MyWiki:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive239
Volunteer Marek
[edit source]| No action, out of scope of WP:ARBPIA. Sandstein 19:55, 20 July 2018 (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 Volunteer Marek[edit source]
BTW, my comment regarding presumptions (which he regarded as a "personal attack") was a response to this silly edit summary in a related article.
Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek[edit source]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 Volunteer Marek[edit source]There was no notice on the talk page or the article that the article was under a 1RR restriction. I got a notification regarding the DS on Israeli-Palestinian topic area here but that didn't say anything about a 1RR restriction either. I don't know whether in this topic area - like Syria or US Politic - the 1RR restriction only applies to articles which are explicitly tagged as such, or in some broad manner, but if it's latter, I was not aware of it (and if it is the latter, there really needs to be a better job of alerting editors to it). I would be perfectly willing to self revert, but User:Icewhiz (gee....) jumped in to revert as soon as he saw User:Calton bringing the possibility of a self-revert on my talk page [2], making it impossible for me to self revert. Note that Icewhiz didn't even wait 10 minutes for a response for me, which makes it seem like his purpose was to make a self-revert impossible, so that this AE report would have some legs. This also qualifies as WP:STALKING by Icewhiz. As to the merits of the edit - this is a bit ridiculous. It's an article about the guy who assassinated Yitzhak Rabin. The relevant category is "religious terrorism". Icewhiz and co. are arguing that this category is "unsourced". That's absurd and WP:GAME, what are they asking for, an inline citation to a category? Amir explicitly used a religious defense at his trial which means the "religious" part fits and this is sourced in the article [3]. The text says ""The attempt to grant RELIGIOUS authority to the murder..." is", yet Icewhiz stands there and argues there was no religious aspect to it!!!!! See also [4] Furthermore, there is the equally ridiculous assertion by Sir Joseph that "assassinations are not terrorism". Sources disagree [5] [6] [7] [8]. This is just WP:TENDENTIOUS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC) And we have another frivolous invocation of WP:BLP by Icewhiz to try to WP:GAME content. Sources overhwelmingly describe this as religiously motivated (the guy freakin' said something like "God made me do it"!) And sources overwhelmingly describe it as terrorism (unlike JFK or whatever red herring people pull out of their thin air). It's hard to see how assertion to the contrary can be made in good faith. Indeed, if there's ANY article that belongs in the category of "Jewish Religious Terrorism", then this is it. If this doesn't belong in there, then the category itself shouldn't exist.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC) @Doug Weller: - take a look at the article Jewish Religious Terrorism where this is listed as the #1 example [9] and very well sourced. This designation is not controversial in reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by OID[edit source]I was looking at removals of this category by Sir Joseph for other reasons (see the current ITN nominations), they also removed the category from Duma arson attack where the charged terrorists were members of a terrorist organisation whose goal is to overthrow democracy and replace it with a monarchy based on religious law. Likewise the removal at Yigal Amir was done with equally ridiculous edit summary 'assassination of a leader is not terrorism' - there is no possible way to describe that except amazingly ignorant. I was just about to put that back SirJoseph's removal at Duma when I saw this. Its also trivial (you might want to read the books mentioned in that article too) to source that Yigal Amir is within scope of Jewish religious terrorism. This is clearly POV white-washing by SirJoeseph at this point, and he needs to be restricted from editing any articles in the IP area. If you are going to sanction someone for breaching 1rr, you also need to address the ridiculous editing from POV-driven editors that is provoking it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Likewise his removal of Jewish religious terrorism from the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre a clearly terrorist incident by someone who was a member of religiously motivated proscribed organisation, whose shrine was dismantled by the IDF after Israel banned monuments against terrorism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Icewhiz, dont be ridiculous. LHO and JH were not described as terrorists because the concept of domestic terrorism barely existed when they comitted their crimes. Its only in much later analysis they are even mentioned in line with domestic terrorism (one of which is listed as further reading in JH's article btw) given the US lack of experience with domestic terrorism until relatively recently. Its also not a BLP issue to categorise articles related to Jewish religious terrorism even if the subjects have not been called terrorists directly (which Yigal certainly has anyway) if the act they commit is motivated by religious terrorism (which it was). Go read Jewish religious terrorism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC) RE @Dweller: the problem is, over a sustained period of time editors have (to a lesser or greater success) worked hard at removing any reference to 'terrorism' by Israel/Israeli's - of which this is just the latest iteration. Its not a new thing. I could put multiple mentions to terrorism in Yigal's article, reliably sourced, in less than 10 minutes, I could just copy across the (sourced) line from the Jewish religious terrorism article if I wanted just one. Would it be there in a week? Maybe. But it wouldnt make it a month. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC) RE @Sandstein: : While Yigal claimed religious motivation, the religious motivation was that Yitzhak Rabin's invovement in the Oslo I Accords was a betrayal of that religion. Yigal (and other religious conservatives) considered it heresy. So its well-within scope of IP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC) RE @MelanieN: : This sort of editing is brushed off too much as a 'content dispute'. Is it worth submitting an AE against Sir Joeseph for making these POV-laden category removals? Or would it be better to open up a case at AN (or Arbcom) to examine the (extensive) history of POV-editing in the topic area? I dont particularly want to start an IP3 arbcom case request, but this is really getting stupid now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Calton[edit source](after edit conflict) Not a "silly edit summary" at all, since the category (Jewish religious terrorism} DOES exist for a reason: note the very first entry on that section. If you wanted to talk about a "silly edit summary", you could have gone with this one ("assasination [sic] of a leader is not terrorism". --Calton | Talk 14:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC) I have gone and reversed the removals where I could find them. Yes, before you say it, content dispute, not handled here, blah blah blah. But there's a difference between "content dispute" and "you have got to be fucking kidding me". Cave of the Patriarchs massacre was NOT an example of Jewish religious terrorism? Assassinating a leader is not terrorism? --Calton | Talk 14:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Looking at Icewhiz's response below, I have to ask whether this a form of gaslighting or a WP:CIR issue, since the articles I'm looking at EXPLICITLY discuss the religious motivation AND have sources. --Calton | Talk 14:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Note for @Dweller:: have a read of this. Notice any familiar names? --Calton | Talk 14:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Note for @Icewhiz:: a Jewish religious concept, eh? Used to justify an act of terror? Which somehow means it's NOT lumped under "Jewish religious terrorism"? THAT's an...interesting...approach. --Calton | Talk 14:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Icewhiz[edit source]This is a serious BLP assertion - that is presently unsourced in both articles - both the religious motivation (the nationalist motivation is clear - the religious one would seem to be secondary if it exists) as well as this being terrorism. If you want to label a BLP a "terrorist" (he's clearly an assassin and murderer - however we do not label Lee Harvey Oswald or John Hinckley Jr. as terrorists - this is not a manifestly clear label for the situation) - one should have a strong source doing so. In regards to Yigal Amir - the BLP situation is even more severe as this is a BLP of a living person. The article, currently, doesn't have "terror" in the text, and Amir himself was convicted for murder, conspiracy, and wounding a body guard - not for terrorism offenses.Icewhiz (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved Dweller[edit source]Use of a Category labelled "terrorism" in an article that does not mention the word "terror" seems inappropriate to me, across the board, per BLP (in this case) and NPOV (for anyone long dead), regardless of ARBPIA. That's a comment on content alone. Edit-warring I'll leave to you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000[edit source]Note that we have a guideline WP:TERRORIST which limits our use of the word in Wikipedia's voice. That is why the articles on the Rabin assassination don't use the word despite many excellent sources which do. The way to fix the problem is to either source the description or get rid of all terrorist categories (not just some of them selectively). Secondly, I've been waiting for a chance to use the beautiful word "pettifoggery" on this board, and what better excuse than Icewhiz's "din rodef is a Jewish law justification - not a motivation" — and this for a deeply religious person who sought the approval of rabbis before committing his deed. Truly amazing. Zerotalk 15:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Snooganssnoogans[edit source]As someone who adds a lot of content (incl. content on terrorism) from political science journals but who is not familiar with this specific content dispute, I just want to note that assassinations can undoubtedly be considered terrorism, and many assassinations have been categorized as terrorism. I'm not familiar with the history on this particular Wikipedia page, but my interactions with the filer of the complaint and Sir Joseph have been negative. In my experience, these editors have a tendency to remove reliably sourced content and add fringe and/or unsourced text and descriptions. Just my two cents. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Seraphim System[edit source]I would urge admins to consider issuing a warning to the filer. This is basically a SPA account active only in ARBPIA - some edits are productive but some that are clearly not (I would say borderline vandalism) such as this one with no edit summary [10] - I checked several (but not all) the cited sources and they did not support the changes. Making non-neutral changes that are unsupported by the sources is a problem behavior, not a content issue — this editor's talk page is full of various complaints from multiple editors about edit warring and other issues. At the very least a warning about filing frivolous AE complaints is in order - AE should be a last resort.Seraphim System (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit source]Result concerning Volunteer Marek[edit source]
|
BullRangifer
[edit source]| BullRangifer is warned that if they persist in making personal attacks and treating Wikipedia as a battleground, they may be topic-banned from the American politics topic area or made subject to other sanctions. Sandstein 19:57, 20 July 2018 (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 BullRangifer[edit source]
Notified of sanctions on January 6, 2018.
I think the diffs speak for themselves. Bullrangifer attacks editors he disagrees with as "fringe". In regards to the first diff about "topic banned editors", the only way that this makes sense is he is casting WP:ASPERSIONS that we are actually sockpuppets of topic-banned editors. Not surprising since he mentioned the possibility of me being a sockpuppet of a topic-banned editor before [12] there he says he is NOT accusing me of being a sockpuppet, but why bring it up?--Rusf10 (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@Regentspark: I think you and one or two other admins are missing the point of my filing. I did not just file this because BR attacked MelanieN, he also personally attacked me. And from his comments below and the discussion User talk:BullRangifer, I have trouble accepting his apology (even if Melanie did) because he was given multiple opportunists to retract or apologize earlier, but only chose to do so after an admin threatened to sanction him--Rusf10 (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning BullRangifer[edit source]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 BullRangifer[edit source]
Let me respond to their spurious accusations:
BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit source]Recently Rusf10 filed a spurious request for deletion on one of BR's essays, in what very much looked like an act of revenge for comments BR made here (this concerned a discretionary sanction violation by Rusf10, which he however, self-reverted). The request for deletion was closed as a SNOW KEEP, highlighting the spurious nature of the request. This report seems to be part of the same WP:BATTLEGROUND pattern by Rusf10. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC) Note: Just realized that this is an instance of WP:FORUMSHOPPING by Rusf10. He brought essentially the same complaint to WP:AN [23], and the discussion there was closed by User: Abecedare with "No admin action needed yet". He then proceeded to harangue Abecedare about their close at their talk page, and was told, quote, "I am going to follow the advice I offered you all: drop the matter and concentrate on building the encyclpedia instead of wasting all this time watching each-other's edits and filing and responding to complaints". And furthermore, quote, "Please disengage and stop treating wikipedia as a battleground/schoolyard; none of you are coming across well in the process". Rusf10 has obviously failed to heed that advice as evidenced by this very request. Together with the spurious MfD nom of BR's essay and Rusf10 persistent aggressive responses to BR [24], this is a pattern of badgering. It's actually no surprise that BR has finally responded in an exasperated way in this request to this badgering. And let's be clear - Sandstein's proposal for the topic ban is NOT based on any of the diffs presented by Rusf10, but rather, just on the frustrated response made here. Sheesh.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC) Hey, User:Sandstein, how about you actually bother asking User:MelanieN how she viewed the comment? I'm sure she can speak for herself and doesn't need you grand standing for her.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC) And while we're here, in this WP:AE Rusf10 was "warned against using purely personal opinion in place of policy-based argument when assessing the quality of sources. They are also warned against engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior". As the comments by admin User:Abecedare above make clear, he's failed to take the second part of that warning seriously. As far as the first part goes, here we have Rusf10 cheerily disregarding that part as well:
Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC) BTW, this whole Brennan thing is a current far-right talking point/concerted attack on the man [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] (needless to say, these are not reliable sources). Earlier, he was being accused of "being a Muslim" [32] and other ridiculous shit. So why is Rusf10 repeating this nonsense, even if it's just on talk pages (to which BLP still applies)? Gee, maybe the "fringe" label isn't a personal attack after all but rather WP:DUCK and maybe the comments directed at MelanieN should be seen in this light. But hey, go ahead, and enable and support this stuff on American Politics articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by SMcCandlish[edit source]Looks like a frivolous, vexatious, and unclean-hands report to me. Let's look at the diffs. This is not a personal attack and doesn't imply what the reporter says it does. While "Wikipedia is endangered by your attitude" wasn't worded very well, in the broader context of the dispute it obviously means "this kind of cavalier attitude about suppressing well-sourced information for PoV purposes, in favor of stuff sourced to fake news, endangers Wikipedia". No. 2 is also not a personal attack, though similarly unnecessarily personally worded. Criticizing an editor for holding a position that mimics that of a long-running PoV or fringe stance isn't an attack (either to that party or to the background party of the comparison), it's a criticism of viewpoint. Again, the broader context of the discussion makes it clear why that viewpoint is being criticized. Ditto with this one. What seems to be happening here is that Rusf10 is angry about being put in the WP:FRINGE box. If referring to it were an attack, we would not have that page. And it's an important page. The fourth diff is BullRangifer providing sound and civil advice, which Rusf10 did not heed, and the prediction in it is now likely to come true. I do think that BullRangifer would benefit from the first two sections at WP:HOTHEADS (basically, avoid "you" wording). One can make the same point without personalizing, and thus without providing incentive or ammo for WP:DRAMA like this AE time waste. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by JFG[edit source]
However I am very concerned by a recent comment by BullRangifer, telling a well-respected editor: @MjolnirPants: Count me in to try and devise a damper on knee-jerk emotional headline-chasing. — JFG talk 15:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC) @BullRangifer: You have grudgingly apologized following peer pressure, and stricken some inflammatory comments here; thanks for that. However your latest remarks show that you still don't get it. The edits in which you twice told MelanieN to "revise her thinking", only because she happened to estimate that a piece of content was undue and an editor you don't like happened to agree, are an unacceptable indictment of wrongthink. Talk pages are the place where editors can freely express what they think, as long as it's on-topic and geared towards improving the encyclopedia. Both Rusf10 and MelanieN were expressing their views on the appropriateness of quoting an opinion by Brennan in the article on the Trump presidency. No matter whether you agree, you should not be "concerned" or "shaken" by other editors' stances. When you write Comment on admin action by Calton[edit source]You know, if an admin is going to remove comments because they "continue a content dispute" (as here), perhaps they should ALSO remove the content-dispute stuff by Rusf10 that this is a rebuttal to? --Calton | Talk 08:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by MjolnirPants[edit source]I agree with Calton: remove what that text was in response to or restore the text. Otherwise, this appears to be taking sides. I agree with JFG that some of Bull's comments are probematic. But they're par for the course in AmPol, they're well out of character for Bull and the hounding Bull has been experiencing at Rusf's hands is ridiculous. An indef topic ban on Bull is ridiculously inappropriate (though lesser sanctions might not be. Hint: @Masem: You and I have discussed some sort of restriction on how soon after a story hits the news cycles we can write about it. I think this is something that should be given some serious thought and discussion, though not here. I'll ping you on another page where we can discuss further. I'm also pinging @Awilley and NeilN: who have also been involved in trying to work out something to improve AmPol editing, just to ensure they're aware of this case as an example of how such a restriction might have cut off the drama before it got started. Sandstein, your input is always welcome (even though we don't always agree) so please leave me a message on my talk if you have anything to add to a topic-wide discussion about WP:RECENTISM. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by MONGO[edit source]MelanieN and I might agree 20% of the time on content but if you want a model contributor to these problematic areas hers is that model to emulate and she has been an inspiration to me as well. Therefore calling out MelanieN on partisanship is really extreme, especially coming from someone that would be far more likely then I to have agreements with her. Rusf10 last diff indicates BullRangifer is extremely unlikely to be able to remain objective in these problematic areas. I saw the Mfd there and found it extremely partisan but avoided it since it was in userspace and BullRangifer said that is where it would stay. Rusf10 last diff above where BullRangifer states: [35] "Don't attack mainstream editors who depend on RS, especially if your POV is the pro-Trump, minority POV, which is not backed by RS. We protect the first, and scorn the latter around here." Scorn the latter? I am hoping when this was written he meant only those that use unreliable sources, but his userspace essay that was at Mfd clearly tries to state that Fox News is an unreliable source when Wikipedia itself has never declared that. In the userspace essay, Bullrangifer states [36]"...Trump/GOP/Putin-friendly sources (Fox News, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Infowars, RT, Sputnik, etc.) say otherwise with their cover-up/distraction/conspiracy theories which fact checkers keep on debunking. Those are unreliable sources for political content, so don't use them, and frankly, don't even read them, except for research purposes ("What are the fringe wingnuts saying now?")". I think its a bit extreme to lump FoxNews in with the others in that recital but others may disagree.--MONGO (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC) MastCell seems to think its only a personal attack if the recipient is offended? A novel attitude that I highly suspect would be not be tolerated with or without "bother to actually check in with Melanie to get her reaction to the situation" had the delivery been made by someone traditionally antagonistic to MelanieN's editing stance. The fact that these comments were directed at MelanieN who is much more likely to be in the same camp as BullRangifer and the way he said them (as if she was betraying the "cause") indicates an extremely partisan approach to editing on this topic by the reported party.--MONGO (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC) This is not BullRangifer's first trip to the rodeo. They were blocked for a week this past January in this very same topic matter. [37] Statement by (involved) MelanieN[edit source]I'm catching up with this situation a little late, having missed all the drama at the article talk page. I am being cited here as the target of some of BR’s negative comments. I will say that his comments were out of character and that he has never addressed me like that before, even though we frequent many of the same articles. He is a productive and valuable editor at those articles. From reading through this AE report I see that there is a significant backstory between BR and Rusf10. IMO that was the cause of his uncharacteristic overreaction when I took the same position on an issue that Rusf10 later took. BR has apologized to me on the article talk page and I have accepted his apology. I would suggest BR not be topic banned over this, but simply warned not to let his emotions carry him away like this in the future. And people may want to look into the behavior of Rusf10 to see if it constitutes harassment or deserves some form of interaction ban. --MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by SarekOfVulcan[edit source]And WP:OWB#37 strikes again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by power~enwiki[edit source]The MelanieN-related diffs have been discussed enough by earlier participants; I think a formal warning for BullRangifer is sufficient. (and an informal warning to both that at some point soon, an "at wit's end" TBAN may be in play) I generally dislike comments like this one (#3 in original report), but it's not a personal attack. The encyclopedia is written based on facts and sources, not simply based on "interpretations of policy". But that certainly won't result in sanctions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Tarage[edit source]I've said it before and I'll say it again. How long until Rusf10 is blocked for this nonsense? --Tarage (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by A Quest for Knowledge[edit source]The diffs are pretty self-explanatory and damning. There's clearly a conduct issue here. BullRangifer is an experienced editor and should know better. The only question is what sort of sanction to apply. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by MrX[edit source]The comments directed at MelanieN crossed the line, but I will attest that they are way out of character for Bullrangifer, who has done yeoman's work on these articles and who has been more collaborative than most. I suspect that his untoward comments are a symptom of the stresses of following the dispute resolution process in an atmosphere of heated discussion, entrenched viewpoints, and even some bad faith on the part of a few editors. To put it another way, some of the behavior described in WP:FRINGEPOLITICS has taken a toll of the psyches of editors who are trying their best to defend the integrity of Wikipedia. Because of our imperfect system, sometimes there is collateral damage. In this case, the damage is slight and not likely to continue, so a word to the wise should be sufficient.- MrX 🖋 22:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Objective3000[edit source]Anyone that edits AMPOL articles is a masochist. (I’m one in denial; but I’m not that valuable.) Bullfighter crossed the line, and then stepped back. Given the circumstances and recent history, his misstep is not surprising. The simple fact is that folks that edit these articles are dragged into the drama boards on a regular basis. We need to find a way to stop predictable flare-ups from demands for sanctions against, as Melanie put it, a “productive and valuable editor”. O3000 (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Kingsindian[edit source]I have no comment on this request, but Drmies should not be commenting in the admin section. Drmies has edited the talk page in question as an editor, and has directly argued about content with Rusf10. WP:INVOLVED applies obviously. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit source]Result concerning BullRangifer[edit source]
|
TFBCT1
[edit source]| TFBCT1 is blocked for a week. Sandstein 15:28, 26 July 2018 (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 TFBCT1[edit source]
Prior to Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people/Archive_14#RfC:_How_should_we_word_the_lede? this RFC List of oldest living people differentiated between those validated by the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) and others that were reliably sourced, with anyone not validated by the age of 113 removed. The consensus of the RFC was that the GRG not have any precedence over other RS. Given there was some confusion as to how this consensus should be applied I clarified this here. User:TFBCT1 failed to comment on this at the time and subsequently repudiated the original consensus, claimed that the clarification was not the latest consensus, when in fact it was, and repeatedly claimed that old consensus was still current on numerous longevity articles when in fact many had been updated to bring them inline with the above consensus. There are numerous other instances of this user editing by pushing the "GRG trumps other RS" line despite me pointing out repeatedly that such editing has resulted in a topic ban. Note the comment by the closing admin: "Regarding, your question on my talk page and comment above, i'd simply refer to your own statement above I'm just arguing that GRG should be given more weight than say, a newspaper source. If that's not seeking to subvert our sourcing model then I don't know what is." This user has previously been blocked for edit warring, and has been warned as recently as 20 July 2018. Their typical modus operandi is frequently to edit-war without contributing to talk page discussion. Their current editing across multiple longevity articles could also be considered as perpetuating an edit war.
Discussion concerning TFBCT1[edit source]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 TFBCT1[edit source]There is a long history between myself and the accusing editor not getting along. He has continually threatened to take action against me with no just cause. His first (3) points have no cause. My statement 07/25/2018 regarding the GRG and "limbo cases" was a direct result of his reverting other editors who had attempted to remove an individual placed by the GRG in "limbo." Even though he is aware that this concurs no confirmation of life, he attempted to reinstate an individual placed in "limbo." DerbycountyNZ has a strong anti-GRG bias and a general disdain for the topic of longevity and it is very difficult to have a productive conversation with him or collaborate. His (2) points from 07/20/2018 are an attempt to be inflammatory with an issue that has already been resolved with another editor. Each of us made notice to the edit warring board against one another. The issue is resolved amicably on the talk page with me siding with the opposing argument and the case being closed without cause. The 06/8/2018 argument is skewed and misleading and presented erroneously. It had to do with cases in excess of 115, not 113 as incorrectly presented, that had been previously defined as "longevity claims, " not pure longevity cases. DerbycountyNZ continually stated that he had no such knowledge of this prior definition, which is hard to believe. That situation was resolved once again with me capitulating and there has been no incidence since. Most importantly, I do not have a modus operandi of edit warring without using the talk page. This is a blatant distortion of my character. I have a spirit of compromise and am always willing to take opposing views to the talk page. I have been updating the tables of the longevity pages every night @ 7:00/8:00pmEST/EDT for 12 years. This is quite a contribution to wikipedia and takes some dedication. I am thanked weekly by other editors for this commitment. It is disheartening to be constantly harassed by one disagreeable editor.TFBCT1 (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC) Clarification. I have also never been blocked for "edit warring". This is pure fiction on the part of DerbyCountyNZ. And a further attempt to disparage my character.TFBCT1 (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit source]Result concerning TFBCT1[edit source]
|
Malik Shabazz
[edit source]| Blocked for two weeks. Sandstein 09:06, 30 July 2018 (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 Malik Shabazz[edit source]
Many of these edits were performed by User:MShabazz - a confirmed alternate of Malik Shabazz, when looking through contributions both accounts should be examined. For the sake of limiting the amount of diffs, I did not list all of the edits to each article above. I ordered diffs by article.
Additional comments by Icewhiz[edit source]Linda Sarsour, the entire article, was placed under DS on 21 December 2017. This was discussed in Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive 4#Scope of article sanctions, including by Malik Shabazz here - 17:29, 27 December 2017 who said Discussion concerning Malik Shabazz[edit source]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 Malik Shabazz[edit source]I reject the overbroad interpretation of ARBPIA that Icewhiz likes to adopt concerning my editing, such as the notion that Religion in Israel and sources concerning the existence of the Second Temple are included within ARBPIA.[46] Today, Icewhiz argues that criticism of one American by another American is within ARBPIA and that discussion of an Israeli law that only affects Israeli citizens are within ARBPIA. I concede that editing Avera Mengistu was probably a violation of my topic ban. I merely did some clean-up to other editors' additions, but I didn't stop to think that he is an Israeli missing in Gaza, believed to be held by Hamas. I sincerely apologize for improving Wikipedia and promise I will never do that again. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Kingsindian[edit source]These are all obviously topic-ban violations. I have latterly noticed many bitter comments from Malik Shabazz. I'll give some unsolicited advice: he should stay away from this topic on Wikipedia. Look at it this way: in none of the discussions would his absence have had made any difference to the final outcome. Wikipedia is not worth darkening your mood for. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit source]Result concerning Malik Shabazz[edit source]
|
Waleswatcher
[edit source]| No action. Sandstein 18:04, 30 July 2018 (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 Waleswatcher[edit source]
This is a little bit slapdash because I did not anticipate that Waleswatcher would choose to carry on, particularly given the attention this has already received at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#How to handle this and two threads at the administrator's noticeboard for incidents. The primary issue here is that Waleswatcher has been gameing the DS restrictions, and then edit-warring on top of that. I think the fourth diff may constitute a direct and explicit violation of the discretionary sanctions. This has gotten out of hand, and we need an admin to intervene. I'm going to take a moment to note that I (and others) stand accused of violating the discretionary sanctions as well. Our reverts are said to be a violation of the "consensus required" clause by Waleswatcher. One of several similar posts directed at myself and/or others - 23:23, 21 July 2018. Other accusations are available at WT:AE#How to handle this, these have been hatted by Sandstein. Gameing of the 1RR restriction:
The diffs I have provided above are all related to the 1RR restriction and edit warring in general. First, and foremost, I have already delivered a personal warning to Waleswatcher on their talk page about this: With regards to this, I anticipate that Waleswatcher will justify their edit-warring as being strict enforcement of the consensus. I, and practically everyone else, disagree. The emerging consensus as I outlined above is against inclusion in their current form, and no fewer than four editors have directly addressed Waleswatcher requesting that they cease and desist. Those individuals are: Thomas.W, Afootpluto, Springee, and myself. Notes:
One question: Should I, or should I not, notify the individuals I have named in my request about this discussion? Mr rnddude (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I have notified Waleswatcher of the request Discussion concerning Waleswatcher[edit source]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 Waleswatcher[edit source]This will have to be somewhat incomplete. I can only access Wikipedia from where I am now via a very slow phone data connection, which makes it very difficult and time consuming to post diffs, or even search for edits. So I cannot argue my case very effectively and will have to rely mostly on memory. Please excuse typos, same reason. I hope admins will agree that the situation is pretty clear. It started with an edit by 72bikers, who removed some quotes that had been in the article since at least March, well before NealN put the current remedies in place. I did not agree with that removal and I reverted it. My edit summary was unfortunately incomplete - I hit the wrong button while in the middle of typing it. The "consensus version" I mentioned should have been "version consensus is required to change" or something to that effect, and I hadn't detailed my reasons for objecting yet. I can understand how this might irritate someone that agreed with 72bikers' edit. Nevertheless, the rules in place there, as I understand them (and I don't see room for ambiguity, they are quite clearly written) are that once an edit has been challenged by reversion, it cannot be reinstated without first achieving consensus on the article talk page. So, when Thomas.W undid my revert, I politely requested they self-revert on their talk page. They refused, and I was accused of bad-faith by them and several other editors, notably including Mr rnddude. At that point I asked for guidance from NealN, but when I realized they were on vacation, I reported Thomas.W to ani. Unfortunately my report was quickly closed as wrong venue, with no guidance about what the right venue was (I didn't even know this board existed until later). So, I decided to re-revert, with a long edit summary explaining my reasons more clearly and reminding everyone of the rule that consensus is required before a challenged edit can be reinstated. Unfortunately Mr rnddude reverted that, despite knowing the rule. This happened once again, this time Afootpluto doing the reverting. These look to me like clear and purposeful violations of the article restrictions. I made sure my reverts were more than 24 hours apart to abide by the rules, even though it seemed to me that might not be necessary given that the edits I was reverting were clear violations of the restrictions. I decided to stop after the third cycle as it seemed pointless to continue, and because by then there was a report at an ae board that I hoped would resolve this. There was also progress on the talk page towards agreement on keeping the quotes while adding some comments to address 72bikers' original concern. Unfortunately the (other) ae report was closed too, again with no guidance. My latest edit was an attempt to restore the quotes 72bikers removed while adding some clarifications to address their concern, following a suggestion from the talk page discussion. I thought this was at least potentially constructive. It would really have been helpful to have some guidance or even an opinion from an admin, so this didn't have to come to this. But of course I understand everyone is busy or might not want to intervene for various reasons. Again, apologies for lack of diffs - I hope this is clear enough. I'll log on occasionally in the next days to see if there are specific questions I should address.
User:Springee, the claim that there was the necessary consensus for 72biker's edit when Thomas.W reinstated it is patently false. Their reinstatement came only seven hours after my revert, and there was hardly any discussion at all, let alone consensus, on the article talk page. I suppose you may be referring to the discussion on Thomas.W's talk page, but that is not what is required by the restriction - article talk page consensus is explicitly required. In any case, to call that discussion a consensus, when hardly any of the involved editors were even aware if it, is disingenuous. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by ansh666[edit source]Not planning on getting involved, but just noting that I've fully protected the article for 1 week because of the last revert/edit by Waleswatcher. Technically, per talk page consensus as mentioned by Mr rnddude, it's on the WP:WRONGVERSION, but oh well. Should this request come to a conclusion one way or another, anyone can drop the protection. Do note, however, that (independently of the proceedings that led to this request) I'd previously semi-protected the article for a while a few days ago because IP socks of User:HughD were active on the page. ansh666 17:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (slatersteven)[edit source]It may be relevant to refer those concerned to [47]. I am not sure that this can be dealt with ion this way as I feel more then one ed is at fault. It might have been nice to have actually received some kind of guidance over the wider issues.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC) I have to say given that there are at least three other eds who may have breached DS in this one matter I think issuing sanction against one user is wrong. This is why I say this cannot be dealt with within the strictures of AE. Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by PackMecEng[edit source]@Sandstein: It looks like the restriction was put in place by NeilN here and here. PackMecEng (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC) @Sandstein: I believe he is on vacation until the 29th.[48] PackMecEng (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by (Springee)[edit source]This editor has a problematic edit history in this area. The justification for reversion focused on gaming the system rather than explaining the content (quotes inside a citation) contribute to the article. 3 restorations after other editors stepped in shows a failure to listen and poor judgment given the sanctions on the article. The first reversion of 72biker's edit was not justified by an edit summary or talk discussion but was within the rules of DS RR1. That reversion resulted in objections from two editors, myself and Mr rnddude prior to Thomas.W's reversion. So at the time of the first reversion we have 3 editors + 72biker supporting the change (or objecting to WW's restoration) and only WW supporting the restoration. Even with 4:1 against, WW reverts a second time not arguing the material but rather a lack of consensus. Even after a few days of discussion WW hasn't offered much in the way of reasons why the material should be restored despite now four restorations! Conversely, four different editors have removed the material. This should be a hint. I suspect there is no love lost between 72biker and WW. 72biker reported WW for edit warring.[[49]] WW encouraged others to assume the worst intentions of 72bikers (see WW's 10 July comment and VQuakr's final comment, end of section [[50]]) Waleswatcher complains about 72biker to an admin [[51]] while generally failing listen to others about their own edits.[[52]] Note that the article is under DS1 in part due to WW's behavior. WW should have known to be careful based on the warning that closed this WP:ARE.[[53]] Note that the events in that WP:ARE are the reason why the article is under 1RR rules. I think it's easy to assume WW reverted 72biker's edit not based on the edit but the editor and then used wikilawyering to make the change about the sanctions rather than arguments for or against the material itself. This is why I think WP:GAME applies. This same editor argued that rather than the onus being on the editor making a change it was on the editor who wanted to revert the change! (see edit comment [[54]]) As was mentioned above, several editors, myself included warned WW to get consensus before making new changes. This advice was ignored and here we are.
Given WW's failure to listen to others this time and in previous cases I would suggest a formal warning. Springee (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC) @Sandstein:, would a close indicate this is the wrong venue based on the question if RR1 applies to the article or an opinion that Waleswatcher's actions are acceptable? I would think that multiple reversions after consensus against WW's preferred version should indicate that WW is simply not listening (again). Springee (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Awilley, WW's original reversion of 72biker was within 1RR guidelines. However, after WW restored the material there was a 4:1 consensus against the material. At that point we have a change in consensus and the material shouldn't have been restored the second, third or fourth time. That was just WW refusing to listen along with using wikilawyering vs content based reasons to keep the material in the article. Springee (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit source]Statement by Thomas.W[edit source]There are a few things that are worth noting here, the first one is that Waleswatcher in the edit I reverted, where they re-added the contentious and misleading material that 72biker had removed, in their edit summary claimed to be reverting to a "consensus version", a claim that seems to be false since no one else has seen such a consensus, and Waleswatcher hasn't been able to point to it, in spite of being asked to do so by multiple other editors. The second thing to note is that Waleswatcher well knows that they can't re-add contested material without a consensus, as shown by them in a number of edit summaries (sample diffs: "This material has been challenged and cannot be re-added without consensus. You may be blocked from editing if you persist.", "... once an edit has been challenged, the usual procedure is to seek consensus before reinstating it"), 'and the third thing to note is that Waleswatcher has a habit of twisting the rules, and claim the rules say the direct opposite to what they say, whenever it fits their POV, such as "Getting consensus" is not necessary for an edit on wikipedia. Rather, you should get consensus to undo" (as edit summary for an edit where they re-added a large block of contested text), i.e. claiming that editors can add whatever material they want without consensus, but removing it requires consensus. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Dlthewave[edit source]The disputed quotes stem from a discussion held in March regarding whether or not the Armalite AR-15 should be described as an "assault rifle." These quotes were added along with the references to clarify that sources do specifically support the term. The section was stable until July 19 when the quotes were removed by 72Bikers and restored hours later by Waleswatcher.
The ensuing discussion (see collapsed section) turned into a chicken-or-egg argument over whether there was existing consensus for the quotes and whether Waleswatcher or 72Bikers was the one who challenged an edit. As I pointed out at the time, this really couldn't be decided without an assessment by an uninvolved admin, and it also begs the question of how Statement by Afootpluto[edit source]The reason I removed the quotes after waleswatcher added them back for the third time is because by that time we had a consensus to either not have them in at all or to have them modified Afootpluto (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by SMcCandlish[edit source]This is absolutely, positively correct: "The AR-15 is at the heart of the gun control debate, as much as anything is these days." 20 years ago it was mostly about semi-auto pistols, but this has radically changed. You may have to be an American to understand how much it has changed. That article and its talk page are unquestionably within the DS scope. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit source]Result concerning Waleswatcher[edit source]
|
Expectant of Light
[edit source]| No action. Editor was not aware of the discretionary sanctions in the area, but I’ve alerted them now. I’ve full protected the article for a week as a regular admin action. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2018 (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 Expectant of Light[edit source]
User persists in his attempts to insert POV labels and disputed content by edit-warring, despite there's an ongoing discussion in talk page.
Discussion concerning Expectant of Light[edit source]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 Expectant of Light[edit source]I don't know whether I have violated the 3RR rule or not. I made 3 reverts on 29 July and 3 reverts on 30 July. I don't know how they go together. However the filer mentions the ongoing discussion but he himself continued to push his contested edits without waiting for consensus. That's why I reverted him. And in my last edit summary I explain in detail why I though the version was right. If he cared for consensus building he would have replied to my edit description in the ongoing talk instead of taking me here. He's been blocked several times for edit-warring himself. --Expectant of Light (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit source]Result concerning Expectant of Light[edit source]
|
Ceoil
[edit source]| Ceoil is cautioned against presuming bad faith against newer accounts and encouraged to pause and reflect if they are crossing into ownership territory before posting. A reminder to all editors that approaching an admin about adding restrictions aimed at limiting repeated unproductive infobox arguments is a more constructive path to take. Editing restriction on Ezra Pound implemented earlier. --NeilN talk to me 00:08, 2 August 2018 (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 Ceoil[edit source]
See block log.
In an ongoing infobox discussion at Talk:Ezra Pound, Ceoil has been persistent in their attempts to poison the well and draw the discussion away from content by raising vague accusations of sockpuppetry and sleeper accounts. As I pointed out at Ceoil's talk page 21:06 21 July 2018 and at article talk 22:37 21 July 2018, these accusations, even if well-supported, should be discussed at user talk or the appropriate noticeboard. This ongoing series of accusations only serves to impede the consensus-building process and cast unfounded suspicion on editors with whom they disagree. Please see the talk page permalink for context. @Ceoil: I'd like to address a few of the links given by Ceoil: [62] - This is Ceoil's revert of content added to the "Disinfoboxes" essay in 2012, completely unrelated to Ceoil's recent accusations of sockpuppetry. [63] - This is a list of reasons to oppose an infobox proposal from 2012. Only one item in the list (place of birth) is applicable to the current proposal and, again, not related to the current accusations of sockpuppetry. [64] - Part of a series of edits made over several hours, which combine to form this quite different version. Regardless of the nature of the content dispute or conduct of other editors, article talk is not the place to make these repeated accusations, and uninvestigated suspicions of sockpuppetry are not a reason to close a discussion or discount the opinions of other editors. –dlthewave ☎ 21:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC) @Victoriaearle: The issue at hand is Ceoil's conduct which is unrelated to and not justified by other editors' conduct, however I do need to address a few parts of the statement. Part of the discussion did end on July 17, at which time the article contained an infobox added by Victoriaearle on July 16. The box was removed by Ghirlandajo on July 21 with an edit summary of "rmv boxclutter" which is why I reopened the discussion on that day. –dlthewave ☎ 22:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC) To the closing admins: Personal attacks and accusations of sockpuppetry are the sort of thing that's regularly sanctioned at ANI. It's understandable that longtime editors of the article are frustrated by the constant discussion, however I'm not sure how a history of sockpuppetry in this area is supposed to excuse the behavior. This was brought to AE because we have a lower tolerance for this behavior in DS areas. –dlthewave ☎ 16:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Ceoil[edit source]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 Ceoil[edit source]I welcome arb attention to ongoing issues of sock puppetry in infobox discussions, the methods of enabling and signalling, and the ongoing and often successful programmes of targeted baiting.[66][67][68][69][70] This move by Dlthewave is to distract from the fact that consensus is against him at the the Ezra Pound talk page, and follows a series of attempted baitings effectively to take me out of the game. I stand over my arguments against the inclusion of a template on this article only, which comprise 90% of my recent postings there, while my concerns about sockpuppeting are based on observations of patterns and behaviours. Note in the recent discussion, the incumbent editors are forced to make the same points over and over,[71][72][73][74][75] to multiple deaf ears, in a short span of time, until, it seems we break.[76][77][78]. At the very least, as an ip wrote today, we should respect WP:Don't bludgeon the process, which seems to be a long standing technique. Ceoil (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by SarahSV[edit source]Ceoil, a main author of Ezra Pound, Sandstein, it would be extraordinarily unfair if Ceoil were topic-banned from Pound. He's been editing it since 2007 and helping to shape it on article talk and other talk pages. He was also one of the FA nominators. There is nothing here that rises to the level of a sanction. What would be extremely helpful is if an admin were to add an infobox-discussion restriction of the kind added here to Talk:Stanley Kubrick. SarahSV (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Victoriaearle[edit source]The discussion came to an end, then four days later Dlthewave inexplicably opened a new thread. What's happening there is excruciating, there's an insidious and systematic push to add a box, although consensus for a box hasn't been established in in eight years, despite many long discussions. There has been bad behavior all around, some more civil than others, (I think reopening a thread when a contentious discussions fades, is the definition of inciviliy) and yet Dlthewave chooses to report only Ceoil. If one editor is reported and sanctioned, then we should open reports on the behavior of the editors throughout. It would be even better for a trusted wiki elder or administrator to have the courage to close the discussion. What's happening there isn't healthy, neither for the editors involved or for the project as a whole. Should Ceoil be sanctioned, then I'd be happy to add diffs regarding Gerda's blatant canvassing, CurlyTurkey's comments to me that were far from the definition of civil, the edits from new editors, and the ongoing bludgeoning. Per FoF 2 of the original 2013 case, a box isn't required and the baiting there (which frankly has been ongoing for years) falls squarely into FoF 6 of the 2018 case. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Outriggr[edit source]
Statement by Modernist[edit source]Although I was not a participant in the discussion currently being discussed; I am a long standing editor on the Ezra Pound article and I have participated in countless discussions regarding whether or not to include an infobox in the Pound article. Pound's complicated life as pointed out by Victoriaearle and others make including an infobox a difficult proposition. I have worked with Ceoil and others on the article and in my opinion Ceoil is an important, knowledgeable and informed editor who has successfully brought the Ezra Pound article to Featured status. Everything that I observed Ceoil add regarding the current discussion seemed both reasonable and intelligent. In my opinion the discussion should be closed, and no infobox added...Modernist (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by TuckerResearch[edit source](1) User:Ceoil shows clear ownership behavior on this article, even his allies note that he is a "main author of Ezra Pound." (2) But what is worse, I think, is his sheer incivility to editors he disagrees with about having an infobox on this page. Much evidence can be found on archived versions of the talkpage, such as Talk:Ezra Pound/Archive 2 (I don't have the time to go back and pick out diffs there). But here I offer some diffs from the current Talk:Ezra Pound page to illustrate Ceoil's untoward behavior to fellow editors, and his complete failure to assume good faith in his fellow editors:
The guy may be a good editor. In fact, I think the Ezra Pound article is pretty good. But User:Ceoil's uncivil behavior towards editors who disagree with him on the infobox issue should not go unnoticed. It is off-putting to both rookie and experienced editors and, I believe, violates Wikipedia policy. TuckerResearch (talk) 04:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by SMcCandlish[edit source]@Drmies: 'sure, one shouldn't "own" articles, but some of these editors have devoted significant time and energy to it' is difficult to distinguish from 'sure, one shouldn't be seen to "own" articles, but some of these editors have devoted significant time and energy to it, so we should quietly let them own pages and pretend we're not'. And 'some of these editors ... have, we can surmise, some expertise' is irrelevant. They could be the world's foremost authority on the topic of the article and this would have no bearing on a layout/formatting question like infoboxes. I'm glad you agree with Masem on at least some of the basic issue. The problem with assuming that a new editor is a sock is that every editor is new, when they're new, yet only a tiny fraction of them are socks. Given the frequency with which people use the information in infoboxes (they're called that for a reason), one going missing, or simply being seen as missing when similar articles have one, is a fairly likely impetus for someone to newly become an editor, especially if they don't feel they have much to contribute to verifiable article content yet. Even an eight-year-old can put together an argument for why this article should have the same feature as that other article they were reading a minute ago. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with SarahSV's "What would be extremely helpful is if an admin were to add an infobox-discussion restriction of the kind added ... to Talk:Stanley Kubrick". Even if it's not a bunch of socking, it's tedious, and WP:CCC doesn't mean "keep pushing argumentum ad nauseam until you WP:WIN through attrition". What I don't agree with is the notion that any sanction would be unfair. That's a false dichotomy. It's not like every sanction has to be a year-long topic-ban or block. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit source]Result concerning Ceoil[edit source]
|
פֿינצטערניש
[edit source]| User blocked and topic-banned. Sandstein 08:39, 5 August 2018 (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 פֿינצטערניש[edit source]
Note that the user changed their username from Finsternish to פֿינצטערניש on 11:47, 3 August 2018 - the DS alert was issued to Finsternish prior to this.
Discussion concerning פֿינצטערניש[edit source]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 פֿינצטערניש[edit source]If you look on the edit history of the page about Dareen Tatour you will see that my edits were removing several clear attempts to push the reporting user's POV, which the user was blatantly re-adding. They were even working to make the article conform more to their POV by removing statements that were previously in the lead, such as the condemnation of Tatour's arrest, imprisonment, and conviction at the hands of the Israeli police and justice system, despite this international condemnation being the sole reason for her notability (after all, not all of the thousands of people convicted of terrorism charges in Israel for social media posts has a Wikipedia page). The user responded by threatening to report me for editing an article despite having less than 500 edits. I responded by insulting them, because it was clear to me that they had no concern whatsoever for the quality of Wikipedia and were only there to make Israel look good. In their eyes, Wikipedia should toe the Israeli government's party line and make excuses for it, rather than reporting on all the facts. And they are willing to go to any means necessary - including abuse of systems such as this one - to ensure that their POV is represented. See also the discussion on the talk page for Human Rights on Israel - a page that, unlike the one on Dareen Tatour, is protected against me editing it, which is the reasonable way to enforce such an arbitration decision - where I ask that something be added to the article and the user responds by parroting the Israeli government's party line instead of agreeing to edit the article to point out the controversy over Israel's suppression of poets, and its condemnation at the hands of one of the oldest free speech advocacy organizations in the world with a long history of condemning injustice everywhere, not just Israel. I stand by all of this. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 07:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC) I'd also like to add that if Israel wants Wikipedia to make them look good, it should stop doing things that are indefensible instead of getting other people to control the facts that end up in encyclopedias about it. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 07:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC) On the point about protecting the article being the reasonable method of enforcement: The reporting user could have simply asked an administrator to protect the page, so why did they instead leave a message on my talk page telling me that I'm not allowed to edit it? The former method is a fool-proof way of making sure that contributors with less than 500 edits to the English Wikipedia can't edit; the latter only informs one user. So what was the reason? Because they are a bumbler with no conception of how Wikipedia works? Or was there some ulterior motive? It doesn't look like it's the former. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit source]Result concerning פֿינצטערניש[edit source]
|
Philip Cross
[edit source]| No action. Sandstein 19:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
On 26 July 2018, ArbCom indefinitely topic banned User:Philip Cross from edits relating to post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. On 3 August 2018, Cross made a series of five consecutive edits to the BLP of British journalist Decca Aitkenhead. According to our BLP, Aitkenhead in 2009 won Interviewer of the Year at the British Press Awards, having "particularly impressed the judges with her remarkable encounter" with Alistair Darling, a Labour Party politician who served as Chancellor of the Exchequer from 2007–2010. Before moving this month to The Sunday Times, Decca Aitkenhead wrote for The Guardian, where she most recently (27 Jul 2018) interviewed Salisbury MP John Glen, an incumbent British Conservative Party politician. Such professional activity puts Aitkenhead squarely within the scope of Philip Cross's topic ban relating to post-1978 British politics. On 5 August 2018, Cross made a series of fifteen consecutive edits to the BLP of British actor and politician Andrew Faulds. According to our BLP, Faulds entered British politics in 1963. His obituary in The Telegraph, cited in our BLP, reports that as a Labour MP, Faulds twice served as front-bench arts spokesman in the British House of Commons. He held that post until sacked in May 1982. Such professional activity puts Faulds squarely within the scope of Philip Cross's topic ban relating to post-1978 British politics. This
Statement by Philip Cross[edit source]
Statement by JzG[edit source]What [PC was] doing [above] is called Wikilawyering. It never works. Your topic ban scope is unambiguous, and the Faulds article is unambiguously within that scope. We can do without KalHolmann's creative interpretations of scope, which are unnecessary here. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Huldra[edit source]Well, since Philip Cross has self reverted, my 2 cents is that he should be let of the hook, for now...BUT with a stern warning that any new infractions will be sternly dealt with. Huldra (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Statement by RebeccaSaid[edit source]Cross is a highly experienced, long term editor. He is, beyond any shadow of doubt, fully aware of the boundaries of his Topic Ban; post 1978 British Politics broadly construed. Both Andrew Faulds and Colin Jordan fall within that scope. The content of the edits themselves are irrelevant. He is pushing the boundaries. Broadly construed "Broadly construed means that one shouldn't attempt to "nibble around the edges", so to speak.... If there's doubt, don't do it, and get clarification first". Don't be fooled by claims of misconstrual, he is too well versed in the system for that. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Statement by 2017 Complainant[edit source]In the light of the authoritative statement below specifying the scope of the topic ban, much of the earlier discussion here, including my censored contributions, is no longer relevant. The edits themselves have been reverted and were in any case innocuous, problematic only in that they violated the ban. I suggest that this enforcement request should therefore be closed forthwith, because there is nothing that needs to be done. The ban violation, which must now be recognised as a fact, can be appropriately taken into account later, when and if any appeal by Philip Cross is received and considered. 121.72.182.89 (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Statement by Govindaharihari[edit source]If that passes it will be a good clarificaion and one that I'm sure Phillip will take on board from now on, there won't be any need for admin actions on this report.Govindaharihari (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit source]Result concerning Philip Cross[edit source]
|