Revision as of 17:02, 9 December 2012 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,200 edits →Discussion concerning Evildoer187: Make new header for Ubikwit's comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:05, 9 December 2012 edit undoEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,200 edits Moving Ubikwit's comment into his own section of the relevant AENext edit → | ||
Line 218: | Line 218: | ||
--] (])/] 17:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC) | --] (])/] 17:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
::] did do so but as seen linked above and he is aware of his mistake. However as linked above and Evildoer187 seem to have every intent on reverting again.] (]) 17:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC) | ::] did do so but as seen linked above and he is aware of his mistake. However as linked above and Evildoer187 seem to have every intent on reverting again.] (]) 17:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
⚫ | ====Statement by Evildoer187==== | ||
⚫ | ====Statement by Evildoer187==== | ||
I only reverted it because the 24 hour limit had passed. I will revert my revert if that resolves the issue.] (]) 17:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC) | I only reverted it because the 24 hour limit had passed. I will revert my revert if that resolves the issue.] (]) 17:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
====Statement by Ubikwit==== | ====Statement by Ubikwit==== | ||
⚫ | I am new to this discussion and editing conflagration, but it seems that in addition to Bedouins, Kurds should be on the list; I added them earlier. | ||
⚫ | There is a fair amount of discussion relating to "contemporary status" regarding the characterization of a people as indigenous, not anachronistic claims related to "origin" or the like. It would seem that the focus should be on history and politics, not religion and genetics, but the discussion has been hijacked. | ||
⚫ | The claim being made by the pro-Israel group is clearly an ahistorical claim. | ||
⚫ | Given the references in the UN document I cited on the article Talk page, it seems that Palestinian Arabs in Israel should be on the list as well as Bedouin Arabs. The overall question of Palestinians in the Palestinians territories would seem to be much more difficult, and perhaps intractable at present, but it seems clear that there is no basis in modern history to include Jews, let alone the anachronistic "Israelites" on the list. --] (]) 15:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit | ||
====Comments by others about the request concerning Evildoer187==== | ====Comments by others about the request concerning Evildoer187==== | ||
Line 244: | Line 248: | ||
::<s>{{done}} '''page protection request''' - ].] (]) 18:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)</s> Removed Moxy's post here. My comment was not a request for someone to file at RFPP. It was a proposal for an admin action with which to close the present AE. The question will hopefully get more participation here before we close this. The protection would be an easy call, except it's rather long. The revert to an old version will ideally find support. ] (]) 02:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC) | ::<s>{{done}} '''page protection request''' - ].] (]) 18:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)</s> Removed Moxy's post here. My comment was not a request for someone to file at RFPP. It was a proposal for an admin action with which to close the present AE. The question will hopefully get more participation here before we close this. The protection would be an easy call, except it's rather long. The revert to an old version will ideally find support. ] (]) 02:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
:::It appears that Evildoer187 self-reverted at least one of his changes, per his comment above. Nishidani has asked that other editors simply revert his change if he inadvertently goes past 1RR, and he has apologized for this particular lapse at . He also left a comment at ] acknowledging making 'the same slip of two reverts in 24 hours'. I left a notice at ] asking for feedback about the proposal for full protection. ] (]) 03:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC) | :::It appears that Evildoer187 self-reverted at least one of his changes, per his comment above. Nishidani has asked that other editors simply revert his change if he inadvertently goes past 1RR, and he has apologized for this particular lapse at . He also left a comment at ] acknowledging making 'the same slip of two reverts in 24 hours'. I left a notice at ] asking for feedback about the proposal for full protection. ] (]) 03:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
== Room for improvement == | |||
⚫ | I am new to this discussion and editing conflagration, but it seems that in addition to Bedouins, Kurds should be on the list; I added them earlier. | ||
⚫ | There is a fair amount of discussion relating to "contemporary status" regarding the characterization of a people as indigenous, not anachronistic claims related to "origin" or the like. It would seem that the focus should be on history and politics, not religion and genetics, but the discussion has been hijacked. | ||
⚫ | The claim being made by the pro-Israel group is clearly an ahistorical claim. | ||
⚫ | Given the references in the UN document I cited on the article Talk page, it seems that Palestinian Arabs in Israel should be on the list as well as Bedouin Arabs. The overall question of Palestinians in the Palestinians territories would seem to be much more difficult, and perhaps intractable at present, but it seems clear that there is no basis in modern history to include Jews, let alone the anachronistic "Israelites" on the list. --] (]) 15:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit |
Revision as of 17:05, 9 December 2012
"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Misplaced Pages:AutoEd.Noticeboards | |
---|---|
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
General | |
Articles and content | |
Page handling | |
User conduct | |
Other | |
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards |
Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Important informationShortcuts
Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
Cla68
Reminders and instructions given to both Cla68 and Mathsci; no further actions now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Cla68
I accept the closing advice, as summarised by Future Perfect at Sunrise, for how to handle these matters, if they ever arise in the future. I have asked him to clarify whether by "private communication" he means by wiki-email or on a user talk page. Either or both is fine. Mathsci (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC) Discussion concerning Cla68Statement by Cla68Admins, could you please do something about this? I think this is the third or fourth enforcement action Mathsci has filed against me. Do you need the links? Admins User:Timotheus Canens and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, I'm especially interested in what you have to say. You helped make this mess. Cla68 (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Cla68As an administrator who doesn't frequent AE I'm commenting here. It would have been better if Mathsci hadn't filed this request. It would also have been better if Cla68 hadn't responded to this request. Cla68 is of course entitled to comment on Arb motions that name him as an affected party, but that doesn't mean he has carte blanche to make snarky comments against Mathsci, especially ones that refer to medical conditions. As far as I can see, Mathsci's editing affects Cla68 only insofar as Cla68 chooses to make it an issue. If Cla68 would decide to ignore Mathsci's posts to Arbspace, and ignore Mathsci's removal of sock posts, would there be an issue? Similarly, if Mathsci would decide to ignore Cla68's posts to Arbspace, annoying as they may be, would there be a problem? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved A Quest for KnowledgeI've been watching this sorry mess for the last few months with dismay, and this constant disruption needs to end. Sadly, this RfE is another example of Mathsci's battleground conduct. I don't know if this is best handled at AE or by ArbCom, but I don't see how this is going to end without a topic ban for Mathsci and an extension of the 1 way interaction bans to both ways. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Result concerning Cla68
Right. In the interest of getting this over with, and (I believe) in consensus with most of the other commentators here, I'll close this as follows:
Did I get that right? If somebody feels the wording should be tweaked, let me know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
|
Darkness Shines
Darkness Shines is warned under ARBPIA for his inappropriate comment. Nobody was lying; there was a glitch in Google Books. No other action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Darkness Shines
Following a series of disputes, at Israeli settler violence and a DRV of an article created by DS that I nominated for speedy deletion (and before anybody accuses me of hounding, I saw the notification of the redirect for speedy on his talk page, saw the article redirected to, and saw the AfD, and made the obvious determination that the target article also qualified for speedy deletion. I emphatically did not go through his contributions to get there), DS goes on a bizarre tirade about restoring a source that is verified through google books because he has a different version in pdf form, in which he also accuses an editor of being dishonest. He then closes an AfD of an article in the topic area that had already relisted for lack of consensus as an obvious keep, an AfD that I had been involved in. @KC: 4 for the edit to Talk:Israeli settler violence, disruptive editing for the AfD close, which as far as I understand is covered under the standard discretionary sanctions (6). nableezy - 15:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Darkness ShinesStatement by Darkness ShinesAll this does is show nableezy has a serious battlefield mentality. Let me know when I actually break a rule which can be brought to AE. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Darkness ShinesThere is currently a discussion at AN regarding this same matter. I believe a contentious non-admin closure of an AfD would fall more closely under the purview of AN or ANI than AE. Seems the other issues would be better handled together with that in the AN discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Reading this, I'm not sure which part of the arbitration decision was violated. It just seems like two complaints. Was anything actually violated? Ryan Vesey 01:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
@KC Darkness does not have to violate a specific arb ruling. Any violations of policy in the topic area can lead to the use of discretionary sanctions. I will say that profanity is not prohibited under any policy and it shouldn't be fucking prohibited. On AfD the relevant guideline is WP:NACD. It was clearly a contentious close and the wording of the close is rather absurd. Even an admin closing it that way would meet with some heat.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Comment by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge@Darkness Shines: You clearly cannot be dropping the F bomb or accusing other editors of lying. These are violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. You also appear to have closed an AfD on an article in a topic space that your involved with. Discretionary sactions require that you adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, including expected standards of behavior and editorial process. Your opening statement doesn't seem to acknowledge these mistakes, so I'm left wondering why you shouldn't be sanctioned? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Comment by ShrikeDS already said sorry to Sean so I don't think any harsh sanctions are warranted here.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Comment by Sean.hoylandI guess I should comment. There are thousands of profanity filled insults that would have had a degree of accuracy. DS picked exactly the wrong one. This calls his competence into question. He made a mistake. So did I by not spotting a mismatch between google books 'about this book' info and the actual book that the google page scans come from. He apologized. Nobody died. I'm not familiar with DS so I can't really comment on anything else. I will say though as a rule of thumb, having edited in the topic area for a long time, people who come into conflict with me (or Nableezy for that matter) are usually either sockpuppets or they have confused Misplaced Pages with a propaganda/public relations department and are here to advocate for some inanely divisive cause. Either way, just blocking them saves time. DS is not a sockpuppet. I don't know whether he is an advocate who makes consistently biased edits. Since he is a fan of plain speaking perhaps someone should ask him. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Result concerning Darkness Shines
|
Evildoer187
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Evildoer187
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Moxy (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Evildoer187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles
- "All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related. "
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 11:42, December 8, 2012 - No edit summary
- 00:32, December 8, 2012 - - No edit summary
- 08:11, December 7, 2012 - The documentation is right in front of you, you just choose to ignore it
- 16:54, December 6, 2012 - No edit summary
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- Warned on 12:34, December 7, 2012 by Moxy (talk · contribs)
Warned(reminded of the 1 revert rule) on 06:11, December 8, 2012 by Nishidani (talk · contribs)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Not sure this is the best way to proceed as there are many involved in the edit war. However after this post to quote "I have just reverted your edit (it's been 24 hours, I believe)". 24 hours is not the point - 1 revert rule is in place to make editors talk - not a invitation to revert at will after 24 hours. I believe we need to get all talking over editing and I believe this will send a message to all involved to talk it out.17:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Notification here
Discussion concerning Evildoer187
Question to Moxy:Why did you only bring the request only regarding Evildoer187?
It seem to meet that at least one more user has broke 1RR.For example Nishidani
- 20:14, 6 December 2012 (edit summary: "There is no source listing Israelites as indigenous under the lead def. and the world org sources. As per talk")
- 10:22, 7 December 2012 (edit summary: "Removed wp:or essay from what is a 'list. No documentation supports the entry, and the essay is pure WP:synth")
- 17:41, 7 December 2012 (edit summary: "/* Western Asia */")
--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- User:Nishidani did do so but as seen linked above and here he is aware of his mistake. However as linked above and here Evildoer187 seem to have every intent on reverting again.Moxy (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Statement by Evildoer187
I only reverted it because the 24 hour limit had passed. I will revert my revert if that resolves the issue.Evildoer187 (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Statement by Ubikwit
I am new to this discussion and editing conflagration, but it seems that in addition to Bedouins, Kurds should be on the list; I added them earlier. There is a fair amount of discussion relating to "contemporary status" regarding the characterization of a people as indigenous, not anachronistic claims related to "origin" or the like. It would seem that the focus should be on history and politics, not religion and genetics, but the discussion has been hijacked. The claim being made by the pro-Israel group is clearly an ahistorical claim. Given the references in the UN document I cited on the article Talk page, it seems that Palestinian Arabs in Israel should be on the list as well as Bedouin Arabs. The overall question of Palestinians in the Palestinians territories would seem to be much more difficult, and perhaps intractable at present, but it seems clear that there is no basis in modern history to include Jews, let alone the anachronistic "Israelites" on the list. --Ubikwit (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Ubikwit
Comments by others about the request concerning Evildoer187
- User Nishadani also violated 1RR, at least 3 times.
1. 2 3 4 Moxy, it seems that the only reason why you did not report Nishadani was because he support the same political POV as you.
- It looks like the page will be locked for 2 months. I recommend leaving the West Asia section as Bedouin, Marsh Dwellers, and Samaritans, i.e. what Maunus suggested. For the time being, it's best to omit anything pertaining to Jews or Palestinians.Evildoer187 (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest sticking with this version of the article until we reach a final agreement. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_indigenous_peoples&diff=527053471&oldid=527053378 Evildoer187 (talk) 04:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- I second this suggestion very strongly. Maybe with a few additions, but absolutely excluding Israelites, Arabs, Jews and Palestinians, for the time being.HaleakalAri (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Result concerning Evildoer187
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- This dispute at List of indigenous peoples seems to have the potential to run for a long time. There is endless opportunity for low-quality reasoning and original research, coupled with the word 'indigenous' which is practically a Rorschach subject to a great variety of interpretations. I would suggest placing a long period of full protection, such as two months. Meanwhile, as I scanned back through the history I found this version by Middayexpress from October which seems to be the last one prior to the current edit war. I suggest that admins restore that version while discussion proceeds on the talk page. Consider using an WP:RFC to reach agreement. There seems to be a UN definition of 'indigenous' which might be used to guide the analysis. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Done page protection request - Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection#List of indigenous peoples.Moxy (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Removed Moxy's post here. My comment was not a request for someone to file at RFPP. It was a proposal for an admin action with which to close the present AE. The question will hopefully get more participation here before we close this. The protection would be an easy call, except it's rather long. The revert to an old version will ideally find support. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)- It appears that Evildoer187 self-reverted at least one of his changes, per his comment above. Nishidani has asked that other editors simply revert his change if he inadvertently goes past 1RR, and he has apologized for this particular lapse at this edit. He also left a comment at User talk:Evildoer187#Block talk acknowledging making 'the same slip of two reverts in 24 hours'. I left a notice at Talk:List of indigenous peoples asking for feedback about the proposal for full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)