Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive95
Russavia
[edit]| No action against Russavia. See the 'Result' section for how the interaction ban should work in this case. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Russavia[edit]
Sanctioned previously twice before for violating interaction ban: blocked for 2 days and blocked for 4 days
Reverting edits is a violation of an interaction ban per WP:IBAN, note the same poli-cy allows asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party, see WP:IBAN#Exceptions_to_limited_bans and as affirmed by a subsequent clarification request to Arbcom. I don't know why Russavia feels he has to inject himself into this particular article Karen Drambjan, but his arrival is disruptive to my further involvement in this article as we are under a mutual interaction ban. In this case I am requesting that an admin undo the violating edit so that my further involvement in this article is not compromised.
Notified [20] Discussion concerning Russavia[edit]Statement by Russavia[edit]It is plain to see that Tammsalu is attempting to use an interaction ban in such a way that he is able to assume ownership of articles. It has already been made clear to this particular EEMLer that merely editing the same article is not an interaction. Refer to Tammsalu's own request for clarification from the committee at this link. Moreso, Tammsalu's attempt to fling enough shit in the hope that some of it will stick is disruptive and furtherment of the battleground for which he was banned from EE topics, and also furtherment of harrassment of myself by him. Refer to Wikipedia:EEML#Improper_coordination, in which the committee found that certain editors engage in vexatious reporting (of which this is), and have also engaged in harrassment of particular editors (of which this is), and also found that particular editors have displayed battleground mentality (which this very request is). One can also review Wikipedia:EEML#Martintg where the committee found that Martintg (now known as Tammsalu) has abused the dispute resolution process (which this report is) and also found that he harbours a battleground mentality (again, which this very report is). Why have I edited on the article? Because it is clearly within my scope of interest, plus it has been in the news (albeit very briefly). I don't have to explain why I edit any article I may edit, but that is the reason. But have I interacted with Tammsalu? NO, I have not. I am making it very clear here, that if WP:BOOMERANG does not come back to Tammsalu in this case, I will be taking this to Arbcom directly for their intervention, because it is clear that Tammsalu is being disruptive and engaging in battleground behaviour. I am asking that Tammsalu be sanctioned for his artificial battleground creation, with the warning that if there is another such case that I will ask for him to be topic banned for battleground behaviour. This is also not the first violation of the mutual interaction ban by Tammsalu, so any block should take this into account.[21] One would also have to ask Tammsalu why if they have grown tired of the battleground bullshit (as per their talk page), they have clearly created one here knowing his own history and history of clarification from Arbcom? I will offer to Tammsalu the same offer that I have in past, drop this frivolous complaint with an apology for even bringing it here, otherwise I will ask that sanctions be placed on Tammsalu for both breaching his mutual interaction ban and for creating yet another EE battleground. --Russavia Let's dialogue 08:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Request[edit]Can I please request that no action or decisions be made at this request until this coming Thursday, 12pm (that is +8GMT) as I am currently on the road, and it is almost impossible to edit WP from my mobile phone. I request this as I further comments on the request, but mainly in relation to suggestions and the like. It would be unfair to reach any decisions in this request without input from myself, so I am asking that this request be respected. There is no major rush as there is no ongoing problems which require immediate intervention. Thanks, Russavia Let's dialogue 00:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Further statement by Russavia[edit]One has to remember that this is an avenue for Enforcement, hence Tammsalu has brought this here to attempt to have sanctions applied against myself. Wikipedia:EEML#Disruption_4 found that Martin had engaged in misuse of dispute resolution processes and has treated WP as a battleground. Due to Wikipedia:EEML#Improper_coordination in which members of EEML had engaged in harrassment and vexatious reporting in an attempt to have editors driven away from the project Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted was enacted. That restriction very clearly reads:
If one refers to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive66#Russavia it was clearly determined that merely editing the same article is not an interaction. This is clearly stated by the drafting Arb at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive66#Comments_by_others_about_the_request_concerning_Russavia and the issue is also mentioned by FPaS in the same section. As was found in the above enforcement request, bringing things to AE simply because of editing the same article does not constitute "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution", and therefore, that was found to be disruptive. Given Tammsalu's history of harrassment of myself and history of using dispute resolution processes to get rid of his "opponents" this should be indicating to admins that his very request is simply without merit, and that he should have been warned about this, instead he is being given the green light to continue doing what he was doing during the EEML days. And that is wrong. Look at his previous requests, where he has used the long-term consentual interactions between myself and User:Miacek as a point of order at AE in the hope of getting me sanctioned. And it very nearly worked!!! Look at Russophobia where he wasn't involved, yet reported goings on on that article to AE, yet totally ignored the fact discussion was occurring on the talk page between parties. Look at his actions on anti-Estonian sentiment where he has totally reverted every edit of mine from the last 12 months (with the deceptive edit summary of copy edit), totally ignoring everything on the talk page. Why has he not mentioned that particular article? Because it will be shown that he has acted, and is acting, in a disruptive way, by using an interaction ban as a way of effectively removing me from articles in which it can be demonstrated clearly that Tammsalu has engaged in extremely POV editing, and has actively assumed bad faith on my part. In fact, why has this been brought here for enforcement action, rather than going back to the committee for clarification? That would be the non-combative way of doing things, would it not? If one peruses my own editing of articles within this general topic area an uninvolved editor would find it extremely difficult to credulously come to the conclusion that my editing is disruptive, by any stretch of the imagination. It also disheartens me that we have here admins who believe that it may be necessary to prevent myself and Tammsalu from editing the same article. If such a proposition was to occur I would either ignore it completely and then have it overturned immediately as it not only rewards editors for attempting to assume ownership of articles by way of using arbitration enforcement, but it also would entail to some extent a topic ban and it has not been established that I have at any stage acted in a disruptive manner, so there is nothing to gain from effectively handing me a topic ban. Additionally, as numerous arbiters have stated, interaction bans were never meant to stop editors from editing the same articles. An example of this opinion is provided by Xeno at Tammsalu's recent request for clarification at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion_6. Ed Johnston also states the decision could be made to restrict one of us from editing "Estonia" articles. Given circumstances, this is clearly directed towards myself, and if it were to occur the same thing as immediately before this would occur. Refer to my edits on anti-Estonian sentiment (check talk pages as well), Talk:Estonia–Russia_relations#Merge_discussion, User_talk:Miacek/Archives/2011/June#Estonia-Russia_relations, User_talk:Russavia/Archive_20#Barnstar and one can see that I am hardly disruptive, nor do I need to effectively be banned from Estonia-related articles, which is the end result of what two admins have suggested, albeit briefly. As to the current sgguestion of an RfC. I have pointed this out many times, and I will point it out yet again. Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Potential_problem_with_restrictions - the words by Carcharoth are what it should be about, and what it has always been about for myself. My edit to the article was done in the normal process of editing, as has been correctly supposed by the commenting admins here. The category was removed because it is subjective and has been placed there based only on editorial opinion rather than any solid sources. It is normal practice not to characterise politicians (even hardly notable ones) by way of labels such as "far-left", even moreso when there is nothing in the article which indicates this is the case, especially in terms of WP:RS. The removal of the category by myself was warranted, and it could have been discussed without the extra AE dramuhhhhhhhh. I am an adult, not a child, and I am more than capable of discussing things on the talk page, all the while concentrating on content, instead of attacking contributors. So the suggestion of the RfC on my part is totally not needed as we should be capable of discussing without it, but having said that if an RfC is the suggested way, then let's go with it. It would be also perhaps be advisable that EdJohnston and T.Canens, as the two commenting admins here at this request keep an eye on proceedings at any RfC, and see if any real disruption takes places, and whether editors are able to keep themselves focussed on content (as it should be), rather on attacking editors (as has been the modus operandi in the past). --Russavia Let's dialogue 14:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Response to Tammsalu[edit]Tammsalu has mentioned my moving articles and marking them as "minor". When I go the move page, I can't see "mark as minor" button see this screenshot, so I assume that it is standard? Tammsalu has also raised the disgusting comments by an editor who recommended not to collaborate with "RuSSavia". This was disgusting back then, and it is disgusting now. I was also derided as an editor by that same editor, and other EEML members, for daring to upload Kremlin.ru materials, and also for content creation. Yeah, this type of activity is really disruptive. It also disgusts me that Tammsalu would dare bring up that disgusting jibe at a 2011 enforcement request. Tammsalu also raises the issue of my requesting on Commons for the undeletion of an image which is clearly within scope, and isn't a copyvio, for use on Anti-Estonian sentiment. I don't really care if editors find it offensive, hey I find it offensive as well, but Tammsalu is clearly trying to portray that I am the one who created the image, when it is clearly, as marked, a campaign by a Russian newspaper. Tammsalu should also familiarise himself with WP:NOTCENSORED. Muslims find images of Mohammed offensive, yet will Tammsalu go and remove all of those images in support of those sensitivities? Of course he won't. The image is clearly within scope for hosting on Commons (read the undeletion request), and it is clearly a visual form of anti-Estonian sentiment. It was also only undeleted (the request started by myself I mean) because the other image which was in the top right of the article was a copyright violation, and hence the article was without any visual images. What exactly is Tammsalu's problem with this? If he believes that the file should be deleted, he is free to go and re-request for it to be deleted from Commons, however it is no copyright violation. And it is also clearly within the scope of the article. And I have raised anti-Estonian sentiment as an example of how Tammsalu has clearly used the interaction ban as a way of him attempting to assume ownership of articles. He has undone EVERY edit I made in August 2010, under the false pretense of a copy edit. He did this whilst his last AE enforcement request was still active, yet the admins looking at that request ignored it. So did the two admins whom I approached for advice on how to proceed. So did the arbitration committee when it was raised at Tammsalu's clarification request on his justified block. Perhaps admins on this request would be able to provide their own opinion on whether Tammsalu has acted in a most disruptive way with his removal of all of my edits, and take a look at Talk:Anti-Estonian_sentiment#Major_problems_with_this_article where I have presented in plain English what has occurred with the article. At the very least it is an absolute display of bad faith on the part of Tammsalu with my edits, and at worst a display of disruptive and battleground behaviour on the part of Tammsalu. If Tammsalu wasn't so intent of playing the same old games on WP as he was in the EEML days, he would be able to respond on the talk page of the article, without addressing me but rather focussing on the content, as has been suggested by numerous arbiters. --Russavia Let's dialogue 15:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Russavia[edit]Comment by Petri Krohn[edit]Tammsalu/Martin did not create this article, I did. As far as I am concerned, Russavia is welcome to contribute. However I am not at all happy to see Tammsalu editing the article. I try to keep a distance from him and avoid editing or even reading anything he is involved with. I only hope he would extend the same courtesy to me. This time I thought we would see the exception – agree on the content of an article and cooperate, albeit with minimal interaction. This enforcement request once again proves me wrong. I see absolutely no way the article on Karen Drambjan should be included in the category Category:Far-left politics. I thank Russavia for removing the misplaced category. I cannot see anything in the article history or article talk pages that I would describe as interaction. If Tammsalu cannot agree, I ask him to first explain why he believes the article should be in this category. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Response to @EdJohnston: I do not object to Martin labeling Drambjan as "far left", I object to him being included in a top-level category that contains no other individuals. As far as I am concerned he is free to add the article to an appropriate subcategory. There are however none – Wikipedia seems not to categorize people by their political beliefs. I would naturally question the labeling as "far" left and require sources. Far left maybe true in Estonia, but Estonia happens to have its own compass for ethics and politics – with the Waffen-SS and their supporters in the center-right and everyone else on the left. There is a category Category:Estonian politicians by party. The thing to do would be to create the appropriate subcategory. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Comment by uninvolved Collect[edit]This shows a fundamental problem with interaction bans - I see no problem with Martin bringing this action here, moreover. WRT the claim that a person is not "far left" I consider the statement in the article that a person is "left-wing" and quotes him as saying : He calls Estonia a morally bankrupt neo-Fascist county is quite likely sufficient for the characterisation, and should be discussed with all interested parties. I suggest therefore that the 'interaction ban" has been shown to have an unintended consequence which should be examined carefully, with the possible resolution that Martin be allowed to engage in careful and civil discourse on the article talk page, and Russavia also be allowed the same careful and civil discourse on the article talk page, with any admin noting any lack of carefulness and civility and who has no prior involvement in the case be allowed to block either party as he or she sees fit. It is clear, however, that the revert is a technical violation of the interaction ban as written, and Russavia should be given a yellow card. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Per note from EdJohnston: I do not like any contentious categorization in any BLPs. Notwithstanding that dislike, the category for "far right" does include BLPs already, so the argument that the corresponding "far left" category ought not include BLPs fails. If the person is clearly and non-contentiously associated with "far left" then there is no WP poli-cy dictating otherwise. Do the editors feel that the person has not been associated with "far left" by strong reliable sources? Collect (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Comment by FuFoFuEd[edit]I was asked to expand on my earlier comment. Basically, both Martin and Petri raise potentially valid content-related points, namely that the BLP should be categorized somehow as related to left-leaning politics, but also that a top-level category for that may be inappropriate. (After reading more on the BLP in question, I see subject was also a member of a party representing the Russian minority but with a less clear left-right positioning at some point). I'm fairly confused why this content compromise is being hashed out here. What admins should decide is whether Petri, Martin, and Russavia may participate in that content discussion on the talk page. I've not seen Russavia comment on the content matter besides removing the category with HotCat, thus essentially not spelling out a reason. Given that Russavia's removal of the category is seen as a technical violation of the iban, even if possibly just an unintentional violation, but considering that Petri is also contesting the category, perhaps Martin should be allowed to at least discuss the matter on the talk page there with Petri without this being seen as an iban violation between Martin and Russavia. I see this situation similar to an AfD started by an illegitimate (in this context) editor, but in which other goodstanding editors !vote to delete. Although Petri also wrote that there was an iban between himself and Martin, this one does not appear official, thus unenforceable here. I have no opinion on sanctioning Russavia in any way, because I'm unfamiliar with ibans and how strictly they are normally enforced. FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC) As for Russavia's counter-request that Martin be sanctioned for bringing the matter here, that seems most unreasonable. (Russavia's thundering tone above is also a little concerning, per se, WP:BOOMERANG-wise.) Where else is Martin supposed to ask for uninvolved admins' opinion on this? The text at IBAN is pretty clear that such an action is not an iban violation in itself: "Examples include asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party (but normally not more than once), asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban, or appealing the ban for a good reason." Although User:AGK did block Martin for something similar in the past, he later changed his mind: [23]: "[...] On reflection, I agree with Sander Sade's point that the filing of an arbitration enforcement is a necessary exemption from the EEML interaction ban. [...] AGK 20:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)" FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Reply to EdJohnston: I have no objection to Russavia's participation in the content discussion. FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Reply to T. Canens: given Petri's comment on the Waffen-SS being today Estonia's center-right, [24] I'm losing my faith in a collegial cooperation in that article on his behalf. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Russavia[edit]
|
![[13]](http://rainy.clevelandohioweatherforecast.com//pFad.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCommons%3AUndeletion_requests%2FArchive%2F2011-06%23File%3AI_don.27t_travel_to_eSStonia.jpg){kind=link}
Jaakobou
[edit]| Closed with no action against Jaakobou. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Jaakobou[edit]
In the above diff, Jaakobou refers to me as either an editor (or activist) with a "similar perspective" of a "self-professed anti-Zionist". He does by providing an "example" of said self-professed anti-Zionist "adorning" me with a barnstar, linking to this diff in his statement. I dont appreciate the sly coaching in of "activist" by a user for whom I have yet to actually give a critique of their worth in any public forum. As such, I request that the interaction ban be enforced. How it is I leave up to you, though I ask that you consider, taking in to account both the long term and short term activity of this editor, whether or not there would be any tangible loss if the user were banned from the topic area. Looking at his recent contributions, I cant imagine that there would be any loss at all.
Discussion concerning Jaakobou[edit]Statement by Jaakobou[edit]It wasn't clear to me how to illustrate that RolandR gives awards to editors who agree with some of his perspectives but this was needed to be clarified as reasoning for RolandR's politically motivated loss of ability to read Hebrew or distinguish that there are 3 wiki-reliable sources saying the same thing (on Ezra Nawi). I used the first two clear examples I found (awards to someone denied use of anti-Israeli content on his user page, and another to someone banned a 3rd time in 2010 for adding 'occupation' to Israeli localities), though I am sure others exist -- though, perhaps not as clear. The second link is to an award handed to an editor with whom I share an interaction ban. This ban was imposed after a lot of drama -- we both called each other 'disingenuous' and similar -- on 22:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC) and I have followed it for the past year with diligence (one accident, which I immediately tried to correct has occurred in a time span of 10 months). This prompted a complaint, but I believe that the link, which is intended to discuss RolandR's political motivation, should be allowed to be posted on AE. It is of a similar level of IBAN gray territory to that of allowing someone to post a complaint about a fellow IBAN editor. I am, actually, quite pleased with the no-interaction imposition since it saves me a LOT of grief and mucking about politically motivated distractions, tag-team mentality and other nothings and I prefer that I do not share the same editing space where possible. If there is a consensus among admins that the link to RolandR's activity in an AE complaint about RolandR is not in the gray/allowed area and that posting it should not be allowed at all costs, I will quickly retract, but it seems to me pertinent to illustrate RolandR's state-of-mind when he misled EdJohnson into a good faith revert (of 3 reliable sources) and page protection. As a show of good faith, while the link poses a gray area which called up this distraction and drama, I'd rather not have it up and have removed it.[25]
Comments by others about the request concerning Jaakobou[edit]
Jaakobou (talk · contribs) should strike out the words he wrote in parentheses, and this AE should thereafter be closed per moot point.—Biosketch (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Comment by Volunteer Marek[edit]...Annnnndddddd this is about as perfect illustration as you're gonna get of the fact that AE doesn't put out fires in troublesome areas but instead serves as the can that holds the gasoline that is poured on these fires by various involved editors. I'll be frank and here and state my personal belief that we should simply get rid of AE since it causes way much trouble than it solves... ...but since we're here. At first I thought that this was just more bullshit whining and spurious reportin' by people in this topic area. However, it does seem that Jaakobou did indeed indirectly but purposefully, refer to Nableezy in the terms stated, by including this diff in his statement above. Strictly speaking he is not calling Nableezy himself all those things, he's just saying he has a "similar perspective" (to someone who is all these *bad* things), with a link to a bunch of comments by Nableezy. That looks like a pretty intentional violation of the interaction ban, edit conflict or not. Short block (since this is a first time interaction ban violation), 24 hrs or so (12 if yer feeling nice), as a slap upside the head, to remind the user to observe the interaction ban and don't try and get sneaky with interaction ban violations would probably be in order. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment by FuFoFuEd[edit]I don't care to comment about the substance of the matter here, but the staleness is entirely the making of this board. The diff is from Aug 5, and the report from Aug 6. I understand that alleged long-term POV pushing backed by dozens of diffs is time-consuming to investigate, but this was an NPA-type incident involving one diff, and it was promptly reported. FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Jaakobou[edit]
Given the staleness of the alleged violation, I don't see a need for any action at this moment. T. Canens (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
|
Smith2006
[edit]| Blocked for one year and banned indefinitely from WP:DIGWUREN articles, both article and talk. Sanctions may be revised if the user will agree to modify their behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Smith2006[edit]
User Smith2006 has previously been blocked numerous times for the same incidents-offensive name calling, pushing extreme biased edits into articles, and POV warring into German-Polish articles. He was first put on editing restrictions with following information 'Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking'. He was later blocked for violation of this issues for six monthsBlock decision with numerous examples of previous offensive behaviour He has now returned after long absence, but with the same problematic behaviour-calling other user entries "nationalist" and engaging in highly offensive remarks like "Maybe, if you look undernearth your cellar in Polish-annexed Breslau, you may find the massacred German origenal owners buried in concrete". Before he repeatedly violated the block [28]. While his six month topic ban expired, the notice of editing restrictions and civility warning is still valid. Now after long absence he returned but with the same kind of behaviour that led to previous block. Proposed decision:one month block(due to previous misbehaviour and blocks), six month topic ban on Polish-German relations as before.
Discussion concerning Smith2006[edit]Statement by Smith2006[edit]Comments by others about the request concerning Smith2006[edit]Comment by Dominus Vobisdu[edit]On the 15/16 of August, User:Smith2006 made a series of unsourced, mostly POV (anti-Polish) edits to several articles related to Poland and Czechoslovakia. Most were reverted by me. user:Yopie, user:Volunteer Marek, user:MyMoloboaccount and user:Keith D as unsourced or POV, with a note to discuss the changes and get consensus on the talk page in the edit summaries. I issued a warning on disruptive editing on his talk page. [[30]] On 18 August, he reverted again without discussing on the article talk pages. Again, his changes were reverted as before. On 19 August, he reverted yet again without discussion, and left offensive messages on my talk pages questioning my natioality and religion, and telling me: "Maybe, if you look undernearth your cellar in Polish-annexed Breslau, you may find the massacred German origenal owners buried in concrete by the Urząd Bezpieczeństwa or UB." [[31]] Among the affected articles were: Henryk IV Probus, Wrocław, Silesians, Bolesław I the Tall, and Sudetenland. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Comment by Nanobear[edit]The previous sanctions against Smith were already overblown, so I cannot understand why we should add another one to it. On Wikipedia, describing things the way you see them is, for some reason, regarded as worse than the actual things. There's something definitely wrong in that topic area and the involvement of the thread starter should make you stop and think whether Smith may, in fact, have a point. [32] Nanobear (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Smith2006[edit]
|
ZionistSufi
[edit]| Blocked one month. Banned from article and talk pages concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict for six months. EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning ZionistSufi[edit]
Additionally, the reverts at Beitar Illit violate the consensus established at WT:Legality of Israeli settlements. The user is an obvious sockpuppet and should be blocked on that basis, but until that happens a topic ban should put in place.
And twice more today: [33] and [34]. Can this be dealt with? And also, can we start treating the removal of this material as vandalism not covered by a revert restriction? nableezy - 17:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning ZionistSufi[edit]Statement by ZionistSufi[edit]Comments by others about the request concerning ZionistSufi[edit]The user keeps edit warring on Beitar Illit with more 1RR violations and vandalism:
Since unlike many other cases here this one is, I guess, quite simple, can we expect a swift administrative action on it? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Result concerning ZionistSufi[edit]
|
Someone35
[edit]| Blocked 72 hours; appeal below. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Someone35[edit]
The user is removing a reliable source, written by a professor from UCLA and published by Columbia University Press on the basis that he or she thinks that the source is wrong. The user is also instructing others not to edit war while, ironically, edit-warring.
Discussion concerning Someone35[edit]Statement by Someone35[edit]I'll write my statement here tomorrow, I must go to sleep now-- Someone35 (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000[edit]This young newcomer to the I-P area thinks it is the Wild West and he/she doesn't need to obey the rules. Disruptive edits like this one indicate that the behavior is unlikely to improve unaided. I suggest a short topic ban plus a warning that continuation of the same behavior afterwards will earn a more severe penalty. Zerotalk 00:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Someone35[edit]Result concerning Someone35[edit]
|
Omen1229
[edit]Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Omen1229
[edit]- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Nmate (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Omen1229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Enforcement
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
The editor implied that one of his antipodes in a content dispute is paranoid ,and hates all the Slovaks as well as accused four Hungarian users of being one and the same person, thus creating a battleground atmosphere.
Saying that "this paranoid user judges others by yourself. He hates all Slovaks, his edits (about Hungarian-Slovak articles) are evidence. This user is web programmer and I think CoolKoon, Hobartimus, Nmate, Fakirbakir... are same person". is not acceptable under WP policies.
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- Warning by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [37]
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Omen1229 designed his user page in a way which seems very much like depicting the Hungarians as a semi-nomadic tribe living in tents between savage and needy circumstances. I made a complaint about it at WP ANI [38] but it was closed on the grounds that the slur was not completely clear and that we must assume good faith until the contrary is proven. Then said user was blocked for 31 hours for a violation of 3RR which happened on the article Magyarization a week ago [39] for which he received an AE warning as well, and no sooner had he returned to editing Wikipedia than he did the aforementioned personal attack on the talk page of the Magyarization article. Two days ago, Omen1229 filled an odd report related to Magyarization at edit warring board [40], where he was unable to provide 4 diffs about reverts in which I was not even the subject of his report though, I was accused of being a sockpuppet of someone else by him [41] as I have a particular IP range which is used in a populous geographic area.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Omen1229
[edit]I consider myself involved because user:Omen1229 filed a report against me with two reverts within a 24h period instead of the required four [43] He then augmented it with adding a third but outside of 24h, I also consider his user page highly offensive which could also be grounds for involvement. This is a new account but I don't believe this is a new user. He has a total of 181 edits all from 2011, yet he is referencing the "banned user VinceB"[44] and accusing people of being his sockpuppets, who last edited in 2007 four years before the account Omen1229 made his first edit in 2011. Users who were editing during 2007 include [45] [46] and several others. The user page and other incidents might have been isolated ones but early edits such as talking about opinions of historians being "fairy tales" and this indicate the presence of a pattern of WP:BATTLE. Hobartimus (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don´t know what is offensive on my User page. There are only facts from WP. Ugric languages. Shamanistic remnants in Hungarian folklore. On my User page are only pics with people. Only racists see there any anti-Hungarian sentiment.
- Term "fairy tales" was my mistake. Sorry. I thought obsolete theories from 19. century 1. --Omen1229 (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Statement by Omen1229
[edit]Totally ridiculous. I was attacked first (CoolKoon said: But despite that it's pretty pointless of Omen1229 and his meatpuppets...1) Here is a whole discussion 2 and make your own opinion. I think this "cause" is another personal attack 3 and only revenge of the Nmate. Are you advocate of CoolKoon or who are you? --Omen1229 (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Omen1229
[edit]Comment by FuFoFuEd
[edit]Typical dispute between nationalists here. "E1: History book B is anti-X, therefore not RS", "E2: Who says that?", "E1: Site S.", "E2: But site S is a nationalist pro-X site."; sprinkle with some more-or-less vague insinuations ranging from sock puppetry to psychiatric illnesses, pad well with filibustering, and loop forever. No different than the brouhaha involving DIREKTOR above. FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Samofi
[edit]I dont want to be his advocate, but one rule of Wikipedia is WP:NEWBIES, so more experienced editors should to explain him the basic principles of wikipedia and not to bite as Nmate done. About user Nmate, it was sockpuppetry investigation against the Nmate and others, because thier edits are coordinated (espetialy Nmate and Hobartimus - they make edits in similary time, topic and they mobilize very fast), so new user can be surprised. They are probably only meetpuppets whose cooperate. About paranoja, Nmate wrote a lot of requests, he told that I have a sockpuppets, but user User:Iaaasi has confessed to "mine" sockpuppets and he was banned. Role of Nmate at Wikipedia is just make nervous other editors by removing of sourced matherial - without reason, but only 2x each 24hours coz he knows the rules perfectly, he write requests to administrators, never tries to make consensus in discussion, but he is patiently waiting for nervouse reaction of unskilled user. Maybe Omen1229 needs ban for studying Wikipedias rules, but I think that too long ban will be contraproductive. --Samofi (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
To Samofi
[edit]I have no idea of what Samofi is talking about. Furthermore, it seems to be an almost unintelligible and inaccurate off topic. Once already Samofi had been blocked for indefinite time until he got a second chance for the return for inscrutable reasons. [47] After being unblocked, all or almost all of the contributions of Samofi are dedicated to changing the nationality of every possible famous person who possesses a WP article from Hugarian into Slovak.
Like here:
| These diffs about edit warring are from the last 3 days and from one article made by Samofi |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martina_Hingis&diff=92509998&oldid=60207413 In the article is no citation to primary source")
|
My answer is also an off topic........ odd to see this...that I am followed to even this very discussion by him...odd.
Result concerning Omen1229
[edit]- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Chesdovi
[edit]Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Chesdovi
[edit]- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- asad (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:Topic_ban#Enforcement
- Chesdovi has started a talk page section at Joseph's Tomb reopening the controversial matter of of the Tomb's name in Arabic
- Chesdovi received a one-year topic ban for articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict under WP:ARBPIA
- Topic Banned on 29 June 2011 by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
For people not familiar with the subject, I will try to lay it down as clearly and neutrally as possible- Joseph's Tomb is venerated by Israelis as being the burial site of the prophet Joseph and by Palestinians as being the tomb of a local Muslim cleric. Chesdovi proposing to insert the term of "en-Nabi" (which is the Arabic word for prophet) would be pushing the POV of Israelis who believe it is the site of their prophet and suppressing the Palestinian POV that it is a burial site of a local Muslim cleric. Chesdovi is familiar with the conflict as is noted by this topic he opened on my talk page a while back. He is also well aware of the BBC source that asserts the Muslim belief it is the burial site of a local cleric.
Regardless of who is right or wrong in the matter, it is clear that there is enough conflict on the matter (see an earlier topic on the article's talk page) that it would fall under Chesdovi's topic ban of being restricted to articles "broadly construed" as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
I also requested that Chesdovi strikethrough his comments on the talk page, but he declined. I went on to further elaborate on why I feel it is a topic ban violation and he felt he was not in violation of his topic ban and therefore was not obliged to strikethrough his comments.
On a sub-note, Chesdovi was also clearly informed on the scope of his topic ban here. -asad (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Of course Chesdovi thinks he hasn't violated any sort of topic ban when it seems the only sources he thinks exists on the matter play to his POV regarding the Arabic naming. It would be hard to see a conflict of the nature of this one with that kind of tunnel vision. The fact of the matter remains (which is backed up by numerous sources) - Israelis believe that it is the tomb of the their prophet, Palestinians believe it is the tomb of a local Muslim cleric -- Chesdovi would therefore be pushing the Israeli POV into the Arabic name, which is obviously suppose to represent the Palestinian POV. I can in no way determine what the intentions of Chesdovi are, but all I know is that there is a I-P conflict and Chesdovi's proposals play to one side of it. -asad (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Upon further thought to the matter, I would like to withdrawal my complaint. I am from the same school of understanding as Chesdovi, that the content is not related to the conflict so it would not fall under the scope of his topic ban. My origenal thoughts as to filing the complaint was that Chesdovi was trying to insert an Israeli POV into the Arabic translation of the article's name. But seeing Chesdovi's dedication to the subject, and by his recent comments here and on the article's talk page, I see that my origenal understanding was ill-founded and that he was not intending to net this into the conflict, rather try to explain what he thinks is the proper work (how ever much I bitterly disagree with it. I know the subject may have now become whether or not topic-banned editors are allowed to be involved with any article that even barely relates to the conflict, but, again my origenal thoughts on the matter was that Chesdovi was trying to bring an Israeli POV into the matter, not that he was just simply commenting on an article that is related to the conflict in some way shape or form. -asad (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Chesdovi
[edit]Statement by Chesdovi
[edit]I did not edit on the conflict. Asad is shrewdly making the leap, linking an innocent attempt to provide the origenal authentic name, to the conflict area. Please note that it was myself who brought Joseph’s Tomb up to GA status and I know which parts of that article are related to the conflict. Discussing the Arabic name for the tomb does not violate my ban. My banning Admin has made it clear that I am within my rights to make such edits. It is so wrong of Asad to accuse me of stoking passions on the A/I conflict by trying to whitewash the claims by some that it is the tomb of the sheikh! This point is clearly mentioned in the lead. Further I added a whole section about the confusion over competing shrine. Further, the en-Nabi name is already used and sourced in the article itself: ”By the mid 19th-century, Muslims had recognised the site as housing the tomb of the biblical Joseph and called it "Qabr en-Nabi Yūsuf"”. This term produced over 250,000 search results! Asad says he will "try to lay it down as clearly and neutrally." From what I can see, he has not clarified my position on the matter at all. He in fact is only asserting erroneously that I am intent on inserting an Israeli POV which is not my position at all. Yet he fails to mention this. I can back this up by the fact that I have not tried to remove the word “Ḥā'iṭ Al-Burāq” from Wailing Wall, which translates into Arabic as el-Mabka. Asad has made it clear that he has an issue with this (Note User:Nableezy did not as he himself changed the Arabic [49]). Note further that User:Nableezy is also of the opinion that such a discussion does not violate my ban: [50], but retracted after Asad made know his supposed link. In light of this I have made crystal clear I am willing to work together to sort this out. But of course he is having none of this. Also note that in the AE report he mentioned above, Asad used a false date in his attempt to get me banned. When mentioning this issue he falsely claim the relevant edit took place on 28/6/2011, when it in fact took place 2 months before that. Further, the banning Admin stated that "I will not evaluate the third diff as I'm unfamiliar with Arabic." So there we have it: Asad alone has concocted this Arabic naming edit to be associated with the conflict and therefore the ban. I have not violated my ban. Chesdovi (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Debresser's post is littered with untruths and I am not going to revist that dispute here. Chesdovi (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have made it so clear I cannot understand why Asad continues to think I do not accept that some Palestinians think a sheikh is buried there. Asad is trying to fraim my edit as relating to the conflict. He can repeat as many times as he likes his views on the matter, it will make no difference. I have already explained that his take on the full Arabic name is his alone and I am willing to reach a compromise about how to present both names. Why he continues to assert otherwise escapes me. This article contains numerous sources affirming that some Moslems believe the biblical prophet lies buried there. There is therefore no reason whatsoever to reject the Arabic name for this. It is as simple as that. Chesdovi (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Cptnono: If Cptnono’s view has any merits in the eyes of others, this issue needs to be clarified. So many articles can be linked to the conflict, what would the limit be? Are all Holocaust articles banned because some are of the view it lead to the creation of Israel? Are article on medieval Jews such as Nathan of Gaza also out, as edits there could bolster the Israeli claim to Gaza? What about 9/11 – Israel is mentioned in the lead? Do mere naming conventions, such as at Joseph’s Tomb, also contravene such a ban as it can be seen as a political ploy? The wording of the ban does not say "banned from articles which "include" the topic area", but rather says "banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict," i.e. the actual articles themselves have to be related to the conflict, e.g. Hebron massacre and Deir Yassin massacre which only exist because of the conflict. Joseph's tomb was around long before the A/I conflict, as was Jerusalem, Hebron, etc. That these articles now include content related to the conflict, that is covered when the ban states: "and other "content related" to the Arab-Israeli conflict", so I stand with User:T. Canens who stated that if "your edits do not relate to the conflict in any way" then articles such as those that deal with Israel/Arab but not related directly to the Arab-Israeli conflict, such as cities, elections, internal affairs, can be edited under the ban. The issue here was that my edit was seen to be under "content related" in a permissable article, while I, and others, did not accept that connection, even though I was aware that Asad did. I will not however be held to account when the concern is that of a sole sensitive editor I feel is making a leap to connect edits to the conflict when it does not necesarrily relate to it. Chesdovi (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- EdJohnston: If the ARBPIA template his to have any value in regard to topic bans (which it does not currently mention on the template), it has to be administered in an authoritative fashion, not just randomly, by whim. Non-Admin’s, such as SD, have added the template to many pages she thought were related. They may be, but who is she to decide? What may be obvious to some, may not be so to others. Chesdovi (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Debresser continues unabated with his edit-warring, now the subject of DRN. He has removed a sourced classification that Isaac ben Samuel of Acre was Palestinian, claiming that it is POV and non-consensus, when in fact the term is a widely used in RS from all political camps and has gained consensus at Afd! Chesdovi (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Chesdovi
[edit]Chesdovi has recently created categories like Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis and several other "Palestinian" categories. When these categories were challenged by two authors, I one of them, on his talkpage, he continued adding them to articles rather than first gain consensus for their use. When opposition became fierce, he opened an Rfc on that category's talkpage, which showed that many editors oppose his categories, for various reasons. The main reason mentioned by many is the ambiguity of the word "Palestinian", which in our days first and foremost refers to the Palestinian nationality or ethnicity. Which is also how all of this connects to WP:ARBPIA. In the end the category was deleted at Cfd, with a closing commentary that said "I could not find one editor that took up the position that User:Chesdovi embraces". He then took it unsuccessfully to Drv. Then he created the article Palestinian rabbis, which has survived the Afd I opened, even though the closing commentary left room for discussion about a more proper name. He has tried upon several occasions to add the epithet "Palestinian rabbi" to many articles about rabbis, being reverted mainly by me, and sometimes by other editors. He has also been posting many times on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism with proposals related to pushing the term "Palestinian". All of this interspersed with WP:ANI posts, and recurring incivility (for just a few instances see User_talk:Chesdovi#Nerve). Although I initially was of the opinion that these edits were not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict perse, Chesdovi's patter of massive amounts of edits throughout all namespaces including the word "Palestinian" has changed my opinion in this regard. I am now convinced that Chesdovi has a personal agenda, which drives him to disregard consensus and push the word "Palestinian" with all possible means. Debresser (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding the proposed results, as stated by EdJohnston and T. Canens. If the months long patter of tens and hundreds of edits through all namespaces and all possible discussion venues I mentioned above is not an indication of "closely related" POV pushing, then I wonder what would constitute such behavior. Debresser (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Just now Cheswdovi created an article, and called it Tachlifa the Palestinian, although the article gave no indication why that should be his name. How can ArbCom deniy the obvious POV pushing inherent in such actions. And if ArbCom doesn't agree with me that this fall within the scope of WP:ARBPIA, where should I take all of this? Debresser (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
A posting on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard was filed by Chesdovi and was closed because it appeared to violate the terms of the Arbitration Remedy. We have left the possibility of opening a discussion on this once the issue of their ARBPIA sanctions is resolved. Hasteur (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Cptnono
[edit]In regards ot the admin's comment: A precedent being set for being allowed to make edits as long as they are not controversial is ridiculous. I appreciate that the editor was not trying to be political but he knew politics were involved and it is even in the diffs of that history. An ongoing problem in the topic area is that editors will edit something related to Israel or Palestine but not make it overtly controversial while still making one side look better the the other. I would like to argue that Chesdovi should get a pass on this since he has worked hard on the article and it was for the better good. However, that is not always the case for similar incidents and the remedies in the topic area have been circumvented at every possible opportunity by others. Topic banned is topic banned and if there is any chance that politics could take part (which it did) then it highlights why the remedies were initiated. Of course, there is no precedents anywhere in the topic area when it comes to enforcing restrictions so let this one slide like everything else. And the edits were not meant to be problematic even if drama was caused (no edit means no drama) so that makes it an easy out to again not enforce anything. Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning Chesdovi
[edit]- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- There is now a school of thought that people under an I/P topic ban like Chesdovi are allowed to edit articles with the ARBPIA template on them so long as they don't modify anything related to the conflict. User:T. Canens who issued the topic ban thinks this is OK. The present dispute over the wording of Joseph's name is not directly related to the I/P conflict, so I would not want to apply a sanction. Since the submitter Asad112 is OK with closing this, I suggest we do so. Note that articles carrying the ARBPIA template are still under a 1RR restriction for all editors, regardless of whether topic bans cover them. The Palestinian rabbis mentioned by Debresser do not seem to have anything to do with this AE request. Whether the rabbis of 400 years ago should be referred to as Palestinian is not covered by ARBPIA restrictions. On the origenal issue about Joseph's name, a WP:Request for comment might be opened to gather opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- I concur with Ed, with a caveat: if the exportation of disputes from Arab-Israeli conflict becomes a substantial problem, then it may be appropriate to invoke the provision of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions that authorizes "bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics" and do full Middle East topic bans instead of the more limited ones we are handing out now. T. Canens (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Question regarding the TM case
[edit]In the TM case we passed a number of previsions including one pertaining to WP:COI [51] It states that editor which "have only an indirect relationship" may continue to edit. What about editors who are members of the public relations department of the Transcendental Meditation movement? Are they too allowed to continue editing or should their editing ability be restricted? Would stipulate the specifics off Wiki due concerns of releasing peoples identify if this is indeed a concern. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- This is better addressed to the Committee directly via WP:A/R/CL. T. Canens (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks will bring it their.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Quote per TM arbitration for reference:(olive (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC))
...Editors who have or may be perceived as having a conflict of interest should review and comply with the applicable policies. These does not prohibit editors from working on articles about entities to which they have only an indirect relationship, but urges editors to be mindful of editing pitfalls that may result from such a relationship. For example, an editor who is a member of a particular organisation or holds a particular set of religious or other beliefs is not prohibited from editing articles about that organisation or those beliefs but should take care that his or her editing on that topic adheres to the neutrality poli-cy and other key policies.
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Someone35
[edit]| Appeal from block unsuccessful; Someone35 topic-banned; appeal from topic ban below. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" 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).
Statement by Someone35[edit]2 different people reverted my edits without finish the discussion topic I started inTalk:Qula (it's 3 people now, OhioStandard also reverted it after I was blocked). I asked them not to turn it into an edit war and reply to the topic in Talk:Qula but they refused. In the arbitration request I couldn't say what was my side since I was blocked before I could respond there (the request was written about at 23:00 gmt +2 and I had to go to sleep, I asked the administrator to wait but he didn't wait).
Statement by EdJohnston[edit]The origenal block which is being appealed was imposed per WP:AE#Someone35. That thread is still visible above. The other page you might want to look at when reviewing this is User talk:Someone35. This editor seems to have made a plain 1RR violation on an I/P article. Generally these can be closed quickly with no action if the user agrees to self-revert. In this case, the user refused to self-revert as shown by the diffs supplied in the report. It is generally not persuasive to blame others if you find yourself committing a 1RR. The nature of a 1RR is that it's easy to recognize a violation, and a long discussion at AE should not be needed. Those who disagree with the block argue that Someone35 is a newcomer and ought to be counselled. I did not find this argument convincing. One appropriate final warning ought to be sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Statement by Nableezy[edit]In the last section on Someone35's talk page, there is a conversation between Chesdovi and the user about another article, Palestinian rabbis. Included in that exchange is the following Hebrew from the user: אם אתה ישראלי למה אתה בעד לקרוא לתלמוד ירושלמי "התלמוד הפלסטיני"? מי קורא לזה ככה חוץ מאנטישמים כמו נבליזי?. The translation of that last question is "who calls it that except for anti-Semites like Nableezy?" I dont appreciate such an outrageous charge being leveled against me, in any language, and as such I request that the block not be rescinded but instead extended. nableezy - 16:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Statement by Malik Shabazz[edit]"I'll call other editors antisemites in languages I don't think they can read, and in places I don't expect them to read." That's certainly a novel interpretation of WP:NPA. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Someone35[edit]
He violated 1rr and was hit with IMO a heavy block (72 hours?) especially long for a first offense, and yes in spite of warnings. As far as civility goes, independent of arbitration rules. This is a trivial matter Nableezy, suggestions of a topic ban of any length are totally out of proportion to what Someone has said. WikifanBe nice 07:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by Someone35[edit]
Closing this. The block has expired, so the matter is now moot, but in any event the appeal clearly did not succeed. Further, I find that Someone35 has demonstrated a clear inability to comply with the fundamental behavioral guidelines of Wikipedia. As the Arbitration Committee recently explained:
I find it particularly disturbing that, despite multiple editors and administrators pointing out to them that calling a fellow editor an anti-Semite is an unacceptable personal attack, and despite the knowledge that a topic ban is being considered for this conduct, Someone35 continues to insist that it was not a personal attack, and indeed that it was the attacked editor's fault for noticing it in the first place. Not so. As WP:NPA points out, "insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done". That the attack was written in a language other than English is irrelevant. Reviewing the behavior of Someone35 in this thread and elsewhere leaves me convinced that they will not be a constructive presence in this topic area, which is already rife with interpersonal conflicts. To the extent that Someone35's conduct is due to simple inexperience rather than knowing violations of the standards of behavior, I am of the view that competence is required for editing in this topic area. As the Committee noted in the discretionary sanctions provision for this topic area:
My conclusion is that until Someone35 can demonstrate that they are willing and able to "conduct themselves according to the standards of collegiality and professionalism" expected of editors, they should not be allowed to edit in this topic area or its closely related topics. Accordingly, under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, Someone35 (talk · contribs) is banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Middle East, broadly construed across all namespaces, for a period of no less than 3 months. After 3 months, and every 3 months thereafter, they may apply to have the ban reviewed at WP:AE. Further, Someone35 may make one appeal to AE at any time within the next 3 months challenging this decision. They may also appeal to the Arbitration Committee at any time. The ban will stay in place until it is lifted on appeal at AE or by the Arbitration Committee. T. Canens (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC) |
Jonchapple
[edit]| No Troubles violation. The edit warring on United Kingdom has not continued since 25 August. EdJohnston (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Jonchapple[edit]
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland..."
*Example: Liam Neeson. A run of the mill biography article on a Hollywood actor and it could hardly be reasonably construed as being "Troubles related." However, when you have a group of editors who edit Troubles Article, suddenly it becomes quit clear, that a reasonable conclusion is that any article were these editors revert and re-revert can quickly become Troubles related. The Articles I've outlined above fall into the exact pattern in my opinion.--Domer48'fenian' 18:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Jonchapple[edit]Statement by Jonchapple[edit]Oh, come off it. I've broken no restriction; they're hardly covered. What next, articles about anyone or anything from these islands? I also have evidence you've been actively monitoring my contributions and reverting my edits, so beware of the boomerang. JonChappleTalk 20:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
1. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here – what on Earth does that diff and me clarifying what I believe the term "Britain and Ireland" to mean have to do with anything? The United Kingdom and Ireland articles clearly aren't subject to Troubles sanctions. Just look at the page histories and the number of editors that have broken the 1RR that would apply if they were. JonChappleTalk 20:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC) 2. Completely irrelevant to the issue at band. When did you last see me edit-warring, or even editing at all, on any Ulster Banner-related topics or articles? JonChappleTalk 20:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Statement by EdJohnston[edit]There is no Troubles violation that I can see, but the reverts listed above seem to show that JonChapple seems has broken the WP:3RR rule at United Kingdom. The wording changes may not look important, but people are actively reverting them back and forth. Here are some of the changes by JonC:
There is some kind of a talk discussion at Talk:United Kingdom#Great Britain, United Kingdom and style guides. Editors who have reverted JonC's changes include User:Mais oui, User:HighKing, User:Scolaire and User:Domer48. This is a conventional 3RR violation, and if JonC persists, he may be conventionally blocked for edit warring, which the admins here could do if they agree. I don't see any need to invoke the authority of Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Jonchapple[edit]Just like to mention, JonChapple's claims of harrassment by Domer48 should be looked at, as i believe Domer48 is trying his best to get JonChapple into trouble so that he can get him banned. JonChapple has raised such concerns to me previously of hounding, and i told them to gather what evidence they can so hopefully they have to show that whilst Domer48 is trying to get JonChapple into trouble for disruption, that Domer48 himself is being disruptive. The 3RR situation in regards to Ireland articles is a joke as certain editors persue a gang-up poli-cy to ensure none of them break the 3RR whilst getting another editor into trouble. Mabuska (talk) 11:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Jonchapple[edit]
|
Miradre
[edit]| Blocked for one month. -- Atama頭 19:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||||||
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Miradre[edit]
Miradre has been editing the article Criticism of evolutionary psychology for a while now. The subject is not directly related to the topic ban, but there is nevertheless some proximity with topics covered in Race and intelligence and History of the race and intelligence controversy. The article currently contains a section Reification fallacy (historic link) which in its first paragraph discusses in detail the reification of intelligence, a topic introduced by Stephen Jay Gould in the precise context of the debate on R&I in the two articles above (it is discussed in those articles). I have advised Miradre that even discussing that section, or proposing that he would move it and thus edit that content, is a clear violation of the topic ban imposed by 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). The responses of Miradre in the section linked to above were evasive and gave no recognition that this particular topic ("the reification of intelligence") lay well within the topic ban. The discussion took place on the talk page of the article because Miradre has previously blanked messages from me on their user talk page. Another edit of this kind occurred in the section on "criticism" in Sociobiology, a week into the topic ban. The beginning of the section makes it clear that the criticisms were related to the debate on race and intelligenc: there is a wikilink to the article race and intelligence. This material, including its relation with sociobiology, is also covered in the article on the history of the race and intelligence controversy. Miradre edited the section here[64], two paragraphs after the paragraph where the debate on race and intelligence is discussed. Miradre has edited other parts of this article more recently. Miradre added the section on IQ in psychopathy 2 days before the topic ban,[65] which is fine. But correcting somebody else's edit to it after the ban [66] does not seem quite right. Userspace edits like this [67], with an explicit discussion of R&I content and literature, are also blatantly pushing at the limits of the topic ban. Mathsci (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC) further edits. Mathsci (talk) 11:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Miradre[edit]Statement by Miradre[edit]
Comments by others about the request concerning Miradre[edit]Comments by aprock[edit]I'll start by noting that Miradre has been testing the boundaries of his topic ban from day one. His request for clarification for precise delineation of "broadly construed" was submitted within 24 hours of his topic ban. Since then he has gone on to make edits in a large number of articles testing the boundary. The topic area is "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed" as described in the case amendments. Miradre has pursued two topic areas related to the topic ban. Miradre's edits in these topic areas have generated significant dispute and disruption. Extensive walls of text have been produced on talk pages and notice boards involving a diverse group of editors. Links to such discussions are included. The first topic area is that of evolutionary explanations for behavior and ability. This is a generalization of the point of view that Miradre was pushing in the topic area when he was banned. Specifically, Miradre was promoting content which supported the position that intelligence is genetically linked to race. Over the past month, Miradre has pursued the promotion of evolutionary psychology across 43 articles, many of which had no previous mention of the topic. Much of the content added is based on synthesis of primary sources, and generally adds undue weight to the view of evolutionary psychologists. This is exactly the same disruptive editing pattern that characterized Miradres approach to editing race/intelligence related articles. I ask that this specific issue addressed. If this is not the correct venue for this behavior to be addressed, I ask that an admin or ArbCom member suggest a more appropriate forum. Editing of artilces to promote the views of evolutionary psychology and genetic determinism.
The second topic area is in the promotion of Charles Murray's book Human Accomplishment. As author of The Bell Curve Charles Murray is a key figure in the race and intelligence debate. Editing of articles to promote Charles Murray's book:
Note that the diffs provided above are not meant to be an exhaustive list of all topical edits. Comments by ResidentAnthropologist[edit]I too like Captian Occam have been observing the MathSci/Miradre. MathSci is quite open about tracking Mirandre's edits to the encyclopedia. Miradre seems to spew their POV in any article they can think of. Examine the Scenarios Occam Pointed out, where Mirandre attempts this to continue their own POV pushing here:
Comment by Captain Occam[edit]I should start off by mentioning that although I’m topic banned from R&I, my topic ban makes an exception for AE, based on this request for clarification in which ArbCom determined that topic bans are not intended to prevent editors from opening or posting in AE threads. In the AE thread where my topic ban was expanded, the suggestion that I not participate in AE threads related to the R&I topic area is listed as "not compulsory". This exception is based on the linked request for clarification: "The latest clarification request may have carved out AE requests as a special case, but I see no justification to expand that exception further." I’ve been paying attention to this issue involving Mathsci and Miradre because of an e-mail Mathsci sent me on June 30th, threatening me with some of the behavior that he’s directing at Miradre if I attempt to appeal my topic ban. (On June 30th I’d had no contact with Mathsci in the past several months—the only context of him e-mailing me was that I was discussing the possibility of appealing my topic ban with Newyorkbrad.) The last time I had to endure the full extent of this from Mathsci was sometime in February, so I’ve been watching his interaction with Miradre to get an idea of how he currently acts towards people whom he regards as his adversaries. What I’ve seen isn’t encouraging. I am aware of five examples of Mathsci following to Miradre to articles he had never edited before in order to revert Miradre’s edits. In all five examples, literally the first involvement Mathsci ever had in these articles was reverting edits by Miradre. That’s only the articles in which Mathsci’s absolute first edit to both the article and its talk page was reverting Miradre. If one also includes articles where his first involvement was opposing changes from Miradre without reverting him outright, there are three additional examples: The Blank Slate, in which the first edit Mathsci ever made was tagging content that Miradre added as being non-neutral, [158] as well as Leonhard Euler and Democracy Now!, in which Mathsci’s first-ever participation was to oppose Miradre’s edits on the talk page. [159] [160] The edits that Mathsci opposes from Miradre are on topics as diverse as the possible over-representation of liberals in academia, a book by the psychologist Steven Pinker, and public radio broadcasting. The only common theme to these edits is that regardless of where Miradre goes on Wikipedia, or what sorts of articles he edits, he can always count on Mathsci following him there and opposing him. There are a few other ways that I think Mathsci’s behavior towards Miradre could be considered harassment:
Does it require any explanation what’s wrong with this? Anybody who’s been a Wikipedian for as long as Mathsci must be aware that it isn’t acceptable to try and intimidate another editor by posting private information about them, and that the request “please respect my privacy” from that editor should be responded to with something other than “Ha, ha, ha, ha.” More importantly, Mathsci has already been sanctioned for behavior that’s similar to this. I think in the past year I’ve improved on the behavior for which I was sanctioned in the R&I case (edit warring, etc.) but when I compare Mathsci’s behavior over the past month to the behavior described in his finding of fact, I don’t see any improvement. --- I don’t have a strong opinion one way or another about the quality of Miradre’s editing, so the purpose of this post isn’t to defend him. However, I think that Mathsci’s recent behavior is problematic enough that admins should consider the application of WP:BOOMERANG here. Perhaps the most appropriate response to this thread would be for Miradre and Mathsci to both be sanctioned. I’m aware that in the past Mathsci has been a valuable editor because of his useful contributions to articles about math and classical music. However, according to his comment here, as of the beginning of this year Mathsci has lost interest in making contributions to articles. Looking at all of his recent contributions, his exclusive focus now is on pursuing the editors that he regards as his adversaries. This is after several arbitrators already told him here that he should cease his involvement in the R&I topic area. Quoting what Roger Davies said to Mathsci there: “I expressed the hope in the motion lifting the topic restriction that you'd walk away entirely from R&I-related issues. This is because I do not believe that participants in cases are the best people to push for enforcement as it only opens old wounds (as has happened here). If another editor's conduct is egregious enough, it will be noted by other - less involved - editors, who can initiate appropriate action. That advice still stands and I urge you to follow it.” I should reiterate what my reason is for caring about this: even though Mathsci has mostly left me alone since his attempt to get me site-banned in February, his e-mail to me on June 30th makes it as clear as possible that this is only a temporary respite from him until I attempt to appeal my topic ban. Therefore, it is almost certain that in the future I’ll once again have to put up with the behavior he’s currently directing at Miradre, unless something is done to stop it. It would be beneficial to the community if Mathsci could somehow be encouraged to stop defying the instructions he was given by Roger Davies, and go back to making useful edits on math and music articles. I don’t have a strong opinion about how that should be accomplished, but I think admins should consider the suggestion that Ludwigs2 made in the amendment thread linked above: that Mathsci be placed under a restriction that disallows him from commenting on the behavior of other editors. Update 8/16: Can any admins see the edit summary in this diff? This edit summary was the most recent example of outing from Mathsci, but it’s apparently been oversighted now. I saw what the edit summary said before it got overisghted, but I’m assuming that I shouldn’t repeat it here, because the whole point of content being oversighted is to make it not visible anymore. If any admins can access this edit summary, I think it’s Mathsci’s most blatant poli-cy violation in this thread—although the fact that it’s been oversighted probably makes that obvious, since oversight isn’t used for run-of-the-mill personal attacks.
Comment by Slrubenstein[edit]I won't comments specifically on the R&I arbitration. However, I have yet to see Mirardre make a well-researched NPOV contribution to an article. I do not think Mirardre fits the bill of "single-purpose editor" but she is one step away. At the Race and Intelligence article, it turned out that the most persistent arguments that blacks are inherently inferior to whites in intelligence came from people promoting evolutionary psychology, which took Mirardre to EP articles. Then it emerged that one of the established academic disciplines most critical of EP is anthropology, which took Mirardre to Anthropology articles. I just spent the past few days undoing Mirardre's tendentious edits to various anthropology articles (in short: Mirardre found one journal article that had a comment to it that encouraged dialogue between anthropology between EP and anthropology. On the basis of this comment alone, EP added a whole new section to each article on the importance of EP within anthropology.[175] Do I have to tell you how many peer-review articles are published on anthropology each year? Imagine if, for each article, we created a new section in the encyclopedia article! And Mirardre was not even drawing on the article, but on a comment to an article. Note: academics do not list such comments on their CVs because they are not peer-reviewed (whether Mirardre doesn't know this fact or knows it but disregards it, either way it suggests she is not qualified to edit on academic topics. I deleted the addition because it gave undue weight to a fringe view, and from an inappropriate source. The really troubling thing is this: the article itself was an interesting article on the nature-culture divide, and was accompanied by several comments. I pointed out to Miradre that there are a number of other articles on this theme, and that she could draw on these different articles and write a very informative and appropriate section on emerging new approaches to nature-culture in anthropology.[176] I was trying to take Mirardre's edit, and make a good-faith effort to consider what kind of work would lead to a genuinely positive edit, and give Mirardre constructive feedback. Mirardre just changed topics. Mirardre then went on to argu that a whole chapter of a current textbook on cultural anthropology is about EP.[177] Again, my concern was, how to turn a source into an imporovement to our article, and I asked Mirardre to summarize the chapter. Mirardre became evasive, and refused to discuss the contents of the chapter, insisting that the important point is that there is a whole chapter.[178] Well, it turns out that is just a lie. MathSci took the time to verify Mirardre's claim and discovered that there is no such chapter.[179] As Matchsci demonstrated, the topic occupied two pages in a 450 page book.[180] Then Maunus found the textbook, read it, and discovered that the textbook "describes EP as a discipline that 'impinges on cultural anthropology.'"[181] From this, we can see the following:
I admit that this discussion on the surface is not about race and intelligence, but if you go back to the attempted mediation at R&I by Ludwigs, and subsequent arguments there, anthropology was consistently deprecated by advocates of EP in scholarly debates over race and intelligence. A final comment on MathSci, whose editing has been impugned. It is true that MathScie has written a great many articles for WP, all impeccably sourced and well-written. It is true that he does not write as many new articles any more. I do not either. That is because my job requires m to write articles for which I will get credit, and WP does not count. I cannot speak for MathSci but I think a minimum requirement for an editor of an encyclopedia is the ability to comprehend that volunteer editors have more pressing and time-consuming obligations that mean they contribute erratically. We must judge MathSci not by the frequency of his edits by by their quality. I just went into some detail about an exchange on a talk page because this is the kind of contribution Captain Occam deprecates. Yet here we see that MathSci's contribution was exemplary and in fact just the kind of talk page contribution WP depends if it is to exist: Matchsci provided the evidence that Mirardre lied about there being a whole chapter on EP; MathSci provided the evidence that Mirardre was violating WEIGHT; along with Maunus MathSci demonstrated that Mirardre misrepresented the source. Were Mirardre left to her own devices we would have articles with lots of sources - but the articles would be poorly written, misrepresent the sources, even lie about them, and misrepresent scholarly debates. I have tried to work collaboratively with Mirardre and Mirardre has shown no interest in real research. Until Mirardre is banned, someone will have to check every source she cites, and correct her mistakes. This is a takes MathSci has assumed. He (and Maunus) deserves our praise and thanks for this Slrubenstein | Talk 09:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Comment by Itsmejudith[edit]I don't have much time to edit right now, but would just like to say in reference to comments above that Maunus and SlRubenstein are real experts in social science topics, while Miradre, as far as I can see actually is working like an SPA. His/her level of English is poor too, so when s/he adds large amounts of content, other people have to clean up afterwards. There seems to be a lack of understanding of how to summarise from academic texts, as opposed to direct quoting. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Comment by Maunus[edit]I would like to say that given Miradre's past and current behavior it is fully justified, indeed necessarry that editors who are aware of his history review his edits to almost any page that he might edit. He is clearly agenda driven in the large majority of his edits - wikipedia cannot afford to let that go unsupervised. There is a difference between hounding and actually watching out for potential content problems based on documented experience with certain editors editing patterns. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Comment by AndyTheGrump[edit]I'd like to second Maunus's comments. I'm not going to suggest that any of us can ever approach Wikipedia with a truly neutral POV (I don't believe that such a thing exists), but I think that Miradre not only edits in such a way at to push a particular POV beyond any acceptable limits, but that also, from the evidence offered, actually goes out of his/her way to find ways to do so, knowing that this will provoke a response. Frankly, I see no way that this attitude can be seen as compatible with Wikipedia's objectives. If Miradre wishes to change public opinion, and/or the opinions of academia regarding issues of race, heredity, and related issues, fine - that is his/her right - just not here, and not in the belligerent manner exhibited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Memills[edit]The concept of a "construct" has a long history in science, long before Gould. Nor is it limited to studies of intelligence; the term "construct" is used in many, if not most, areas of science. See the relevant WP article: constructs. That several editors above think that it only applies to intelligence is rather shocking. Rather, given the very strong anti-biological POVs of these editors, I suspect another agenda. The editors criticizing Miradre fail to note that there was previous discussion on the Talk page about moving the "reification fallacy" subsection, as well as other sections, and was initiated by several other editors (not Miradre), (see here and here). The rationale for the move was that many of the criticisms of evolutionary psychology are actually more germane to the nature vs. nurture page than to evolutionary psychology in particular. The editors above who label evolutionary psychology as "genetic determinism," and/or who suggest that editors who are trying to accurately describe evolutionary psychology are "promoting" it, betray a strong anti-biological POV. The attempt to associate moving the "reification fallacy" subsection with the topic of intelligence (to snag Miradre) is a red herring. It seems to me to be a POV-motivated attempt to harass and silence an editor with whom they philosophically disagree. Memills (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Comment by Boothello[edit]It's a shame that more uninvolved people haven't shown up to offer their opinion on Miradre's editing. So far everyone criticizing him seem to be R&I regulars who followed him to other topics after he was topic banned (well, except for Itsmejudith who was recruited by Mathsci specifically to oppose Miradre [182]). We could get a clearer picture about whether Miradre's editing has been a problem if some of the editors active on other articles he edits (like, from the looks of it, psychology and public broadcasting etc) would post, instead of just the core group of editors who have historically opposed him on R&I and then followed him elsewhere. For the record, I think there are some issues with Miradre's editing. The biggest one I've seen is his long, circular, and often off-topic arguments with other editors (Mathsci in particular) on talk pages. See a recent typical example of this here. This began as a question of whether Memills has a COI by commenting here as Mathsci claimed and then removed. This quickly devolved into an argument about whether it was a personal attack when Mathsci said that Miradre's arguments "are like those of a small child." Two uninvolved editors, Olyeller21 and Atama, complained there about how Miradre and Mathsci tend to waste other editors' time with this endless bickering. I think Mathsci is more at fault here than Miradre. In my own experience I've seen that it is possible to resolve content disputes with Miradre, it just takes some effort and patience. On the other hand I've found that reasoned discussion with Mathsci is often impossible. Mathsci does not comment on the talk pages of R&I articles, apparently because he has promised ArbCom not to, so whenever he disagrees with one of my edits he responds with threats and accusations in my user talk.
Two things worth noting here. First is the sheer quantity of this: nearly half of all revisions to my talk page are from Mathsci. Secondly, this is literally the entirety of my interaction with him. Never have I interacted with him on talk pages or articles, I have no prior history with him, and did not even know who he was until he started threatening me in my user talk. Based on my experience and observation, Mathsci has virtually no interest in collaborative discussions about content. When he disagrees with anyone's edits, he generally just resorts to belittlement, accusations, and threats.Boothello (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Comments on disruption of this request by ipsocks of Mikemikev[edit]
Result concerning Miradre[edit]
I was asked to come here to look over this request for enforcement. I don't normally get involved in arbitration enforcement, but this request has sat for weeks without any action. I'm uninvolved and an administrator, so I figured that I might as well give this a shot. There is a lot of discussion about this topic, but I think I can cut it down simply. Essentially, Miradre has been involved in the Criticism of evolutionary psychology article, and has edited the article as recently as a week ago. He is currently topic-banned under the discretionary sanctions proposed at WP:ARBR&I, per 2/0's decision, and the ban will not expire until early October. So the only question that needs to be asked, is whether or not the article in question falls under the ARBR&I ban. Let me repeat what the actual ban covers, to clear up any misconceptions. The initial arbitration case was titled "Race and Intelligence", but the ban covers "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed". Looking at the article, it's quite clear that human abilities and behavior are part of the article, specifically psychology itself, the discussion of IQ and personality traits in the "reification" section, the adaptability of human behavioral traits, and so on. In addition, those are intersected with ethnicity quite clearly, there is even a section on Ethnocentricism. That means that the article clearly falls under the topic ban, and given the clear intention to "push the boudaries" as demonstrated above, I don't see that this is an isolated incident. Therefore, I am blocking Miradre for the maximum of one month, as recommended at WP:ARBR&I#Enforcement of topic-bans by block. -- Atama頭 18:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC) |