Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive104
YehudaTelAviv64
[edit]| Topic banned indefinitely per discretionary sanctions and blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. NW (Talk) 01:12, 19 December 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 YehudaTelAviv64[edit]
In response to the comments below: My understanding of policy is that adding info is considered a revert because it changes the status quo. If this is incorrect, this can be speedily closed. However, I would like to point out the clear misuse WP:BRD policy at Talk:Golan Heights#revert explanation regarding this very complaint. He is claiming that BRD allows to him to re-add information that was reverted with an explanation on the talk page.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning YehudaTelAviv64[edit]Statement by YehudaTelAviv64[edit]This is Wikipedia:Harassment. The first diff is clearly not a revert. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Re: Wgfinley
Re: Brewcrewer
Re: EdJohnston
Comment In this edit, Brewcrewer removed a reply I posted in his section. He simply erased it and did not move it to another section. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning YehudaTelAviv64[edit]What does the first dif revert? It looks like the second dif is the only revert here - not a violation. Jd2718 (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Statment by Shrike[edit]Though user was warned not use editing summaries to attack other users he clearly does so.
The editor removes admin warning [5] clearly shows battleground behavior.--Shrike (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Comment by Malik Shabazz[edit]Referring to another editor as deranged should be grounds for a temporary, if not permanent, vacation from the project. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Observation by Biosketch[edit]"Deranged" isn't the worst of it. In the context of everything else that's been going on here, User:YehudaTelAviv64 had no compunctions about referring to the attitude of the same Admin who pardoned him the last time he was brought to AE as "small-minded" and "pig-headed." An extended vacation sounds like the right idea.—Biosketch (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC) Conduct of EdJohnston[edit]In response to your abuse of the term 'revert', I fear I have no choice but to request a Wikipedia:Administrators#Arbitration Committee review using the Arbitration Committee mailing list. You very clearly invented a new definition for "revert" and that is not acceptable for a Wikipedia administrator. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Update EdJohnston has still not explained how the first diff can be considered a 'revert'. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Comment by The Devil's Advocate[edit]I think we all need to take a step back for a moment. Looking over Yehuda's edit history I see no reason to conclude this editor has had any prior involvement on Wikipedia. If he has it does not appear to have been significant since it does not appear that he demonstrates any particular familiarity with policy, process, or editing. My opinion on that question was already expressed with regards to a previous AE request on Yehuda. On the question of harassment, I do not think it is a frivolous accusation on Yehuda's part. Two separate requests have been filed against Yehuda referring to this allegation of sockpuppetry without any actual evidence presented (neither of the editors in question have initiated an investigation on SPI either), and the accusation was hardly presented in a respectful or civil manner. Yehuda's user page indicates that his name is in fact Yehuda and that he is from Tel Aviv. The name "YehudaTelAviv" being referred to as "too Jewish" to be that of a legitimate contributor to the IP articles would be about as insulting as citing the name "Newyorkbrad" as "too English" to be that of a legitimate contributor to an article on the Troubles. That brewcrewer made that comment in connection with his sockpuppet allegations that have been repeated in two separate AE requests does raise serious concern about harassment. Given that, Yehuda's increasing hostility should be understood as a reaction to that kind of treatment rather than reflective of the editor's overall behavior. My opinion is that WP:BITE applies in this case. Now, as to the question of a 1RR violation, I do not think it would be appropriate to say Yehuda has violated this provision. Removing material, in and of itself, should not be considered a revert unless said removal substantially alters the article in a way consistent with a previous version. That, in my opinion, does not appear to have been the case as the claim of redundancy would seemingly have merit, though I believe it is more an issue of wording in the infobox that could have been rectified with a rewrite rather than a removal. Yehuda adding information should definitely not be considered a revert for any reason since in that case it appears this was more or less a question of placement regarding material that was already in the article and when brew said the added info was redundant Yehuda removed the redundancy. That this removal of redundant wording was done immediately after the revert would mean they should be considered as one edit and it was an edit that seemed to be an effort to accommodate the concerns brew raised. While the article on BRD suggests you not claim to be engaging in a bold, revert, discuss cycle when the discussion is in the edit summary, in this case the issue was sufficiently minor and limited to one revert of a revert that it should be regarded as fulfilling the spirit of WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC) It seems that the accounts in question: YehudaTelAviv64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Dimension31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Have not been used in an overlapping way - Dimension31 was discontinued when YTA64 was taken into use. Was Dimension31 under sanctions or threat of same? Is there evidence that they were taken into use to give unfair advantage? The earliest edit of the YTA64 account to Golan Heights talk page seems to be this one where I can see no evidence of Dimension31 on the talk page at all. Did you contact the user to ask for clarification before blocking? un☯mi 00:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC) Result concerning YehudaTelAviv64[edit]
Re: YehudaTelAviv64 I do consider the first diff a revert, there has been several days of wrangling over this language [6][7][8][9][10] These diffs pretty much outlined the current edit war. I have already protected the article due to the warring, I believe an article ban of 7 days would be in order for Yehuda. I will take a look at the harassment allegation. --WGFinley (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Re:brew crewer I agree these sock accusations are a bit strong [11][12] but not unprecedented in this topic area. I don't see anything actionable though but a warning may be in order. --WGFinley (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
|
173.238.69.86
[edit]| IP is blocked indefinitely for editing anonymously in P-I space, master Epf (talk · contribs) is topic banned from editing in ARBPIA space indefinitely. --WGFinley (talk) 02:08, 19 December 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 173.238.69.86[edit]
Though not required, I informed the IP of the 1RR here
The user claims to be editing according to the sources, yet, in just one example (here), he takes a source that says Palestinians are the descendants of all the indigenous peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries; since the seventh century, they have been predominantly Muslim in religion and almost completely Arab in language and culture. and changes the article from saying are an Arab people with origins in Palestine. to are an Arab people with origins in the Levant and Arabia. The rest of the diff is filled with similar distortions. The following are both reverts, with the second violating the 1RR. Looking at past edits by the IP, such as this, or this, doesnt leave me with an impression that anything other than a long block is called for.
Discussion concerning 173.238.69.86[edit]Statement by Nishidani[edit]An egregrious example of a commonplace editwarrior technique, What happens in these cases is that an editor who disagrees with the source employed, does not check it (p.221), but simply rewrites the passage in order to make the source accord with his private opinion, or that of an ideology he subscribes to. The effect is to retain the source (thus evading charges of RS removal), while controverting its conclusion with a piece of WP:OR His edit sdummary runs:'(Not all Palestinain Arabs have origins in the Levant; most have ARAB heritage which is foreign to the region, unlike the Jews who are indigenous)'. The result is chaos. There are numerous IP editors and sockpuppets who play this game. I don't think their aim is to distort the text, as much as to provoke editors, like Nableezy, either into using up their revert quota on that page, or to start an edit war which will lead to AE, and make the plaintiff look bad by the frequency of his requests that this kind of chronic abuse be dealt with. The only way to get rid of this gaming, which is a tactic to provoke serious editors into making frequent complaints here, is to adopt some policy modification to handle it. Specifically, where an editor changes the text to alter what the source says, it is ipso facto vandalistic, and must be reverted automatically as vandalism, and the vandalic act registered on the editor's page. If it is repeated, the vandal gets a life ban. Ban this chap, and another dozen will pop in to take over the job. One by one sanctions are futile in handling a Matrix like proliferation of identities who essentially employ the same set of tactics. This is not so much a behavioural problem, so much as consequence of defects in wiki policy which invite hackers to game the efficiency of the project's collaborators.Nishidani (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Statement by 173.238.69.86[edit]Comments by others about the request concerning 173.238.69.86[edit]Result concerning 173.238.69.86[edit]
|
Hearfourmewesique
[edit]| Indefinitely banned from all articles, discussions and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed against all namespaces. EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Hearfourmewesique[edit]
I repeatedly, though harshly, requested that the user either show me citing a source calling for genocide or retract the claim. The user has refused and continues to repeat it, though now it has morphed into my using a source that supports a person who made a statement that MEMRI translated a certain way. No matter what one thinks of me, I should not have to put up with such blatantly dishonest and disgusting attacks on my character. This lie remains at Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the user continues to make further absurd charges, with no justification. I admit I lost my temper, though I feel that in the face of such inflammatory attacks that my response was justified. However, I recognize that I should have simply come straight here. Given the past few weeks, and the repeated appearance of uninformed comments from a collection of users such as MichaleNetzer and AgadaUrbanit, seeking to use any report as an excuse to ban me, I neglected to do so, hoping that I might convince the user to retract such a malevolent lie. Obviously I failed to do so, and in doing so I admit I exceeded the standards of behavior expected of us. But, again, I cant say that I feel my response was unjustified. In the 2nd and 3rd diffs, following disputes at Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Palestinian people, the user hounded my contributions to make two reverts of my edits on articles he had not edited in the past. He claimed he was not hounding me, but he admits he was unaware the issue at Nazateth was under discussion, and further that he made the reverts because he thought it was that camp vs. the other camp. If he had no idea that the issue was under discussion then he clearly did not have the article in his watchlist. The obvious conclusion, made more obvious by the revert at MEMRI, is that he hounded my contribution history to aggressively seek out confrontation.
HJ Mitchell, I realize this. I realize that just the volume of complaints, both by and against, involving me will understandably lead to that impression. I dont know what you would have me do though. Im open to suggestions. nableezy - 03:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Hearfourmewesique[edit]Statement by Hearfourmewesique[edit]Really? Even after being brought up on this noticeboard for reporting every editor, who does not agree with his persistently pushed POV, this is still going on... Anyway:
If any further clarification is needed, I will be more than happy to reply. As for the hounding accusations, getting involved in a couple of new articles he is incidentally involved in, is not hounding; however, directly threatening me to "take greater interest in me and my edits" unless I ceased to cross his path – that's pretty damn serious. Please keep in mind that I may be absent for a while because I am not in a place with steady internet connection and am busy for most of my days. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Comments by Nishidani[edit]Nableezy. Seeking perfect justice in the world, let alone wikipedia, is a sure track to martyrdom, and I think several editors see this as your Achilles heel, and are tempted to work on it. The worst effect on you is that emotion makes you lard your reports with too many adjectives. Hearfourmewesique. From certain edits, I gather you are not quite at home in English, let alone logic. No one goes around accusing Ken Livingstone of antisemitism, or hinting he would back another holocaust of Jews, because of that document on Yusuf al-Qaradawi he underwrote. You can't get away with it here either. It's called smearing people with guilt by association. Those of us who read I/P material come across motherlodes of violent abusive statements by Israeli figures, but to my knowledge we don't go round flourishing this in the faces of colleagues here, or jamming every tidbit into articles. Palestinians have been called by Israeli public figures in high office,(reliable sources are available for each remark and who said it) cockroaches, scorpions, sandniggers, aliens from outer space, cancerd, a nation of monkeys, wasps, crocodiles, mosquitoes, grasshoppers to be crushed underfoot, moles, lice, vermin, ants, snakes, beasts and asses, leeches, subhumans, below minerals on the evolutionary chain, local bacteria (strictly speaking, that was used of Gazans), pigs and scum, to be neutered like eunuchs if they protest the occupation, or suspended in formaldehyde. All of the eminent people who have gone on record for these views are received by eminent foreigners on their trips abroad, and accorded the red carpet treatment in the White House. Just as Yusuf al-Qaradawi was received by Livingstone. So could you just withdraw your remark? It is a smear by association. Websites dedicated to this and trash disinformatsiya abound, and we should not touch that stuff with a tenfoot pool, nor endeavour to drag the bullshit of spindoctors and public mindbenders into our work or relations here, as you patently did.Nishidani (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
It seems that Hearfourmewesique is not quite aware of what he has himself written - and apparently is unable to read it even when given the opportunity. I can find no other explanation for his initial comment in this request. While I think that the request itself has merit, I also think that it should be considered whether he can be considered competent overall to contribute in this particular area of wikipedia in a manner that achieves good use of our limited editor resources. un☯mi 20:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Comments by MichaelNetzer[edit]The dispute about the sources rests on whether al-Qaradawi's words were translated correctly by MEMRI. Two sources that Nableezy wanted restored take a position that his words were distorted. This position has not been widely ratified in other sources. Going by the sources in his biography, Yusuf al-Qaradawi certainly raises serious apprehension, as not someone who should be defended or whitewashed in sources used about the conflict. It's easy to imagine how Nableezy might react if an editor tried to bring a source, and they can certainly be found, for a notable figure trying to whitewash Meir Kahane's extremism, even though Kahane never even hinted at supporting mass genocide of Palestinians, as al-Qarawdawi is purported to have with Israelis. Hearfourmewesique's unease with these sources that try to absolve al-Qarawdawi is understandable though his wording may not have been concise as to the chain of sources he pointed to. Just looking at his biography, it's clear that an Israeli doesn't even need this particular MEMRI report to be offended by an effort to saint-ify al-Qarawdawi, in the same way that Nableezy doesn't need any special source to reject the same about a personality like Kahane. That's how NPOV would necessitate approaching these sources. Yet Nableezy takes peculiar over the top offense at Hearfourmewesique's understandable rejection of sources that try to whitewash a way too controversial extreme figure as being moderate and somehow becoming the sainted subject of reliable sources. Hearfourmewesique's suggestion that Nableezy supports a source that supports what al-Qarawdawi represents, is not so far off the mark. This complaint seems like another one of Nableezy's "Go after your opponents and pulverize them" battleground behavior in Wikipedia. When will enough finally become enough and how much time do so many people need to spend on putting out the fires of Nableezy's rage? --MichaelNetzer (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]I was going to stay out of this (as I have in the I don't know, 20? 40? it's hard to keep track, previous cases where Nableezy either reported someone or was himself reported), but things here have moved from the realm of absurd deep into the territory of farce. Hearfourmewesique was reported for violating NPA and HOUND. We have already established here on multiple occasions that civility is not enforced unless you say something like "you can suck my balls" to another editor. In this very report, we have an editor telling another editor that "I gather you are not quite at home in English, let alone logic", and another one saying "I can't help but wonder if your specious framing stems from a legitimate impairment or just the hope to find such in others" and not a peep from anyone. And this is AE, so you can imagine what goes on on regular talk pages. I get that some editors here have a support network that leaps into action whenever they get in trouble or when they report someone else and can influence the more neutral admins either by their sheer numbers and if that doesn't work by concentrated attacks and threats. Hearfourmewesique doesn't have that. Fine. At least try to pretend you have some kind of normal practice you apply to all editors equally because this is rapidly reaching the point of going too far. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment by BorisG[edit]I agree with most people here that this was a pretty outrageous personal attack. However I disagree with admins about the sanction. In fact I do not recall ever seing an indef topic ban for a single NPA violation. Is this about prevention? Is an indef topic ban the only way to prevent attacks by this user? Sanctions are not meant to measure the outrage. A stern warning would probably go a long way in preventing similar abuse. Unless there is a persistent pattern of behaviour I may have missed. Please give this guy a chance. He has clearly admitted his wrong and promised not to repeat it. - BorisG (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Comment by ElComandanteChe[edit]I second BorisG and NMMNG. In my opinion, indef topic ban is over the top a bit in the case where WP:TROUT looks more appropriate. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Comment by AgadaUrbanit[edit]We need more civility in the topic, from all sides, and nobody is a saint here, some toxic remarks do flood the system. Agree with opinions above, indef topic ban is over-reaction, even considering editor's previous AE history. We should also consider that the editor did expressed a regret and promised to fix his ways. If we see additional stumblings, especially in civility area, let's indef him. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Hearfourmewesique[edit]
|
Gritzko
[edit]| Gritzko not previously warned of sanctions per DIGWUREN log, user warned and logged. --WGFinley (talk) 22:01, 18 December 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 Gritzko[edit]
EE topics are already difficult enough to edit, without having editors who are here to engage in advocacy attacking long-standing editors. Greyhood needs to be commended for keeping cool under attacks like the above, but he should not have to put up with them at all.
Discussion concerning Gritzko[edit]Statement by Gritzko[edit]Well, I'll sign under everything I said. If the guy argues at length that BLP applies to political parties [14] and then goes on a loooong crusade against a really trivial and factual sentence "However, recent events and polls show that popularity of Putin is on the decline." at Vladimir Putin (that one was removed and restored maybe ten times), removes a quote by Gorbachev saying that the guy is an "opposition politician" and "most hated politician" in Russia (rubbish), and so on and so forth -- then what kind of discussion is possible? I saw him removing maybe a dozen of high-quality citations of top periodicals because -- you know why? Because they "tend to give excessive attention to actions of the marginal Russian political opposition with dismal ratings". So, basically, we have a crazy guy with an agenda and lots of energy. Gritzko (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Gritzko[edit]Comment by BorisG[edit]From a brief look at the diffs provided by Russavia, Gritzko is incivil, but Greyhood shows a pretty persistent pattern of tendentious editing, which is a far more serious matter and needs to be looked into. - BorisG (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Comment by AgadaUrbanit[edit]I think that User:Mkativerata's point is important, any editor should be warned first, and only subsequently sanctions could be enforced. I'm not sure that WP:DIGWUREN topic area covers also Russian domestic politics, but that is an irrelevant question. This request could be closed with User:Gritzko officially warned by an AE administrator as a bottom line result. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Gritzko[edit]
|
Talknic
[edit]| User:Talknic is banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces for six months. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Talknic[edit]
Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction and Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions
This editor suffers from a severe case of IDHT and is very difficult to work with. He probably hits a good 7-8 of the 14 examples at WP:TENDENTIOUS. This is a discussion where several editors agreed on the wording in the lead, and not a single editor supported talknic's argument. I suggest reading the two sections below that one for a typical example of the kind of talk page behavior that got him TBANed last time. Here he brings up the same issue again. And here it comes up again. In all 3 cases, several quite experienced editors agreed on the wording. Talknic, seeing he's not convincing anyone just went ahead and removed the whole sentence. @WGF, Ed: I wouldn't have brought the technical 1RR here if that was the only problem. Please read some of the talk page discussions I linked to above, or practically any section in the last 4-5 archives of Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War. You'll see what I mean. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Talnic's long and meandering reply here and the examples he links to are a very good illustration of the problems other people face when trying to work with this editor. Notice how many times he accuses others of violating wikipedia policy "by consensus". He is unable to get even a single editor to support either the changes he wants to make or his objections to changes others make. He does not understand policy properly and refuses to listen to anyone who tries to explain it to him. He is now back at the article throwing accusations around. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning talknic[edit]Statement by talknic[edit]
Ooops I forgot something[edit]
Additional comments on premature Result (before my response)[edit]As there have been premature results before my chance to respond I feel justified in addressing those results:
Comment on Results after my response[edit]
WGFinley - You provide this link [37] and said "is pretty bad form and indicative the fight is preferred to harmonious collaboration."
Comments by others about the request concerning talknic[edit]Statement by The Devil's Advocate[edit]The first one does not appear to be a revert. As one can see by going to the previous diff, GabrielF's revert of an IP editor contained the edit summary "Reverted good faith edits by 82.45.198.134 (talk): "controversial" needs to be sourced - see WP:WEASEL. (TW)" suggesting that Talknic's actions were in fact satisfying a concern about citing a contentious statement. Benny Morris is certainly a controversial historian and I doubt many people, including Morris himself, would suggest his work is not controversial. When an editor removes material for lacking a source it is not a revert to put the material back in with a source.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC) @WG&Ed How can you call the first diff a revert? Talknic did not restore the material without a citation, the only reason given by the editor who previously reverted the change, but instead provided a citation to back up a label that anyone who knows anything about the New Historians would understand is a legitimate characterization.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Wg, I think that argument is using the letter of policy to run roughshod over its spirit and leaving policy mangled in the treads. An editor reverted a change while raising just one specific policy objection, and Talknic clearly and unequivocally satisfied that one objection. The principle of edit-warring policy is that articles should not see any editor abuse the editing process in a way that impedes the consensus-building process. When an editor removes something and says it needs a source, adding the material back in with an authoritative source is not impeding the consensus-building process in any way. Rather, that is a rather stellar example of how the process is supposed to work. In fact, the nature of the source provided clearly suggests that WP:LABEL was also fully satisfied, despite NMMNG's concerns. Talknic's source is the author bio on one of Benny Morris' own books clearly saying he is a "controversial historian" suggesting this is not something that would be even remotely contentious to include. Counting this as a revert would set a bad precedent for frivolous administrative action in the future.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
@WG GabrielF took out uncited material and Talknic put in cited material. Talknic cannot be said to have reversed GabrielF's action as GabrielF's action was based on the lack of a citation. So it cannot be called a revert to reinsert the material with a citation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Comment on broader nature of dispute Looking over this article and roughly the past year or so of edits leads me to the following conclusions:
Under these circumstances, I am baffled at how this situation has been allowed to persist where only one side of the dispute is subjected to increasingly severe sanctions, while the other gets off scot-free every time.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Statement by Nishidani[edit]Talknic, whatever the hairsplitting technicalities, NMMGG has a good case. It's patently useless putting adjectives like 'controversial' before mentions of established and distinguished scholars, historians, unless they are exceptionally controversial like David Irving, who was widely recognized as a considerable historian, and then became extremely controversial. Morris's work, as does that of most good historians, engenders controversy. This does not make him controversial. The second diff shows an edit that is indefensible, for removing sound and easily verifiable content. If you disliked the word 'trigger', you could have asked for a better source on the verb. But the source also contains statistics that standard works on the history of Egypt also use. See Joel Beinin's book, for example. Reverting content that is either easily verifiable or well sourced, is not permissible. I did a large part of the Jews of Egypt page, and this is the only reason, familiarity with one of the details expunged, for my commenting here. Nishidani (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning Talknic[edit]
The first diff is definitely a revert but the case for another one after that is a stretch. However, as someone previously sanctioned talknic appears to be tempting fate; it's bad form to make such sweeping changes on a long standing article with dozens of references and over 162 citations on a 63 year old conflict. Prudence would dictate further discussion of changes. --WGFinley (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC) @TDA It's clearly a revert, there's nothing wrong with that, it's just that you only get one a day. --WGFinley (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
@TDA An anon added the "controversial" line, GabrielF reverted it about an hour later and Talknic put it back the next day but within 24 hours, a violation. He included a source, it doesn't qualify as a reliable source as it's promotional material from a back cover of a book, so it's still a revert. Since this was already put in and removed the revert was used for the day, Talknic should have gone to the talk page and said "Hey, I think this should be in the article and here's my source." this is how revert edit wars are prevented via WP:1RR and why the community placed said restriction on P-I articles. --WGFinley (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC) I don't know if a block works for me, it seems it's time for Talknic to go back on a TBAN, since it was 3 months prior I would go for 6 months this time around. While this revert is technical, propping up the back cover of a book as a "source" shows pretty extreme length to make one's point. Couple that with an utter refusal to recognize his/her behavior is tendentious, removes sourced material from the article and then acknowledges this AE but instead goes back to the article's talk page to argue some more [41][42] is pretty bad form and indicative the fight is preferred to harmonious collaboration. --WGFinley (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
|
Esoglou
[edit]| WP:AC/DS requires a warning, warning the user and closing the case, no further action can be taken. --WGFinley (talk) 02:53, 28 December 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 Esoglou[edit]
Inserting claims about living people cited to these totally unsuitable sources is a BLP violation, contradicting the ArbCom sanction which states that editors are to obey all regular site policies. Note that Esoglou falsely claims in the citation template that the press release is a news story in the National Catholic Register; following the link shows that it's actually an Operation Rescue press release from Christian Newswire, a right-wing press release service. The recent BLP violations are the proximate cause of this report, but the user also has a persistent and ongoing problem with original research in abortion-related articles that goes back as far as I've worked with him, and I would be remiss in not mentioning it. A selection:
This editor has also had, and continues to have, problems with RS, with plagiarism, and with NPOV (incl. WEIGHT). Those issues, while serious, are (in my opinion, though others may well disagree) sliiiightly less prevalent in his edits than original research, and if they weren't accompanied by the BLP and persistent OR issues miiiight not deserve sanction on their own, but I can provide diffs of those as well if people would like.
No warnings from administrators required by the sanction, but I've warned the user about the BLP violations on the article talk page and on his talk page, as well as explaining in my edit summaries removing the content why it was objectionable. He's also been warned about the original research and the other stuff, and I can dig up those warnings too if you'd like.
Esoglou claims that he didn't add an anti-Sebelius press release. I don't know whether this is intentional deception that goes along with his falsely claiming that it's a news story from the National Catholic Register, or if he got the citations from somewhere else and copy-pasted them in. If the former, he's deliberately adding sources that violate WP:BLP. If the latter, he obviously hasn't read the sources he himself is citing, because the press release has the name of the press release service in bold letters at the top. Adding sources without reading them, and then repeatedly restoring them—still without reading them—after they are challenged, demonstrates a fundamental WP:COMPETENCY issue that should preclude him from editing in a heavily sanctioned topic area. The continual addition of original research, and repeated WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the subject thereof, likewise demonstrates a lack of interest in site policies that some might let slide elsewhere, but that violate sanction 3 of the abortion arb case.
Discussion concerning Esoglou[edit]Statement by Esoglou[edit]Do I have respond to each of these points? Perhaps its enough to refer to this and this. Esoglou (talk) 09:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Comments by Bbb23[edit]I first got involved in this article on December 25, first at WP:BLPN, and then at the article itself. I don't know anything about the history of Esoglou in other articles, or even in this article itself. I looked at the article and the issues as they existed on the 25th. It became apparent to me that there were problems with the article, an inherently controversial article, and with the two editors' styles. On the surface at least, Esoglou's style is civil and dignified, whereas Roscelese's style is hard-hitting and intimidating. I thought I might be able to help as a third party. As such, I became involved in discussions on the article's Talk page and took it upon myself to edit the article directly as it was, in my view, poorly worded, and I also wanted to make sure it was source-compliant. At first, that went well, but, as of today, it exploded with Roscelese going ballistic as to the content and the sources. I made a few comments, but I didn't have the time to address all of her comments (she's quite prolific) and said so. Essentially, she told me if I didn't have the time to address her concerns or to justify my actions, I should butt out. I commented at BLPN and, until now, butted out. In terms of the content of the article, in my view, there are two central issues: whether there are indeed any BLP violations, as Roscelese claims, and whether the sources are reliable in support of the assertions (some sources may be reliable in some contexts but not in others). I remember there was one source Roscelese objected to, and I removed it - it wasn't really necessary anyway. I still don't get a lot of what Roscelese is saying. A BLP violation generally is something negative that is unsourced or poorly sourced. Even assuming for argument's sake that the sources aren't good enough, what is being said about these BLPs that is negative? That a particular politican is Catholic, or that they are pro-choice, or that they've been challenged by the Church? I don't really see the violation. As for the sources, why is a Catholic press source unreliable to say that such-and-such a bishop said that such-and-such a politician shouldn't receive communion? Why would that be problematic? So, on both issues, I don't get it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC) Comment by the Devil's Advocate[edit]The source does not appear to be directly cited to back up any claim about Sebelius, but is instead backing up a claim about the nature of press coverage regarding the comments about her. While it is worded in a rather hostile manner, it is also balanced with several strongly sympathetic sources about Sebelius. All of these sources were being used to back up the contention about mixed media coverage. Now, on the more general note there is a rather odd circumstance here. The very first diff provided does seem inappropriate as the substantial information about politicians was irrelevant to the actual subject of the article. As a result it appears the filing editor in this case created a fork to deal specifically with this issue and it quickly became a place for the two of them to continue their edit war. Just a look at the article's edit history says it all.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Esoglou[edit]
This AE request cites an 'Editors reminded' clause of the Arbcom case as the 'Sanction or remedy to be enforced.' I checked the talk pages of the two articles above too see if anyone else had been participating in the discussion about these matters. The names of User:Bbb23 and User:TransporterMan appear there, and User:Collect participated at BLPN. I'm notifying those three people to see if they want to comment here. If anyone wants to notify others, they are welcome to do so provided you pick a date and try to include everyone who has edited the article or talk page since that date. I have not had time to form an opinion about this AE request. But it seems to have two parts: (a) a complaint of misusing a press release as a source for a claim about Kathleen Sebelius, (b) a claim of long-term tendentious editing by Esoglou. The first part is the issue that was recently discussed at BLPN. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
As the editor hasn't been previously been warned concerning this case I will issue the warning (there is clearly enough evidence) but no further sanctions can be made at this time. --WGFinley (talk) 02:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC) |
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by The Devil's Advocate
[edit]| Closed as declined--Cailil talk 21:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| 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 The Devil's Advocate[edit]Requests for enforcement are to be made and ruled on to prevent someone acting in breach of policy in a topic area from continuing to act in breach of policy. Any request should not be punitive i.e. seeking to tack on additional sanctions after an admin has already issued sanctions for the action. In other words, an editor should not be brought up repeatedly and sanctioned repeatedly for the exact same edits. On November 30th I was topic-banned from the 9-11 topic area. Before that I was blocked by User:EdJohnston due to a judgment that I was edit-warring. Each time the same series of edits were presented as the bulk of the case. In fact, User:Jordgette appears to have simply copy-pasted part of the edit-warring notice to the AE request. User:Wgfinley, the admin who issued the topic ban, gave an initial argument pertaining solely to those edits for which I had already been blocked. His argument also contained numerous factual errors that I pointed out to him on his talk page. After that he changed his arguments in the discussions on his talk page, though never admitting to the error or providing a new reason on AE. Even then WG's arguments all seemed to focus on those edits for which I had already been blocked. In addition to the punitive nature of the topic ban, WG's argument to have "acted per the AE report" presents another issue with the sanction. The AE report itself is full of distortions, omissions, and uncivil remarks that plainly misrepresented the nature of the dispute. Some simple issues are:
A more complicated distortion concerned one of the arguments presented several times and one that WG gave as part of the reason for the topic ban and that was this idea that I was not discussing my changes first despite being asked to do so. Jordgette provided a long list of comments to prove the contention, but neglected that one was only accusing me of acting against consensus. Four of the comments cited were responses to a section I started on the talk page asking an editor to explain why he had reverted changes I had made since he did not provide an explanation. After the last comment the editor made on that section I started another section on the talk page and then an RFC to get consensus for two of my changes. To present those comments to suggest I have not sought consensus on changes or worked collaboratively with other editors is a blatant and obvious distortion as they are evidence that I was doing the exact opposite. Another comment involved discussion over a change I noted several times was to address a grammatical error, something they ultimately acknowledged needed to be fixed. That edit being disputed was actually the one that led to the AE request and again demonstrated the opposite of what Jordgette was claiming about my desire to get consensus. Adding insult to injury Jordgette took a comment I made out of its proper context to state "yet he refuses because he doesn't 'need the approval of your group'" when my comment was actually in the context of me saying I would consider it more acceptable to need approval for any change were it not for several unhelpful comments they had made in response to my efforts at getting them to explain their reasons for disagreeing with my changes. In context, the comment was my objection to a revert that undid an uncontroversial contribution I made to the article with an edit summary seemingly implying I needed to get consensus for any rewriting or restructuring of the article. The context was obviously not beyond Jordgette when adding it to the report. That the AE report contained so many blatant distortions and was rife with incivility should have gotten it declined right off the bat, even if it had not been mostly a proposal for punitive action over edits for which I had already been blocked. Absent those pre-block edits that report would likely have been dismissed as frivolous and without merit. I am requesting that this topic ban be lifted as a wrongful sanction.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Since WG claims I continued my supposedly "tendentious editing habits" after the block I figure I should just provide a complete listing of all the edits I made to the article after the block. Here they are: [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]. On the last diff I gave the following explanations on the article talk page: [51] [52]. I doubt any objective individual could look at those edits together and conclude they represent tendentious behavior.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC) @NW I am not sure what exactly you are calling a mistake, but if it is about the topic ban being issued over edits for which I had already been blocked it seems that it was not a mistake. On several occasions I brought up that most of the edits were ones for which I had already been blocked. WG clearly seemed to eventually understand that this was the case, but in spite of that he still insisted on the topic ban based almost entirely, if not entirely, on those edits. An admin should certainly be aware that such a sanction might be a violation of policy. Should the mistake be about the AE report, the only possible mistake would be on WG's part in not adequately evaluating the merits of the case. I do not think there was any "mistake" on Jordgette's part as some of the distortions are so blatant that the only reasonable conclusion is that the distortions were intentional. For an admin to miss such obvious distortions does not seem to be a minor mistake.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC) @MONGO My comments on your talk page were not really intended to be a discussion about improvements to the article. It was more of a general discussion about my editing philosophy and my perspective on the subject. There was never any specific intention that it lead to some definitive end. As such the "unproductive" nature of it does not really deal with this situation. When I have initiated discussion regarding changes to the article the results have generally been productive, even if it is at times difficult to get anything out of the process.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Clarification on distortions[edit]It seems there is a need for me to spell out exactly what distortions were contained in the AE report. Here are the most blatant distortions:
In WG's statement below he literally copy-pastes the part of the AE report including all these distortions into his own remarks defending the topic ban. He claims, apparently based on that part of the report, that I am "disruptive" and not going to "work collaboratively to achieve consensus" so the distortions are obviously germane to any dispute of the topic ban and are not simply efforts to blame other people. The evidence here is as plain as day and there are plenty more distortions to be found in the AE report WG cited as justifying the topic ban. So, I would ask that any admin insisting there was no real wrongdoing in this case to actually explain to me why these blatant distortions in the AE report that WG cites explicitly to defend the topic ban are not sufficient grounds for lifting the topic ban.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC) On efforts at consensus[edit]Some admins apparently want me to more clearly explain my behavior in editing the article so I will. Rather than re-argue about discussion over the edits for which I was blocked by EdJohnston I will direct anyone to look at my arguments in that case, as well as my unblock request, and subsequent comments on my user talk page. I will here try to offer a clear explanation of my actions after that block expired. In the second unblock request I made on the edit-warring block I committed myself to discussing and getting approval for major or controversial changes. The admin declined my request because I insisted I was not edit-warring or pushing a POV. Looking back I did not fully adhere to the rather stringent conditions I had imposed on myself in that request (that of not making any changes at all to substantive content without approval), but when the block expired the first edits I made still did not make any changes that could be perceived in any way as tendentious. When making a change to correct a grammatical I did make some minor changes that were seen as tendentious, though as I explained on the article talk page I was not introducing any original wording but just copying wording from the source or wording from earlier in the same sentence. After I made those edits I went to the talk page and initiated discussion on other changes. Those edits to the article were reverted in their entirety, even as the editor doing so acknowledged that there were uncontroversial changes included. I reinserted the various uncontroversial changes elsewhere in the article, as well as the correction of the grammatical error in the conspiracy theory paragraph, and commented on the talk page to explain my frustration with the constant and unnecessary reverting of uncontroversial changes as well as explaining my changes to the conspiracy theory paragraph. Another editor objected to my reinsertion of the grammatical fix, believing it was POV-pushing, and reverted it but after some discussion they understood that there was a grammatical error in need of fixing. That particular instance of me reinserting the grammatical fix is what seemingly caused the filing editor to go to AE, while we were still having a discussion about it. I made some minor changes to the article right after the case was filed shortening a few captions and retooling the wording in the grammatical fix. One of the captions was shortened by removing a sentence that, by all appearances, was just a repeat of the fair-use justification provided on the image's page. That change was reverted, but there was no discussion on the article talk page as it was immediately taken to the AE request and tacked on to the case as evidence of POV-pushing. All discussion of that change was in the AE report, though even there no effort was made by the editor who reverted it to explain why this was perceived as POV-pushing. Several more changes I made after that were similarly uncontroversial and minor but did not get challenged. As this was going on, the efforts I made at getting either of the two main editors on the article to respond to the discussions I started immediately after coming off my block were going unanswered. One editor's reaction was to direct me to the AE report where he made a comment referring to my requests for discussion as "chaff" i.e. nonsense. Despite that I once more asked the editor to respond and finally got a response. Despite repeatedly making good faith requests for explanation I got largely flippant responses. Again, in spite of this, I initiated discussion on some of the issues including an RfC (I did and still have interest in discussion over those other issues). One result of the first discussion was an editor providing an updated citation, as the existing one was no longer going to the correct page, and me putting it in the article. One week into the AE discussion I made some more changes over the space of two days that were completely consistent with my pledge in the second unblock request. These changes involved refactoring of paragraphs to improve the flow of the article without having any effect on meaning, improving wording or clarifying wording in several areas, and removing outdated or unnecessary citations. For some of those changes I created two separate discussions for editors to raise any objections. Just like several other changes the first reaction of these editors was not to discuss them in the article page but to object on the AE report to me making any changes to the article at all without asking them first, even when they expressed no opposition to the actual edits being made. An editor then reverted all of those changes saying in the edit summary that I should get consensus first. I informed the editor on his talk page that reverting due to consensus was not a legitimate reason, imploring him to express his objection on the article talk page in either of the sections I started on those edits or to start a new section for discussion. After a day of no action I started a section on the talk page for him to explain the revert and once more asked him on his talk page to explain his objections to the change. Not getting a response for over two days I asked him again to explain his objections to the changes. When I saw him comment on the aforementioned RfC on the talk page I asked him once more if he would respond to the section I started on the talk page asking him to explain what objections he had to the changes that he reverted. At no point did my repeated requests for discussion get a response. Ever since I came off the block I made every effort to discuss major or contentious changes with the other editors on the article and pursuing normal dispute resolution. Accusing me of not being able to work collaboratively with other editors is getting the situation reversed. I made numerous efforts to get the opinions of these editors about any and all major changes, but many times they were not willing to provide explanation even when I was only asking them to explain why they reverted changes, something they are generally expected to do when using the undo function. Despite all the frustration these editors have caused me I have never once refused discussion on any point or given them the silent treatment when they expressed a concern. Many times I have had discussion with them that did result in collaborative editing even in the incendiary atmosphere these editors have created. I am not claiming my behavior was perfect (on a few occasions I made some abrasive comments), but it was far from disruptive.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Statement by WGFinley[edit]My TBAN was based on the Prior AE report. The report contained examples of TDA's tendentious editing leading up to an AN3 Report and subsequent block. After the block he continued his tendentious editing habits, to quote the report, ignoring calls to build consensus before making substantive changes [61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69], yet he refuses because he doesn't "need the approval of your group" [70] and continued to make extensive changes to the article. I posted a suggestion for a TBAN after evaluating the report, I let that stand for 12 days for comment, seeing none I closed per my suggestion on 30 Nov. An extensive exchange on my talk page ensued where I even offered to reconsider the TBAN at a later time, instead he chose to continue pursuing his approach of appeal by completely ignoring WP:NOTTHEM and violating his TBAN[71] which was upheld here on AE until it expired. I think it is premature to reduce the TBAN at this time, the complaint itself seems to do nothing to acknowledge any culpability for these actions but blames others for "distortions and incivility". It would appear TDA would go back and start disrupting the space again as he has provided no assurance he will seek to work collaboratively to achieve consensus. --WGFinley (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC) @Jordgette: He's appealing his TBAN so he is free to bring up the issues that led to his TBAN without violating it. --WGFinley (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC) Can someone close this? There appears to be no support to overturn and the TBAN expires in 3 days anyway. --WGFinley (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC) Statement by Jordgette[edit]As I understand it, topic bans are meant not to be punitive, but to prevent disruption. To that end, I have no comment at this time. I may soon find myself returning my attention to a single editor unilaterally and continuously altering a Featured Article on a controversial topic as he sees fit, while filling the discussion page with walls of text in protest, and the endless wikilawyering and filiblustering. But for now I prefer to improve articles. -Jordgette [talk] 05:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Statement by Tom Harrison[edit]I'm reluctant to comment on this because a benefit of the topic ban is not having to deal with TDA's tedious logorrhea, but Wgfinley did the right thing. The constant nuisance of dealing with TDA wears people down; it would be far easier to leave the topic area and let him do what he wants, but it doesn't do to reward that kind of thing. The topic ban has at least been some respite, which I appreciate. Tom Harrison Talk 18:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC) Statement by MONGO[edit]I'd have to second Tom's comments above. A recent discussion at my own talkpage with The Devils Advocate was unproductive and his commentary there became increasingly frustrating. Mainstream articles on difficult topics are generally better if advocates for non-mainstream views are kept at bay. Tedious talkpage rantings usually undermine cooperative efforts for real article improvements.MONGO 21:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC) Comment by AgadaUrbanit[edit]According to rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. This appeal is going nowhere, this discussion could be closed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by The Devil's Advocate[edit]Result of the appeal by The Devil's Advocate[edit]
|
Cptnono
[edit]| Withdrawn by filing party. --WGFinley (talk) 15:10, 29 December 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 Cptnono[edit]
The interaction ban specifies that Cptnono may not Reply to Nableezy in any discussion or Make reference to or comment on Nableezy, directly or indirectly, on any page. He did both in that comment. He directly replied to a comment made by me, and he directly references me by saying you guys can keep it up while directly replying to me, and indirectly accuses me of filibustering and potentially violating an interaction while violating the interaction ban. I realize what happened with the last request, but this straightforward and should not be open to the type of drama that occurred last time. Can yall please actually enforce the ban?
It boggles the mind that somebody could say that I responded to Cptnono, or that I replied under a section heading that he made. Cptnono made a comment in an RFC, Tiamut replied to that, Kauffner to that, Tiamut to that, Kauffner to that, me to that, GabrielF to that, and me to that. There are a. no section headings, and b. no replies to anything Cptnono was even discussing. I directly replied to a comment made by Kauffner and to a reply made to me. Thats it. nableezy - 05:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
WGF, I did not comment on Cptnono's vote, technically or otherwise. I was responding, directly, to Kauffner, and then to GabrielF. Cptnono directly responded to me. Removing the interaction ban requires more than just your say so, that was imposed as an arbitration enforcement action and requires a consensus of admins to remove it. I strongly object to the notion that removing the ban is an acceptable way of enforcing it. The ban is not unenforceable, yall just need to actually try to enforce it. And honestly, given your initial reply to the past request for enforcment on a much more closely related set of edits as being contrived and vexatious, I question why you now think that it is plausible that a completely unrelated reply is a violation of that same ban. nableezy - 16:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The ban is over at this point, might as well consider this moot. In the hopes that the behavior that caused the ban to be requested and placed to begin with is not repeated, Id ask that you consider this request withdrawn. nableezy - 06:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Cptnono[edit]Statement by Cptnono[edit]Nableezy made a response to my comment. He inserted a comment under a level heading I made. Instead of running to AE I pointed it out there. I don;t mind a topic ban. I even asked for one a few months ago. But when an editor under a topic ban makes a direct response to a comment he is in violation. If Nableezy is not topic banned for blatantly being in violation himself then the process is broken. Nableezy made a response to me and I answered. You guys can call it as you want. I will point out that Nableezy has spent the last 2 weeks calling for enforcement on me. Our interaction ban runs out in less than two weeks. Shenanigans. Cptnono (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Final statement before we all know what is coming[edit]This is taking so long!
That being said:
I will not retract my previous statements based on this request for enforcement being based on shenanigans. But I do know that my judgement was off when I made the response that breeched the interaction ban. My judgement has been off before and that needs to be considered if we want to be fair. If it is time for me to get a topic ban then it is time for me to get a topic ban. I would prefer for the admins to respect the following argument: Most of my concerns in the topic area have been based on my squabbling with Nableezy. But that would be a cop out on my part. If I messed up bad enough to deserve an enforced break than so be it. I do request a punishment that is based solely on me (since asking for one based on the infraction is not going to happen) and that does not take into account admins frustration over editors as a whole unless we are doing ARBIA3. I think I deserve a week for my interaction ban violation but know that is not a possibility. I assume 6 months will be the response from an uninvolved admin, but that would be overkill. Just wanted to vent. let you guys know how I feel, and stave off my urge to appeal any ban too early. Cptnono (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Cptnono[edit]Comment by Biosketch[edit]This is Cptnono's comment:
Where is there any indication that he's "replying to a comment made by" you, "directly referencing" you, or accusing you of filibustering? Other than the unfortunate placement of the comment – in a discussion where Cptnono was already involved, it needs to be stressed – there's nothing here necessarily indicating that Cptnono was addressing Nableezy at all.—Biosketch (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that Cptnono said in his comment above my section here, "You guys can call it as you want." Who was he talking to? Was he addressing the remark to anyone in particular? No – it was a comment directed at all of us generally. By the same token, his remark at Talk:Arab citizens of Israel was also meant as a general observation directed at no one in particular.—Biosketch (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment by MichaelNetzer[edit]Just like the previous complaint that wasn't considered a violation of the interaction ban, this one cannot be either. Cptnono didn't direct his words at Nableezy or anyone specific. He had already commented earlier and wanted to add an afterthought. The placement is unfortunate but doesn't suggest an interaction. Nableezy was also advised, btw, about excessive appearances here, which evidently hasn't been heeded. Cptnono should be heard before suggestions for such a severe sanction are made. --MichaelNetzer (talk)
@Nableezy: Boggles the mind? What boggles the mind is that your previous complaint against Cptnono relies on the same distance between your edits and Cptnono's as the distance between your comment and his level heading in the same comment thread in this complaint. Yet you are the one rushing to file complaints when Cptnono was far more considerate and forgiving about it. Your refusal to become more collaborative by rushing to demand sanctions against editors you are in conflict with, while attempting to blur the facts with convoluted reasoning, is what truly boggles the mind around here. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC) @Nableezy: As someone who must endure your distorted accusations and intimidating tone in the I-P space, and has bent over backwards to persuade you to become more collaborative instead of rushing to file complaints against editors here - if you have a complaint against my participation in these discussions ("try not distorting the events at every discussion that has nothing to do with you."), then either file a complaint about me and substantiate what you accuse me of, or please desist from making baseless inflammatory comments about me. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The diffs, [75] and [76] appear under Cptnono's vote (please see the fifth vote down in the survey for the thread.) Cptnono's vote itself is not considered a violation of the ban, but it did develop into a thread that Nableezy participated in with comments (not voting) first, before Cptnono's response. Granted, Nableezy might not have paid enough attention that he was commenting in a discussion about Cptnono's vote. This gave rise to Cptnono's concern for an iBan violation by Nableezy, that he commented on in the diff Nableezy used as the basis for this complaint. Granted, that neither one of the two directed remarks towards the other or interacted with each other. And granted that both of them suffer the same technicality of being within the same thread. And also granted that Cptnono's comment is directly under Nableezy's, it is still true that he did not direct his comment to Nableezy and this was his own voting thread that Nableezy first participated in. Cptnono did not participate in any other discussions there that would infer a violation of the iBan with Nableezy. I do not personally see a violation of the ban in either case, but there is a shadow of suspicion that Nableezy first violated it by not paying attention that he was commenting on Cptnono's vote. This is a similar incident that Nableezy brought previously against Cptnono, where he was warned to be more careful. At best, Nableezy must now be also warned to be more careful and the complaint dismissed, as in the previous complaint. However, in light of both parties ostensibly being suspected of a violation, Cptnono DID NOT rush to file a complaint. The editor who rushed to file a complaint is Nableezy, who can himself be construed to have violated the ban in the same way Cptnono could. And Nableezy adds salt to a wound he inflicts himself by claiming that Cptnono directed his statements to him, when they were clearly directed to the winds in a sort of forgiving frustration at Nableezy's participation in a thread about his own vote. If Cptnono's comment is to considered a violation of the iBan, then Nableezy's must be also seen as such. Even more so because it was Cptnono's voting thread in which the comments were made. The violation which results in a severe behavior that disturbs the balance of their actions is that Nableezy is the one who rushed to file the complaint while Cptnono was more considerate and forgiving. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Comment by BorisG[edit]Well, I don't know if Cptnono's conduct amounts to a breach of IBan, but an indef is so preposterous that even filing party thinks it is too harsh. I would advice Cptnono to stay miles away from discussions where Nableezy is involved. - BorisG (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Comment by Nishidani[edit]Almost certainly a breach, but I concur with Boris that an indef. is way too strong. Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Comment by The Devil's Advocate[edit]I expressed my concerns in the previous request regarding Cptnono that his explanation for why he was not following Nableezy's edits did not seem satisfactory. Here I noticed something similarly suspicious about his actions. He dated the offending comment provided above, but did not sign it. I cannot think of how that could be done accidentally. Seems more like Cptnono did not want people to realize it was his comment. Any claim that he was not referring to Nableezy seems to be a stretch as well. Nableezy was commenting on a threaded discussion started from Cptnono's vote, however Nableezy is clearly responding to another editor. What it does indicate is that Cptnono's comment about "what can only be considered violations of interaction bans" was a reference to these comments by Nableezy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
@WG Cptnono has never received a topic ban at all. Going for an indef is not even something Nableezy has expressed support for so it seems that something shorter would be better. A long-term extension to the interaction ban would certainly seem to be necessary (I do not think it is a coincidence that these incidents have popped up in the last month of the interaction ban), a months-long topic ban, and possibly a block for a week or two. I agree that the editor is clearly in need of a firmer response, but that does not mean you have to go for the jugular right out of the gates.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I looked through two years of Cptnono's edit history and once more found no indication whatsoever that he contributed to the article in this case until after Nableezy contributed to it. This is just like the previous case where Cptnono gave an erroneous justification for his sudden appearance at articles Nableezy had recently edited.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC) @WG I understand your distaste for more ambiguous accusations of interaction ban violations, but there are many cases where an action is blatant and interaction bans serve a useful purpose in avoiding the punitive impression other sanctions tend to create as it does not stop anyone from editing the topic altogether. Those ambiguous cases seem to focus on whether one user is attempting to bait the other editor into violating an interaction ban without technically violating it as well. Nableezy's edit does not appear to be a technical violation, but I also think there was no intent to violate its spirit. Cptnono does not exactly have a distinctive signature and there were several comments by other editors between Cptnono's vote and Nableezy's response to Kauffner. It seems probable that Nableezy did not even notice. Even if he had, the comment does not appear to be in any way directed at or commenting on Cptnono. The comment could have easily been responding to a stand-alone statement by Kauffner without any change to Kauffner's comment or Nableezy's. Placement is the only issue there and I do not think that alone is a basis for claiming a violation. Once more I also think it is disconcerting that Cptnono was yet again only showing up at an article after Nableezy made a recent edit there. If he is following Nableezy to these articles and making edits in opposition to him then that is not nearly as ambiguous.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Comment by Malik Shabazz[edit]I agree with others that an indefinite topic ban is too harsh in this instance. Perhaps a year-long ban with an opportunity to appeal in six months? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Plot Spoiler[edit]Indefinite ban... year ban...? Anything even more than a month seems pretty ridiculous for a weak violation of an interaction ban. This isn't a more pressing content or civility issue. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC) AgadaUrbanit[edit]So we're talking about possible WP:IBAN violation between two editors.
Is X commenting on the Y !vote above? Do γ&δ constitute comments of editor X on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
In arvo quaerere verum: The purpose of an interaction ban is to stop a conflict between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved from getting out of hand and disrupting the work of others. Would X and Y agree with removal of their mutual iban? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Gatoclass[edit]It seems Cptnono concluded that since Nableezy had commented in a thread Cptnono started, then Nableezy was violating the spirit if not the letter of their mutual IBAN, which justified Cptnono in making a response. I don't believe Nableezy's comments constituted any sort of breach, and I don't think Cptnono's reasoning was sound in that regard, but in the circumstances I suppose Cptnono might be extended a degree of AGF. Cptnono is undisciplined and at times somewhat abrasive but in my admittedly limited experience, he has appeared to be at least capable of editing collaboratively in the topic area, which is more than I can say for a number of other contributors there. I am therefore inclined to agree with those above who have argued that an indefinite topic ban would be somewhat undue at this point. I would suggest an extension of the IBAN with Nableezy for another six months, assuming Nableezy assents, together perhaps with a topic ban of short duration. Gatoclass (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Comment by Timotheus Canens[edit]I'm putting myself here instead of below because I think that with respect to Cptnono in particular, my impartiality might reasonably be questioned due to his personal criticism of me at several previous occasions. I may revisit this conclusion if we have a serious shortage of AE admins, but it does not look like we have one at the moment. I have been one of the earlier proponents of those indef bans with periodic appeals, but that idea did not seem to have gained much traction at that time. (I should point out that the subject of my first indef-with-appeals ban, which had been reduced to 3 months on appeal, was subsequently topic banned for another year after that 3-month ban expired.) As I perceive it, Cptnono has exhausted the patience of several AE admins (that certainly includes mine), so an indef topic ban is not unreasonable. However, I do get the feeling that it might have been a little on the extreme side. I'm frankly not sure what should be done here. In light of the expiration of the interaction ban, though, I suggest that it might not be a bad idea to simply take the easy way out and close this as withdrawn. T. Canens (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Cptnono[edit]
Pretty blatant to me, Cptnono's comment is immediately under Nableezy's. I think it's time for an indefinite TBAN for Cptnono, who was just chided not to do this. Normally I would act on this right away but since I'm proposing indefinite I will let others chime in. --WGFinley (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC) My suggestion for indefinite is based on facts. This is the 2nd interaction ban that Cptnono has had with Nableezy, the first one was lifted and then put back into place 6 months later. We have a fresh AE report that's not even a couple weeks old with clear instruction to avoid areas where Nableezy is editing and not even days after getting that warning Cptnono goes right back and does exactly that. The time consumed on AE and the disruptions caused in this article space are of detriment to the project and I think it is time to start giving long term TBANs for those who have previously been sanctioned multiple times. --WGFinley (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Re: Cptnono Response[edit]Cptnono didn't provide any diffs regarding Nableezy "making a response" to him, I've asked him for some diffs on his talk page as I'm not seeing that in the article history at all. Nableezy has a few edits to the page going back more than a year and Cptnono only made two edits[77][78], both were after Nableezy voted and commented. --WGFinley (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC) I've reviewed this and I understand the points being made now. I think this is a great illustration of the silliness of interaction bans and how they just don't work. Nableezy voted, with a comment, then Cptnono voted, with a comment, then a lot of discussion started with Nableezy making multiple comments on discussion under Cptnono's vote. As far as the conversations here, they are pretty much emblematic of the problems in this topic space and AE. I really wish people could tone it down. Now as for what to do with this mess: technically Nableezy was there first but as I said before I don't think that should matter if there is no direct interaction. Technically Nableezy commented on Cptnono's vote but it wasn't directed at Cptnono's comment just under it. However, were I Cptnono I could construe a comment on my vote as interacting. But still Cptnono pretty much directly took it on with the diff Nableezy originally reported. I'm of a mind to lift the interaction ban as unenforceable, with warnings to both further disruption will lead to TBANs, really only way I can see making any sense of this. --WGFinley (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC) @Nableezy Your comment is in discussion under his vote how can you possibly deny that? Thus if someone speaks up in support or opposition to his vote and then you speak up against that you are, vicariously, speaking in support or opposing his vote. But for the fact Cptnono made his vote and comment there's no discussion there for you to comment on, therefore you clearly commented on his vote. Also, if there's a consensus here at AE to remove the interaction ban, especially since it was AGK who made the ban, it can be removed. I also recall you were requested to tone down your rhetoric on this page, that clearly hasn't happened. --WGFinley (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC) @Nableezy "What pray tell has been the issue with my rhetoric on this page?" - you do it in the same sentence you ask what you're doing wrong! Also, I've never indicated I was taking immediate individual action here, in fact my very first comment was saying I wanted other input, don't know how you're making the leap to me unilaterally removing AGK's IBAN, I suggested it and that was all. --WGFinley (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Move For Close[edit]This interaction ban expires in a few days, I don't see the need of going through a process to lift it. TBAN, after looking at all the extenuating circumstances, doesn't seem appropriate here for either side, clearly there is honest disagreement as to who interacted first and I think both sides have a valid argument that the other started it. Thus I'm disinclined to extend it as Gatoclass presented. I think Gato's suggestion has merit and seeks to find middle ground but, after a couple of weeks of calls needing to be made on murky actions regarding what is an IBAN violation I can't see extending something that is inadequate. So I would suggest closing this with no action other than a plea to both parties to cool it as in the next few days we will see if previous sanctions have done any good or if TBANs are next up for consideration. --WGFinley (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Nableezy has asked this case be considered withdrawn, I will do so but this case should serve as a warning to Cptnono to avoid pushing the envelope, it's pretty clear any future disruption is going to result in a long term TBAN given his history. --WGFinley (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC) |