User talk:Guerillero/Archives/2020/August

What exactly are Discretionary sanctions?

On WP:AE, some are proposing using those against me. I know that they apply to Eastern Europe, but I don't understand what DS actually are. I thought maybe you could clarify that? Notrium (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Notrium: from WP:AC/DS "Discretionary sanctions is a special system that creates an acceptable and collaborative editing environment for our most contentious and strife-torn articles. Discretionary sanctions may be placed by administrators within specified topics after the Arbitration Committee has authorised their use." --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I still do not understand what are DS. As far as I see from reading the linked page, it seems that DS policy just forbids stuff that is forbidden anyway. Could you explain, e.g., what is the difference between sanctions given for misbehavior on cats-related articles (just an example), as opposed to discretionary sanctions for Eastern Europe? Thank you. Notrium (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Notrium: DS fast tracks sanctions that would need a consensus to implement in other areas --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Notrium (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Clarification sought

Hello - I see you have been fielding a few other questions from affected editors on the FLG stuff. My two main questions or issues are:

Why am I subject to sanctions when I did not actually edit war? An edit war means "repeatedly override each other's contributions", but I did a single revert of a fairly... let us say, unusual edit from Binksternet, and I left a comment on the talk page detailing the concerns. Bink's edit was quite singular, involving the removal of reference to the stated central teachings of the FLG and insertion of a conference paper saying that those beliefs were actually evasive tactics. This struck me as quite unusual (what with the central beliefs of the group being noted almost everywhere one reads about them in the lit). He reverted afterwards, and I didn't get back to the pages after that. Looking at the page history, I see the back-and-forth after that is indeed looking edit-warry, but I wasn't involved. I subsequently tried to make some of the language a bit more neutral, make language more accurate, and add sources. Not edit warring.

Secondly, it seems quite unreasonable to give blanket sanctions to everyone except the individual who kicked off the entire thing, doesn't it? You say that Bink was not formally notified of the sanctions... but obviously he knew. In that case, why was he not "formally notified"? Does the absence of a "formal notification" disable you from using your discretion to include him in the sanctions, or is that a hard rule you must follow? If it is a matter of your discretion, I would simply ask whether it appears that the same standard is being applied to everyone who interacts with these pages. I have seen editors like Doug Weller and others give quite aggressive notifications to other editors driving by. Was Bink not notified because he is a veteran of the community, and so would be assumed to know the rules? Does anyone actually doubt that he did not know about the discretionary sanctions the pages are under, despite the lack of a notification? It simply stands to reason that everyone should be treated in the same way. I'm struggling to come up with an interpretation of this that does not reveal differential treatment for different editors. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You participated in the extended multi-party edit war. Everyone involved that I could sanction was sanctioned. For the past few months, the article has become a mud fight of edit warring. I was considering handing out topic bans, but the 0RR sanction fit the current climate better.

Does the absence of a "formal notification" disable you from using your discretion to include him in the sanctions, or is that a hard rule you must follow? Yes. It is a hard rule. It is considered to be tool misuse to sanction people who have not been notified in the past 12 months. Talk to ArbCom about how their rewrote the way DS are enforced a few years ago. I would have had discretion before the change. Today, none. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this. That's helpful. Then I guess the question is why Bink was not given a pro forma warning like everyone else. That procedural anomaly led to a rather unfair outcome in this case. I don't object to just shutting down reverting, and it's almost always the stupidest way to deal with disputes, but even animals in cages who experience unfair treatment try to speak up about it. All the best. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 07:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a dispute resolution system, not a justice system --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

... for your support for Monteverdi's operas that now became a featured topic! ... exactly 10 years after both Brian and I were declared awesome ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Congrats! --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for enforcement question

Hi there, you arbitrated on an enforcement request on me: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. I have a question: It seems a cohort has taken control of the article trans women and seeks to shut down all contributions not in line with their activism. Thus we have the opener "trans women are women", which to most readers is nonsensical. Any attempt to vary this opening with factual statements (eg trans women are biological males who believe themselves to be female) is closed down by the cohort. Many editors have tried but are attacked as I was. Can anything be done? Many thanks Mr Miles (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mr Miles: I am uninterested in getting involved with this issue at this time --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Sources

The topic of sources is always vexing. One of the sources I just posted about bigmaninthewoods.co.uk is also a blog, and is cited in several places here. Sometimes, a personally published website is canonical, but how do you prove that? --evrik ^(talk) 00:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Evrik: I understand that feeling. My work on Normal Rockwell paintings had similar issues --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

FYI

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Falun Gong and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks,

Hi – just leaving this because the filing party didn't formally include you as a party, but this is your sanction. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@L235: Thanks for doing this --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

This ARCA request has been closed. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Does Falun Gong really need indefinite full protection

Not sure Falun Gong really needs indefinite full protection unless a RFC says indefinite full protection since it is not a page like the main page or a high risk template or something that is never supposed to be edited maybe instead partial block the users who are edit warring from the page and extend confirmed protect the page since there is a LTA unrelated to the edit waring that affects that page🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@1.Ayana: The length of the protection is necessary to disincentivize waiting out the full protection. There are simply too many people entangled in the topic area for other methods of preventing the ongoing disruption to be effective. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 20:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero: I can see fully protecting the article since there are too many people but there should be some solution in order to allow non administrators to edit the article like maybe the Arbitration Committee could do something about the ongoing disruption since the Discretionary sanctions that they already issued according to the talk page are clearly not working to prevent disruption or to try to get the users to discuss the issues on the talk page🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@1.Ayana: If you would like to file a case, RFARB is that way. Per the restriction that I put into place when I protected the article (listed in the edit notice and the header on the talk page), there is a way for non-administrators to edit the article "All edits to the article need a clear consensus on this talk page for the change. Once that happens, {{Edit fully protected}} can be used to ask an administrator to implement the change.". If editors don't feel like starting RfCs or coming to a consensus, that is choice. Once there is an indication that people are willing to come to a consensus about something, the full protection will probably be lifted. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I-Ban (Notrium)

It honestly hurts a bit the way my questions and defense on AE were basically ignored. That is, there was no response to my defense or questions except one from El C at the beginning and SeraphimBlade telling me there are some unrelated stuff I mustn't do. This also puts me in an awkward position regarding an eventual appeal, as I don't know what was wrong with my original defense.

As I said on AE; considering that, as far as I understand, the only wrong thing I did was raise a non-actionable (but good-faith) AE request, how was it fair to give me such a grave sanction? (I know you guys like saying it's not punishment, but it's sure got far reaching consequences and will cause quite a bit of friction to my editing that would not otherwise exist - I will need to check every article for GCB history.) Also, if this is just about my non-actionable AE request, how is it appropriate to give me a general IBAN, instead of just forbidding more AE requests? I am repeating myself from AE (since I was ignored there), but I'd just like to remind everybody that there is almost no history of interaction at all between me and GCB, and IBANs are meant to stop conflict between editors. So what conflict is this IBAN preventing? Notrium (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Hi Guerillero, I understand that I'm prohibited from interacting with the other parties. I have no problem with that, but I was just wondering if you could mention somehow in writing here [1] that the reason for the sanction is not of my fault? I'm not sure that this is a usual procedure, but if that could be noted with a word or two, I would appreciate it. I'm just afraid that this record will now be used against me in my Topic Ban appeal procedure.-GizzyCatBella🍁 22:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

It says here "A no-fault two-way interaction ban" [2] maybe just add this? GizzyCatBella🍁 23:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: My understanding is that these both are no fault i-bans --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the response and for participating in the case. I'm not opposing the I-ban since it is the way of calming the situation regarding bogus claims against me. BUT it appears now that I'm being penalized for somebody else's misdeeds. For example, the filer (now no-fault) of the fake complaint is handled the same as I'm. The person (now no-fault) who appeared on my appeal and not suppose to be there, also. Please imagine how I feel. But that's okay, my feelings are unimportant, but the sanction will stay in my record FOREVER. Year or two from now, nobody will check the actual reason for it. It will be just quoted and listed, among other sanctions. All I'm asking is a few words that will clarify that this sanction was not a result of me doing something wrong but a result of a bogus complaint against me. I was allowed to quote El_C here, so I'm linking my conversation here [3]. Thank you for your consideration.GizzyCatBella🍁 16:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

PS. - Maybe I'll add that these few words describing the basis for the sanction on my notice here[4] will also mean a lot to me. I'm striving to follow our rules vigorously, but this unclear sanction notice that implies otherwise hugely hurts and worries me at the same time.GizzyCatBella🍁 17:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@ El_C, RexxS and Guerillero I'm sorry, I am going to leave one more message to illustrate the situation because I just realized it while editing, just now. So the current sanction requires François Robere and Notrium (who filed the bogus complaint), to scan all the pages before selecting to see if they don't conflict with ONE other person (being me) I, (who was a victim of the bogus complaint), have to scan EVERY page before editing to see if my edit doesn't conflict with TWO people and on top of that, I have to do my usual scan for WW2 Poland related articles. So the burden of the new sanction increased on me three times more than on the parties that truly caused the IP-ban. I don't want to criticize too much this decision because I realize how difficult it is for the Administrators to go through all the cases, and I appreciate your work, but I want to draw your attention to the fact that it wasn't really fair option chosen. I have a Topic Ban as before, and on top of that, I have to watch if my edits don't collide with TWO people now. That's three burdens to identify before editing versus one on the other parties. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

...and imagine if not for this crazy old topic ban that doesn't serve any purpose anymore, we wouldn't even have this debate. I'm not in a position to criticize this verdict and common sense behind it, but I think you guys should have another quick discussion about it. Why not just vacate the topic ban? Notrium (I hardly know them) wouldn't have filed the bogus complaint if not for the topic-ban, François Robere wouldn't advocate for sanctions if it not the topic ban. This whole thing would never happen because there is no problem with my conduct. IDK guys, but as I said, I’m not in a position, and you have experience with all of this, but for me, that would be the more natural way to prevent further disturbances and AE board abuse.GizzyCatBella🍁 01:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

...I wonder what François Robere would prefer, having an I-ban over his head or seeing my Topic Ban being lifted. I wouldn't be surprised if François Robere instead favoured my ban lifted likewise. I'm not mentioning Notrium because I believe he was just used here by a third party and didn't recognize the gravity of the actions he took.GizzyCatBella🍁 02:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: You can still edit the same articles as them and you can even edit the same talk page as them. As long as you don't reply to them in a discussion, thank them, ping them, or revert their edits, you are fine. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 12:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I only worry not to accidentally alter the substance one of them edited like 5 years ago somewhere and then get reported by them or Icewhiz sock puppet. Please have tolerance if that happens. Not to respond to any of them etc. is easy to follow.GizzyCatBella🍁 14:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Scalia v. Ginsburg

On 16 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Scalia v. Ginsburg, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the comic opera Scalia v. Ginsburg is based on the friendship of the two U.S. Supreme Court justices and their shared love of opera? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Scalia v. Ginsburg. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Scalia v. Ginsburg), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I-Ban

Hey Guerillero,

Regarding the I-ban with GizzyCatBella:[5] As I stated in the AE case,[6] Up to the AE I've only had three interactions with GCB since April: one in a public forum after she erased someone's comment,[7] one in an article I'm already heavily involved in,[8] and one in asking for help from an admin.[9] That's three interactions in four months, none of which caused a pubic disturbance. Why do you believe an I-ban is in order if our interactions are so rare today?

Best regards,

François Robere (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere: I think it is necessary and so did my colleagues at AE --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 12:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

From what I can tell El C wasn't convinced,[10] and SeraphimBlade suggested a ban only against the OP.[11] Am I reading their comments wrong? François Robere (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, how do I handle GCB joining this morning to an RfC I'm involved in?[12][13] I know some admins would consider this an I-ban violation (as would GCB, probably [14]), so where does it put me in terms of continuing my participation in the discussion? François Robere (talk) 13:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere: You agreed to disengage from her in April and proceeded to show up at AE and wrote 1.5k words about her. El_C was the first person to suggest converting RexxS's informal agreement with you both into a formal i-ban. These don't say that either of you are at fault, just that the encyclopedia would benefit if you both did not interact with one another.

You both can !vote in the same RfC, but you can't respond to each others comments --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere: If it's any help, I originally envisaged a situation where the parties would avoid commenting on each other and avoid editing – especially reverting – each other's contributions to articles. I did not envisage it would be necessary to completely avoid touching any article that the other had ever edited, nor to avoid !voting in the same RfC, etc. The point that I was interested in was in avoiding the interaction, which I felt would improve matters. I can't speak definitively for any other admin who reviews your interaction-ban, but I'd be surprised if they didn't have a similar view to mine. --RexxS (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: It's not helpful. We agreed I won't follow her contribs [15] - you explicitly stated that this wasn't an I-ban[16] - and now I'm effectively being penalized despite keeping my word... François Robere (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: That is inline with my thoughts as well --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere: I haven't imposed an I-ban, and I've no intention of enforcing one personally. If you remember, what I wrote was: I'm not going to block you, although I'd really prefer it if you managed to keep away from GCB and MMA forever, but I won't try to enforce that. I think you can see it would be in your best interests to keep clear of them going forward, and I trust you will show more good sense in doing just that. In the light of that, I can't see how you could think your AE contribution was a good idea, and other admins obviously didn't see it as such also. Additionally, I find it difficult to understand how an I-ban can be seen as penalising, rather than as preventing. It prevents you from engaging in only a relatively narrow number of actions, and effectively removes the opportunity for the friction that has characterised the interactions between the parties. I would have thought that you would have been relieved not to have those unpleasant experiences going forward, or am I missing something? --RexxS (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: There's a range of reasons, but the bottom line is that no - I am not relieved by this. Having less than one interaction a month with someone like GCB is not comparable to being under the constant threat of a block. I-bans can be "weaponized" just as T-bans can (to borrow a phrase from El C), and the fact that their interpretation varies wildly between admins, makes them unpredictable - and dangerous (see eg. this case, where an editor was sanctioned for "reverting" an edit that was 14 months and 55 revisions old). This means that, overall, I am now less "safe" on Wikipedia than I was before, not more. François Robere (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS and Guerillero: May I reply to something that was said in the context of this discussion by the other parties (per WP:BANEX)? François Robere (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere: I would rather not. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 12:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I actually wanted to suggest de-escalation for everyone involved, but okay.

Is this ban time-limited? When can it be appealed? How far back does "reversal" goes, and does it include T-banned articles? François Robere (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere: It starts when I placed the notice on your talk page and is not retroactive. The interaction ban can be appealed at any time at WP:AE, WP:AN, or WP:ARCA --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

One last question: if and when I decide to appeal this, must I only appeal my side of the ban, or can I appeal any of the others' as well? François Robere (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@François Robere: Only your side --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 12:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Admin barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I noticed that you're currently one of the few active administrators duely taking care of WP:AE. Thank you for your continued work there, —PaleoNeonate – 22:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

---

A quick look at WP:BARNSTARS didn't show any special one related to arbitration or related enforcement, so I picked the standard admin barnstar. —PaleoNeonate – 22:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Thank you! It is tough work --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 12:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The warring continues

I started an RfC at Talk:Bangladesh_Liberation_War#Request_for_comment_about_the_result_of_the_war_in_infobox as you recommended, but Aman.kumar.goel is still edit warring to remove a POV dispute template from the article when the RfC is still in progress. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@Za-ari-masen: I don't have the time to get involved --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Topic-banned user

The editor Chartreuse&Puce was topic-banned from Am Politics yesterday, yet today added content to the Immigration page.[17] The content is all in regards to fact-checks about claims made by anti-immigration opponents in US politics (incl. Donald Trump). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: thank you --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Chartreuse&Puce Topic Ban

Honestly, it seems like you are really grasping for legitimate reasons to ban me. Absent finding any legitimate reasons, you still banned me, citing 1) issue with the Kamala Harris Talk page comments, which I was justly punished for and which will not be repeated; 2) issues with an edit (George Floyd protests) that was done correctly and properly cited and in any event certainly did not rise to the level of a ban-worthy problem, 3) an issue with a non-serious comment I made regarding use of singular "them", and 4) a "pointy" comment - however that is defined. Given the reasons cited, the ban is simply not justified. I hope this is not the case, but the ban may be seen as a means to silence a voice that you disagree with. Please reconsider the ban. Chartreuse&Puce (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Chartreuse&Puce: You just violated your topic ban and there was agreement between several admins at AE. I am not going to reverse your topic ban --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Andranik Andreasyan

Can user:Andranik Andreasyan please be blocked ASAP for vandalism. CLCStudent (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Topic-banned user

A belated happy birthday. The Am-Politics-topic-banned editor Chartreuse&Puce (talk · contribs · logs), a few days out from your most recent 48hr block, is at it again. They attempted to change the first-sentence description of Shooting of Justine Damond to say "murder"; I guess it's debatable whether a well-publicized crime is a political topic, though the user should have learned to check the talk page for discussions of terminology like that by now. More importantly, they changed the "Political advocacy" section of BLP article Jack Brewer (American football), with a deceptive edit comment and minor edit flag to boot. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 15:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing debatable about the Justine Damond edit. The article is about a murder - not about politics. As for the Jack Brewer article - it is debatable if the article is a political article I guess, but my edit had nothing to do with politics - I just removed a sentence fragment to correct grammar. Chartreuse&Puce (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Chartreuse&Puce: I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I strongly suggest that you stay away from EVERYTHING even remotely related to US politics --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)