Revision as of 12:15, 20 July 2012 editTimotheus Canens (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators38,430 edits →Dailycare: close, JJG indef topic banned; Dailycare advised← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:35, 23 July 2012 edit undoSeraphimblade (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators46,194 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
*Given the accusations against T. Canens, I've taken a careful look through the conclusions reached by him, and find the accusations of wrongdoing/vendetta to be totally baseless. His conclusions are well-supported by the facts of the case. Dailycare made at most a mistake, ''and one which at most compounded JJG's initial error''. The correct thing to do in such a situation would've been to bring that to Dailycare's attention, not to run straight for AE. JJG was already on the very last chance here, and I think the ] has come to its end. Support (re)imposing an indefinite topic ban on JJG, with a minimum of six months' productive editing in unrelated areas required before we consider any request to lift it. (That does ''not'' mean "editing very little if at all"—show us you can do it right.) For Dailycare, I think a reminder that it's a good idea to double-check existing sources, especially in a topic area as fraught and contentious as this one, is all the "sanction" that's needed. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC) | *Given the accusations against T. Canens, I've taken a careful look through the conclusions reached by him, and find the accusations of wrongdoing/vendetta to be totally baseless. His conclusions are well-supported by the facts of the case. Dailycare made at most a mistake, ''and one which at most compounded JJG's initial error''. The correct thing to do in such a situation would've been to bring that to Dailycare's attention, not to run straight for AE. JJG was already on the very last chance here, and I think the ] has come to its end. Support (re)imposing an indefinite topic ban on JJG, with a minimum of six months' productive editing in unrelated areas required before we consider any request to lift it. (That does ''not'' mean "editing very little if at all"—show us you can do it right.) For Dailycare, I think a reminder that it's a good idea to double-check existing sources, especially in a topic area as fraught and contentious as this one, is all the "sanction" that's needed. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC) | ||
{{hab}} | {{hab}} | ||
==Shuki== | |||
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' | |||
===Request concerning Shuki=== | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Shuki}} | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> | |||
# Shuki's posting on my talk page discussing an ARBPIA sanction. Shuki's topic ban prohibits discussing ARBPIA-covered matters in any namespace and in any way. | |||
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) : | |||
<!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. --> | |||
#Topic banned from ARBPIA in all namespaces: | |||
#Warned on by {{admin|WGFinley}} of imposition of the topic ban. | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
As Shuki is directly questioning my judgment, I do not feel it ideal for me to take administrative action without review by others. However, I believe this is a straightforward violation of Shuki's topic ban against discussion of ARBPIA matters in any namespace, as Shuki was clearly discussing an ARBPIA case. I therefore request review here, and recuse from any decisions on administrative sanctions in this matter. I also accept reviews and judgments from my peers of my own statements in the Dailycare/JJG request, regardless of what findings may be made in regards to Shuki. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
Forthcoming momentarily. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
===Discussion concerning Shuki=== | |||
====Statement by Shuki==== | |||
====Comments by others about the request concerning Shuki==== | |||
===Result concerning Shuki=== | |||
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' |
Revision as of 03:35, 23 July 2012
"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Misplaced Pages:AutoEd.Noticeboards | |
---|---|
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
General | |
Articles and content | |
Page handling | |
User conduct | |
Other | |
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards |
Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Important informationShortcuts
Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
Dailycare
Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs) is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces. Dailycare (talk · contribs) is advised that it's a good idea to double-check existing sources, especially in such a fraught and contentious topic area. T. Canens (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Dailycare
This is black and white. I could have added additional information concerning other matters but did not want to cloud this clear-cut case. He states that Avi Shlaim said something that Avi Shlaim clearly did not say. If that is not source misrepresentation, I don't know what is. In a previous AE, T. Canens noted that Dailycare was careless in the manner in which he employed a particular reference and Daily was issued a warning. Well, this case represents outright misrepresentation in the extreme and something more that just a warning is clearly warranted. Moreover, even if the insatnt case can somehow, under the most liberal interpretation be construed as "careless," how many instances of carelessness are we willing to tolerate?
About six weeks ago, at the request of a member of Oversight, I filed a detailed complaint against Tim Canens alleging bias in the extreme and abuse of his Syop authority. The complaint was long and exhaustive and Canens was required to respond to each and every charge. This likely took some time and no doubt he was annoyed for having to "waste" time answering my charges and clarifications from Oversight. Ultimately, Oversight determined that no sanction was warranted. I obviously disagreed but voiced no objection to the substance of their determination. My only request however was that given the antagonistic relationship between myself and Canens and the fact that he was aware the it was I who filed the complaint, that he recuse himself from all AEs in which I am either the filer or respondent. I predicted that if I was T-banned, it would be T. Canens who would be the main antagonist and the one advocating the ban. Oversight considered the request but noted that there were mechanisms in place to ensure that there would be transparency and fairness. It is interesting to note that in both of the recent AEs that I filed, it was T. Canens who responded as the first syop and almost immediately, this despite the fact that other AEs (like Dali lama ding dong's) were languishing and some were being archived for lack of commentary. I hope that other Syops who view this case will not be influenced by TC's metaphoric poisoning of the well, which he is quite adept at doing. My interest was to ensure that sources remained accurate. The only thing I can be faulted for is not providing an inline cite, which in hindsight would have been more helpful. But my edits were well sourced with reliable and verifiable sources. Dailycare however falsely attributed a comment to Avi Shlaim that Avi Shlaim did not say.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Discussion concerning DailycareStatement by DailycareHere we go again? Concerning the content, I added "According to Shlaim" in front of the sentence since the sentence was attributed, by Jiujitsuguy, to Shlaim (and Mutawi, but Shlaim is mentioned first). I decided to mention the author since Jiujitsuguy had removed the Shemesh source, and content sourced from it, from the article. By writing "According to Shlaim, ..." and "According to Shemesh, ..." I was able to present both narratives of why Nasser moved his forces. Pure and simple. Alternatively we could write "According to some sources, ..." and "According to other sources, ..." if there are multiple sources for both viewpoints. Concerning Jiujitsuguy's behaviour, this is the second frivolous AE against me within a short space of time. Jiujitsuguy is under a recent, personal and stringent warning that any further disturbance will result in an indefinite topic ban. My suggestion is, that this topic ban would now be activated either as indefinite or fixed term. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning DailycareThis is as spurrious as the last report, and something should be done about this repeated bad-faith use of AE to attempt to remove one of the better editors from the topic area. the sentence Nasser disregarded the counsel of his own intelligence and began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19), and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran. was already in the article. It was cited to Shlaim (2007) p. 238 and Mutawi (2007) p. 93. It was added by, and this is where this gets comical, Jiujitsuguy (search for Nasser disregarded the counsel of his own intelligence in that diff). The material that JJG is objecting to having cited to Shlaim was added by JJG to a sentence that cited Shlaim. If anybody is to be sanctioned for poor sourcing, it needs to be JJG.All Dailycare added was According to Avi Shlaim. He did not add the reference, he did not add the rest of the sentence. Dailycare attributed what was cited, in part, to Shlaim to Shlaim. The claim that Dailycare wrote that sentence is false, and seemingly made to intentionally mislead admins. That the material was actually added by JJG only makes this an even more egregious case of an underhanded use of AE. nableezy - 16:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment by Activism1234
Result concerning Dailycare
|
Shuki
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Shuki
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Seraphimblade 03:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Shuki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 22 July 2012 Shuki's posting on my talk page discussing an ARBPIA sanction. Shuki's topic ban prohibits discussing ARBPIA-covered matters in any namespace and in any way.
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- Topic banned from ARBPIA in all namespaces: AE report resulting in Shuki's ban
- Warned on 6 April 2012 by WGFinley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) of imposition of the topic ban.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
As Shuki is directly questioning my judgment, I do not feel it ideal for me to take administrative action without review by others. However, I believe this is a straightforward violation of Shuki's topic ban against discussion of ARBPIA matters in any namespace, as Shuki was clearly discussing an ARBPIA case. I therefore request review here, and recuse from any decisions on administrative sanctions in this matter. I also accept reviews and judgments from my peers of my own statements in the Dailycare/JJG request, regardless of what findings may be made in regards to Shuki. Seraphimblade 03:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Forthcoming momentarily. Seraphimblade 03:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Shuki
Statement by Shuki
Comments by others about the request concerning Shuki
Result concerning Shuki
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.