User talk:Armatura/Archives/2022/June

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

you are placed under an indefinite one-way WP:IBAN with Solavirum

You have been sanctioned for repeated inappropriate references to his personal conduct off Wikipedia and violations of the harassment policy at ANI.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear TonyBallioni, may I humbly ask you, as the enforcing admin, to reconsider your decision after a year of applying the iban, per the simplest mechanism described here?. I wasn't aware of the relevant regulations at the time of the iban, I have not had any interaction with the user since the iban, and the iban has effectively been rescinded since the user in question has been indefinitely topic banned for disruptive behaviour. The admin enforcing the tban said they'd leave the formal details for you to attend to, if you so choose. That iban does not limit my editing currently, but it is now a functionally redundant sanction hanging on my account (which does not have any other sanctions), for no ongoing reason. --Armatura (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, had to look up what this was about. Short answer is that I'm uncomfortable lifting an IBAN when the issue in play was harassment policy concerns around posts a minor made on another project involving social media (i.e. looking at off-wiki activities of a minor that they self-disclosed at a younger age and bringing them up on en.wiki. Not implying anything legal, etc.) While his TBAN might keep him out of the area, I don't see what allowing you to comment on him would bring. Short of it is that now just like a year ago, I'm assuming you asked this in good faith, but I also am not going to be the person who lifts a sanction surrounding potential harassment policy concerns with someone underage. I'd suggest WP:AE to see if others are less cautious than I am. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, TonyBallioni, no problem, thank you for taking the time to look the case up. You may as well remember my concerns were display of racial intolerance and off-wiki coordination, and my problem was not knowing that Arbcom was needed to process that kind of information, but yeah, I will take it to the community at some point, just to clear my name. Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Good evening, TonyBallioni, the user in question is now blocked indefinitely, hence the interaction risk is zero. Asking in good faith again, in order to not have a redundant ban on my account that limits nothing, would you now consider lifting it up? Thanks. Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Yep. Makes sense to lift it now, I suppose. Please just make sure not to post anything private, even though they are blocked. I'll give you the diff of me striking it from the log in a second. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's the diff of me striking it from the log: [1]. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks, TonyBallioni. After reflecting on this case, my knowledge of Wikipedia privacy policies has improved dramatically. Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

Your edit to George Klein (physician) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Armatura! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Relationship limits, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

About concerns you raised

Hi Armatura, here is the reply on alleged concerns you raised about my behavior. I replying you here because article talk-page is not the place for interpersonal discussionsWP:TALK. Article talk-pages are not a forum WP:NOTFORUM. The user talk pages is better place for the interpersonal discussions WP:USERPAGE

1 and 4) I never changed my suggestions, they were always the same. I number of times stated that there are potential BLP issues with Kadyrova's statement[2][3][4][5] and I actually said that this need to be first raised to the BLP board[6]: After BLP board, where we agree if resources are reliable enough and how it should be worded.... The BLP notification I raised did, in fact, resolve a number of BLP concerns.

2 and 3) I agreed to raise RfC, but we not yet agreed on the wording of the RfC[7].

I don't know what your intentions in writing that comment on the article talk-page. You evencopy-pasted it to the BLP board discussion. If I consider good-faith, I would say that you posted this assertions to the inappropriate places because you were not well aware about the policies and that you were surprised by the fact that I raised BLP because you did not thoroughly read the discussion thread. However, If I didn't presume good faith, I'd guess it was an effort to convince admins that I did not have good-faith intentions in raisin BLP issues. Abrvagl (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

That's pretty amazing knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines for a user who has been active only for 6 months, gotta say, leaving the fact that they are overquoted aside. And pretty sudden change in the level of English knowledge (clearly more than en-3), too, I am looking forward to seeing it maintained in the future. I don't know what your intentions were when you wrote "If I consider good-faith, then A,B,C and If I didn't presume good faith, then X,Y,Z", I could reply by saying "If I didn't presume good faith I would be under impression that this could be passive aggressive I-am-not-saying-anything-but-kind-of-openly-implying-things-nonetheless and raising WP:ASPERSIONS from your side" but I shall not. I will continue discussing content in relevant article talk pages and noticeboards. --Armatura (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)