Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:29, 2 August 2021

Revision as of 19:26, 2 August 2021

(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)

Line 369:

**After reading through the entire evidence provided, even when completely disregarding any AE-related concerns, my conclusion is: {{u|CutePeach}} has been editing in good faith. Their first contribution was [[Special:Diff/1012465527]], at [[Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19]], without a signature. Before signing their first message on Wikipedia, they had already jumped into a talk discussion about a highly controversial topic. They continued to edit in the area with good intentions, provided detailed reasoning for their positions and attempted to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics in the area. In their pursuit for improving Wikipedia's encyclopedic quality, they overstepped, repeatedly (cf. evidence sections of {{u|Bakkster Man}}, {{u|Shibbolethink}} and {{u|Novem Linguae}}). I mostly agree with {{u|力}}'s assessment and believe I understand {{u|DGG}}'s concerns. Especially in highly controversial areas under discretionary sanctions, however, editing in good faith is not sufficient by itself. Persistently pushing one's point of view, incivilly so ({{u|Shibbolethink}}'s section), to the point of edit warring in articles and in disregard of the verifiability policy ([[WP:ONUS]], {{u|Bakkster Man}}'s section) is [[WP:DE|disruptive]] even when done in good faith. {{u|CutePeach}}'s behavior discourages policy-compliant editing by other users by exhausting their patience (see also: [[Special:Diff/1026476170]] at [[WP:RSN]], part of {{u|Shibbolethink}}'s 20th diff, and the userspace point in {{u|Novem Linguae}}'s section). Not taking long-term preventative action against this frustrating behavior would likely have two effects: Further disruption from the reported editor without hope for later administrative assistance ({{u|RandomCanadian}}'s "then I don't think there will ever be enough" concern), and sending a problematic signal about a lack of policy enforcement even when users take the time to file a detailed, well-reasoned [[WP:AE]] request with ample evidence of disruption. This is the point where either we take proper action or those annoyed by the unsanctioned behavior leave the area. It's a volunteer project, and there is a real risk of losing policy-abiding contributors if ignoring policies benefits the editor who ignores them. It would likely be beneficial to {{u|CutePeach}} and all other involved editors if the reported user moved their participation to uncontroversial topics they don't have strong opinions about, and thus don't misuse as a battleground. For this reason, I propose to indefinitely [[WP:TBAN|topic ban]] {{u|CutePeach}} from [[WP:COVIDDS|all edits about, and all articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed]]. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 00:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

**Okay, that's what you get for waiting. I have blocked {{u|CutePeach}} for 24 hours; the block may be removed by anyone implementing a topic ban. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 05:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

***For those seriously concerned about the block: There is a consensus for a topic ban here, and by the nature of discretionary sanctions, any uninvolved administrator can implement it. I would have done so, others would have done so, but we chose to wait for a statement before making this decision. When I woke up this morning, I noticed that CutePeach was actively publishing what seems to have been a series of prepared edits to multiple article talk pages, to a draft and to a mainspace article ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CutePeach?offset=20210802060000&limit=13]), and the last edit was "4 minutes ago". CutePeach was clearly gaming the system by making these edits while it was very likely that they would be topic-banned. They believed that this would be the inevitable result, as they have described in a rather disturbing way in [[Special:Diff/1036451147]], which includes the statement ''"it's clear as day that I’m getting TBANNED no matter what I say, so the only thing that should matter is what impact my last words have"''. If an editor, with this in mind, throws as many edits into the topic area as possible before being blocked or banned, then they are already expecting what I have temporarily implemented, for exactly the reasons I have implemented it: Preventing further disruption while it was happening. [[WP:BMB|Bans apply to all editing, good or bad]]. The only reason I haven't simply implemented a topic ban instead is that, either immediately or after a while, an unban discussion would be tainted by strawman arguments attempting to discredit my neutrality and lack of involvement in this topic area. There are enough other administrators who have come to the same conclusion, before and after me, independently of me, and I'd prefer one of them to implement the ban, so that any unban discussion focuses on the actual issues that led to the ban. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 19:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

*{{u|CutePeach}} I hate to ping you again as it appears you've been pinged here multiple times, but I'm concerned that you've been editing and haven't come in here yet. [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 18:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

*:@[[User:CutePeach|CutePeach]], you're welcome to take as much time as you need (within reason) to respond; continuing to edit while not at least coming in here to say you needed that time was the problem. [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 12:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)