Arzel
[edit]| Deferred to WP:ARCA#Clarification request: American politics/Arzel: 1RR. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:11, 30 December 2014 (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 Arzel[edit]
I suggested that Arzel self-revert here. @Callanecc and Sandstein: The diff provided by Scobbydunk documents the addition of a new section. The diffs of the two reverts by Arzel document his reversion of that specific section. If your interpretation of 'specific' is that the reverted material must be the precise same words, punctuation, and formatting, then we might as well vacate the Arbcom decision, because the alternative would permit virtually unlimited WP:GAMING. Having presented substantial evidence of Arzel has a long record of edit warring in order to force an article to reflect his preferred view at the American politics Arbcom case, I find it implausible that such a narrow interpretation of 1RR is what was intended when Beeblebrox posted the remedy here. @Collect: Setting aside you off-topic content discussion and erroneous WP:BLP interpretation, I'm troubled by what seems to be an accusation, directed toward me and/or Skoobydunk, of seeking retribution. Perhaps you would consider retracting that?- MrX 15:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC) @Sandstein: Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but can you at least see that 'specific' would be open to interpretation? I ask because I think this should be clarified by Arbcom. If they intended 'specific' to mean 'exact', then they should have wrote exact in the decision.- MrX 16:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Arzel[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Arzel[edit]I am quite a bit dissapointed with MrX regarding this. I engaged with him civily on his talk and rather than discuss he quickly submitted a complaint. I asked for clarrification as to what he thought was the problem, but did he discuss? No, right away to file a complaint. Seems to go against the purpose of collaborative editing. As to the edit, if MrX's approach is the basis, then I am basically limited to one edit on any specific section or text if I remove anything. Seems like an almost impossible standard to live up to. I made one clear revert and then immediately started the first discussion on the talk page. Arzel (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Gaijin42[edit]Completely uninvolved. Seems to be a pretty clear cut violation of the 1RR restriction, but I agree with Azrel's edit. We don't generally go around pointing out when websites get a story wrong, especially when they are basing their story on other reliable sources that also got it wrong. There are a few secondary sources bringing up Breitbarts error, but they appear to be doing so spitefully since they do not mention the other reliable sources that also made the same error at all. This is not a controversy of any lasting note, and is WP:UNDUE relative to the rest of the article Special:Contributions/Megajeffzilla appears to be an SPA created purely to war in this content. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Scoobydunk[edit]WP:1RR says that reverts are defined in the WP:3RR section which directly say "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Someone clearly added a section about the Paul Krugman Hoax and Arzel undid it, it was originally added here [4]. There is no restriction regarding a time period when these changes have to be made. So it doesn't have to be something that was recently added, all that matters and is described by the policy is that the removal of someone else's actions whether in whole or in part, counts as a revert. When someone reverted Arzel's first revert, Arzel reverted it again. So that's 2 reverts in 2 days. Arzel is well aware of the reverting policy and has been in multiple conversations about edit warring which is why the sanctions exist to begin with. There is no reason to believe this was a good faith error when the person has a history of disruptive editing to the point of being restricted to a 1RR per week sanction.Scoobydunk (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC) Statement by Collect[edit]First of all the "Paul Krugman 'Hoax'" title impacts a living person. Secondly, it is established that Breitbart was not the originator of the "hoax" but that it simply used a reliable source, boston.com, which happened in this case to be grossly negligent. "Hoax" implies a deliberate spreading of an untruth - and the facts as brought out on the article talk page make clear that Arzel was, in this case, doing what Wikipedia policies require - removing a contentious claim about a living person (Krugman - the claim is about a living person quite undeniably) which was not properly sourced.
I would also suggest that comments made in the wrong sections in the form of trying to counter comments by others here be deleted -- this board is not a place to "get even" with anyone, but to deal with actual problems. In the case at hand, I fear it is, indeed, being used to "get even" with Arzel. Collect (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Arzel[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Uishaki
[edit]| Blocked by HJ Mitchell for two weeks for another than the reported topic ban violation. Sandstein 19:07, 30 December 2014 (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 Uishaki[edit]
Though the article Roman–Persian Wars is not directly related with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the repeating involvement of Uishaki in content disputes on Palestine related issues brings me here. This time it is whether to put a more geographically encompassing and politically neutral term Southern Levant or a more geographically-limited and politically charged term Palestine (the content dispute didn't involve terms like Land of Israel and Holy Land); Uishaki's involvement is clearly a pro-Palestine motivated issue. Considering Uishaki's topic ban on Israeli-Palestinian issues from 30 July 2014, the revert involving "Palestine" is a clear breach of his sanction.GreyShark (dibra) 17:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
notified.GreyShark (dibra) 17:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Uishaki[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Uishaki[edit]Statement by MichaelNetzer[edit]@Callanecc: Is your statement to be understood such that an "Israeli-Palestinian issue" does not necessarily fall within the broader Arab-Israeli conflict? If so, it would seem like a first-of-a-kind interpretation. MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC) @Callenecc: It seems more proper to assume, under the terms of "broadly construed", that any and every issue between Israel and Palestine, whether its nature be, for example, cultural, educational, economic, religious, political or basic human-interest, must pertain to the broader Arab-Israeli conflict, by virtue of the conflict itself having given birth to, and continuing to drive the very existence of, and all interaction between, the two entities. This could be superfluous by now for the sake of this request - but may be significant for editors in the future to have a clearer understanding of sanctions limitations. Statement by Zero0000[edit]It isn't about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I don't see how it is about "Israeli-Palestinian issues" either. Where is Israel in the picture? Zerotalk 10:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Nishidani[edit]I think Greyshark was quite within his rights to prefer Southern Levant, which embraces a larger area than Palestine(Palestine-Jordan). Khusroe's campaign took, from memory, Edessa, Antioch, Damascus, and Palestine, and thus Southern Levant (though ambiguous in usage) could be taken as more comprehensive. But Uishaki's edit is also backed by sources for the period. Greyshark tends to introduce period and hegemon administrative terms to replace the generic 'Palestine', using sources, but the POV (downcase the generic, historically default term Palestine) is evident ((Land of)Israel is only used by nationalists for the historic Palestine, and many dislike the fact that Palestine is the accepted term for the area in Western historical writing, which doesn't give a rat's rear for the perceived modern imnplications). The same could be said for editors who, irrespective of context, would prefer always to write Palestine, i.e., it reveals a POV. I think this is a content dispute, however, (one influenced by two POVs, unfortunately) and should not be the subject of sanctions.Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Statement by I invented "it's not you, it's me"[edit]On dec 10, Ed Johnston blocked Uishaki for an edit on Palestinian refugee, stating in the rationale that "This edit about Palestinian refugees in Lebanon violates your topic ban from WP:ARBPIA. These refugees have that status due to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The talk page at Talk:Palestinian refugee carries the ARBPIA banner." The same rationale would apply to an edit on Palestinians in Jordan , which carries the same ARBPIA Banner- an article which Uishaki has edited three times since this report was first posted: SO even if the edit which prompted the report is outside the scope of their ban, these 3 edit s are very clearly within it.
Result concerning Uishaki[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
John18778
[edit]| John18778 is indefinitely blocked as a sock of Flyer322. The reporting IP is range-blocked. WeijiBaikeBianji is topic-banned for three months. Sandstein 13:22, 3 January 2015 (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 John18778[edit]
This report is about two users, John18778 and WeijiBaikeBianji, because the first is obviously a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of the second. I invoke the duck test for John18778, because this account's only edits are to restore WeijiBaikeBianji's preferred version of the article, which was done only one minute after the account was created. On the talk page, WeijiBaikeBianji is the only person arguing for this version. A few months ago, a different editor made a report about WeijiBaikeBianji's history of non-neutral editing on these articles, which seems to extend back several years. Admins concluded that all of the diffs reported there either had extenuating circumstances or were too old to be actionable. After that report was closed, WeijiBaikeBianji said here that the lack of sanctions against him proves there is nothing wrong with his editing. I ask that this time, the admins carefully consider what message they want to send. Also note: this report is not actually my first edit. I've been editing these articles for a long time from a number of IPs, and I'm the same individual who reverted WeijiBaikeBianji's edits to this article.
Notification of John18778: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJohn18778&diff=640719927&oldid=640713928 Notification of WeijiBaikeBianji: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWeijiBaikeBianji&diff=640720016&oldid=640605904
Discussion concerning John18778[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by John18778[edit]Statement by WeijiBaikeBianji[edit]I don't know who the complaining I.P. editor is. I know absolutely for sure that John18778 is not me, that he is not my sock, and that he is not someone I have ever communicated with before John18778 edited the article text today. For all I know, John18778 is a sock of the complaining I.P. editor set up to generate a pretext for a request for enforcement. I have no intention of restoring the edits from yesterday I committed that were reverted by the complaining I.P. editor here. I am not sure what technical means are available to Wikipedia administrators to figure out whether or not John18778 is a sock, but I can assure you without fear of contraction that the account is no sock of mine, nor have I had any communication with that editor other than a subsequent standard Twinkle greeting to the editor after the editor committed edits to the article under dispute. I will note for the record that it can be really hard to figure out what editing patterns are "non-neutral editing" unless someone digs into reliable sources deeply enough to know what statements are fringe statements on a particular topic and which are not. The article in question, William Shockley, has been under ArbCom discretionary sanctions for a long time and has long been very poorly sourced. I've long had a mind to clean it up, as will be clear from the article talk page. The complaining I.P. editor acknowledges in his complaint here that he hasn't checked sources for the article. He seems more interested in finding fault with me than with improving the encyclopedia. I have already indicated on the article talk page that I am willing to hear from other editors about reliable sources for that article and that my next editorial activity there will be to relentlessly check and double-check the sources already cited (which, I discovered yesterday, were often miscited as to the page numbers and as to "quoted" words that appeared in article text). Thank you for your kind attention to this matter, and best wishes for a happy new year. Statement by Wajajad[edit]I agree with Sandstein's recommendation as per possible punishments for WeijiBaikeBianji. If the SPI comes out and he's guilty of sockpuppeting, a block will be given, needless to say. On the other hand, WBB has been behind plenty of problematic edits and edit-wars in the R & I topic area, which was already fraught with controversy and bad faith arguments for some time. Something should be done about WBB's troublesome behavior and edits in the topic areas of Human intelligence and R & I. A topic ban from the latter area might be fit, taking into consideration the policy violations made in these edits.Wajajad (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Result concerning John18778[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
MyMoloboaccount
[edit]| Not actionable. Edits by other users would need to be examined separately. Sandstein 13:20, 4 January 2015 (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 MyMoloboaccount[edit]
I feel it is unnecessary the way he/she raises the temperature of discussions by labeling sources that he/she does not like as "Nazi". It is not the first time that people have complained about it - see User talk:MyMoloboaccount#Danzig
Discussion concerning MyMoloboaccount[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MyMoloboaccount[edit]I am not under any 1RR sanctions, there were abolished long time ago. As to Volksdeutsche population largely supporting Nazis during the war(with notable exceptions of vourse) this is well known and reasearched subject. There is nothing incivil is stating this, just as it isn't incivil to state that for example Suddeutsche Germans were overhwhelmingly supporting Nazis prior the war. See for example the book Himmler's Auxiliaries: The Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle and the German National Minorities of Europe, 1933-1945 by Valdis O. Lumans Valdis O. Lumans. Professor of History. University Address: Department of History, Political Science, and. Philosophy. University of South Carolina ("pro-Nazi sympathies became more pronounced among the Volksdeutsche, some of whom founded local Nazi cells") Or Gray Zones: Ambiguity and Compromise in the Holocaust and Its Aftermath Jonathan Petropoulos,John Roth "The Volksdeutsche actions caused the mass deportations of Ukrainian farmers and their families" "I feel it is unnecessary the way he/she raises the temperature of discussions by labeling sources that he/she does not like as "Nazi"" Nazi and nationalist sources will remain Nazi and nationalist and can be named as such if there Nazi and nationalist. It has nothing to do about me "disliking them". If I a see a nationalist or Nazi source, I will remove it. This is not the first time we have problem with somebody inserting such a source into main text. I have identified and removed many Nazi and nationalist sources on Wikipedia before that were put to push POV edits(for example here where author was a Nazi war criminal Erich Weise)[17] PS:Note that the user below uses links and comments below by another editor Volunteer Marek instead of mine.This should be separate. This seems a reaction to WP:ANI thread where the user has been discovered to be using an obscure German author with connections to German nationalists like Hans Rothfels and Fritz Gause and published by publisher harbouring fomer Nazis[18], to insert in multiple articles statements about "nobody voting for Poland" and "Germans being native".--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC) PS2:In addition to comments about Holocaust, Vrinan is now defending German nationalist sources:I'd like to know how you have deemed German nationalist resources unreliable. Are there any studies describing their falsehoods or inaccuracies? Or is this some original research on your part?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]Personally, I find these two comments by Vrinan to be particularly troubling (note that these are comments made by an IP, which Vrinan admitted was them: on Talk:Einsatzgruppen alleges that a well known photo illustrating the Holocaust has been photoshoppe/faked, and similarly on Talk:Sonderkommando. Edits of similar nature, including in articles themselves can also be found: [19] [20] [21] [22] and here is... well, see for yourself: [23] While everyone's entitled to their opinion Wikipedia should not be used as a platform for advocacy, especially of these sorts of opinions. Should a separate AE request on Vrinan be filed (I presume the topic of the Holocaust falls within the scope of "Eastern Europe") or is this sufficient? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC) @Sandstein - to elaborate a bit on what BMK said, yes, the Holocaust was pan-European in scope (or even universal) but the comments by this user (who mostly edits in EE topic area) concern a photo [24] from Ukraine which is obviously covered by the EE discretionary sanctions. If I am not swamped with work tomorrow I will file a specific request concerning them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Statement by Vrinan[edit]I noticed the recent (past few days) issue of deletion of historical facts from articles as I was browsing cities that existed along the Oder river. I first found that user:Volunteer Marek had deleted a decent amount of information from an article on Gorzow Wiekelpolski, information that pertained to its long and storied German past. I then noticed that he was doing the same to a number of articles. I attempted to discuss this issue with him, first in edit summaries, and then I posed to his talk page. He ignored my edit summaries and deleted my talk page comments, calling me a sock puppet, and saying I was dodging a ban. I brought this issue up at ANI due to his offensive uncivil behavior, but it seems the discussion has been derailed into one regarding the reputability of German nationalist resources. As user:Toddy1 said, that is a content issue. While the content issue is important, I also feel like the behavior issue should be addressed. Vrinan (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC) Regarding my edits to Holocaust related articles, none were substantial, the one to which Marek links involves me suggesting that the source of "established facts" be elaborated upon; there are a few different perspectives to the Holocaust, it is useful to tell from which one of these perspectives are the established facts being drawn. I understand that the Holocaust is a hugely controversial subject, so I have not edited articles in any substantial way. I don't see anything disturbing about what I wrote on the talk page; I raise the issue of photo/evidence manipulation, something which has been demonstrated in the past. I also question the settlement upon 5 million non-Jews dead in the Holocaust (why not the many millions who died in Europe in the decade following 1939?). Finally I take issue with using the term Nazi or Nazism to describe a political philosophy and the follower of that philosophy. I strongly believe that encyclopedias should be unbiased, yet this term has clear negative connotations, and it has its origins in the anti-fascist movement. In the singular case of Nazi Party, I might support this terminology as a shorthand, but in the case of "Nazism" (National Socialism), I raised the question on the article talk pages, and the response seemed to be that if the sources took a moral stance against the subject in question and used belittling terms, Wikipedia should too. If that is Wikipedia policy, so be it. I have not edited those articles in such a fashion in a long time. My interest at present is to make sure that information pertaining to German history in the East is not deleted in some anti-German revisionist crusade. If users want to remove or question the information received from the East Prussian Plebiscite, that is fine. But there is no need to engage in wholesale deletion of content, as I have witnessed by both Marek and Mymoloboaccount. Vrinan (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Comment by uninvolved Beyond My Ken[edit]@Sandstein - While the Holocaust obviously did have significant consequences throughout Europe, Eastern Europe in particlar suffered. (See The Holocaust#Victims and death toll.) I think a good case could be made that some aspects of the Holocaust should be considered to be under the Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions. BMK (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Result concerning MyMoloboaccount[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
![[24]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jew_Killings_in_Ivangorod_(1942).jpg){kind=link}
Topgun
[edit]| Topic banned from making any edit related to wars between India and Pakistan, expiring 12:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:47, 20 December 2014 (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 Topgun[edit]
Apparent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude and usual habit of changing battle results without gaining consensus. I don't see how there was any need to revert any of my changes if he had only read the note that I left on article' talk every time. Accuses of "following" him if you have reverted his edit,[31] and also accuses of "canvassing", if you have asked another editor(who edits similar pages),[32], or a relevant noticeboard.[33] Not to mention that how many times he has tried to misrepresent other editors. As usual, he keeps claiming that I haven't "even verified the source that atleast two editors have",[34] Although he cannot name them, or provide the diffs where they have confirmed this dubious image[35]. It has no mention outside this wikipedia page. As per WP:CONSENSUS, he had no consensus for any of these edits, yet he continues to edit war over them, despite everyone else(except Nawabmalhi),[36],[37], [38], [39] told him not to use a self published and unverified picture. However he still hasn't presented any mention of this report outside wikipedia article. That means even if many other editors would tell him the same, he will still continue to use a dubious image as reference and tell others to follow WP:SOURCEACCESS, which is certainly impossible for dubious references. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Today I received a message on my talk from concerning Topgun's accusations of edit warring. I told the editor to address specific concerns on here; if they are addressable. I have recently checked, the article is 2014 Peshawar school attack, I couldn't find any evidence of edit warring by Rsrikanth05, who had been warned by TopGun, not to edit war. I should also mention that the article is not related to India or Bangladesh, it is only related to Pakistan under WP:ARBIPA. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning TopGun[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by TopGun[edit]
Statement by NE Ent[edit]Given the link provided by TopGun, I suggest DarknessShine's talk page access and email be removed. See also prior AN discussion. NE Ent 11:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC) The removal of the logged warning was in accordance with DS Appeals protocol; there was an eight day discussion at AN where the overwhelming consensus was the removal was warranted. NE Ent 22:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Statement by Rsrikanth05[edit]I interacted with TopGun only in the last 12 hours and I am absolutely appalled by their behaviour. TG accused me of edit warring, and left a warning on my talk page which Yunshui responded to and clarified that I was in no way, edit warring. Among other claims, TG stated that the warning was to prevent me from any further disruptive edits, and that I had edit warred by undoing his edit, which I had not. Major-General Asim Bajwa was linked, which TG linked as Major-General Asim Bajwa. I merely unlinked the latter as it was a red [irony is that both are now unlinked]. The other two EW examples cited was removal of a parent category who subcat was already present and removal of a link to Russian Federation which had earlier been removed by Koavf. Apparently, me doing it is a problem, others is not. Apart from this, I was also notified of the discretionary sanction, which although was good, I feel was unwarranted. Subsequently, I responded on the RfC [Battle of Chawinda], where TG automatically seems to assume that they know more than the other. Yes, I know the NLA trove is a digital archive, I have worked on digitisation of papers before. However, what is more appalling is when OccultZone posted about a discussion on the India noticeboard and TG immediately put forth a proposal to try and prohibit posting on such noticeboards in such a situation. Thankfully, such a restrictive proposal was met with no support. My only point here is that TG seems to believe in the 'If it doesn't work my way, then it is wrong' methods. The Holier Than Thou attitude is unwarranted on enwp and I have decided I will not edit any article TG has edited. Not surprisingly, the user who asks me to 'discuss' before I edit themselves is being accused of the same thing above. Apart from a Topic ban of atleast six months, I think an interaction ban would be required. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Statement by AmritasyaPutra[edit]I have little (tending towards zero) interaction with TG, but the article talk page does feel like WP:BLUD example. It discourages other editors from participating. I think keeping reference to DS minimum is good. He may not be able to reply here and the circumstances for this report mostly deal with TG behavior for which DS should not be held responsible. --AmritasyaPutraT 02:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC) Statement by Vanamonde93[edit]I have only interacted with TopGun once, on Azad Kashmir. Initially, I entered the dispute on TG's side; a new editor was pushing an Indian government POV with a certain lack of discussion (I will provide diffs if asked; I don't currently want to clutter the page). However, that new editor eventually did join a discussion, here, which other editors eventually joined. Despite the original POV push, there was a genuine content issue there; a lack of compliance with a redirect guideline. There were many ways to solve this issue; however (and this is really my point) TopGun essentially restricted their contributions to contradicting other's suggestion, without once providing an alternative. This is not explicitly in violation of any policy; yet a glance through their contributions to that discussion shows an incredible battleground mindset, even when dealing with editors that entered the discussion on their side. DS had absolutely nothing to do with this particular fracas; he had been topic-banned well before. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC) Statement by Strike Eagle[edit]I've known TopGun for quite some time now and all I can say is that he Result concerning TopGun[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. On an initial look. This case is a bit of a mess. TopGun's block log has 8 entries from 2012. MastCell also stated in November 2014 that "a number of TopGun's blocks resulted from his interactions with an abusive sockpuppet (DS); TopGun would likely not have been blocked in some instances if this had been clear at the time"[57]. So that point of this complaint is muck raking. Also the list of diffs is mainly non-actionable. Only 2 diffs (and only 1 of the reverts from December 3rd 2014) come after a valid AC/DS notification[58]. Also the point re: ignoring RSN consensus is moot since the discussion at RSN ended without consensus[59].
Since there's been no further admin input, since the comments from myself and Callanecc, I'd suggest closing with a topic ban (from the India, Pakistan and Afghanistan topic areas) for TopGun, and a final warning re: WP:BATTLE for OccultZone. Unless there's further comment in the next 24 hours I'll make that close myself.
|
![[35]](http://nativepakistan.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Rare-newspaper-about-Pakistan-The-Australian-newspaper-14-September-1965-edition.-Pakistan-wins-tank-battle-Rare-newspapers.jpg){kind=link}
Steeletrap
[edit]| Steeletrap blocked for three weeks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:40, 6 January 2015 (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 Steeletrap[edit]
This had been raised at AN where there was clear support for some sort of block or extended topic ban against Steeletrap, but it was closed following a request by Steeletrap that a couple editors endorsed on the basis that it should be taken to AE. Steeletrap subsequently left a notice on my page suggesting that any request I filed could be used to accuse me of forum-shopping. Much of the editing Steeletrap has made on the above articles on libertarian topics are similar to those which were so problematic in the Austrian economics case.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Ahem, there are BLP discretionary sanctions in place that would cover the rest of Steeletrap's edits, I did cite them above and Steeletrap was notified of said sanctions. Not sure why people keep acting like the topic-ban violations are all that is being raised here.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC) Hey, people I am noting the BLP violations that fall under BLP discretionary sanctions as well, not just topic-ban violations. My concern is fundamentally with the malicious editing of BLPs. The topic ban violations are just an additional cause for sanctions.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Steeletrap[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Steeletrap[edit]Justin Raimondo says Israel knew about 9/11 and did nothing about it. That's a conspiracy theory, according to WP and RS generally. It is a violation of NPOV to characterize these views merely as "questioning the official story," as Devil has. Gary North is clearly a skeptic about whether Jews were exterminated by the Nazis. Such skepticism is akin to skepticism that the world is round. It makes him a Holocaust denier, m unless he has recanted his views. Unfortunately, I have no confidence that the Committee knows what "Holocaust denial" refers to according to RS or that they will take time to look it up. (RS define people such as David Duke who do not explicitly deny but merely express "skepticism" of the Holocaust as deniers.) In any case, my header did not intend to refer to North; in fact, it can be read as referring to the other, more explicit Holocaust deniers mentioned in the article. (The content about the deniers has been in the page for months and was not added by me.) I have no confidence in the ability of the Arbs to recognize any of these facts, since the Committee is generally quite lazy and uninformed. Steeletrap (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Nor do I have any confidence in their ability to look at the substantive intention of the TB rather than punishing me for clearly accidental and technical violations, which did not make anyone associated with LvMI/AE look bad, and which I corrected seconds later. Steeletrap (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Thus, I have decided to leave Wikipedia. My decision will be the same no matter whether the Committee comes to a sensible or absurd decision in this case. Steeletrap (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC) One quick clarification, in response to the straw man arguments by other users. Though my retirement is (following this comment) official permanent, it should not be used as an excuse to evade any sanctions. In my opinion, any sanctions in this case would be ridiculous. But the case has to be judged on its merits, without regard for my retirement. It would set a terrible precedent for users to be able to avoid sanctions simply by strategic "retirements." I care about this community too much to endorse terrible precedents for rule-making. Steeletrap (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC) The laziness of Arbcom continues to cause problems. The vast majority of "warnings" cited by Whisky came from people with vendettas against me who are not even admins; I didn't listen to them because I disagreed with their allegations that I violated the TB. I would bet my life that the Arbs were too lazy to look into whether the previous TB violations of which I was accused were actually violations. (Now, they will rapidly look them up to try to save face; but this attempt at face-saving will be biased, and they will not give a fair hearing to my view that the previous warnings were in relation to non-violations of the TB.) if they weren't, then clearly the fact that I "ignored the warnings" regarding them was justified and had nothing to do with the (accidental, technical, and immediately corrected) TB violations TFD, Srich, and other longtime ideological enemies of mine have pointed to in the present case. I think that the "Arbys" belong at the fast food restaurant, and not attempting to formulate and apply rules. In any case, I'm done with this community. While it's a great resource, it needs better people at the top. The arbs are remarkably lazy and prone to group think. Steeletrap (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC) They also tend to be hypersensitive and obsessed with their power; I guarantee my "block" gets extended simply because I hurt their feelings by calling attention to their laziness and indifference. Statement by Bladesmulti[edit]Steeletrap has been involved in pseudohistorical revisionism. One such example includes her changes on Exorcism, Steeletrap claimed that Exorcism is a pseudoscience. She edit warred, and blatantly misinterpreted the source in order to her preferred version.[68] She also claimed that such claims requires no citations.[69] Many other editors joined this page and told Steeletrap, that how wrong she is, she still seemed to have learned nothing, and further attacked other subjects, one of the editor remarked her thoughts to be anti-religious.[70] Such attitude is clearly unhelpful. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC) 3 weeks/1 month block seems like a nice decision. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Rich Farmbrough[edit]Though I am not always a great fan of Fleet Street as a Wikipedia source, this article from The Guardian will give a quick feel for what "deFOO"ing is. I would have great concern should Wikipedia portray "deFOO"ing as an innocuous or even benign practice, I am sure that the balance of RS do not do anything of the sort. As to the other matters I little or no knowledge of them, and hence leave them to others. A Happy New-Year! Rich Farmbrough, 02:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC). Statement by RAN1[edit]This complaint has very little to do with the topic-ban. The first diff shows Steeletrap editing ‘’Reason’’. In it, she edits out a passing mention of the criticism received by ‘’Reason’’ in response to articles by Martin and North (used as a lead-in to the next paragraph), but not the information that North wrote such an article. Considering the sentence was a transition and had more to do with the criticism ‘’Reason’’ attracted, this is probably on the fringes of the tban. The second diff removed a deadlink attributed to Rothbard. The source was moved due to restructuring, and the original reference can be found here. Considering the URL was bad and the source is primary, and the other sources removed are mostly primary, the second diff has less to do with Steeletrap’s topicban and more to do with BLPPRIMARY and WP:BANEX. The third diff has nothing to do with the tban. Sanctions here should not be considered under this particular tban. —RAN1 (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Stalwart111[edit]I don't think most of the edits represent a breach of the topic ban, and there's quite some background to my having formed that view. Some 1.5 years back I worked with a small group (including Steeletrap) to clean up a group of articles relating to the LvMI, on the basis that they had been created by obviously conflicted editors (though in good faith) with the aim of promoting the Institute. The articles included BLPs for North and Rothbard and were sourced (almost entirely) to self-aggrandising articles written by their colleagues from the Institute. I formed the view, then, that the group of articles represented a walled garden at least in general terms, if not specific terms (WP:WALLED). The suggestion that the articles were a walled garden or were otherwise closely related was vociferously argued against by a number of people including an editor recently banned by ArbCom for a long history of personal attacks and harassment which started way back during those initial discussions. Correct or not, the view that they were not "all the same" prevailed and has been the established consensus since; each BLP forced to stand or fall on its own merits. It should be pointed out that a lot of that "separation" resulted from work subsequently done by that group to find sources other that colleagues with which to source those BLPs (something later described as an "attack" on BLPs because while many of the non-independent sources were positive, many of the independent sources were critical. I think ArbCom's sanctions against Steeletrap were lazy and didn't take into account the long history in this particular topic area. While I agree that some of Steeltrap's methods have been aggressive, sometimes disruptive and often "take no prisoners", there are born of a genuine desire to resolve some fairly glaring COI, WEIGHT, RS and V issues in some high-profile BLPs. Were I implementing such sanctions, it would be done so from the perspective that all articles in the walled garden that is the LvMI on WP should be considered "connected" and a topic ban from the Institute should therefore be a topic ban from BLPs whose subjects owe their notability to the Institute and its supporters. But the community has decided otherwise and those leading the charge did so with a cloud of personal attacks against Steeletrap and others. To now turn around and say, "turns out you were right, they are closely connected and so you breached your topic ban" is grossly unfair. From a purely technical perspective the suggestion that everyone who has ever supported an LvMI initiative or attended an LvMI event or spoken at an LvMI conference or lecture or worked closely with someone who was a member or leader of the LvMI is an "LvMI topic" from which Steeletrap is banned is a bit silly and that doesn't seem to have been the intent of the sanction. The intent seems to have been to ban Steeletrap from subjects/topics clearly related to the institute. I'm not sure what "persons associated with them" is supposed to mean with regard to "Austrian economics". That's a school of thought. Is he banned from editing the articles of anyone or anything or any group which has similar views or an aligned world view? Libertarianism and Austrian economics are not the same thing either. Again my point about the sanctions seeming lazy - catch-all phrases that Arbs thought would allow little wiggle room with no real understanding of the context or the very specific consensus (and very specific personal attacks) that went along with it. They are so vague as to be unworkable and this AE request (which I think is entirely good faith and I have a lot of respect for TL:DR? The sanctions were stupid and lazy to begin with and this is the inevitable result. Fix the sanctions or get rid of them. St★lwart111 10:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Srich32977[edit]As mentioned, Steeletrap edit-warred to restore BLP-violations on the Molyneux article. Sadly these were done even though a discussion was underway in which she did not participate. Her TBAN violations were self-excused as being "technical", or "corrected", "not TBAN-type edits", etc. But it was disruptive to give these excuses because the edits should not have been done in the first place. (Patient notice of these violations were placed on her talkpage (now archived).) Stalwart111's criticism of the original Arbcom proceeding (or the Arbcom process overall) does not help resolve what action(s) should be taken. (They are akin to parolees complaining to their parole officer that their original conviction was unjust. The parole officer's job is to enforce the conditions of the parole.) All this being said, I recommend that this AE be closed. Steeletrap needs to be warned, though, that should she return and make more problematic edits, she will be totally banned from editing. – S. Rich (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC) I will clarify my parole analogy. The Arbcom is the entity that issued a decision. If a block had been imposed, enforcement would be automatic. Since a TBAN is the sanction, it is up to editors to monitor and comment – and to ask for enforcement when violations occur. – S. Rich (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC) @Callanecc: I hope you will consider that a formal @Callanecc: For the AE advice, not a formal warning, given on 13 June. Also see old User TP (20 July, section 38 titled "TBAN"; 5 August, section 39 titled "August 2014; & 3 December, section 46 titled "Topic ban violation"). – S. Rich (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Endorsing Statement by Pudeo[edit]Announcing retirement should not allow the editor to evade accountability, especially as such retirements are often done for drama purposes for periods as short as 24 hours. As pointed out by TFD in the ANI thread, even if it's not a violation of the TBAN, the MO of the disruptive editing is exactly the same as what resulted in the TBAN. And it does appear they in fact are violations of the ban as presented in the opening statement. In the ANI thread, Steeletrap went on to accuse Srich of misogynist hounding and TFD of white nationalist bias and hounding diff (which couldn't be further from the truth) and finally bashed the ArbCom in the statement here. Now to consider the TBAN violation as a little mistake worthy of a simple warning after this kind of poison-the-well-and-run tactic would make AGF seem like a suicide pact. --Pudeo' 22:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by The Four Deuces[edit]Steeltrap begins Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement by Steeletrap by saying, "Justin Raimondo says Israel knew about 9/11 and did nothing about it. That's a conspiracy theory, according to WP and RS generally." That is to justify his 02:12, 29 December 2014 edit, "Raimondo is also a conspiracy theorist and a proponent of 9/11 Truth; he argues that the "official 9/11 narrative doesn't make sense."[71] He explains the edit in his next edit, "(adding that raimondo is a conspiracy theorist.)"[72] The text is entirely sourced to Raimondo's article, "9/11: Our Truth, and Theirs The "official" 9/11 narrative doesn't make sense". In the article Raimondo does not describe himself as a conspiracy theorist, nor are any secondary sources provided to support that judgment. After Srich reverted the edit with the notation "Revert edits = TBAN pertains to Mises.org related individuals", Steeletrap reverted more or less to his version with the notation "undoing reversion but re-adding information I deleted about an Austrian economist.".[73] This is I believe a violation of synthesis and label. It is particularly egregious because it concerns a biography of a living person. Whether or not Steeletrap is in violation of his topic ban, he has merely moved to related articles and continued the same editing approach that led to his topic ban. It seems that only an extension of the ban to all political articles would curb this behavior. TFD (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Steeletrap[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
MrX
[edit]| No AE action needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:34, 6 January 2015 (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 MrX[edit]
Congressman Steve Scalise may have spoken at a conference hosted by David Duke over a decade ago. The main source for this claim is a blog, which found an anonymous post on the stormfront website claiming so. Scalise has subsequently admitted to speaking in some capacity, but there is significant room for debate about if he was aware or the groups relationship, or if he even spoke at a different conference entirely at the same location. This section is now a massive portion of the subject's BLP based off of a one time event in 2002 and is screaming BLP violation all over the place. It deserves some mention per WP:WELLKNOWN, but not 30% of the article, especially when the core of the story is a SPS blog that found a post of stormfront forums, and ESPECIALLY if any defending comments keep getting removed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrX&diff=640662726&oldid=640567495
Bbb23 yes, MrX filed first. I had been considering this report prior due to the issues above, but wanted to keep things collaborative. However, if the ability for me to deal with obvious BLP issues is hampered then other avenues must be followed. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Sandstein MrX is aware of the American politics case since he just filed a report on Azrel [81] and he is very active at WP:BLPN so should be very well aware of the BLP policies. Sandstein Callanecc : MrX and I have resolved our issues with each other and agreed to a Mutual 30 day 1RR in the article in question. See discussion at : User_talk:MrX#blpsps. I believe there is no desire for either party for an IBan (see overtures in that discussion in both directions about editing collaboratively), and in any case, one flare up seems insufficient for such a sanction. MrX has withdrawn his An3 Report, I should have reciprocated here yesterday, but based on the comments below I thought it was already going to be closed. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrX&diff=640666573&oldid=640663292
Discussion concerning MrX[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MrX[edit]Greetings. My editing and discussion participation on Steve Scalise almost entirely complies with our policies and guidelines, notwithstanding that I am prone to occasional errors. Where I believe I may have erred is by citing CenLamar.com, a political blog of a law student. I cited it, not as a source of content for the article, but as a means for readers to locate the original source of the controversy. WP:BLPSPS advises against using blogs as BLP sources, however it was my recollection that this was not a hard rule, but a guideline subject to editorial discretion. As I conceded here, I should have used CenLamar.com as either a non-citation-footnote or an external link. It is worth noting that dozens of reliable (news) sources have cited CenLamar.com as website that broke the story, thus WP:USEBYOTHERS is a mitigating factor. I stand behind my other edits and my conduct. They fall well within the bounds of editor discretion, and in no way violate policy. A review of the article history and talk page will show that I have been careful not to edit war on the article, and I have consistently discussed disputes on the talk page, expressed a willingness to compromise, and I have striven to represent all sides of the controversy according to WP:NPOV. In my opinion, this request is vexatious, frivolous, and a direct reaction to my filing an edit warring report on Gaijin42.- MrX 18:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
@Callanecc: To clarify, we didn't agree to an IBAN; we agreed to a 1RR on one article, for the next 30 days. Discussion here.- MrX 00:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Collect[edit]A clear case where neither editor appears to understand the futility of seeking out the drama boards to redress grievances about the other editor. To that end: a mutual ban on either mentioning the other's name or edits, or editing immediately following the other on any Wikipedia page of whatever kind, or of revising an edit by the other except for grammar or spelling would seem better than the usual difficult-to-enforce IBans. Collect (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning MrX[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
JzG
[edit]| Middle 8 and JzG are both warned; no further action at this time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:56, 11 January 2015 (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 JzG[edit]
Discussion concerning JzG[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by JzG[edit]Procedural note: Middle8 as an involved, indeed partisan, editor, probably should not be issuing AE notices to admins. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Middle8 accuses me of misrepresenting the scientific consensus. The consensus is that qi and meridians do not exist, there is no empirical evidence to support the existence or validity of acupoints, and the evidence for effect of needling is equivocal and problematic due to the difficulty of blinding to needle insertion. Believers, of course, dispute this. That doesn't stop it being true. HSE, Ireland's national health body, summarises absence of evidence for existence of qi. What we do know, is that proponents of acupuncture routinely spin negative results as positive, see Pain Science for example. A systematic review of systematic reviews found no evidence that acupuncture is anything other than placebo. Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh also summarise the scientific consensus as I do. Ernst is arguably the most prominent credentialled expert on CAM in Europe; his studies on acupuncture are regularly published in the peer-reviewed literature (example). His view is actually mroe skeptical than mine, in that he considers the recent evidence with stage-dagger needles is conclusive and proves that insertion of the needle also makes no difference. You can read his views at his blog. There are no accepted scientific or medical treatments that rely on the concepts of qi, meridians or acupoints. The acupoints and meridians did not appear in anatomy textbooks last time I checked (I no longer have a copy of Gray's so cannot verify this here and now). There are differences between acupuncture traditions as to their location. There is no consistent associated anatomy. To quote Ernst's 2006 review:
— Acupuncture – a critical analysis, Journal of Internal Medicine 2006; 259: 125–137 This is not markedly different from my summary, but it is different, markedly and significantly different, from the "consensus" as expressed by acupuncture advocate Middle8. My personal view is that This does not, of course, mean that my understanding of the scientific consensus is authoritative or unchallengeable, but it does mean that this request is frivolous, vexatious, and made in order to attempt to gain an advantage in a dispute (see case at ArbCom currently being considered). Middle8 is asking you to legislate scientific consensus and establish that his beliefs are objectively correct, while the summaries I cite from journals and other sources are not. Journals are not a magic wand, of course: Chinese journals publish essentially no negative results of acupuncture at all, so the scientific community generally discounts them heavily in reviews. Most of Middle8's mainspace edits relate to acupuncture and TCM, many of them constitute edit warring and I see strong evidence of m:MPOV. As an involved administrator I cannot sanction Middle8 for this tendentious behaviour. I think someone else might feel that the WP:BOOMERANG is a real possibility here. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Kww[edit]
Statement by QuackGuru[edit]I am very familiar with Middle 8. We go way back. This is not Middle 8's first account on Wikipedia. See User:Middle 8/Privacy. Middle 8 appears to have a COI. See User:Middle 8/COI. In late October 2013 the acupuncture page was junk with Middle 8 editing the page. Editors added numerous reviews and Cochrane reviews and updated the page. Middle 8 is laser focused on acupuncture. So it was no surprise that Middle 8 was not thrilled with the changes. Middle 8 signed a malformed RfC against me.[94] See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru2#Outside_view_by_Jmh649_.28Doc_James.29. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive259#Proposed_six_month_topic_ban_of_User:Middle_8_and_User:Mallexikon. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive845#User:Middle_8_again. User:Middle 8 is well aware of the sanctions.[95][96] I think WP:BOOMERANG is the likely result for Middle 8. I propose an indef topic ban for Middle 8. Middle 8 is wasting our time. QuackGuru (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Middle 8 continued to make unfounded claims at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2 even after he signed a malformed RfC against me.[97] See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#There_was_a_previous_proposal_for_a_six_month_topic_ban_for_both_User:Mallexikon_and_User:Middle_8. Middle 8 added WP:OR to the lead: ...and therefore preventable with proper training. The verified text is: "...it is recommended that acupuncturists be trained sufficiently." Middle 8 deleted a failed verification tag[98] but did not fix the original research he originally added to the lead.[99] The word often was OR. The word many is sourced. Middle 8 was edit warring over the specific numbers in the lede. The text he added was also original research.[100][101][102][103] Middle 8 added poor evidence and misleading text to the lede: "but have not been reported in surveys of adequately-trained acupuncturists." Only after User:Doc James commented on the talk page Middle 8 claimed he misread the text. Middle 8 has a pattern of making a lot of bad edits according to the evidence presented. He deleted sourced text from the lede and body but he claimed the source does not support the statement.[104] The comment he posted on the talk page shows he did read the source. WP:CIR to edit. Another editor finally restored the text after a long discussion. During the discussion, Middle 8 was commenting about RexxS rather than the content: RexxS's ad hominem & general drama is a confession of weakness. Middle 8 was not assuming good faith with User:RexxS. Middle 8 continued to argue against including to the text. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_51#Acupuncture_again. QuackGuru (talk) 06:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by RAN1[edit](Comment from uninvolved editor) Middle 8 was officially notified about discretionary sanctions twice in mid-2014, both instances with regard to fringe and pseudoscience. He should be well-aware of what DSes are and how they work by now, and is liable to being sanctioned here for his actions since then. His interactions with Guy have been civil afai can tell; however, it should be noted that he has a COI. He announced his COI sometime before April 2014, and continues to edit the article with controversial changes, with a notable string of long-term edit warring back in October (see: [105] [106] [107] [108]). Guy's most recent edit to the acupuncture article is 8 months ago, with only two other edits this year, one a small addendum and the other a revert, so nothing sanctionable there. Guy's talk messages re Middle 8 are civil, see [109] [110] [111] [112] [113]. The only instance of incivility on Guy's part was a user talk discussion on Middle 8’s COI, prompting these terse responses from Guy [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119]. The user talk indicates a few spots of incivility towards Middle 8, but not a pattern for it. Ultimately, this looks like an attempt by Middle 8 to soapbox by AEing an admin, which unfortunately succeeded in pissing Guy off. I think an admonishment (if not a warning) for Guy for not keeping calm and an emphasized warning to Middle about how discretionary sanctions are for behavioral issues only, would be appropriate for this. --RAN1 (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Alexbrn[edit]I'd class myself as "previously involved" in the Acupuncture article since I have edited there in the past, but gave up and effectively topic-banned myself because the article sucked too much and the Talk page environment was too toxic to allow a realistic prospect of improving it. Life has been better since. I have also had a number of exchanges with Middle 8 on the topic of conflicts of interest, both on the Acupuncture article's Talk page, and elsewhere – so I am familiar with Middle 8's editing history and stance. This strikes me as an extraordinary AE filing since Guy's expressed view (with which Middle 8 obviously disagrees) is nevertheless perfectly respectable, and was made only on a Talk page. To request AE for this is a strain of Wikipedia's mechanisms. I think this represents the latest in a pattern of behaviour over the last year which has also caused unnecessary strain:
In deciding whether any WP:BOOMERANG applies to this filing, I think the above could be usefully considered. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Cla68[edit]Double standards applied. When newbie editors respond to disagreements in confrontational ways in topics under DS, they get banned. However, when established editors and admins, like JzG, respond rudely to edits which go against their personal POV, they, perhaps get warned. Or perhaps not. You guys kill me. Cla68 (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Comment by Ncmvocalist[edit]Cailil, just a note that RfC/U no longer exists. Seeing I'm here, I'll also note:
Statement by John Carter[edit]I honestly cannot believe that it is even remotely being considered that it is sanctionable for an admin to say that they are an admin, as is discussed below. I also tend to believe that, as others have said, this is an attempt at winning a content dispute through intimidation, and I cannot believe that any reasonable person would think that would work, particularly with JzG, who I have never gotten the impression was intimidatable. We can expect some individuals to lose their tempers or civility a little in hot content disputes, like this one, but I don't think that the comments by JzG even remotely rise to the level of sanctionability. I am not sure however that the filing of this complaint for such probably minor infractions, possibly in an attempt to bully others, might not be sanctionable in some way, perhaps at least with a rebuke and/or stern warning for abusing the process. John Carter (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by jps[edit]Someone really should do something about User:Middle 8. He is one of the primary problems at acupuncture because as a practitioner he believes strongly in its validity and is willing to WP:FORUMSHOP like this in order to enforce his ownership of that article. He has been doing this for nearly a decade. jps (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Result concerning JzG[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. This is a content dispute and therefore not actionable. The arbitration process, and by extension arbitration enforcement, can only address problems of editor misconduct, but can't decide who is right in matters of content. While it is conceivable that persistent tendentious (aggressively non-neutral) editing could be considered sanctionable misconduct, one talk page edit is certainly not misconduct, whatever its merits may be. Assuming in their favor that they are not familiar with the purpose of AE, I would only warn the complainant that any repeated misuse of the AE process by making unactionable complaints may, in turn, be considered disruptive and sanctionable. Everybody who is commenting here should not comment on the merits of the content dispute; such contributions may be removed as out of scope. Sandstein 17:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Mike Searson
[edit]| Mike Searson blocked for one month, topic-banned from gun control, and prohibited from interacting with Lightbreather. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:05, 26 January 2015 (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 Mike Searson[edit]
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control#Discretionary sanctions
Offensive comment
Longterm battleground approach to Lightbreather:
Other users
Old stuff
I was shocked to see someone comparing another editor to a child rapist and expressing the desire to hit her in the head with a shovel. This is a guy who collects guns and knives. He's used crude and aggressive language with her for years. Sure, he's abusive with other editors too but the way he's treated Lightbreather is unacceptable. Or it should be. This is sick. It's obviously intended to drive her away and discourage anyone else with a similar viewpoint. That violates the ArbCom case and a bunch of WP policies. He's been asked to stop but keeps doing it repeatedly. He knows it's wrong because he started on Wikipedia complaining about personal attacks by other users. Enough is enough. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Mike Searson[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Mike Searson[edit]
Statement by Lightbreather[edit]He has also referred to me as a cunt in the past.[140] As for more recent crap, he just seems to enjoy baiting me (and other editors). For instance, what was the purpose of this discussion?[141] Or his comments in this discussion?[142] I didn't bite, nor did the other editor, but he does this kind of stuff regularly, and I don't appreciate it. Lightbreather (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC) @Sandstein: I don't know the anonymous user making this request. Lightbreather (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Going to call it a night soon, but I wanted to add, I've always thought it bizarre that Mike Searson is the coordinator of the Firearms WikiProject. Is it a coincidence that gun-control articles on Wikipedia are under discretionary sanctions when the leader of the project that oversees these articles (more than any other group) is so biased and hostile? Lightbreather (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC) @Scalhotrod: No one pinged you, and the comment was struck. How did you know that you were mentioned here? (Here's an interesting Editor Interaction Analyzer since our mutual topic ban was lifted one week ago; note especially the BLUE edits.) Anyway, I agree that there are "POV Editors" at WP:GUNS, where gun-rights sources are rarely questioned, but gun-control sources often are. And conservative/libertarian sources are rarely questioned, but liberal/progressive sources often are. (If the things Mike Searson has said about me sound hostile, you should see what he says about Dianne Feinstein.) The project's POV has resulted in a body of articles that are decidedly pro-gun/anti-control POV, as well as missing articles that ought to be added, though "wholesale" is exaggeration. The point of your second paragraph is to belittle the OP and anyone who might agree with him/her. The fact is, Mike has a very sarcastic tone, that no-one should have to appreciate. His words don't seem harsh - they are harsh. It is not clear that his January 16 comment wasn't directed at me. (It is cousin to another brash editor's crass "cunt" comment that "wasn't" directed at me.) And your last remark in that paragraph reveals how impressed you are with yourself. As for me trying to humor Mike Searson in my replies to him, considering that gun-control articles are under discretionary sanctions, and considering how I've been treated in the past when I tried to complain about civility on Wikipedia, and considering that I am a woman in a man's world (Wikipedia), and that for millenia women have learned to grin and bear it in response to aggressive male behavior - Are you really claiming that you think my offense is feigned? I'm not going to say what I'd like to say to you, but instead, I'll just say... ;-). Finally, it does appear that the IP has some knowledge of WP, but it is not clear that he/she has an agenda beyond wanting to edit anonymously, which I sometimes wish I'd done from day one on Wikipedia when I see how people like Mike Searson and you treat those whose POVs are different from your own. Who wants to edit, anonymously or otherwise, in an environment where a project coordinator is likely to show up and allude to physically harming those whom he disagrees with? Lightbreather (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC) @Guettarda, Heimstern, and Sandstein: Regardless of your decision re Mike Searson, may I ask you to consider an interaction ban between Scalhotrod and myself? I would prefer a one-way, since past evidence has shown, as has the interaction analysis since the end of our topic ban, that he follows me around, but I would agree to a two-way if necessary. Lightbreather (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Question: Since Robert McClenon has asked for clarification on whether or not Ibans ever result from ARE, does ARE ever result in any action against editors other than the requestor and requestee? Lightbreather (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Comment by Beyond My Ken[edit]The Editor Interaction Analyzer shows Comment by GRuban[edit]That's a pretty frightening comment; managing to involve not only guns, but a threatened assault with a shovel, and a casual mention of child rape, in relation to ... editing a Wikipedia project. Not an article about war, not an article about a person's life, just a project. I can't guarantee it's specifically in reference to Lightbreather, but given the long history, it does seem possible; and frankly, it really shouldn't matter whom it was about, it's a pretty frightening comment regardless. This is not your standard Wikipedia namecalling, this is beyond the pale. BTW ... y'all don't have to get out the tools for me. I admit it, I, too, am Lightbreather. I am also Beyond My Ken and Scalhotrod. That way I ... we ... get to play not just solitaire Chess, but solitaire Contract bridge. Come, join us, be Lightbreather with me! --GRuban (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Scalhotrod[edit]Since I'm being mentioned, I'll comment as well. Mike has the unenviable position of being the coordinator for a project whose subjects happen to involve a lot of misinformation and outright ignorance of in the general public and media. I don't blame him in the slightest for not wanting political articles added in wholesale fashion to the project. I know first hand how easy it is to get sucked into the rhetoric and posturing of "debating a subject" within an article rather than just factually describing it. But the subject of gun politics is far from being alone in this aspect. Abortion, same-sex marriage, religion, and ISIS are all hot button topics that received attention from a great many POV Editors who feel that articles should state and say certain things. That said, Mike has a pretty sarcastic tone that takes a while to appreciate or understand. If taken out of context, of course his words will seem harsh. The January 16th comment highlighted above is a perfect example of how Mike expresses himself. It was clearly not directed at one particular User and as the Project Coordinator, he's seen more than his fair share of POV Editors over his tenure. Anyone not realizing this is just entirely too impressed with themselves to think that Mike would find it necessary to comment about them specifically. As for some of the additional examples, such as this one that Lightbreather pointed out[143]. LB, come on?! You responded to Mike's comment with a "wink and smile" ;) and now you're claiming that you're offended. You've dealt with Mike enough that I think you understood his point and responded accordingly. To use it against him in this context is just plain wrong. As for everyone else watching/commenting, this just seems suspicious when an IP User that started editing on December 21, 2014[144] is initiating an ArbCom Enforcement proceeding. Clearly there is some prior knowledge of WP and an agenda in play. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 08:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Question by User:Robert McClenon[edit]Lightbreather has asked for an I-ban (interaction ban) with another editor. Does Arbitration Enforcement have the remit to impose interaction bans, or do they have to come from the ArbCom and/or the community noticeboards? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Comment by Faceless Enemy[edit]I don't think he meant anything personal with his shovel comment. I don't feel it was directed at any specific editor (note the reference to "someone", not "certain people" or "them" or "her"). There are plenty of ways to phrase that so that it is targeted at another person, and I don't feel that it was phrased that way. As to "An anti gunner...run a day-care center." A bit overboard, but an anti-abortion activist may not be the best choice for technical information about abortions either. Likewise, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church is a bad source for information on LGBT issues. Of course, if any of the above can write NPOV stuff then whatever. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC) Not sure whether it's relevant, but the requester has been blocked as a proxy. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by GabrielF[edit]Mike Searson has a longstanding pattern of addressing other editors with hostility. His insults reference the gender, perceived sexual orientation, or perceived disability of his ideological opponents. Examples are numerous: referring to editors he disagrees with as an "aspie dogpile"[145], referring to an editor he disagrees with as a cunt[146], referring to a female senator the same way[147], making comments about the intelligence of other editors (see below), making comments that imply that editors who disagree with him are homosexual (see below). Here's a representative quote:
I have seen the term "Saturday Night Special" used in reliable sources such as newspaper articles, books by historians and journalists, encyclopedias, and transcripts of Congressional hearings and debates. It's an important concept to articles such as Gun Control Act of 1968. I do not believe that an editor can have a fair-minded, civil conversation about an article if he can't hold himself back from making sneering, thinly-veiled references to the sexuality of those who use terms discussed in that article. The pattern of comments creates a chilling effect that discourages other editors from participating. Mike has repeatedly been made aware that these comments are inappropriate, including in the ANI thread linked above. The fact that this pattern of behavior has continued leads me to believe than an indefinite topic ban is an appropriate remedy.GabrielF (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
@Sitush: Mike has been asked by administrators to remove comments before. See, for example, [149]. GabrielF (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Comment by Pudeo[edit]
Statement by Johnuniq[edit]Re Pudeo's comments above: Regardless of Lightbreather's "user conduct", and regardless of who is behind the IP that opened this request, it is totally unacceptable for any editor to use language like "makes me want to whack someone in the head with a shovel". Excusing such an approach on the basis that it is someone else who should be whacked in the head with a shovel entirely misses the point. If it were an isolated incident, a warning would suffice. However, given the string of evidence presented, Mike Searson should be warned that further intimidatory language will result in an indefinite block. Johnuniq (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Sitush[edit]I've not yet ploughed through all of the evidence. For now, I'd just like to note that one-way IBANs, as has been suggested as a possible remedy by some, simply don't work. They just lead to more problems. - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC) A fair amount of the evidence is pretty old. I'm uneasy about the use of an IP to file this request, especially given recent events, but I guess it really doesn't matter who files a request if the complaint is valid. Yes, Mike Searson should dial down the colourful rhetoric, metaphors etc, which some people on his talk say is "army creole". There is a pattern and it is spread over a long time. The block log is clean, which perhaps says something given the contentious topic area. Given that area and the comments, it is difficult to comprehend how he has not been blocked before but perhaps some context is being lost. I know that he is aware of the DS but has he had prior warnings about this type of language/phrasing? Can we go from zero to the extreme of indef block/permanent topic ban without collecting £200? - Sitush (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC) @GabrielF: Thanks for that, and fair enough. I think Sandstein's latest three-pronged proposal is overkill but your point is taken. - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by (user)[edit]Result concerning Mike Searson[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Awaiting a statement by Mike Searson. @Lightbreather: Notifying you of this request on which you may want to comment; if you do, please also indicate any relationship between you and the anonymous user making this request. Sandstein 16:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The worst matter here by far is the diff from 16 January, which is beyond unacceptable. That one is probably sufficient for a topic ban. Add that to the other ones under "Longterm battleground approach to Lightbreather" and it seems clear that Mike Searson's battleground approach is incompatible with further participation in this topic. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC) I think Mike Searson is a great editor, especially on species articles, but the interactions with Lightbreather here are not acceptable. I am especially bothered by what Sandstein refers to - the "aggressive, violent language aimed at a female editor..." Even if I took Scalhotrod's comments into consideration and assumed only the most benign intent behind those words, this would still be precisely what DS are supposed to prevent. I'm with Sandstein and Heim on this. Guettarda (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Mike Searson hasn't edited since 16 January. I suggest waiting *at most* two more days to see if he'll respond. There is a case that he has engaged in talk page disruption, given the aggressive language. If this were an WP:ARBPIA complaint we would probably be talking about a three-month topic ban at this point. Interaction bans are tricky and might be considered if nothing else were available. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
My first thought was the same as NW's: that a lengthy block might be necessary. Several of the comments taken individually are beyond the pale, but taken collectively they indicate an extraordinary level of hostility far beyond the occasional loss of temper or lapse of judgement. We all get angry, and I could overlook an isolated incident, but this seems to be a pattern of drastically over-personalising content disputes. And while the gender of either editor shouldn't really come into it, it's hard not to notice such intimidatory behaviour being directed at a woman; certainly if a man behaved like that towards a woman in the street, at least where I come from, passers-by would intervene. While I'm willing to wait for Mike to make statement if he does so quickly, I can't see how such a statement could adequately explain the conduct raised here; it could present matters in extenuation and mitigation, but to be compelling that would have to include a lot of evidence that Lightbreather has behaved similarly appallingly. Unless Mike's statement casts a completely new light on things, I recommend a one-way interaction ban (ie a ban on talking to, commenting on, or mentioning Lightbreather anywhere on Wikipedia) and an indefinite topic ban on gun control and possibly a lengthy block. amended 03:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I am inclined similarly to NW and to HJ Mitchell. The stream of childish but vicious abuse spread across multiple edits on 28 December (not, I note, in relation to Lightbreather) does not speak well of this editor's ability to contribute effectively to even mildly contentious areas. The most recent (16 January) diff illustrates that the pattern of problematic editing is ongoing—if one feels that comparing one's adversary to a child rapist is acceptable, even in jest or as part of a dubious analogy, then one is not in a suitable state of mind for editing.
|
Cwobeel
[edit]| Blocked for a week and banned from editing BLP awards and nominations lists. Sandstein 11:09, 25 January 2015 (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 Cwobeel[edit]
A BLPN discussion was opened by the user Cirt. Cwobeel responded and maligned Cirt's actions:
Discussion concerning Cwobeel[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Cwobeel[edit]We are talking here about innocuous articles listing the nominations and awards of known actors and actresses, nothing contentious that would warrant any type of intervention, and super easily sourced as I did here [153]. I am glad to see that at least he is responding with improvements and adding other sources after me placing a {{refimprove}} template [154]. OTOH, this editor needs to stop posting AN/I and AE postings against me over past weeks, and this last one is another example. This is bordering on WP:HAR. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC) @Collect:: It should be noted that we have many BLP-related articles in WP, in particular lists, that are unsourced for non-contentious material. (See for example Susan Sarandon filmography, and Nicolas Cage filmography, and we just don't go around blanking them and redirecting them. In these cases the approach should be to place a {{refimprove}} or similar template. The Yank Barry case was contentious to start with. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC) statement by Collect[edit]Where a claim is made which another editor deems reasonably to be contentious, WP:BLP is sufficiently clear. I would present the following as indicative of an example where a "nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize" claim was removed as inadequately sourced to show just why this is a proper position for editors to embrace rather than oppose. Talk:Yank_Barry/Archive_1#Nobel_Peace_Prize_nominee, Talk:Yank_Barry/Archive_2#Nobel_prize_in_lead, Talk:Yank_Barry/Archive_4#Nobel_Prize_nomination_mentioned_in_Time_Magazine, Talk:Yank_Barry/Archive_5 etc. where I postulate that a Nobel Peace Prize is, in fact, a major award. It is not onerous to expect that reliable sources are findable for major awards. Collect (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by A Quest for Knowledge[edit]Kww is an WP:INVOLVED admin and shouldn't be posting in the uninvolved admin section.[155] I ask that uninvolved admins at WP:AE not rush to judgement. There is more going on here than this RfE might suggest. There is a long standing dispute in the community as to whether it's acceptable to delete content for no other reason than being unsourced. I think most are in agreement that it's perfectly acceptable for an editor to remove content in which they have a good faith belief that that the material is wrong or unverifiable. There is much debate in the community as to whether it is acceptable to blindly delete unsourced content for no other reason that being unsourced. See WP:PRESERVE. Also, see the discussion at WP:BLPN and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film as evidence that there considerable disagreement in the community as to whether such conduct is acceptable. Many editors consider blind deletions to be WP:DISRUPTIVE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Cwobeel[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The request has merit. WP:BLP provides that:
The material at issue was contentious because at least one person objected to its inclusion. IMDB is a user-edited website and therefore not a reliable source. The BLP policy must not be ignored, and in addition, the evidence provided that at least some of the material added from IMDB was incorrect indicates that the edits were not in fact an improvement to Wikipedia (wrong information is arguably more harmful than no information). The statement by Cwobeel indicates that they intend to continue violating the BLP policy in this manner. They are therefore immediately blocked for a week to prevent this. I'm leaving the thread open to invite the opinions of other admins about the possibility of a IMDB, awards or BLP topic ban. Sandstein 16:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
In the context of potential damage, this isn't a huge BLP issue. (Adam Sandler isn't going to get a job over someone else if an award is attributed to him that he didn't actually receive.) The problem is that Cwobeel doesn't seem to understand the issue here. (There's a difference between "I'll stop" and "I understand, and here's why".) And I'm not seeing that in the links posted or in his unblock request. What bothers me most about this is how utterly pointless it is. But I can't disagree with the block. Guettarda (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC) There are a lot of editors that don't seem to see the BLP issues involved with the "List of Awards and Nominations ..." articles. I agree with Guettarda that they aren't huge, but they are there, they are real, and this class of article has become a cesspool of unsourced assertions. While I agree with HJ Mitchell that any Wikipedia-wide BLP restriction is, for all practical purposes, a Wikipedia-wide restriction, it would probably be reasonable to craft a restriction tailored at award and nomination lists.—Kww(talk) 23:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Eurocentral
[edit]| Appeal declined. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:33, 25 January 2015 (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. Appeal by Eurocentral[edit]
User Ed Johnson sanctioned me "due to your quibbling as to the country of origin of various historians who write about Romania" I consider the Ed Johnson action as an abuse. Usually, all the pages of Romanian and Hungarian history are strongly modified by some Hungarian nationalist editors (I noted Borsoka and Fakirbakir) who want to show the priority in history of Hungarians (action similar to irredentism). They started a war edit between Romanian and Hungarian editors. Their tactics are to erase all references of Romanian historians or all data who are against their principles. In order to avoid the 3RR and other wiki rules they acted alternatively. In this way they managed to blocked a lot of Romanian editors. I edited especially against the elimination of data of Romanian historians entering in conflict with Borsoka and Fakirbakir. I also edited in history of Hungary where I insisted to keep the exact data of Romanian historians.see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hungarian_conquest_of_the_Carpathian_Basin, The use of leader's names instead of the nation name. It is obvious for Romanians that some Hungarian editors try to avoid the names of Romanians (Vlachs) to be mentioned. Also in this AN3 complaint (permalink) I showed there about the alternative activity of Hungarian editors who erased all data of a Romanian historian who wrote against their principles. My opinion is that all data of all historians have room in wiki pages. Censoring historians are similar to vandalism. Ed Johnson wrongly considered these as an action against "various historians" I want the ban to be lifted (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Eurocentral (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by EdJohnston[edit]User:Eurocentral has placed the reviewers at a disadvantage by not providing any links to what he is talking about. I won't hold it against him that he can't spell my name correctly, even though it's clearly visible on his talk page, in the various sanction notices. Back in October 2014, Borsoka reported Eurocentral for edit warring at Origin of the Romanians. See this report. As a result of that report, I took no action but I notified Eurocentral of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. You can see the tone of the interactions between Borsoka and Eurocentral at the RfC on the talk page. There are many charges of POV exchanged there. At the time, I believed that Eurocentral didn't want the opinions of Hungarian historians to be trusted, simply because they were Hungarian. Now that I review the material, I'm not so sure. But he still seems to believe that Hungarian Wikipedia editors are trying to enforce a certain POV. Here is a statement he made about User:Borsoka on that page: "Borsoka wants to erase all references in Romanian but to keep all references in Hungarian. All pages of Hungarian history have references in Hungarian language. Another example of his subjective and nationalistic attitude. Eurocentral (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)" On my talk page he complained about gang tactics and irredentist editing by Hungarian editors. It is possible that Eurocentral might have something useful to contribute but his limited English makes it hard for him to express himself clearly, and the net impression is of an ethnic warrior. EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Borsoka[edit]
Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Eurocentral[edit]Result of the appeal by Eurocentral[edit]
|
Eric Corbett
[edit]| Blocked for 48 h for violating a topic ban. Sandstein 18:16, 25 January 2015 (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 Eric Corbett[edit]
Eric Corbett had not been active on the project's talk page since 14 November 2014, when he asked Rationalobserver if she was making a legal threat.[158] I tried twice[159][160] to simply have the comments removed at the talk page in question, but both requests for admin help were closed within a few minutes. @Go Phightins!: As usual, when it comes to complaining about Eric Corbett, I had a knot in my stomach when I came here because I know how many people defend him. I only came here after I tried twice to correct his misstep, using the "path of least drama" as NE Ent puts it, at WER. Baiting has been mentioned here and there. Where did I bait Eric Corbett? Also, when did I bring up GGTF? Not until after Eric Corbett had... in the very first sentence of his very first post at WER in over two months. Lightbreather (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC) @Buster7: "Piqued" has two meanings, one of which is to feel irritated or resentful. I was neither of those things. I asked if women had been invited to the discussion because it seemed like a perfectly reasonable question. The men involved in the discussion had come up with a pretty good list of things to consider for retention and recruitment. You even invited others to "add to the soup." For this reason it seemed to be a pretty good time to ask, too, as there was also a suggestion to submit the list to the Signpost. However, the answers ran from defensive (I don't see a way to fault those involved) to not AGF (a good way to derail something like this is to add the hot-button gender element to it). And then Eric Corbett jumped in with, "This project seems to be heading down the same rabbit hole that the GGTF project now finds itself in." Lightbreather (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC) @Hafspajen: My question to the WER discussants had NOTHING to do with outing. There are many women who edit openly as women on Wikipedia, many respected women editors. And some of those women are members of WER. My questions was simply to suggest that the group invite some women to participate. Lightbreather (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC) @Chillum: It was Eric Corbett who brought up GGTF first... in the very first sentence of his very first post at WER in over two months. Lightbreather (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC) @EVERYONE To explain the series of events from my eyes. I asked a question. The group might have simply answered, "Good idea. Let's do that," but it didn't. By the time Eric Corbett joined in, there were some already singing the "Wikipedia is genderless" chorus. My first response to Eric was to ignore the first sentence of his comment (comparing WER to GGTF) and to agree with him (I did and I do) that one of the list items should be clarified. Then I proceeded to give my opinion on how to improve one of the other list items. There was a little opposition to the suggestion, and Buster7 brought up Eric's "rabbit hole" statement about the GGTF. Seeing that we might be heading into another dispute about gender, I said 1) Let's not use terms like "rabbit hole," and 2) That I didn't think Eric was talking about gender. (Yes, despite opinions to the contrary, I was trying to keep the discussion from devolving into the other hot-button issue: civility.) And, for those who don't click through, this is what I said:
To which Eric replied that "we create a fantasy world of institutionalised sexism or whatever and then we populate it with imaginary villains and heroes." WTH? And then Buster7 wanted to discuss whether or not "rabbit hole" is a negative figure of speech, and whether by using "let's" I was presuming to speak for the group. Seeing the signs of a derailing of the discussion (should we invite some women project members to join this discussion), I asked for an uninvolved admin to remove Eric's comments[161] per the GGTF ArbCom Remedies. Please note that I only asked for his comments to be removed, and that I did not come here first.
Notified here.
Discussion concerning Eric Corbett[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Eric Corbett[edit]The next thing will be a request for clarification I imagine, hopefully leading to another replay of the civility debates and ending up with me at last being banned. But for what? Merely mentioning the GGTF? Eric Corbett 03:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC) I fully expected that the hard-line enforcers such as Sandstein would do their utmost to stretch the meaning of Statement by NE Ent[edit]An administrator already told Lightbreather they considered Eric's participation allowed: please see [162] and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Question_for_administrator. NE Ent 00:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC) The allegation the Eric "showed up" in response to Lightbreather's participation is not supported by evidence. The article info tool [163] indicates Eric is the sixth most frequent participant, with the following data: Username ↓ Links ↓ # 1 ↓ Minor edits ↓ % ↓ First edit ↓ Latest edit ↓ atbe 2 ↓ Added (Bytes) ↓ Eric Corbett ec · topedits 121 30 24.8% 2013-05-22, 21:55 2015-01-24, 23:48 5.1 36,359NE Ent 00:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Sandstein A block is inappropriate here. Conflicts should be resolved using the Path of Least Drama. As an administrator (Go Phightins) a) gave Eric a great light to continue and b) has admitted they erred, a block would be excessive. The simplest way to resolve is to simply remove Eric's post from the page (I'd have done it already but the committee chose to use the term "administrator" rather than "editor".) NE Ent 11:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Chillum[edit]I have read through the diffs and I have seen what is at worst mild abrasiveness. I don't think this behavior rises to the level of sanction. Eric has been rather impressively holding back over the last several weeks and has even demonstrated the ability to not allow provocation to get the better of him. He has done this while continuing to contribute to the encyclopedia. I don't think much is to be gained for using enforcements against such mild behavior. Chillum 00:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris[edit]There is nothing here other than the ordinary give-and-take of editing. Suggest a wrist-tap to the plaintiff for filing a frivolous complaint. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Sitush[edit]ShortBrigade says Statement by Go Phightins![edit]Insofar as I misread the topic ban as topics related to the gender gap, not merely GGTF, I erred in my initial assessment that there was absolutely no violation of the topic ban. Nevertheless, I chose not to block initially because Eric's participation was certainly not detrimental to the discussion, was only tangentially related to the GGTF, and even so, only because Lightbreather brought it up. Moreover, Lightbreather's decision to bring up the sanctions after arguably baiting or at least facilitating an atmosphere conducive to discussion of how the gender gap pertains to editor retention, a discussion in which I think Eric should have the right to participate. In short, when Eric began participating in the discussion, it was not about the gender gap, and only because of Lightbreather did it shift to that topic, at which point Eric's response catalyzed her reporting of him ostensibly violating a topic ban thereof. I do not support blocking Eric at this time, but as I told Lightbreather, I plan to continue to monitor the discussion on WT:WER. Go Phightins! 03:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Buster7[edit]Editor Lightbreather came into the discussion piqued because no women were present. I just want to point out that no editor was invited to the conversation. No editor or group of editors was excluded. As is normal, it was many varied conversations that just bubbled up from the masses. It just so happened that none of those masses were women. It could have been handled in so many different ways that would have been forwarding and positive toward the issue that is important to Lightbreather. As a long time member and a co-ordinator at WER I feel some responsibility to maintain the proper decorum at the project. At no time did I feel that Eric had over-stepped the bounds of propriety. He never even got close.Buster Seven Talk 09:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Delibzr[edit]Most of the people don't know that the complaint concerns topic ban. Delibzr (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Kudpung[edit]As I interpret the exact wording of the arbitration, Eric is clearly in breach of the sanctions. What happens next I will leave for others to decide. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Hafspajen[edit]I believe that the whole discussion was about the tread: How many women have been involved in these discussions? started by the same editor who also started this one. Is based on outing. Outing is not allowed. Or you have to declare you are a woman or you chose to say - I don't want to say = he edits or she edits. This kind of discussions are forcing people to disclose their identity. I believe it is every editor's fundamental right to chose what they want to disclose or not, but in this way it's soon impossible. Or is this a project for finding out people's gender? The answer is: You don't know the answer. You will never know: How many women have been involved in these discussions? - not until every single editor disclosed their gender. Hafspajen (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Drmies[edit]I suppose I'm hardly uninvolved since I have supported both editors in their various disagreements with others (Lightbreather, you may recall, had gotten somewhat unfairly in hot water in the whole gun debate thing and I mostly supported her arguments there), but this is indeed frivolous. Worse, it causes a chilling effect which I think is never OK--and I'm putting that mildly since I don't wish to use the H-word. Statement by John Carter[edit]I see absolutely no merit whatsoever to this complaint. I specifically stated that this discussion be taken to AE, but that as an individual I and I believe the other editors who have been given the authority to remove disruptive comments on the page apparently saw nothing that merited such action. The only possible grounds for declaring a violation are Eric mention of the GGTF, and, honestly, that seems to me to be an extremely weak basis on which to impose sanctions. I also note that Jimbo's talk page has historically been declared out-of-bounds by AE given his status. While I do not necessarily think that the ER group has the same status or authority as Jimbo, I do think that there might well be merit to having at least one other page where comments which might be otherwise less than appropriate be placed, and that the talk page of a group whose stated goal is to keep editors would be an appropriate page to serve that purpose. As I have indicated there already, several people have already been effectively declared as having the authority to remove comments that are counterproductive, including a few active admins. If the comments ever get regularly excessive there, then it may be necessary for AE or ArbCom to be invoked, but I have no reason to think it will ever get to that point, and that it is appropriate to allow some editors to express their concerns somewhere other than Jimbo's talk page somewhere on wikipedia. John Carter (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Eric Corbett[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
John Carter
[edit]| Both parties blocked for a month. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:56, 26 January 2015 (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 John Carter[edit]
John Carter opposed my recent amendment request to relax the terms of the I-ban restriction: Ebionites 3 I-ban amendment request Therefore, John Carter should also be obligated to abide by the original terms of the ban restriction. Simply put, John Carter can't insist on a strict adherence to the terms of the I-ban and then go around trash-talking about me like this. There is nothing frivolous about defending my reputation as an editor against aspersions by an ex-admin who has already been sanctioned for doing it. Ignocrates (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC) @HJ Mitchell: I requested by email that the I-ban restriction be relaxed during the HJ case after pointing out that John Carter had already violated it twice. I didn't push the point because ArbCom responded by temporarily relaxing the restriction within the case. You can verify this for yourself on their email archives along with the two diffs I provided as evidence. Ignocrates (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC) @Cailil: This looks like speculation about my motives based on transitive logic, and that's all it is - speculation. This diff has nothing to do with John Carter, and this diff has nothing to do with me. It is stirring the tea leaves to find a pattern that isn't there. The issue of outing came up at ANI months ago when Fearofreprisal was T-banned, in part, based on his user name and what the patrolling admin believed that signified about his motives as an editor. Ignocrates (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning John Carter[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by John Carter[edit]This request frankly to my eyes shows how completely and utterly out of control Ignocrates' obsession with me is. It should also be noted that the first link provided was in response to what was to my eyes an apparent attempt by Ignocrates himself to impugn me, indirectly, and clarifying that his implicit accusation had no basis. The second was in regard to my own earlier retirement and to the causes of it, in which his conduct played a role. In short, the first was in response to a violation on his part, and the second was about me more than anyone else. First, as I believe I have already to the eyes of the ArbCom itself in his recent request for amendment, he has apparently been doing little if anything for the past several months than stalking me. And I also indicated in that discussion, which can be found to have been withdrawn as receiving no support whatsoever here, he has himself done for the past several months little but making similar comments in his ongoing stalking of me in the last few months. The WP:DIVA hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and incompetent irrationality this editor has displayed in his own recent actions, combined with his rather obvious recent history of stalking to the apparent exclusion of pretty much everything else, to my eyes cause serious questions as to whether this individual might now qualify under WP:NOTHERE, considering he apparently has few if any articles which relate to his sole topic of interest, his modern, non-notable, view of "Jewish Christianity" with which to occupy himself and has thus reverting to almost exclusive stalking, and I think that there are more than reasonable grounds for his being sanctioned for his persistent and transparently obvious STALKing and other hypocritical misconduct, in violation of his own interaction ban from the same case. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by NE Ent[edit]WP:BANEX: "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum." This AE filing is a frivolous request. NE Ent 18:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Fearofreprisal[edit]Here, John Carter says of Ignocrates This appears to be the same kind of personal attack against Ignocrates for which John Carter was sanctioned in Ebionites 3 [165] Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Result concerning John Carter[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Pigsonthewing
[edit]| I'm closing this given (with admin hat not clerk) that the Infoboxes case review has been opened, interested editors can submit evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Review/Evidence regarding the remedy in question. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:25, 28 January 2015 (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 Pigsonthewing[edit]
This can be parsed two ways, both of which mean Andy has violated his current ban. 1) If a Geobox is not an Infobox, then the 159 articles in question have no infoboxes and Pigsonthewing is proposing adding Infobox Settlement to all of them. OR 2) If a Geobox is a kind of generic infobox (which Andy seems to say), then he is proposing to both remove the Geobox, and then add Infobox Settlement. For the Wikilawyers out there who say this is a replacement, and that is somehow different than a removal followed by an addition, I note that Geobox Borough and Infobox Settlement are NOT functionally equivalent (and to me "replacement" implies substituting an equivalent, which is not the case here). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC) I also note that Andy has a long-running history of removing / trying to remove Geobox from various articles where it is used (and if Geobox is removed from a group of articles, he then removes the relevant code from the Geobox itself). Given that he has proposed the deletion of Geobox itself (which failed), my assumption is that his long-term plan is to remove enough uses and code piecemeal that he can then TfD and delete Geobox itself (despite earlier failures to do this). See my evidence in the ArbCom case on Infoboxes Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Ruhrfisch. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Final comments - 1) since this issue has been addressed before, PLEASE link that clarification at the ArbCom current sanctions page and at the original decision page. It is already a daunting task just to ask if someone has violated their sanctions, no need to waste everyone's time but not providing links to prior clarifications. 2) I find it funny that the Geobox template, which was originally envisioned as being one large template which could be used for a wide variety of geographic features (i.e. one template that could fit many kinds of articles) is now being targeted by Andy "in favour of the few centralized ones he favours" (to quote Fut. Perf. below). Kafka would have enjoyed this. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Notified here diff Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Discussion concerning Pigsonthewing[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DePiep[edit]The original poster quotes: "Pigsonthewing is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes". Can I get a link to the original statement (with authoritative status)? -DePiep (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Littleolive oil[edit]Copy of my cmt on Arbitration request talk page: As I understand, coding is incomplete on Geobox, an info box-like structure but technically not an infobox. Andy is suggesting a remedy for that probelm. Further, as far I know he is not discussing the removal of a specific article info box which is what his sanction seems to have been specifying, but is suggesting a technical fix for a problem. I believe his usefulness in such technical situations has been established. At any rate the issue of how far his sanction extends is presently at arbitration. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)) (Littleolive oil) Statement by HJ Mitchell[edit]The discussion currently at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Infoboxes is relevant. Two previous enforcement requests have held that the restriction does not apply to discussions about merging or deleting infoboxes, and the amendment requests asks ArbCom to codify this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Edited for clarity. 00:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Gerda Arendt[edit]
Statement by RexxS[edit]This previous clarification request from 21 July 2014 makes it abundantly clear that the Arbs never intended Andy's restrictions to include replacing one infobox with another. These are the Arbs' responses to Sandstein's suggestion that replacing an infobox with another was sanctionable: "This is not worth discussing"; "that wasn't adding an infobox"; "I agree that this was not the addition of an infobox and did not breach the restriction"; "This edit was not in violation of his restriction". @Callanecc: You were a clerk last year and were clearly aware of that decision. In addition, you had accepted at AE the previous day that replacing an infobox was never intended to be part of Andy's sanctions: I find it astonishing that you have forgotten so quickly. Now, I suggest you do the right thing and rescind your unfounded call for sanctions on an editor who has clearly not breached the terms of his sanctions. --RexxS (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by(username)[edit]Result concerning Pigsonthewing[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Nishidani
[edit]| Not actionable. Ashtul, please do not use this board to attempt to win content disputes. Sandstein 22:29, 27 January 2015 (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 Nishidani[edit]
The editor was banned indefinitely in WP:ARBPIA2 the topic ban was lifted by appeal
Replies to other editors[edit]If any editor can explain me this and this edits, I will drop this request. @Sandstein This isn't about dispute over content but repetitive editing behavior. Diff1 is an example of WP:Disruptive editing while diff 4 is just the tip of the iceberg of the WP:WAR that took place. I collected more evidence and I will share some more -
I believe this is enough to prove WP:Tendentious editing, WP:POVPUSH as well as WP:WAR. Ashtul (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC) @Cailil As Nishidani said here and in the previous AE against me, I am a newbie. If I was aware of AE before, I would have used it. Nishidani was very teritorial over the Skunk page as he is over Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015 now. Nishidani's and co. trying to dismiss this as retaliation is incorrect. If Nishidani can explain diff1 and why he changed "in which Israelis and Palestinians work side by side in dozens of factories" into "on Palestinian land from the villages of Qarawat Bani Hassan and Deir Istiya" I will cancel this request myself. Those two cases are great indicators of his WP:POVPUSH as well as WP:Tendentious editing. An editor with his history, had all the warning one may look for. Ashtul (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC) @Malik Shabazz, this isn't about a single edit but a repetitive behavior and not to mention the WP:WAR on Skunk_(weapon). We had a few exchanges on Al Aqsa and they all lasted 1-2 edits. @Nishidani, I met a friend from Beit Lehem who smelled the Skunk quite a few times. I show her the page the way it was before and even she agreed it was not WP:Neutral. Ashtul (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Nishidani[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Nishidani[edit]Statement by NISHIDANI[edit]What's going on here? My talk page is subject to assault today (here, herehere here), with the usual jibe I am or host anti-Semitic crap; red-linked editors are popping up everywhere I edit to revert, and now this? Of course, as User:Ashtul notified me, this, coming straight after the expiry of his one week ban, after I requested something be done about his stalking of me, is not 'retaliation'. I would note that if I have broken 1R, the proper thing to do is to advise me, to allow me to make amends. I can't see at a glance that I have done so. This is an example of WP:Battleground as well as WP:Hound. Ashtul appears to have confused me with Ashurbanippal against which the request for an 1R violation should have been made, as the evidence above itself shows. I.e.,
As for the pretext that Jews for Justice for Palestinians is not RS, there was no significant response, except for an obiter dictum from, uh, User:Brad Dyer. I have occasionally used it on several articles over several years, and have yet to have it challenged, even by experienced POV pushers. This place is getting chaotic, flushed with newbies on a mission. Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Nomoskedasticity[edit]This request by Ashtul comes on the day Ashtul's 1-week block expires. The block came as a consequence of Nishidani's request at AE concerning Ashtul, [170]. The hands are not clean, and the request is tainted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000[edit]As Nomoskedasticity says, this is a transparent attempt at payback for Ashtul's recent short block that he never accepted. The charges consist only of weakly argued content disputes. Zerotalk 12:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC) comment by Collect[edit]Appears to be a vanilla content dispute. Example 2 is not "libelous" AFAICT, and 3 may not be "best source" but the statement is attributed to a specific person, and should be verifiable otherwise as Battle of Shuja'iyya contains the same and similar claims. The Guardian states 120 deaths of Palestinians. Content dispute utterly. Collect (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Malik Shabazz[edit]As Ashtul's comments make clear, this is a content dispute. Ashtul should we warned against using this forum as a means to gain the upper hand in content disputes. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Nishidani[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|