Revision as of 15:27, 2 December 2010 editDelia Peabody (talk | contribs)289 edits →Comments by others about the request concerning Wikifan12345← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:40, 26 December 2024 edit undoValereee (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators83,645 edits →Result concerning KronosAlight: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<noinclude> {{pp-move-indef}} | |||
<noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:AE|the automated editing program|Misplaced Pages:AutoEd}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude> | |||
{{Redirect|WP:AE||WP:AE (disambiguation)}} | |||
<includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}Requests for enforcement=</includeonly> | |||
__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!-- | |||
<noinclude>{{editabuselinks|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}{{shortcut|WP:AE}} | |||
--><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly> | |||
</noinclude> | |||
<noinclude>{{Noticeboard links|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}<!-- | |||
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}} | |||
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
<noinclude>{{TOC limit}}</noinclude> | |||
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
|counter =346 | |||
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}} | |||
|minthreadsleft = 0 | |||
|maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
|counter = 74 | |||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(14d) | ||
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d | ||
}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}} | |||
}} | |||
<!--PLEASE PLACE NEW REQUESTS BELOW THIS NOTICE --> | |||
==Ethiopian Epic== | |||
== Captain Occam == | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
===Request concerning Ethiopian Epic=== | |||
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Tinynanorobots}} 11:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
===Request concerning Captain Occam=== | |||
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 07:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks| |
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Ethiopian Epic}}<p>{{ds/log|Ethiopian Epic}}</p> | ||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] | |||
;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 : | ; ] 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. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> | |||
# | |||
# created during the Yasuke case and went active when it ended. First 11 edits were to Government of Japan. In one case three edits were used to write one sentence. | |||
# | |||
# |
# Manually reverted the lead back to how it was in September. | ||
# Falsely Claimed cited material was OR. (G | |||
# Falsely Claimed cited material was unsourced | |||
# It took an ANI report to get him to use the article talk page. His defense was accusations and denial. | |||
# He reverted to a version that went against consensus established on the talk page and contained a falsely sourced quote. | |||
# Engages in sealioning | |||
# Removes a well sourced line from Yasuke as well as reverted an edit that was the result of BRD. He has now started disputes with me on all three Yasuke related articles. | |||
# starts disputing a new section of | |||
# Brought again to ANI, he claims that I didn't get consensus for changes, even though I had discussed them on talk prior to making them. | |||
# He keeps mentioning ONUS, and asking me to discuss it, in response to me discussing. | |||
# Used a non-controversial revert to hide his edit warring. | |||
# did the same thing on List of foreign-born samurai in Japan. | |||
# He also repeatedly complains that he doesn't like the definition because it is vague and claims that his preferred version is "status quo" | |||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | |||
This user is discussing matters concerned with | |||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> | |||
# Explanation | |||
# Explanation | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):[ | |||
# his views of the content and quality of articles covered by his topic ban | |||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> | |||
# how other users should manage imposing restrictions on others editing the articles covered by his topic ban | |||
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on (see the system log linked to above). | |||
# the close of ] and his battleground attempts to have sanctions applied to other users | |||
Whether or not his editing history prior to his topic ban is being discussed, he should not intervene or attempt to exercise influence in any way whatsoever. This is a violation of his topic ban. | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
'''Recent harassment-only accounts''' | |||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> | |||
I am not sure if this is actually a AE matter, but was told to go here by multiple admins. The biggest issue is the Editing against consensus on accompanied by bludgeoning. However, there are signs of bad faith editing on all three pages where I have interacted with EE. It could also be a CIR issue or it could be some sort of harassment. I don't know. I just know that EE first avoided providing clear reasons for reverting edits and has been trying to engage in Status Quo Stonewalling. He keeps citing Onus or Burden and asks me not to make a change until the discussion is over. Often, this doesn't make sense in context, because the change was in place. He has made false claims about sources and what they say. His editing on Yasuke is not so much a problem as the discussion which comes across as gaslighting. | |||
:@], I am not an expert on proxies or socks. All the IPs have only posted on the one article and have advocated an odd definition for samurai, that doesn't apply to the article. All except the first one have just reverted. It is possible that this is just laziness, or lack of confidence in writing skills etc. After all, the false citation was added by another user and was just kept. I found the latest one the most suspect, in part because of it first reverting to the incorrect definition, before restoring most of the text and second because of falsely citing policy. I am not sure if they are proxies, but I hoped that someone here would have the expertise to know. I don't think the proxy evidence is the most important. EE is either acting in bad faith or has CIR problems. The later is possible, because he thanked City of Silver during ANI, although City of Silver has been the harshest critic of EE's behaviour towards me. | |||
There is also a concern that two recently created accounts are acting as proxies for Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin, during their topic bans. The evidence of meatpuppetry so far is purely circumstantial. Like Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin, both users are targeting {{User|WeijiBaikeBianji}}. Both are following his edits and and lobbying for editing restrictions. For recently arrived wikipedians, this does not seem quite normal. | |||
*{{user|SightWatcher}} has misquoted and misrepresented the findings of the arbitration case on multiple occasions, in the same way as Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin. He has added identical material to ] that was previously proposed unsuccessfully by Ferahgo the Assassin for ]. He has lobbied on her behalf. Here in his user space is a draft RfC/U, as suggested by Captain Occam. The statements in this draft RfC/U continue to voice the same misunderstandings of the outcome of ]. For a user to start discussing sanctions against another user within a week of arriving on wikipedia after less than thirty edits is concerning. Like Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin, he has been given advice by administrators (Maunus and RegentsPark) which he chosen to ignore. He has, with Captain Occam's advice , started an RfC/U on WeikiBaikeBianji. One of the main topics contained in the RfC/U concerns the removal of spam links on an article ] (an article not connected with ]). On that article ], the WP expert on spam and blacklisting, has been removing link spam in exactly the same way as WeijiBaikeBianji. | |||
:I think there should be some important context to the quote: {{tq|"those who serve in close attendance to the nobility"}}. The quote can be found in several books, on ] it is sourced to an article published in Black Belt Magazine in the 80s by ], where he describes the origin of the word samurai. He is describing the early phases of its meaning in that quote, before it became to have martial connotations. It also refers to the time before 900. The earliest foreign samurai on the list was in the late 1500s. It also doesn't apply to most of the persons on the list. Finally, it is not mentioned in Vaporis's book, which EE keeps adding as the source. He hasn't even made the effort to copy the citation from ]. | |||
*{{user|Woodsrock}} has made a series of personal attacks on WeijiBaikeBianji in postings and edit summaries (here is one example ). Apart from the template he created very soon after the creation of his account and its use, his other edits to articles consist entirely of splitting paragraphs or moving images: no content is being added or modified. In a number of cases, probably without realizing it, he has made these arbitrary changes to the ledes of articles which have already been selected as GA and FA (examples include ], ] and ]). In this cosmetic change to ] , the change indicates that Woodsrock does not read the text he is editing (which refers to an image on the left, which he moved to the right without altering the text). Today he made yet another unprompted personal attack on WeikiBaikeBianji, coordinated with the RfC/U. | |||
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): | |||
:Not applicable | |||
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Block of account for one week or more for Captain Occam; official warnings for SightWatcher and Woodsrock for harassment-only accounts; possible block of Woodsrock for personal attacks. | |||
:@] | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : There are other issues of off-wiki harassment, possibly connected with these incidents, which ArbCom has been informed of. A checkuser has confirmed that the two accounts above are not sockpuppet accounts. I have discussed some of these matters with a member of ArbCom. | |||
Not only did I have a dispute with Symphony Regalia about samurai being "retainers to lords", but also on Yasuke about "As a samurai" and on ] EE made the same reverts as SR. EE had with his first edit in all three articles continued a dispute that I had already had with SR. | |||
:@] I actually don't have a problem with you discussing things. Your talk page posts aren't really discussion though. Your main argument on all three pages has been a shifting of the burden of proof. You don't really discuss content and continually ask me not to make changes without discussing first, and then make changes yourself. I understand that your position is that your preferred version is the status quo. However, my edits regarding the definition on ] , were discussed and consensus was clearly gotten. Similarly, my edits on Yasuke were discussed, and even though I didn't use the exact same version as Gitz said, Gitz had suggested using warrior instead of bushi, so I used samurai, because I thought it would be less controversial. | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
; Reply to EdJohnston : My topic ban on articles and their talk pages connected with race and intelligence, broadly construed, was by mutual consent (initially voluntary) and lasts until the end of time, unlike the topic bans of Mikemikev, Captain Occam and David.Kane. It does not involve process pages, but, as far as I am concerned, does involve not discussing the subject matter of the dispute or other people's views on it in any way whatsoever. The timing of other users' edits is beyond my control: that includes Ferahgo the Assassin's recent violation of her topic ban; Mikemikev's continued sockpuppetry (including an edit by him that had to be deleted in this request); and also the issues of meatpuppetry and wikihounding mentioned above. In the latter case an arbitrator requested, after I made this request,that information from me be passed on to other members of the committee. Any modification in my topic ban would presumably have to be through an amendment of ] and be approved by ArbCom. I cannot see any relation with EEML. But just to be safe I will make a public declaration: I have received a phone call from Roger Davies and we did have a long and enjoyable chat about matters totally unconnected with wikipedia. On the other hand that might be a cue for somebody to start ]. ] (]) 06:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
===Discussion concerning Ethiopian Epic=== | |||
; Further clarification : I have no connection at all with WeijiBaikeBianji. Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin have continued to cast aspersions that we are somehow collaborating. However, similarly unreasonable assertions to these have been summarily dismissed by arbitrators. Their repeated attempts to have sanctions imposed on WeijiBaikeBianji on previous ArbCom pages were seen as a failure to come to terms with the closure of the ArbCom case. Unlike Captain Occam and his girlfirend, I have no interest in the subject whatsoever. I have made critical but constructive remarks about WeijiBaikeBianji's general method of adding sources to ''"further reading"'' to wikipedia articles in his RfC/U following the report below on Ferhago the Assassin. At no stage have I commented on the content of WeijBaikeBianji's editing. Obviously I very strongly defend his right to edit without being wikihounded or harassed. I have been wikihounded myself in unconnected topics: that wikihounding ceased after mediation off-wiki by an arbitrator. I am on a wikibreak at the moment—that means a break from editing articles—since in RL I'm completing a long article on mathematics and was rather burnt out after 1000+ edits on ]. ] (]) 07:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by Ethiopian Epic==== | |||
; Additional statement concerning request for clarification : ] | |||
This is clear retaliatory filing because I recently didn't agree with Tinynanorobot's , and because I made talk page sections on some recent edits. | |||
@] That's not true and you are a very obvious alt account with only 26 edits. No one gave you a notification of this discussion and it's not on the Yasuke talk page. This suggests you are the sock puppet of someone here. Your post is also misleading and incorrect it wasn't an insertion. The line you are talking about in Samurai has been there for over 10 years and is normal. I know because I've read it before. Here is a version from 2017 . I don't understand why you are misrepresenting edits and using an alt account. | |||
*I have requested a personal clarification from ArbCom about the nature of my topic ban, which I believe is different from that of other users mentioned, for those administrators unfamilar with the outcome of ]. In my case there have been no violations of my topic ban and I believe that administrators are ignoring the voluntary nature of my topic ban. Arbitrators themselves have encouraged me to contribute to noticeboards and to correspond with them. In my request for clarification about my topic ban, I have also requested some guidance for administrators. ] (]) 02:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
@] I think he is just fishing. That's why he removed his IP claims. Even his other diffs are just mislabeled regular behavior. It's amusing because Eronymous is the likely alt of Tinynanorobots or someone posting here. I think the way Tinynanorobots edits against clear consensus, skips discussion, and then files frivolous ANI/AE reports with misleading narrative like above is disruptive. Discussion is an easy solution and benefits everyone. I hope he will respect RFC consensus. | |||
; Move to close : Since Newyorkbrad and Shell Kinney have now commented at the above request for clarification, it is is probably a good idea for administrators to close the discussion here and continue it in the more appropriate place linked above. Thanks, ] (]) 04:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
<moving commment> ] (]) 05:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::Please move this comment to your own section and take a look at what arbitrators have said.You might also like to review what are called "personal sanctions". ] Thanks, ] (]) 04:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Relm==== | |||
; Comments : Captain Occam seems quite occupied with my editing at present. I am personally quite happy with the advice offered by EdJohnston and Timotheus Canens below. It is good advice which I would follow even if the topic ban is lifted. I have explained privately to them why matters do not seem to be quite normal at the moment. As far as Captain Occam's latest demands go , as a matter of courtesy, I would feel obliged to send the same short wiki-email message to any uninvolved administrator commenting here, assuming they had activated an email account (not all admins do so). | |||
I am largely unfamiliar with the account in question, but I do frequently check ]. I believe that EthiopianEpic has displayed a clear slant and battleground mindset in their editing in regards to the topic of Yasuke, but that their conduct on the Yasuke page itself so far has generally been in the ballpark of good faith edits. The revert on December 9th was justified, and their topic on November 29th is well within bounds (though I acknowledge that the background of their prior disputes on other pages with Tinynanorobots shows it may be edit warring) given that the two things being reverted was a change that seemed to skirt the prior RFC with agreement being given in a very non-direct way, and the other portion being an addition which had not been discussed on the talk page prior to its implementation (though previous discussions ered on the side of not including it). I am ''not'' accusing Tinynanorobots of any misconduct in any part of that either. | |||
What I will note is that in addition to the sockpuppet IP allegations made by Tinynanorobots, I wanted to lodge that the posting style of EthiopianEpic, as well as their knowledge of much of the previous discussions on the page deep in the archive, led me to suspect that they were an alt of ]. I never found anything conclusive. ] (]) 14:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
===Discussion concerning Captain Occam=== | |||
====Statement by |
====Statement by Simonm223==== | ||
These two editors have been tangling at WP:AN/I repeatedly. Last time they came there I said that this would likely continue until a third party intervened. And then the thread got archived with no action () so I'm not surprised that the two of them are still tangling. There is evidence that both editors have engaged in a slow-motion edit war. | |||
Both have claimed the other is editing against consensus. Here I will say that it appears TinyNanoRobots is more correct than Ethiopian Epic. Furthermore, while neither editors' comportment has been stellar, as other editors have pointed out, it appears more that EE is following TNR about and giving them a hard time than the alternate. . In the linked AN/I case (above) you'll note EE attempted a boomerang on TNR and was not well-received for the effort. | |||
Frankly my view is that both editors are not editing to the best standards of Misplaced Pages but there is definitely a ''more'' disruptive member of this duo and that is Ethiopian Epic. I think it would probably cut down on the noise considerably if they were encouraged to find somewhere to edit which was not a CTOP subject and if they were encouraged to leave TNR alone. ] (]) 18:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
This report seems completely frivolous. Mathsci and I were topic banned from these articles by the same arbitration case, and he and I have both been engaging in the exact same type of discussions about other users’ conduct on these articles. Recent examples of this from Mathsci are , and . More importantly, there was recently a ] about this case in which the arbitrators specifically stated that topic bans from this case do not apply to dispute resolution about user conduct issues. In that thread, Mathsci actually '''defended''' the right of topic banned editors to engage in these discussions! Quoting what : “I have twice communicated in private when irregularities have occurred connected with ]. On both occasions the irregularities were not of my making, but I had what I perceived to be useful input to offer in discussions. Misplaced Pages processes are not covered by my voluntary but binding topic ban.” | |||
====Statement by Eronymous==== | |||
Now, do the diffs that Mathsci provided of me purportedly violating my topic ban show anything other than what Mathsci has done himself, has defended his right to do, and what the arbitrators have given both of us permission for? The first is me pointing out to Maunus that he had misquoted me; in response Maunus and the part of his comment which was a misquote. The second and third were a follow-up to , in which Coren suggested starting an RFC about WeijiBaikeBianji, and also that I bring this suggestion up with the other editors who have been involved in disputes with him. ''These diffs are from the discussions that I initiated with these editors at an arbitrator’s suggestion.'' This certainly does not have any resemblance to the behavior for which I was topic banned, which according to ] was edit warring and false claims of consensus. Mathsci, on the other hand, has been ] as engaging in behavior that is “unduly aggressive and combative”, and seems to be displaying the same attitude here and in the earlier diffs of his behavior provided above. | |||
Similar to Relm I check on the ] page every so often, and it seems very likely given the evidence that ] is an alt of ] created to evade his recent ArbCom sanctions, having started editing the day prior to the case closure. Of note to this is the of Symphony_Regalia on ] was him attempting to insert the line "who served as retainers to lords (including '']'')" - curiously enough, Ethiopian Epic's on ] (and , having just prior made 11 minor ones in a short timeframe to reach autoconfirmed status) is him attempting to insert the same controversial line that was reverted before. | |||
Symphony_Regalia has a history of utilising socks to edit Yasuke/Samurai related topics and is indefinitely blocked from the .jp wiki for (plus multiple suspected IPs) for this. | |||
There are three important questions that need to be asked here: | |||
Prior to being sanctioned Symphony Regalia frequently got into exactly the same arguments concerning wording/source material with ] that Ethiopian Epic is now. One could assume based on their relationship that he is aggrieved that Tinynanorobots was not sanctioned by ArbCom during the case and is now continuously feuding with him to change that through edit warring and multiple administrator incidents/arbitration requests in the past few weeks. ] (]) 22:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
#In his effort to demonstrate that I am violating my topic ban, why has Mathsci not linked to the discussion between me and Coren in which Coren was suggesting this RFC, and also that I contact other editors about this suggestion? Is it because it does not help his case to show that the second and third diff are from discussions that I was asked to initiate by one of the arbitrators? | |||
#Why has Mathsci defended his own ability to participate in discussions related to these articles, including posting this arbitration enforcement request, but claims that it is a topic ban violation when other topic banned editors act similarly? | |||
#How did Mathsci get a checkuser to be run on Sightwatcher and Woodsrock without starting an SPI? Is it acceptable that he apparently has privately contacted an administrator with checkuser permission, and persuaded them off-wiki to run a checkuser on these accounts? | |||
====Statement by Nil Einne==== | |||
Echoing VsevolodKrolikov’s comments below, when one considers the number of editors who have taken issue with WeijiBaikeBianji’s recent behavior, it should not be such a surprise that this includes a pair of relatively new users. From the links and diffs provided in the RFC/U which was recently started about WeijiBaikeBianji, I can identify at least four other users who feel similarly about WeijiBaikeBianji’s editing. In addition to VsevolodKrolikov himself, there is also , and . All four of these users have been registered for over three years. | |||
I was ?one of the editors who suggested Tinynanorobots consider ARE in the future. I did this mostly because after three threads on ANI with no result, I felt a change of venue might be more productive especially since the more structured nature of ARE, as well as a likely greater concern over low level of misconduct meant that some outcome was more likely. (For clarity, when I suggested this I did feel nothing would happen from the third ANI thread but in any case my advice being taken onboard would likely mean the third thread had no result.) I did try to make clear that I wasn't saying there was definitely a problem requiring sanction and also it was possible Tinynanorobots might themselves end up sanctioned. Since a topic ban on both is being considered, I might have been right in a way. If a topic ban results, I'd like to suggest admins considered some guidance beyond broadly constructed on how any topic ban would apply. While the entirety of the Yasuke article and the list of foreign born samurai stuff seem clear enough, one concern I've had at ANI is how to handle the editing at ] and its talk page. A lot of the recent stuff involving these editors seems to relate to the definition of samurai. AFAIK, this is generally been a big part of the dispute of Yasuke (he can/can't be a samurai because it means A which was/wasn't true about him). ] (]) 12:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I’m reminded again of ] from the recent Climate Change arbitration case: “An editor who brings forward the same or similar view as a blocked or banned user should not automatically be assumed to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet in the absence of other evidence.” On these articles, Mathsci and a few other users who share his viewpoint seem to consistently ignore this principle. When a pair of new users are among six users disagreeing with someone whom I’ve also disagreed with in the past, should sockpuppetry or meatuppetry be considered so likely that admins are privately canvassed to run checkuser, and after checkuser fails to find evidence of sockpuppetry, the accusation is brought to AE? --] (]) 09:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
=== |
===Result concerning Ethiopian Epic=== | ||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
=====Comment by VsevolodKrolikov===== | |||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
I have been part of these discussions through being caught up in WeijiBaikeBianji's editing campaign against ]. I agree that there is something slightly suspicious about the sudden appearance of the two new users and their familiarity with wikipedia. That said, WeijiBaikeBianji is being rather disruptive and it's not only these two who have problems with WBB's continual reverts and slow edit warring, so I don't know how much can be read into their behaviour there. (But certainly Woodsrock has been uncivil.) ] (]) 07:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
*I've never been very impressed with retaliatory filings, and the one below is no exception. I will also note that I'm never too impressed with "must be a sock" type accusations—either file at SPI or don't. In this case, though, I think ] would be better off if neither of these two were participating there. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:{{u|Red-tailed hawk}}, what are your thoughts after the responses to you? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::I think that it would be declined if it were an ] report and the editor should be mindful not to throw sock accusations around willy-nilly going forward. But I typically don't see any sort of sanction imposed when someone makes a bad SPI report, particularly if they're newer or aren't quite ] yet. So I don't see much to do on that front other than tell them that we need more specific evidence of socking when reports are made than merely shared interest, particularly when the IPs are scattered across the world. — ] <sub>]</sub> 02:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::I'm still inclined to topic ban both these editors from ], but would be interested in hearing more thoughts on that if anyone has them. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*I also generally don't like "might-be-a-sock"-style accusations; when we are accusing someone of ] we typically need evidence to substantiate it rather than just floating the possibility in a flimsy way. Filer has provided as possible socks, but each of those IPs geolocates to a different country (Germany, Norway, and Argentina respectively) and I don't see evidence that any of those IPs are proxies.{{pb}}{{yo|Tinynanorobots}} Can you explain what led you to note the IP edits? Is it merely shared interest and viewpoint, or is there something more?{{pb}}— ] <sub>]</sub> 02:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
* Looking at this .... mess... first, I'm not sure what actually was against the ArbCom decision - I don't see a 1RR violation being alleged, and the rest really appears to me to be "throw stuff at the wall and see if it sticks". But, like Seraphimblade, I'm not impressed with either of these editors actual conduct here or in general. I could be brought around to supporting a topic ban for both of these editors in the interests of clearing up the whole topic area. ] (]) 14:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
* {{re|Tinynanorobots}} you are well above the 500 word limit. Please request an extension before adding anything more. ] (]) 16:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
==Tinynanorobots== | |||
* '''comment''' Oppose move to close cited above by Mathsci. EdJohnston and other admins are still going to clarify the issue of participation in RfCs. Btw, can someone explain what it means for MathSci to have a "binding" topic ban? Isn't that the same in practice as the bans applied to Captain Occam and Ferahgo, only that his consent would reflect better upon him in general? I looked at the discussion and it's not clear to me that there is a material difference. For the record, I'm not happy about any of the topic-banned editors participating in the RfC on WBB. It's too close to having an impact on content and thus it's topic-related. It's dispute resolution (about a user, but clearly relating to the topic) not arbitration enforcement. ] (]) 05:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
===Request concerning Tinynanorobots=== | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : ] (]) 19:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Tinynanorobots}}<p>{{ds/log|Tinynanorobots}}</p> | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
=====Comment by WeijiBaikeBianji===== | |||
<!--- 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. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> | |||
#. Tinynanorobots removes {{tq|As a samurai}} from the lead text and replaces it with {{tq|signifying bushi status}} against ] ({{tq|There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification}}). | |||
Certainly something very odd is going on here. I have no trouble discussing issues calmly with VsevolodKrolikov, and I expect that discussion to result in further improvements in several articles we both are watching. As Mathsci, the moving editor, notes, some of the edits by the two presumptive meat-puppets don't do anything at all to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. I invite multiple editors to take a look at this, especially editors who are experienced with what are at bottom conduct disputes, and I am happy to learn from any conscientious editor how best to respond to this situation. -- ] (], ]) 13:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
#. Tinynanorobots removes {{tq|who served as a samurai}} from the lead text and adds {{tq|who became a bushi or samurai}} against ] ({{tq|There exists a consensus against presenting Yasuke's samurai status as the object of debate}}). | |||
#. On List of Foreign-born Samurai, Tinynanorobots removes the longstanding definition and adds {{tq|This list includes persons who ... may not have been considered a samurai}} against ] ({{tq|There exists a consensus against presenting Yasuke's samurai status as the object of debate}}). | |||
#. Tinynanorobots reverts to remove {{tq|As a samurai}} in the Yasuke article after Gitz6666 opposes at , again ignoring ]. | |||
#. I restore and start a so that consensus can be formed. | |||
#. Tinynanorobots, when consensus fails to form for his position, becomes uncivil and engages in a sarcastic personal attack {{tq|What you are saying doesn't make sense. Perhaps there is a language issue here. Maybe your native language handles the future differently than English?}} | |||
#. Tinynanorobots removes "As a samurai" again, ignoring ] and BRD even though no consensus has formed for his position, and no consensus has formed to change existing consensus. | |||
#. Tinynanorobots explains their reasons, {{tq|I don't know if samurai is the right term}} which is against consensus. | |||
#. POV-pushing - With no edit summary Tinynanorobots tag bombs by adding {{tq|Slavery in Japan}}. | |||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | |||
# Explanation | |||
: MastCell has correctly noted in his comment as an uninvolved administrator that the issue here is editor conduct, and each account's contributions should be looked at for its overall pattern of building the encyclopedia and adherence to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. -- ] (], ]) 04:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
# Explanation | |||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> | |||
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on . | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
Tinynanorobots frequently edits against consensus, restores his edits when others revert, doesn't wait for consensus, and engages in feuding behavior. He seems to think ] or ] don't apply to him which is disruptive, and I don't know why. | |||
:: '''Reply to the latest several posts by EdJohnston''' I am losing track of the procedural issues here and how they relate to the substantive issues. (And that is worrisome, as I am a lawyer by training, and usually the first thing I do in analyzing any case is make sure of the procedural posture. But I'm not devoting as much time to this case as some disputants are, and as the unfortunate administrators must.) I think there is considerable gaming of the system going on here and distraction from the issue of editor conduct and ]. The newly registered accounts mentioned here are rightly regarded as "harassment accounts." They have very overtly been harassing me and wasting the time of other conscientious editors (e.g. VsevolodKrolikov). Only one of the two accounts has been warned. I call on all the administrators looking on to reexamine the ] already decided by ArbCom and ask yourselves whether the conduct of ''either'' presumptive meat puppet is consistent with the editor conduct expected under that decision. Is how they behave how editors are expected to behave on Misplaced Pages? Are they contributing quality content to the encyclopedia? I must get back to looking up actual reliable sources for further article edits. I regret that conscientious editors and administrators have had so much of their time wasted by the editor misconduct that Mathsci has helpfully reported. -- ] (], ]) 03:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
- Warning from other editor about repeated removal of content when multiple users are objecting. | |||
===== Comment by Tijfo098 ===== | |||
This request appears to be a sort of SPI investigation. What is alleged here is essentially that two accounts who recently opened ] are meat-puppets of a topic banned user. ] (]) 15:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
- Warning from yet another editor about not assuming good faith and making personal attacks | |||
:Yes, of course this belongs at SPI rather than here. But since Mathsci has apparently already gotten someone to run a checkuser on Sightwatcher and Woodsrock, and determined that they’re unrelated both to me and to everyone else who’s topic banned from these articles, I think he already knows that an SPI would be unlikely to produce the result he wants. --] (]) 15:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
It seems to be chronic which suggests behavior problems. Tinynanorobots also frequently fails to assume good faith in others. I don't know why as I don't have any issues with him. | |||
=====Comment by Maunus ===== | |||
I don't see how this can be enough evidence to sanction Occam. I am also suspicious about those two editors, but I could not possibly support any sanctions on Occam untill there is actual positive evidence that he has any part in their sudden arrival. It is not a crime to arrive at wikipedia with prior knowledge of its workings and it is also not a crime to agree with topic banned editors. Nothing we can really do here except keep the argument based on sources and policies going.] 18:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Their preferred edit for Yasuke against the RFC consensus is lead section. | |||
@] Sorry for the confusion. I think we talking about different edits, so I'll adjust that part. I am referring to Tinynanorobot's repeated removal of {{tq|As a samurai}} against RFC consensus, which states {{tq|There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification}}. | |||
===== Comment by SightWatcher ===== | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
I originally joined Misplaced Pages wanting to edit film related stuff. I had been browsing race and intelligence-related articles out of curiosity and an interest in learning more, and first got involved when trying to remove something that looked like obvious original research to me. This first R&I edit of mine was reverted by WeijiBaikeBianji, restoring the original research (someone else later removed it). I never would have guessed that making a single edit would suck me in like this, but I thought the articles could benefit if I stuck around. It only took me a few days to notice that a few other editors also had a problem with WeijiBaikeBianji's behavior. Due to how prolific WeijiBaikeBianji's editing was, it was hard for them to deal with everything he was doing. If anyone else has experienced something similar here, they might understand how easy it is to get pulled into disputes like this. | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
===Discussion concerning Tinynanorobots=== | |||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by Tinynanorobots==== | |||
The accusations made by EE are so misleading as to be evidence against him. Most of what he is discussing is in reference to a successful BRD. I actually discussed the bold edit first on the talk, but didn't get much of a response. I decided a bold edit would get more feedback. The edits were reverted and then discussed. Gitz's main problem was OR, not a RfC violation. This was because he didn't read the cited source. {{tq|Anyway, since Atkin says "signifying bushi status", I have no objection to restoring this text.}} | |||
I never used any sarcasm, I know that some languages handle how they talk about time differently. It seems reasonable that a translation error could be the reason for EE asking me not to change the article, althoug my edit had already been restored by someone else and at the same time asking me to discuss that I had already discussed and was already discussing. I am disappointed that EE didn't point out that he felt attacked, so that I could apologize. | |||
As part of trying to rapidly familiarize myself with this topic, I've read through much of the arbitration process and findings. I find it pretty weird that one of the topic banned editors has made this thread. Mathsci, who WeijiBaikeBianji defended as "a thorough and conscientious editor" despite this user's apparent penchant for edit warring and personal attacks pointed out by arbcom in his finding of fact. Mathsci posted this thread less than '''three hours''' after I started the RFC/U about WeijiBaikeBianji. After this thread was posted, WeijiBaikeBianji immediately linked to it from the RFC/U, claiming that it "shows that this request for comment very likely is a continuation of an edit war by a topic-banned editor that began before I became a wikipedian." Mathsci's intimate familiarity with my editing history in an area he's banned from is also disconcerting to me. | |||
This was written in response to another user, and the whole thought is {{tq|I don't know if samurai is the right term. It is the term a fair amount of sources use, and the one that the RfC says should be used. It is also consistent with common usage in reference to other historical figures.}} In fact earlier in that post I said this: {{tq|I am not qualified to say whither or not Yasuke having a house meant that he was a samurai}} This is blatantly taking a quote out of context in order to prejudice the Admins against me. | |||
I don't think I need to respond in detail to all of Mathsci's accusations- seems there's no point. All you have to do is click on the diffs that have been presented in this thread to see that reality doesn't support his claims. For example, read the thread in Coren's talk to see that the suggestion to start the RFC/U originally came from Coren, not from Occam. Mathsci certainly knows this, because he participated in the discussion where Coren suggested it. Interestingly, this deliberate misrepresentation seems similar to some stuff I've read about through arbitration that Mathsci was doing- Ludwigs2 provided a good example here of how he tends to do this (check out the "Fake Mathsci-style criticism of itsmeJudith for example purposes only). This thread smacks of being a very similar sort of thing... | |||
:@] I filed here, because the last time I filed at ANI it was suggested that I bring things here if things continue by an Admin. I try to follow advice, although I keep getting conflicting signals from Admins. I am most concerned that you find my work on ] and ] not adding anything helpful. My suggestion to rewrite the way samurai was defined on the List in order to reduce OR and bring it in line with WP:LSC was meant with unanimous approval by those who responded. Samurai is a high importance article that has tags on it from years back, is unorganized and contains outdated information. I am not the best writer, but I have gotten some books, and am pretty much the only one working on it. | |||
But anyway, whether other editors or myself have done anything wrong here does not really seem to be the point of this thread. The point is that as long as this thread exists, it can be used to undermine the legitimacy of my RFC/U about WeijiBaikeBianji. In his comment on the RRFC/U that I quoted, WeijiBaikeBianji is milking this thread for all it's worth. So what I see is a very suspicious link between this, the timing of this thread in response to my RFC/U, WeijiBaikeBianji’s eagerness to defend Mathsci, and Mathsci's intimate familiarity with my disputes with WeijiBaikeBianji on these articles. '''What this looks like to me is WeijiBaikeBianji collaborating with a topic-banned editor to try to prevent his questionable editing behavior from being examined.''' I hope that admins can recognize this and close this pointless thread as soon as possible.-] (]) 22:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::I just thought that the Admins here should know about the ongoing SPI | |||
:What you’re describing about how you got “pulled into” this dispute sounds pretty similar to what caused Mikemikev and Ludwigs2 to become involved in the race and intelligence article in December 2009. What was happening at that point is that ] tried to get rid of the race and intelligence article entirely, by turning it into a disambiguation page and dividing up all of its content between other articles. Mikemikev and Ludwigs2 had not been involved in the article before this, and Mikemikev had barely been active at Misplaced Pages before this at all. But what T34CH was doing attracted their attention, and once their attention was attracted both of them remained involved in the article for several months after that. | |||
====Statement by Relm==== | |||
:The general principle here is that when someone tries to make highly visible and contentious changes to several articles at once, it’s always going to attract editors who disagree with those changes, who might not otherwise have gotten involved in the dispute. Acting in a way that causes this outcome is bit of a wild card, because there’s no way to predict ahead of time what the editors whose attention it attracts are going to be like. Most people seem to agree that Mikemikev’s eventual incivility on these articles was disruptive. Ludwigs2 was also pretty strongly opinionated, but I don’t think anyone (except possibly Mathsci) regards him as having been an overall detriment to the articles, and he wasn’t sanctioned in the arbitration case. I would hope that Woodsrock and Sightwatcher are going to turn out to be more similar to Ludwigs2 than to Mikemikev, but the possibility of attracting editors similar to Mikemikev is a risk that WeijiBaikeBianji is taking by acting similarly to how T34CH did. | |||
I am the editor alluded to and quoted as 'protesting' Tinynanorobots edit. When I originally made that topic, I was fixing a different edit which left the first sentence as a grammatically incomplete sentence. When I looked at it in the editing view, one of the quotes in the citation beforehand was quoting Atkins Vera, and I mistook this for the opening quote having been changed. When I closed the editing menu I saw 'signifying samurai status' in the second paragraph and confused the two for each other as I had not noticed the addition of the latter phrase a little under a month ago. I realized my mistake almost immediately after I posted the new topic, and made this () edit to clarify my mistake while also attempting to instead direct the topic towards making sure that the edit recieved sufficient assent from Gitz (it did) and to talk about improvements that could be made to the opening sentence. I further clarified and made clear that I was not accusing Tinynanorobots of having done anything wrong in a later response (). | |||
Though many of their earlier edits on the page may show some issues, as they grew more familiar with the past discussions I believe that Tinynanorobots has made valuable contributions to the page in good faith. ] (]) 03:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Either way, the most important point is that even if Mikemikev ended up being disruptive, he and Ludwigs2 clearly weren’t sockpuppet or meatpuppets of another user or users. So now that history is repeating itself, and a situation similar to what attracted them to these articles has now attracted Woodsrock and Sightwatcher, their having shown up in this situation is not a good reason to assume sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry about them either. --] (]) 11:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Barkeep49==== | |||
* ArbCom made the checkuser enquiry itself because some members suspected sockpuppetry. The identity of suspected meatpuppets can be passed directly to members of ArbCom if there is any evidence. | |||
*:@] I think this misinterprets the ArbCom decision. So Yakuse is a contentious topic ''and'' it has a 1RR restriction, in the same way as say PIA. As in PIA administrators can sanction behavior that violates the ] besides 1RR. Beyond that, editing ] is a finding of fact from the case. ] (]) 16:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
* Captain Occam has invited {{userlinks|Ludwigs2}} to join this discussion. He wrote the following: | |||
{{quote|Don’t worry, nobody’s accusing you of having done anything wrong. This thread is mostly just more accusations of wrongdoing from Mathsci against the editors that he disagrees with, this time being directed at me as well as two fairly new editors. But one of the new people has apparently read several of the arbitration pages, and is taking some of the advice that you offered about Mathsci there to heart.}} | |||
====Statement by (username)==== | |||
There is something slightly wrong here. ] (]) 13:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
===Result concerning Tinynanorobots=== | |||
:Care to elaborate? I figure that if we’re going to be talking about Ludwigs2 in this thread, he ought to know about it. | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
* As above, I'm failing to see what exactly is against the ArbCom case rulings - I don't see a 1RR violation. But also as above, I'm coming to the view that neither of these editors are adding anything helpful to the topic area and am leaning towards a topic ban for both. ] (]) 14:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
*<!-- | |||
--> | |||
==Rasteem== | |||
===== Comments by uninvolved Ludwigs2 ===== | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
I only have two comments with respect to this issue: | |||
# I don't really see what it is that Mathsci is complaining about. I suspect this is just more of the same pugnacious behavior that he exhibited during the R&I dispute and arbitration. | |||
# If Mathsci is returning to the behavior that he displayed before, then he himself is clearly in violation of the ''spirit'' of the arbitration, if not the ''letter'' of it. I would suggest that that be addressed here as well, assuming anything needs to be addressed at all. | |||
I am on a short work-related break, and probably will not participate in this further unless my name is mentioned in some way that I feel calls for a response. --] 17:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:'''Comment''' The problem of meatpuppetry is a real one and I believe in this case has been and is being taken seriously by ArbCom. Meatpuppetry is harder to investigate or prove than sockpuppetry. It has necessarily to take place off-wiki and that is the case here. | |||
===Request concerning Rasteem=== | |||
:(clears throat, about to say something important) I regret Ludwigs2's absence from wikipedia in the last 8 days. His unique and forthright style, often irritating, was actually extremely helpful on ] and he was a vital part of the chemistry there. If he could look at the Collect case above, I think he could do a lot of good by commenting there and watching over what happens to the article if and when it is unlocked. Peace, Ludwigs2. ] (]) 18:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NXcrypto}} 03:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Rasteem}}<p>{{ds/log|Rasteem}}</p> | |||
::Mathsci: are you suggesting that all 15000+ of my edits are meatpuppetry, or that I (somehow) suddenly lose all free will and independent thought with respect to Occam? He must be one damned charismatic guy... | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
:: I tend to see Occam's message as a proper notification that I was mentioned on an administrative page (something which both SightWatcher here and Collect above neglected to do). I can see how you ''might'' see it as a mild form of canvassing (all things considered), but even you have to admit that's a stretch, and I would have hoped that you would AGF on it. Instead, you leapt all the way past common sense to veiled accusations of meatpuppetry, and that is in appallingly bad taste. | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
::So fine, whatever: you indulged in hyperbole, I asked you not to, and I will AGF that the matter is closed. I have nothing more to say in response to this, so if you'd like a last comment, feel free. I'll take a look at the above 'collect' issue (which I just learned about this moment) later this evening. --] 20:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
:::?? The meatpuppetry case concerns those mentioned in the request (see the section above). Please take a look, if you haven't already done so. There's no reference to you there, unless it's hidden in some kind of subliminal ]. But getting back to serious matters, it would be extremely helpful if you showed up at ]. You would be a voice of reason. ] (]) 20:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
===== Response to EdJohnston ===== | |||
<!-- 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. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> | |||
# - removed wikilink of an Indian railway station thus violating his topic ban from India and Pakistan. | |||
This violation comes after he was already warned for his first violation of the topic ban. | |||
I should remind everyone that there has already been a ] about the R&I case, in which arbitrators expressed the view that topic bans from this case do not apply to dispute resolution about editor conduct. However, I think it’s still reasonable for there to be some concern about how closely Mathsci is following all of the disputes over these articles, his and WeijiBaikeBianji’s seeming cooperation to defend one another, and whether he has been engaging in the same battleground attitude which was one of the things he was sanctioned for in the case. --] (]) 06:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Upon a closer look into his recent contribution, I found that he is simply ] the system by creating articles like ] which is overall only 5,400 bytes but he made nearly 50 edits here. This is clearly being done by Rasteem for passing the 500 edits mark to get his topic ban overturned. | |||
====Statement by EdJohnston==== | |||
I think that admins now have enough information to make an effective response to the string of new issues that have arisen here concerning Race and Intelligence. From reading enforcement requests of the last two months I single out these comments as being especially informative. Both are from ]: | |||
=====Quoted comment by Maunus===== | |||
<blockquote> I don't think that this petition should be considered, especially not since the editor making it is not directly affected by WeijiBaikeBianji's behaviour as she currently is not allowed to edit in the area. If editors that actually are interacting with WeijiBaikeBianji agree with Ferahgo's judgement then they can and should start an RfC or arbitrartion enforcement case. Ferahgo doesn't need to act as protector of other editors' interests in the area that she is no longer editing - I am sure everyone there is capable of taking steps to resolve their own disputes with out help from previous participants.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)</blockquote> | |||
=====Quoted comment by Shell Kinney===== | |||
<blockquote>I'm afraid you've grossly misunderstood the Arbitration ruling; it was a matter of conduct, not content... If you'll re-read my comment where I indicated that, as far as I know, editors aren't prohibited from making reports while topic banned, I also strongly suggested that you stop monitoring the topic area and work productively elsewhere. It's disappointing that you only heeded part of my comment. | |||
About Mathsci, I find it hard to believe that you think the advice you were given by myself and NuclearWarfare somehow only applies to you. He made some very good points about your participation here - if you find that incivil and a "battleground attitude", I'd have to suggest again that you need to spend some time understanding how really Misplaced Pages works rather than continuing with the rather skewed interpretation you've learned from Captain Occam. Shell babelfish 23:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)</blockquote> | |||
I recommend increasing the topic ban to indefinite duration. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 03:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*In the section below, 'Result concerning Captain Occam', I've proposed how this case should be closed by admins. ] (]) 21:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : "topic banned from the subject of India and Pakistan, broadly construed, until both six months have elapsed and they have made 500 edits after being notified of this sanction." | |||
=====Comment on proposed sanction===== | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
Before this thread is closed, I think administrators should look at these two comments from Mathsci earlier today. These comments were in the discussion about the ArbCom election, but since an admin who disagreed with him in the RFC was commenting there, Mathsci still used this discussion as a platform to snipe at him about it. | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
As a way to avoid further conflict in this area, I would consider it reasonable for topic bans from this case to be extended to all discussions related to race and intelligence articles. But if this extension is going to be made, I think it should be applied to ''all'' topic bans, including mine, Ferahgo’s, and Mathsci’s. Making an exception in Mathsci’s case is basically an endorsement of more of the same behavior demonstrated in the two diffs linked above. Is this something that admins want to encourage? | |||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> | |||
*I agree that there are genuine CIR issues with Rasteem, for example while this ARE report is in progress they created ], which has promotional statements like: "The lake's stunning caluts, majestic desert topographies, and serene lakes produce a shifting destination. Its unique charm attracts a wide range of guests, from adventure contenders to nature suckers and beyond". ] <small><small>]</small></small> 03:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I also think it would be helpful if some admins could comment here who Mathsci isn’t privately in contact with via e-mail. --] (]) 01:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> | |||
===Result concerning Captain Occam=== | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' | |||
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
* I've formally warned {{user|Woodsrock}} of the ], as even a cursory glance through his contributions reveals numerous causes for concern. No comment at this point on the other aspects of this request. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
===Discussion concerning Rasteem=== | |||
* This report was archived by the bot prior to receiving a formal close here. I have brought it back for one more look by the admins. The issue to be addressed seems to be: does conduct by Captain Occam and Mathsci infringe their topic bans from the area of race and intelligence? There have recently been some cases closed here at AE where editors from ] were told not to engage in any dispute resolution involving the topic from which they were banned unless they were personally named and needed to defend themselves. We also see a recent case (]) where Arbcom intended the topic bans to be observed very strictly, so that the named editors could not even hint to others as to what changes they would support in articles covered by the topic ban. The admins at AE have some discretion as to how bans should be interpreted, and it may be that the exact ban language needs to be studied. In my opinion the case may be closed without blocks if (a) the definition of these bans is made clear, (b) there is some confidence that the affected editors will follow them. ] (]) 05:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by Rasteem==== | |||
* I propose that the admins at AE should take action to deal with the string of new issues and new AE filings concerning Race and Intelligence. I've added a new section, ], to present quotes from an earlier AE from a month ago, including a comment by an Arbitrator. I recommend that we instruct the recipients of topic bans under ] that they should not comment on any matters concerning Race and Intelligence on any page of Misplaced Pages, including talk pages. This includes participating in any RFC/U, including the one at ]. They should not engage in any dispute resolution that is primarily intended to influence content regarding Race and Intelligence, and is not 'legitimate and necessary dispute resolution' concerning their own actions. The misbehavior of other editors in the area of R&I should not be their concern until their topic bans are lifted. The authority that admins have to do this comes from two sources: | |||
This approach seems to be a coordinated attack to abandon me from Misplaced Pages indefinitely. Indeed, after my ban for 6 months. I was banned on 6 December, and in just 7 days, this report is literally an attempt to make me leave Misplaced Pages. | |||
:#The traditional power of AE to interpret the scope of topic bans | |||
:#Discretionary sanctions, which are authorized by ] | |||
:If any of the named editors (those already topic-banned by Arbcom, plus Ferahgo who was topic banned here at AE) argues against AE's ability to make this additional request, then the admins at this board may consider imposing new and more specific topic bans under the discretionary sanctions. Editors with existing topic bans that are affected by this new interpretation are: {{user|David.Kane}}, {{user|Captain Occam}}, {{user|Mikemikev}}, {{user|Mathsci}} and {{user|Ferahgo the Assassin}}. ] (]) 21:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Note ]. Editors have been adding statements there that may shed light on what ought to be done here. I recommend delaying the close of this AE a couple more days. ] (]) 15:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
=====Reply to Mathsci and Vsevolod===== | |||
:See . The behaviors that I think have caused the most concern recently are those of Captain Occam and Ferahgo. If AE chooses to make the topic bans include dispute resolution as I've suggested, I think we should modify all the topic bans which are still technically in effect. If Arbcom chooses to lift Mathsci's topic ban, then our added restriction would go away as well. ] (]) 05:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
*I agree that we have the authority to expand the topic ban under the ARBR&I discretionary sanctions provision, and I think we probably should do so, from what I've seen here. Note that nothing would prevent them from participating in necessary and appropriate dispute resolution processes involving themselves (such as an RFC/U against themselves), but there's no compelling reason for them to involve themselves in other discussions related to this topic. The latest clarification request may have carved out AE requests as a special case, but I see no justification to expand that exception further. ] (]) 22:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
=====Proposed sanction===== | |||
:;Under the discretionary sanctions that are authorized for Race and Intelligence: | |||
:*] and ] are indefinitely restricted from the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Misplaced Pages, including user talk pages. This includes RFC/Us about other editors where the behavior of that user on R&I is one of the major topics. These two editors should not participate in noticeboard discussions where the main topic is an article that is under R&I or the behavior of an editor who is closely associated with R&I. They are free to respond at noticeboards whenever their own editing is mentioned. | |||
1. I rolled back my own edit; it was last time made unintentionally. I was about to revert it, but my internet connection was lost, so when I logged in again, I regressed it. | |||
:;The following is advice, and it is not compulsory: | |||
:*Captain Occam and Ferahgo are advised not to make enforcement requests at AE that concern R&I where no question about their own editing is on the table. | |||
The internet is constantly slow and sometimes goes down. I live in a hilly location and I had formerly mentioned it. | |||
:*] is advised to limit his new filings about R&I at AE in the future, especially when no question about his own editing is on the table. (This advice will no longer apply if Arbcom decides to lift his topic ban from R&I). | |||
My edits on Arjan Lake isn't any ] factual number of edits I made; it is 45, not 50. Indeed, I made similar edits before in September and December months on the same articles within a single day or 2-3 days. | |||
:*Mathsci is welcome to continue making reports at SPI, even when he is reporting socks that may be active on R&I. | |||
2. ] on this article, I've added 5680 bytes & made 43 edits. | |||
:;No action taken regarding David.Kane et al: | |||
:*David.Kane hasn't been much involved with R&I since the case closed. There seems no need to change his topic ban. | |||
:*Mikemikev is out of the picture since he is under an indefinite block for pretty bad stuff, including nasty sockpuppetry. | |||
:] (]) 18:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Looks reasonable to me. ] (]) 23:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
3. ] on this article I've added 4000 bytes & made 49 edits. | |||
== Shuki == | |||
====Statement by (username)==== | |||
{{discussion top|1=See the closing statement by T. Canens at the bottom of this report. Participants are reminded of the consensus wording found by LHvU. Shuki is topic banned from I-P for six months. Nableezy and a set of three others are interaction-banned. ] (]) 00:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC) }} | |||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
===Request concerning Shuki=== | |||
; User requesting enforcement : ] 17:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
===Result concerning Rasteem=== | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Shuki}} | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
* While I don't see a change in editing pattern that indicates gaming, the edits to ] indicate issues with competence, as the article is weirdly promotional and contains phrases such as "beast species", "emotional 263 proved species". ] (]) 20:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC) <!-- | |||
--> | |||
*Adding to {{u|Femke}}'s point, {{tpq|magnific 70- cadence-high waterfalls in this area}} is not prose that inspires confidence in the editor's competence to edit the English Misplaced Pages. So, we have violations of a topic ban and questions about the editor's linguistic competence and performance. Perhaps an indefinite block appealable in six months with a recommendation to build English competency by editing the Simple English Misplaced Pages, and to build general Misplaced Pages skills by editing in the version of Misplaced Pages in the language they speak best during that minimum six month period. As for ], although the prose is poor, the references in the article make it clear to me that the topic is notable, so the editor deserves some credit for starting this article that did not exist for two decades plus. ] (]) 08:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*Brief comment to avoid the archive bot. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
==KronosAlight== | |||
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
===Request concerning KronosAlight=== | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Butterscotch Beluga}} 03:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
# See below for explanation | |||
# Same | |||
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): | |||
# Notified of case | |||
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Indefinite ban from editing material on Israeli settlements and international law<br />or<br />Topic ban on all articles about Israeli settlements | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|KronosAlight}}<p>{{ds/log|KronosAlight}}</p> | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : A very long discussion took place at ] about whether and how to incorporate the well-sourced fact that Israeli settlements are considered illegal under international law. Shuki was a part of this discussion and so is obviously aware of it. An uninvolved admin, LessHeard vanU, the discussion saying that a specific wording has consensus to be included and further has consensus to be included in the lead of developed articles on settlements. LHvU later clarified the point () emphasizing that in articles where the illegality of these settlements is expanded on in the body there is consensus for it to be included in the lead of the articles. I added the line to 3 articles a few days ago (, , ). The line was, unsurprisingly, removed by 3 editors who argued against its inclusion in the very discussion closed by the uninvolved admin with a note that there is consensus for its inclusion (, , ). There was some confusion about the close, so a request was made to the admin to clarify (that clarification is linked above). After LHvU clarified that in these articles the wording under discussion has consensus to be included in the lead of the articles, I re-added the line to 2 articles (, ) with a note on the talk page saying why and referencing the centralized discussion (, ). Shuki then removes the edits (, ) claiming, in his single comment to the talk page explaining his reverts, that there is "no consensus" (). This despite the clarification from the uninvolved admin that there is specific consensus for including that line in the lead of such articles.<p>The close from the admin included the following:<blockquote>It is my impression that there is a body of editors of the opinion that the legality of these Israeli settlements should not be noted; it is a valid opinion to be held by an individual so inclined, but it is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Attempts to stop, stymie or divert efforts to build the project in incorporating that commentary must be resisted like any other form of disruptive conduct.</blockquote>Shuki is very clearly one of those editors who holds "the opinion that the legality of these Israeli settlements should not be noted" and further he "attempts to stop, stymie or divert efforts to build the project in incorporating that commentary". This request is meant to see if this "disruptive conduct" will be allowed to continue unabated.<p>I have no doubt that as with most AE threads I am involved in we will see a large number of those who support Shuki or simply dislike me making rambling comments that are of little relevance to the issue. I hope they will be given the consideration they deserve and be ignored. | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
::Shuki claims, in their response, that the admin did not "close" the discussion and that there was no finding for consensus for placement. In the clarification linked above LHvU wrote the following (emphasis in original):<blockquote> I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, <u>and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles</u></blockquote>I do not see how an editor can in good faith claim that there was no finding for consensus for placement in the lead or for specific wording when the plain English quoted here shows that there is for both. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 18:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
:As I am sure was the intent, a number of users have made a simple request into something that I doubt many sane admins would like to deal with. I beg an admin to please disregard the noise by Jaakobou and Jiujitsuguy and actually look at what happened here. An uninvolved admin says there is consensus for this material to be in the lead of these articles. If a few users want to argue over the semantic differences between "Like other Israeli settlements in the (West Bank/East Jerusalem/Golan Heights), X is regarded as illegal under international law, though the Israeli government disputes this" and "Like all Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, X is considered illegal under international law, though Israeli disputes this" thats fine, but it is inane argument to make for removing the wording. If Shuki or Jaakobou would rather use the former sentence they could have replaced it and there would be no issue here. Instead Shuki removed the lines, claiming there is "no consensus" period. The question here is whether or not a block of users can ignore what consensus is and filibuster any attempt to add material that has consensus. No amount of pedantry can escape that Shuki did not simply modify the phrasing but instead completely removed it. My question is whether or not this will "be resisted like any other form of disruptive conduct." Can these users simply say NO NO NO and remove any material they do not like, or is there some penalty for such behavior? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 07:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
<!--- 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 : | |||
Regarding the proposed interaction bans, I think they are unnecessary. Cla68 is right, I cant dispute that, but there is a cause and effect here. The more nonsense that I deal with, the more of an asshole I become. I admit I havent really thought about how new people would react to seeing some of the discussions that the regulars have, but that is partially due to the fact that most of the "new" names we see are just ] ] ] ] ]. But Cla68 is right, and I will make an honest effort to be more collegial. I dont know how an interaction ban would work, we all edit the same articles. Would it be a race to see who gets to an article first and any editor who arrives later would be violating the ban? The workings of such a ban are impractical, and I think the issue can be satisfactorily dealt with by blocks and bans for future issues with personal attacks or incivility. Though I do think that restricting editors from making comments in AE requests that do not concern them is a marvelous idea. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
<!-- 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. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> | |||
:Curious to know where Cla68 came from out of nowhere, but even more your sudden attempt at tobah. Gatoclass thinks I have battleground mentality but ignores that it takes two to tango, including your 24hour+20minute revert on Maale Adumim. Your provocative use of AE is anti-'collegial', so drop that misleading attitude, people see through it easily. --] (]) 21:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
# | |||
::He inappropriately reverted to Nableezy's version at Ariel. I can only assume he came here because he was miffed that I changed it and notified him of the error. I could be wrong about that and he does bring up a point. Some of the back and forth between editors is heated and that is a problem. I don't think my comment was nearly as bad as he makes it out to be but overall I agree that we need to follow the decorum bit of the arbitration decision closer.] (]) 21:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:*Adds "depiste being an ex-Muslim" to dismiss accusations of Islamophobia ]. | |||
::I dont know what "tobah" is supposed to mean. My use of AE is meant to stop editors from engaging in disruptive editing. Yes, I reverted at Ma'ale Adumim. However, unlike you, I have consensus for my revert. My last comment was sincere, I will make a greater effort to be collegial. That will be much easier if editors who disruptively edit against consensus and without regard for the policies of this website are not allowed to continue doing so. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
:*Adds ] around ‘promoted Islamophobia’ & ‘Islamophobia’ while removing the supporting context. | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
:*Changed "interpreted that statement as a threat and incitement to violence" to "claimed was a threat and incitement to violence, though no threats or violence in fact occurred" ] & ] | |||
# - ] | |||
:*Changes "Israeli settlers" to "Israeli soldiers" despite | |||
# - ] | |||
# - ] | |||
:* Unnecessarily specific additions that may constitute ] such as adding "against civilians" & changing "prevent the assassinations of many Israelis" to "prevent the assassinations of many Israeli civilians and soldiers" | |||
# - ] | |||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | |||
===Discussion concerning Shuki=== | |||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> | |||
# Warned to abide by the one-revert rule when making edits within the scope of the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. | |||
# Blocked from editing for 1 week for violating consensus required on the page ] | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
====Statement by Shuki==== | |||
The principle of this AE is that Nableezy is making false accusations and misrepresenting my opinion that he assumes even though I have never claimed what he is accusing me. I certainly do not deny that there was an effort to build consensus and did take part, but I do question that there was in fact consensus and the admin did not in fact close that but opening it up for more discussion. There was also no consensus on placement and that was also supposed to be done by consensus at that central location. Nableezy is not just being bold here but unwilling to continue this consensus building for fear that it might unravel as others are exposed to it (if they can manage to follow it) instead ramming it through. He himself admits that he was reverted by three editors, who in fact, did not really take part in that confusing and hard to follow discussion. Nableezy also chose to make these changes on Shabbat when he knows that there will be virtually no opposition. This is a frivolous and false AE. | |||
*Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on by {{admin|ScottishFinnishRadish}}. | |||
It is incredible nerve and anti-AGF that he ends this AE attack by preempting the opposition and discrediting of anyone who might come here in support of me (it will take time, Shabbat will only be over on the West Coast in several hours and we cannot assume everyone runs to their PCs to get updated on WP). He even demands that they be ignored, very considerate and showing his intentions to shut up others. --] (]) 18:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on . | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
::Shuki, are you saying there's a rough consensus for the legality wording to be in the main body of the article, but whether it should be in the lede should be decided on a case-by-case basis? Or are you saying there's no consensus whatsoever? ] (]) 00:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
All edits were made at ]. After I with an explanation, I , asking for their rationale. | |||
They replied that they were & asked if I "perhaps have a deeper bias that’s influencing decisions in this respect?" | |||
They then | |||
:::The legality wording that had some support is not the ] violation text Nableezy was pushing into the lead. There is no consensus for that "like all Israeli settlements" version and Nableezy disingenuously presents his version as the one that was discussed when that is not the case. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 00:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::That's not a bad argument but it's not what Shuki is saying. Shuki's contesting the legitimacy of Proposal 2's consensus and seems to accept Nableezy's wording as some derivative of it (there's little material difference although employing the verbatim line makes a hell of a lot more sense, but whatever). If that were the argument then it would have been simple enough to say "This is not the proper wording of Prop 2" in the edit summary/copy paste it in. ] (]) 02:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::I have brought up Nableezy's repeated insertion of the incorrect wording at the centralized discussion. although I suppose editors might want to discuss it here as well. ] (]) 01:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::The entire tendentious edit that Nableezy proposes, in the context of content, scope, wording and placement are still points of contention and hotly contested. It is clear that he is using (abusing is the more appropriate term) this AE as a means to intimidate, to instill fear and to force his POV, by hook or by crook, on to the reluctant majority.--] (]) 01:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::An uninvolved admin has said there was consensus for the inclusion of this material in the lead of the articles. No amount of lawyering can escape that and efforts to do so betray, well Ill leave the rest of that sentence untyped. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 07:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
:::::::No. You are fabricating words which were not specifically said. No uninvolved admin said there was a consensus or even a "basis" for consensus for pushing the soapbox "Like all Israeli settlements" into the lead. The editors who quickly disagreed here are a reality and it is disruptive to see you ignore this fact. Fabricating a "consensus" to propose a sanction against another editor is a clear example of ]. Also, repeating that same bullshit argument even though it was rebuffed as a false statement is a form of ] disruption. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 10:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Indeed, so stop making bullshit arguments. The version the LHvU said there was consensus for is ''The international community considers Israeli settlements in illegal under international law, though the Israeli government disputes this''. If you want to argue that the addition of "Like all Israeli settlements" makes this a "fabrication" you can do that, but it is a manifestly absurd thing to say that verges on being purposefully deceitful. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
:::::::::Again you are fabricating new interpretations to what LHvU actually said. (1) There was no agreement for your soapbox text. (2) The version noted by LHvU as a ''basis'' for a future consensus is quite different than yours. (3) Six editors disagree with your insertion of soapbox into leads. (4) You are ] over and over again to justify bad conduct and gaming. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 17:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::What you write is not true and the fact that you continue to write untruths can only mean that you are doing so intentionally. LHvU wrote the following:<blockquote>I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, <u>and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles.</u></blockquote>That is, he found there to be consensus for including the line ''The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank ], but the Israeli government disputes this.'' to the lead of the articles. You are making a pedantic dispute that Shuki did not even raise as the basis for this massive amount of wikilawyering that you have been engaged in. Stop making such purposefully dishonest arguments. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 17:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
:::::::::::Again you are fabricating new interpretations to what LHvU actually said. (1) There was no agreement for your soapbox text. i.e. '''It just happens to not be the statement that was selected in the discussions''' -- Sean.hoyland, (2) The version noted by LHvU as a ''"basis"'' (why are you ignoring that word in your diff?) for a future consensus is quite different than yours. (3) Six editors disagree with your insertion of soapbox into leads. (4) You are ] over and over again to justify bad conduct and gaming. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 17:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::You are again misrepresenting clear words. I will quote again:<blockquote>I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, <u>and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles</u></blockquote>Why are ignoring that LHvU repeatedly said that there is consensus for "proposal 2" in the lead of the article? Can you really have missed the now 4 times this line has been quoted, or are you just playing dumb? Consensus is not determined by numbers, it is determined by strength of argument and consistency with the policies of this website. Or, again quoting this same admin<blockquote>onsensus is determined by weight of argument, based in policy and discussion, and not the number or the passion of support or opposition.</blockquote>Your purposefully misleading statement not withstanding, this is a simple problem. A set of editors, yourself included, have long attempted to remove any mention of the illegality of these colonies. When an uninvolved admin says there is consensus to include this fact in the lead of the articles, editors from this set have ignored that and disruptively removed it. No amount of wikilawyering changes these indisputable facts. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 17:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
:::Phil, NO, there is certainly no final consensus on wording or placement either and Nableezy and SupremeDeliciousness are being ultrabold in inserting it before the final wording has been accepted by consensus . Nableezy is also being uncollegiate in continually discrediting anyone who opposes his POV. Nableezy continues to misrepresent the voices of any editors not in his POV by accusing them of long removing any mention of illegality when in fact the struggle has always been to prevent him from simply applying boilerplate generalization without specific ]. I suppose that you and Nableezy actually read what LessHeard wrote and also the conclusion that is certainly not final or decisive and quite open ended. Look at the first comment from Cptnono who mentions this and Cptnono was very much part of wanting to build consensus and also not totally 'on my side'. I suggest you read ] and especially various lines like ''Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised.'' You might notice that virtually any opposing voice in this 'consensus building' was merely minimized or ridiculed. The line that is assumed to consensus is exactly the original line that SD and Nableezy were ramming into articles and also does not remain neutral and minimizes Israel opposition to mere wimpy 'but Israel disputes this'. You will notice that the 'consensus' building does not include a wide variety of editors due to heavy layering, and very hard to follow chit chat from editors who were online a lot virtually preventing anyone 'uninvolved' from being able to understand what was going on. You might remember an RfC that Nableezy posted about the term settlement and that was very easy to follow. Phil, I also remind you of your recent 1RR implementation that was done after an orderly and clear survey. This one was a mess and did not build consensus. --] (]) 00:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::This is going to be good. The unequal severity of this proposed topic ban, based on two reverts and a 'comment'(?!) above shows me to be the main danger on WP in this area. You can only measure this claim by seeing the Israel-Arab area calm down drastically after I am gone, or not. Ho hum... --] (]) 20:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
: ] - While I can't find any comments where they were explicitly ''"warned for casting aspersions"'', they were to ] in the topic area. | |||
====Comments by others about the request concerning Shuki ==== | |||
;Comment by Cptnono | |||
The whole reason the centralized discussion was proposed was due to editors (including Nableezy) edit warring and then opening up separate discussions. Seeing the exact same thing happening is disheartening. Yes, the admin did say there was consensus. He did not close it out which I could see leading to some confusion. I do not understand how the admin could see consensus for placement and I am not the only one. Supreme Deliciousness has been just as adamant as Nableezy in getting this line in and ''he'' opened up a discussion on placement after the admin's conclusion. I think Supreme Deliciousness should be applauded <small>(didn't expect to hear that did you?)</small> for his restraint over the last couple of days and think Nableezy should have acted similarly. I told you guys we needed to discuss implementation : ( ] (]) 19:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Follow-up: I have said my piece and am going to excuse myself from the remainder of the conversation since it looks like it is going to get out of hand. My closing thoughts on it are that this AE should not be a ruling on if there was consensus or not since that is better left at the centralized discussion (not separate pages, BTW). However, Shuki being confused about the consensus is perfectly valid since multiple editors are.] (]) 00:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::@ T. Canens: They are substantially different. I know it looks like little but we went through all of that discussion for a reason. One version states that hands down that it is illegal. The other clarifies and does not take sides. I'm not saying give anyone a pass on this but it needs to be made clear that Nableezy should not have inserted material that did not have consensus.] (]) 22:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::<small>@LVHU: Proposal 2 specifically said "1)... ''Many of these articles can be found at Category:Israeli settlements. This proposal does not detail use in articles that merely discuss settlements.''" so simply being related is not sufficient per consensus. However, such discussion might be better at the centralized discussion.</small>] (]) 00:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Also, apologies for my ''"diffs of edits that violate this sanction"'' section, this is the first time I've filed a request here & I thought it'd be best to explain the ''preamble'' to my revert, but I understand now that I misunderstood the purpose of that section & will remember such for the future. - ] (]) 15:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
An interaction bad is completely unnecessary. I made the comment "stop going out of your way to cause trouble" and that is sufficient? I did not pile on the accusations here like some editors. I tried to be civil. I started the discussion that is what got us here in the first place. I just got nailed for being rude to editors and have been attempting to make it better. A topic ban won;t be helping that situation especially since I have not had anytime to prove myself. Have there been any comments since the recent AE that I have made in this topic area (I have actually stopped swearing across the project) besides the one mentioned that seemed out of line? The one mentioned isn't even that bad, IMO. He was starting a conflict and that shouldn't even be in dispute. So besides "going out of your way" (which seems a little mean) is there anything else? I even made it clear that Shuki made mistakes here. Should we have an interaction ban? ] (]) 07:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:@] I was able to find a copy of the opinion article being cited . ] (]) 20:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I have expanded on this at ] but he does not appear to be swayed. I would appreciate it if my request was looked into before another admin closes this. I have not commented on what I feel is appropriate action for Shuki or Nableezy but me getting lumped into the interaction bans is a big deal to me.] (]) 09:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
@T. Canens, have you reviewed my comments in question and believe I crossed the line? I was practically begging Nableezy and the other editors involveded to use the centralized discussion. The single comment that might come across mean should not be sufficient. Add I think it is well balanced by perfectly reasonable comments even while others may be being less then polite: ] (]) 18:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
;Comment by Mkativerata | |||
I consider myself involved in respect of settlement disputes because I participated in an RfC about them once. I think Shuki's actions here have been disruptive. LHvU's close of that discussion - especially after the clarification - was quite clear. Nableezy's insertion of material was consistent with the close. If any further clarification needed to be sought, that could have been done without reverting. But I'm concerned that editors disappointed with the consensus are trying to obfuscate it by claiming it is not clear. That can't be allowed to happen. --] (]) 20:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:It wasn't just Shuki who reverted. I also reverted the edit as did ]. Nableezy is the one here who is acting unilaterally without consensus.--] (]) 22:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::All that means is I was feeling generous and did not request that you and brew likewise be topic banned for disruptively editing against consensus. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 23:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
:::The very fact that it was your edits that were being reverted by three different editors means that it was in fact you who was acting in a disruptive manner without consensus. You've been around long enough to know how to play in the sandbox and you are now, quite frankly, operating disruptively by acting without consensus against the majority and by filing repeated AE actions that require lengthy responses to defend against frivolous claims.--] (]) 23:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::Uhh no. An uninvolved admin specifically says that there is consensus to include that specific line in the lead of those articles. Consensus does not mean unanimous consent, it does not mean that a set of users can filibuster and demand that their position be accepted. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 23:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
::::::No. You are fabricating words which were not specifically said. No uninvolved admin said there was a consensus or even a "basis" for consensus for pushing the soapbox "Like all Israeli settlements" into the lead. The editors who quickly disagreed here are, on the other hand, a reality. Fabricating a "consensus" to propose a sanction against another editor is a clear example of ]. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 00:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::If Shuki had a problem with that part of the sentence, he or she could have raised it for discussion or, at the most, amended the sentence. --] (]) 01:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::If Nab had a problem with the status quo, rather than inserting a hotly contested edit that was reverted by three editors (in the lede no less), he could have used the Talk page or discussed the issue further in a centralized location.--] (]) 01:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::No Nableezy had consensus, as determined by the admin who closed the discussion, on his side. Ignoring consensus on the basis that it is "not clear" is tendentious editing. Like it or not, the closing admin's decision needs to be accepted as final. --] (]) 01:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::So one editor ignoring three others is under a consensus? You think that is logical? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 01:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::More obfuscation. The consensus was determined by LHvU on the relevant discussion page. It is ''not'' determined by however many editors reverted Nableezy. --] (]) 01:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::Your tone does not make your argument stronger. (a) off course it matters what the community thinks and matters how many editors find Nableezy's version wrong. (b) there was never a consensus for the soapbox version Nableezy keeps introducing and LHvU doesn't even mention it. I know its fun to say "x determined y" when we're talking about z... but it's a bullshit argument. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 03:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::If that was the case Shuki should have amended z to match y, not revert it entirely. Without discussion, it was disruptive and tendentious. In any case, you are inventing your own reasons for Shuki's actions, that are very different for the reasons Shuki has given. --] (]) 03:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::Pushing a non-consensus soapbox version into the lead was the problem, not the act of reverting it. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 17:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::You are repeating false statements despite having been shown that your statement is false. When will an admin finally step up and ban you from this place? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 17:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
:@sanctions - aside from the matter about the length of the ban, might it also be worthwhile considering whether the ban should be limited to settlement articles instead of the PIA conflict generally? Settlement articles seem to be a discrete area of WP conflict and this issue doesn't go outside that area. Just a thought. --] (]) 00:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
;Comment by RolandR | |||
It seems to me that LHvU's finding was clear and unequivocal: ''"I am of the opinion that the wording per Proposal 2; "The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this." has consensus, and secondly that there is consensus for it to be included in all relevant articles".'' LHvU further noted that ''"consensus is determined by weight of argument, based in policy and discussion, and not the number or the passion of support or opposition".'' It is clear that some editors dispute this finding; but they cannot claim that this was not the outcome of the discussion. | |||
===Discussion concerning KronosAlight=== | |||
LHvU also noted that ''"It is my impression that there is a body of editors of the opinion that the legality of these Israeli settlements should not be noted; it is a valid opinion to be held by an individual so inclined, but it is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Attempts to stop, stymie or divert efforts to build the project in incorporating that commentary must be resisted like any other form of disruptive conduct".'' We are now seeing the truth of this comment; it is surely time for this recommendation to be acted on. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 20:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
:You are also misrepresnting my actions and LessHeard. If you read the line you posted, it is actually about those who do not want to note the legality of the settlements. He is commenting on those who want to strike this from the articles, like Nableezy has on the Ariel article. --] (]) 21:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by KronosAlight==== | |||
;Comment by Sean.hoyland | |||
I would like to appeal to any admins examining this case to review the evidence carefully, particulary the statements by uninvolved admin LessHeard vanU in the centralised discussion. We've reached a critical stage in the process and it's taken years of edit wars, blocks and lengthy discussions to reach this point. It's critical because what happens next in terms of implementation will probably decide whether we can resolve the issue once and for all and move on or whether we will face more slow burn edit wars, blocks, and fragmented, uncoordinated arguments in a large number of articles. It happens to be Shuki in this AE report. It could have been someone else being reported for either adding or removing the content so whatever is decided here there needs to be clarity so that editors know whether their actions are legitimate and consistent with the centralized discussion or not. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 22:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
This is a complete waste of the Arbitration Committee’s time. | |||
For context and a sanity check, I have added a ] to the IPCOLL page. Some sources are from the discussions that LessHeard vanU reviewed that resulted in the consensus he identified, some are already in use in various articles and some are new sources that I've found. The sources are intended as a resource for people (including admins here at AE) who want to compare LessHeard vanU's findings with the sources and assess the legitimacy of editor's statements and actions. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 12:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
1. That Yousef was born and raised a Muslim is important and neutral context for readers to be aware of when the article refers to claims of ‘Islamophobia’. | |||
;Comment by Jiujitsuguy | |||
This is a case of content dispute plain and simple and Nableezy is attempting to force the issue here, at AE, rather than dispute resolution. He does not have consensus for the contentious language he wishes to shove down our throats and he certainly does not have consensus for inserting this type of tendentious editing in the lede. Indeed, in both articles he cites to, he was the lone editor who was reverted by three different editors, indicating that 1) he is in the minority and 2) that this is still an issue that is the subject of discourse. There is simply nothing actionable here. Respectfully,--] (]) 22:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:There very clearly is something actionable here. That you, brewcrewer and Shuki dislike what there is consensus for does not change that there is consensus. At the very least, the clarification by LHvU on what he saw consensus for, and consensus not meaning how many people shout NO as loud as they can, is for including the language you dislike in the pleace you dislike (the lead). It is incredibly disheartening that even after going through this process we still have to deal with crap like a few users not liking the outcome of the discussion and attempting to enforce their view in spite of it. The following things are indisputably true. A centralized discussion took place, with you, Shuki and brewcrewer all being involved. That discussion was closed by an uninvolved admin. That admin said there is consensus for including the line and for placing it in the lead of articles. Are any of those things under dispute? That users disagree with that close does not entitle them to ignore it, much like how if an AfD closes with a delete consensus (regardless of the headcount), a user who disputes that consensus cannot simply recreate the article. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 22:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
::Being disingenuous about it won't magically create a consensus when there is non. I'd do the same edits as Shuki did in a heartbeat. That you are still provocatively pushing the words "Like all Israeli settlements", "illegal", and "colony" to the first paragraph of articles relating Israel is a sad reflection on this project's ability to handle disruptive conduct. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 23:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC) +c 00:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::An uninvolved admin specifically says there is consensus to include that line in the lead of those articles. I actually wish you had been the one to make these reverts as I think Misplaced Pages would be much better off if you were banned as opposed to Shuki. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 23:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
::::Just in this short conversation, '''6 editors''': Cptnono, Mbz1, Brewcrewer, Jiujitsuguy, Shuki, Jaakobou '''disagree''' with your disingenuous representation of a so-called consensus. Don't let any facts confuse you. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 23:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::An uninvolved admin closed the discussion saying there is consensus for inclusion of that line in the lead, including the line ''I will briefly note that consensus is determined by weight of argument, based in policy and discussion, and not the number or the passion of support or opposition''. Dont let any actual facts confuse you. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 00:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
::::::No. You are fabricating words which were not specifically said. No uninvolved admin said there was a consensus or even a "basis" for consensus for pushing the soapbox "Like all Israeli settlements" into the lead. The editors who quickly disagreed here are, on the other hand, a reality. Fabricating a "consensus" to propose a sanction against another editor is a clear example of ]. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 00:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::You are purposely distorting what has happened here. You want to argue that my exact sentence was not what the admin said there was consensus for? Fine, Ill add the exact sentence the admin says there was consensus for, lets see what happens then. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 07:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
::::::::Now it is '''7 editors''' who disagree with Nableezy on this discussion. This, according to Nableezy, shows that I am "purposely distorting what has happened". 1 Nableezy : 0 World. Will Nableezy ever let facts confuse him or will he still insist someone determined there was a consensus for his ] violating version in the lead when no such thing has happened? <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 10:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::No amount of wikilawyering can escape the fact that an uninvolved admin specifically says there is consensus for that material. Consensus is not a vote, and no matter how many me toos, nearly all of whom voiced already voiced their complaints at the discussion that an uninvolved admin says there was consensus, you get the fact remains that an uninvolved admin says there is consensus for this material. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
::::::::::No uninvolved admin approved your soapbox "like all other" text and you are repeating the same ] argument. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 17:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::Your argument is on its face inane. That you repeat it does not do you any favors. There very clearly is an uninvolved admin who says the material belongs in the lead. If you wish to argue that 3 of the 20 words did not have consensus fine, but it does not excuse the complete removal of material for which there is consensus to include. That you persist in calling something that can be sourced to 100+ sources "SOAP" only serves to illustrate the illogical nature of your argument. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 17:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
Comments by Jiujitsuguy are false, its not a content dispute, the issue was discussed, consensus is based on arguments, not votes. An uninvolved admin looked at it, and since those who want to have the worldview of the illegality of Israeli settlements kept out of Misplaced Pages articles did not bring any good arguments, and those who want to have the worldview of the illegality of Israeli settlements in Misplaced Pages articles brought good arguments, the consensus was to have the information, but Jiujitsuguy, shuki do not accept the consensus, so now they just say "no" and edit war against the consensus.--] (]) 23:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
;Comment by Mbz1 | |||
I read a closure by LessHeard vanU and found it extremely confusing. The request is not actionable. The editors should continue trying reaching the consensus, but not on AE, on the articles talk pages.--] (]) 22:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Six or even 3 months topic ban for two edits even assuming they were wrong is way, way too much. I hear about battleground behavior, but Nableezy and others are displaying the same kind of behavior. It takes at least two users to create a battleground. How many times Nableezy filed AE that were closed with no actions taken. The proposed sanctions are absolutely disproportional. I believe an interaction ban between Nableezy and Shuki will do the job.--] (]) 01:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
2. The scarequotes indicate that the claim comes from the sources provided, rather than being an objective ‘fact’ determined by a few Misplaced Pages Editors with an axe to grind. | |||
;Comment by Jaakobou | |||
'''Nableezy has been topic banned a total of <big><big>7.5 months</big></big>''' and blocked on numerous occasions for continuous incivility, edit-warring and this "illegal" issue: | |||
{{userlinks|Nableezy}} | |||
* 4 months - lowered to 2: | |||
* 2 months more: | |||
* 1.5 months more: | |||
Personally, I support the presented edits performed by Shuki 100% and point out that Nableezy is violating both ] of misuse of the project for advocacy and furtherance of outside conflicts as well as continuous effort on gaming the system. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 23:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)+clarify/punctuate+diff 23:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
3. This was already addressed on the Talk page and I updated the sentence to say settlers/soldiers with a further label that it needed further clarification because the source does not in fact unambiguously say what Butterscotch Beluga claims. | |||
p.s. there is a worrying modus operandi where Nableezy tag-teams his efforts to have fellow editors sanctioned when there is disagreement on content. The number of editors who quickly respond here goes to show exactly who wants to make a controversial political advocacy type of addition against consensus (e.g. Nableezy, Supreme Deliciousness, to be seen). <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 23:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::But wait... there's more. 2 of Nableezy's 10 or so sanctions/2 of Shuki's 4 sanctions were related to this dispute: and This one was even Nableezy bringing SHuki here. Both of you guys need to stop reverting. I totally feel Shuki's frustration of course] (]) 23:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:] =) ] (]) 23:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
A few lines above what Butterscotch Beluga quotes is the following lines: “AMANPOUR: How did you take part in that? Were you one of the small children who threw rocks at Israeli soldiers? | |||
;Comment by Sol: | |||
So is the consensus confirmation valid or not? That seems to be the real question. I'm amazed the proposal has managed to survive despite the Atlas-crushing mountain of pettifoggery in the discussion, so nice work, those who labored on. ] (]) 23:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
YOUSEF: The model for every Palestinian child is a mujahid (ph) or a fidahi (ph) or a fighter. So, of course, I wanted to be one at that point of my life. It wasn't -- it's not my only dream. It's every child's dream in that territory.” | |||
::Shuki made reverts on two different pages. Who say he can't? Queen Nableezy? Adding "like all Israeli settlements" to articles without a source that specifically uses this terminology AND specifically cites the name of the place in question, is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. SPA accounts like Nableezy's are a disgrace to Misplaced Pages. No wonder the academic world regards this site as a bunch of crap.--] (]) 06:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::Its nice to know I have gone to being 50 different wimpy guys to being a Queen. Ill leave your fantasy intact and not disrupt your imagination with what actually happened. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 07:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
The updated Wiki page noted both settlers/soldiers and included a note that this requires further clarification, perhaps based on other sources, because it isn’t clear (contra Butterscotch Beluga) whether he is referring to soldiers or settlers. | |||
;Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy | |||
I suggest everyone read the close by LessHeard vanU Nableezy linked to above . I find it to be very well thought out, clearly worded, and I wish every admin would articulate their thoughts like this.<br> | |||
I don't see how anyone can claim that his close supports the wording Shuki removed from the article. Where exactly does he say "like all Israeli settlements X is illegal" is apropriate? On the contrary, he says he is of the opinion that "(subject) is a settlement ''of disputed legality''..." etc. (or variations thereof)" is what should be included in the lede. ] (]) 12:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
4. It is not controversial to accurately describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation. It is simply a fact. To suggest otherwise is POV-pushing. | |||
:I strongly concur. you can see the two versions the closing admin suggested, side-by-side, implemented at the ] article. I ended up switching back to the version that included the sentence in the lead, because the admin later that the "disputed legality" phrasing should be used "only in those instances where there appeared to be an introductory paragraph and a main section (or two)." In this case, the article in question (]) has four sections, but the first diff I linked could be viewed as a model of the two options. ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 13:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
5. This is not POVPUSH; ‘assassinations’ against civilians during peacetime are usually called ‘murders’. | |||
::Um sorry, the version which LHvU says has consensus is "The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this." most certainly not No More's "of disputed ilegality". All Nab has added is "like all". Which simply clears up a potential point of confusion. Entirely blanking the statement for which their is consensus on the grounds that the phrasing is slightly more explicit on one point not covered in LHvU's summary is most certainly disruptive.--] 14:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::I copied the part in quotation marks including the "of disputed legality" (including the italics) right from the diff I provided above. Did you read it all the way through? ] (]) 15:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::And LHvU said that applied only to articles with a lead and a single section after that. He said for articles with developed bodies the entire line should go into the lead. Ive quoted the clarification where this is made clear. This is simply more lawyering in an attempt to obfuscate a clear close. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
::::::(ec)That's correct, the wording No More argues for is in a "suggestion that may satisfy the agreed need to include the form of words that has consensus into articles ''where there has been a perceived issue''" and that perceived issue is the one mentioned in: "Whilst there is agreement of the use of the wording in articles both of multi section length, and single section/stub standard, ''there is not yet any agreement on how to incorporate it in an article that has a lede paragraph, and then a body which is generally only one section''." Hence there is consensus for the longer articles.--] 15:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::I doubt calling something that begins with "''I anticipate that there needs to be further discussion on a couple of points I will raise, so I am not prepared to say that my review is definitive; but that it should be regarded as a basis for a consensus of the agreed text between the various parties to the editing of articles relating to certain settlements in Israeli occupied territories.''" a "clear close" that supports you adding OR to what LHvU said, is more than wishful thinking on your part. ] (]) 15:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::OR???? Really? Ive given somthing like 20 sources that support the wording I used. And yes, the close was clear. Especially after the linked and quoted clarification, which you distort by saying the text LHvU said there was consensus for was "of disputed legality". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
::::::::I disagree. Hopefully, LHvU will stop by and clarify what he meant. I see no purpose in continuing to discuss this with you, so I'll bow out now. Feel free to get your last word in. ] (]) 16:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::You disagree? You think the following is not crystal clear?<blockquote>I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, <u>and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles</u></blockquote>In case that is too difficult to comprehend, "proposal 2" says ''The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this.'' LHvU clearly wrote that line has consensus to be in the lead of such articles. Asking for further clarification to something that even a child can understand is simply disruptive stalling. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 17:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
*If LHvU says "relating to ''certain'' settlements" then how is it possible to use the expression "Like 'all' settlements"? -- ] (]) 15:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC) (observer) | |||
=====Comment by Gatoclass===== | |||
I in fact didn’t even remove the word ‘assassinations’, I merely broadened the description from ‘Israelis’ to ‘Israeli civilians and soldiers’ (as Butterscotch accepted) to indicate the breadth of the individuals in question included both civilians and combatants. This is not POVPUSH, it is simply additional information and context verified in the source itself. | |||
I concur with Sean Hoyland's and RolandR's statements above. This dispute has dragged on for many months now, generating an endless number of cases, debates and discussions, and all because Shuki can't abide to have the highly notable information that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law in his precious Israeli settlement articles. After a recent discussion reached consensus that it was appropriate to include the information, Nableezy is now being reverted on the grounds that he didn't employ the precise wording recommended in that debate, even though the meaning of Nableezy's text is virtually identical. So what's next? Nableezy adopts the precise wording, only to have a new round of objections on the basis that he dared put it in the ''lede'' and not in the body of the article. Or that he put it in the lede of an article with ''only one section'' instead of an article with ''multiple'' sections. And so on. | |||
All in all, a vexatious claim and a waste of the Arbitration Committee’s time. | |||
I consider this to be a classic example of ] behaviour on Shuki's part and I think it's time the community did something about it. The alternative is to have yet another interminable debate which will have to attempt to dot every "i" and "t" of precisely what wording is permitted to be used and where so that there are no possible loopholes left for Shuki to exploit. But we shouldn't need to do this. AE was created precisely in order to circumvent this kind of behaviour and I think Shuki has caused enough disruption already. | |||
====Statement by Sean.hoyland==== | |||
BTW, I recommend that adjudicators read Sean's ] to confirm just how well established and uncontroversial are the facts that Nableezy has long been prevented from adding to these articles. ] (]) 16:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Regarding "I was correcting factual errors introduced by previous antisemitic editors", it would be helpful if KronosAlight would explicitly identify the antisemitic editors and the edits they corrected so that they can be blocked for being antisemitic editors. ] (]) 08:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:No one prevented the legality issue from being added and it is disingenuous to present matters as if that were the case. The issue of contest was Nableezy's "Like all other" soapbox in the lead and/or first paragraph of every Israel related article he touches -- the main reason he was banned for 7.5 months in the past year. Solidarity with your ideological partner aside, Gatoclass, your argument does not relate to the diffs in question. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 16:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:: The recommended text was ''The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the territories) illegal under international law''. How exactly does this differ in substance with Nableezy's edit? I submit to you that it does not. This is not a valid objection at all, it's just wikilawyering. ] (]) 17:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::: Gatoclass, it is of no wonder that you are insensitive to subtleties about Israel ( per "it does not " ) but clearly, as 6 established editors quickly noted, Nableezy's version is not under consensus. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 17:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
The editor has been here since 2012. It is reasonable to assume that they know the rules regarding aspersions. It is reasonable to assume they are intentionally violating them, presumably because they genuinely believe they are dealing with antisemitic editors. So, this report is somehow simultaneously a vexatious complete waste of time and the result of the someone interfering with their valiant efforts to correct errors made by antisemitic editors. Why do they have this belief? , a comment they had the good sense to revert. For me, this is an example of someone attempting to use propaganda that resembles antisemitic conspiracy theories about media control to undermine Misplaced Pages's processes and then changing their mind. But the very fact that they thought of it is disturbing. Their revert suggests that they are probably aware that there are things you can say about an editor and things you cannot say about an editor. From my perspective, what we have here is part of an emerging pattern in the topic area, a growing number of attacks on Misplaced Pages and editors with accusations of antisemitism, cabals etc. stemming in part from external partisan sources/influence operations. ] (]) 17:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::That is one untruth followed by another. But we'll see, Ill add the exact wording to the lead and then we can see if the "Like all Israeli settlements" really was the issue. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 17:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
:::Jaak, it's not soap. It's a statement that complies with policy. As you can see from the ], saying "Like 'all' settlements" is supported by the sources. See the BBC sources at the top and others. It just happens to not be the statement that was selected in the discussions. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 17:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Zero0000==== | |||
Aspersions: | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 10:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Vice regent==== | |||
::::'''NOTICE:''' | |||
{{u|KronosAlight}}, you on 14 Dec 2024: "{{tq|An open letter signed by Christian and Muslim religious leaders interpreted that statement as a threat and incitement to violence}}" to "{{tq|An open letter signed by Christian and Muslim religious leaders claimed was a threat and incitement to violence, though no threats or violence in fact occurred}}". | |||
::::'''It just happens to not be the statement that was selected in the discussions.''' - Sean.hoyland, 17:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::Even Sean.hoyland -- someone with a similar world-view to Nableezy -- agrees that the version deemed as ''basis'' for future agreement is not the one Nableezy is pushing as the so-called "consensus". Sean.hoyland, no surprise, excuses this but there is clearly disagreement to Nableezy's insertion in the lead -- and no admin (except the highly involved Gatoclass) supported his ] version either. | |||
::::With respect, <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 17:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::Pedantry is not a virtue Jaakobou, there is no real difference between the versions. And Sean does not say the version was deemed a "basis", he says it was the one "selected". Next time you misrepresent a person's views you may want to try to do it somewhere other than directly below where they express their views. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 17:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
::::::The uninvolved admin whom you keep misrepresenting used the word "basis" and 6 editors note that your soapbox text is unacceptable in leads. Next time, apply basic thought before you attack me for something I have not said. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 17:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::The uninvolved admin wrote the following (and this has been quoted no less than 3 times on this page):<blockquote>I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, <u>and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles</u></blockquote>Try to argue around that as much as you like, there very clearly was a judgment made that there '''is''' consensus for the inclusion of ''The international community considers Israeli settlements in illegal under international law, though the Israeli government disputes this.'' in '''the lead of the articles'''. That you persist in misrepresenting the clear words quoted is only one more reason why you should be banned. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 17:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
{{hat|OT and unhelpful discussion}} | |||
::::: (edit conflict) Thankyou for the opinion Jaakobou, but I must object to being referred to as "highly involved". Unlike yourself, my participation on I-P pages is minimal, and occupies a tiny proportion of my output, as a look at my ] will demonstrate. My participation in this particular dispute, or on Israeli settlement articles generally, has, apart from the occasional comment in cases brought to this page, been practically nonexistent. ] (]) 17:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::: I agree that your participation, while clearly partisan, is not of a high volume. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 18:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::: The only thing I've seen Gatoclass write here that could be viewed as partisan is that he disagrees with you. That's not a political issue. All of these aspersions, attempts at polarization, irrelevant arguments, ad hominem attacks, accusations and derailings have contributed little beyond confusing an otherwise straightforward issue, i.e., is the declared consensus legitimate. AE threads should be limited to uninvolved editors to prevent these bastardizations of process that read like a cross between an AE request and a mock trial transcript from a Wookie high school. ] (]) 18:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Can you show where either of the sources state "though no threats or violence in fact occurred"? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 18:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Gatoclass , your edit's volume in I/P conflict area might be low, but you're extremely unfair and extremely involved, and extremely partisan. You even would not stop to to have it your way.--] (]) 18:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::: That's certainly not what you told me after I worked hard at improving a couple of your own articles Mbz. But in any case, this is all thoroughly OT and a pretty good demonstration of why we have a guideline about commenting on contributions not contributors, because it only leads to more mudslinging, so I think it's time we dropped it. ] (]) 19:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
{{hab}} | |||
::::::::Jaak...I don't have a 'world view' by the way but feel free to carry on thinking that I do. It makes no difference to the rule based decision procedures used to generate article content. I'm not excusing anything. These are all distractions. At some point the content policies of this project have to be enforced and this issue about the the legality statements has to be resolved once and for all. That's what matters, the content not the individuals. If editors want to sacrifice themselves for their cause by disrupting this process then admins should oblige them with a topic ban so that the process can continue in a orderly way in accordance with policy as far as I'm concerned. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 18:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::I apologize if you feel there's a misrepresentation Sean. However, when you defend soapboxing and policy violations of a certain world-view and when I find myself explaining that there's nothing offensive in describing a prominent left-wing journalist as Israeli left-wing and the response is "he isn't an elephant or a table" it adds up to create a certain image. That said, I agree with you that it would do well for the project to resolve the settlements legality issue -- hopefully in a collegiate manner rather than through gaming. I would support removal of the more disruptive editors in the I-P area, regardless of their world-view. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 19:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::You are over thinking it. | |||
::::::::::* If countless sources said "''The international community does not consider Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, and the Israeli government agrees.''" that would be the statement that I would be supporting (along with many other people no doubt). It's about what the sources say. | |||
::::::::::* I don't know what soapboxing or policy violations you are referring to specifically but saying that all of the Israeli settlements outside of Israel are regarded as illegal under international law isn't soapboxing and in a normal topic area no one would bat an eyelid if someone added an entirely uncontroversial statement like that supported by countless sources to an article. They would be glad that someone else was helping them build the article. That's why I edit in this topic area, because it's broken. I support editors who try to get articles to say what the sources say. It's that simple. | |||
::::::::::* If you make a statement like "''where does Levy say that he's not in the Israeli left? (hint: he doesn't).''" you are employing an absence of evidence to generate a unverified conclusion hence my retort "''Maybe in the same place that he says that he isn't an elephant or a table''". This was intended to highlight the invalidity of your conclusion by suggesting that you may also be able to conclude that he is an elephant or a table by using the same absence of evidence contradicting those conclusions. I'm a geoscientist not a propagandist. When people use logic like that in my world, bad things happen. Here it's just a verification failed policy violation but it's still wrong. Again, it's about what the sources say. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 20:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
*Could some one please point the readers to the specific ] that all of these settlements are "considered" in violation of? I would appreciate that clarification. ] (]) 00:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Smallangryplanet==== | |||
For what it's worth, I oppose interaction bans on principle as I think they are impractical. I don't see how Shuki and Nableezy could work on the same articles without communicating with one another, and while they are obviously frustrated with one another I haven't seen any evidence of gross incivility. Perhaps as a compromise a time-limited interaction ban, to allow tensions to decrease? ] (]) 06:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Wanted to add some pertinent evidence: | |||
'''Talk:Zionism''': | |||
:In my humble opinion, there's a problem with every I-P report on this board resulting in a hostile debate. I'm not a 100% sure what is the best way to resolve this. I think interactions bans are worth trying. Otherwise, we could ban some editors from commenting on reports that aren't about them. But anyway, I agree with Cla68 comments, and don't think we can allow the situation to continue. ] (]) 07:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::So what do you suggest for this specifically? I made an effort to not bombard this AE but when another editor throws in an accusation when they did something 10x worse it is tough to ignore. ] (]) 07:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
* | |||
====A Heads-Up About Nableezy's Use of This Issue==== | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
'''Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon''': | |||
I just wanted to let people know that Nableezy is taking it as a forgone conclusion that Shuki will be topic-banned for 6 months and is using that as a threat to get people to self-revert edits that he disagrees with. I don't have the experience with Misplaced Pages that many of you do, but I suspect that is inappropriate behavior for this site. Please take a look at my talk page. ] (]) 20:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
* | |||
=== Comment by LessHeard vanU === | |||
I would note that the only wording I found consensus for was that specifically provided under proposal 2. Any variation of that, by addition or subtraction, needs to find consensus, either generally or in the specific situation. This would include content immediately prior to or preceeding those words, where they effect the meaning of the agreed text.<br> | |||
I also found consensus for those words (but only those words) to be included in all relevant articles (that is, those articles relating to Israeli settlements in the occupied lands). I also further found agreement for the inclusion of the text in the lede of multi section articles, and for it in stub or very short articles where it was the only such mention. Only in some articles, those which had a brief introduction and then a body of one or two sections, was there disagreement on <u>how</u> it was to be incorporated - but not ''if''. I devised a suggestion which allowed the inclusion of the consensus text, by placing it in the body, and satisfied WP:LEDE by using a more concise variant in the opening paragraph.<br> | |||
I trust this clarifies my thinking. I regret that my style of commentary gave the impression that consensus had not been achieved in the substantive issues; in my view it had. I stand by my comments that my view is not definitive - but only in so far that the wiki editing method allows consensus to change upon presentation of better or different interpretation of policy that deprecates that existing - and might usefully continue to be reviewed and discussed; this does not mean that it may be disregarded, however. If parties would like specific comments upon specific points, or interpretation of what I said and meant (not always easy, not even for me!) then please present them in list form. I shall place this page on my watchlist. ] (]) 00:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Why do you still continue to not be decisive? Your first paragraph is fine, but then you backtrack in the second. ''I stand by my comments that my view is not definitive''. I stand my by recent comments as well, given AGF, I hope that you are not insinuating that I have disregarded your comments. --] (]) 00:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::I am decisive - I refuse to let my determination stultify further efforts between editors. I recognise my decisions can be overturned by a new consensus, is all. As for whether you have disregarded my comments, I have no opinion since I have no interest; that matter is for others to discuss. My view on what has consensus is, I trust, clear. ] (]) 10:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::You certainly were decisive. I have already expressed that I do not agree completely with your conclusion but it was a step in the right direction. You showed some fortitude (I would use another term if editors had not been so against my previous language) making a decision. You obviously realize how touchy the topic area is from your closing statement. That is for discussions off this AE, though. Your view on consensus is already being implemented (George did one, Supreme Deliciousness did one, and I reluctantly did one). That has spurred ] and I still hope there will be some changes. We are on the right track but discussion on what (if anything else at all) is to take place with the wording should be at the centralized discussion.] (]) 10:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
'''Talk:Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world''': | |||
===Comment by Cla68=== | |||
If the responding admins would look at talk page thread, you'll see a series of personal attacks by Nableezy and Cptnono on each other and other editors. I notice that ] was also involved in that discussion. A few months ago, when I warned another editor involved in the I/P articles, ], about personal attacks, Brewcrewer appeared to that I was involved in white supremecy forums off-wiki (at least, that's how I interpreted his remark). If I were a new editor, I would find the hostile discourse that these editors employ with each other in discussing this topic extremely off-putting and distasteful. Actually, I find it off-putting and distasteful even though I'm not a new editor. ] (]) 06:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:There was no personal attack. I was practically begging Nableezy to see the centralized discussion. You on the other hand readded the line that did not have consensus. (which I replaced with the version the admin saw consensus in regardless of my feelings on it, by the way) So maybe a ban for you is appropriate or should we chalk it up to being new in the topic area?] (]) 06:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:: Do you guys talk to each other like this so much that you no longer even recognize it as personal attack? ] (]) 06:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::He ''was'' causing trouble. There was confusion on the consensus (and we would later be reminded that he was also adding a line that did not have consensus) and instead of seeking resolution at the centralized discussion he was opening up three individual discussions. That is starting trouble pure and simple. I understand that saying "going out of your way" might have sounded slightly mean but it was far from a personal attack. But do you want to clarify why you added the line that did not have consensus? An admin made it clear below that that was not acceptable and you did it within 20 minutes of that. ] (]) 06:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::Good grief. ] (]) 07:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::I feel the same way. Did you notice when I made sure to inform Shuki on the consensus? I am shocked that you would attempt to say that I did anything wrong here. This is compounded by the fact that I was the one who started the centralized discussion that led to consensus (whether I think it was the best conclusion or not). I'm not the trouble maker here. And you have still failed to explain why you mae a revert to a line that did not have consensus.] (]) 07:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::I think you are reinforcing my point that you and the other main editors of this topic have gotten locked into an adversarial method of communicating with each other. When questioned on it, the editors involved immediately start attacking the accuser and anyone else involved while minimizing their own contributing actions. Is this the norm for that topic area? ] (]) 07:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Have I called you a jerk or anything like that? No. You made an accusation that specifically named me and I denied it. You still have not explained why you made a revert to a line that did not have consensus. Anyone of us "regulars" would have been at AE for it. Did I bring you here? No. I fixed the edit and informed you on the talk page. Of course I am going to be a little ticked off when you do that then name me as being in error. So do you have an explanation or not?] (]) 07:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
* | |||
::::::: Cla, your engagement with said debate is welcome, but with respect, in a protracted debate such as this people are inevitably going to get a little testy. What you interpret as "a series of personal attacks" I see as a group of editors trying hard to remain civil in very trying circumstances. Please let's not escalate this dispute any further than is necessary. ] (]) 07:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::I respect your opinion, but I disagree with you. There is no reason for editors to be communicating with each other that way on an article talk page. If they are getting that visibly and disturbingly testy with each other, then they need to take break from the topic and/or each other. ] (]) 07:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::And it cooled down after that. SO can you now explain why you made that revert? Seriously, that was much more egregious and you have still failed to answer. I didn't open an AE because I thought it would be counterproductive but now I am wondering why you would not fess up to your mistake there.] (]) 07:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Cla, when you mention that you "warned" me for personal attacks, you left a few key details out. The most important of these, of course, is that you were (and apparently still are) meatpuppeting for banned editors ] and ]. I had hoped you'd been admonished about this already, or perhaps you decided to ignore it. I think I've been pretty patient about your behavior; I haven't sought any kind of block or ban for what is unambiguously a gross violation of Misplaced Pages policy, but my patience won't last forever. I have the right to remove any and all comments you make about me or edits against me on behalf of banned editors, though I would rather not do so. I'd rather you acknowledged what you're doing is wrong, or at least promise to cease the disruption. | |||
'''Talk:2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks''': | |||
Oh, and in case that's not already wrong enough, the article in question, ], is not in the IP area, and the editor you were championing, ] is an indef-blocked sockpuppeteer who made racist and antisemitic statements ("Mr. Ebonics" and "Jew pervert," to take two charming examples). I wouldn't go so far as to say that your going to bat for this editor makes you a white supremacist, rather, I'd say you were pursuing agendas unhelpful to Misplaced Pages, and should stop immediately. <font color="green">]</font> 17:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
* | |||
===Result concerning Shuki=== | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' | |||
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> | |||
*I am in substantial agreement with Mkativerata's comment above. Once an uninvolved administrator has determined the consensus of a discussion, it needs to be followed if our consensus-based editing model is worth anything. If there are disagreement with the closure, the closing administrator may be requested to reconsider, or review may be requested at an appropriate venue such as the ]. But until that closure is actually modified, it is binding.<p>According to LHvU's clarification: "I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, <u>and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles</u>."<p>There are claims that Nableezy's version (e.g., "Like all Israeli settlements in the ], Ma'ale Adumim is considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.") differs from the wording LHvU refers to ("The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this."), but so far I am able to perceive zero substantive difference between the two.<p>In short, this is going into ] territory. The consensus has been determined by an uninvolved administrator, yet the user claims that "nothing is settled" and that the closure is "confusing" when it is abundantly clear. I think that this request is actionable, and given the history, including four separate sanctions, I propose a six-month topic ban. ] (]) 22:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
**@Cptnono: Fair enough. It's a subtle difference, but now that you pointed it out I can certainly see it. As the objection has been made clear, I expect Nableezy to either conform their future edits to the consensus wording as determined by LHvU, or obtain consensus for their new version. If they do neither, an AE request will likely be looked upon favorably.<p>This, however, does not affect the proper disposition of the request at hand. The claim that "nothing settled" is absurd in light of LHvU's closure of that discussion. ] (]) 00:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
**With the subject of the request at hand having been addressed, I think we might wish to look a bit closely at the comments above. I think it is apparent that the topic-wide 1RR restriction recently implemented did not sufficiently contain the battleground behavior. The discussion between Nableezy and Jaakobou under ], for example, is filled with personal attacks ("fabricating consensus", "purposefully deceitful"). Jaakobou's list of Nableezy's history of sanctions is entirely unhelpful; presumably most admins here are aware of it already (and the history of the ''filer'', of course, has very little, if any, to do with the proper sanctions imposed by AE); the use of <nowiki><big></nowiki> tags to surround the "7.5 months" figure is worse. {{user|Gilabrand}}'s comment is also highly problematic ("Queen", "disgrace"). I propose that we also impose interaction bans between Jaakobou and Nableezy, and between Gilabrand and Nableezy, so that we may hopefully curb this battleground behavior. ] (]) 00:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
**@Mkativerata: I did consider a limited topic ban, but given the battleground behavior prevalent in this topic area recently, I think it preferable to force a complete disengagement followed by gradual return on appeal if good work in other topic areas can be demonstrated, rather than risk the conflict spilling over into other parts of this topic area. ] (]) 01:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
*I agree that the two edits by Shuki that are cited by the submitter of this AE represent ] regarding LHvU's summing up of the discussion. I support T. Canens' recommendation of a 6-month topic ban of Shuki from I-P articles. ] (]) 00:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
*Firstly, I'd like to thank LessHeard vanU for closing the original discussion, and for commenting here. I substantially agree with above comments by T. Canens and EdJohnston, and I also agree with Sean.hoyland's comment - it has taken a lot of time and effort to get this far in establishing a consensus, and while that consensus may change in the future, we shouldn't simply ignore it. The only area of disagreement I have is that I consider 6 months to be a little on the long side. I would have thought a 3-month topic ban would be sufficient given that Shuki merely removed the wording from the lede, and left the text in the main body of the article. ] (]) 00:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
*Also, I agree with the interaction bans, and would add if they don't work, stronger measure will obviously be required. ] (]) 01:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:*Regarding the above comments by Cla68, I agree completely, and there should also be an interaction ban between Cptnono and Nableezy. ] (]) 07:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::First, I would not interpret Shuki's action as leaving "the text in the main body", as I think it's more plausible that they simply . The history here - 4 separate sanctions in a single year (or really, since April, so it's more like 7 months) - also supports a stronger sanction. As always, if there is evidence of good work in other areas, we can lift the ban early on appeal.<p>The recent deterioration in behavior, however, really needs to be restrained, with ] if necessary, before it becomes uncontrollable and requires yet another arbcom case, which I think no one here wants to see.<p>In the same spirit, I agree with the additional interaction ban PhilKnight proposed, and I add that if the interaction bans don't work out well, then pretty much the only choice open to us is lengthy topic bans from the whole area.<p>Finally, I draw people's attention to , which I find to be particularly on point: <blockquote>Interjecting criticism of the conduct of other editors into consensus-building discussions is a wholly unhelpful practice....Talk page discussions are exclusively for discussion of the content of an article and for building an editorial consensus on disputed content matters. Any editors who do not abide by this ethos in their contributions to article talk pages are, in the first case, damaging genuine attempts to build consensus, and in the second, liable to be blocked or sanctioned.</blockquote> | |||
::] (]) 16:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::Hi T. Canens, based on comment by Shuki, I agree with your assessment, and support a 6 month topic ban. ] (]) 19:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Okay, I think it's time to close this. Based on the discussion above, and under the authority of ]: | |||
*In general: | |||
**All participants here are reminded that they should conform their future edits in this respect to the consensus wording as determined by LHvU, until and unless consensus for a different wording is established. Failure to do so may lead to sanctions, including but not limited to blocks and topic bans. | |||
**All participants here are further reminded that it is unacceptable to interject criticisms of other editors into talk page discussions. Concerns about editorial conduct should be brought to dispute resolution processes, or ], or ], as appropriate. Failure to do so may result in sanctions. | |||
*Topic ban: | |||
**{{user|Shuki}} is topic banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the area of conflict, as defined in ], for 6 months. | |||
*Interaction bans | |||
**{{user|Jaakobou}}, {{user|Gilabrand}} and {{user|Cptnono}} are admonished for personal attacks and ad hominem comments; they are prohibited from commenting on or interacting with {{user|Nableezy}} anywhere on Misplaced Pages. | |||
**{{user|Nableezy}} is admonished for personal attacks; they are prohibited from commenting on or interacting with {{user|Jaakobou}}, {{user|Gilabrand}} and {{user|Cptnono}} anywhere on Misplaced Pages. | |||
**The scope of the interaction bans above is defined in ]. | |||
**If either party to an interaction ban imposed above believes that the other has violated the interaction ban, they may not react to this except by the means of a single report at ]. They are permitted to edit the other party's talk page for the sole purpose of informing them of the existence of the report. The other party will be permitted to respond to the report on ], but neither party may add anything further to the report after the reported party responds. | |||
] (]) 21:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
{{discussion bottom}} | |||
'''Talk:Anti-Zionism''': | |||
== Accipio Mitis Frux == | |||
* | |||
{{discussion top|1=Accipio has undone his own edit, and has restored the consensus language about the legality of the settlement. ] (]) 19:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC) }} | |||
* | |||
===Request concerning Accipio Mitis Frux=== | |||
; User requesting enforcement : ] 20:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
'''Talk:Gaza genocide''': | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Accipio Mitis Frux}} | |||
* | |||
* | |||
'''Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre''': | |||
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] | |||
* | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
# See below | |||
# | |||
# | |||
# | |||
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): | |||
# Notified of case | |||
# | |||
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Whatever works | |||
'''Talk:Al-Sardi school attack''': | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : This is similar to the request about Shuki above. A user has removed the exact wording that has consensus for the lead, claiming that there is no consensus and that the clear close of the centralized discussion is not clear and resulted in no consensus. I informed the editor in question of the potential consequences of refusing to abide by consensus and the editor declined to self-revert the edit, instead saying that they refuse to be bullied by me (). I hope this thread will not turn in to the circus we have seen above. | |||
* | |||
:I have just added 2 more reverts to the list of diffs. The editor has now reverted 3 separate users who have added the line, violating both the clear close of the centralized discussion as well as the 1RR that applies to the ARBPIA topic area. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
'''Talk:Eden Golan''': | |||
::Tim, all the things that you say should have been linked to in my initial comment on the user's talk page have already been linked to at the talk page of the article. I did not threaten the user with a lengthy topic ban, I informed the user that another user was about to receive a lengthy topic ban for the same behavior and that I would seek a topic ban if the user refused to abide by consensus. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 00:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)</font></small> | |||
* | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
'''Other sanctions''': | |||
===Discussion concerning Accipio Mitis Frux=== | |||
* March 2024: for ], ], etc | |||
====Statement by Accipio Mitis Frux==== | |||
* June 2024: to abide by 1RR | |||
My position is very basic. I am not an individual who has been overly invested in pages regarding the Israeli-Arab conflict, and use Misplaced Pages as a source to receive information on this topic, not bestow it. However, I make edits when I think it is appropriate and I saw a need here. | |||
* October 2024: for a week | |||
====Statement by (username)==== | |||
I hate to get personal, but I've had some interaction with Nableezy on a prior page some months ago and it was by far the worst experience in my nearly five years on Misplaced Pages. There was no room for a real conversation, just insults to my intelligence straight from the get-go followed up by an immediate attempt to restrict my access. Once again, we have the same pattern of behavior. | |||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
===Result concerning KronosAlight=== | |||
I have a problem with this approach. After the edit that he saw as problematic, had he posted to my page that he would be changing it back in 24 hours with a respectful explanation, it would not have been an issue. Instead, I got a message to "self-revert or else." I am not going to be strong-armed I can't believe that this is appropriate behavior for Misplaced Pages. | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
In any case, I disagree with the insistance that there is consensus for this change. However, I do not have vast quantities of time to devote to this topic and am just going to let the chips fall where they may. Meaning, I am voluntarily taking a break from editing the page in question and am bowing out of the debate. | |||
* Much of the "diffs of edits that violate this sanction" fail to explain "how these edits violate" the sanction - to me, much of these diffs look like a content dispute. However, the "additional comments" section DOES have a diff that is concerning and violates the CT by casting an aspersion that is not backed up by a diff - the "antisemitic editors" diff. Has KA been previously warned for casting aspersions? If they have, I'm inclined to issue a topic ban, but many other editors get a warning for this if they lack a previous warning. The diffs brought up by Zero (not all of which I necessarily see as aspersions, but the "Jew-hatred" one is definitely over the line - but it's from September so a bit late to sanction for just that) - did anyone point out that aspersions/incivility in this topic area is sanctionable? I see the warnings for 1RR and consensus required... ] (]) 13:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
** {{ping|KronosAlight}} - can you address the fact that saying "correcting factual errors introduced by previous antisemitic editors" and "Is there no limits you will not cross in order to seek to justify your Jew-hatred"? Neither of these are statements that should ever be made - and the fact that you seem to not to understand this is making me lean towards a topic ban. ] (]) 14:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
However, with what little time I do have I'd like to return the favor and lodge a complaint against Nableezy for hostile behavior. I would appreciate instructions on the best way to do this as I do not have any experience in this area. ] (]) 08:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
*KronosAlight, can you please provide quotes from the references you cited for - for instance - "for his terrorist activities" in , showing that the sources explicitly supported the content you added? Calling a person or an organization is perfectly acceptable if you support that with reliable sources; if it is original research, or source misrepresentation, it isn't acceptable. I cannot access some of the sources in question. You may provide quotes inside a collapsed section if you wish to save space. ] (]) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:I missed Zero's comments earlier. A lot of those comments, while concerning, are generic, not directed at a specific editor. , however, is beyond the pale. I would need some convincing that this user is able to edit this area constructively. ] (]) 20:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Okay, fine, I self-reverted. Cancel what I said about bowing out of the debate. ] (]) 10:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
*::@], can you please respond to this? I too am concerned...the quote you're objecting to wasn't from DrSmarty. It was a ''direct quote'', scare quotes and all, from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. You seem to have reacted to it as if it were DrSmarty. ] (]) 16:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*I don't like to sanction ''in absentia'', and I'm not yet suggesting we do so, but I want to note that not choosing not to respond here, or going inactive to avoid responding, will not improve the outcome as far as I am concerned. ] (]) 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
====Comments by others about the request concerning Accipio Mitis Frux ==== | |||
*:They're a pretty sporadic editor...many edits over a period of a few days, then nothing for two weeks. Maybe we pin this until they edit again? ] (]) 17:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
And s/he has just reverted the edit for the third time today. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 21:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
*::I agree with Valereee that this editors contribution history shows a pattern of editing for a day or two at a time followed by several weeks of inactivity. So I don't think it's fair to say they went inactive here but also holding this open for multiple weeks waiting for a response places some burden on the other other interested editors. ] (]) 17:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:And note that the editor made a further two reversions ''after'' Nableezy's warning mentioned above. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 01:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
*:Welp, it's been nearly ten days since they first posted here, calling this a waste of time and vexatious. They're fully aware it's happening, and it's not even like they haven't been to AE before. | |||
::The editor has explicitly refused to self-revert, , so their 1RR-breaching reversion remains in the article. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 08:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
*:I've gone through the diffs here, and it seems to me the basis of KA's problematic editing is that they're on a mission to ], specifically w/re what they see as antisemitic bias on WP. The exchange at ] a few weeks ago makes that pretty clear: they come into Algeria and open a section to post a content complaint about the article not covering changing Jewish demographics in the country, saying "Many people have edited it, but apparently not one has seen fit to explain" this. Another editor suggests KA fix whatever problem they're seeing, and KA responds: {{xt|I made that comment to highlight the obvious problem of antisemitism among Misplaced Pages editors. The question was rhetorical.}} And many of their other talk contributions are focussed on these accusations of systemic bias. | |||
:::No, I did not specifically refuse to self-revert. I'm making the presumption that people will actually read what I wrote and not speed ahead with agressive action against me. ] (]) 08:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
*:And @], in case you're paying attention: ''of course'' WP has systemic bias. It's usually unintentional, but in most CTOPs there ''are'' editors who consciously try to push a POV. The solution for that isn't to go 'round making accusations. It's to go 'round fixing the problem either by adding missing content or by discussing biased content in nonproblematic ways. It's the "nonproblematic ways" part you're missing, here. And if you are paying attention: You cannot make an AE case go away by ignoring it. I very strongly recommend you come in here and respond to the questions. ] (]) 13:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Have you reverted the edit which breaches the one-revert restriction? Will you do so? <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 08:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
:::::Yes, I self-reverted, as stated above. ] (]) 10:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
*<!-- | |||
::::::I confirm that the editor has indeed self-reverted. I have explained to them how and where to continue the discussion of this text. I think they now understand the process, and have learned a lesson in Misplaced Pages, and that this request can be closed. If they make similar breaches in the future, there will be no wriggle-room to claim that they "did not know". <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 10:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
--> | |||
===Result concerning Accipio Mitis Frux=== | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' | |||
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> | |||
MastCell has explained to the user what is going on. As the user has not edited since before MastCell's edit, I say we wait a bit longer for them to self-revert. If they refuse, then a block would be in order, both for 1RR violation and disruptive edit warring against consensus.<p>Also, I'll add that I do not find Nableezy's initial comment on their talk page to be helpful. Linking to a voluminous discussion does not really help anything, nor does threatening lengthy topic bans for a first violation. It is much preferable to link to LHvU's closure of that discussion, the admin comments at the AE request, and to include a better explanation why the revert was inappropriate. ] (]) 23:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
*Accipio Mitis Frux the contested passage about legality of the settlement, at 10:13 UTC on 30 November, subsequent to the discussion here. Since this appears to take care of the problem, I'm closing this request. ] (]) 19:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
{{discussion bottom}} | |||
== Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Cptnono == | |||
<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in . According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. <p>To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see ]).''</small> | |||
; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Cptnono}} – ] (]) 22:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
; Sanction being appealed : Interaction ban with Nableezy. ], logged at ]> | |||
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Nicoljaus== | |||
; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|Timotheus Canens}} | |||
<small>''Procedural notes: Per the ], a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small> | |||
<small>''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections{{space}}but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see ]).''</small> | |||
; Notification of that administrator : ''The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a ] of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.'' | |||
; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Nicoljaus}} – ] (]) 13:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
===Statement by Cptnono=== | |||
; Sanction being appealed : To enforce an ], and for edit warring, and , you have been ''']''' '''indefinitely''' from editing Misplaced Pages. | |||
The interaction ban is based on the comment That was an attack in the very broadest definition. I do understand that "going out of your way" could be considered mean. I was pleading with editors to use the centralized discussion and the other comments made show this: The centralized discussion was unraveling and it was a huge concern since we were so close to getting it figured out. In hindsight, I should have taken a step back since I was only feeding the fire in my attempt. | |||
; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|ScottishFinnishRadish}} | |||
Nableezy and I do not have a good history and there is no question that I disagree with his behavior. That leads me to what I feel is a very important part of my appeal. I was so frustrated with different editor's (especially Nableezy's which is one reason I understand where the admins are coming from) behavior that I made the mistake of being grossly uncivil in the topic area. It was inappropriate and I received a short block and it was made clear that those comments were not appropriate. Just before and shortly after I received multiple comments from others expressing that this was a path they did not like seeing me go down. The block and those comments was a reminder to me of how to act. PhilKnight expressed on his talk page that he felt this interaction ban would be appropriate based on my history with Nableezy. I have already made the decision to show a renewed effort in any interaction. I understand that my single comment was off but it is not a serious violation according to the precedent set. '''I of course would be willing to go even farther with efforts to be civil if this appeal is successful based on the comments by the deciding admins'''. I feel that I learned from my past mistakes and that this interaction ban is an overreaction to that comment based on the poor history. If anyone else would have made that comment I do not think it would have raised eyebrows. However I do understand that we cannot forget my editing history. | |||
:@ LessHeard vanU: My intent if this is not successful would be to present evidence of better interaction in the topic area after sometime (3/6/12mos depending on how it goes). Kind of like ]. However, I do not believe that is necessary. Although the vindicating myself is both needed and interesting, I would prefer not to do it with this over my head. ] (]) 23:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:@Timotheus Canens: I know it is annoying for you as well but I am the one receiving limitations on my interactions which I feel will cause more of a burden than a solution. Didn't mean to make my appeal too long.] (]) 23:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::<small>I see now. I'm actually surprised you aren't annoyed!</small>] (]) 23:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:@Sean: That hypothetical doesn't have any bearing on this and the comments made in the above discussion and the admin's talk pages show that it is not relevant. I would rather such conjecture on such possible scenarios not impact any decision. Even if it were to apply, my concern is not for any other editors in the topic area but my own. I'm not appealing this based on any worry of games being played or false feelings of me needing to police the topic area. My concern is that I am inhibited for reasoning that was already taken care of (assuming my one comment was not enough to warrant such action). I should be able to respond to comments at the centralized discussion. I shouldn't have to worry if an edit I am amending is that of someone I am banned from interacting with (or if going to talk as I would often prefer to do s a problem). Those are just two examples of what ifs and we know there will be more. ] is on me and no one else.] (]) 06:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:@George: Thanks, dude. You really should be commenting on the FAN and not here. George summarized my thoughts. And since this is my appeal I do want to point out that if more editors were like him (including myself) this would be a better topic area. I also should mention that although we sometimes come down on different sides argument wise in this topic area, we have worked over at the Sounders project so there is definitely some good history. I hope this does not discredit his words but wanted to make sure that everything was extra open.] (]) 06:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:@Philknight: The last AE was incivility but none of the quotes were on Nableezy's page or directed towards him. It was inappropriate (that is why I was sanctioned) but should not have any impact on this unless my comment is considered completely out of line. ] (]) 20:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:In regards to the quotes, that had nothing to do with this AE. ] (]) 20:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
; Notification of that administrator : I'm aware. ] (]) 13:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
===Statement by Nicoljaus=== | |||
I'm done groveling over this. Close it out. Nableezy already expressed reservations with this interaction ban before it was put in place. Tiamut also has. Other editors expressed concerns with it. I'll let editors see the various talk pages on their own. In my opinion, I am being restricted based on previous transgressions. The two admins rejecting this appeal were involved in the AE and have been dealing with the topic area so I assume they are fed up with it. You can correct me if I am wrong but it seems obvious. There is reasoning to be skeptical and I admit that but I am sick of this. I doubt it will matter much anyways. See you in three months for the request to lifted since my interactions will realistically be improved. It isn't my job to police the topic area since admins fail to and if I have to be extra careful in my interactions then so be it. That centralized discussion that I am harping about? I started it. It rubbed editors on the Israeli side the wrong way and got an edit very similar to what was being reverted over into the mainspace. You're welcome.] (]) 06:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:@Timotheus Canens: Interesting thought but I am fine without any changes. My comment was not bad enough for an interaction ban and I really am not happy with any action even if it is less. Also, my comments were pretty light in the last AE until Cla68 brought me up. If editors are going to be part of the community they need to be scrutinized by the community. So an interaction ban is fine by me. It isn't like I could comment on Nableezy's talk page since he made it clear he would disregard it. I couldn't bring it here since it was bad but not bad enough to start the drama. So what is the difference now? I can't talk to him for awhile? Fine. I'll have to be extra careful which gets under my skin but I would prefer to just drop it before it turns into more drama.] (]) 02:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:@Cla68:You didn't say anything until I changed your edit and notified you of your mistake so I have a hard time believing you were that offended. If you were there is no judgement from me about it. It would just be a coincidence that was hard to ignore. I get your point about scaring of people new to the topic, though. It isn't the first time I have heard people mention it. Yes, a more civil tone is needed. But this might be a better discussion for my talk page or the collaboration page.] (]) 05:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
The circumstances of my blocking were: | |||
===Statement by Timotheus Canens=== | |||
*I was looking for a Misplaced Pages account for ] to add it to Wikidata. I couldn't find it, so I did a little research. The in the article indicated that she participated in some '''WikiWrites'''(?) project. I didn’t find such a project, but I found the '''WikiRights''' project: https://ar.wikipedia.org/ويكيبيديا:ويكي_رايتس. It was organized by a certain Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. I read the ] article and didn't see any outside perspective, "controversy" or anything like that, just self-representation. I surfed the Internet and instantly found information that must be in the article to comply with the NPOV. I started adding {{diff2|1220241573}}, everything went well for two days. Then: | |||
I think it is <s>pointless</s> <u>unnecessary for me</u> to add to the voluminous discussion right above on this page. <u>My rationale for the sanctions is explained in the above discussion and on Cptnono's talk page, and I incorporate it by reference here.</u> | |||
*12:53, 23 April 2024 - Zero0000 made a complete cancellation of all additions {{diff2|1220380219}}</br> | |||
*13:14, 23 April 2024 - (20 minutes later!) Selfstudier wrote on my TP {{diff2|1220382377}}</br> | |||
*14:20 - 14:22, 23 April 2024 - With two edits ({{diff2|1220390536|first}}, {{diff2|1220390820|second}}) I partially took into account the comment of Zero0000 about "ethnic marking", but returned the last {{Diff||1220390820|1220380219}}.</br> | |||
*14:27, 23 April 2024 (7 minutes later!!) Selfstudier makes a second complete cancellation of all my edits, blaming POV editing {{diff2|1220391708}}</br> | |||
*14:45, 23 April 2024 - I’m returning the version where I partially took into account Zero0000’s comments (removed "ethnic marking"){{diff2|1220394447}}</br> | |||
*15:10, 23 April 2024 - Selfstudier accuses me of 1RR breach. In the dialogue, I explained that the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination. My first undo was part of a counter edit ]</br> | |||
*15:41, 23 April 2024 Selfstudier writes on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement {{diff2|1220403117}}</br> | |||
*16:10, 23 April 2024 (30 minutes later!) ScottishFinnishRadish issues an indefinite block {{diff2|1220407252}}. No opportunity to write my “statement”, as well as an extremely bad faith interpretation of my remark as "an intent to game 1rr".</br> | |||
Given that the both Selfstudier and Zero0000 are currently being discussed in Arbcom (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Evidence), I humbly ask you to take a fresh look at my indefinite block and soften the restrictions in some way". ] (]) 19:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{yo|ScottishFinnishRadish}} - You {{diff2|1263932187||mean}}, I need to discuss my previous edit war blocks? Well, the last one was almost four years ago and that time I simply forgot that I was under 1RR (there was a big break in editing) and tried to get sources for a newly added map, and the opponent refused to do so {{diff2|983337359}}. As it turned out later, the true source was a book by a fringe author, which the RSN called "Usual nationalistic bullshit, no sign of reliability". Yes, it was a stupid forgetfulness on my part. ] (]) 16:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{yo|Aquillion}} {{tq| Even if you were correct that Selfstudier & Zero0000 were WP:TAGTEAMing (always a tricky accusation, because it's hard to separate that from just your edits being so obviously problematic that two people independently reverted them)}} -- That's why I wrote that my "so problematic edits" attracted attention only after two days, but two users appeared within 20 minutes. However, after months, a lot of data about the cooperation of these users appeared (and this is not my imagination): "While a single editor, Shane (a newbie), advocated for its inclusion, a trio of veterans including Zero0000, Nishidani and Selfstudier fought back. After Selfstudier accused Shane of being a troll for arguing for the photo’s inclusion, Zero0000, days later, “objected” to its inclusion, citing issues of provenance. Nishidani stepped in to back up Zero0000, prompting a response by Shane. The following day, Zero0000 pushed back against Shane, who responded. The day after, Nishidani returned with his own pushback. The tag-team effort proved too much for Shane, who simply gave up, and the effort succeeded: the photo remains absent" . I'll add that after Selfstudier accused Shane of trolling, Zero0000 appeared on Shane's page and said: "Kindly keep your insults to yourself I won't hesitate to propose you for blocking if you keep it up" {{diff2|1017316378}}. According to the table at the link , these two users cooperated like this 720 times. Probably hundreds of people were embittered, forced out of the project, or led to blocking like me.--] (]) 13:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{ping|ScottishFinnishRadish}} Hello, thank you very much for transferring my remarks, now I understand how it works. I would like to clarify the issue of meatpuppetry. You directly accused me of such intentions in justifying the block, and now this accusation has been repeated {{diff2|1264013557}}. Let's figure out whether that Selfstudier and Zero0000 are working too closely was so absurd? Was it really and remains so absurd that it could not be perceived as anything other than my self-exposure? I don't think so.</br> | |||
As for the "edit war" - I understand that edit wars are evil. In the spirit of cooperation, I tried to meet my opponents halfway, as in this case, taking into account their claim, which I could understand, in the counter edit. If such an action is also considered an edit war and a violation of the 1RR/3RR rule - I will of course avoid it in the future.--] (]) 16:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
@Valereee: Hello, I understand your point that edit wars can be disruptive, particularly in a CTOP context. However, I believe it is essential to recognize that not all reverts carry the same implications. While it is true that a revert is a revert, the context and intent behind the action should also be taken into account. In this instance, I made efforts to address the concerns of the other party involved, which reflects a willingness to engage in dialogue rather than simply reverting. | |||
@LHvU: The intent is to make it indefinite for now, with review in a few months (three months sounds good), or sooner if the situation deteriorates, when it would likely be either lifted or changed into a topic ban. ] (]) 23:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC) <small>Modified, ] (]) 23:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)</small> | |||
Furthermore, I acknowledge your reference to the 1RR/3RR rule and my history of blocks for edit-warring. However, given the amount of time that has passed, I believe I have gained valuable insights and learned a great deal. Moreover, given this topic, I think I actually learned something unlike the other side, whose history of blocks for edit-warring remains clean.--Nicoljaus (talk) 4:24 am, Today (UTC−5) | |||
:@Gatoclass: It's not victimless. A hostile editing environment drives away new users, even if the old-timers got used to it. ] (]) 16:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
{{re|Valereee}} In response to {{diff2|1264999031||this}}, I can say that I already know very well how carelessly admins impose blocks. If any further statements are needed from me, just ping me. With best regards.--] (]) 09:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I have thought a bit more about this. The problem here is that discussions become unnecessarily personalized, in large part because people are throwing in ''conduct'' complaints in ''content'' discussions. This, in turn, creates a hostile editing environment and fosters further battleground behavior. I'm open to replacing this particular set of interaction bans with something similar to the restriction , but I want to get some more comments first. ] (]) 23:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
===Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish=== | |||
Absent from the appeal is discussion of the five prior edit warring blocks and any indication that they will not resume edit warring. ] (]) 13:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I said {{tq|They have a long history of edit warring, so I'd like to see that addressed rather than blaming others}} above, twelve days ago. ] (]) 16:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{u|Nicoljaus}}, you should be focusing on convincing people that you won't edit war in the future rather than more ]. ] (]) 13:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
===Statement by (involved editor 1)=== | ===Statement by (involved editor 1)=== | ||
===Statement by (involved editor 2)=== | ===Statement by (involved editor 2)=== | ||
===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by |
===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Nicoljaus === | ||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by Simonm223==== | |||
looks like a bright-line ] violation via ] and ] - and removing BLP violations are generally somewhere where there is some latitude on ] which makes the actions of Zero0000 and Selfstudier more justified, not less. ] (]) 13:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
At the very least could there be some clarification on the length of the topic ban, it apparently being indefinite presently? The strictures on being able to edit certain topic area's may be sufficient to promote among the parties a desire to interact more appropriately, and I would urge that some further consideration may be given to permitting an appeal to lift these sanctions after a defined period (6 months?) if Cptnono's appeal here is unsuccessful and the tariff is determined to be either indefinite or 1 year or more. (I realise this is not discussing the appeal directly, but I am too involved to be acting as an admin on this page but wanted to address some issues and make suggestions.) ] (]) 23:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Aquillion==== | |||
I think that this was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction. Cptnono was blocked for three hours for incivility only five days ago, largely due to interactions with Nableezy. I've seen them express frustration in interacting with Nableezy since then, but haven't seen much in the way of incivility, and I'm not in favor of someone being ]. The comment Cptnono made to Nableezy in ] was borderline uncivil at best, and comparable to the tone of interactions between Wehwalt and SandyGeorgia in ] (I'm not commenting on either of those editors, nor suggesting an interaction ban between them, just noting the similarity in the tone in a conversation involving an administrator.) Given Cptnono's expressed understanding of the issue with the tone of their recent commentary, including the comment that led to this ban, and their professed willingness to try to improve on it, this sanction strikes me as more punitive then preventative. Having worked with both editors, I believe they have the ability to contribute and discuss constructively, even with each other, and this interaction ban will create annoying hurdles for both editors that I don't view as necessary at this point. I would suggest either removing it entirely, or reducing it to something like one week, ''with a warning that future, problematic interactions between them will result in a longer interaction ban.'' ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 00:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
{{tq|Selfstudier accuses me of 1RR breach. In the dialogue, I explained that the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination. My first undo was part of a counter edit}} - I feel like this is obvious enough that I probably don't have to point it out, but "counter edit" is not a ] / ] exception. Even if you were correct that Selfstudier & Zero0000 were ]ing (always a tricky accusation, because it's hard to separate that from just your edits being so obviously problematic that two people independently reverted them), it ''still'' would not justify your revert. The fact that they're parties to an ArbCom case (which hasn't even yet found any fault with them!) doesn't change any of this. You should probably read ]. --] (]) 14:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
;Question from Sean.hoyland | |||
What happens if one editor accepts (=takes no action to appeal) an interaction ban and the other one doesn't by the way ? I have no idea whether that applies in this case but I'm just asking. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 06:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Sean.hoyland==== | |||
I didn't see the discussion on the admins page. Nevermind then. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 09:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
"the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination"...yet another conspiracy-minded evidence-free accusation against editors in the PIA topic area, the third one at AE in just a few days. ] (]) 14:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)==== | |||
::Hi Sean, having just one half of an interaction ban in force would be a recipe for disaster so, I guess that either both sanctions are in force or neither. ] (]) 20:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
===Result of the appeal by Nicoljaus=== | |||
;Staement by BorisG | |||
I think this sanction interprets NPA and civility policy way too broadly. I believe it is profoundly wrong because if we continue on this path we will have no way to have an argument between editors. Sharp debates are a useful and necessary part of collaboration. - ] (]) 08:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
;Statement by PhilKnight | |||
Obviously, I still support this restriction. From my perspective there's little difference between making it 3 months in duration, or reviewing after 3 months. In terms of why it's necessary, in addition to the comments by Cla68 in the original discussion, which relate to the thread linked by Cptnono, there have been 2 reports at ] in the last few weeks concerning Nableezy placing less than favorable quotes by Cptnono on his user page. In these circumstances, I think an interaction ban is worth trying. ] (]) 20:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
====Comment by Gatoclass==== | |||
I opposed the interaction bans when they were first proposed. Since then I have found ] and it appears to me that such bans are not quite as onerous as I assumed, since the editors concerned can still edit the same pages but are prohibited from reverting each other's edits or commenting directly to or about one another. Also, PhilKnight has proposed a review after three months, a ban subject to periodic review would certainly be a lot less objectionable to me. However, before commenting further I would like to hear what Nableezy thinks. With an appeal of this nature, I think we should hear from both involved parties before making a decision. ] (]) 06:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
I'm not sure if Nableezy intends to comment here or not, but I think he made a good point on his talk page, which is, if two editors are not unduly offended by each other's comments, and are prepared to continue working together, why should admins step in to slap an interaction ban on them? It does seem like a victimless crime. So I think if Nableezy is prepared to continue working with Cptnono and vice versa, there's a good case for upholding this appeal. ] (]) 14:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
: Well I'm sorry Cla, but I just don't buy the argument about hypothetical noobs being "intimidated" by a few sharp exchanges between others. In fact the opposite is typically the case - it's the noobs who need to learn to tone down their responses in accordance with policy. But if a user is so thin-skinned that they are going to allow themselves to be "intimidated" by a little friction between other editors, they are unlikely to last five minutes on Misplaced Pages in any case - let alone in a contentious topic area. ] (]) 05:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
: In regards to T. Canen's suggestion per AGK of instant blocks for comments on contributor rather than content, I am opposed to such blanket methods. While comments on contributor are usually unhelpful and should be avoided, sometimes it is ''necessary'' to call someone out for their behaviour, and sometimes that helps get discussion moving again. ''Personal attacks'' are more problematic, but not everyone agrees on what constitutes such an attack. | |||
: In any case, I don't think blocking is an effective counter for such conduct, and worse, it leaves a permanent blot on someone's record that can then be used as an excuse for an indef ban. The bottom line is that if one cracks down too hard on civility, one leaves the field to the civil POV pusher who is usually the one doing the most damage to content. ] (]) 06:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:: I don't think you understand how this particular variety of sanction works. The point of the blanket approach is that, whilst we should ''always'' call somebody on inappropriate content, we should ''never'' call them on the article talk page. ] 12:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::: You're right, I don't follow at all. Would you mind elaborating? ] (]) 13:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
====Comment by Cla68==== | |||
Gatoclass, it doesn't matter if Nableezy and Cptnono aren't offended by each others' comments. That article talk page is publicly viewable. The over-the-top hostile tone of their interaction with each other could very well intimidate other editors, especially new editors, from wanting to get involved in the content discussion. That kind of discourse on an article talk page is unacceptable, and both of them should know better. ] (]) 22:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
===Result of the appeal by Cptnono=== | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | ||
*I do not see any indication that Nicoljaus actually realizes the problem. The edit warring blocks were indeed some time ago, but one might think they would remember it after being blocked for it repeatedly, not to mention that being issued a CTOP notice might call a CTOP restriction to mind. And the remark in question sure looks to me like a threat to game 1RR via ], too. Given all that, I would decline this appeal. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
* I see nothing in this appeal that makes me think they've taken on board the changes that they'd need to do to be a productive editor. It reads to me like "my block was bad, here's why", and that's not working as a reason for me to support unblocking. ] (]) 23:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
* Nicoljaus, what we need to see is you demonstrating you understand edit-warring at a CTOP, which is what you were blocked for, and convincing us you won't do it again. Arguing the block should be lifted because other editors did something you thought looked suspicious isn't going to convince us. <small>Just FWIW, Nicoljaus, the source doesn't actually say {{xt|these two users cooperated like this 720 times}}. It says they edited the same articles 720 times, and that's not unusual. Most editors see the same other editors over and over again in articles about their primary interest. And edit by editor 1>2 days>revert by editor 2>revert by editor 1>20 minutes>revert by editor 3 is also not at all unusual anywhere on the encyclopedia and isn't evidence of tag-teaming. People read their watch lists. Any editor with that article on their watchlist, which is nearly fifty editors, might have investigated the large revert of an edit by an experienced editor at a contentious topic.</small> ] (]) 15:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:@], it's not that edit wars are evil. It's that they're disruptive, and particularly in a CTOP we really really don't need additional disruption and drama. A revert is a revert, even if you {{xt|tried to meet my opponents halfway, as in this case, taking into account their claim, which I could understand, in the counter edit}}. Re: {{xt|If such an action is also considered an edit war and a violation of the 1RR/3RR rule}}: a revert is a revert and is covered in the policy around reversions. And you have a history of blocks for edit-warring, including at other CTOPs. | |||
*:It's been seven months since the block. I'm trying to come around to a way to at least allow this editor a ''chance'' to show us they've taken this stuff on board...maybe a 0RR at all CTOPs? ] (]) 17:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::@], re {{xt|I believe it is essential to recognize that not all reverts carry the same implications. While it is true that a revert is a revert, the context and intent behind the action should also be taken into account. In this instance, I made efforts to address the concerns of the other party involved, which reflects a willingness to engage in dialogue rather than simply reverting}}. Some editors at talk pages will take your apparent intentions into account. Some will just take you to ANEW. Some admins at ANEW will take your apparent intentions into account. Some will just reblock you. | |||
*::''No one anywhere is promising that your intentions will be taken into account'' -- or even that they'll try to figure out what your intentions are -- and therefore it's ''completely your responsibility'' to read the situation you're in correctly. If you read it wrong, you're likely to be blocked again, and honestly another block for edit-warring at a CTOP is likely to be another indef, and it would absolutely not surprise me for the blocking admin to require 12 months to appeal. ] (]) 15:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::No need to reply, but I'll tell you plainly I've been trying to give you opportunities to convince other admins here, and you keep wanting to dig the hole deeper. I'd support an unblock with an editing restriction of 0RR at any article with a CTOPs designation on the talk page. ] (]) 13:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the contentious topics log below where their sanctions is logged. --> | |||
==PerspicazHistorian== | |||
== Athenean == | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
===Request concerning PerspicazHistorian=== | |||
{{hat|No action taken against the respondent or the filer. --] (]) 01:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC) }} | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NXcrypto}} 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|PerspicazHistorian}}<p>{{ds/log|PerspicazHistorian}}</p> | |||
===Request concerning Athenean=== | |||
; User requesting enforcement : <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 00:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Athenean}} | |||
;Sanction or remedy |
;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 : | ; ] 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. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> | |||
*I'm not including October in the report but only November, so you can review the frequency of reverts of my edits on Albanian-Greek topics: | |||
# |
# - removed "discrimination" sidebar from the page of ] (fascist ideology) even though the sidebar was inserted inside a section, not even the lead. | ||
# - tag bombed the highly vetted ] article without any discussion or reason | |||
(partial) | |||
# - attributing castes to people withhout any sources | |||
# - edit warring to impose the above edits after getting | |||
# - just like above, but this time he also added unreliable sources | |||
# - still edit warring and using edit summaries instead of talk page for conversation | |||
# - filed an outrageous report on WP:ANI without notifying any editors. This report was closed by Bbb23 as "{{tq|This is nothing but a malplaced, frivolous personal attack by the OP.}}" | |||
These are the vast majority of my edits that are related to Albanian-Greek issues in November(not including vandal reverts etc.). In ] he hadn't made even one edit, until I made an edit, which he reverted. | |||
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): | |||
Warning by {{admin|Timotheus Canens}}: | |||
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Interaction ban with {{user|ZjarriRrethues}} | |||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : Since the beginning of my interaction ban Athenean has been following and reverting a large number of edits I have made in Albanian-Greek topics. Aware that I can't even reply to any of his reverts sometimes he doesn't even explain the reverts: | |||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> | |||
* removing not only the part, whose source he didn't like, but also the above irrelevant sentences that I had added any without explanation | |||
*Already 2 blocks in last 4 months for edit warring. | |||
regarding their source, which isn't John Shea | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
* | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
* the explanation was regarding the CIA Factbook saying that Greece doesn't collect data on ethnicity. The rest of his comment is off-topic. | |||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> | |||
* he reverted every edit, even a cn tag I added on an unreferenced sentence and like in the other reverts he didn't say why the two sources weren't reliable. | |||
*I was allowed to make this report by TCanens who initially sanctioned me with an interaction ban. The only time Athenean self-reverted himself after reverting me was some hours after TCanens allowed me to make this report. I didn't report him them and unfortunately he continued reverting many of my edits on Albanian-Greek topics. | |||
* On Methana I added on the lead that this town of Greece is Albanian-speaking. Athenean removed it considering it non-notable enough. However, a couple of months ago when I had removed from the lead that village in Albania is partly Greek speaking he considered that and reverted me. The fact that a town in Greece is Albanian-speaking isn't notable, but the opposite is ''sufficiently interesting''. Knowing that I can't even point out to the double standars used he makes reverts like this one and now in his explanation he knowingly tries to show a dialect spoken in a whole region according the ] sources as a dialect spoken in just two villages. | |||
* Athenean's saying that he's apparently Turkish because I added the name in the Ottoman Turkish form as the author. The author includes him in the list of Albanian mulkiyelis, so I don't understand how someone can't notice that, unless he reverts without verifying the sources. | |||
*I updated the number of reverts(which now are about 15 without counting the fact that some are reverts of 2-3 edits in a row like in Berat/Kladas or that I'm editing less frequently) and they are a significant percentage of my edits in Greek-Albanian topics in November(Athenean shouldn't try to increase my number of edits in Albanian-Greek topics by saying that articles like ] are related to both Albania and Greece and that vandalism reverts about Bulgarians in Kastoria are also related to these two countries). He also says that users not from the Balkans made similar edits to his, without of couse mentioning that that user eventually removed parts I considered tendetious himself . I also don't understand why he asks for me to be sanctioned for using reliable online sources that can be found and verified by anyone on google books and not offline ones. Using sources that a user doesn't consider ''correct'' or doesn't even try to verify isn't a reason for sanctions and ] is for formal sanctions. I also find his replies incosistent because he said and after I said that he can't ask for users to be sanctioned because of his opinions about the sources they use, he said . | |||
I do not see any positive signs that this editor will ever improve. So far he has only regressed. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
===Discussion concerning Athenean=== | |||
:While going through this report, PerspicazHistorian has made another highly problematic edit by edit warring and misrepresenting the sources to label the organisation as "terrorist". This primary source only provides a list of organisations termed by the Indian government as "terrorist" contrary to ]. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 03:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Athenean==== | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
====Comments by others about the request concerning Athenean ==== | |||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), 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. ---> | |||
====Statement by Athenean==== | |||
===Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorian === | |||
I find this report frivolous and filed in bad faith, for the reasons below: | |||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by PerspicazHistorian ==== | |||
*All of the above mentioned articles, with the exception of ], are on my watchlist, and have been so for a long time, well before the edits by Zjarri which I reverted (most if not all were watchlisted by me before Zjarri ever edited wikipedia). This can be easily verified by looking at the edit history of those articles - I have edited them before Zjarri did. Though I do check zjarri's contribs every once in a while, most of the time Zjarri's changes simply show up on my watchlist, there is absolutely no stalking as he seems to imply. | |||
By far I am also concerned how my edits were forcefully reverted without a proper reason despite providing enough references. Please check how I am getting attacked by them on ] Page. | |||
I didn't know about the three-revert-rule before ] told me about this: ]. | |||
Please grant me one more chance, I will make sure not to edit war.<br> | |||
In the below statement by LukeEmily, As a reply I just want to say that I was just making obvious edit on ] by adding a list of notable people with proper references. And according to ] it is clearly said: "Edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism." It was a good faith edit but others reverted it. I accept my mistake of not raising it on talk page as a part of ].<br> | |||
As a clarification to my edit on ], it can be clearly seen that I provided enough reference to prove its a terrorist organisation as seen in this . I don't know why is there a discussion to this obvious edit? Admins please correct me if I am wrong. | |||
:@], Yes I read about 1RR and 0RR revert rules in ]. I now understand the importance of raising the topic on talk page whenever a consensus is needed. Thank You ! ] (]) 07:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Yes, I will commit to that. ] (]) 13:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC) <small>Moved comment to own section. Please comment, including replies, only in this section. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 13:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC) </small> | |||
:At that time I was new to how AFD discussions worked. Later on when ] was marked for deletion, I respected the consensus by not interfering in it. The article was later deleted. ] (]) 11:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Hi @] , I just checked your user page. You have 16 years (I am 19) of experience on wiki, you must be right about me. I agree that my start on Misplaced Pages has been horrible, but I am learning a lot from you all. I promise that I will do better, get more neutral here and contribute to the platform to my best. Please don't block me. | |||
::''<small>P.S.- I don't know If I will be blocked or what , according to this enforcement rules, I just want to personally wish good luck to you for your ongoing cancer treatments, You will surely win this battle of Life. Regards.</small>'' ] (]) 12:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)<small>Moved comment to own section. Please comment, including replies, only in this section.] (]) 15:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
====Statement by LukeEmily==== | |||
*Importantly, the claim that the above diffs are reverts of "''the vast majority of my edits that are related to Albanian-Greek issues in November''" is '''patently false'''. A quick look at Zjarri's contribs log for the month of November shows: 4 edits to ], 2 to ], 3 to ], 3 to ], 1 to ], 2 to ], 13 to ], 2 to ], 2 to ], 5 to ], 1 to ], 2 to ], 1 to ], 1 to ], 1 to ] (about Albanians ), 4 to ], 2 to ], 4 to ], 1 to ], 3 to ], 4 to ], 4 to ], 3 to ], 2 to ], 1 to ], 1 to ], 1 to ], 2 to ], ''all'' of which can easily be considered "Greek-Albanian topics". Add to that several edits to ] and ] pertaining to Greece or Greeks, and that's well over 80. Thus, the edits that I reverted are not the ''the vast majority'' of his edits to Albanian-Greek issues in November, but rather a ''small fraction''. There were numerous occasions in the last month where I would have been well within my rights to revert Zjarii, but chose not to, for a number of reasons. This latest attempt by Zjarri to deceive the community regarding my edits is all the more odious considering that '''making false statements in AE requests was one of the reasons Zjarri was sanctioned with the interaction ban''' in the first place . This shows Zjarri has learned nothing from his interaction ban, nor understood the reasons for it. | |||
PerspicazHistorian also violated ] by engaging in an edit war with {{u|Ratnahastin}} who reverted his edits and restored an article to a stable version by admin. Also, I want to assume good faith but it is surprising that PerspicazHistorian claims that he did not know the three revert rule given that he has more than 800 edits.] (]) | |||
====Statement by Doug Weller==== | |||
*In his haste to compile this report, Zjarri included the same diff twice (the first two diffs in his report are identical), and it is from October, though he claims ''I'm not including October in the report but only November''. | |||
I'm involved so just commenting. I don't think this editor is competent. I had to give them a community sanction caste warning as they were making a mess of castes. See this earlier version of their talk page.]https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:PerspicazHistorian&oldid=1262289249] and ]'s comment that "It was very unwise of you to keep moving ] to article space when it has not passed review. As a direct result of your actions, a deletion discussion is taking place, and when this is complete and the article is deleted, you will be prevented from recreating it. ] (]) 14:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)" There have also been copyright issues. I strongly support a topic ban. ] ] 11:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::I won't be involved in the decision. No more treatments for me, just coast until... ] ] 12:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
* In the above report, I'm thus counting 11 reverts by me, in the period of one month. That's approximately one every 3 days, hardly taking advantage of Zjarri's interaction ban on my part. If anything, I am reverting Zjarri less frequently these days than before he was sanctioned with the interaction ban: In July of 2010, I reverted ZR a total of 15 times (diffs omitted for brevity, though I can produce them on request). Similarly for previous months prior to July. If we look at the period of August 29-September 29, immediately prior to Zjarri's interaction ban, for example, I reverted Zjarri 9 times: , (partial rv of this ), (rv of this ), , (partial rv of this ), , (rv of this , though it is also an rv of several intermediate edits of other editors), (partial rv, removal of "of Albanian origin", which ZjarriRrethues had added previously ), . In other words, about the same frequency consistently. I am not reverting Zjarri more frequently these days compared to prior to his interaction ban, and am being extra careful to do so only when I feel it's absolutely necessary. This is because I knew he was itching to game his interaction ban to file yet another AE report against me for some time now (the diff from T. Canens follows a discussion between him and Zjarri in IRC). | |||
===Result concerning PerspicazHistorian === | |||
*Regarding the reverts themselves, I stand by them, as I feel they are solidly grounded in wiki policy which is explained by me either in the edit summaries or in the article talkpage. These were reverts of edits I considered tendentious, using shoddy sources, or else "creative misinterpretation" of non-shoddy sources on the part of Zjarri. | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
**: I actually reverted because I found "isolated mountain village", which was added by ] rather odd-sounding, particularly for the lede. I felt that the lede was stylistically better in its previous version, that is all. | |||
** ] is considered heavily outdated and thoroughly unreliable as a source, for obvious reasons, and to anyone with an even cursory familiarity with the subject. | |||
**: John Shea is yet another unreliable source, a Balkan polemicist with no academic credentials, again something well known to anyone familiar with the subject. Edits such as this and the above are thus either the result of either incompetence or tendentiousness. I admit I was quite annoyed when I reverted, and my removal of Mackenzie was probably a mistake. I have no problem whatsoever restoring Mackenzie, which seems reliable enough even though it is just a snippet. I will however not restore Shea under any circumstances and stand by that removal. | |||
**: Yet another instance of using a partisan source. | |||
**: Source falsification, the person is Turkish, as the name makes obvious. | |||
**: Completely off-topic addition. The number of Albanian migrants in Greece is never mentioned in irrelevant as far as ] is concerned, and is moreover far from ''unknown''. There are plenty of estimates, some quite accurate, and Zjarri knows this full well, which is why I was annoyed in my talkpage posting. | |||
**: I felt Zjarri was clearly misinterpreting this source. | |||
**: Misuse of a source: Zjarri introduces a figure of 700,000 as if it's sourced to the source he provides, even though the figure comes from activist organizations, not the claimed source. | |||
**: Same here. He is either misunderstanding or misquoting the source. | |||
**: Shoddy sourcing: ''The Ukrainian Quarterly'' is not a reliable source for such a claim, nor is using a book's index as a source (the second source). That is not how we source things around here. As should by now be obvious, Zjarri has a history of backing his claims with shoddy sourcing, something with which I admit I have lost my patience after so many months of the same thing. | |||
**: Follows naturally from my previous rationale. | |||
**: Utterly inane, ] edit, as made clear by the discussion in the talkpage . ] fought in the ] and was a member of the ] for crying out loud. How can anyone not revert something like that when they see it? | |||
**: The NPOV and OR tags placed by Zjarri on this article have been removed many times, by many users, some of them not from the ] . My revert is the last in a long line of tag removals by other editors, I felt I was enforcing community consensus. The article is solidly sourced, and no valid rationale has been presented on the talkpage for the tags, only ] type arguments. Yet, the tags are continuously re-added by Zjarri, even though there is zero community consensus for them , a clear case of long term edit-warring. It is interesting to note that ZjarriRrethues has something of an obsession with this article, having been at it since March of 2010, within a week of his joining wikipedia . | |||
**: I find the edit by Zjarri tendentious, and against the spirirt of ]. We typically include in the lede things that attest to the notability of the article's subject, and this is not one of them. Arvanitic communities are quite common throughout Greece. Mind you, I have absolutely no problem with the content itself, I just don't feel that placement in the lede is warranted. Regarding the Greek-speaking village in Albania mentioned here , the reason the Greek dialect is mentioned in the lede is due to the fact that it is a unique, archaic dialect (see ]) spoken only there and in one neighboring village. It is notable, and makes the village notable, if only for that reason. Such a rationale does not apply to the case of ]. | |||
To sum up, I only reverted Zjarri when I felt it was absolutely necessary and well-grounded in wiki policy. There is absolutely no gratuitous, spiteful reverting, or inappropariate taking advantage of his interaction ban on my part, nor is there going to be. | |||
{{u|PerspicazHistorian}}, can you explain your understanding of ] and the ] rule? I'd like you to read thoroughly enough to also explain wny someone may be edit warring ''even if they aren't breaking 3RR''. ] (]) 21:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*Zjarri is omitting the month of October in his report, the first month of his interaction ban: This is not out of lazyness: I reverted him even fewer times in October than November, thus further weakening his case. | |||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
:@], that explanation of edit warring is a bit wanting. An edit war is when two or more editors revert content additions/removals repeatedly. Even a second reversion by the same editor can be considered edit warring. Best practice -- and what I highly recommend, especially for any inexperienced editor -- is ''the first time'' someone reverts an edit of yours, go to the talk page, open a section, ping the editor who reverted you, and discuss. Do you think you can commit to that? | |||
:<small>Re: your question on why your "obvious edit" was reverted: we don't deal with content issues here, only with behavior issues, but from a very quick look, the source is 50 years old, and using a list headed "TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS LISTED IN THE FIRST SCHEDULE OF THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967" that includes a certain organization as a source that the organization should be described as a terrorist organization is ]; in their ] NXcrypto provided an edit summary of "Not a reliable source for such a contentious label. See WP:LABEL." Please discuss at talk, not here; we don't deal with content here.</small> ] (]) 11:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*<!-- | |||
*A bit of background: Zjarri was sanctioned with a 3-month, single-sided interaction ban against me beginning September 30th, 2010. This was the result of a frivolous, non-actionable AE report filed by him against me, in which he made false claims and had crossed into ] territory in his eagerness to get me sanctioned (at one point digging up diffs from 3+ years ago, my first in wikipedia). He has previously broken this interaction ban twice, getting sanctioned the first time and warned the second. Barely 3 weeks into his ban, Zjarri was already itching to have another go at me at AE, as evidenced here . This was quite soon after the imposition of his ban, during which period I barely had time to revert him at all. This shows this user never understood the reason behind his interaction ban, but merely saw it as another tool to try and get me sanctioned. He is now gaming the interaction ban to portray himself as a victim in the hope of getting me sanctioned. It's incredible, it's as if nothing's changed with this user. I can empathize with Zjarri that he is occasionally frustrated by his inability to revert me, but I feel this report is frivolous and hence a blockable violation of his interaction ban. ] (]) 06:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
--> | |||
==Walter Tau== | |||
;Reply to Mkativerata | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
I can certainly live with having to discuss reverts on the talkpage more often, however, I prefer that it not be imposed as a "restriction" but rather on an honor system basis. As an indicator, I have generally abided by a voluntary 1R rule since September, even though the 1R restriction I was under expired two months ago. If it to be imposed as a restriction, I would ask that some sort of editing restriction against using shoddy sourcing by ZjarriRrethues be put into effect as well, as after all my admitted brusqueness was largely due to frustration at persistent tendentious editing by ZjarriRrethues, which has been going on for months now. By the way, by "frivolous" I meant non-actionable, as in the claims of this report do not add up, the (n+1)th such AE report by ZjarriRrethues. ] (]) 08:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
===Request concerning Walter Tau=== | |||
;Reply to T. Canens | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Bobby Cohn}} 20:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I see three new diffs , which I have now addressed. I stand by my actions and believe I was acting in the best interest of the encyclopedia. | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Walter Tau}}<p>{{ds/log|Walter Tau}}</p> | |||
;Further comments | |||
Incidentally, this brings up my total to 14 reverts of Zjarri in November, still not a significant increase compared to before his interaction ban, and nowhere near the ''vast majority'' of his edits on Greek-Albanian topics in November. The pattern here is the same as his previous report: A largely non-actionable report is filed, and when it looks like it is about to be dismissed, he digs deeper and deeper, playing the victim even more and making yet more false statements (I am not calling for him to be sanctioned for his articlespace edits), (I didn't revert him 15 times in November, and it's still not a "significant percentage" of his edits to Greek-Albanian topics), (Thimi Mitko lived in Greece), (he is not editing less frequently), (as the article makes clear ''the two towns next to Himarë, Dhërmi and Palasë, speak a semi-northern dialect'', which is sourced). It is plainly obvious he ''really'' wants to see me sanctioned at any cost, and simply ''won't let go'' no matter what. This is exactly the kind of behavior that resulted in his interaction ban in the first place. ] (]) 17:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
===Result concerning Athenean=== | |||
:@Athenean: I have a question about one of your reverts. You explain as saying Shea is an unreliable source. Why remove the material sourced to Mackenzie? There may be a good answer but it's a point specifically raised by the AE filer. --] (]) 06:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Answered . --] (]) 07:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::A couple of things concern me here. Having had a detailed look, Athenean's reverts appear generally to be justifiable, at least those diffs the bases of which can be understood by an outside observer unfamiliar with the conflict. But brusque edit summaries and talk page contributions aren't helping matters. I'd like to see fuller contemporaneous justifications for the reverts and perhaps a sensible editing restriction could deliver that (eg a requirement to post a 50-word justification for each revert on the relevant talk page). The removal of the Mackenzie-sourced material indicates a lack of care that could have been avoided had proper justification been given. On the other hand, I don't see any basis to think that Athenean has been hounding Zjarri or gaming the interaction ban, even in light of the admonition at the earlier AE.. --] (]) 07:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::I'm concerned about the direction of this AE: having expressed my view above that the reverts generally appeared justified, the filer has followed it up by including new complaints, and doing so without edit summaries. It does not support the view that this is a well-founded "good faith" request. At this point I'm leaning towards the view that this is an unhelpful and groundless request warranting sanction (]). But Timotheus Canens will have something to say and I'll wait for him to say it. --] (]) 20:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::I don't think sanctions against Athenean on the basis of the diffs are warranted. On reflection, my vaguely suggested editing restriction above is not going to help matters at the moment. I expect that Athenean understands that better explanations for reverts would help take the heat out of the conflict. --] (]) 21:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::I'll close this out following T. Canens comment below. No action taken against the respondent or the filer. No change to existing sanctions. Informal cautions have been given in respect of the filer's conduct of this request and the respondent's explanations for reverts. --] (]) 01:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
Awaiting Athenean's response to the diffs added in . ] (]) 16:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:According to , in the one-month period immediately preceding the interaction ban, ZR has made ~525 edits. In the following two-month period, they have made ~825 edits; considering, however, that the interaction ban necessarily prevented them from reverting Athenean or participating in discussions in which Athenean has participated, that does not sound to me like a substantial decrease in activity. Nor is the number of reverts per month a substantial increase from before the interaction ban. Whether or not they are otherwise sanctionable, the evidence presented so far appears to fall well short of substantiating the claim that Athenean is gaming the interaction ban in order to gain an unfair advantage in content disputes. Since that's the only question for which ZR is allowed to file a complaint, I think this request should be closed without action unless an uninvolved administrator wishes to impose sanctions ] on Athenean based on the contents of those diffs. I voice no opinion on whether any sanction is appropriate. I'll get to the frivolity question later. ] (]) 20:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
::In order to be frivolous, a request needs to be more than not actionable. It needs to have no colorable basis in fact whatsoever. I think it is possible for a reasonable person in ZR's position to find Athenean's reverts troubling, especially when viewed in isolation; I would imagine that the effect of a revert that one is not permitted to undo is far more strongly felt than a revert that could be readily undone, resulting in greater subject weight being attached to those reverts even when, as the objective evidence indicate, there is no actual attempt to exploit the interaction ban. I therefore do not think it appropriate to consider the original request frivolous or in bad faith. ] (]) 01:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::Finally, I agree with Mkativerata that the practice of silently expanding requests without noting in edit summary or on the page that the request has been expanded, when an uninvolved administrator has already commented on the original request, is highly inappropriate. ] (]) 01:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> | |||
{{hab}} | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
== The Four Deuces == | |||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
{{hat|] is warned, outside of ], for an inappropriate edit summary. --] (]) 21:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC) }} | |||
===Request concerning The Four Deuces=== | |||
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 02:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|The Four Deuces}} | |||
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ], ] | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ; ] 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. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> | |||
# I am highly offended by ]'s edit comment ''"Reverse pro-fascist edits"'' when he made a blind revert of my good faith edits. By "pro-fascist" he must be referring to me as the sources Griffin is RS and Renton is actually a Marxist. Fascism is commonly associated with Nazism, and accusing me of being "pro-fascist" is tantamount to accusing me of harbouring Nazi sympathies. This is a egregious violation of ] | |||
# Creation (and subsequent editing and AfC submission) of ]. See it's page history, there's no need to supply the entirety of the diffs here. | |||
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): | |||
#* For context on how this subject falls under the purview, see the context given by the news article as shared on the talk page: Russia using adoption of Ukranian children during the Russo-Ukranian war.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Bruce |first1=Camdyn |title=Ukrainian official rips Russia for 'kidnapping' more than 13,000 children |url=https://thehill.com/policy/international/3775681-ukrainian-official-rips-russia-for-kidnapping-more-than-13000-children/ |work=The Hill |date=14 December 2022}}</ref> Then note how this state program directly discusses adoption support, which was adapted by Putin following the start of the war. A citation given in the draft article.<ref>{{cite news |title=Путин подписал закон, уточняющий условия выплаты материнского капитала |url=https://www.interfax.ru/russia/937864 |work=interfax.ru|trans-title=Putin signs law clarifying conditions for payment of maternity capital}}</ref> The version specifically notes the changes "At the same time, residents of the '''''new regions''''' will receive maternity capital '''''regardless of the basis and timing of their acquisition of Russian citizenship'''''" (emphasis mine). | |||
# Formally placed on notice | |||
#:This draft, as it is written, is extremely promotional in areas and could basically be hosted on a state-sponsored website. Given the context, I believe this falls under the topic ban. | |||
# Warning by {{admin|2over0}} | |||
{{reflist-talk}} | |||
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : block | |||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> | |||
If TFD had offered an apology as suggested by ] then it might have been the end of the matter, but evidently he does not understand the offensiveness of his comment. Instead he offers an unapologetic "''I do not refer to editors, only to edits."'' Edits do not happen in a vacuum, editors make edits, and he states himself ''"Some edits present a POV, which this one obviously does"'', in other words I hold a pro-fascist viewpoint. Not only does this remain deeply offensive but this is disruptive to any good faith attempt to edit an already difficult article in a neutral fashion, as I have attempted to do. As TFD appears to be unapologetic it is highly likey he will continue to characterise anyone he disagrees with as harbouring pro-fascist sympathies. This is unacceptable. --] (]) 04:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
# Notice given by {{admin|Rosguill}} that they were now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction | |||
# Blocked by {{admin|Swatjester}} for violating the sanction based on the edits to a project page. | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
TFD explanation is misleading (I note he still hasn't offered an apology). Let's examine the edits I actually made which TFD claims were "pro-fascist" in detail: | |||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> | |||
#Removed a cite to the statement "Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right", nowhere in the source does Griffin call fascism "far right", he calls it "ultra-nationalist". Given that there are five other cites it was pointless having a sixth that failed verification in any case. | |||
*Has been made aware, see the diffs in the above section. | |||
#Expanded ''"Fascism is normally described as "extreme right""'' with ''"however the left-right terminology fails to describe the "spectral-syncretic" aspect of the ideology"'', since the single cite used for this sentence is called ''A Spectral-Syncretic Approach to Fascism'' by Rodger Eatwell. | |||
*Alerted about contentious topics as it applies to this specific draft, on by {{admin|Asilvering}}, given a warning about this specific draft and how it falls under the above purview. | |||
#Expanded ''"There is a scholarly consensus that fascism was influenced by both the left and the right"'' with ''"conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational"'', since the cite used for this sentence ''The Palingenetic Core of Fascism'' by Rodger Griffin says "the ideology of a particular form of fascism has often been synthesized from a bewildering range of ideas, both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational." | |||
#Added the paragraph "Fascism emerged first in France in the 1880s as an intellectual movement that absorbed and synthesised socialism and nationalism and created a new ideology of "a socialism without the proletariat"", because the current article reads like Fascism was invented in 1933. Even Britannica indicates that the intellectual origins of Fascism were related to the 19th Century French intellectuals such as ], ], and ]. Note that whatever criticism Renton has of Sternhell, nowhere in his book does he actually refute the 19th century origins of the ideology. | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
TFD claim "The rest of what I reversed represents "the fascist view of itself" which was inserted into the article as factual rather than as an opinion" is clearly at odds with the actual edits. All my edits were sourced to existing RS, unless he is claiming that Eatwell, Griffin and Sternhell hold a fascist view point, he is clearly referring to me as holding "the fascist view". Now TFD may believe I had misinterpreted the sources and he could have discussed this on talk in a collegiate manner, but to blindly revert everything and characterise my edits as "pro-fascist" is unacceptable. It was this kind of behaviour of characterising other editors as holding pro-fascist viewpoints and Nazi sympathies that lead to the original ] case. --] (]) 19:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> | |||
It has been repeatedly pointed out to Walter Tau that they are skirting the line of the their topic ban by specifically not mentioning the "elephant in the room", see the diff by Asilvering above. They have also repeatedly chosen to ignore advice that they stop editing in the subject area and have repeatedly claimed to fail to see how their editing is problematic. As such, I have opened this discussion here so as to get an answer for Walter Tau on their editing, see They claim to continuously be unaware of the ban, see also their talk page discussions. | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
@Will Beback: ] makes no limitation with regard to applicable topic area and is adjunct to the EE wide discretionary sanction. --] (]) 04:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
Notified . | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
@Mkativerata: Given the significant involvement of fascists in Eastern Europe during WW2 and that this region, including the Soviet Union, generally describe the Nazis as "" (thus making no distinction between Nazis and fascists), there is no less a link than there is between ] and Eastern Europe. But I am not going to wiki-lawyer over AE's jurisdiction. Fascism is an ideology I find abhorrent. TFD's claim that my edits were pro-fascist is grossly uncivil and deeply offensive. TFD's previously characterised myself and others as "far right", which is also offensive. Someone needs to make TFD understand that his edit comments are unacceptable and that he should apologise, as the majority who have commented here have concurred. Whether it was posted here or at ANI, nothing precludes an admin from taking regular action as opposed to AE enforcement action. But if the admins think it is preferrable that I take this to ArbCom for what may potentially result in summary ban, then so be it. --] (]) 05:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
===Discussion concerning Walter Tau=== | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by Walter Tau==== | |||
===Discussion concerning The Four Deuces=== | |||
I feel, that the decision by ] regarding my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Maternity_capital, is "arbitrary and capriciuos" to use US legal terms : ], for the following reasons: | |||
1) nowhere my draft mentions the words "Ukraine" or "Ukrainian". | |||
====Statement by The Four Deuces==== | |||
I do not refer to editors, only to edits. Some edits present a POV, which this one obviously does. {{userlinks|Martintg}} has said I must be referring to him. I will post a note on the article talk page so that other editors familiar with the article may comment. ] (]) 03:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
2) this draft ] is a translation of the original Russian wiki- article : https://ru.wikipedia.org/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB . I have heard the argument, that different languages in Misplaced Pages use different standards for articles' notability etc. Can someone please provide a web-link to Misplaced Pages rules, that actually confirms, that different standards for different languages is the currently accepted policy. I have been unable to find such statement. | |||
Part of what I reversed began, "Fascism emerged first in France in the 1880s...." and is sourced to Renton. But what Renton actually wrote was " has argued that fascism emerged first in France in the 1880s and 1890s". He then writes that Sternhell and others "are then free to emphasize what they perceive to be the essentially non-destructive nature of fascism. The historians suggest that it is time to rescue fascist Italy from stigma.... hey fail to generate a non-fascist understanding of fascism. Their readers are led to the conclusion that the fascist view of itself is the most important factor in the definition of the ideology." The rest of what I reversed represents "the fascist view of itself" which was inserted into the article as factual rather than as an opinion. ] (]) 11:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
3) In fact, my draft focuses mostly on the policies before 24 February 2022, i.e. before full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. | |||
Question to Martintg and Sander Saeda: Do you not see any difference between, "Fascism emerged first in France in the 1880s" and "" has argued that fascism emerged first in France in the 1880s"? ] (]) 02:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
4) Please correct me, if I am wrong, by it seems that ]'s only argument of my ban violation is the following statement in my draft of ]. | |||
====Comments by others about the request concerning The Four Deuces ==== | |||
"Residents of new regions are paid maternity capital regardless of the time and basis for obtaining Russian citizenship." In my defense: I did not write that statement- it is a Google translation from the Russian wiki, actually a small part of the translated text. And with all honesty, when I was reading the translated text, it did not cross my mind, that someone may interpret so broadly. Also, this sentence-in-question does not really add much to the main subject to the article, and I do not object to its deletion. | |||
TFD is a frequent thorn in my side, including filing procedural actions against me. Indeed, that's why I noticed this. However, I do try to be fair. Given that I have not read the policy involved that may require a block, would it be acceptable to allow an admin to remove the history comment and extract a promise that TFD will not do something like this again? Everyone's always trying to block others. TFD got me banned for a few days. Don't we have better things to do? In my opinion, one history comment like the present one does not look to me, not having read the policy, to be a reason to block someone. Would Martin accept an apology and the administrative removal of the history comment in exchange for dropping the block request? --] (]) 03:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
5) Considering, that | |||
Martintg failed the mention that the article in question is ''']'''. I agree with TFD that the edit reverted presented a positive point-of-view on the topic of the article. I do not know if that alone would have been reason enough to revert them. However, Martintg himself seems to be saying that Misplaced Pages should favor an anti-fascist POV, lest it be accused of "harbouring Nazi sympathies". -- ] (]) 03:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
a) I did not write, but only translated the text-in-question; | |||
b) the relevance to the text-in-question to my topic ban is not apparent, particularly in the larger context of the whole article; | |||
c) I do not object deleting the text-in-question from the draft; | |||
may I suggest changing the draft to fix this controversy? | |||
6) If there are other controversial sections/sentences in my translated draft, it may be better if someone re-writes them. Most wiki-readers, can agree with a statement, that this draft ] may not reach an "Article of the Day" status, but it has a value as a stand-alone article as well as a source of references (more-to-be-added). | |||
The edit summary may not have used the best form of words, but in the context of the article it is no major issue. The editor raising this against a three year old Arbcom ruling seems a little over sensitive. I've seen far worse handled on the talk page without running to enforcement. Further given block history its obvious that the filing editor is no stranger to controversy; ''The lady doth protest too much, methinks''. --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 13:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I can see now, why some editors consider the translated addition, that I made, a violation of my ban on editing Russia-Ukraine topic. It was not my intention. I fact, I agree with the deletion of the questionable sentence "Residents of new regions are paid maternity capital regardless of the time and basis for obtaining Russian citizenship.". At the same time, I would like to keep the rest of draft, so that myself and other keep working on getting it published. Do I understand correctly, that the notability of this topic is not being questioned? | |||
'Fascism is commonly associated with Nazism, and accusing me of being "pro-fascist" is tantamount to accusing me of harbouring Nazi sympathies.' Really? Can I suggest that anyone involving themselves in topics of this kind should really be aware of the distinctive features of Fascism and Naziism, and not automatically assume they are one and the same? Even though I often agree with TFD, I still find him a little awkward sometimes, but then I'm sure he feels the same about me. I'm sure his political opponents have stronger views, but we are discussing politics here, not Pokomon characters, so maybe a little less feigned 'sensitivity' might be in order? ] (]) 04:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by TylerBurden==== | |||
I think in cases like these, if someone takes offence (and it was certainly a careless use of words, regardless of the article topic), then an apology for having caused ''inadvertent'' offence is entirely in order, and no one loses face. I keep seeing cases on this page where apologising - even when it can be understood that nothing bad was intended - seems to be a phenomenal strain for people. The thing is, it can serve really well to improve the standing of the editor and the overall editing atmosphere.] (]) 05:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Walter Tau doesn't seem to think they have done anything wrong on Misplaced Pages, so it's honestly not surprising to see them continuing to push the limit despite the sanctions they have received. At some point you have to wonder if there is a foundational ] or trolling (or a combination of both) issue. Either way, yes they are clearly violating their topic ban by writing about the Russian kidnapping of Ukrainian children from the war, because that is what this whole ″adoption″ thing is. --] (]) 17:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
: Agreed. ] (]) 13:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
The thing is, TFD has a habit of doing this sort of thing repeatedly. He regularly ascribes views to those that disagree with him that they do not possess. He more or less accuses them of having extremist or fringe or worse (as in this case) views, which is completely unsupported by, well, anything. Here is a recent example . I asked him to redact it and explained that no, I do not have extremist political views (I resent the fact that I even have to say this) but he did not redact the edits. There are also other instances, some older, like this one where he's making up some stuff about "far-right Russian bias" (he did redact that one after being told to do so). There's also other examples but honestly, I don't have time atm to go digging for more diffs. These should be enough to establish evidence of a pattern. It also shows that TFD's claim that ''I do not refer to editors, only to edits'' is generally false. | |||
====Statement by (username)==== | |||
And seriously, calling edits based on the work of a '''Marxist''' historian, ], "pro-fascist" just takes the cake. | |||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
===Result concerning Walter Tau=== | |||
Also, regardless of what the distinctions between Nazis or Fascism are, and what the subject of the article is, calling another editor's edits "pro-fascist" is simply insulting. No way to weasel out of that one.] (]) 08:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
: But ] is not the same as ], let alone fascist, except perhaps on Misplaced Pages. Let me see: Renton said that socialism and nationalism were merged to produce fascism, ergo he is pro-fascist? His book is published by ]. TFD says that the view needs to be attributed to ], who Renton cites. Sternhell doesn't seem like pro-fascist to me based on his Misplaced Pages biography, unless there's some hidden argument here that ]s are pro-fascist. ] (]) 09:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
On its face, the edit summary states that the edits were "pro-fascist." Using such strong language in an edit summary is ''extraordinarily ill-advised'', to say the least. TFD was well aware of the likelihood that such an edit summary woul;d be brought here - he is a regular at making complaints about others on this and other noticeboards. ] (]) 11:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
*Sidestepping for now the question of whether simply not mentioning anything conflict-related would have been enough to avoid a TBAN violation, the references to "new regions" make this a violation much more straightforwardly. Justice is blind but not stupid. Walter, I think we're going to need to see recognition from you that this was a TBAN violation, if we're going to find a good path forward here. I'd also like to know who you are referring to when you reference other editors working on the draft? ] has made some gnomish edits but you appear to be the only substantive editor. And why are you implying, on Bobby's talk, that y'all have been corresponding by email, when he denies that? <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 22:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*I'll be direct: I think Walter knows what he is doing and has no intention of abiding by his TBAN, , and I don't think we should be wasting further time here when we're almost certainly going to be right back here again within a few weeks. ]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 05:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I would just like point out that we do have to put up with a hell of a lot of crap just maintaining the articles on Fascism, Nazism and other related subjects. There is constant ill-informed editing and POV pushing, some of it egregious but some of it quite subtle. Occasionally this actually is by those seeking to rehabilitate Fascism or Nazism but more commonly by those with other objectives (e.g. seeking to taint other ideologies by asserted association). It is not surprising that those working hard to prevent these articles sliding into a complete mess of POV sometimes make mistakes, possibly out of sheer exhaustion, or let their annoyance show. I guess what I am saying is that TFD shouldn't have said what he said, but he is one of the good guys here and there is no way he deserves to be blocked over this. He should apologise and that should be an end to it. --] (]) 20:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
*Back off a one week block for violating the topic ban, and already violating it again? (The "new regions" material is unquestionably a violation.) It seems that Walter Tau is either unwilling or unable to abide by the restriction, and does not, even after explanation, understand any of the issues here (or even understand something so simple as that different language Wikipedias are independent from one another and each have their own policies and practices). Given that, I don't see anything to be done here except to indef. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I respectfully disagree about TFD being one of the "good guys", but I understand what you mean. However, rules apply equally to everybody - and this is just the latest incident in a long thread of similar problems. What makes it worse is that TFD apparently doesn't even realize that his comments are often highly insulting to the others - and never apologizes, just justifies himself with weirder and weirder reasons. --] 20:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
<!-- | |||
--> | |||
*''Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted)...'' | |||
Even under a broad interpretation, is ] related to Eastern Europe any more than to other parts of Europe? I don't think so. <b>] ] </b> 01:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
@Marting: (8) refers to "the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee", not discretionary sanctions through arbitration enforcement. Discretionary sanctions, empowere by (12), are limited to the "area of conflict". I'm struggling to see AE's jurisdiction here. --] (]) 04:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
*As much as I find the suggestion by TFD that an edit (not the editor, but the edit) can have a POV to be puzzling, I think that editors Legit, Vsev, and Will hit it on the head. An apology would to my mind be the best course, rather than a block, and closure so people can address more productive pursuits.--] (]) 10:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
*The continuation of the EE topic. Adequate people vs nationalists. I think action should be taken against Lvivske, not TFD. ] (]) 15:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
**It does not matter if this is Martintg, Lvivske, TFD or anyone else. User X makes comments , he claims edits by user Y to be "extremist" or "pro-fascist", exactly as he did previously with regard to other people in the same article (and who knows how many other articles), and he tells that he did everything correctly in his statement, hence he does not own an apology. Is that OK? If so, no action required.] (]) 17:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
===Result concerning The Four Deuces=== | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' | |||
Time to bring this to an end. In my view this AE request falls outside the scope of discretionary sanctions in ] (note: this is not a binding view. Other admins in other cases may disagree.). That of course does not stop general action being taken to prevent disruption of the project (as if this was an ANI report). In that respect, TFD is formally warned that such edit summaries are unacceptable. Even if the "edit vs editor" distinction is made in good faith, it is a distinction that will be lost on many other editors who will understandably be offended by the edit summary. In light of the lack of evidence that this is a significant ongoing problem as opposed to one or two isolated edit summaries, a block would be inappropriate. But any further such edit summaries may attract sanctions, the nature of the sanctions depending on whether the action falls within the area of conflict. --] (]) 18:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
The discretionary sanctions authorization states that: | |||
{{quote|Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.}} | |||
There is no explicit requirement that the failure to "adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process" needs to be related to the area of conflict; a literal reading suggests that the fact that this editor works in the area of conflict is sufficient for the discretionary sanctions to apply. I seem to remember at least one arb interpreting the provisions this way, though I couldn't provide a diff at the moment. I have no opinion so far on whether the literal reading is appropriate, either. ] (]) 18:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:That literal interpretation seems ugly to me: eg just editing in an area of conflict can tar you across the project. --] (]) 19:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Well, since people are not supposed to "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process" anywhere in this project... ] (]) 19:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::Of course although applying, say ARBPIA discretionary sanctions for, say, engaging in an edit-war on ] can't be what ARBCOM had in mind. --] (]) 19:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::True. A reading this broad is probably absurd. Hard cases make bad law, I suppose. ] (]) 19:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::Indeed, perhaps one day this question will become ripe for a request for clarification from Arbcom. --] (]) 19:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::(ec) I'm inclined to agree. I also think this request is out of scope, in that fascism is too far detached from Eastern Europe that editors there can't be expected to realise that that DIGWUREN sanctions apply. Finally, I don't think the edit summary is egregious enough to warrant anything more than a caution, unless the editor makes a habit of using such edit summaries and does so on a regualr basis. ] | ] 19:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
{{hab}} | |||
== Lvivske == | |||
{{hat|No action. --] (]) 06:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)}} | |||
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' | |||
===Request concerning Lvivske=== | |||
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 21:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Lvivske}} | |||
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ], ], ] ''Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.'' | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
: Coordinated reverts with misleading, offensive or no edit summaries in ]: | |||
# Revert by Lvivske, changed alegnance of Shukhevych from "Ukrainian National Government" to "Ukraine" | |||
# Revert by Lvivske, removed information of the annulment of the award of Hero title from the template (but not from the text), changed alegnance to "Ukraine", offense towards Donetsk court in edit summary. | |||
# Revert by Galassi, false, misleading edit summary. | |||
: Coordinated reverts in ]: | |||
# by Galassi | |||
# by Galassi | |||
# by Lvivske | |||
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): | |||
# Warning by {{user|Toddst1}} (for personal attacks) | |||
# Warning by {{admin|Jayjg}} (for edit warring in ]) | |||
# Warning by {{user|The Four Deuces}} (for misleading edit summaries) | |||
# Warning by {{admin|EdJohnston}} | |||
# Warning by {{user|MathFacts}} | |||
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) | |||
# ]: Block or topic ban from articles related to Soviet Union | |||
# ]: Warning against edit-warring and coordinated reverts. Compulsory participation in discussions, enforced by an administrator may be sufficient. | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : This request concerns two users, ] and ]. I am not sure if this case fall under the previous arbitration restrictions concerning Eastern Europe, but I see no better place to report this issue. User ] removes from article about ] notice that the award of Hero of Ukraine to Roman Shukhevych has been annulled in the court , the edit is accompanied with offenses towards Donetsk court "donetsk court means jack". He also changes the allegnance of this Nazi collaborator from "Ukrainian National Government", a pro-Nazi puppet state to "Ukraine". It is known that at the time the only internationally-recognized Ukrainian state was ] and Roman Shukhevych fought against this entity. Labelling his allegnance as "Ukraine" thus creates confusion. That said the reverts in my impression violate Misplaced Pages's policies ], ] and ]. I placed an edit-warring notice to his talk page but after about 10 minutes I was reverted again by user Galassi with an edit summary that the court decision was not binding (this is a false edit summary because all sources agree that the Hero of Ukraine award was annulled). | |||
:I asked why he reverted me on his talk page but it seems he is not interested to respond. | |||
:The edit history of other articles show that users Lvivske and Galassi participate in coordinated edit wars (for example, in article ] ). That's why I do not want participate in this edit war any longer and rely on the community to decide. ] (]) 19:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : ] noticed this report before I completed it. He then notified ] | |||
===Discussion concerning Lvivske=== | |||
====Statement by Lvivske==== | |||
:There are so many problems with this...where to begin...first, edit summaries should suffice, you don't have to warn me of being block for "edit warring" after one revert. You could use the talk page, you know. Next, the award was not stripped, it was annulled by a Donetsk court which had no binding power, it was favor done for Yanukovych, it means nothing - it should be in the body of the bio but doesn't change any facts. Finally, "Ukraine" is a short form since the other form goes over. Considering he won the "Hero of Ukraine" award for his allegiance to this "Ukraine", and his allegiance was to a government/potential state called "Ukraine", the name "Ukraine" should suffice given that it links to the 1941 state, not ] itself. I really don't see the beef here or why you are trying to pull Galassi into this for fixing a good faith edit on your part that was misinformed. PS: Claiming that Galassi and I take place in coordinated edit-wars is just silly and without base. Him and I have fought against eachother at times, there is no cronyism going on, we just watch the same articles (and with the Holodomor article, one of the guys we've been at dispute with is TFD, a few disputes above this one)--''']''' <small>(])</small> 21:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
====Comments by others about the request concerning Lvivske ==== | |||
* I've had my own disagreements with Lvivske, but the current charges are frivolous, if not retaliatory.--] (]) 21:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
* Mathfacts' comments indicate that he is himself pushing a particular (Soviet) POV and that his coming here is part of a content dispute.] (]) 05:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
*:Is it a Soviet POV that the Hero of Ukraine award to Shukhevych was annulled? The sources are already in article, so deleting this information from template is vandalism.--] (]) 13:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
*::Your comment in your compliant, "He also changes the allegnance of this Nazi collaborator from "Ukrainian National Government", a pro-Nazi puppet state to "Ukraine". It is known that at the time the only internationally-recognized Ukrainian state was Ukrainian SSR and Roman Shukhevych fought against this entity." strongly suggests your own pro-Soviet POV in this matter.] (]) 13:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
===Result concerning Lvivske=== | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' | |||
*This all seems to pertain to a slow-burning edit war over a Ukranian Army officer. While it would seem to fit within the scope of DIGWUREN, I don't see any evidence of egregious or persistent disruption that would warrant action. ] | ] 01:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
*I agree. There's certainly no evidence for the basis of the report, being allegations of tag-team edit-warring. I'm closing this out as "no action". Consider pursuing the usual dispute resolution options for disputes on the inclusion of the material in the relevant articles. --] (]) 06:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> | |||
{{hab}} | |||
== Wikifan12345 == | |||
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' | |||
===Request concerning Wikifan12345=== | |||
; User requesting enforcement : {{user|Sol Goldstone}} 01:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Wikifan12345}} | |||
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ], via BLP and tendentiousness | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
# ] The heart of the matter: Wikifan wants to insert a quote from Finkelstein. Except Finkelstein say it. | |||
# ] Wikifan quotes Finkelstein as declaring Hezbollahs "right" to kidnap individual soldiers. Except the is talking about prisoners of war and doesn't mention rights in the source, nor kidnapping, nor individual soldiers. Despite recieveing no support on talk page, Wikifan ignores calls of BLP violations to the edits. Here Wikifan admits Finkelstein never talks about the "right", and to argue for its inclusion. | |||
# ] " University Board on Tenure and Promotions, the organization responsible for revoking tenure, ruled Finkelstein violated the 'professional ethical norms'. Except they never said that. The is a letter from the President of DePaul and does not seem to contain the phrase 'professional ethical norms'. | |||
# ] Here Finkelstein is said to express solidarity with the perpetrator of the 2009 Jerusalem Bulldozer attacks. Except the says nothing about expressing solidarity with terrorists. Here is Wikifan's long . | |||
# The month long RFC which occurred to prevent Wikifan's addition of a sentence expressing Finkelstein's unqualified support for terrorist organizations: "Finkelstein has expressed support for Hezbollah and Hamas.", despite objections that it was an over-simplification of the source and a BLP violation. Wikifan against the rest of the talk page. | |||
# I invite every interested editor to thoroughly peruse this talk page and explore Wikifan's one-man campaign, starting in September, to include many serious BLP violations in spite of resistance from a whole host of editors and receiving virtual no support. A careful look at talk page and edit dates reveals that some of this material was reintroduced after consensus declared the material unfit. | |||
Everyone makes mistakes, it's nothing to get excited about, but Wayne alerted me to another time in the same article where Wikifan had taken some words out of context to make a Frankenstein quote of sorts () and I got curious and uncovered numerous instances in this article where Wikifan had significantly deviated from the source, misrepresenting the speaker and the content, to slander Finkelstein. In these examples alone he has used Misplaced Pages to accuse Finkelstein of expressing solidarity with a terrorist, conviction for violating "professional ethics norms", and stating a belief in Hezbollah's right to kidnap Israelis, all while using two direct quotes that don't appear in the sources and grave misrepresentation of speakers. These are gross violations of BLP and where not uncovered at the time, leading to protracted talk page wars in which Wikifan defends, at length, his disingenuous additions. I had to file a BLP before he would even that the quote wasn't from Finkelstein. | |||
:This is only the latest in a long, long string of tendentiouess and combative editing from Wikifan. If you care for more examples they can be provided easily; these are just the ones from the Finkelstein article. It's not the first time he's had trouble editing the BLP's of Israel's critics (Judge Goldstone) nor is it the first time he's engaged in protracted IDIDTHERETHAT, consensus filibustering and general combativeness. As to the results, I ask for a topic ban from the I/P articles; there isn't much hope of reformation here. Mentorship was and we have already spent far too much time dealing with fabrications. ] (]) 01:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : ya go. | |||
===Discussion concerning Wikifan12345=== | |||
====Statement by Wikifan12345==== | |||
Update: Sole keeps updating his statements above and it makes it difficult to keep up with what is he accusing me. Are editors allowed to revise their accusations again and again post-discussion? | |||
For example, here is what he says: | |||
Sole: Wikifan quotes Finkelstein as declaring Hezbollahs "right" to kidnap individual soldiers. Except the source is talking about prisoners of war and doesn't mention rights in the source, nor kidnapping, nor individual soldiers. Despite recieveing no support on talk page, Wikifan ignores calls of BLP violations to reintroduce the edits. Here Wikifan admits Finkelstein never talks about the "right", and continues to argue for its inclusion. | |||
*First off, the dispute was never a BLP issue. Finkelstein did endorse Hezbollah's kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers, more or less. That is not being disputed. The dispute was about an editor forcing content that was not supported by the source: ] and ] respond where Israel violates International Law.]. | |||
*See a problem with that edit? I did. Hamas and Hezbollah do not have a legal right to respond where "Israel violates international law." The fact that Finkelstein said this (not his exact words if I recall) does not mean we attribute it as a factual statement. Get it? The fact that I attempted to amend the edit should be applauded, not twisted as a violation. I'd imagine for an uninvolved admin it is pretty darn overwhelmingly to sift through the discussion, so it would be far more convenient for an editor involved in the dispute to supply the evidence for him/her. But Sole is being dishonest in this example. I've only '''made 8 edits to the article in the last month'''. Disputes over edits made 90+ days ago, disputes that have been either resolved or ended, should not be used as evidence here. I feel like I'm being stalked. ] (]) 07:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
I ask again what rules have I violated, explicitly. If this is a BLP issue well breezing through the discussion it is clear several editors were complicit in promoting original research and inserting or attributing statements to Finkelstein he never actually made, including editors making accusations against me here. Even if we assume a maximum number of three of my edits contained BLP vios, that is not grounds for a topic-ban. The fact that Sole filed this under the request of a topic ban should reveal his own partisan bias in the I/P arena. ] (]) 07:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::I already expressed my views . I don't feel like repeating myself as I do endlessly but I will try if an admin sees merit in Sol's selective ]. I do hope Sol will take a moment to explain why he supports Wayne's removal of consensus-edit. That is was prompted the incident report. Sole and Wayne continue to dodge the issue and that is by far the largest dispute going on. IMO these attempts here and at BLP are designed to avoid facing the fact that Wayne has a long history of removing my contributions instead of dealing with the actual content. This was demonstrated quite clearly . Perhaps editors are trying to cover-up, probably unintentionally, the reality that Wayne and his supporter Sole removed my edits not because they violated policy, but simply because I am the editor who added them. | |||
::Why else would Wayne remove a consensus edit? He didn't it mean to of course, he saw my name and as always reverted my edit with a dubious rationale. I do find Sole's request for a topic ban from I/P articles quite telling. Clearly this was the goal he had, not actually resolving BLP and content issues - or else he would have recognized Wayne's culpability. But I digress. It's unfortunate editors rely on the system to resolve legitimate disputes. ] (]) 01:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::Numero Uno: I appreciate the lengthening of my name but I assure you I have no need for donated "e"'s. | |||
:::Numero Dos: Please, for the love of toast, stop trying to bring in issues that have no bearing on this. I am, in fact, not in league with Wayne, nor have I removed any of your edits from the article, nor have I stacked the deck against you, or engaged in a cover-up. I honestly have no idea what edit Wayne has or has not removed nor do I recall voicing my support or disapproval for it. The talk page has become a muddle mess of editors objecting to your various misquotes. Casting aspersions is a good strategy but it's most effective when some of it makes sense. This was prompted solely by you trying to attribute a quote to Finkelstein he never said and the revelation that you engage in this with great frequency. Whatever disputes you would like to bring up, do so on talk. The basic fact is that you have been distorting sources and then arguing vehemently against anyone who challenges these slanderous edits. It's very tiring and gets in the way of editors who may have interests beyond accusing Finkelstein of supporting terrorism and professional misconduct. It needs to end. You were given a nearly unanimous topic ban last year and it doesn't seem like a stretch to return to it if nothing else works. ] (]) 03:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::Sorry for the E. Sol, please - the content dispute evolved into this weird BLP/AE noticeboard situation. I suggest you refrain from behaving as if you were forced to do this. You know what the content dispute is and yet selectively ignore facts that conflict with the "topic-ban Wikifan" approach. The content disputes you post above were already debated at length and mostly resulted in a dead-end or resolved. It is silly to hit an editor with BLP vios for dated content disputes that are no longer relevant. I gather the goal of this is to topic ban an editor you clearly disagree with. First, assuming the most extreme interpretation, it is highly unlikely an ordinary content dispute would end in a block, let alone a topic-ban. Second, you should know your submission of this AE is predicated on the following: | |||
<blockquote>''Anyone requesting enforcement who comes with unclean hands runs the risk of their request being summarily denied or being sanctioned themselves.''</blockquote> | |||
::::Sol, you are not a passive victim or uninvolved third party. You were part of the dispute and decided to file a BLP incident report on edits made more than . Edits that are not in the article. Interestingly, you decided to file this right when without even reading it. An edit you supported. | |||
::::Just answer the question - do you or do not still endorse Delia's proposal that was agreed to in the RFC? If I am topic-banned, which would be truly shocking, for the sake of the article I encourage you to honor and acknowledge your original agreement. ] (]) 03:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::I don't think you get it. This is about you distorting and marring sources to libel biographies of people you don't like. You got . Instead of admitting a mistake, you the falsity of the material and pushed to include it. It wasn't until you got reported that you finally admitted that the quote was false. You won't admit the truth until the authorities get called in and that is simply ridiculous. You've systematically created slanderous material targeting things you don't like and defended your actions with barrages of counter-accusations and non sequiters. This needs to end. Sorry, dude, I'd rather spend my time not fighting with people on the internet but enough is enough. I'm done, if anyone else actually shows up I'll clarify what I can. ] (]) 04:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::Got "caught?" What? Your diff show nothing. Changing words or questionable paraphrasing is not simply a BLP violation. I recognized the last edit I made was wrong, but you failed to AGF. The fact that we are forced to rely on primary sources make it hard to keep track of what Finkelstein is saying opposed to what people say about him. I mistook an email he received on his website as his own. Look at the way his site is set up, it's easy to make mistakes like that. | |||
:::::You hijacked the content dispute and turned it into a behavioral dispute. This all started after I explicitly asked you and Wayne if you still supported Delia's revised edit, which is what the RFC revolved around principally. Instead of answering, and admitting Wayne removed my edit without actually checking it, you go back in time and lawyer up a case to prove I'm not contributing honestly to the discussion. If anyone should be penalized, it is users who abuse the system and are incapable of resolving disputes when faced with tough questions. So whatever this leads to, I hope you find the stones to answer whether or not you still endorse Delia's proposal that you and everyone else originally agreed to. Unless you prefer me being topic-banned opposed to honoring the RFC you and Wayne rallied for. ] (]) 05:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::: As it's not germane to your fast-and-loose approach to BLP I've asked you on your talk page to identify what removed RFC content you keep referring to. You have . As it seems impossible to communicate with you without admin oversight I've brought this here. If it is what you say it is, I'll restore the incorrectly removed content and then this discussion can continue. ] (]) 13:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:To George | |||
::::::::Sole, you see what you want to see. You know what went on in the discussion. You know what Wayne did and you know this isn't just about me. Taking the content dispute to the system was the last thing you should have done. I could have just easily spent hours collecting edits made by Wayne months ago to force an intervention by an administrator. It is very suspect you "had" to make this (your claim) only after it was revealed that Wayne is removing my edits simply because they are my edits and not because the edits themselves are flawed. What this AE and incident report essentially does is de-legitimize my legitimate arguments and contributions to the article which are vast and much of the content still remains. If we want to talk about behavioral issues it's pretty clear who was doing the edit-warring on a dedicated level and it was not me. ] (]) 23:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:I only count three true reverts. This was not a . If you reviewed the talk discussion you'd know the the first sentence is the revised intro all editors agreed to in the RFC. | |||
:. Adding a quote for clarity does not qualify as a revert. And anyways, I don't think it is fair if this AE is going to be a list of crimes Wikifan has committed in the last 48 hours supplied by uninvolved editors. Or editors who have been involved in content disputes with myself in other articles. For the sake of time I would like to see Sol, Wayne, and Roland honor the RFC they supported and restore the edit they all originally backed. I'd say this is acting as an unintentional distraction from legitimate content disputes. ] (]) 06:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::(Response to specific administrator actions) Can an admin please review my posts above? I did not intentionally "misrepresent" BLP has inferred by HJ Mitchell. Administrators should consider reading through the lengthy talk discussion as this is a shared content dispute. In any case, I have not been engaging in personal attacks, edit-warring (conclusively) suggested by Philknight and I have no history of misrepresenting sources or BLP vios. I don't have a lot of experience with BLPs anyways. I have positively contributed to numerous articles since my ban expired without issues. This AE is predicated on a selective portrait of what went on. ] (]) 23:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC) <small>Comment moved from results section. ] (]) 23:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)</small> | |||
===Topic Ban - questions for administrators=== | |||
*'''What am I being topic-banned for'''? I'd like to see some evidence of consistent edit-warring. I've spent many hours discussing the content at length in talk. The issue here is about BLP disputes, not edit-warring. | |||
*The 1-revert ruling was not in effect during this conflict last I checked. | |||
*What precedent exists to support such an extreme penalty for an obvious content dispute? Can anyone challenge what I've written above? | |||
*We all know the I/P area is most hostile than others and POV-warriors are looking to remove editors they get into content disputes with. Veterans should be aware of this and users itching to ban a user for a dispute like this must consider all the facts. | |||
*It should be recognized this content dispute is a shared responsibility. I was the one who originally exposed a serious BLP violation by Wayne, and his edit-warring to protect it. I explained it once again | |||
*Before this ends, I would like to see the RFC be honored. It is beyond me how the issue graduated all the way to incident boards claiming I am being disruptive when Sole and WAyne fail to honor the RFC they demanded. An admin should should restore my edit or at least recognize my edit was consistent with the consensus and Wayne unfairly reverted it. | |||
*If it possible, I would prefer an admin I have not been in content disputes weigh in. | |||
* ] even though he was actively edit-warring not only my edits, but several other editors as well and removing entire paragraphs of cited information claiming . Most of his edits have been reverted and the content is restored, for now. I feel like my complaints are not being read I really would like a response. ] (]) 22:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
====Comments by others about the request concerning Wikifan12345==== | |||
;Comments by George | |||
<s>This article is under the topic-wide 1RR restriction, but it seems to me that Wikifan12345 has reverted fives times in the last few days, violating the 1RR restriction four times (each revert was less than 24 hours from the previous):</s> | |||
# - revert of text by ] | |||
# - straight up revert of text by ] | |||
# - revert of text by ] (note the phrase "alleging that Israel had invaded Lebanon as signal of rejection" that Delia added, and Wikifan12345 removed). | |||
# - straight up revert of ] from 32 minutes earlier. | |||
# - re-adds quote about "satanic state" that ] had . | |||
EdJohnston points out below that the 1RR notice was added after all this edit warring. However, I do believe that 5 reverts in less than 48 hours (4 of them are within 24 hours) constitutes edit warring and a violation of 3RR as well. I would add that the fourth of those reverts within 24 hours was made by Wikifan12345 while logged out, which raises concerns of possibly intentional sockpuppetry as an IP address to avoid 3RR. With the 1RR notice going up, I don't think fully protecting the page necessary, though it probably won't hurt. ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 06:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:@Wikifan12345 - sorry, I still view the edits you mentioned to be reverts. If you're simply re-adding information someone else removed, or even if there's consensus for your revert, you're still reverting. I haven't looked at the content of your edits ''at all'', and some or all of them may have been quality improvements, but on contentious topics there's no need to edit war. If there is a consensus and the material can stand on its own, it will (eventually) get added. When editors on both sides ''believe'' that they're in the right, and engage in an edit war over content (each fully believing that they are improving the article), it leads to nothing but problems. ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 22:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::The edits you posted above are being taken out of context. I was simply honoring the RFC Wayne agreed to. If he decides to remove an edit he supported simply because I made it, that's on him. That's not a revert, that's being bold. I asked Wayne nearly a dozen times why he removed the edit that was agreed to in the RFC. I've admitted the latest edit was an obvious BLP vio but it was not intentional, but there really is no excuse to remove edits unanimously supported. Is that not a behavioral issue? Am I so bad for daring to follow the consensus? I don't want to see Wayne banned, or anyone punished. I rarely ever rely on the system to deal with editors I have content disputes with, but if I am removed from Finkelstein I would hope an admin or someone involved actually read through the discussion and revert Wayne's edit. ] (]) 23:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::Okay, who is Wayne? And of the five edits I listed above, which do you consider reverts and which do you consider to not be reverts (I've numbered them for simplicity)? I'm not asking which reverts were good or which were bad, and I'm not asking which were inline with consensus or which were against consensus, just which do you consider to not be reverts? ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 23:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::Given the history it is either Wikifan or a very helpful anonymous editor who stumbled across his personal works-in-progress page and shares a similar passion for charts. ] (]) 01:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::: George, I already explained the context of the edits. The burden of proof rests against those making baseless accusations. I was not engaging in systematic edit-warring. There were maybe two or three incidents of moving edits (with sources) into the article that were subsequently reverted by Wayne and myself over a period of maybe two months. Hardly a war. Perhaps you should consider reading the talk before involving yourself in the discussion? ] (]) 01:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
{{od}}Wow, I just read through (too much of) that lengthy RfC. It appears that just about every editor involved disagrees with you: | |||
*"You edit is so far from what the source is saying I'm wondering what source you are reading. There is no consensus for your edit and the current version is exactly what NF is saying" - WLRoss, November 6 | |||
*"This is exactly why your edits are so bad, you have little understanding of how sentence structure works in English. NF did not say or even remotely imply that the kidnapping and murder of several Israeli soldiers was a noble gesture." - WLRoss, November 8 | |||
*"Your edit has been challenged by every editor who has comnented here and several have also stated that NF did make that analogy." - WLRoss, November 10 | |||
*"I think that Wikifan's edit is a BLP violation" - Gatoclass, November 10 | |||
*"You're actively pushing for us to exclude information that contextualizes a politically sensitive issue in a BLP and not addressing valid challenges to your proposal... this is getting tendentious." - Sol, November 11 | |||
*"...excluding information that misconstrues Finkelstein's limited support of Hamas/Hezbollah is dishonest and violates WP:BLPSTYLE in this context." - Sol, November 12 | |||
*"Wikifan, I can't help but notice your undisguised hostility toward Finkelstein, which makes me think that this may not be the most suitable article for you to be editing." - Delia Peabody, November 13 | |||
*"I am troubled by your paraphrase of the long quote above, which I don't feel is justified by what is in the quote" - Delia Peabody, November 25 | |||
*"I feel that your summaries often distort what is in the sources you are summarizing, and it appears that many other editors feel the same way" - Delia Peabody, November 27 | |||
*"FYI. This discussion has now exceeded 10,000 words. One editor Vs everyone else. Let's wrap it up please." - WLRoss, November 27 | |||
*"One could get the impression that you are really quite hostile toward Finkelstein, and it's not a good idea to edit biographical articles where you might be tempted to injure the reputation of the subject." - Delia Peabody, November 28 | |||
*"That paragraph currently has the support of everyone who has commented (apart from you). If you have a problem with it that is what this RFC is for and you cant keep restoring the most negative spin you can find." - WLRoss, November 29 | |||
*"Let's cut to the chase; I'm now looking at Wiki's past quotes inserted and comparing it to the source and there's a trend of distortion." - Sol, November 30 | |||
Initially I thought that this was just a problem of some minor edit warring, maybe a little POV-pushing, and had intended to suggest that admins consider a shorter topic ban, something along the lines of a month. However, after reading through literally pages of other editors not just disagreeing with you, but calling you out on multiple instances of distorting sources to smear the subject, I would suggest a '''permanent''' topic ban ''from this specific article''. Though if administrators believe the editor's history warrants a broader sanction, I wouldn't be opposed. ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 04:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
;Response to George | |||
George, I don't understand why you're this dedicated. Wait, I do. Cherry-picking statements to demonstrate a trend that does not exist. This simply an attack on my character right now. Regardless, '''the RFC was about several edits being debated.''' There was no edit-warring going on. Just because a series of like-minded editors disagreed with me does not prove a behaviorial issue that warrants a topic ban. I did not violate any policy (NPA for example) during the RFC. To prove your bias in this case, it seems you clipped Gato's statement. Perhaps , but naturally that would defeat the goal: | |||
<blockquote>It's hard to believe this issue has yet to be resolved. For the record, I think that Wikifan's edit is a BLP violation but that he is also correct that Wayne's edits have been OR-ish. There should be a happy medium somewhere; I think a good place to start would be to revisit DailyCare's suggestions above.</blockquote>. | |||
Wayne continued to force content that he invented himself, which was defended by Roland and others as well. The content is no longer in the article (for obvious reasons). My edits on the other hand have been challenged for misrepresenting the source material, which I've debated heavily. That is not a behavioral issue or a violation of policy. It's like I edit warred the content into the article. The vast majority of my contributions took place in talk. And lest I remind everyone here I was the one trying to honor the RFC and include the edit that we all agreed on. I feel like I'm being surrounded here and am beginning to lose track as to what this AE is all about. | |||
Can an authority figure explain what I'm being '''accused of specifically''', you know - like what rules and policies I have violated? Specifically please. I wasn't edit-warring, I did not engage in any personal attacks. I discussed virtually all my edits extensively cordially (for the most part). ] (]) 06:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:You asked me to read the RfC. I wish I hadn't, but I did. After doing so, I came away with the conclusion that other editors strongly felt that you were violating ], arguing your case, over and over, for a month. I don't think I've ever seen anyone try to counter accusations of violating BLP by quoting an editor who ''explicitly'' accused them of violating BLP, then dismissing it as a non-issue because you "debated heavily", but hey, that's your call. I'm not an authority figure by any means, but based on the complaints of others about your edits and behavior in the ensuing discussion, I would guess that you would be blocked for violating ] and ]. Others might see things differently. ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 06:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Hm. Did you read my post? The diff you provide paint a false picture. The RFC was about several edits that were discussed. Some contributions made by Wayne and his supporters were ruled out in the discussion because of my points. Notice how Wayne's analogy no longer sits in the article? Taking quotes from an editor that was caught promoting original research and editing into the article as evidence of behavioral issues is quite dubious. ] is ''not a policy'', and my presence in the actual article (or lack thereof) is hardly proof of such action. '''The fact that several editors disagreed with me is not grounds for a topic ban or even a block.''' The issue over BLP is about hypothetical or debated edits, nothing systematic. | |||
::If the issue is BLP, then a comprehensive topic ban is laughable at best. The vast majority of the conflict took place in talk. And as heated as it was, I did not violate any of the core policies. I did not attack any users. I did not edit war. Claims that I am "distorting" Finkelstein's words are troubling but not yet proven. Lots of my edits and contributions still remain in the article. I don't see any conclusive evidence supporting a topic ban. What I do see is a lot of editors I've gotten into content disputes with, including yourself George, that see an opportunity to remove an editor they dislike. ] (]) 06:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::Where did we get into a content dispute? My memory is foggy. And yes, ] is a guideline, not a policy. But I note your avoidance, shifting the topic to other editors (Sol Goldstone, WLRoss and his OR, "his supporters", myself) while flatly ignoring the accusations of violating BLP as "not intentional" and "not yet proven". I do think a topic-wide ban would be a bit much (unless your block log warrants it, which I haven't checked), though I don't see any reason you shouldn't be topic banned from the article on Norman Finkelstein. There are plenty of articles out there not related to Finkelstein that you could help improve, and if there's something really critical missing about Finkelstein, someone will surely add it sooner or later. ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 07:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::: Tell me, what inspired you to join this discussion? I can't find any contributions to Norman Finkelstein. Am I one your watchlist or something? Obviously we've had a content dispute somewhere. Or have a bias against me on a personal level, which could be argued considering the content on your userpage. I am not avoiding anything here. If you're going to cherry-pick data and use false captioning, you can't seriously accuse me of avoidance. The issue is editors twisting the context of the discussion, clipping diffs (as you did numerous times), or linking dated content disputes to this unrelated incident report. The reality is the evidence you have provided is predicated on commentary from involved users. Clearly you chose suspicious edits not because of their relevance but because they serve an ulterior purpose. | |||
::::TE is not a policy (and I have not violated it), please explain to what part of ] I violated. All I see is a long, loud, boring talk discussion that has taken the span over several months involving legitimate content disputes (some of which have been revolved). Like I showed above with Sol, most of the debate has been me challenging the edits of others - not the other way around. Some editors are very possessive and have been shown to be very protective of Finkelstein, accusing editors have trying to "smear" him as inferred by RolandR and Wayne. I don't know why you had to "" your edit when you first came bolting in demanding a topic ban. I have not added a whole lot of content to Finkelstein lately and spent the majority of time on other articles without issue. Meanwhile, at Hamas claiming mainstream authors are "POV." He had already removed entire pages of cited information. Just look at my three month history. Someone please tell me I am a prime candidate for topic-ban. ] (]) 07:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::Yup, my memory is foggy, and I don't see a content dispute in the link you provided. It looks like I replied to you in two separate discussions, once each, and you didn't reply? Shrug. This noticeboard is on my watchlist. I came here to check on Cptnono's appeal above, which I commented on earlier. You're claiming I have a bias against you at a personal level because of what exactly..? For the record, I have absolutely nothing against Jews, Israelis, or homosexuals (I'm assuming from your user page that you're all three, and I mean ''absolutely'' no offense if I'm mistaken). I clipped quotes from editors because this discussion is already getting needlessly long, and many of the lengthy quotes weren't relevant to you or your behavior, but the ones that were were alarming. It certainly sounds to me like you're grasping at straws to avoid addressing the issue. | |||
:::::] is one type of ] (and vice versa). I didn't "re-fracture" my statement, I ''refactored'' it (rewriting something to improve its readability without changing its meaning) because you have several times misinterpreted it as "demanding a topic ban" while I only suggested a topic ban on ''this specific article'' (while expressing that I don't oppose stiffer sanctions, if warranted). I believe the commentary from pretty much every editor you were in discussions with in that RfC stands on its own, and don't think there's much point in either of us further wasting each others time in this discussion. The administrators can decide for themselves what actions should be taken. ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 08:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::: I never said you had anything against Jews. WP TE is an essay, and your "evidence" does not demonstrate TE editing in a way consistent with WPDE. Or in a way inconsistent with other users in the discussion. The commentary in the original discussion is widely available. So if an admin wants they can browse through and see for themselves. But you went to the effort to select suspicious '''quotations out of context'''. If I truly am a criminal here, editors shouldn't have to spend so much time and effort trying paint a picture that does not exist. So again, I'll repeat: I've only made 8 edits to the article in the last month. | |||
:::::: No evidence of serious edit-warring (your five examples were less than persuasive), no evidence of personal attacks. The fact is numerous editors violated rules, original research being the most blatant, and yet those editors are portrayed as victims to my "disruptions" by you and Sole. Nevermind that those same editors have been caught red-handed forcing OR, deleting cited material, and attacking other editors and claiming they are promoting a "POV." I showed above one edit Sol failed to represent honestly. It wasn't too difficult, I just read the diff and my response - which he didn't link, but rather summarize with his own interpretation. So George, please tell me why you clipped Gato's edit? An administrator's statement no less. ] (]) 08:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Because most of the quote wasn't about you. Regarding other editors, ]. ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 08:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
George you are grasping. This isn't about right and wrong. We're talking about a multi-party content dispute, not some playground teasing. The quotes you listed were snipped, cut, edited, and taken out of context. You went to the effort in taking suspicious quotes without linking their location, and edited full sentences or removed them. I ask again why did you remove Gato's statement? Perhaps because it implicates editor Wayne, which you cite as evidence for disruptive behavior? The burden of proof rests against you here George. The level of analysis here is close to ]. Editors are begging for a topic ban and there is very little evidence to support it, considering my rather minute contributions to the article space. ] (]) 09:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Right, I'm so in love with ] (a.k.a. Wayne). That's why I , before someone noted that the article was lacking the 1RR notice during your edit warring, eh? Continue ignoring other editors, lawyer more, and maybe administrators will buy your story. Thankfully, I have more pressing matters to attend to. ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 09:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Facts wrong again. The 1RR was not put in effect until after the edits were made. , The article was also not classified under the strict during the edit-wars at least according to the talk template. So no, I did not violate 1RR. And I demonstrated above how the examples you gave above were hardly reverts in the disruptive sense. No evidence of systematic warring has been provided, and even assuming I violated the 1RR rule that would mean a block at best, not a comprehensive topic ban which is what you lobbied for from the get-go. | |||
::And you accusing me of ignoring you? Projection much? You still refuse to respond to my post, why you modified Gato's edit and passed it off as a full def and why you did not provide the locals for your selections. I know why you did, I stated my case above quite clearly. ] (]) 10:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::This is a small taste of Wikifan's style of cooperation. Now imagine it continuing for 3 months and 20,000 words; that's the Finkelstein talk page, about 50 pages worth of text, single spaced, with one editor against everyone else, engaging in this same pattern of ] and non sequitur arguments. ] (]) 15:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
; Comment by Tijfo098 | |||
I think Wikifan12345 should be topic banned from Norman Finkelstein. His POV pushing and ] in ] was just ridiculous, and we're talking about a BLP here. Top that with one month worth of ]. ] (]) 06:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
Whether due to ulterior motives or simply due to lack of competence, we should not allow editors who have repeatedly violated ] to continue unabated. I find it interesting that the cohort who praised SlimVirgin's preening of Horowitz's article of all the (presumably accurate but) silly quotes doesn't say anything here, when the violations here are of ] rather than just "merely" of ]. Alternatively, can we have a list of BLPs that are AE-approved mud targets? ] (]) 06:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
; Commend by EdJohnston | |||
Slim Virgin the 1RR notice to the talk page at 01:15 on 1 December, which is *after* all the above edits by Wikifan and WLRoss. ] (]) 06:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
;Comment by RolandR | |||
I fundamentally disagree with the proposal below by EdJohnston for full protection and a continuation of discussion on the article talk page. It is precisely because this process has failed that Sol has felt obliged to make this submission. The fact is that we have been conducting this discussion on the talk page for several weeks now -- some 20,000 words over the past three months. There is clear consensus between half-a-dozen or more editors -- all of the editors on the page except for one. But Wikifan is stonewalling and filibustering, in an attempt to prevent any outcome other than her/his preferred BLP-violating smears of Finkelstein. To adopt Ed's proposal would merely condemn us to several more weeks of this, with no possibility of a conclusion. The only way this can possibly be resolved is through a topic ban or other sanction against Wikifan, so that other editors can proceed with the article. | |||
This submission is not about a content dispute; it is about the disruptive behaviour of Wikifan. In addition to the instances noted above by Sol, Wikifan has repeatedly, and falsely, accused Wayne of "inventing an analogy", despite clear evidence to the contrary. S/he has edit-warred to include demonstrably false assertions about Finkelstein's views, and to remove reliably-sourced facts. S/he has refused to cite sources, stating that "Finkelstein supports Hamas does not need support. It is a true statement." The quantity of disruption, denial of good faith, "I didn't hear that" and outright obstruction from this one editor is unacceptable, That is the problem, not the content. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 12:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:RolandR, do you even know what the dispute is about? If you did you'd know I'm not filibustering anything. The content is still in the article, I haven't removed it. The fact that I disagree with an edit does not mean I should be topic banned. I have good reason to question the contributions of Wayne when he (recognized by an administrator) designed an analogy Finkelstein never made but attributed it to Finkelstein. It took pages of discussion for this to be fleshed out and to this very day you as an editor still defend the edit even though it has been ruled out of the article. | |||
:To me, it seems the purpose of this is not to recognize BLP vios but to end this content dispute by removing another editor. I've made a '''colossal number of 8 contributions''' to the article in the last month. I request an admin cite an edit that warrants a block, let alone a topic-ban. Disagreements in talk discussions does not mean users get banned. ] (]) 06:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
;Comment by PhilKnight | |||
Wikifan12345 has edited on many articles that have been tagged as indicating the entire topic is under 1RR, and in this context, I don't think we should ignore the edit warring. ] (]) 17:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:''Evidence'' of edit warring? ] (]) 06:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
;Comment by Mbz1 | |||
In his book ] says: There are many more quotes in this book and in other books and articles that show who <small> norman finkelstein </small> really is.Will this be BLP violation to add those quotes to the article? No, it would not be because it is the truth supported by reliable sources. I do not believe Wikifan should be banned at all. And, no, topic bans should not necessarily be escalated. Please see] topic bans as an example. And, if Wikifan was edit warring, it takes at least two user for this. Even, if he will be topic ban for I/P conflict for 3 or 4 months, it will be a punishment unheard of. --] (]) 19:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:If this were just about reliably sourced criticism of Finkelstein I wouldn't have brought it up. If you've got a good source and add material properly then all is right in the wiki-world. ] (]) 19:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Once again Wikifan could not possibly edit war with himself/herself, and a long topic ban in the situation is an absolutely unwarranted punitive sanction. Besides you contradict yourself, when you said: "If this were just about reliably sourced criticism of Finkelstein I wouldn't have brought it up". , and it where it should have stayed. --] (]) 20:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::They told me to bring it here. So I did. I'm not sure how having a BLP notice means I'm contradicting myself but if you inspect the diffs you will find that this is not a problem arising from reliably sourced criticism but from false portrayals of sources and general tendentiousness. A long topic ban may strike you as punitive, but I think that's the point; it's not getting better. ] (]) 20:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::(ec)No, there is no contradiction here. If there was only a content dispute, this could be resolved on the article talk page. But it is clear, after three months and 20,000 words, that it cannot be resolved there. And the reason is that, although most editors (eight, I think, though there may be more) agree on how to proceed, just one (Wikifan) is filibustering and edit-warring to prevent this agreement from being put into effect. It is indeed possible for just one editor to be edit-warring, which is why most such blocks are for just the culpable editor, and not those they have been disrupting. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 21:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::: Roland, I am the one who was attempting to honor the RFC that you and everyone else endorsed. Here is you '''removing''' the RFC consensus edit: . Sole and Wayne did the same thing. All three of you are complicit in violating the RFC and yet here I am being accused of preventing the agreement from being implemented. Do you disagree? This is the biggest issue going on and I hope an admin recognizes this. The topic has become too Wikifan-centric and the actions of others are being totally ignored if not outright victimized. | |||
] (]) 23:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::Link it. Right now. Link where I remove an RFC edit. You can't. But you don't let the facts stop you. Hence why we are here. If you want to bring up an AE against other editors, go for it. I haven't accused you of impeding the RFC; throughout this entire process you have yet to present any substantive defense against the allegations. If you don't understand what's wrong here or even what you're accused of then a temp ban is just delaying the problems for a few months. ] (]) 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::@roland Why are you so loud? Isn't this because you yourself are on the very same article? And it is really a strange approach, I mean yours "If there was only a content dispute, this could be resolved on the article talk page. But it is clear, after three months and 20,000 words, that it cannot be resolved there." So, in your opinion, if a content dispute cannot be resolved the best way to proceed is to punish an editor, who disagrees with you? It is the same approach that was used in communist ruled Soviet Union, the very same communists you are so fond of.--] (]) 21:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::If you want to accuse me of edit-warring, that was a ''very'' odd edit to choose. It was quite obviously removal of spam links, to a site selling a book I like and have myself cited. The edit had absolutely no political implications or effect. Is that really the worst edit of mine you can find? Talk of scraping the barrel...<span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 23:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::And now I tried to add two different sourced informations to the article. It was removed 2 times by pro-Arab users, who will stand for their man no matter what: and , the very same NSH001, , which according to expressed in "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis" is considered to be an antisemitism. And you are telling me that consensus could have been reached on that article with such an approach? No, and there's nothing to punish Wikifan for.--] (]) 22:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Mbz, you aren't doing your case any good by accusing someone of "antisemitism" who is basically sympathetic to Jews, and very, very strongly opposed to actual, real antisemitism. That is an outrageous, malicious and dishonest lie about me, and I ask you to withdraw it. --] (]) 23:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::Her diff speaks louder than your denial. ] (]) 23:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::Seconded. NSH, while it is certainly possible for you and others to make an analogy that is seen as antisemitic without actually being antisemitic yourself, you can hardly be surprised if people are not entirely charitable about your POV. This is a content dispute which means, like all IP content disputes, this board is the awesomest place to have the debate. <font color="green">]</font> 01:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::Mbz, NSH, No More, and IronDuke, you seem to be displaying a great deal of animosity towards each other and it appears to be impeding effective collaboration and compromise between you all in the Finkelstein article. Would you agree that this is the case? ] (]) 04:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::Cla68, your question was not phrased properly. It should have been asked like this:"Mbz, No More, and IronDuke you seem to be displaying a great deal of animosity towards NSH while NSH seem to be displaying a great deal of animosity towards you..." Anyway to respond your question. I personally have no interest in touching that article at all, and I will not any more. I mean, when I am reading something like that: <i>"Articulating the key Holocaust dogmas, much of the literature on Hitler's Final solution is worthless as scholarship. Indeed, the field of Holocaust studies is replete with nonsense, if not sheer fraud." "The Holocaust Industry" p. 55 </i> or <i> ‘If everyone who claims to be a survivor actually is one,’ my mother used to exclaim, ‘who did Hitler kill then?’”“The Holocaust Industry,” p. 81.</i> it literally makes me sick to my stomach, and I literally feel a strong urge to take a good shower. You see, Cla68, I used to live 20 minutes bus ride from ], I also visited ], and I have heard many stories about the Holocaust, the real stories of the real people. So there's nothing for me to compromise about on that article. As I said I will never touch it again.--] (]) 05:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::Cla68, I have never edited that article, so my answer would have to be no. That said, I hope I never have to edit an article with NSH as I find his views quite disgusting and symptomatic of a problem Jews editing wikipedia have to deal with. ] (]) 11:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Aren't editors supposed to respond in there own category? this is becoming extremely difficult to navigate through and for an administrator to review. I prefer this dispute not be spill over into a general I/P war. The focus should be on ]. I would of course agree that a topic ban for a content dispute would be a major precedent considering this is a shared issue. Wayne has a long history of edit-warring at ] and ] while I've largely relied on talk to explain my edits. The real issue is when uninvolved editors, say like RolandR restore his edits every time. I'd say it is still edit-warring even though users take turns. ] (]) 23:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Yeah, right, there was edit warring, wasn't there? Except Wikifan had nothing to do with that. ] and ] were edit warring.Are you going to ban them too?--] (]) 22:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC) <small>Comment moved from result section. ] (]) 23:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)</small> | |||
:::Mbz, please stop lying about me. I wasn't edit-warring, since I have only made ONE edit to this article in many months (except possibly vandalism reverts). Good night. --] (]) 23:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::NSH001, I am proud to inform you that I never lie. As you probably have seen the article was protected, and why it was protected, NSH001? , NSH001. And who was edit warring on the article, NSH001? , NSH001. Now, I have never accused you in being an antisemitic. I only provided the links to your rant and to the working definition for antisemitism by European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Please do be reasonable, will you? I have no authority to withdraw anything adopted by European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. On the other hand I'd like to remind you please --] (]) 23:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:::::Mbz, one single edit to remove a BLP violation is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "edit warring". (I see that, overnight, Nableezy has, on the Finkelstein talk page, saved me the trouble of explaining why it is a BLP vio - thanks, Nab.) And you have no need to remind me of that bizarre ] (about the most charitable description I can find) on my talk page, since, in disgust, I took a few months off editing. No drama, no fuss, just a silent protest, in the Quaker fashion, against outrageous lying and intimidation. --] (]) 12:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::::::To be more precise, you you were busy and it would take you time to respond, and then disappeared, probably to avoid having to explain your deliberately hurtful comments. I doubt that's "the Quaker fashion". ] (]) 14:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::Mbz1, I would like to simply echo what Sol said. There is a big difference between adding reliably-sourced criticism to a BLP, and manipulating quotes from the subject. The latter is irresponsible editing and a conflict with ], by making the views of critics into an official Misplaced Pages POV. ] (]) 15:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
===Result concerning Wikifan12345=== | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' | |||
*I suggest that this be closed with full protection of the ] article for a suitable period, like one month. The participants are doing a semi-decent job on the talk page of working out the issues, and they've opened a ] which is still running. The problem I see is that they aren't listening to each other very well and so you see constant misunderstanding of the other parties' positions. Reverting-while-discussing doesn't work very well either. Full protection would still allow consensus changes to be made via {{tl|editprotect}}, so this should enforce a better quality of discussion. The protection can be lifted as soon as the issues are sorted out. Editors are cautioned to supply diffs if they think someone else has made a statement they consider false, since personal accusations on the talk page could be viewed dimly here. ] (]) 05:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
*A more detailed check of the recent edits at ] does not increase my sympathy with Wikifan12345's behavior. It does appear to me that Wikifan12345 continues to restore his preferred versions to the article when it should be 100% clear to him that his changes don't have consensus. That goes well beyond ]. I invite other admins to comment on whether a 3-month topic ban if Wikifan from the Finkelstein article is the best course. ] (]) 16:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:I think a 3 month topic ban sounds about right. ] (]) 17:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::When I review {{user|Wikifan12345}}, I see someone who has racked up 4 previous blocks for edit-warring (along with several for personal attacks); who is edit-warring ''right now''; who is wikilawyering over the definition of a "revert"; whose editing often seems agenda-driven and involves selective use of sources; who is currently editing a BLP in a slipshod manner; and whose behavioral patterns were troublesome enough to warrant a prior in this area. During the topic ban, it seemed that this editor had little or no interest in other areas of the project outside of this specific political controversy. This seems like the kind of editing that the discretionary sanctions were designed to deal with. So yes, a 3-month topic ban would be reasonable from my perspective. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::(edit conflict)Aren't topic bans supposed to escalate? If so, I don't think 3 months on Finkelstein only is long or broad enough, given the history. In 2009 Wikifan12345 was banned for approx 4.5 month topic area from the entire I/P area for similar problems.. He has also received shorter topic bans from other articles. I take very seriously the misrepresentation of sources in a BLP article, and that his mentor has given up the job because of ongoing behavioural problems. There does not appear to be a steep enough learning curve here.--] (]) 17:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
*I agree that the four-month 2009 topic ban from I/P should be seriously considered as part of the background. Doubling that should be considered, since there is no evidence of reform. How about a eight-month topic ban from the I/P area for Wikifan. ] (]) 18:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:*Sure, I have no problem with a longer ban. Obviously, if after 3 months Wikifan12345 can show a track record of responsible editing, then we could review the situation. ] (]) 18:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
::*Personally prefer a year, but 8 months is fine. ] (]) 18:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
*I would support an indefinite ban on editing BLPs in the I/P topic area. I've no strong opinion on non-biographical articles. ] | ] 19:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
:*In response to continued warring, I've fully protected the ] article for 3 days. Whoever closes this request might lift the protection. ] (]) 22:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
* A three month ban is surely sufficient, at least for three months. If not, we can extend the ban or revisit the situation and consider other options. One puppy's opinion. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 00:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 13:40, 26 December 2024
"WP:AE" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:AE (disambiguation).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}}.
|
Ethiopian Epic
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Ethiopian Epic
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Tinynanorobots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Ethiopian Epic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- November 14th created during the Yasuke case and went active when it ended. First 11 edits were to Government of Japan. In one case three edits were used to write one sentence.
- November 12 Manually reverted the lead back to how it was in September.
- November 16 Falsely Claimed cited material was OR. (G
- November 24 Falsely Claimed cited material was unsourced
- November 24 It took an ANI report to get him to use the article talk page. His defense was accusations and denial.
- November 23 He reverted to a version that went against consensus established on the talk page and contained a falsely sourced quote.
- November 25 Engages in sealioning
- November 29 Removes a well sourced line from Yasuke as well as reverted an edit that was the result of BRD. He has now started disputes with me on all three Yasuke related articles.
- November 30 starts disputing a new section of
- December 2 Brought again to ANI, he claims that I didn't get consensus for changes, even though I had discussed them on talk prior to making them.
- December 4 He keeps mentioning ONUS, and asking me to discuss it, in response to me discussing.
- December 9 Used a non-controversial revert to hide his edit warring.
- December 11 did the same thing on List of foreign-born samurai in Japan.
- December 11 He also repeatedly complains that he doesn't like the definition because it is vague and claims that his preferred version is "status quo"
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- [
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on December 1 (see the system log linked to above).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I am not sure if this is actually a AE matter, but was told to go here by multiple admins. The biggest issue is the Editing against consensus on accompanied by bludgeoning. However, there are signs of bad faith editing on all three pages where I have interacted with EE. It could also be a CIR issue or it could be some sort of harassment. I don't know. I just know that EE first avoided providing clear reasons for reverting edits and has been trying to engage in Status Quo Stonewalling. He keeps citing Onus or Burden and asks me not to make a change until the discussion is over. Often, this doesn't make sense in context, because the change was in place. He has made false claims about sources and what they say. His editing on Yasuke is not so much a problem as the discussion which comes across as gaslighting.
- @User:Red-tailed hawk, I am not an expert on proxies or socks. All the IPs have only posted on the one article and have advocated an odd definition for samurai, that doesn't apply to the article. All except the first one have just reverted. It is possible that this is just laziness, or lack of confidence in writing skills etc. After all, the false citation was added by another user and was just kept. I found the latest one the most suspect, in part because of it first reverting to the incorrect definition, before restoring most of the text and second because of falsely citing policy. I am not sure if they are proxies, but I hoped that someone here would have the expertise to know. I don't think the proxy evidence is the most important. EE is either acting in bad faith or has CIR problems. The later is possible, because he thanked City of Silver during ANI, although City of Silver has been the harshest critic of EE's behaviour towards me.
- I think there should be some important context to the quote:
"those who serve in close attendance to the nobility"
. The quote can be found in several books, on Samurai it is sourced to an article published in Black Belt Magazine in the 80s by William Scott Wilson, where he describes the origin of the word samurai. He is describing the early phases of its meaning in that quote, before it became to have martial connotations. It also refers to the time before 900. The earliest foreign samurai on the list was in the late 1500s. It also doesn't apply to most of the persons on the list. Finally, it is not mentioned in Vaporis's book, which EE keeps adding as the source. He hasn't even made the effort to copy the citation from Samurai.
Not only did I have a dispute with Symphony Regalia about samurai being "retainers to lords", but also on Yasuke about "As a samurai" and on List of Foreign-born Samurai in Japan EE made the same reverts as SR. EE had with his first edit in all three articles continued a dispute that I had already had with SR.
- @User:Ethiopian Epic I actually don't have a problem with you discussing things. Your talk page posts aren't really discussion though. Your main argument on all three pages has been a shifting of the burden of proof. You don't really discuss content and continually ask me not to make changes without discussing first, and then make changes yourself. I understand that your position is that your preferred version is the status quo. However, my edits regarding the definition on List of Foreign-born samurai in Japan , were discussed and consensus was clearly gotten. Similarly, my edits on Yasuke were discussed, and even though I didn't use the exact same version as Gitz said, Gitz had suggested using warrior instead of bushi, so I used samurai, because I thought it would be less controversial.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Ethiopian Epic
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Ethiopian Epic
This is clear retaliatory filing because I recently didn't agree with Tinynanorobot's edits against RFC consensus, and because I made talk page sections on some recent edits.
@Eronymous That's not true and you are a very obvious alt account with only 26 edits. No one gave you a notification of this discussion and it's not on the Yasuke talk page. This suggests you are the sock puppet of someone here. Your post is also misleading and incorrect it wasn't an insertion. The line you are talking about in Samurai has been there for over 10 years and is normal. I know because I've read it before. Here is a version from 2017 that still has it. I don't understand why you are misrepresenting edits and using an alt account.
@Red-tailed hawk I think he is just fishing. That's why he removed his IP claims. Even his other diffs are just mislabeled regular behavior. It's amusing because Eronymous is the likely alt of Tinynanorobots or someone posting here. I think the way Tinynanorobots edits against clear consensus, skips discussion, and then files frivolous ANI/AE reports with misleading narrative like above is disruptive. Discussion is an easy solution and benefits everyone. I hope he will respect RFC consensus.
Statement by Relm
I am largely unfamiliar with the account in question, but I do frequently check Yasuke. I believe that EthiopianEpic has displayed a clear slant and battleground mindset in their editing in regards to the topic of Yasuke, but that their conduct on the Yasuke page itself so far has generally been in the ballpark of good faith edits. The revert on December 9th was justified, and their topic on November 29th is well within bounds (though I acknowledge that the background of their prior disputes on other pages with Tinynanorobots shows it may be edit warring) given that the two things being reverted was a change that seemed to skirt the prior RFC with agreement being given in a very non-direct way, and the other portion being an addition which had not been discussed on the talk page prior to its implementation (though previous discussions ered on the side of not including it). I am not accusing Tinynanorobots of any misconduct in any part of that either.
What I will note is that in addition to the sockpuppet IP allegations made by Tinynanorobots, I wanted to lodge that the posting style of EthiopianEpic, as well as their knowledge of much of the previous discussions on the page deep in the archive, led me to suspect that they were an alt of User:Symphony_Regalia. I never found anything conclusive. Relm (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Simonm223
These two editors have been tangling at WP:AN/I repeatedly. Last time they came there I said that this would likely continue until a third party intervened. And then the thread got archived with no action (see AN/I thread here) so I'm not surprised that the two of them are still tangling. There is evidence that both editors have engaged in a slow-motion edit war. Both have claimed the other is editing against consensus. Here I will say that it appears TinyNanoRobots is more correct than Ethiopian Epic. Furthermore, while neither editors' comportment has been stellar, as other editors have pointed out, it appears more that EE is following TNR about and giving them a hard time than the alternate. . In the linked AN/I case (above) you'll note EE attempted a boomerang on TNR and was not well-received for the effort.
Frankly my view is that both editors are not editing to the best standards of Misplaced Pages but there is definitely a more disruptive member of this duo and that is Ethiopian Epic. I think it would probably cut down on the noise considerably if they were encouraged to find somewhere to edit which was not a CTOP subject and if they were encouraged to leave TNR alone. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Eronymous
Similar to Relm I check on the Yasuke page every so often, and it seems very likely given the evidence that User:Ethiopian Epic is an alt of User:Symphony_Regalia created to evade his recent ArbCom sanctions, having started editing the day prior to the Yasuke case closure. Of note to this is the last edit of Symphony_Regalia on Samurai was him attempting to insert the line "who served as retainers to lords (including daimyo)" - curiously enough, Ethiopian Epic's first edit on Samurai (and first large edit, having just prior made 11 minor ones in a short timeframe to reach autoconfirmed status) is him attempting to insert the same controversial line that was reverted before.
Symphony_Regalia has a history of utilising socks to edit Yasuke/Samurai related topics and is indefinitely blocked from the .jp wiki for extensive sockpuppetry (plus multiple suspected IPs) for this.
Prior to being sanctioned Symphony Regalia frequently got into exactly the same arguments concerning wording/source material with User:Tinynanorobots that Ethiopian Epic is now. One could assume based on their relationship that he is aggrieved that Tinynanorobots was not sanctioned by ArbCom during the case and is now continuously feuding with him to change that through edit warring and multiple administrator incidents/arbitration requests in the past few weeks. Eronymous (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Nil Einne
I was ?one of the editors who suggested Tinynanorobots consider ARE in the future. I did this mostly because after three threads on ANI with no result, I felt a change of venue might be more productive especially since the more structured nature of ARE, as well as a likely greater concern over low level of misconduct meant that some outcome was more likely. (For clarity, when I suggested this I did feel nothing would happen from the third ANI thread but in any case my advice being taken onboard would likely mean the third thread had no result.) I did try to make clear that I wasn't saying there was definitely a problem requiring sanction and also it was possible Tinynanorobots might themselves end up sanctioned. Since a topic ban on both is being considered, I might have been right in a way. If a topic ban results, I'd like to suggest admins considered some guidance beyond broadly constructed on how any topic ban would apply. While the entirety of the Yasuke article and the list of foreign born samurai stuff seem clear enough, one concern I've had at ANI is how to handle the editing at Samurai and its talk page. A lot of the recent stuff involving these editors seems to relate to the definition of samurai. AFAIK, this is generally been a big part of the dispute of Yasuke (he can/can't be a samurai because it means A which was/wasn't true about him). Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Result concerning Ethiopian Epic
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I've never been very impressed with retaliatory filings, and the one below is no exception. I will also note that I'm never too impressed with "must be a sock" type accusations—either file at SPI or don't. In this case, though, I think Yasuke would be better off if neither of these two were participating there. Seraphimblade 19:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Red-tailed hawk, what are your thoughts after the responses to you? Seraphimblade 16:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think that it would be declined if it were an WP:SPI report and the editor should be mindful not to throw sock accusations around willy-nilly going forward. But I typically don't see any sort of sanction imposed when someone makes a bad SPI report, particularly if they're newer or aren't quite clueful yet. So I don't see much to do on that front other than tell them that we need more specific evidence of socking when reports are made than merely shared interest, particularly when the IPs are scattered across the world. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm still inclined to topic ban both these editors from Yasuke, but would be interested in hearing more thoughts on that if anyone has them. Seraphimblade 07:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think that it would be declined if it were an WP:SPI report and the editor should be mindful not to throw sock accusations around willy-nilly going forward. But I typically don't see any sort of sanction imposed when someone makes a bad SPI report, particularly if they're newer or aren't quite clueful yet. So I don't see much to do on that front other than tell them that we need more specific evidence of socking when reports are made than merely shared interest, particularly when the IPs are scattered across the world. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Red-tailed hawk, what are your thoughts after the responses to you? Seraphimblade 16:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I also generally don't like "might-be-a-sock"-style accusations; when we are accusing someone of sockpuppetry by logged out editing we typically need evidence to substantiate it rather than just floating the possibility in a flimsy way. Filer has provided several diffs above as possible socks, but each of those IPs geolocates to a different country (Germany, Norway, and Argentina respectively) and I don't see evidence that any of those IPs are proxies.@Tinynanorobots: Can you explain what led you to note the IP edits? Is it merely shared interest and viewpoint, or is there something more?— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at this .... mess... first, I'm not sure what actually was against the ArbCom decision - I don't see a 1RR violation being alleged, and the rest really appears to me to be "throw stuff at the wall and see if it sticks". But, like Seraphimblade, I'm not impressed with either of these editors actual conduct here or in general. I could be brought around to supporting a topic ban for both of these editors in the interests of clearing up the whole topic area. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Tinynanorobots: you are well above the 500 word limit. Please request an extension before adding anything more. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Tinynanorobots
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Tinynanorobots
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- EEpic (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Tinynanorobots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 09:21, 14 November 2024. Tinynanorobots removes
As a samurai
from the lead text and replaces it withsignifying bushi status
against RFC consensus (There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification
). - 17:12, 15 November 2024. Tinynanorobots removes
who served as a samurai
from the lead text and addswho became a bushi or samurai
against RFC consensus (There exists a consensus against presenting Yasuke's samurai status as the object of debate
). - 12:43, 20 November 2024. On List of Foreign-born Samurai, Tinynanorobots removes the longstanding definition and adds
This list includes persons who ... may not have been considered a samurai
against RFC consensus (There exists a consensus against presenting Yasuke's samurai status as the object of debate
). - 07:48, 23 November 2024. Tinynanorobots reverts to remove
As a samurai
in the Yasuke article after Gitz6666 opposes at , again ignoring WP:ONUS. - 03:13, 4 December 2024. I restore and start a talk page discussion so that consensus can be formed.
- 14:10, 6 December 2024 . Tinynanorobots, when consensus fails to form for his position, becomes uncivil and engages in a sarcastic personal attack
What you are saying doesn't make sense. Perhaps there is a language issue here. Maybe your native language handles the future differently than English?
- 14:22, 11 December 2024. Tinynanorobots removes "As a samurai" again, ignoring WP:ONUS and BRD even though no consensus has formed for his position, and no consensus has formed to change existing consensus.
- 08:37, 6 December 2024. Tinynanorobots explains their reasons,
I don't know if samurai is the right term
which is against consensus. - 07:27, 28 November 2024. POV-pushing - With no edit summary Tinynanorobots tag bombs by adding
Slavery in Japan
.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 23:06, 13 November 2024.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Tinynanorobots frequently edits against consensus, restores his edits when others revert, doesn't wait for consensus, and engages in feuding behavior. He seems to think WP:BRD or WP:ONUS don't apply to him which is disruptive, and I don't know why.
Unaccounted removals of sources 23:44, 14 September 2024 - Warning from other editor about repeated removal of content when multiple users are objecting.
AGF 12:21, 15 September 2024 - Warning from yet another editor about not assuming good faith and making personal attacks
It seems to be chronic which suggests behavior problems. Tinynanorobots also frequently fails to assume good faith in others. I don't know why as I don't have any issues with him.
Their preferred edit for Yasuke against the RFC consensus is now still in the lead section.
@Relm Sorry for the confusion. I think we talking about different edits, so I'll adjust that part. I am referring to Tinynanorobot's repeated removal of As a samurai
against RFC consensus, which states There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification
.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Tinynanorobots
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Tinynanorobots
The accusations made by EE are so misleading as to be evidence against him. Most of what he is discussing is in reference to a successful BRD. I actually discussed the bold edit first on the talk, but didn't get much of a response. I decided a bold edit would get more feedback. The edits were reverted and then discussed. Gitz's main problem was OR, not a RfC violation. This was because he didn't read the cited source. Anyway, since Atkin says "signifying bushi status", I have no objection to restoring this text.
I never used any sarcasm, I know that some languages handle how they talk about time differently. It seems reasonable that a translation error could be the reason for EE asking me not to change the article, althoug my edit had already been restored by someone else and at the same time asking me to discuss that I had already discussed and was already discussing. I am disappointed that EE didn't point out that he felt attacked, so that I could apologize.
This was written in response to another user, and the whole thought is I don't know if samurai is the right term. It is the term a fair amount of sources use, and the one that the RfC says should be used. It is also consistent with common usage in reference to other historical figures.
In fact earlier in that post I said this: I am not qualified to say whither or not Yasuke having a house meant that he was a samurai
This is blatantly taking a quote out of context in order to prejudice the Admins against me.
- @User:Ealdgyth I filed here, because the last time I filed at ANI it was suggested that I bring things here if things continue by an Admin. I try to follow advice, although I keep getting conflicting signals from Admins. I am most concerned that you find my work on Samurai and List of Foreign-born Samurai in Japan not adding anything helpful. My suggestion to rewrite the way samurai was defined on the List in order to reduce OR and bring it in line with WP:LSC was meant with unanimous approval by those who responded. Samurai is a high importance article that has tags on it from years back, is unorganized and contains outdated information. I am not the best writer, but I have gotten some books, and am pretty much the only one working on it.
Statement by Relm
I am the editor alluded to and quoted as 'protesting' Tinynanorobots edit. When I originally made that topic, I was fixing a different edit which left the first sentence as a grammatically incomplete sentence. When I looked at it in the editing view, one of the quotes in the citation beforehand was quoting Atkins Vera, and I mistook this for the opening quote having been changed. When I closed the editing menu I saw 'signifying samurai status' in the second paragraph and confused the two for each other as I had not noticed the addition of the latter phrase a little under a month ago. I realized my mistake almost immediately after I posted the new topic, and made this (1) edit to clarify my mistake while also attempting to instead direct the topic towards making sure that the edit recieved sufficient assent from Gitz (it did) and to talk about improvements that could be made to the opening sentence. I further clarified and made clear that I was not accusing Tinynanorobots of having done anything wrong in a later response (2).
Though many of their earlier edits on the page may show some issues, as they grew more familiar with the past discussions I believe that Tinynanorobots has made valuable contributions to the page in good faith. Relm (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Barkeep49
- @Ealdgyth I think this misinterprets the ArbCom decision. So Yakuse is a contentious topic and it has a 1RR restriction, in the same way as say PIA. As in PIA administrators can sanction behavior that violates the contentious topics procedures besides 1RR. Beyond that, editing against the RFC is a finding of fact from the case. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Tinynanorobots
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- As above, I'm failing to see what exactly is against the ArbCom case rulings - I don't see a 1RR violation. But also as above, I'm coming to the view that neither of these editors are adding anything helpful to the topic area and am leaning towards a topic ban for both. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Rasteem
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Rasteem
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- NXcrypto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Rasteem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:ARBIPA
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 23:21 12 December 2024 - removed wikilink of an Indian railway station thus violating his topic ban from India and Pakistan.
This violation comes after he was already warned for his first violation of the topic ban.
Upon a closer look into his recent contribution, I found that he is simply WP:GAMING the system by creating articles like Arjan Lake which is overall only 5,400 bytes but he made nearly 50 edits here. This is clearly being done by Rasteem for passing the 500 edits mark to get his topic ban overturned.
I recommend increasing the topic ban to indefinite duration. Nxcrypto Message 03:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- "topic banned from the subject of India and Pakistan, broadly construed, until both six months have elapsed and they have made 500 edits after being notified of this sanction."
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- I agree that there are genuine CIR issues with Rasteem, for example while this ARE report is in progress they created Javan Lake, which has promotional statements like: "The lake's stunning caluts, majestic desert topographies, and serene lakes produce a shifting destination. Its unique charm attracts a wide range of guests, from adventure contenders to nature suckers and beyond". Nxcrypto Message 03:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Rasteem
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Rasteem
This approach seems to be a coordinated attack to abandon me from Misplaced Pages indefinitely. Indeed, after my ban for 6 months. I was banned on 6 December, and in just 7 days, this report is literally an attempt to make me leave Misplaced Pages.
1. I rolled back my own edit; it was last time made unintentionally. I was about to revert it, but my internet connection was lost, so when I logged in again, I regressed it.
The internet is constantly slow and sometimes goes down. I live in a hilly location and I had formerly mentioned it.
My edits on Arjan Lake isn't any WP:GAMING factual number of edits I made; it is 45, not 50. Indeed, I made similar edits before in September and December months on the same articles within a single day or 2-3 days.
2. List of villages in Khoda Afarin on this article, I've added 5680 bytes & made 43 edits.
3. List of villages in Tabriz on this article I've added 4000 bytes & made 49 edits.
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Rasteem
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- While I don't see a change in editing pattern that indicates gaming, the edits to Arjan Lake indicate issues with competence, as the article is weirdly promotional and contains phrases such as "beast species", "emotional 263 proved species". —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Adding to Femke's point,
magnific 70- cadence-high waterfalls in this area
is not prose that inspires confidence in the editor's competence to edit the English Misplaced Pages. So, we have violations of a topic ban and questions about the editor's linguistic competence and performance. Perhaps an indefinite block appealable in six months with a recommendation to build English competency by editing the Simple English Misplaced Pages, and to build general Misplaced Pages skills by editing in the version of Misplaced Pages in the language they speak best during that minimum six month period. As for Arjan Lake, although the prose is poor, the references in the article make it clear to me that the topic is notable, so the editor deserves some credit for starting this article that did not exist for two decades plus. Cullen328 (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC) - Brief comment to avoid the archive bot. Seraphimblade 17:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
KronosAlight
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning KronosAlight
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Butterscotch Beluga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- KronosAlight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- Adds "depiste being an ex-Muslim" to dismiss accusations of Islamophobia MOS:EDITORIAL.
- Adds MOS:SCAREQUOTES around ‘promoted Islamophobia’ & ‘Islamophobia’ while removing the supporting context.
- Changed "interpreted that statement as a threat and incitement to violence" to "claimed was a threat and incitement to violence, though no threats or violence in fact occurred" MOS:CLAIM & MOS:EDITORIAL
- Changes "Israeli settlers" to "Israeli soldiers" despite the source only explicitly stating them "throwing stones on settlers."
- Unnecessarily specific additions that may constitute WP:POVPUSH such as adding "against civilians" & changing "prevent the assassinations of many Israelis" to "prevent the assassinations of many Israeli civilians and soldiers"
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 24 June 2024 Warned to abide by the one-revert rule when making edits within the scope of the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area.
- 22 October 2024 Blocked from editing for 1 week for violating consensus required on the page Zionism
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 22 October 2024 by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 24 January 2024.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
All edits were made at Mosab Hassan Yousef. After I partially reverted their edits with an explanation, I brought the issue to their attention on the talk page, asking for their rationale. They replied that they were "correcting factual errors introduced by previous antisemitic editors" & asked if I "perhaps have a deeper bias that’s influencing decisions in this respect?"
They then undid my partial revert
- Ealdgyth - While I can't find any comments where they were explicitly "warned for casting aspersions", they were asked back in June to WP:AGF in the topic area.
- Also, apologies for my "diffs of edits that violate this sanction" section, this is the first time I've filed a request here & I thought it'd be best to explain the preamble to my revert, but I understand now that I misunderstood the purpose of that section & will remember such for the future. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93 I was able to find a copy of the opinion article being cited 'They Need to Be Liberated From Their God'. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning KronosAlight
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by KronosAlight
This is a complete waste of the Arbitration Committee’s time.
1. That Yousef was born and raised a Muslim is important and neutral context for readers to be aware of when the article refers to claims of ‘Islamophobia’.
2. The scarequotes indicate that the claim comes from the sources provided, rather than being an objective ‘fact’ determined by a few Misplaced Pages Editors with an axe to grind.
3. This was already addressed on the Talk page and I updated the sentence to say settlers/soldiers with a further label that it needed further clarification because the source does not in fact unambiguously say what Butterscotch Beluga claims.
A few lines above what Butterscotch Beluga quotes is the following lines: “AMANPOUR: How did you take part in that? Were you one of the small children who threw rocks at Israeli soldiers?
YOUSEF: The model for every Palestinian child is a mujahid (ph) or a fidahi (ph) or a fighter. So, of course, I wanted to be one at that point of my life. It wasn't -- it's not my only dream. It's every child's dream in that territory.”
The updated Wiki page noted both settlers/soldiers and included a note that this requires further clarification, perhaps based on other sources, because it isn’t clear (contra Butterscotch Beluga) whether he is referring to soldiers or settlers.
4. It is not controversial to accurately describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation. It is simply a fact. To suggest otherwise is POV-pushing.
5. This is not POVPUSH; ‘assassinations’ against civilians during peacetime are usually called ‘murders’.
I in fact didn’t even remove the word ‘assassinations’, I merely broadened the description from ‘Israelis’ to ‘Israeli civilians and soldiers’ (as Butterscotch accepted) to indicate the breadth of the individuals in question included both civilians and combatants. This is not POVPUSH, it is simply additional information and context verified in the source itself.
All in all, a vexatious claim and a waste of the Arbitration Committee’s time.
Statement by Sean.hoyland
Regarding "I was correcting factual errors introduced by previous antisemitic editors", it would be helpful if KronosAlight would explicitly identify the antisemitic editors and the edits they corrected so that they can be blocked for being antisemitic editors. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
The editor has been here since 2012. It is reasonable to assume that they know the rules regarding aspersions. It is reasonable to assume they are intentionally violating them, presumably because they genuinely believe they are dealing with antisemitic editors. So, this report is somehow simultaneously a vexatious complete waste of time and the result of the someone interfering with their valiant efforts to correct errors made by antisemitic editors. Why do they have this belief? This is probably a clue, a comment they had the good sense to revert. For me, this is an example of someone attempting to use propaganda that resembles antisemitic conspiracy theories about media control to undermine Misplaced Pages's processes and then changing their mind. But the very fact that they thought of it is disturbing. Their revert suggests that they are probably aware that there are things you can say about an editor and things you cannot say about an editor. From my perspective, what we have here is part of an emerging pattern in the topic area, a growing number of attacks on Misplaced Pages and editors with accusations of antisemitism, cabals etc. stemming in part from external partisan sources/influence operations. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000
Aspersions:
- I made that comment to highlight the obvious problem of antisemitism among Misplaced Pages editors.
- It seems less like a merger and more like a deliberate burying of the original information.
- Given some of the users involved there, I don’t have very high hopes given the Pirate Wires allegations.
- Is there no limits you will not cross in order to seek to justify your Jew-hatred?
Zero 10:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Vice regent
KronosAlight, you changed on 14 Dec 2024: "An open letter signed by Christian and Muslim religious leaders interpreted that statement as a threat and incitement to violence
" to "An open letter signed by Christian and Muslim religious leaders claimed was a threat and incitement to violence, though no threats or violence in fact occurred
".
Can you show where either of the sources state "though no threats or violence in fact occurred"? VR (Please ping on reply) 18:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Smallangryplanet
Wanted to add some pertinent evidence:
Talk:Zionism:
- "Interesting question, you should look it up and find an answer"
- I’ll leave it to others to consider what that says about Misplaced Pages’s community.
- If your claim is that the sinking of SS Patria is morally comparable then I simply don’t think you should be allowed to contribute to any of these articles
- You think WW2 and the Holocaust are too low-level to include in the lede?
Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon:
Talk:Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world:
Talk:2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks:
Talk:Anti-Zionism:
- There's no difference between opposing the Jewish people's right to self-determination and calling for the destruction of the State of Israel. It's just two different sets of words to describe the same thing.
- "The route to this implication is via the identification of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. Anti-Semites want to rid the world of Jews: Israel is a Jewish State: Anti-Zionists oppose Israel as a Jewish state, ergo anti-Zionists are anti-Semitic, and as such, seek the destruction of Israel." All of this is correct.
Talk:Gaza genocide:
- Even if we assume that Hamas' own numbers are broadly correct (which we shouldn't, because it don't distinguish between civilian and combatant casualties, and have been repeatedly proven be largely just invented), that doesn’t seem to even come close to genocide. Why are we even indulging this ludicrous nonsense?
- When this war ends and the vast, vast, vast majority of Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank are still alive and negotiating begin about the future of their region and political administration etc., will this article be deleted, or will this remain as yet another blood libel against the Jewish people?
Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre:
Talk:Al-Sardi school attack:
Talk:Eden Golan:
Other sanctions:
- March 2024: indefinitely topic banned from the subject of flood myths for sealioning, WP:ASPERSIONS, etc
- June 2024: warned to abide by 1RR
- October 2024: blocked for a week
Statement by (username)
Result concerning KronosAlight
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Much of the "diffs of edits that violate this sanction" fail to explain "how these edits violate" the sanction - to me, much of these diffs look like a content dispute. However, the "additional comments" section DOES have a diff that is concerning and violates the CT by casting an aspersion that is not backed up by a diff - the "antisemitic editors" diff. Has KA been previously warned for casting aspersions? If they have, I'm inclined to issue a topic ban, but many other editors get a warning for this if they lack a previous warning. The diffs brought up by Zero (not all of which I necessarily see as aspersions, but the "Jew-hatred" one is definitely over the line - but it's from September so a bit late to sanction for just that) - did anyone point out that aspersions/incivility in this topic area is sanctionable? I see the warnings for 1RR and consensus required... Ealdgyth (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- @KronosAlight: - can you address the fact that saying "correcting factual errors introduced by previous antisemitic editors" and "Is there no limits you will not cross in order to seek to justify your Jew-hatred"? Neither of these are statements that should ever be made - and the fact that you seem to not to understand this is making me lean towards a topic ban. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- KronosAlight, can you please provide quotes from the references you cited for - for instance - "for his terrorist activities" in this addition, showing that the sources explicitly supported the content you added? Calling a person or an organization is perfectly acceptable if you support that with reliable sources; if it is original research, or source misrepresentation, it isn't acceptable. I cannot access some of the sources in question. You may provide quotes inside a collapsed section if you wish to save space. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I missed Zero's comments earlier. A lot of those comments, while concerning, are generic, not directed at a specific editor. this, however, is beyond the pale. I would need some convincing that this user is able to edit this area constructively. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- @KronosAlight, can you please respond to this? I too am concerned...the quote you're objecting to wasn't from DrSmarty. It was a direct quote, scare quotes and all, from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. You seem to have reacted to it as if it were DrSmarty. Valereee (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- I missed Zero's comments earlier. A lot of those comments, while concerning, are generic, not directed at a specific editor. this, however, is beyond the pale. I would need some convincing that this user is able to edit this area constructively. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't like to sanction in absentia, and I'm not yet suggesting we do so, but I want to note that not choosing not to respond here, or going inactive to avoid responding, will not improve the outcome as far as I am concerned. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- They're a pretty sporadic editor...many edits over a period of a few days, then nothing for two weeks. Maybe we pin this until they edit again? Valereee (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Valereee that this editors contribution history shows a pattern of editing for a day or two at a time followed by several weeks of inactivity. So I don't think it's fair to say they went inactive here but also holding this open for multiple weeks waiting for a response places some burden on the other other interested editors. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Welp, it's been nearly ten days since they first posted here, calling this a waste of time and vexatious. They're fully aware it's happening, and it's not even like they haven't been to AE before.
- I've gone through the diffs here, and it seems to me the basis of KA's problematic editing is that they're on a mission to WP:right great wrongs, specifically w/re what they see as antisemitic bias on WP. The exchange at Talk:Algeria a few weeks ago makes that pretty clear: they come into Algeria and open a section to post a content complaint about the article not covering changing Jewish demographics in the country, saying "Many people have edited it, but apparently not one has seen fit to explain" this. Another editor suggests KA fix whatever problem they're seeing, and KA responds: I made that comment to highlight the obvious problem of antisemitism among Misplaced Pages editors. The question was rhetorical. And many of their other talk contributions are focussed on these accusations of systemic bias.
- And @KronosAlight, in case you're paying attention: of course WP has systemic bias. It's usually unintentional, but in most CTOPs there are editors who consciously try to push a POV. The solution for that isn't to go 'round making accusations. It's to go 'round fixing the problem either by adding missing content or by discussing biased content in nonproblematic ways. It's the "nonproblematic ways" part you're missing, here. And if you are paying attention: You cannot make an AE case go away by ignoring it. I very strongly recommend you come in here and respond to the questions. Valereee (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- They're a pretty sporadic editor...many edits over a period of a few days, then nothing for two weeks. Maybe we pin this until they edit again? Valereee (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Nicoljaus
Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
- Appealing user
- Nicoljaus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
- To enforce an arbitration decision, and for edit warring, and intent to game 1rr, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Misplaced Pages.
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Notification of that administrator
- I'm aware. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Nicoljaus
The circumstances of my blocking were:
- I was looking for a Misplaced Pages account for Hiba Abu Nada to add it to Wikidata. I couldn't find it, so I did a little research. The reference in the article indicated that she participated in some WikiWrites(?) project. I didn’t find such a project, but I found the WikiRights project: https://ar.wikipedia.org/ويكيبيديا:ويكي_رايتس. It was organized by a certain Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. I read the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor article and didn't see any outside perspective, "controversy" or anything like that, just self-representation. I surfed the Internet and instantly found information that must be in the article to comply with the NPOV. I started adding , everything went well for two days. Then:
- 12:53, 23 April 2024 - Zero0000 made a complete cancellation of all additions
- 13:14, 23 April 2024 - (20 minutes later!) Selfstudier wrote on my TP
- 14:20 - 14:22, 23 April 2024 - With two edits (first, second) I partially took into account the comment of Zero0000 about "ethnic marking", but returned the last .
- 14:27, 23 April 2024 (7 minutes later!!) Selfstudier makes a second complete cancellation of all my edits, blaming POV editing
- 14:45, 23 April 2024 - I’m returning the version where I partially took into account Zero0000’s comments (removed "ethnic marking")
- 15:10, 23 April 2024 - Selfstudier accuses me of 1RR breach. In the dialogue, I explained that the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination. My first undo was part of a counter edit User talk:Nicoljaus#1RR_breach
- 15:41, 23 April 2024 Selfstudier writes on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
- 16:10, 23 April 2024 (30 minutes later!) ScottishFinnishRadish issues an indefinite block . No opportunity to write my “statement”, as well as an extremely bad faith interpretation of my remark as "an intent to game 1rr".
Given that the both Selfstudier and Zero0000 are currently being discussed in Arbcom (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Evidence), I humbly ask you to take a fresh look at my indefinite block and soften the restrictions in some way". Nicoljaus (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish: - You mean, I need to discuss my previous edit war blocks? Well, the last one was almost four years ago and that time I simply forgot that I was under 1RR (there was a big break in editing) and tried to get sources for a newly added map, and the opponent refused to do so . As it turned out later, the true source was a book by a fringe author, which the RSN called "Usual nationalistic bullshit, no sign of reliability". Yes, it was a stupid forgetfulness on my part. Nicoljaus (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Aquillion:
Even if you were correct that Selfstudier & Zero0000 were WP:TAGTEAMing (always a tricky accusation, because it's hard to separate that from just your edits being so obviously problematic that two people independently reverted them)
-- That's why I wrote that my "so problematic edits" attracted attention only after two days, but two users appeared within 20 minutes. However, after months, a lot of data about the cooperation of these users appeared (and this is not my imagination): "While a single editor, Shane (a newbie), advocated for its inclusion, a trio of veterans including Zero0000, Nishidani and Selfstudier fought back. After Selfstudier accused Shane of being a troll for arguing for the photo’s inclusion, Zero0000, days later, “objected” to its inclusion, citing issues of provenance. Nishidani stepped in to back up Zero0000, prompting a response by Shane. The following day, Zero0000 pushed back against Shane, who responded. The day after, Nishidani returned with his own pushback. The tag-team effort proved too much for Shane, who simply gave up, and the effort succeeded: the photo remains absent" . I'll add that after Selfstudier accused Shane of trolling, Zero0000 appeared on Shane's page and said: "Kindly keep your insults to yourself I won't hesitate to propose you for blocking if you keep it up" . According to the table at the link , these two users cooperated like this 720 times. Probably hundreds of people were embittered, forced out of the project, or led to blocking like me.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC) - @ScottishFinnishRadish: Hello, thank you very much for transferring my remarks, now I understand how it works. I would like to clarify the issue of meatpuppetry. You directly accused me of such intentions in justifying the block, and now this accusation has been repeated . Let's figure out whether my hint that Selfstudier and Zero0000 are working too closely was so absurd? Was it really and remains so absurd that it could not be perceived as anything other than my self-exposure? I don't think so.
As for the "edit war" - I understand that edit wars are evil. In the spirit of cooperation, I tried to meet my opponents halfway, as in this case, taking into account their claim, which I could understand, in the counter edit. If such an action is also considered an edit war and a violation of the 1RR/3RR rule - I will of course avoid it in the future.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
@Valereee: Hello, I understand your point that edit wars can be disruptive, particularly in a CTOP context. However, I believe it is essential to recognize that not all reverts carry the same implications. While it is true that a revert is a revert, the context and intent behind the action should also be taken into account. In this instance, I made efforts to address the concerns of the other party involved, which reflects a willingness to engage in dialogue rather than simply reverting. Furthermore, I acknowledge your reference to the 1RR/3RR rule and my history of blocks for edit-warring. However, given the amount of time that has passed, I believe I have gained valuable insights and learned a great deal. Moreover, given this topic, I think I actually learned something unlike the other side, whose history of blocks for edit-warring remains clean.--Nicoljaus (talk) 4:24 am, Today (UTC−5)
@Valereee: In response to this, I can say that I already know very well how carelessly admins impose blocks. If any further statements are needed from me, just ping me. With best regards.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish
Absent from the appeal is discussion of the five prior edit warring blocks and any indication that they will not resume edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I said
They have a long history of edit warring, so I'd like to see that addressed rather than blaming others
above, twelve days ago. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC) - Nicoljaus, you should be focusing on convincing people that you won't edit war in the future rather than more WP:NOTTHEM. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 1)
Statement by (involved editor 2)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Nicoljaus
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Simonm223
This edit looks like a bright-line WP:BLP violation via WP:ATTACK and WP:WEASEL - and removing BLP violations are generally somewhere where there is some latitude on WP:1RR which makes the actions of Zero0000 and Selfstudier more justified, not less. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Aquillion
Selfstudier accuses me of 1RR breach. In the dialogue, I explained that the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination. My first undo was part of a counter edit
- I feel like this is obvious enough that I probably don't have to point it out, but "counter edit" is not a WP:3RR / WP:1RR exception. Even if you were correct that Selfstudier & Zero0000 were WP:TAGTEAMing (always a tricky accusation, because it's hard to separate that from just your edits being so obviously problematic that two people independently reverted them), it still would not justify your revert. The fact that they're parties to an ArbCom case (which hasn't even yet found any fault with them!) doesn't change any of this. You should probably read WP:NOTTHEM. --Aquillion (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Sean.hoyland
"the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination"...yet another conspiracy-minded evidence-free accusation against editors in the PIA topic area, the third one at AE in just a few days. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)
Result of the appeal by Nicoljaus
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I do not see any indication that Nicoljaus actually realizes the problem. The edit warring blocks were indeed some time ago, but one might think they would remember it after being blocked for it repeatedly, not to mention that being issued a CTOP notice might call a CTOP restriction to mind. And the remark in question sure looks to me like a threat to game 1RR via meatpuppetry, too. Given all that, I would decline this appeal. Seraphimblade 23:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I see nothing in this appeal that makes me think they've taken on board the changes that they'd need to do to be a productive editor. It reads to me like "my block was bad, here's why", and that's not working as a reason for me to support unblocking. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Nicoljaus, what we need to see is you demonstrating you understand edit-warring at a CTOP, which is what you were blocked for, and convincing us you won't do it again. Arguing the block should be lifted because other editors did something you thought looked suspicious isn't going to convince us. Just FWIW, Nicoljaus, the source doesn't actually say these two users cooperated like this 720 times. It says they edited the same articles 720 times, and that's not unusual. Most editors see the same other editors over and over again in articles about their primary interest. And edit by editor 1>2 days>revert by editor 2>revert by editor 1>20 minutes>revert by editor 3 is also not at all unusual anywhere on the encyclopedia and isn't evidence of tag-teaming. People read their watch lists. Any editor with that article on their watchlist, which is nearly fifty editors, might have investigated the large revert of an edit by an experienced editor at a contentious topic. Valereee (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Nicoljaus, it's not that edit wars are evil. It's that they're disruptive, and particularly in a CTOP we really really don't need additional disruption and drama. A revert is a revert, even if you tried to meet my opponents halfway, as in this case, taking into account their claim, which I could understand, in the counter edit. Re: If such an action is also considered an edit war and a violation of the 1RR/3RR rule: a revert is a revert and is covered in the policy around reversions. And you have a history of blocks for edit-warring, including at other CTOPs.
- It's been seven months since the block. I'm trying to come around to a way to at least allow this editor a chance to show us they've taken this stuff on board...maybe a 0RR at all CTOPs? Valereee (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Nicoljaus, re I believe it is essential to recognize that not all reverts carry the same implications. While it is true that a revert is a revert, the context and intent behind the action should also be taken into account. In this instance, I made efforts to address the concerns of the other party involved, which reflects a willingness to engage in dialogue rather than simply reverting. Some editors at talk pages will take your apparent intentions into account. Some will just take you to ANEW. Some admins at ANEW will take your apparent intentions into account. Some will just reblock you.
- No one anywhere is promising that your intentions will be taken into account -- or even that they'll try to figure out what your intentions are -- and therefore it's completely your responsibility to read the situation you're in correctly. If you read it wrong, you're likely to be blocked again, and honestly another block for edit-warring at a CTOP is likely to be another indef, and it would absolutely not surprise me for the blocking admin to require 12 months to appeal. Valereee (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- No need to reply, but I'll tell you plainly I've been trying to give you opportunities to convince other admins here, and you keep wanting to dig the hole deeper. I'd support an unblock with an editing restriction of 0RR at any article with a CTOPs designation on the talk page. Valereee (talk) 13:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
PerspicazHistorian
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning PerspicazHistorian
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- NXcrypto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- PerspicazHistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:ARBIPA
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 17:57, 18 December 2024 - removed "discrimination" sidebar from the page of Hindutva (fascist ideology) even though the sidebar was inserted inside a section, not even the lead.
- 17:59, 18 December 2024 - tag bombed the highly vetted Hindutva article without any discussion or reason
- 10:15, 18 December 2024 - attributing castes to people withhout any sources
- 12:11, 18 December 2024 - edit warring to impose the above edits after getting reverted
- 17:09, 18 December 2024 - just like above, but this time he also added unreliable sources
- 18:29, 18 December 2024 - still edit warring and using edit summaries instead of talk page for conversation
- 14:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC) - filed an outrageous report on WP:ANI without notifying any editors. This report was closed by Bbb23 as "
This is nothing but a malplaced, frivolous personal attack by the OP.
"
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I do not see any positive signs that this editor will ever improve. So far he has only regressed. Nxcrypto Message 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- While going through this report, PerspicazHistorian has made another highly problematic edit here by edit warring and misrepresenting the sources to label the organisation as "terrorist". This primary source only provides a list of organisations termed by the Indian government as "terrorist" contrary to MOS:TERRORIST. Nxcrypto Message 03:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorian
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by PerspicazHistorian
By far I am also concerned how my edits were forcefully reverted without a proper reason despite providing enough references. Please check how I am getting attacked by them on Chandraseniya_Kayastha_Prabhu Page.
I didn't know about the three-revert-rule before User: Ratnahastin told me about this: User_talk:PerspicazHistorian.
Please grant me one more chance, I will make sure not to edit war.
In the below statement by LukeEmily, As a reply I just want to say that I was just making obvious edit on Chandraseniya_Kayastha_Prabhu by adding a list of notable people with proper references. And according to Edit_warring#What_edit_warring_is it is clearly said: "Edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism." It was a good faith edit but others reverted it. I accept my mistake of not raising it on talk page as a part of Misplaced Pages:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle.
As a clarification to my edit on Students' Islamic Movement of India, it can be clearly seen that I provided enough reference to prove its a terrorist organisation as seen in this edit. I don't know why is there a discussion to this obvious edit? Admins please correct me if I am wrong.
- @Valereee, Yes I read about 1RR and 0RR revert rules in Misplaced Pages:Edit warring#What edit warring is#Other revert rules. I now understand the importance of raising the topic on talk page whenever a consensus is needed. Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I will commit to that. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC) Moved comment to own section. Please comment, including replies, only in this section. Seraphimblade 13:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- At that time I was new to how AFD discussions worked. Later on when Satish R. Devane was marked for deletion, I respected the consensus by not interfering in it. The article was later deleted. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Doug Weller , I just checked your user page. You have 16 years (I am 19) of experience on wiki, you must be right about me. I agree that my start on Misplaced Pages has been horrible, but I am learning a lot from you all. I promise that I will do better, get more neutral here and contribute to the platform to my best. Please don't block me.
- P.S.- I don't know If I will be blocked or what , according to this enforcement rules, I just want to personally wish good luck to you for your ongoing cancer treatments, You will surely win this battle of Life. Regards. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Moved comment to own section. Please comment, including replies, only in this section.Valereee (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Statement by LukeEmily
PerspicazHistorian also violated WP:BRD by engaging in an edit war with Ratnahastin who reverted his edits and restored an article to a stable version by admin. Also, I want to assume good faith but it is surprising that PerspicazHistorian claims that he did not know the three revert rule given that he has more than 800 edits.LukeEmily (talk)
Statement by Doug Weller
I'm involved so just commenting. I don't think this editor is competent. I had to give them a community sanction caste warning as they were making a mess of castes. See this earlier version of their talk page.]https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:PerspicazHistorian&oldid=1262289249] and User:Deb's comment that "It was very unwise of you to keep moving Draft:Satish R. Devane to article space when it has not passed review. As a direct result of your actions, a deletion discussion is taking place, and when this is complete and the article is deleted, you will be prevented from recreating it. Deb (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)" There have also been copyright issues. I strongly support a topic ban. Doug Weller talk 11:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I won't be involved in the decision. No more treatments for me, just coast until... Doug Weller talk 12:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Result concerning PerspicazHistorian
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
PerspicazHistorian, can you explain your understanding of WP:edit warring and the WP:3RR rule? I'd like you to read thoroughly enough to also explain wny someone may be edit warring even if they aren't breaking 3RR. Valereee (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- @PerspicazHistorian, that explanation of edit warring is a bit wanting. An edit war is when two or more editors revert content additions/removals repeatedly. Even a second reversion by the same editor can be considered edit warring. Best practice -- and what I highly recommend, especially for any inexperienced editor -- is the first time someone reverts an edit of yours, go to the talk page, open a section, ping the editor who reverted you, and discuss. Do you think you can commit to that?
- Re: your question on why your "obvious edit" was reverted: we don't deal with content issues here, only with behavior issues, but from a very quick look, the source is 50 years old, and using a list headed "TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS LISTED IN THE FIRST SCHEDULE OF THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967" that includes a certain organization as a source that the organization should be described as a terrorist organization is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH; in their revert NXcrypto provided an edit summary of "Not a reliable source for such a contentious label. See WP:LABEL." Please discuss at talk, not here; we don't deal with content here. Valereee (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Walter Tau
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Walter Tau
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Bobby Cohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Walter Tau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 4 December 2024 Creation (and subsequent editing and AfC submission) of Draft:Maternity capital. See it's page history, there's no need to supply the entirety of the diffs here.
- For context on how this subject falls under the purview, see the context given by the news article as shared on the talk page: Russia using adoption of Ukranian children during the Russo-Ukranian war. Then note how this state program directly discusses adoption support, which was adapted by Putin following the start of the war. A citation given in the draft article. The Google translated version specifically notes the changes "At the same time, residents of the new regions will receive maternity capital regardless of the basis and timing of their acquisition of Russian citizenship" (emphasis mine).
- This draft, as it is written, is extremely promotional in areas and could basically be hosted on a state-sponsored website. Given the context, I believe this falls under the topic ban.
References
- Bruce, Camdyn (14 December 2022). "Ukrainian official rips Russia for 'kidnapping' more than 13,000 children". The Hill.
- "Путин подписал закон, уточняющий условия выплаты материнского капитала" . interfax.ru.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 26 November 2024 Notice given by Rosguill (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) that they were now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
- 5 December 2024 Blocked by Swatjester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for violating the sanction based on the edits to a project page.
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Has been made aware, see the diffs in the above section.
- Alerted about contentious topics as it applies to this specific draft, on 4 December 2024 by Asilvering (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), given a warning about this specific draft and how it falls under the above purview.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
It has been repeatedly pointed out to Walter Tau that they are skirting the line of the their topic ban by specifically not mentioning the "elephant in the room", see the diff by Asilvering above. They have also repeatedly chosen to ignore advice that they stop editing in the subject area and have repeatedly claimed to fail to see how their editing is problematic. As such, I have opened this discussion here so as to get an answer for Walter Tau on their editing, see "Also, since you mentioned a "topic ban", I would appreciate, if you provide a reference to it, as well as explain how it relates to this article Materniy Capital." They claim to continuously be unaware of the ban, see also their talk page discussions.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Notified 24 December 2024.
Discussion concerning Walter Tau
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Walter Tau
I feel, that the decision by Boby Cohn regarding my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Maternity_capital, is "arbitrary and capriciuos" to use US legal terms : ], for the following reasons:
1) nowhere my draft mentions the words "Ukraine" or "Ukrainian".
2) this draft ] is a translation of the original Russian wiki- article : https://ru.wikipedia.org/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB . I have heard the argument, that different languages in Misplaced Pages use different standards for articles' notability etc. Can someone please provide a web-link to Misplaced Pages rules, that actually confirms, that different standards for different languages is the currently accepted policy. I have been unable to find such statement.
3) In fact, my draft focuses mostly on the policies before 24 February 2022, i.e. before full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine.
4) Please correct me, if I am wrong, by it seems that Boby Cohn's only argument of my ban violation is the following statement in my draft of Maternity Capital. "Residents of new regions are paid maternity capital regardless of the time and basis for obtaining Russian citizenship." In my defense: I did not write that statement- it is a Google translation from the Russian wiki, actually a small part of the translated text. And with all honesty, when I was reading the translated text, it did not cross my mind, that someone may interpret so broadly. Also, this sentence-in-question does not really add much to the main subject to the article, and I do not object to its deletion.
5) Considering, that a) I did not write, but only translated the text-in-question; b) the relevance to the text-in-question to my topic ban is not apparent, particularly in the larger context of the whole article; c) I do not object deleting the text-in-question from the draft; may I suggest changing the draft to fix this controversy?
6) If there are other controversial sections/sentences in my translated draft, it may be better if someone re-writes them. Most wiki-readers, can agree with a statement, that this draft ] may not reach an "Article of the Day" status, but it has a value as a stand-alone article as well as a source of references (more-to-be-added). Walter Tau (talk) 13:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
I can see now, why some editors consider the translated addition, that I made, a violation of my ban on editing Russia-Ukraine topic. It was not my intention. I fact, I agree with the deletion of the questionable sentence "Residents of new regions are paid maternity capital regardless of the time and basis for obtaining Russian citizenship.". At the same time, I would like to keep the rest of draft, so that myself and other keep working on getting it published. Do I understand correctly, that the notability of this topic is not being questioned?
Statement by TylerBurden
Walter Tau doesn't seem to think they have done anything wrong on Misplaced Pages, so it's honestly not surprising to see them continuing to push the limit despite the sanctions they have received. At some point you have to wonder if there is a foundational WP:COMPETENCE or trolling (or a combination of both) issue. Either way, yes they are clearly violating their topic ban by writing about the Russian kidnapping of Ukrainian children from the war, because that is what this whole ″adoption″ thing is. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Walter Tau
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Sidestepping for now the question of whether simply not mentioning anything conflict-related would have been enough to avoid a TBAN violation, the references to "new regions" make this a violation much more straightforwardly. Justice is blind but not stupid. Walter, I think we're going to need to see recognition from you that this was a TBAN violation, if we're going to find a good path forward here. I'd also like to know who you are referring to when you reference other editors working on the draft? Auric has made some gnomish edits but you appear to be the only substantive editor. And why are you implying, on Bobby's talk, that y'all have been corresponding by email, when he denies that? -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 22:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'll be direct: I think Walter knows what he is doing and has no intention of abiding by his TBAN, even when it was exhaustively explained to him, and I don't think we should be wasting further time here when we're almost certainly going to be right back here again within a few weeks. ⇒SWATJester 05:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Back off a one week block for violating the topic ban, and already violating it again? (The "new regions" material is unquestionably a violation.) It seems that Walter Tau is either unwilling or unable to abide by the restriction, and does not, even after explanation, understand any of the issues here (or even understand something so simple as that different language Wikipedias are independent from one another and each have their own policies and practices). Given that, I don't see anything to be done here except to indef. Seraphimblade 17:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)