leave when they do not get their way.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC) Result concerning TheGunGuru73[edit]
|
Boodlesthecat
[edit]| Boodlesthecat is indefinitely topic banned from all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people, broadly construed. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:30, 14 September 2021 (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 Boodlesthecat[edit]
Boodles appears to be an editor that used to be primarily active in 2008. After review of considerable complaints logged against them on talk pages, ANI, and eventually AE, of which resulted in multiple blocks and restrictions, I felt in the community's best interest to file this report. Since their return to active status, it appears to me, as much as I try to assume good faith, that the prior behavior patterns have not changed. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 03:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
22:51, September 8, 2021 (CDT) - Notified. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 03:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Boodlesthecat[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Boodlesthecat[edit]Happy to have all my cited edits reviewed in this specious complaint, as well as any review of my actions 13 years ago when I (practically single-handedly, and successfully) battled a cabal of antisemitic editors who had turned multiple articles on Eastern European Jewry into cesspools of Jew hatred. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Reply to Isabelle Belato: Seems you and a few others equate "I disagree with you" with WP:SOAPBOXING. Oh well.
reply to WanderingWanda: What exactly is "inflammatory rhetoric" about giving an example of "an apolitical biological woman who simply has an abhorrence to be naked and vulnerable in the presence of penises in spaces which she expects not to be"? How you would phrase her POV? Is she to be treated as a racist for having an aversion to penises while she is naked? Even is she has PTSD from rape? Is she to be considered mentally ill, the way some try to treat trans people? Is the problem saying "biological woman?" What should I call her? Would a different term make her a different person? She's still who she is. Or are we trying to erase her? Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC) Reply to Isabelle Belato Google TERF SLUR. It's a lively debate in the real world. It wouldn't be a debate if there wasn't opposing camps. It's not for academics, WIKI, you, or I to decide for some women what they consider to be a slur when directed at them. That's ugly patriarchal authoritarianism. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC) Reply to Deepfriedokra You write I think the "penises" comment quoted above shows 1) Boodles is emotionally engaged with this issue and therefore 2) has an insurmountable WP:COI in this subject area due to Boodles visceral response. The more visceral the response we have in content matters, (apart from SPAM, I guess) the more circumspect we must be in editing an encyclopedia. This being a visceral response, it is probably uncontrollable, so Boodles should edit in other areas. At this point, I do not think Boodles is capable of doing that without Community support-- a TBAN, or partial block, or both I find this attribution to some supposed emotional state on my part offensive. I have made fact based arguments for every edit I have made, discussed at length on the talk pages, and have engaged with editors who are obstinate in preferring their POV rather than simple facts. My offending "penises" comment, if you read what I wrote in the talk page, was in the context of the use of the term "TERF" as being seen as a slur by some. I gave the example of it being tossed at an apolitical biological woman who simply has an abhorrence to be naked and vulnerable in the presence of penises in spaces which she expects not to be. Are you saying such women don't exist? Or if they exist, we cannot describe them in simple English because the very words used to describe this woman is somehow offensive to some? How would you describe such a woman? Perhaps one who is a rape survivor who is triggered by penises/male genitalia? Similar, ideological/personal biases of other editors insist on blocking simple, factual mention that the LAPD has both considered the suspect to be a male, and cannot confirm their gender identity. So, due to biases of editors, we supposedly cannot say something like "the LAPD has described the suspect as male" even though it is a naked fact, and entirely pertinent to the police claim that the suspect pretends to be trans to commit sex crimes in women's spaces, and likely hints at what the prosecution will be claiming. I've simply countered, through discussion, the reality that we can't change actual salient facts (LAPD is claiming the suspect is male) simply because someone doesn't like that. That's something to take up with the LAPD. Changing facts in WP is not the way to for these "emotionally engaged" editors to deal with their feelings. I would appreciate it if people commenting on this case and recommending some sort of sanctions would deal with the facts, rather than their own "visceral" "emotionally engaged" responses before supporting arbitrary, one side actions. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Statement by Gwennie-nyan[edit]A reply to Johnuniq. Regarding the facts of the incident, as our sources say, the spread both online and developments of ensuing protests of the incident were specifically noted repeatedly as right-wing and trans-exclusive feminist spaces online. The explainer, which you said you felt is gratuitous, was supported by a few other editors in lieu of directly linked Re Boodlesthecat on misgendering. Where? I default to they/them pronouns. The people in your last AE referred to you as he. However I don't know your gender or pronouns. I did mention "he" in regards to Crossroads, however. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 15:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I would also submit the uncivil behavior of Boodles at this venue, specifically at 23:31, September 9, 2021 (CDT) in which they assert that a fellow editor is not living in the Johnuniq given it has been a few days, I am curious if your current comment is your final word on this matter. Boodles has taken your initial comment as permission to begin modifying the page to suit their wishes over the current page consensus, calling this request "without merit" and claiming I filed it for the purposes of "harassment and intimidation", claiming I've made no responses or modifications in light of your comment. I find the continual aspersions being cast very hurtful. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 21:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC) (Responding to GorillaWarfare's request for feedback regarding proposed sanctions.) I feel that currently the page would be served best by individual user sanctions (per this request) and also page-based sanctions at Wi Spa controversy. Regarding user sanctions, I support the proposed topic ban, broadly construed. Regarding the page sanctions, I think to minimize battleground and edit-warring, 1RR should be implemented and, should that not work, GW's proposed consensus-only modification can be then put in place. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 10:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Statement by TheresNoTime[edit]Responding solely to acknowledge the mentions above - I am probably involved at this point, so I will make no further comment than to remind everyone that civility is required and expected ~TNT (she/they • talk) 20:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC) Statement by Isabelle Belato[edit]Boodlesthecat continuous WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:IDHT attitude have turned the talk page of the article into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Despite most participants agreeing on suggestions to improve the wording (first by removing TERF, then by adding "a.k.a."), Boodlesthecat continued on their WP:SOAPBOXING. The diffs cover mostly the parts of the conversation where I was involved. After the last diff, I decided to bow out.
At no point do they provide any sources to whatever it is they are trying to argue. Isabelle 🔔 21:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Statement by WanderingWanda[edit]Note this inflammatory rhetoric from Boodlesthecat about trans women in the restroom: Slate magazine once wrote that scaremongering about trans people in bathrooms echos racist rhetoric about how Black men supposedly pose a The new Universal Code of Conduct forbids Statement by Colin M[edit]I just want to respond to GorillaWarfare's comment about the reversions on this article. I think the recent work on the article has fallen in line pretty well with the pattern of WP:BRD, and editors have been good about voluntarily bringing disputes to talk rather than edit warring (though some incivility has sometimes crept into talk discussions, which is unfortunate). I guess there have been a lot of reverts, but each one has generally been concerned with a different piece of content, rather than there being any specific content that's being repeatedly added and removed back and forth. I don't personally see a CRP restriction as being necessary at this time. Colin M (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Statement by FormalDude[edit]Boodles disruptive behavior is growing and they need to be banned from gender related topics as they clearly cannot maintain a neutral point of view with their editing in those topics. This is evidenced by their numerous WP:BATTLEGROUND-like disputes at Talk:Wi Spa controversy where they refuse to get the point. ––FormalDude talk 04:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Result concerning Boodlesthecat[edit]
|
Xoltron
[edit]| Indefed as an admin action --Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:09, 19 September 2021 (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 Xoltron[edit]
Discussion concerning Xoltron[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Xoltron[edit]I am not sure what the purpose of this on-going attack, mostly on my talk page, against me is. All I did was start a discussion on a talk page in the Indo-Aryan Languages article: A long mislabeled article for a language group known correctly in Linguistics studies around the globe as Indic, as also mentioned in the same article. The next thing I know, several Indian editors start attacking me on my talk page instead of continuing the discussion on the article's discussion page and then this Arbitration request, for what? I do make a point to respond to editors that make personal attacks and threats (like Deepfriedokra , and numerous others) meant to intimate. Is that what this is about or ?Xoltron (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Statement by TrangaBellam[edit]
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Xoltron[edit]
|