Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive161
Factchecker atyourservice[edit]
| No enforcement action taken against Factchecker atyourservice; RAN1 reminded of the purpose of AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Factchecker atyourservice[edit]
Recently, a dispute has come up on Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown about whether a photo of Michael Brown should be used and which one. An RFC was started, but FCAYS disputed its validity on the grounds that BLP overrides consensus. As this argument was dismissed, they became somewhat confrontational, and insisted with an almost personal attack that consensus be unconsidered on the basis of a BLP violation that no other editor supported. Today, FCAYS made an edit request asking for the photo’s removal as the page was protected. I contested the edit request as it was unsupported by consensus. As I discussed this over with FCAYS, they became increasingly aggravated at my responses, in which I tried to explain neutrally and non-personally (as far as I can tell) that consensus was not for removing the image. I justified why the image should be kept, and FCAYS continued to question in an increasingly personal and incivil manner. They went on a full rhetorical question spree at the end, with aggressive tone and battleground attacks. In a separate thread, MSGJ rejected the edit request, and FCAYS contested it. Gaijin asked FCAYS to stop repeating their argument for removal, to which FCAYS gave incivil, consensus-disrupting comments à la WP:WIN and to the effect that including the photo is a deliberate misrepresentation by the editors. They were recently the subject of an AE warning for BATTLE and CIVIL and were blocked as part of the sanction 4 days ago, see above. Given this generally disruptive pattern of editing, I request a more severe sanction be imposed.
Discussion concerning Factchecker atyourservice[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Factchecker atyourservice[edit]It appears this is going to be closed without action so I'm not going to comment at length but I would like to point out that Diff #2 above is presented with an egregiously misleading description. I suggested the "compromise" of using the "graduation photo" image that was not disputed by any editors. Although it was not the preferred image for Gaijin, Ran, and Dyrnych, they had all said they didn't object to using it. Meanwhile, there were a number of objections against the "headphones" photo. One photo had support and no objections, the other photo had support and multiple objections. I didn't think it was much of a stretch to suggest the non-disputed photo and call it a "compromise". But RAN's summary for Diff#2 was this: "in response to Gaijin42, insists that RFC would not be cut short by agreeing to use non-disputed image." He makes it sound like I was offered a compromise but rejected it! But that's sort of the opposite of how I understood the events to be unfolding. Puzzling. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by ChrisGualtieri[edit]Pardon me, but action was already taken on this matter. He was blocked for the issue by @Callanecc:. Given the circumstances, namely that the subject was already punished, this seems inappropriate. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Factchecker atyourservice[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Davidbena[edit]
| No 1RR violation but Davidbena blocked 24 hours for a personal attack. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Davidbena[edit]
Discussion concerning Davidbena[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Davidbena[edit]User:Huldra seems to be pursuing a political agenda bent on defaming Israel by its action in the winter of 1948, when I have insisted that she remain neutral, and not to politicize the situation. Specifically, User:Huldra prefers to mention Bayt Nattif of October 1948 as a "Palestinian-Arab village," when I propose that it is far better to simply write "Arab village," since in October of 1948 Bayt Nattif was then under the direct governance of the new government of Israel, based on the partition plan relegated to Israeli and Jordanian authorities by the dissolved British Mandate. To suggest that Bayt Nattif was, in October of 1948, a "Palestinian-Arab village" is to suggest a sovereign governmental body by the name of Palestine given charge over the village's affairs when it was actually the new State of Israel that had been given charge over its affairs. To avoid this seemingly contentious issue, I have suggested keeping the introductory lines neutral in accordance with WP policy of WP:NPOV and by simply writing "Arab village." (For a greater summary, see Bayt Nattif's Talk Page (bottom section) Davidbena (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Question: What is the proper way of seeking professional advice from experienced editors, without abrogating the WP guidelines which look with disdain on "canvassing"? Honestly, how can I go about seeking professional counsel and advice? If anyone notes my own words, I have actually called out for advice, rather than asking editors to side with me in this dispute. Davidbena (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Number 57[edit]Not sure whether I am uninvolved, as I have been editing related articles, but as far as I can see, the first edit is not a revert of any other edit (the very first version used the phrase in question), so Davidbena has only actually reverted once. Number 57 23:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000[edit]Davidbena has also been violating WP:CANVASS over the same issue: [13] [14] [15] [16]. Zerotalk 00:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC) @Number 57:, I wasn't going to complain about you being "involved" until I noticed that just yesterday you yourself made an edit almost the same as the one being debated here. Kindly move yourself out of the administrators' section. Zerotalk 01:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Nishidani[edit]No violation, but, David, (you asked for advice), your reasoning is deeply defective, and you are trying to establish a precedent that would affect several hundred wiki pages. When the impact of an edit is so far-reaching, it requires consensus. Your reasoning is defective because the verb 'to be' (was) describes a continuous state. It was a Palestinian (under the British Mandate for Palestine) Arab village. The argument that, once its inhabitants were driven out by a conquering Israeli army it became overnight therefore 'governed' by Israel and therefore became 'Arab' not 'Palestinian', is meaningless. The village was blown up (partially on the suspicion that some of the villagers had destroyed a Palmach relief convoy to the Etzion Bloc earlier in January that year), and nothing remained to be 'governed'. The article is not about the village on 23 October, 1948, but the historic village that existed until the Palmach brigade blew it to pieces. It is customary to define such places as Palestinian Arab on Wikipedia, 'Arab' satisfying an Israeli POV that Palestinians did not exist, and 'Palestinian' to satisfy Palestinian traditions that they did exist before 1948/1967. Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Davidbena[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. This is a sloppily filed report because it does not tell us which rule of conduct the removal of the word "Palestinian" is supposed to have violated or which remedy is to be enforced. If not promptly amended, this request may be closed without action. Sandstein 10:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Arthur Rubin[edit]
| Arthur Rubin topic-banned from gun control. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Arthur Rubin[edit]
Principles
All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion, either in favor of or against an individual, institution, or idea that is the subject of the article, is prohibited.
Wikipedia articles should present a neutral view of their subject. Use of a Wikipedia article for advocacy or promotion is prohibited.
Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than through legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable.
Claims of misconduct should be made with the goal of resolving the problem, not of impugning another editor's reputation.
Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors.
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement#Arthur_Rubin_topic-banned
Arthur Rubin keeps violating principles from the ArbCom's Gun Control decision. As an administrator he knows the rules but as an editor he doesn't follow them. He advocates a position by labeling a widely held POV as "pejorative" "propaganda", in articles and on talk pages. He reverts articles to restore non-neutral text without sources, despite objections of many editors. He doesn't seek consensus or compromise. He uses talk pages to say he's right and other editors are wrong. He says sources for his own assertions are unnecessary because they are "facts" that can't be disputed, while he discounts expert sources as being unreliable. He smears me as a POV-pusher as a dismissive insult better suited to driving off an editor than to resolve any article problems. The demonstrable "fact" is that he's using Wikipedia to advance a political position with whatever editing tricks are necessary. That's just what the ArbCom and the community have said is unacceptable. Maybe this is off-topic but gun control is one of the agenda items of the Tea Party movement, a topic where Arthur Rubin has already been sanctioned. During the Gun Control case, he argued that another user should be banned from articles about gun control because of that user's problems with editing Tea Party articles.[17] Should he be held to the standard he sets for others? You decide. These repeated problems, with the Tea Party and with gun control, are examples of his recidivism - once again he's forcing through non-neutral edits about political issues in violation of Wikipedia policy. It might be easy to toss this out as a content dispute, or give a fellow admin extra leeway. Doing that wouldn't stop Arthur Rubin from making more reverts of reasonable edits, more additions of unsourced POV or more unsupported accusations about other editors. Arthur Rubin is an editor who can't or won't edit in a neutral manner on issues related to gun control. That's obvious to anyone who reviews his work. AE is the venue for enforcing the ArbCom's decision requiring editors in this topic to comply with site policies. This board should take appropriate action now to prevent the waste of many hours by many editors in the future. Inaction by AE probably means more battleground behavior to advance a cause, more one-sided editing of contentious topics, more antagonism to those who disagree, more defiance of the ArbCom and more violations of site policies. Sorry if this isn't formatted or framed perfectly. Please fix any mistakes in this complaint. I've already devoted more time to this than I should have to, and I won't be able to edit again in the upcoming week.
Discussion concerning Arthur Rubin[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Arthur Rubin[edit]First, gun control is not one of the issues related to the Tea Party. It is subject to discretionary sanctions, but no specific reversion sanctions, such as WP:1RR. "Gun control" is mentioned twice in Tea Party movement, but the Tea Party is not mentioned in any gun control article that I have noticed. Neither concept is considered important to the other. My previous block for violating the Tea Party sanctions was for an article related to the Koch brothers, which some consider related to the Tea Party. In regard "pejorative" and WP:NPOV in gun show loophole controversy, the name "gun show loophole" clearly violates WP:NPOVTITLE, as it is only used by gun-control advocates. Unlike "Assault weapon", it is not a term-of-law, but only a term-of-propaganda. Adding "controversy" to the title is a minimal attempt at restoring WP:NPOV. Restoring "pejorative" to the first sentence is also an attempt to restore WP:NPOV; if one source, even an unreliable one, such as the Daily Kos article calls it "pejorative", and no source disagrees, it should be kept until a reliable source is found. There has been no claim made (other than by the complaining party) that his/her edits improve compliance to WP:NPOV on this article, or, in fact, any article other than American Hunters and Shooters Association. In terms of article improvement at gun show loophole controversy, a statement in the first sentence, similar to that in "assault weapon", that it is used to attempt to restrict firearm purchases, would balance even better than "pejorative". (I didn't bring that up on the talk page earlier because I hadn't read the article "assault weapon".) The complaining party has (in recent times, anyway), only edited gun control articles, and, with at few exceptions, has edited to increase the credibility of gun control, and discussed only "improvements" which increase the credibility of gun control. Those exceptions are on American Hunters and Shooters Association, for which I complemented the editor for not being a POV-warrior there. See Special:Contributions/162.119.231.132. This history shows that it is a stable IP. My recent edits to Talk:Gun politics in the United States probably are a violation; my only excuse is that EllenCT Changed reference to EllenCT; there are too many ArbCom cases in which Ellen was involved for me to be sure, but she was clearly acting as a POV-warrior in attempting to include a chart loosely related to wealth inequality on articles on income inequality, plutocracy, and other loosely related topics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Ellen's claims that I am "stalking" her are completely unjustified. To the best of my knowledge, I never even looked at her contributions page. I decline comment as to whether her edits are likely within policy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by EllenCT[edit]There is no ArbCom finding of fact that I am a "POV-warrior", let alone in two cases. @Arthur Rubin: I demand that personal attack be struck. I have never been sanctioned by ArbCom or at ANI even though there are several people who have complained there about my insistence on adherence to reliable sources a handful of times over the years. The worst a closing admin has said about me at ANI is that the zeal with which I engage my opponents is cause for concern. But if it weren't for editors such as Arthur Rubin, who constantly stalks my contributions, often making up facts to suit his arguments, then I would be much less of a zealot. If Rubin is topic-banned from gun politics, then he has also been violating that ban at WP:NPOVN#Expert commentary on risks of living in a household with guns, where he has made up out of whole cloth reasons that WP:MEDRS sources on the risks of living in a household with guns are unacceptable for inclusion in the article where he says he probably violated his topic ban above, but has been unable to offer any sources which agree with his opinion. EllenCT (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC) There have been no ArbCom findings of fact concerning me, and I strongly object to Rubin's revised statement which states that there have been. The only accusations that I am a "POV-warrior" are personal attacks from Rubin himself, based on ordinary content disputes in which Rubin is clearly unable to comport himself civilly. The fact that Rubin is unable to strike his own false allegations, along with his lengthy history of sanctions, shows that he lacks the competence expected of editors, let alone administrators. If any other administrator would like me to email the evidence showing that Rubin has been stalking my edits, please leave a note on my talk page. EllenCT (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Arthur Rubin[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. As submitted, this appears mostly not actionable because it mostly reflects content disputes. I don't also readily see any edit that might violate Arthur Rubin's Tea Party topic ban; the edits here are about gun control but not about the Tea Party. However, there are some points of concern. Even though I know next to nothing about the issue, Arthur Rubin's edits of 8 January 2015 which repeatedly changed the lead sentence of "assault weapon" to "... is a political term used by anti gun advocacy groups ..." strikes me as so distinctly partisan in tone that it might be considered a violation of the conduct aspect of WP:NPOV, which requires that "editors ... should strive in good faith ... not to promote one particular point of view over another". Also, as EllenCT points out, Arthur Rubin's unsubstantiated allegation here that ArbCom found her to be a "POV-warrior" is, at least, a violation of the "casting aspersions" principle enunciated repeatedly by the Committee in application of our WP:NPA policy. I invite comment by other admins about whether this suffices for a "gun control" topic ban in light of Arthur Rubin's previous sanctions in the similar "Tea Party" topic area. Sandstein 20:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Sitush[edit]
| No enforcement action taken. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Sitush[edit]
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF#Discretionary_sanctions
I'm only asking that Admins watch the article and talk pages to prevent any edit warring or similar bullying tactics. User:Sitush is aware that I'm here, he asked me to come here [18] (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts):
Please just let him know that somebody is watching him
See above - he requested that I come here. I'll repeat immediately after saving here [19] Discussion concerning Sitush[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Sitush[edit]I know that I am being watched. This is a content dispute and I am being as careful as possible to keep it on topic. My only mentions of this thing at WT:GGTF have been in direct relation to the fact that the article emerged from a discussion at GGTF and it is quite obvious to me that there is something going on here that amounts to freezing me out. Fortunately, some other people in good standing and with decent knowledge of policy etc are also recognising that. The entire issue is really one for a variety of noticeboards - OR, NPOV, BLP, wherever coatracking should be taken, etc - and perhaps for a RfC unless it can be resolved on the talk page, where my valid concerns are largely being ignored. The very fact that Smallbones was quick to refer to the Arbcom case there, and then came here asking for very little, should indicate that this is a pretty spurious request. I could provide diffs but I suggest that people read the article talk page. I'm off to bed. - Sitush (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Johnuniq[edit]It would be helpful if an admin would monitor WT:GGTF and articles which have been discussed there, such as Women's rights in 2014 (created on 2 January 2015). I have not noticed any commentary which is sanctionable, but in view of WP:ARBGGTF it would be desirable for warnings to be issued before the current low-level sniping gets out of hand. For example, there is no need for edit summaries like " @Bishonen: I understand your instinct to protect Sitush, but you know there is a problem. If no one cares sufficiently to monitor the situation, we can wait until it blows up if you like. Johnuniq (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Chess[edit]What did Sitush do? He proposed a removal of a sentence, waited a while, then removed it. Then somebody reverted him. Then he reverted that person back, because they did not address Sitush's argument. I'm not going to comment on what sentence is better oon AE, but quoting OrangesRyellow, "When Sitush is around, you will be treated to a constant barrage of frequent tirades, absurd accusations, ANIs, SPIs, etc. and the whole area comes to be seen as "problematic" because of those tirades, absurd accusations etc. The topic of this article is simple enough, but it will be madeproblematic, through polemics, etc. There is a reason why people chose to ignore". That isn't very civil, since if OrangesRyellow has a problem with Sitush's behaviour, maybe it should be taken up at the proper forum (quote by me:"If you have a problem with Sitush's behaviour, why don't you take it up at the proper forum? Such as WP:AN/I or possibly WP:AE." But then OrangesRyellow said in response, "Because I think I am better off doing more constructive things in my limited wiki-time". It's not very constructive to make those allegations in the first place in a debate on content, and I think OrangesRyellow should be made aware of that. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 17:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Sitush[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I'm not much of a regular at AE, but surely this kind of thing is not what it's for? To tell Sitush he's being watched? The instructions above are pretty clear: For completeness, I don't think the idea of violating a "finding of fact" has been envisioned — it seems philosophically awkward — nor are findings of fact mentioned in the instructions for posting a report here. But just to make them accessible, here are links to the findings of fact against Sitush:[20] and [21], so you can see whether you find them violable, or to have been violated in this case. It seems frivolous to come here without requesting any admin action, and without claiming that any remedies, injunctions or discretionary sanctions have been violated. Again,
The article Women's rights in 2014 does *not* appear to fall under the discretionary sanctions of WP:ARBGGTF. However if Sitush's remarks on any GGTF project page violate policy then the sanctions do apply. At present I see no reason for enforcement here. Sitush might consider opening a WP:Request for comment on some of the disputed points. The article is likely to turn into a list of interesting things that happened in 2014 that newspaper editorial writers believe are connected to women's rights. Summarizing editorial opinion is always hard, but it is common for such opinions to be mentioned in Wikipedia articles when they are judged relevant. Editorial writers tend to use an uplifting style that may not tie closely to easily-observed facts. Deciding whether 2014 was or was not 'a watershed year for women's rights' can't be determined by any method known to science. So my suggestion to Sitush would be to take this article off his watchlist, to save frustration. If he does choose to continue he will be subject to the normal WP:Edit warring policy. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by AmirSurfLera[edit]
| The appeal is declined. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
} Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, 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 AmirSurfLera[edit]Hi. Six months have passed since the imposition of my topic ban. I was punished for half a year and I respected that decision. I was wondering if now someone could lift my ban, please. I promise I won't break 1RR again and I'll seek consensus before making controversial edits. I really want to contribute to this beautiful encyclopedia in a correct manner. I apologize for the incoveniences I may have caused. Thanks a lot!
Statement by Lord Roem[edit]Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by AmirSurfLera[edit]Result of the appeal by AmirSurfLera[edit]
|
Draft motion for establishing a central DS log[edit]
The Committee is inclined towards establishing a central log for discretionary sanctions and would welcome comments and suggestions.
For the Committee, Roger Davies talk 09:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Arbitration motion to establish a central log for discretionary sanctions and associated amendments[edit]
The Arbitration Committee is currently voting on a motion to establish a central location for the logging of discretionary sanctions procedures and amendments associated with this change. Comments from community members are welcome in the applicable section. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Dornicke[edit]
| Topic-banned by Future Perfect at Sunrise. Sandstein 19:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Dornicke[edit]
Hopefully, the diffs above are self-explanatory. So I just want to add that Dornicke is an WP:SPA whose only edits in the past year are to push WP:FRINGE theory that Al Qaeda is not responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.[24] At the very least, I am requesting a topic ban. I think a site ban is worth considering given that they don't edit anything to the project outside the promotion of conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Dornicke[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Dornicke[edit]I'm in Wikipedia since 2007. You can take a look at my contributions since then, including extensive contributions / new articles such as São Paulo Museum of Art, Museu Nacional de Belas Artes, Portrait of Suzanne Bloch, [[25]], [[26]], etc. I've written more than 250 new articles to the Portuguese wikipedia, including several featured articles, in the fields of art, national heritage, museums, etc. I've have tens of thousands of edits, in the Portuguese, English, German, French, Deutch, Italian and Spanish wikipedias. I've donated thousands and thousands of images to commons. Saying I'm a "single purpose account" is pathetic. BTW I've never written anything in the articles mentioned by the user above. He's whining about my criticism in the article talk page. He doesn't have good arguments to answer logical questions (all based in reliable sources,and none of them related to add anything about conspiracy theories, which is a blatant lie. It's just an attempt of censorship due to intelectual incapacity of presenting arguments. Any editor can see there's no text in any of the articles written by me. So the claim I'm trying to do anything in the articles is, obviously, a bad faith statement. I'm just presenting my opinion about editorial questions on the talk page - have never tried to add anything related to conspiracy. All material I made reference to are from mainstream, reliable, largely accepted sources, by the way. It's ridiculous that the user above is reacting in such an authoritarian and childish manner. I'd say grow up. Dornicke (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment by MONGO[edit]Well...talkpage disruption is not much better than article page disruption. I have yet to see anything from Dornicke that will lead to article improvements. Wikipedia is not a forum afterall...nor is it a webhost for fantastic claims. The tedious arguments put forward by Dornicke in regards to the 9/11 attacks comes across to me at least as trolling since his assertions and odd arguments seem rather unhelpful.--MONGO 20:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Comment by Cla68[edit]Did any of you admins responding below actually read that entire talk page discussion? Dornicke was saying that he felt that the text did not fully represent what the sources were saying. In response, he/she was mocked and insulted and had an enforcement action posted here, simply for asking a question. Is there an unspoken but understood double standard of behavior involving this topic that I'm not aware of? If so, thank you for educating me. It's still, painful, however, to see another editor get treated like this. FWIW, I do not believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories. I was at the Pentagon on 9/11 and saw what I thought to be airplane pieces in the burning building before I evacuated. I just want to see WP's rules applied fairly and evenly. Cla68 (talk) 08:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Result concerning Dornicke[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Ian.thomson and MONGO[edit]
| Clearly not actionable. Sandstein 19:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Ian.thomson and MONGO[edit]
The above comments appear to be intended to mock the other editor and ridicule the attempt to hold a content discussion. Whether or not the editor's point was valid or not is immaterial, the rules still apply.
Both editors appear to be long time regulars on the article. MONGO has been previously blocked for violations of these sanctions.
I notice that there is a request for sanctions above against Dornicke. The person who brought that request neglected to mention that two other editors involved in that discussion also violated the discretionary sanctions by engaging in tendentious editing and personal attacks by mocking Dornicke and personalizing the discussion. Personally, I understood the point Dornicke was trying to make that the text may not be matching exactly what the sources are saying. By attacking Dornicke and mocking his attempt to have a reasonable discussion on the issue, it seems to me that Ian Thomson and MONGO's behavior was equivalent or worse than what Dornicke is accused of. FWIW, I do not believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories. I was at the Pentagon on 9/11 and saw what I thought to be airplane pieces in the burning building before I evacuated. I just want to see WP's rules applied fairly and evenly. The question I have is, do these sanctions only apply to "one" side in this topic area, or are ALL the editors expected to adhere to the same standard of behavior? Cla68 (talk) 08:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Ian.Thomson and MONGO[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Ian.Thomson and MONGO[edit]Are we not allowed to make arguments via Reductio ad absurdum? Am I not allowed to try and explain my "position" again if someone else (who arbitration is topic banning from the subject) refuses to get the point? Should I react to stubborn conspiracy theory pushing with anger instead? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Ian.Thomson[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Request concerning Ashtul[edit]
| Ashtul is blocked for a week. Sandstein 09:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Wikipedia:ARBPIA - 1RR
At Carmel, Har Hebron Ashtul performed his second and third revert within 24 hours.
The first revert is a revert because it cancelled information I entered yesterday The editor has been alerted about discretionary sanctions in the ARBPIA area of conflict in the last twelve months on several occasions,
The editor is obviously tracking me, as he admits to doing so himself, after I registered a protest on his page and request he desist. This began from the day he encountered my edits at Skunk (weapon)). I have had numerous problems since then with his breaking 1R, with his understanding of WP:RS (here and here) and WP:COI (he takes this edit of mine as proof I have a conflict of interest, when I am neither a Palestinian nor a settler, meaning he hasn’t read the policy) and I am not alone. My complaint sheet would be much longer, since the editor's behavior is incomprehensible policy wise and exasperating over many pages, but for the moment ...
Revert 1[edit]I am told I haven't supplied the evidence this is a revert. Is this adequate proof?
.
Discussion concerning Ashtul[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Ashtul[edit]This is a 2nd version. The first can be found here.
reply to other editors EdJohnston, though I am an Israeli and a proud one, I have indeed made quite a few edits that didn't support my opinion like here, here and here as well as others in subject unrelated to I/P conflict. I try not to touch any edit that is well sourced and in place but Nishidani engineers his edits to be biased such as changing "Israel maintains" into "Israel sought to justify" b/c he added a source that worded a sentence that way. Sandstein I admit to a mistake on Carmel article but is was since it is not classified as 1RR, I had no way to know it. RolandR My edits were mainly adding info and multiple edits is a measure I have seen many editors do. If I understand correctly, that is not what edit-warring is about. A delete on BDS page was done a week after I opened it for discussion on talk page. There was never edit-warring with you because even when you reverted my change, it was very reasonable. Please feel free to gather evidence, I am pretty certain I can give a reason for every edit I have made. Cptnono Thanks for your mentoring. Nomoskedasticity Seems like you didn't read my title. The pro-Palestinian madness is about dragging any Israeli subject through the mud. Putting a historical fact before current ones are by no mean encyclopedic. Who are you kidding? I guess BDS decided to make articles about Israel completely useless by dumping any possible Palestinian-remotely-related fact into them. Your last revert on Israeli-occupied territories was unexplained and complete WP:BS. Zero, on Al-Aqsa Mosque we chopped together half the 'Access' section out and some in 'Excavations'. There was dialog, something that doesn't happen with Nishidani. Nishidani, I never asked for balance in the article about incidents. If Israelis are causing more events, it should be in the article. The only balance should be in the lead where (and I invite other editors to check it) your (unnecesary) sources were not balanced and you kept editing out any balancing sources. Answer to Nishidani - Revert 1[edit]You are telling only part of the truth (and this is really the nicest way to say it, someone else probably would have said you are lying to my face).
Statement by IjonTichy[edit]Ashtul now appears to be edit warring on yet another article: Carmel, Har Hebron. I have not checked, but would not be surprised if he is editing disruptively on additional articles. Ashtul is editing recklessly in a highly contentious area of WP with many controversial articles. He ignored numerous warnings posted on his talk page by several members of the community in recent weeks. He appears to not be fully familiar with WP policies, guidelines, community norms and culture. A one-month block would give this disruptive editor ample time to get a WP: CLUE. IjonTichy (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Nomoskedasticity[edit]If Sandstein intends to find that there are insufficient grounds for enforcement via AE (despite edit-warring that now reaches three reverts in an I/P context), then of course it could be taken to EWN. Will this be necessary? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Cptnono[edit]I've been following this and have chimed in a couple times. I have no doubt that Ashtul is trying to improve the articles. As as someone who was sanction years ago for calling Nishidani a "liar" I get how frustrating his admitted bias can be. Ashtul does need to chill out, though. He hasn't had the experience to understand that he needs a cooler head in the topic area (for example, pointing the finger back and using the term propaganda doesn't help anything). Ashtul needs an uninvolved admin to clarly explain things. I've already suggested this to Nishidani.Cptnono (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Layoff IjonTichyIjonTichy. I don't think anyone disputes the inappropriate editing. Discretionary sanctions are not meant to be punitive. Can we get an admin to lay it out there for him? A short block works but even better would be actually letting them know why and how they screwed up. Any SPI should be done as well (I'm not seeing it but the tools might show differently).Cptnono (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by RolandR[edit]Ashtul has also been edit-warring on Price tag policy, on UNRWA, on Israeli-occupied territories, on Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions and on several other articles. This editor's behaviour is highly reminiscent of that of several blocked socks of serial puppeteer Wlglunight93, and unless the result of this AE request makes this unnecessary, I intend to gather the evidence and submit an SPI. RolandR (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000[edit]Sandstein, you ask for evidence that the first edit is a revert. Ashtul himself calls it a revert in his edit summary: revert changes unjustified by Nishidani. Ashtul is one of those edit-warriors whose contribution to the encyclopedia is entirely negative. He doesn't have a clue about neutral writing, and the only meaning he gives to "reliable source" is that it supports his politics. Zerotalk 00:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC) @Sandstein:: The general 1RR restriction for Palestine-Israel articles was imposed by the Arbitration Committee, not by a single administrator. Zerotalk 23:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Igorp lj[edit]
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Ashtul[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
JzG[edit]
| Closed with no action against JzG. All parties are reminded that conduct at WP:AE is actionable and that abuse of the process to pursue personal grudges, cast unfounded aspersions about others or to advance an off site agenda will result in sanction--Cailil talk 11:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning JzG[edit]
Discussion concerning JzG[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by JzG[edit]This is abuse of process by one of a number of fringe advocates who are engaged in a determined campaign to undermine the scientific rigour of our coverage on quackery. Given the determined and vexatious nature of quackery advocacy on Wikipedia, it is unsurprising that a dumpster dive through contributions of any reality advocate will turn up instances of tetchiness, especially since it is usually necessary to explain policy repeatedly, in words of one syllable, and even then they just keep asking, and will always keep asking until they get what they want - something not in our gift, because what they want is for science to completely change and their beliefs to become true. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Gaijin42[edit]The diffs that predate the 11th are prior to the warning, and the most severe [diff] (stupid person) was already dealt with at the previous AE that just closed.
This seems like editors that didn't like the previous result trying to take two bites at the apple, but JzG could certainly tone it down a bit, while still holding the line against the quackery. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Callanecc Since A1 mentions the CAM sanctions in his report against JzG, wouldn't that be sufficient to say he was aware of them at the time of his posting? Also he was a named party on the CAM ArbCom case where the sanctions were applied by motion and he commented there significantly. Either seems to satisfy point #2 of the "awareness" criteria? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Dominus Vobisdu[edit]There is a WP:GAMING tactic currently being used by several fringe promoters on alternative medicine articles to provoke other editors into reacting and then calling them out for being uncivil. This complaint is a good example of trying to eliminate opposition to fringe promotion. I myself stopped editing altogether for several months because of my disgust at this phenomenon. I believe that boomerang applies, and that the OP should be topic banned from all articles related to medicine, including alternative medicine and related topics, broadly construed. This has become such a serious problem that alternative medicine articles are now covered by discretionary sanctions because fringe promoters tried to evade discretionary sanctions related to pseudoscience topics. This particular editor has been tendentious and disruptive, and pushing pro-fringe material backed up by grossly unreliable sources. Civil POV pushing is an apt description of his behavior. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by RAN1[edit]Short comment: A1candidate’s TM diff was immediately preceded by a number of edits removing the sourced consensus that research on TM was of poor quality, making the lead statement to that effect unsourced. His justification for this was primarily MEDDATE on <10 year old articles. See here (~13:12, 10 January 2015). —-RAN1 (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Resolute[edit]After seeing the comments at Jimbo's talk page that led to this request, I figured this would be a bad faith attempt at gaming the system by A1Canaditate. Having read this and the other comments, I am now convinced as such. In particular given how A1candidate is accusing people who disagree with him of various sundry violations simply because they disagree with him. I would agree with ToaT that this is more likely to be a WP:BOOMERANG situation than anything else. Resolute 16:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge[edit]@Sandstein: Can you please clarify how the accusation of being "an advocate of quackery and fringe ideas" is true? If you're referring to acupuncture, and I assume that you are, I believe that you are mistaken. My only prior knowledge of acupuncture is what I see in the movies and on TV. But when I looked it up at:
Not a single one of these sources described acupuncture as pseudoscience, and these sources are about as mainstream and respected as they come. As best I can tell, the POV that acupuncture is pseudoscience is a WP:FRINGE or minority POV (perhaps even significant minority) but certainly not scientific consensus. This appears to a case where editors who claim to be arguing in favor of scientific consensus are actually arguing against scientific consensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by Pekay2[edit]I fervently agree with aqfk. I would add--this whole fringe, quackbuster focus is an anachronism in my view. History is replete with yesterday's quackery as today's science, and yesterday's science as today's quackery.--Pekay2 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by QuackGuru[edit]A1candidate was notified of the sanctions on 26 June 2014. A1candidate deleted MEDRS compliant sources and his edit summary did not give a valid reason to delete all the text or sources from Acupuncture. A1candidate made mass changes to Transcendental Meditation without consensus. A1candidate deleted text from the lede and body that describes Traditional Chinese medicine as largely pseudoscience after there was a long established consensus.[41] See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_92#Traditional_Chinese_medicine. QuackGuru (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC) User:Callanecc, in case you missed it A1candidate was notified of the sanctions on 26 June 2014. So admins are able to take further action against A1candidate at this time. Of course, he deleted the notification. A1candidate was also notified of the sanctions for acupuncture on 12 January 2015. QuackGuru (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning JzG[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The quality of the diffs provided, when examined in context, suggest that A1candidate is a ripe candidate for a boomerang. WP:AE is not meant to be used by a civil-but-tireless POV-pusher to try to eliminate editors who seem to have a much firmer grasp of WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:MEDRS. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dominus Vobisdu: You violate the prohibition against casting aspersions on others, an aspect of WP:NPA, by asserting that A1candidate "has been tendentious and disruptive, and pushing pro-fringe material backed up by grossly unreliable sources" without at the same time providing actionable evidence for this serious accusation of misconduct. Please provide such evidence in the form of dated diffs as soon as possible, within 24 hours of your next edit following this message, or you may be made subject to a block or ban. Sandstein 17:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
As all of the admins who have commented here so far are long familiar, dealing with this alleged "civil POV pushing" is a difficult task. It is a huge annoyance to have someone being an excessive stickler for the rules instead of actually being willing to work with other editors to figure out what everyone wants for the article so that it meets the underlying principles being WP:IRS, WP:NPOV, etc. This AE report is not a helpful report in that respect (it brings up, at absolute worst, very very borderline comments), but based on my review a few weeks ago of A1candidate's edits, I do not believe his editing style is what I would consider to be civil POV pushing. However, I would be willing to be convinced otherwise. NW (Talk) 20:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
|
