Revision as of 15:44, 13 August 2011 editMathsci (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers66,107 edits →Request concerning Miradre: self-evident← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:41, 19 January 2025 edit undoValereee (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators84,157 edits →Result concerning DanielVizago: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:AE| |
<noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:AE||WP:AE (disambiguation)}} | ||
__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!-- | |||
<includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly> | |||
--><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly> | |||
<noinclude>{{editabuselinks|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}{{shortcut|WP:AE}} | |||
<noinclude>{{Noticeboard links|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}<!-- | |||
</noinclude> | |||
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}} | |||
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
<noinclude>{{TOC limit}}</noinclude> | |||
|counter =347 | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}} | |||
|maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
|counter = 94 | |||
|minthreadsleft = 0 | |minthreadsleft = 0 | ||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(14d) | ||
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d | ||
}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}} | |||
}} | |||
== |
==Lemabeta== | ||
{{hat|{{u|Lemabeta}} has acknowledged the warnings here to take more care and stay well clear of articles from which they are restricted from editing. Further violations are very likely to lead to sanctions, up to and including an indefinite block. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 12:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC) }} | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
===Request concerning Lemabeta=== | |||
{{hat|1=No action against NickCT. He is warned to observe civility when discussing I-P articles. ] (]) 21:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC) }} | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|EF5}} 20:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Lemabeta}}<p>{{ds/log|Lemabeta}}</p> | |||
===Request concerning NickCT=== | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : —] (]) 07:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|NickCT}} | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | ||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]/ |
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | ||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> | <!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> | ||
# |
# - Made a draft on a European ethnic group, which they are currently barred from doing. | ||
# |
# - Started a page on a Georgian ethnologist. | ||
# – editor accuses me of concealing previous accounts, with no accompanying evidence. | |||
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) : | |||
#Blocked on by {{User|Ged UK}} for harassment | |||
#Notified on by {{user|PhilKnight}} of ARBPIA ruling | |||
#Blocked on by {{user|PhilKnight}} for personal attacks | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
;Enforcement action requested: | |||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> | |||
], per escalation from previous. | |||
*Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
I likely filed this improperly, but to sum it up they continue to make pages in a scope they were banned from. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 20:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:On the bullet point, I’ve never filed an AE report before, and I wasn’t sure if “block” meant T-ban, p-block, etc., so I just picked whichever one made the most sense. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:(Not sure if I’m allowed to reply here) I’ve never filed an AE report before, and I wasn’t sure if “block” meant T-ban, p-block, etc., so I just picked whichever one made the most sense. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:: <small>Response to Bishonen. Moved from results section. ] (]/]) 21:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
::(RES to Bishonen) That's fair. When starting the AE, it only gave me nine options, none of which seemed to fit right. The third bullet ("Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on DIFF by _____") didn't seem to fit, as the sanction wasn't for verbal conduct. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 22:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
===Discussion concerning Lemabeta=== | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint: | |||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
For the past month or so I've been having to put up with increasingly hostile and personally oriented rhetoric directed against me by editors in the I/P topic area. When at this very Noticeboard {{User|Tarc}} of sockpuppetry without citing a single diff as required per ], I let it slide. After {{User|Nableezy}} attributed to me a batshit insane obsession with his edits for two edits I made, he and I accepted. More recently, {{User|Malik Shabazz}} called me an ass on his Talk page for trying to engage him in a calm one-on-one discussion; but he too the remark per my request and the matter has more-or-less been settled. {{User|NickCT}}, on the other hand, not only called me "a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior" without any evidence, but into the bargain has been repeatedly suggesting that I'm a sockpuppet or hiding previous user accounts, also without any evidence. I insisted that he withdraw his original comment or substantiate it in to avoid creating a scene – but to no avail. | |||
====Statement by Lemabeta==== | |||
If people have a problem with my edits in I/P or have gotten into their heads that I'm a sockpuppet, it doesn't excuse attacks against me that violate ] and ]/]. I understand Decorum isn't as strictly enforced as other ARBIA principles are, but specifically in the case of ], he has been sanctioned here before for his hostile interactions with editors he disagrees with in I/P, so either he genuinely doesn't understand what these policies entail, or else he's incapable of abiding by them. Either way, considering the perpetually tense atmosphere at I/P and NickCT's problematic conduct in the topic area in the past, I am requesting enforcement in this case. Every other means of reaching an understanding with this user has been exhausted in vain. | |||
Yeah, my bad. Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed" I recognize my mistake. --] (]) 20:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Ethnographic groups and cultural heritage are '''related but distinct concepts'''. An ''ethnographic group'' refers to a '''community of people''' defined by shared ancestry, language, traditions, and cultural identity. In contrast, ''cultural heritage'' refers to the *''practices, artifacts, knowledge, and traditions preserved or inherited from the past''. But cultural heritage is indeed a component of ethnographic groups. | |||
<b>Appendix:</b> In anticipation of the some of the comments likely to follow, I offer these preformulated responses. It isn't essential that the Admins considering my request read them. | |||
:So i don't believe ethnographic group should be considered as either history of the Caucasus or cultural heritage. ] (]) 20:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*''"This is a frivolous request, only one attack."'' First of all, it wasn't one attack. The first time he attacked me, I templated his remark with ], but he removed the Template and reiterated his attack. Later, when I tried in the gentlest way possible to communicate to him the problem with his remark, his response was to attribute bad-faith motives both to my initial comment on ]'s Talk page and to my comment on his own Talk page. And then, when I took the matter to ] for community input, he began with his string of allegations that I'm a sockpuppet. These aren't frivolous attacks. They are ] against me relating to an active-arbitration topic area, without evidence to back them up and serving only to discredit me and disrupt my interactions with other contributors. Secondly, the pattern of recurring personal attacks doesn't need to be established by my diffs alone. It is already established by his block log. | |||
::In my opinion, cultural heritage (both tangible and intangible) '''emerges from''' ethnographic groups but '''does not define the group itself'''. ] (]) 20:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*''"AEs should not be filed against editors one is in conflict with."'' The response to that is simple. NickCT and I weren't in conflict anywhere in the Project; indeed, as far as I know, this was only the second time he and I ever crossed paths. | |||
:::I think ethnographic groups fall under the category of Ethnography, or even socio-cultural antropology but for sure not cultural heritage. ] (]) 21:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*''"If all these people are attacking you, maybe you're the problem and not them."'' I'm open to criticism relating to how I edit, as anyone who contributes regularly to I/P should be. I'm also aware of ]. If someone's convinced there's a case to be made that my edits are a problem in I/P, let them make it like through the appropriate channels. Otherwise, shifting the blame onto me and making ad hominem remarks in my regard is counterproductive and needs to be identified for what it is – a sordid red herring. This is an AE about NickCT. Any comments not directly relating to that user and his remarks toward me don't belong here. | |||
::::I understand, i already apologized on my talk page for this accident. I will not repeat this mistake again. ] (]) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*''"This isn't within the purview of AE."'' The language and context of the attack make it related to the Arab-Israel conflict, broadly construed. If this were an I/P-banned editor, he would not be allowed to attack another contributor as "a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior." Furthermore, NickCT was sanctioned at AE before for similar infractions.—] (]) 07:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by (username)==== | |||
::In reference to the forum shopping charge, that's an exceedingly slanted interpretation of what led to this AE. It says at the top of this page, "ArbCom decisions '''are''' the last stop of dispute resolution." Had I come here immediately following the I/P-related personal attack, it might have been considered impulsive and premature. Instead, I tried resolving the incident where it initially took place; then I tried at the editor's Talk page; and then I tried at WQA. So I think I followed procedure to the letter and even showed more restraint than other people in similar situations have. | |||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
===Result concerning Lemabeta=== | |||
::Additionally, in coming here I also relied on the comments of several Admins in good standing, which indicated that personal attacks are sanctionable at AE – for example, {{User|Gatoclass}}, , and {{User|Zero0000}}, , who rebuked editors for remarks that were far less severe than what I endured. | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
::Lastly, regarding the wikilawyering charge, that's also detached from reality. ] is unequivocal: "Serious accusations '''require''' serious evidence" (emphasis added). And ] ruled, "Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited." It could not have been stated any more clearly than that.—] (]) 05:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
*<!-- | |||
--> | |||
:::@{{User|T. Canens}}, had this been a slip on his part, he had only to strike out his attack and that would have been the end of it. That he undid my template and reiterated his attack, and then declined my requests that he withdraw it, means it was no slip. Also, it's true I have enemies here. I never would have thought of him as one of them, though. He literally appeared out of nowhere; and not only that but I think it's because of his hostile rhetoric against me that {{User|Malik Shabazz}} thought I came to his Talk page looking for blood and ended up calling me an ass. You see how his comment interrupted a civil discussion I was trying to have with another contributor, simply because he looked through my edit history and saw that I edit articles in I/P. He can't even articulate a compelling argument as to ''why'' I may be "a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior."—] (]) 20:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
* I don't see Lemabeta mentioned in the case itself, but they're currently under ] from "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed". ] (] • she/her) 20:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:To be fair, when you click above to add a new enforcement request, the template states:<br><nowiki>;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]</nowiki><br><nowiki><!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---></nowiki> ] (]/]) 20:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
*{{tq| Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed"}} @]: what did you think "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage" meant? I think it's pretty obvious that that an article on an ethnic group from the Caucasus and about an ethnologist who writes about that region is covered by your topic ban. ] (]/]) 20:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
: "You have demonstrated to me that you either do not understand ] or do not see yourself as needing to comply with it. I have requested enforcement of ARBPIA rulings against you ." | |||
*:Note that I've deleted ] as a clear G5 violation. I think ] is a bit more of a questionable G5. ] (]/]) 20:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:Your definition of "ethnographic group" includes the phrases "shared ancestry" (i.e., history), and "shared ... traditions" and "shared ... cultural identity" (i.e., cultural heritage). Your attempt to exclude "ethnographic group" from either of the two categories in your topic ban is entirely unpersuasive, particularly since your topic ban is to be "broadly construed". ] (]/]) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===Discussion concerning NickCT=== | |||
*:@]: this doesn't seem like a mistake to me, but I'm okay with a logged warning here. ] (]/]) 21:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:@]: This is about violating the TBAN. Per my response to leek, I think the issue is with the AE request template, which is a bit unclear. ] (]/]) 22:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by NickCT==== | |||
*:@]: I don't think a block is needed here, but the next violation, definitely. ] (]/]) 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:@]: They were "reviously given ... contentious topic restriction", the topic ban at issue. ] (]/]) 22:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Not sure how seriously I should take this, so I'll just make several quick points - | |||
* {{re|Lemabeta}} Not every single thing you could write about an ethnic group would fall under cultural history, but that's not really relevant on the Rachvelians page, where the History section was entirely about their cultural history, even containing the words {{tqq| highlighting their ethnographic and cultural identity}}. There's a reason we use the words "]" on most TBANs, and a reason we encourage people to act like they're TBANned from a broader area than they are. (Consider: Would you feel safe driving under a bridge where clearance is exactly the same height as your vehicle? Or would you need a few inches' gap to feel safe doing it?){{pb}}This does seem like a good-faith misunderstanding, so if you will commit to not making it again in the future, I think this can be closed with a clarification/warning. But that's an important "if". If you want to argue semantics, then the message that sends to admins is that you don't intend to comply with the TBAN, in which case the next step would be a siteblock. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:1) People should probably review ] as example of the kind of complaints ] seems to have a penchant for. | |||
*{{u|EF5}}, I don't understand your {{tq|"Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above"}} statement, can you please explain what it refers to? ]? Lemabeta's block log is blank. | |||
:2) re ''"repeatedly suggesting that I'm a sockpuppet"'' - I never suggested Biosketch was a sock. I suggested he had an account previous to his current account, which he almost certainly has had and additionally, has made no attempt to deny. I explained the difference between those two things . I'm not sure why he repeatedly mischaracterizes my comments. | |||
:That said, I'm unimpressed by Lemabeta's lawyerly distinctions above, and also by ]. I'll AGF that they ''were'' accidental, but OTOH, they surely ''ought'' to have taken enough care to realize they were violations; compare Voorts' examples. I suggest a block, not sure of what length. A couple of weeks? ] | ] 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC). | |||
:3) Bio initially filed a ] complaint for the material above, which didn't seem to gather any momentum. He seems to be going to multiple places now trying to get someone to agree and act on his complaints. As such, I think AE request could justifiably be called ]. | |||
::{{u|EF5}}, OK, I see. Blocks and bans are ], and the block log only logs blocks. ] | ] 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC). | |||
:4) Biosketch really represents the worst of the Israel-Palestine ]. This kind of "throw some accusations around and see what sticks" tactics has got to stop. It's a waste of time, and distracts from WP's core mission. I think a clear message could be sent here with some punitive anti-wikilawyering measures. | |||
*It seems that the general consensus here is to treat this as a final warning, and Lemabeta has acknowledged it as such. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close as such. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Thanks, ] (]) 12:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
====Comments by others about the request concerning NickCT ==== | |||
*I see that the two admins commenting have had plenty of breathing room which is rare here. So disregarding everything else, all I want to ask is if making the charge with the wording: | |||
:"''...a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior, simply seeks disparage the actions of an admin that Biosketch regards as too neutral on his pet position.''" | |||
:is OK. It wasn't an article's talk page discussion but it was an unprompted comment on a user page discussing the topic area that did nothing but rock an already unstable boat. Overall it was rude which was not the editor's first breech of ] 4.1.2: "Decorum". | |||
:It doesn't matter if Nick assumes it was one thing or the other. Was that comment acceptable? | |||
:] (]) 05:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
* Regarding the , I think it is important that the etiquette rules be relaxed on administrative pages like that one and this one. There has to be a limit, of course, but these are places where editors should be able to express their opinions honestly without fear of sanction. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:*I totally agree that editors have more leeway in discussions here or on noticeboards. The wasn't either of those though. It was on an editor's talk page. Nick wasn't even involved in the discussion but decided he wanted to start talking mean. So if the final decision is that we are allowed to ignore decorum as long as it isn't on an article's talk page I am down. I have a lot of things to say to some people here and if saying whatever I feel about them on talk pages with no regard for decorum is OK then I look forward to it.] (]) 03:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
*@Ed. I'm not gonna lie, I am totally ignorant to this AE and haven't spent a lot of time looking through the diffs. However, a little clarity on this would be nice: "It is a concern when the '''person complaining about incivility is one of the most vigorous spokesmen for one side of the I-P''' dispute and a frequent poster at WP:AE. '''This hints that his interest in the matter is more than a dispassionate desire to raise the tone of the I-P discussions'''" | |||
*I totally agree with this premise. However, Biosketch doesn't even rank when it comes to the top I/P AE filers. Yet I have never seen an administrator make such a comment towards the filer. Biosketch's motives shouldn't take precedence over ARBPIA violations. So if AE is going to make an exception for Nick then perhaps Ed's philosophy should become official ARBPIA policy. Just a thought. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
===Result concerning NickCT=== | |||
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' | |||
*So...I take it that no one is willing to sanction NickCT then? '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 05:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
:*Not sure what to do here, and the situation is a bit more complicated as I haven't dissected it all... - ] | <sup>] and ]</sup> 17:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::*Looked Over Zero0000's link; agree on principle (I actually don't find ''anything'' in that diff to be out of the ordinary.) - ] | <sup>] and ]</sup> 10:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
* Decorum is tricky. On one hand we don't want the already fragile ARBPIA editing environment to deteriorate even further, but on the other hand we don't want occasional slips to be used as "weapons" to "win" a content dispute or "neutralize" perceived "enemies". Certainly we don't want to encourage AE reports every time someone made a slip. Still thinking on this... ] (]) 01:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:*I've reviewed a lot of diffs and checked NickCT's overall contribution record. Nick does seem to be testing how close to the line he can get. Biosketch and did not get any traction there. It is a concern when the person complaining about incivility is one of the most vigorous spokesmen for one side of the I-P dispute and a frequent poster at ]. This hints that his interest in the matter is more than a dispassionate desire to raise the tone of the I-P discussions. On the evidence presented here, I would not take any action, but I'd notify NickCT that he can avoid future trouble for himself if he will watch his language. ] (]) 16:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::* I'm thinking more and more that this area could use another arbcom sweep. Regardless, I think we can close this along the lines of EdJohnston's suggestion. ] (]) 10:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
*Closing per the above with no block or ban. NickCT is warned to watch his language in I-P disputes. He may not be so lucky next time. ] (]) 21:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
{{hab}} | {{hab}} | ||
== |
==Boy shekhar== | ||
{{hat | |||
| result = Blocked by Rosguill as a regular administrative action. ] (]) 23:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
}} | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
===Request concerning Boy shekhar=== | |||
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Daniel Quinlan}} 06:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Boy shekhar}}<p>{{ds/log|Boy shekhar}}</p> | |||
===Request concerning Frederico1234 === | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : ] (]) 19:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Frederico1234 }} | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | ||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: | ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | ||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
]/] | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> | <!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> | ||
*{{diff2|1268704307|This edit}} violates the topic ban because it is in the topic area. It's also based on an unreliable source and the section header includes a derogatory term. | |||
# Voted on deletion request for ] assuming a bad faith and demonstrating a battleground mentality "Having that said, as deletion discussions are polls, the article will be kept due to "no consensus", as there are plenty of socks of banned users, POV-pushers etc out there." As it is seen from ] pratically all uninvolved editors including a few administrators voted to keep the article. | |||
# First revert | |||
# second revert less than 24 hours later | |||
# Misrepresents the source that clearly states | |||
# first revert | |||
# second revert less than 24 hours later | |||
# Removing sourced information with edit summary "Undid revision 443046855 by ברוקולי (talk) The WP:LEAD should summarize the article, not add new stuff" | |||
# Removing sourced information with edit summary "Undid revision 443046855 by ברוקולי (talk) The WP:LEAD should summarize the article, not add new stuff" | |||
# comment on the deletion request and states that his point "commenting on this AFD" " to prevent serious editors from wasting their time, as the article will be kept no matter the quality of their arguments. A secondary point was to protest how inherently flawed Misplaced Pages deletion "discussions" are when the subject article is in the domain of the I-P topic field, and thus subject to all its glory of sock-puppetry, off-wiki-canvassing, tendentious editors etc." | |||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | |||
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : | |||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> | |||
Topic ban for a month. | |||
*{{diff2|972891251|Here}} is the topic ban for {{tpq|persistent insertion of ], use of unreliable sources or no sources at all, and ]}}. | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> | |||
*Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on by {{admin|Doug Weller}}. | |||
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on (see the system log linked to above). | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | ||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> | |||
Today the article was at the main page and a few IP users and users had some questions about the article. They posted their questions to the article's talk page and . I required that I believe should go to the lead. Even if this information should not be in the lead ] should have discussed where is the proper place to add the information versus simply removing it. | |||
*I've edited the article so I am involved. ] (]) 06:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:{{ping|Vanamonde93}} No, I don't think you're being too harsh. I think you're right. My thinking was that if I was uninvolved, I would have blocked them under ] so I sleepily submitted it here last night instead of ANI, which is what I should have done. ] (]) | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | ||
* | |||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | ||
===Discussion concerning Boy shekhar=== | |||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by Boy shekhar==== | |||
===Discussion concerning Frederico1234=== | |||
====Statement by |
====Statement by Vanamonde==== | ||
This user hasn't edited for 4.5 years since they were TBANned, and none of their 31 edits show any ability to follow our PAGs. At the risk of sounding harsh, an extended AE discussion is a waste of time; a passing admin should indef them (I cannot, I am INVOLVED on most of the content they have edited). ] (]) 23:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
I'm aware of the 1RR rule and agree that the article in question is covered by it. | |||
:{{re|Daniel Quinlan}} Apologies if that sounded like a criticism of you, it wasn't intended as such: I'm just advocating for the first uninvolved admin who sees this to block and close. ] (]) 00:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
3. Broccolo is mistaken. The edit did not occur within 24h. | |||
===Result concerning Boy shekhar=== | |||
4. This was an error of mine. Sorry for that. | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
*<!-- | |||
--> | |||
*Vanamonde93's assessment is spot on, the edit in question is the kind of gross violation of ] we indef people for on the spot even when it's not a TBAN violation. Blocked as a regular admin action. Although I will say, without knowing how exactly Vanamonde93 is involved here, this is so far beyond the pale that they could have gone ahead and blocked on an "any reasonable admin" basis. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 04:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
{{hab}} | |||
==שלומית ליר== | |||
6. This is a 1RR violation. In this case I thougth it would be easier for everyone to just use the edit summaries to do the explaining. In hindsight, I should probably have taken that to Talk. | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
===Request concerning שלומית ליר=== | |||
7. and 8. Should count as one revert as they were made directly after each other. --] (]) 06:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Smallangryplanet}} 17:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|שלומית ליר}}<p>{{ds/log|שלומית ליר}}</p> | |||
====Comments by others about the request concerning Frederico1234 ==== | |||
=====Comment by asad===== | |||
Besides the reverts dealing with the Palestinian Authority publishing the book, I can't see how anything else relates to ]. -] (]) 22:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
====Comment by Volunteer Marek==== | |||
While strictly speaking this may not be in the IP topic area it does appear to be some kind of a proxy war related to it. Having said that I don't see anything wrong with the comments in the first and last (#1 and #9) diffs provided. Being critical of Misplaced Pages or, in particular, of the atmosphere in a specific Misplaced Pages topic area is not objectionable. Neither does someone *have* a battleground mentality simply because they point out that a particular area *is* a battleground (more so if it happens to be true). Likewise, it is not forbidden to assume bad faith for editors who have substantial experience and interactions in a particular topic area - especially when the comment is not directed at anyone in particular. | |||
Diffs #7 and #8 appear to be a content dispute (Frederico1234 is essentially right with regard to the letter of MOS but there could be exceptions). | |||
Diff #4 is also a content dispute and, in case he's wrong, could be just an error on F's part - it would be more troublesome if this was a repeated edit, but as far as I can tell it's not. | |||
This leaves diffs (3,4) and (5,6), which are potential violations of the IP 1RR restriction - assuming that this article does indeed fall under that topic's scope. Ok, then, just to make sure, is Frederico1234 aware of this restriction? I don't see the "'''Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) '''" section in the above report but given that F seems familiar with the topic area perhaps it wasn't required here. Still, in cases like this the usual practice is to give the user a "standard warning" from one of the AE admins before imposing any sanctions. Maybe that's all that's needed here. | |||
Ok now to the diffs themselves. First problem is that diffs 2 and 6 are the exact same diff. This is a revert but it also appears to be a rephrasing and an answer to PlotSpoiler's question. Second is that these concern different material. Overall I'd call this a mild violation of 1RR. Additionally, if these edits are in breach of the 1RR sanction (if this article is indeed covered by the topic area), then so are those of PlotSpoiler from and . | |||
So at the end of the day what you got here is a possibility of a somewhat mild transgression, combined with a whole bunch of diff-padding to make it look much worse than it is. | |||
I'd warn Frederico and PlotSpoiler and remind them of the 1RR restriction again, and warn Broccolo for perpetuating battleground in the topic area by filing somewhat spurious AE requests full of diffs that don't show much of anything. ] (]) 04:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
====Comment by Wikifan12345==== | |||
Fred doesn't have a history at and he has . I know I/P has tighter rules than other areas of wikipedia but for a first offense a topic ban seems rather excessive even assuming he has done the things he is being accused of. I guess one could argue from a behavioral standard but I'm not the best judge. I think this should be closed with a mild warning to all parties involved. Anything beyond that would be unfair IMO. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
====Comment by Gatoclass==== | |||
In response to T. Canens' query as to how this article relates to the A-I conflict, to quote just one paragraph from the article in question: | |||
''The distribution of Mein Kampf has been pointed to by Israel as an example of the influence of Nazism for Arab nationalists in their war against the Jewish State. In a speech to the United Nations immediately following the Suez Crisis in 1956, Golda Meir stated that the Arabic translation of Mein Kampf was found in Egyptian soldiers' knapsacks. Historian David Dalin wrote that during the 1967 Six-Day War, many Egyptian soldiers were found carrying an Arabic edition produced by the Arab Information Center in Cairo.'' | |||
I think that quote speaks for itself. ] (]) 08:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:The first sentence wasn't supported by the sources. I had added a citation request to it earlier, but it was removed at some point. In any event, I've refactored the sentence to something that the sources cited can support, and moved it to the appropriate section. Whether or not mentions of Egyptian soldiers carrying copies of the book in their bags makes this article a part of the A-I conflict, I'll leave up to admins to decide. ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 09:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:: I don't know what Golda Meir said in her speech to the United Nations, but it's hard to imagine the PM of Israel bringing up such a factoid for any other reason than to discredit her nation's adversaries. Apparently ''she'' had no doubts about its relevance to the conflict. Zionist propaganda has for decades sought to delegitimize Arab grievances by blaming Arab hostility to Israel on antisemitism. The alleged popularity of ''Mein Kampf'' in the Arab world is a regularly cited example of that. So yes, I think this topic falls squarely within the purview of ARBPIA. Whether Frederico's ''edits'' to the page in question fall within the topic area, I don't know since I haven't looked at them, so I might leave that to others to decide. ] (]) 11:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::: "it's hard to imagine the PM of Israel bringing up such a factoid for any other reason than to discredit her nation's adversaries". The article gives more sourced context now, and it's pretty much along the lines you suspected. ] (]) 05:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::I would group this with articles like ] - very loosely related to the A-I conflict in reality, but having their connections magnified by Misplaced Pages editors. After reading through the sources, ''Mein Kampf'' was most notable for its role in the Arab nationalist movement of the 1930s. Modelled on the Nazi movement, Arab nationalism had its own twinge of hatred of Jews and racial superiority (the irony of course being that the Arabic translations had to be modified to remove racist remarks directed at the Arabs themselves). I know that some use the terms "Jew" and "Israeli" interchangeably, but I'm not one of them, so I'm somewhat disinclined to consider something that largely pre-dates the state of Israel a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. But I don't have strong opinions on the subject, so I'm fine either way. ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 19:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Gatoclass, George. It's not appropriate to post this here, but reading the article I was reminded of something I read from a vol. I noted, and browsing, bought, in a secondhand bookshop while travelling in the antipodes this summer: | |||
::'The life of the villagers was dominated by their feud with a neighbouring Arab village. They seemed little concerned with the Jewish presence in Palestine and, ''although they had heard of both Hitler and Churchill, they did not know which of the two was the leader of the British war effort''.' K. A. Lodewycks, ''The Funding of Wisdom: Revelations of a Library's Quarter Century,'' Spectrum Books, Melbnourne 1982 p.67. Apologies for the interruption, but that's just too good to be true. ] (]) 09:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
====Comment by ZScarpia==== | |||
From appearances, item 4 should be discounted. Firstly, the quote starts: "Copies of the translation are '''understood''' to have been distributed ... ." What the word 'understood' means is that the writer was unsure about the veracity of what followed or had been unable to verify it. That sentence, therefore, can't act as a source of validation for the statement of fact made in the Misplaced Pages article. Secondly, the quote is about a delivery to London bookshops. It specifically mentions London, it specifically mentions bookshops, it doesn't say who the books were sold to (Arabs aren't the only ones who can read Arabic), it doesn't even say that the bookshops were supplying the books to UK customers. The sentence that Frederico edited read: "... and sells well in Arab neighborhoods of Great Britain." Somehow, a previous author invented the concept of Arab neighbourhoods in the UK. Perhaps that editor thinks that the UK is like the West Bank, but with Arab settlements. Or maybe London was being confused with Paris. In any case, the source says only that the books were supplied to London bookshops. It says nothing about the locations of those bookshops or the ethnic composition in those areas. Frederico was certainly correct to say that the Telegraph article in question didn't support the statement in Misplaced Pages. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%"> ← ] </span> 17:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
: This article had a bunch of other amusing inaccuracies, like the Arabic language ''Mein Kampf'' being a bestseller in Turkey. ] (]) 05:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
====Comment by Cptnono==== | |||
Just to clarify, the article is certainly under ARPIA. The article could be used by editors supporting Israel to make Palestinians look bad (or at least that concern could be assumed by editors with a pro-Palestinian slant). There is actually a discussion over on the talk page and at the Palestine-Israel Collaboration project since the high sales in the Palestinian Territories with possible support from the PNA is a contentious topic. Maybe the article still isn't clear enough but it is part of the topic area.] (]) 05:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
: That is true moral clarity, my friend. ] (]) 11:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
===Result concerning Frederico1234=== | |||
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' | |||
*Can someone explain how this article is related to the A-I conflict? ] (]) 02:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
*:It appears that this article was created just 3 weeks ago on July 16 and was tagged on the talk page just 2 hours later by the creator with {{tl|ARBPIA}}. I'm not sure if this truly should be covered by ARBPIA or not; I do not have a long history of monitoring ARBPIA, but I haven't seen anything that defines exactly which articles are subject or lists them. Broadly construed, I think that someone could assert that Arab nationals and Palestinians might use ''Mein Kampf'' to support Anti-Jewish beliefs. --] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
*Since Golda Meir claimed that Egyptian soldiers carried Mein Kampf in their knapsacks, I think it's enough of a connection to place this article under ARBPIA. With regard to the actual diffs above, there does not seem to be any serious transgression. As someone pointed out, Frederico1234 has never been blocked and so far his name is not mentioned in the ] log. Frederico has admitted above that he broke 1RR at least once in this sequence of edits and he has apologized for that. I suggest closing this with a reminder to Frederico not to assume bad faith regarding groups of editors in the I-P articles and to be careful to stay within the 1RR. ] (]) 15:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
== RolandR == | |||
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' | |||
===Request concerning RolandR=== | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : —] (]) 19:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC) <br> — (edit conflict merge) <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 21:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|RolandR}} | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | ||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | ||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation of ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
Requests by Jaakobou (merged case): | |||
* Ban on twinkle privileges | |||
* Temporary ban from Israel related topics (widely construed) | |||
ShlomitLir (שלומית ליר) created their account back in 2014. The breakdown of their edits is as follows: | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> | |||
# – POV-pushing: editor reverts reliably-sourced information added to an article and describes the reverted edit as vandalism | |||
# – POV-pushing: editor attributes to Misplaced Pages's voice a claim made or implied by a fringe website | |||
*2014 to 2016: no edits. | |||
<b>Additional diffs merged from case request by Jaakobou:</b> | |||
*2017 to 2019: 1 edit per year. None related to PIA. | |||
# claims, "editor has repeatedly added an unsourced allegation of a conviction for a sexual offence to this BLP. S/he relies on an article in Hebrew, which s/he apparently does not understand, but I do. The article does not make this allegation, nor any similar claim."<br>RolandR misrepresents 3 reliable sources as a single Hebrew source and claims the one Hebrew source (aka "an article") "does not make this allegation" of conviction of sexual offense. | |||
*2022: 7 edits. Mostly in their userspace. | |||
# reverts with twinkle, removing 3 reliable sources, stating: | |||
*2023: 21 edits. Again, mostly in their userspace. Made two edits in the talk page of ] complaining about its content and calling it . | |||
## Irish Times, "Ezra Yizhak Nawi, who was convicted of having sex with an underage Palestinian youth in 1992." | |||
* 2024: Started editing after a 10 month break at the end of October. | |||
## Haaretz, Translation: "Nawi, who was convicted in the past of sodomy of a minor" () | |||
**Made 51 edits in October and 81 edits in November (copyedits, adding links, minor edits). | |||
## Israeli court: State of Israel vs. Nawi Ezra, Translation: "He was convicted in the past in violations of sodomy of a minor and making threats..." () | |||
**In December, that number rose up to almost 400, including 116 in December 6 alone and 98 in December 7. Became ECR that day. | |||
# reverts again, " does not make this claim" | |||
**Immediately switched to editing in PIA, namely in the ] article where they with an unclear image with a dubious caption, and without providing a reason why. | |||
# reverts "vandalism" with twinkle, removing the 3 sources yet again. | |||
**They also edited the ] article, with a caption not supported by the source (replaced by yet with a contextless caption when the previous image was removed) and WP:UNDUE content . | |||
**they also in the second AfD for ] despite never having interacted with that article or its previous AfD. They have barely surpassed 500 edits, but the gaming is obvious, highlighted by the sudden switch to editing in PIA. | |||
p.s. I used Google only to show that my own translation (native Israeli) was correct. | |||
More importantly, there's the issue of POV pushing. I came across authored by them on Ynet, once again complaining about what they perceive as an anti Israeli bias on Misplaced Pages. They have also authored a report for the World Jewish Congress covering the same topic. The report can be seen in full . I think that someone with this clear POV agenda shouldn't be near the topic. | |||
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) : | |||
<!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. --> | |||
#Blocked on by {{user|Magog the Ogre}} | |||
#Blocked on by {{User|Courcelles}} | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
(Is it necessary to copy-paste the diffs to all the other blocks at his ?) | |||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> | |||
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on and re-iterated on (see the system log linked to above). | |||
*Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on by {{admin|Femke}}. | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | ||
Adding some additional comments on 2025-01-16: On top of POV issues, the user has a number of tweets that appear to be a , , , and . They've also been . If this - combined with the tweets, the forms, the op-ed and the report to the WJC, all under this user's name (that they also use to edit Misplaced Pages - this is ) isn't a clear cut case of canvassing, I don't know what is. ] (]) 20:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Add any further comment you have here --> | |||
Firstly it should be noted that I {{User|RolandR}} on his Talk page prior to coming here in the friendliest and most nonthreatening way possible. I was more than willing to assume good faith on his part and offer him the chance to explain his edits. But hardly did 15 minutes pass and he reverted my query, basically leaving me with no other alternative but coming to AE. | |||
Now, I'm not a believer in drawing conclusions regarding an editor based on a superficial glance at his contribs; on the other hand, I'm also not about to spend hours going through ]'s edits to cherry-pick the ones that support labeling him a Marxist anti-Zionist. I suspect, rather, that he himself will embrace that label as applying to him without considering it an affront to his identity. If not, though, I'm perfectly willing to strike out the suggestion and apologize to him if in the event that I've misjudged him. | |||
To the matter of the diffs. In 1992 ], an activist for various Palestinian causes, was convicted by an Israeli court of statutory rape of a Palestinian boy. It was in the news extensively then, and it's all over the news again now because of the presidential elections in Ireland. () Yet there's no mention of Nawi's conviction anywhere in his article. No, it's not that no one ever tried to add that information to the article. On the contrary, many have. It's that RolandR has been repeatedly thwarting their attempts. In the diff that I've cited, RolandR reverts an exceedingly well-sourced addition to the article by another editor – and to make matters worse, he labels the other editor's contribution vandalism. | |||
At ], RolandR reverted an edit by {{User|Wikifan12345}} such that he attributed to Misplaced Pages's neutral voice a claim made or implied by a fringe website. According to his edit, some Jews are anti-Zionist, from which it follows that anti-Zionism is not inherently antisemitic. This is a problem because the website he references, '''', isn't a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. What it is is an advocacy site for Jewish anti-Zionists. | |||
Taken together, these diffs represent problematic behavior on RolandR's part, of projecting his personal values and beliefs onto the Project and disrupting sincerely constructive edits of other contributors. Again, I tried to seek clarification from RolandR regarding his behavior at his Talk page, but to no avail.—] (]) 19:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
<b>Additional notes by Jaakobou</b><br> | |||
A self-professed anti-Zionist with a prominent history of enriching the project with anti-Israeli advocacy content and adornment of editors (and activists like Ezra Nawi) with a similar perspective (<s>two</s> samples: , <s></s>, , , , , ), RolandR has managed to lose the ability to read Hebrew properly on Ezra Nawi, edit war and repeatedly remove 3 wiki-reliable sources, and led an admin, trusting an overdrawn claim of one a Hebrew related claim, into repeating the same action. I believe RolandR can contribute to the project properly if he keeps his political beliefs and idols out of his arguments (and stops removing well cited content, 3 wiki-reliable sources in this case, as "vandalism" using twinkle). | |||
p.s. I apologize for the merger, but this is the best solution IMHO after seeing another case was put forth while I was finishing up mine. With respect, <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 21:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC) touch-ups 21:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
p.p.s. I've just noticed a few comments were made by an editor with whom I share an interaction ban. This would not have been an issue had I posted a case without merger, I am not sure on the best way of handling the issue (repost as a single case? ignoring each other on this post? other?). Let me know. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 21:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC) - extra update/clarification+diffs 14:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:@EdJohnston, | |||
:Can you please direct me to a diff where RolandR has stated, ''prior to your revert'' (i.e. ), that the issue is a "poorly-sourced sex charges and possible overstatement of the gravity of the offences."? All I could find is a patently false claim, made on (and prior to that as well), regarding the Hebrew text of the Haaretz article. i.e. referring it as the only source and that it, supposedly, ''"does not make allegation, nor any similar claim."'' when Haaretz, as well as the other 2 sources (3 reliable sources) say he was convicted of "sodomy of/having sex with a minor/Palestinian youth". The details of the conviction are important for balance, sure, but they are irrelevant to RolandR's argument for reverting and of nudging you to revert as well on his behalf. It wasn't the Ezra Nawi debate which raised the red flag, but a straightforward misrepresentation of sources. | |||
:Warm regards, <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 23:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
<b>Note:</b> Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project. RolandR's claims and repeated reverts were certainly enough to discourage any new editor -- seeing that 3 reliable sources are so easily misrepresented and removed again and again -- from making further contributions. Also, RolandR had not admitted to any fault in regards to Ezra Nawi (As of now). Just imagine the long term impact of his behavior if it is allowed to become a norm in the Israeli-Arab content area. New editors discouraged from making contributions and the old POV warriors would make an abundance of patently false claims about Hebrew and Arabic sources. Arbcom enforcement would be faced with extraordinary levels of battleground mentality, mud slinging and drama. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 18:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
;Replies by Biosketch to editor comments | |||
@{{User|Nableezy}}, you mean to tell me that ] is I/P but trying to censor details pertaining to an Israeli who raped a Palestinian boy isn't? And I didn't mine through anyone's contribs. I used to closely monitor ] and it's still on my watchlist, and the incident involving ] is being featured prominently in the news now, and I naturally was interested in knowing what Misplaced Pages had to say about the guy. I found it peculiar that the editor who insisted on attributing to Misplaced Pages a claim made by jewsnotzionists.com was the same editor who insisted on whitewashing the biography of an Israeli activist for Palestinian causes convicted of statutory-raping a minor.—] (]) 20:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:@{{User|RolandR}}, "vexatious abuse of this noticeboard"? Next time someone asks you for clarification on your Talk page, maybe you oughtn't ignore and delete their message after fifteen minutes. You made it clear to me you had no intention of discussing the diffs I called your attention to. What exactly did you expect me to do?—] (]) 20:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::@{{User|Nableezy}}, it's neither here nor there what my feelings are about Jewish anti-Zionists. The point is one cannot claim that there are Jewish anti-Zionists using Misplaced Pages's voice in reference to an advocacy website that is itself anti-Zionist. The claim must be sourced to a ] or formulated in such a way as to attribute the claim to the organization itself. You have insisted on the same standard of scholarship in your debates with other editors, so you shouldn't be applying a different standard in this case. With regards to ], if it's being edit-warred over because of editors' political affiliations, yes, it should be subject to the same discretionary sanctions as more obviously I/P articles.—] (]) 21:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
@{{User|Jaakobou}}, I don't mind at all that you merged your Request into mine. I would advise you, however, to strike out forthwith any comments you made that may have been in violation of your interaction ban. Based on previous AEs, if you do so soon enough you'll preempt any sanctions against you. | |||
:@Everyone, apparently it needs to be stressed again: I didn't file this AE on a whim. It could be considered frivolous if I was sitting around my house reading Misplaced Pages articles, found a couple that weren't to my liking, and then came here to whine about it to the Admins. That seems to be the impression some users have formed below. But no. Ezra Nawi is being featured prominently in the news now for something that was being (per my argument ''deliberately'') omitted from his BLP by RolandR. At the same time, RolandR was attributing a controversial claim to Misplaced Pages's voice that was sourced to a fringe anti-Zionist website. Upon observing his problematic edits on those two occasions, ''I tried to engage RolandR on his Talk page and solicit an explanation from him directly.'' He demonstrated that he had no intention at all of explaining his edits, and that was when I came here. If someone has an idea as to how I could have handled the matter differently than I did, do share it with me. | |||
::@{{User|Nableezy}}, you're conveniently overlooking another aspect of RolandR's edit at ]. The way that sentence was formulated, beginning with the contrasting adverb ''yet'', it conveyed to the reader that anti-Zionism is not inherently antisemitic. This is a more subtle but also a more problematic aspect pertaining to that diff, which either you aren't picking up on or you're trying to sidestep now. So let me make it clearer: RolandR inserted the sentence, "Yet some Jews remain anti-Zionists," immediately after the sentence, "Others contend that to the extent anti-Zionism represents opposition to Israel's existence, it is inherently antisemitic." RolandR usurped Misplaced Pages's voice to make two claims: (a) there are Jewish anti-Zionists, and (b) the existence of Jewish anti-Zionists undermines the claim that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic. I don't know about all the other editors here but I do think you're prehensile enough to understand how that's ] and, in RolandR's case since he's a Marxist anti-Zionist, an instance of him pushing his POV onto Misplaced Pages's voice.—] (]) 09:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::@{{User|Nableezy}}, you're wrong for two reasons. '''1.''' This incident transcends the scope of a content dispute and has clear implications regarding user conduct in a topic area covered by discretionary sanctions. It was the ''nature'' of the edits that triggered my alarm and the fact that, when considered together, they pointed to a bias on the editor's part in violation of NPOV. '''2.''' You think I care that {{User|RolandR}} is a Marxist anti-Zionist? I don't – just as no one here should care what I did in my life between the ages of 18 and 21. But it also shouldn't be obvious to me from examining two of his edits that that's what he is. "Editing from a '''neutral point of view (NPOV)''' means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." At ] ] did not represent proportionately all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. He repeatedly ''removed'' significant views that had been published by reliable sources under pretexts of vandalism. At ] RolandR again did not represent fairly all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. He used an ''un''reliable source to represent ''his own'' view – that the purported existence of Jewish anti-Zionists is a counterargument to saying that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic. Clearer now?—] (]) 07:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
@{{User|EdJohnston}}, "Should this use be considered to violate WP:ARBPIA?" – see Discussion page, since this is more of a meta-level question and the discussion here's gotten bloated.—] (]) 07:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:@{{User|Nableezy}}, I'm aware of his comment, though I'm not sure I completely get his drift. At any rate, my response to you addresses his concerns as well.—] (]) 08:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | ||
===Discussion concerning |
===Discussion concerning שלומית ליר=== | ||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by |
====Statement by שלומית ליר==== | ||
I believe contents of this filing to be in clear policy violation and have reached out to the arbitration committee for further clarification before commenting further.] (]) 14:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
This is ridiculous; an entirely spurious and worthless claim. | |||
: I was given clarification from an admin regarding my concerns and will now be drafting a response. Thank you for your patience. ] (]) 21:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Thebiguglyalien==== | |||
In the first place, it is not an offence to be a Marxist and an anti-Zionist; nor even to edit Misplaced Pages while being a Marxist and an anti-Zionist. That comment should be struck out. Not because I am "affronted", but because it is irrelevant, an apparent attempt to have me sanctioned because of my beliefs, not my edits. | |||
This is the first ARBPIA report since the proposed decision ] and it's specifically a matter of POV pushing, responding admins should be aware of the "]" remedy. The committee is discussing whether to implement a remedy stating that admins at AE are "empowered and encouraged to consider a topic ban" purely for biased editing. So far, the argument against is that it's redundant because AE admins are already supposed to do this. ] (]) 05:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-03-29/Special_report | |||
====Statement by Selfstudier==== | |||
Second, both blocks noted by Biosketch were swiftly reversed; in both cases, it was accepted that I had been attempting to protect biographies (one of a living person, one of a recently murdered person) against abusive edits by sockpuppets. | |||
To the extent that it is relevant, the WJC report was discussed at ]. ] (]) 11:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by starship.paint (2)==== | |||
As to the specific edits adduced here: on the Ezra Nawi article, Biosketch claims that my edit on 30 July was invalid, and that I should have known this because of an article published in the New York Times on 3 August! It is not the case that the case itself was "in the news extensively" in 1992; part of the problem here is that there appears to be no contemporary account, in Hebrew or English, of the incident, and it has been extremely difficult to establish the facts. Certainly, at the time of my edit, the information was sketchy, and the source cited did not verify the serious charges made. My edit was perfectly legitimate. | |||
I would to like to raise at ], where there had been an existing unsourced paragraph ({{tq|On the morning of October 7, a tour minibus...}}) that שלומית ליר added to ( / ) from the ]. '''The reference is relevant, but I believe it may not verify every detail in the Battle of Sderot paragraph''' (e.g. "Netivot", "Holocaust survivors"). The reference contains a short paragraph of text and a video that is 4:21 long. I can't watch the video in the reference, but I believe it is this same video that is 4:20 long which contains the same screenshot as the reference, on the same topic. Most of the video is an interview of the daughter of a dead victim who was on the bus (the daughter had been on the phone with the victim), except for 1:58 to 2:13 which appears to be a quote from the bus driver. The publisher themselves do not have too much reporting in their own voice (on the video), yet this reference was used to cite a paragraph entirely stated in Wikivoice. No attribution was made to the relative or the bus driver, or to the publisher. I can't be totally sure though, due to unfamiliarity with Hebrew. '''] (] / ])''' 13:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
On Anti-Zionism, I was reverting a removal of text, which had been justified with the edit summary "a) unreliable source b) infers jews cannot be antisemitic. that is a fallacy". I pointed out that any inference drawn from the text was the editor's own synthesis, and that the source was indeed reliable for the organisation's own views. Biosketch may strongly dispute these views, as is his right; but he cannot deny that many Jews do indeed hold them. Again, I do not see any way in which my edit was illegitimate or disruptive. | |||
====Statement by xDanielx==== | |||
I think that this complaint is entirely without merit, and hope that it will be rejected out of hand, and Biosketch warned against such vexatious abuse of this noticeboard. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 20:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
{{yo|Arcticocean}} I don't really see how NPOV can be read as requiring edits which support both sides of a controversy. Our content policies don't impose any positive duties; they only tell us what not to do. The text of the policy doesn't support the notion that a ''pattern'' of edits could be in violation, even if no particular edit is in violation. | |||
In principle, such a pattern of edits could violate the , but I don't believe this board has ever enforced it. If it were to be enforced, I think it should be for more serious violations like the double standards that e.g. ] attempted to demonstrate, rather than mere opinion-driven editing which applies to the vast majority of CTOP editors. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 03:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:I don't understand why Wikifan thinks that I wasn't "involved in" ]. that I am the fifth most frequent contributor, with 78 edits over the past five years. None of the first four has edited the article in the past year, making me in effect the most prolific currently active contributor. | |||
==== Statement by Hemiauchenia ==== | |||
:Nor do I see the problem with my edit. Wikifan removed as poorly sourced material which, as others have noted here, barely needs a source. I replaced this, and he has since reverted me. I intend to replace this later, with other sources. But really, is this AE based on the claim that I have replaced a source removed by another editor as "fringe"? | |||
This user has engaged in off-wiki canvassing regarding the IP conflict. Take the following recent tweet from the 12 January | |||
For posterity in case it is deleted it contains the following remarks: {{quote|If you can't handle the facts, just delete them Propaganda on | |||
@Misplaced Pages includes targeting Israel, demonizing it, and erasing inconvenient truths, from falsifying war outcomes to deleting Israeli inventions and attempting to erase the reality of Palestinian suicide bombers.}} | |||
Along with this is a screenshot of the current AfD ]. People are of course allowed to be caustic about Misplaced Pages off-wiki, but calling out a specific AfD with highly charged rhetoric, essentially inciting canvassing seems out of line. ] (]) 02:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
: For those concerned that this might be outing, שלומית ליר is very open about their real life identity on their userpage. See (). If you reveal your real identity on Misplaced Pages, your tweets about Misplaced Pages on your Twitter account connected to your real-life identity are fair game to mention. There's also reverse confirmation in this tweet . ] (]) 02:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Cdjp1==== | |||
:Regarding the ] article, I repeat that the Haaretz article relied on does not confirm the facts it was adduced to prove. It does not mention a Palestinian youth, it does not state that Nawi has been sent to prison at all, let alone twice, and it does not mention any dates, including 1992, 1997 and 2006. I still maintain that, under the circumstances, using this article as evidence for alleged facts it did not confirm was a breach of BLP. The edits which I made reverting what I described as vandalism were accompanied by warnings to the editor involved for breach of the policies on edit-warring and biographies of living people. This was a legitimate use of Twinkle, in support of maintaining core Misplaced Pages policies. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 14:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
As we seem to be ok to pull evidence from the statements of the editor in question, they have also commented more recently about () in response to a question of if Misplaced Pages can be "saved". -- ] (]) 23:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Sean.hoyland==== | |||
::Both Haaretz and the Israeli court source only mention the conviction but do not mention the sodomized youth was a Palestinian. That politically incorrect detail is located in the Irish Times. IMHO, There is a limit to the BLP argument when the basis for that claim was that the Hebrew doesn't say he was convicted when it does. Btw, the court source edit-warred over says Nawi was in prison twice (). <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 14:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
It has been several days. Perhaps שלומית ליר could clarify whether their belief about the way Misplaced Pages works turned out to be a true belief or a false belief so that this report can progress. ] (]) 09:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by (username)==== | |||
:::Wikifan now writes "I never suggested you were not involved in Anti-Zionism. I said, specifically, you were not involved in the talk discussion". Just to jog his memory, what he actually wrote was "What is odd is that Roland wasn't even involved in the article at the time. It just feels weird to know he is following me around." That looks to me like specifically saying that I wasn't involved in the article. And I'm not "following him around"; as one of the main editors on the article, of course I have it on my Watchlist. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 17:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
===Result concerning שלומית ליר=== | |||
::::Uh? That was a reference to this you filed against me pertaining to ], an article you had no presence in. Nothing to do with ]-related edits. For the record, this was the Roland inserted into the article. I'm pretty certain that is unreliable, though I haven't searched the RSN threads. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
*Users are allowed to have a POV - it's a rare user indeed who edits a contentious topic without having some strong opinions about it. For conduct to be actionable at AE it needs to be an actual policy violation. The misleading use of images doesn't rise to the level of AE action in my view, and judging whether an addition like is UNDUE is not within AE's purview, as long as it is supported by the source. ] (]) 23:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:The PIA5 remedy hasn't passed yet, and its interpretation is as yet unclear to me: but in my view we are already empowered to deal with biased editing, in the sense of editing that violates NPOV. What I'm not willing to do is sanction on the basis of someone's opinions alone; they have to be shown to have let their opinions get in the way of following our PAGs. ] (]) 07:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::I see some evidence - based on Arcticocean's digging below - that שלומית ליר is using images without sufficient care, but I don't see that rising to the level of a sanction. As to the rest, xDanielx is correct - nowhere do our policies require treating both sides of a conflict equally - indeed our PAGs discourage false balance. Those diffs could be actionable if they individually or collectively violate policy, but I have yet to see evidence of that. ] (]) 03:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:::The off-wiki canvassing is a problem. It merits a warning at least, I don't know if the formality thereof matters. If there was evidence that שלומית ליר was aware of ] I would consider something more stringent. ] (]) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* While I understand {{u|Vanamonde93}}'s concerns, I think that we are required to assess the totality of the user's contributions. Contentious topic editors are required to uphold NPOV. ] places an obligation to {{xtn|Within contentious topics,… edit carefully and constructively… and… adhere to the ]}}. The linked page provides that {{xtn|Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view… We strive for articles with an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence}}. If an editor is ''only'' adding content that significantly favours one or the other side to the conflict, this is incompatible with their contentious topic obligation. That is because an editor making ''only'' one-sided edits will simply not be taking the necessary steps to ensure that the ''whole article'' is written from a neutral point of view. As their number of one-sided edits increases, the likelihood decreases that the editor is ensuring our content is neutral and impartial. Once we reach the point of being sure that they are not attempting to ensure neutrality of content, we can conclude the editor is not meeting their contentious topics obligations and we can issue a sanction. This can only be assessed with hindsight and by looking at the editor's contributions as a whole. ] 20:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:: Assessing the topic area contributions of the respondent (שלומית ליר) since they became extended-confirmed {{logid|166341641|at 17:33, 8 December 2024}}, there is cause for concern. I counted 19 edits to the area conflict. Taken together, they significantly skew the articles negatively against the opposing side of the conflict: | |||
::* ]. | |||
::* ]. | |||
::* ] which was perhaps casting doubt on the relevant section, ''Massacre of pensioners'', and ]. | |||
::* ], therefore giving greater weight to the claims, in a context where the claims were already described at considerable length; ]; ]. | |||
::* ], then ], both to the first line of the article. | |||
::* ] and ]. | |||
::* On the talk pages, there has been a ] although I would be prepared to look past that (it was like meeting like). I am skipping a few further and insignificant talk page comments. | |||
::* There are then edits to ]: ]; ]. At ], there is then an expansion, again of the article lead, ] (]). | |||
:: Assessing the edits as a whole, it is difficult not to conclude that the respondent user is failing to meet their contentious topics obligation to edit neutrally in this topic area. As the number of edits is so far limited, if a sanction is imposed, it could justifiably be light-touch. ] 20:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::: {{re|xDanielx}} Thanks for commenting. Most of the edits do not have a neutral, encyclopedic POV. There is an effort to influence our articles away from neutrally describing the subject without taking sides, contrary to ]. Even if each edit in isolation is insufficient for sanctioning, taken ''as a whole'' the edits show an inability or unwillingness to edit neutrally. One non-neutral edit shouldn't be sanctioned; twenty is a different story. This is not about the ''percentage'' of biased edits but about the weight or amount of them. Therefore, the assessment wouldn't really change even had the editor made some 'neutral' edits along the way. I'm happy to concede that editors cannot be compelled to balance edits of one bias with edits of another, but I don't think that comes into it. In a nutshell, this is about ]. ] 08:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*The offwiki canvassing is a problem...{{u|שלומית ליר}}, you're fairly inexperienced here. Were you aware ] is not allowed? ] (]) 12:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:For transparency, שלומית ליר reached out to me, and I explained multiple policy and advised her to go ahead and respond here without waiting for individual feedback from her email to arbcom, which may or may not happen. ] (]) 22:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*I take it that per {{u|Barkeep49}}'s brief oversighting of potentially-sensitive content in this report (]), and then restoration of the same (]), concerns of outing have been investigated and the report can proceed on its merits? <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 19:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:That's correct. I got a request, I didn't really feel it was OUTING, but as I indicated in my edit summary OS is a tool of first resort. I consulted with the OS listserv and received some responses quickly agreeing with me and so I unsuppressed and restored the material. ] (]) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
==Luganchanka== | |||
====Comments by others about the request concerning RolandR ==== | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
The first diff cited is not in the ARBPIA topic area, the second is using a primary source for the views of the source (namely that the group is Jewish and against Zionism). There is an unfortunate tendency on display here, one in which an editor mines though others contributions so that they may attempt to find any diff that they feel can be used as damning evidence of misconduct. Fortunately, those efforts largely fall flat on their face as any truly damning diffs would be noticed as they occurred. This is one such instance. Biosketch in his lengthy commentary above writes that the source Roland used in the second diff is ''an advocacy site for Jewish anti-Zionists.'' Now, that pretty obviously says that there are Jewish anti-Zionists. Which is the only thing that Roland used this website as a source for. To argue that this is "POV-pushing" is, well, POV-pusing (namely, the attempt to exclude a specific POV).<p>Now to the first diff. The first sentence is sourced (though the use of the word sodomy is not, the cited article says ''convicted of having sex'' without specifying the type of sex), though the rest is cited only to Hebrew language sources, one of which is the actual court case. The court case cannot be used in a BLP, as we are ] to use reliable '''secondary''' sources for any contentious claims (and a claim of a criminal conviction is certainly contentious). As this is a BLP, I personally would prefer the source cited be in English so that it is more easily verifiable, but if it actually does support the material then I suppose it would be fine, but as I cannot read Hebrew I cannot say whether or not it does so. But either way, whether or not this person was convicted of drug possession or any other crime is not in the ARBPIA topic area and as such is irrelevant for this board. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 20:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)</small> | |||
:Biosketch, do you really, honestly, dispute that some Jews are anti-Zionist? That is the only thing that Roland sourced to this website. It is something that cannot possibly be under any dispute, to the point that it honestly should not even need a source. Hummus should not be in the topic area either, but because some of the editors here are, well Ill leave that word untyped, that there has been long-term edit warring over what categories belong, or what languages belong, or other such trivial nonsense. But no, whether or not this person was convicted of rape or drug possession or any other crime is not in the Arab-Israeli topic area. In short, I agree with the volunteer below. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 20:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)</small> | |||
Biosketch, I cant disagree with the premise that sources should be of a certain quality, and further I say that in this topic area in particular sources should be held to a higher standard than we see in the rest of Misplaced Pages. Perhaps Roland would have been better off just citing any instead of the primary source he used. My point is that the line does not even need a source, it cannot be disputed by somebody acting in good faith, and to that point you yourself appear unwilling to dispute the statement above, choosing to instead side-step past the query. To use the restoration of that sentence as evidence of "POV-pushing" and disregarding the removal of a clearly relevant and undeniably true statement is itself evidence of "POV-pushing". And honestly, if you had a problem with the use of that source, the place to go would be the article talk page. Not here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 06:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)</small> | |||
:Im not overlooking anything, conveniently or otherwise. What I am seeing is that an editor is manufacturing a conduct issue out of a content dispute. That Roland used a source you dont like is not an issue for this noticeboard. You claim that his removal of your comment on his talk page left you no choice but to come here, but that is so obviously not true that I struggle to find a suitable way to describe the claim. You could have gone to the article talk page, the reliable sources noticeboard, or the OR noticeboard (as he was citing a primary source). In fact, you should have gone to each of those places before you went to his user talk page, much less before you came here. Roland is under no obligation to discuss anything with you on his user talk page. He is however required to address concerns on an article talk page, and respect consensus. If you were interested in anything other than getting somebody whose Marxist anti-Zionist views you apparently find so objectionable blocked you would have gone there instead of here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 19:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)</small> | |||
Biosketch, you are attributing arguments to Roland that he did not make, kindly dont do that. See ZScarpia's comments on why your view is more a product of your imagination than fact. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 14:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)</small> | |||
=====Comment by Volunteer Marek===== | |||
===Request concerning Luganchanka=== | |||
With regard to the first diff - there was actually several other reverts on this article as this was essentially an edit war between RolandR and ]. However, this IS a BLP and the text being inserted by Cckkab was a potential BLP violation. In fact EdJohnston subsequently protected the article and removed the same text that RolandR was removing . This was also addressed at . This suggests that content-wise RolandR was NOT POV-pushing. | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}} 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Luganchanka}}<p>{{ds/log|Luganchanka}}</p> | |||
The second diff is a single revert, and while strictly speaking RolandR should have attributed the opinion to the source just to make sure, this is at bottom another content dispute. Nothing to see here. | |||
This appears to be yet another essentially frivolous AE request related to the IP area. ] (]) 20:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
'''Just to make sure everyone's on the same page''': reverting others, by itself, IS NOT against any kind of Misplaced Pages policy or ArbCom decision. In fact, in many cases reverts can be beneficial to the encyclopedia. Hence, putting up diffs of a revert here or there by a particular editor really serves no purpose, except as "diff-padding".] (]) 01:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
=====Comment by Wikifan12345===== | |||
I guess I should weigh in cause my name is mentioned. The only complaint I have about RolandR is his occasional uncivilized demeanor. Like Bio mentioned above, Roland when I removed an unreliable source. I opened a discussion which I know RolandR has seen but apparently hasn't responded to. Also, Roland recently opened up an AE against me over a 1RR violation demanding a topic ban. That generated a lot of drama and ended up with a warning. | |||
What is odd is that Roland wasn't even involved in the article at the time. It just feels weird to know he is following me around. Also, I know editors have more rights over their talk page but I found this response totally unnecessary: . A cordial reminder about how AE's are carried out in a notice he filed himself? Misplaced Pages is all about collaboration and honestly I'm kind of afraid to edit articles articles RolandR dominates - like ] because he won't engage in talk discussion and will remove all my contributions. | |||
However, I don't see how this violates ARBPIA. I have to go with Marek here. Editors rely too much on AE to resolve content disputes. Dismiss and warn Bio. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
@ Roland | |||
<blockquote>I don't understand why Wikifan thinks that I wasn't "involved in" Anti-Zionism. Toolserver shows that I am the fifth most frequent contributor, with 78 edits over the past five years. None of the first four has edited the article in the past year, making me in effect the most prolific currently active contributor.</blockquote> | |||
I never suggested you were not involved in Anti-Zionism. I said, specifically, you were not involved in the talk discussion. Your revert was IMO baseless and without merit. You re-inserted a very unreliable source, then accused me of SYNTH? Seriously? Look at my revert, look at the discussion. Collaborate, communicate, etc. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
====Possible 1 rr violation==== | |||
I've come to understand how important 1rr is in I/P conflict. So is this a violation? | |||
* | |||
* | |||
2 reverts in 7 hours. The first edit looks like Roland removed cited content. A few days ago Roland filed a 1rr violation against me calling for a topic ban just to be clear. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::I really don't think this is a violation of 1RR. But, to prevent any possible breach, I have self-reverted my second edit, and restored the highly POV content, with which I personally agree but which is clearly inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 00:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::And also, note that the restriction states: ]. The second edit was a reversion of an edit by an anonymous IP, so in any case exempt from the sanctions. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 00:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
=====Comment by Gatoclass===== | |||
Another frivolous case initiated by Jaakobou - and unfortunately by Biosketch, who is rapidly establishing a similar pattern. Whether or not one agrees with RolandR's reversions in this instance, they were clearly within the remit of ], and EdJohnston, an uninvolved admin, effectively endorsed Roland's cautionary approach when he "per BLP" before protecting the page. Moreover, the issue appears to be reaching a resolution ], so there was absolutely no need to initiate a case here. ] (]) 06:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Gatoclass, | |||
:EdJohnston acted in good faith and trusted RolandR's claim that there is only one Hebrew source (per ''"an article"'') rather than 3 and that the Hebrew did not say "Nawi, who was convicted in the past of sodomy of a minor" when it does say this. RolandR misled EdJohnston into making that revert. | |||
:With respect, <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 11:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:p.s. please avoid making personal attacks (per ''"another frivolous"''). See also ]. 11:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:: Personal attack - nonsense. AE exists expressly to discuss the behaviour of editors, you have been warned about presenting meritless cases on many occasions previously as I recall, indeed only a few months ago you received a formal warning from Sandstein for the very same. Personally I think it's well past time you were sanctioned for this sort of conduct, but I haven't the time or inclination to compile the history, so I suppose you will get away with it yet again. ] (]) 05:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::Dear Gatoclass, | |||
:::Do you have any diff made by RolandR which explains why he would misrepresent Haaretz (aka "an article") and state "does not make this allegation" of conviction of sexual offense when it clearly says: "Nawi, who was convicted in the past of sodomy of a minor"? Can you find an explanation by him during the time of his multiple reverts which explains why he claimed: "sources cited do not confirm this claim" when the 3 sources do, in fact, confirm the material in the paragraph? | |||
:::With respect, <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 11:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
=====Comment by Cptnono===== | |||
Disregarding ARBPIA completely, a discussion might be appropriate regarding the suspension of Twinkle privileges. Not sure if that should be somewhere else but to make a few quick points: It should be more obvious vandalism and the edit summaries should have been clearer regarding feelings on BLP. The situation may not have have escalated if an editor was not being repeatedly called a vandal.] (]) 05:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:That was my first request. The latter one I've made can be rescinded if there were to be made an acknowledgement of error. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 11:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Sorry if I was not clear. I wasn't trying to comment on the merit of the request or anything like that. Just trying to get the ball rolling here or somewhere else (not sure what the perfect venue is) on not letting the editor use an anti-vandalism tool since he used it in a content dispute.] (]) 20:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
=====Comments by ZScarpia===== | |||
;(Comment 1): | |||
My is registering a strong signal in the vicinity of the '''Additional notes by Jaakobou''' section. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%"> ← ] </span> 13:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
;(Comment 2): | |||
Biosketch wrote: | |||
:''So let me make it clearer: RolandR inserted the sentence, "Yet some Jews remain anti-Zionists," immediately after the sentence, "Others contend that to the extent anti-Zionism represents opposition to Israel's existence, it is inherently antisemitic." RolandR usurped Misplaced Pages's voice to make two claims: (a) there are Jewish anti-Zionists, and (b) the existence of Jewish anti-Zionists undermines the claim that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic.'' | |||
Biosketch's logic is faulty. Roland made an existential statement about anti-Zionist Jews, but without indicating the implications of the statement or conclusions that should be drawn from it. There are many conflicting possibilties, but none of them positively implied by what was written. I think that Biosketch drew the inference he did because he saw what he wanted to see. | |||
The Oxford English Dictionary gives many different meanings for the word ''yet'', most of them having to do with time. ''In spite of'' appears to me to be the one closest to what Roland meant. Substituting the use of the word ''despite'', then, the meaning of Roland's sentence is: | |||
:''Despite the contention that to the extent anti-Zionism represents opposition to Israel's existence it is inherently antisemitic, some Jews remain anti-Zionists.'' | |||
Looking at that I can think of a different possible implications of that, but nothing definitely implied. For instance, it could be possible that: some Jews could be antisemitic themselves; some Jews could believe that Zionism is worse than antisemitism; some Jews may not believe that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic. The reasoning which probably produced Biosketch's conviction that the inevitable implication of Roland's sentence is that anti-Zionism is not antisemitic is too deterministic for me. In fact, probably in common with a lot of editors here, the reading I've done has supplied reasons why there are anti-Zionist Jews, which include the following. Some Jews are anti-Zionist because it is an ideology which offends their political or ethical beliefs. Some are because it offends their religious beliefs (for instance, some believe that Jews should have waited for God to send someone to lead them back to the Promised Land). Some are because Zionism threatens their safety (in a past example, there was opposition to Zionism in its early days from Jews already living in the Palestine area because they believed that it would inevitably lead to inter-communal violence; Zionism was also opposed because it was thought that antisemites would use it as a propaganda weapon to claim that Jews' proper homes were somewhere else). | |||
Biosketch called the statement that there are anti-Zionist Jews "a controversial claim" and one that "must be sourced to a WP:RS or formulated in such a way as to attribute the claim to the organization itself." | |||
In its introduction, WP:RS says: "To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything." The latter part of that sentence justifies the existence in Misplaced Pages articles of huge numbers of unsourced non-controversial statements. They are there because there truth is so obvious that nobody challenges them. | |||
Looking, as an example, at the article, we hit the unsourced statement: ''At that time, the movement sought to encourage Jewish migration to the Ottoman Palestine.'' The statement is not there because editors are too lazy to challenge it, but because its truth is so obvious that nobody sane, who understood the rules, had a passing knowledge of Zionism and who wasn't trying to make trouble would challenge it. To me and, I'm fairly sure, a large number of other editors, Roland's sentence is obviously true too. I'm sure that many people involved in the IP area of Misplaced Pages could run off a list of bitterly fought over articles whose subjects are anti-Zionist Jews without having to give it much thought. Why would Biosketch challenge the sentence? One of the odd things about it for me is that one of his sentences here tends to indicate that he accepts the existence of anti-Zionist Jews. He wrote: "@Nableezy, it's neither here nor there what my feelings are about Jewish anti-Zionists." Another odd thing is that I'm sure that he must know that Roland, as well as being an anti-Zionist Marxist, is Jewish and therefore a living example of the thing whose existence he is challenging. | |||
<span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%"> ← ] </span> 01:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC) (correction made: 11:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)) | |||
;(Comment 3): | |||
@Biosketch, 08:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC): I'll try to explain myself more clearly. As far as the Anti-Zionism article is concerned, you've misrepresented what the sentence prior to the one added by Roland said. You've misrepresented the purport of Roland's sentence. And you've invented a motivation for Roland. In other words, you've constructed a rather nasty straw man. Having invented your straw man, you're using it to try and have Roland sanctioned and to stop the addition of Roland's simple statement of transparent truth to the article. If anyone is POV-pushing, it is you. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%"> ← ] </span> 21:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
=====Comments by Nishidani===== | |||
Roland's revert, the first above, was completely justified because what was involved was a piece of linguistic sleight-of-hand. The source says he was convicted of '''sodomy'''. This was phrased as a conviction for '''sodomizing''' a minor. Perhaps it is a sign of the decay of the times, or is it the drift into pornomorbid sleaze in public discourse and tabloid politics, that the obvious distinction here is lost on many. 'Sodomy' is generic, and refers to acts deemed characteristic of homosexual behaviour and in violation of the law forbidding the same in certain backward (sorry about the pun) countries (sorry about that too). 'Sodomize' is specific, and refers to anal intercourse. Do I need to refer readers to the extensive memoirs of the Bloomsbury and Homintern writers where this distinction was well-known, and where many homosexuals a court might have convicted of 'sodomy' in the legal sense (homosexual acts) disdained anal intercourse. I don't want to go into the details, but no one has a right to infer that a conviction of sodomy implies a type of act. Many of the lads in England thought intercrural rapports were the best, and that, while a case in legalese of 'sodomy', has nothing to do with sodomizing. Precisely this inference on the part of those editors who supported the text which Roland rightly reverted was an instance of ] and ] violations. ] (]) 19:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:You certainly raised an interesting linguistic concern regarding the use of 'sodomising', but I don't see that this is what RolandR meant when he deleted the entire paragraph. If he clarified this somewhere, I would appreciate a diff. | |||
:Warm regards, <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 13:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
===Result concerning RolandR=== | |||
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' | |||
*I prefer that this report be closed by a different admin, since I previously took action myself to fully protect the ] article per a complaint at ], due to edit warring about poorly-sourced sex charges and possible overstatement of the gravity of the offences. I rolled back the article to an earlier version per ], waiting for a proper summary of the sex charges to be arrived at by consensus on the talk page. Should Nawi be described as a pedophile or a rapist? Should his article be placed in the {{cat|Child sexual abuse}}? Some caution about this is required under ]. | |||
*The history of admin action is explained at ]. Edit requests were filed during the period of protection and some of them were acted on by other admins. Since protection was lifted, the referencing of the article has improved quite a bit. The New York Times on August 3 due to events that occurred in Ireland since the original article protection was imposed. | |||
*On the question of whether anti-Zionist Jews exist, I hope that some other admins (or uninvolved editors) will look into whether there is anything of substance. So far I don't see anything, and I don't at this time see any good reason why the report can't be closed with no action. One of the two diffs included by Biosketch in his original report as (in his view) a violation of ARBPIA is , where RolandR links to jewsnotzionists.org as a source for their own beliefs. (Technically, to verify the statement 'Yet some Jews remain anti-Zionists'). Should this use be considered to violate ]? Of course it is up to the consensus of editors whether it is important enough to remain in the article, but that's normal editorial process. The fact that Roland believed that a link to http://www.jewsnotzionists.org could be used to verify a statement in the article is not an issue to be brought to Arbitration Enforcement. ] (]) 19:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Dighapet == | |||
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' | |||
===Request concerning Dighapet === | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : ] (]) 03:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Dighapet }} | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | ||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: | ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | ||
] | |||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | ||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> |
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> | ||
# |
# Reversion to version of article where the article says "He is a child sex offender" in the second sentence despite consensus at BLPN discussion that this is problematic because Ritter never actually interacted with a real child. | ||
# editwar revert without any explanation made while under sanctions. Unexplained accusations of POV. | |||
# editwar revert without any explanation made while under sanctions. Unexplained accusations of POV. | |||
# major emotional attack displaying ethnonationalist battleground attitude ], with exclamation marks and threats. | |||
#, editwar revert. Unexplained accusations of POV. | |||
# major emotional attack displaying ethnonationalist battleground attitude ], with shouting/exclamations. | |||
# major emotional attack displaying ethnonationalist battleground attitude ] and threats to editors. Frivolous accusations of sockpuppetry, harassment per ], and incivility per ]. | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) : | |||
BLP CTOP warning given | |||
<!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. --> | |||
#Warned on by {{user|Dr.K.}} | |||
#Warned on by {{user| 2over0}} | |||
#Warned on by {{user|Kuru}} | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | ||
At BLPN, there has been consensus that the version of the article describing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the second sentence of the article is problematic, as he did not actually have sexual contact with a child, only a police officer impersonating one. ]. Luganchanka has been persistently edit warring against this apparent consensus. For which he has been warned by {{Ping|NatGertler}} , which he subequently blanked There has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article going back to at least August ], but Luganchanka persistently cites a "consensus" for its inclusion that as far as I can tell does not seem to exist, with Luganchanka aggressively editing to enforce its inclusion. ] (]) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Add any further comment you have here --> | |||
: Luganchanka's response is disingenuous and misleading. Look at the ] discussion I linked above. Nobody other than Luganchanka thinks that Ritter should be described as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article. The dispute isn't about whether or not the convictions should be mentioned in the lead at all or not, it's specifically about the use of the phrase "child sex offender", and there is no consensus to include that as far as I can tell, despite Luganchanka's vociferous claims to the contrary. ] (]) 20:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:: RfC opened ]. ] (]) 16:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
] is a serial and convicted disruptive account in the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 conflict area. I would dare to say he never made any useful contribution to Misplaced Pages in terms putting out text on substance, references or new topics. Most of his edits are editwar reverts, oftentimes with unsubstantiated accusations of POV, and with highly emotional battleground attitude as per ], which eventually brought about a long revert ban that expired on 29 July. His last “accomplishment” was a massive act of editwar where he unmade over 100 edits by 4 editors on the ] page. Nagorno Karabakh’s page had lately been seriously enhanced with dozens of new references, images and new topics. Disagreements were thoroughly and usefully discussed in detail on talk pages . ] ruined all that good work less than a week after being released from a three-month-long revert ban . | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | ||
===Discussion concerning Luganchanka=== | |||
===Comment by Volunteer Marek=== | |||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by Luganchanka==== | |||
Sigh. First, the fact that the filer of this report has gratuitously sprinkled terms like "editwar attack" and "editwar revert" and "major emotional attack" throughout the report immediately suggests that this is another case of ban-shopping via use of hyperbolic language. Reminder: disagreement and criticisms are not by themselves "attacks". | |||
The intro on the ] page had remained largely the same for several months, as you will see on the talkpage it is an intro approved, and reverted to, by multiple senior editors. There has been a recent flurry of activity / edits. While I ], it does look like those edits are attempting to downplay / whitewash Ritter's sexual offence conviction(s). I have not been 'aggressive' at all, rather I have simply referred contentious edits to the talkpage to build consensus, attempting to do my duty as a good Misplaced Pages editor.] (]) 20:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
As to the specific diffs | |||
Please see the ], where there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior wikipedia editors, that Ritter's sexual offence conviction should be included in the lead to the article. My edits have simply been aimed at ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article.] (]) 20:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
#1 - Yes, these are substantial changes and they should be discussed on the talk page first. If he keeps doing it without discussion then we have a problem. As is, it is not the province of AE to decide content matters. "Massive editwar attack" is itself an example of emotionally charged battleground language. | |||
#2 and #3 - what are these sanctions that are being referred to? I see no edit warring by the user on the article either, so again, this is just inflated language. A charge of "Unexplained accusations of POV" is spurious. For one thing he's not accusing any one editor of having a POV (and if he did, so what? All editors have POV), just saying that the article may be POV. This might or might not be a legitimate criticism, but again, this isn't the venue to decide that kind of thing. | |||
#3, #6 and #7 - what is this charge of "major emotional attack"? There's no "attack" here. And even if the commentary was "emotional" in this case (which I don't see), this isn't sanctionable per se. Nothing wrong here. | |||
#6 and #7 more specifically - "displaying ethnonationalist battleground" - there's some abuse of question marks here but this isn't sanctionable (not until Mr. Question Mark brings up a report). There's a sock puppeting accusation which may or may not have merit, and/or it may or may not be an example of a battleground attitude. The first sentence of the SP accusation appears to be true. The second one, at least at this point involves speculation. Ok, this is a little strong but again, nothing horribly wrong at this point. There are no "threats to editors" here and the reporter should be sanctioned for misrepresenting diffs. | |||
#5 - again, there's no edit warring here, contra the reporter's claim. | |||
: Thank you to @] and @] for your feedback. If you see the ], discussions - {{tq|14 August - Vandalism by removing all reference entirely to Ritter being a "Convicted Sex Offender"}} and {{tq|First sentence}}. The latter discussion ended on 26th September, and resulted in the intro we had until a flurry of edits the other day, trying to move information on Ritter's sexual offence conviction, downplay it, whitewash it etc. My edits were aimed at restoring the edit reached by consensus, which had been in place for several months until the recent raft of edits with the clear aim of moving / downplaying Ritter's sexual offence conviction.] (]) 06:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Basically this looks like frivolous block-shopping by Vandorenfm with little substance. AE is not a means to inflame or continue battleground behavior. See ]. Institute a month long topic ban on filing AE reports or at least a warning on Vandorenfm. | |||
:: Thank you for this ], I really do appreciate your feedback and advice here!!] (]) 16:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC) <small>(moved from ] — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC))</small> | |||
===Comment by Gorzaim=== | |||
] is combative drive-by POV pusher, remorseless and tactless edit warrior who should be put back into the straightjacket of revert bans. I am tempted to qualify his latest act in the ] not as "edit war attack" per Vandorenfm but as vandalism but am not sure if this meets the technical specification of the vandalism. In essence it is. He removed all of my edits by frivolously accusing me of sockpuppeting. ] (]) 00:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:: As per ]'s comments: | |||
===Discussion concerning Dighapet=== | |||
{{tq|"Unfazed by "Emily's" age, Ritter asked "Emily," "you want to see it finish?" Ritter then turned on the webcam and ejaculated in front of the camera for "Emily." Detective Venneman then notified Ritter of his undercover status and the undercover operation and directed Ritter to call the police station."}} | |||
====Statement by Dighapet==== | |||
I don't understand emotional report by Vandorenfm but I will answer him here to his charges. | |||
https://casetext.com/case/ritter-v-tuttle | |||
] (]) 18:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
1. This that I reverted is from the time when {{userlinks|Bars77}} began messing the article ]. As we found out, Bars 77 (proof of Sockpuppet Investigation is here: ) is a sockpuppet of massive sockpuppet master {{userlinks|Xebulon}}. (his sockpuppet history which was discovered is here ]. Probably he has more sockpuppet user names which need to be discovered. When a sockpuppet is revealed, all his POV edits are reverted. So, look at history of Nagorno-Karabakh page and see how much POV he was inserting every day with assistance of other user names which make almost no edits other than on Nagorno-Karabakh page. So, please understand that these 3 (, , ) accounts have one master or they coordinate very wisely off Misplaced Pages. It's enough to see their POV edits to understand why they created those user names. They don't do other edits, just go to one page all together and change information to POV. Look at version that they have added since 28 June. It is like Azerbaijan never exited and that Karabakh was always Armenian. Very much POV inserted by certain users. And please take into consideration that I explained my revert here . | |||
====Statement by NatGertler==== | |||
Editor's edits today focused on trying to main a negative descriptor of what subject believed, despite it not being in the three sources that were listed (nor in the old version they ultimately reverted to.) Efforts were first trying to simply restate the claim, then trying to source it to an opinion piece (problem) from the Washington Examiner (also a bit of a problem, per ]), then trying to state as a fact what had merely been stated in a non-prime article as an accusation. BLP concern was pointed out repeatedly via edit summary and on Talk page. Removal of unsourced contentious BLP claims and even false claims is not "whitewashing" despite how editor wishes to depict it, it is in accord with our practices. -- ] (]) 21:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by (username)==== | |||
2. I don't understand what he wants from me by pointing out how I restored the page with POV tag from version that ], Xebulon's (aka Bars77) sockpuppet vandalized after administrator ] was reverting it many times saying the article is POV and tagging it with POV tag . This claim in point 2 shows how the user reporting me is protecting his sockpuppet friends, if it's not himself. When he says "Unexplained accusations of POV", it's not unexplained. It was explained that ] is sockpuppet of ]. | |||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
===Result concerning Luganchanka=== | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
*<!-- | |||
--> | |||
:@]: whether you're correct or not, you were edit warring. I believe an indef block from the article and/or a temporary site block would be an appropriate sanction here. ] (]/]) 20:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::I've blocked the user for 48h for violating 3RR based on the report at ].--] (]) 23:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* @], edit-warring ''to remove'' negative content at a BLP is an exemption to 3RR. I see that NatGertler mentioned this in their edit summaries and at talk. As voorts points out, it doesn't matter whether you're right when you're reverting an edit that is being claimed as an exemption, even if you believe ]whiyou are "ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article". The solution is to go to talk, discuss, and get consensus. If you'd like to respond, ping me to your response at your talk and I'll post it here. ] (]) 16:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:@], if you really believe those two sections -- senior editors, indeed, ] was between someone with 13 edits and somcoen who wasn't ECR, for heaven's sake -- somehow prove consensus was strong, and you think that means you can ignore all the later ones -- at one of which you didn't even respond to a ping, where people were objecting -- then this is maybe looking like a ] issue. | |||
*:But even if you ''had'' been somehow editing to support a consensus you believed was settled, you cannot edit-war contentious material into a BLP when others are objecting to it. The solution, always, is to go to talk, discuss, and reconfirm consensus. There is zero urgency to have this information in the article. Including something negative in a BLP is not something you should ''ever'' edit war over. ] (]) 18:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*Luganchanka's reading of the state of consensus on the talk page as supporting their edits is so far off base that it borders on being a CIR issue if it's sincere. Indef block from ] seems appropriate. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:I see RTH's point about the "First sentence" section in isolation. I'd note that the link to ] isn't really appropriate here, as bringing the discussion to BLP/N was an appropriate action (if it was then brought to NPOVN, NORN, etc., ''that'' would be forumshopping). I'd like to see some actual contrition around the edit warring and frivolous accusations of {{tq|whitewash}} before writing this off as time-served. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 15:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::That's fair; I'll strike the link. My point in including it was that, when conversations fragment, we sometimes get these sorts of chaotic incidents. — ] <sub>]</sub> 15:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:::Understood, I think that meaning was clear for us here in the admin section, but I could easily see a new editor misinterpreting it unintentionally. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 15:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::::I am not at all comforted by the fact that Luganchanka has proceeded to make ]. The cited BBC source does not state {{tq| masturbated and ejaculated on camera}}, saying only {{tq|graphic sex act}}. As written, this is essentially another BLP violation, building a case that a ban from this topic is needed. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 16:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:::::Having reviewed the other sources, reliable sources do confirm the masturbation claim (, ) but not ejaculation, which appears to be supported only by ''New York Post'', a generally unreliable source. {{u|Luganchanka}}, in light of this clarification, can you please address your decision to include the claims as you initially wrote them? <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::::::The detail is in the record of ''Ritter v. Tuttle'' (case No. 3:15cv1235 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2018)), so it isn't completely made up. But I would also like to hear from the user on this point as to whether there was secondary sourcing here. — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:::::::Seeing ] here and ], ] at ], I see no comprehension of the use of primary vs. secondary sources, nor any reflection of their past errors in engaging with this topic. I believe that a block from the page is needed to prevent further BLP violations as they have shown no understanding of the relevant policies even after being given several warnings, reminders and opportunities to revise their position. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 18:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:::::::{{yo|Luganchanka}} | |||
*:::::::] calls upon users to {{tq|{{strong|{{em|not}}}} use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person}}. There are some narrow exceptions (when {{tq|primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it {{em|may}} be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source}}), but adding material to the article not found in reliable secondary sources is... suboptimal ''at best'' under our ]. | |||
*:::::::— ] <sub>]</sub> 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*{{yo|Luganchanka}} Would you please provide a direct link to the talk page section you are referring to when you say {{tq|there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior wikipedia editors}} regarding the lead? — ] <sub>]</sub> 01:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:{{yo|Luganchanka|Hemiauchenia}} | |||
*:It does seem that the discussion at ] does indicate some support for that language i.e. ({{tq|convicted child sex offender}}) in the lead, with some general lean against putting it in the first sentence. So, while {{tq|There has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences}} is true if it means the literal first sentence, I do see a rough consensus to include the material in the lead section in some way in that discussion. | |||
*:That being said, the BLPN discussion had a bit of different tone and tenor from the discussion on the talk page. There was on the article's talk page, but Luganchanka, despite having been pretty vocal about this subject in the past, hadn't participated in that BLPN discussion. They instead grounded their edits in the argument that the article's talk page had consensus for the current content, and nothing on the article's talk page had changed that consensus. And that much was true. In any case, we've got <s>]</s>two different forums with two different answers here, which appears to be what's leading to the whole kerfluffle. | |||
*:Then the analysis comes to whether or not the label is a straightforward BLP violation, requiring us to read the sourcing in the article. , which is cited in the ''body'' of the article (but not the lead), does state that Ritter {{tq|was convicted unlawful contact with minors and other charges}} in the state of PA (the PA statute is ; "unlawful contact with minors" is the verbatim name of the crime). When dealing with a sting operation, PA treats it as {{tq|an offense of the same grade and degree}} as if the criminal had actually contacted a child (unless it's a lesser crime than a third-degree felony, in which case it becomes a third-degree felony). This is an extremely common practice in the United States (there are lots of philosophical questions regarding ''mens rea'' and ''actus reus'' here, but that's not really relevant here). In any case, labeling this to be a child sex offense (or, alternatively, to simply use the name of the crime in the article) does not appear to be straightforward malice/POV-pushing/libel, and a reasonably informed individual might shorten it in this way. Whether or not that is ''wise'' or ''optimal'' to shorten it is the proper subject for content discussion. | |||
*:Aside from the edit warring (which was not acceptable, and was aptly handled by a block), this looks like a content dispute. A heated one involving a living person, sure, but a content dispute nonetheless. I see good-faith—albeit passionate—disagreement. If the editors were to come together and engage in one forum (such as the article's talk page, where this has been discussed a bunch), rather than splitting the discussion over multiple pages, I feel like we might have our best shot at attaining a consensus going forward. | |||
*:In short, it looks like the conversation fragmented, and consensus-building broke down. Edit warring ensued, which was bad, but we've already blocked for that in order to dissuade it going forward. A ] on the article's talk page for what the lead should look like is probably the best way to go forward here. | |||
*:— ] <sub>]</sub> 15:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::RTH, are you objecting to a p-block from the article? ] (]) 13:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*Luganchanka has been blocked for a week by ] for BLP violations and personal attacks. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 18:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:Just noting that this was a regular admin action and I wasn't aware this was before AE. ] (]) 18:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::With this in mind, I think we should wait to hear from RTH but otherwise expect to move forward to an indef p-block on top of SFR's stopgap action, as we haven't seen anything coming close to an adequate recognition of the relevant policies and practices from Luganchanka and after several second chances and nudges, I don't see reason to expect them to change course. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
==BabbleOnto== | |||
3. Yes, is revert from POV because the source was saying that Heydar Aliyev said he made those policies after 3 Azeris were killed. If you are not sure, go read the article again. It's clear POV, when you take out that fact and just insert what your point of opinion is, not allowing reader to read the rest of context. | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
===Request concerning BabbleOnto=== | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|ජපස}} 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|BabbleOnto}}<p>{{ds/log|BabbleOnto}}</p> | |||
4. About this my comment on the talk page . So? What wrong was done here? I reverted your POV and said you were inserting POV because you re-do the text to show your point of opinion while deleting references to Nagorno-Karabakh being Azerbaijan's territory which is recognized by all world. You play with words to present different view to reader under your POV. Your accusation is meaningless. | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
5. I don't understand why you even include this . You should probably explain your arguments now because you throw baseless accusations in my address without any base. It was a revert of VANDALISM of IP who made this edit by section-blanking. Understand? | |||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> | |||
# Sealioning | |||
# Refusal to ] | |||
# Personalizing an argument. | |||
# Railroading the discussion. | |||
This is all after I warned them about ] sanctions, and . Very nearly a ] on the subject. I see no reason to continue tolerating this kind of obstinate ]. Additional diffs available on request from admins, but looking at the user history should suffice to indicate the problem is obvious, I hope. | |||
6. What are you talking about? It was exchange of comments on my status with administrator. Baseless and meaningless information. | |||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | |||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
7. This edit baseless? Really? Have you read this? Read one more time before you accuse and post meaningless stuff. | |||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> | |||
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on (see the system log linked to above). | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> | |||
This is a ] with respect to the topic and their ] surrounding it has been subject to at least one ] thread that remains active: ]. The hope was that they would ] and move on from this, but it seems they either will not or cannot. ] (]) 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
At the end, please again look at their contributions in whole as editors and history of Nagorno-Karabakh article. It is very clear that they coordinate everything. ] (]) 13:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
====Comments by others about the request concerning Dighapet ==== | |||
===Result concerning Dighapet=== | |||
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' | |||
== Jaakobou == | |||
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' | |||
===Request concerning Jaakobou=== | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 06:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)</small> 06:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Jaakobou}} | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
* | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> | |||
# See below | |||
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) : | |||
<!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. --> | |||
# of interaction ban by by {{user|Timotheus Canens}} | |||
#Asked to be in minding the ban following a prior infraction by {{user|2over0}} | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
<!-- Add any further comment you have here --> | |||
In the above diff, Jaakobou refers to me as either an editor (or activist) with a "similar perspective" of a "self-professed anti-Zionist". He does by providing an "example" of said self-professed anti-Zionist "adorning" me with a barnstar, linking to diff in his statement. I dont appreciate the sly coaching in of "activist" by a user for whom I have yet to actually give a critique of their worth in any public forum. As such, I request that the interaction ban be enforced. How it is I leave up to you, though I ask that you consider, taking in to account both the long term and short term activity of this editor, whether or not there would be any tangible loss if the user were banned from the topic area. Looking at his recent contributions, I cant imagine that there would be any loss at all. | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | ||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
===Discussion concerning BabbleOnto=== | |||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by BabbleOnto==== | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
I would first like to begin by point out the person filing this complaint . They have frequently left "warnings" which read more like threats on and for people who disagree with them. Nor would I be the . | |||
To be honest I'm not entirely sure what it is I'm being charged with doing. | |||
===Discussion concerning Jaakobou=== | |||
I think in general the user is alleging I've been uncivil, unhelpful, and, in their words, obstinate and tendentious. I know when someone disagrees with you it may feel like they're getting in your way and acting in bad-faith, but that's not always true. I've never tried to be disruptive or uncivil. I've , I've that were clarified to be wrong, I've , at times and work together. And when those editors , I didn't provoke any further. | |||
====Statement by Jaakobou==== | |||
I now address the specific edits in the complaint: | |||
It wasn't clear to me how to illustrate that '''RolandR''' gives awards to editors who agree with some of his perspectives but this was needed to be clarified as reasoning for RolandR's politically motivated loss of ability to read Hebrew or distinguish that there are 3 wiki-reliable sources saying the same thing (on Ezra Nawi). I used the first two clear examples I found (awards to someone denied use of anti-Israeli content on his user page, and another to someone banned a 3rd time in 2010 for adding 'occupation' to Israeli localities), though I am sure others exist -- though, perhaps not as clear. The second link is to an award handed to an editor with whom I share an interaction ban. This ban was imposed after a lot of drama -- we both called each other 'disingenuous' and similar -- on 22:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC) and I have followed it for the past year with diligence (one accident, which I immediately tried to correct has occurred in a time span of 10 months). This prompted a complaint, but I believe that the link, which is intended to discuss RolandR's political motivation, should be allowed to be posted on AE. It is of a similar level of IBAN gray territory to that of allowing someone to post a complaint about a fellow IBAN editor. I am, actually, quite pleased with the no-interaction imposition since it saves me a LOT of grief and mucking about politically motivated distractions, tag-team mentality and other nothings and I prefer that I do not share the same editing space where possible. If there is a consensus among admins that the link to RolandR's activity in an AE complaint about RolandR is not in the gray/allowed area and that posting it should not be allowed at all costs, I will quickly retract, but it seems to me pertinent to illustrate RolandR's state-of-mind when he misled EdJohnson into a good faith revert (of 3 reliable sources) and page protection.<br>p.s. apologies to everyone involved for this drama. I have no intention of causing any and will follow by removing the link -- and avoid anything similar in the future -- if there is a consensus that it is improper -- or "sly coaching". <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 10:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
1. I don't see how this is sea-lioning. The user misquoted the article. I pointed out the misquotation, then addressed a accusation against me that I was second-guessing the sources (A claim which was never substantiated). I then said any source would have to support that actual claim which was in the article. I don't know what this violates. | |||
As a show of good faith, while the link poses a gray area which called up this distraction and drama, I'd rather not have it up and have removed it. <br>I'd rather avoid any IBAN issues even if it seems like a proper link. With respect, <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 10:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
2. I don't see how this is refusing to get the message (IDHT). The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it. I replied with what I actually said. What part of that interaction is saying "I didn't hear that?" | |||
====Comments by others about the request concerning Jaakobou ==== | |||
;Comment by a Biosketch | |||
3. Admittedly probably the strongest of the four allegations. I'm not pretending I was perfect in all of my comments. I should have kept my criticism strictly to their argument. I ask you to read it in context and keep in mind you're viewing a hand-picked assortment of my worst edits, and this is the worst they could find. Also consider that conversation accused me of , perhaps you can see I lose my cool sometimes too. | |||
{{User|Jaakobou}} should strike out the words he wrote in parentheses, and this AE should thereafter be closed per moot point.—] (]) 09:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
4. I'm not even really sure what "railroading the discussion" means. Thus, to keep this section short and to save words, I don't know what I'm being accused of doing wrong here. | |||
===Comment by Volunteer Marek=== | |||
All of this has stemmed out of arguments over two sources. I have tried to find compromise, I have tried to negotiate, I have tried to build consensus. I've been going through the proper channels, I've been participating in the RfC, I've been discussing it on the ANI, I source every claim I make, for a month now I've been trying to constructively explain my side and defend my argument against challenges. It's incredibly frustrating to now be facing an Arbitration Enforcement on grounds that '''I'm''' not working with others. ] (]) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
...Annnnndddddd this is about as perfect illustration as you're gonna get of the fact that AE doesn't put out fires in troublesome areas but instead serves as the can that holds the gasoline that is poured on these fires by various involved editors. I'll be frank and here and state my personal belief that we should simply get rid of AE since it causes way much trouble than it solves... | |||
*:Edited. ] (]) 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by ProcrastinatingReader==== | |||
...but since we're here. At first I thought that this was just more bullshit whining and spurious reportin' by people in this topic area. However, it does seem that Jaakobou did indeed indirectly but purposefully, refer to Nableezy in the terms stated, by including this in his statement above. Strictly speaking he is not calling Nableezy himself all those things, he's just saying he has a "similar perspective" (to someone who is all these *bad* things), with a link to a bunch of comments by Nableezy. That looks like a pretty intentional violation of the interaction ban, edit conflict or not. | |||
I've interacted with BabbleOnto in several threads. There's a few problems, but ultimately, I think they have a certain opinion on what the article should say, and will debate endlessly to get the article changed to their position. I mean, sure, reasonable people disagree on how to interpret sources and apply policy, but I don't think BabbleOnto is actually interested in faithful application of policies to write high quality articles based on good sources. | |||
That's not terribly problematic by itself, but most discussions with BabbleOnto are exhausting. Rather than actually trying to understand someone's argument in good faith, I think BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible, and making a superficially reasonable response ''ad nauseam''. They reply endlessly in this manner. As well as misrepresentation of opponents' arguments, on multiple occassions BabbleOnto has either misrepresented sources or hasn't read their own sources. I can't think of a single thread where BabbleOnto didn't have the last word, or a single thread where it seemed like BabbleOnto was actually trying to understand the arguments of other editors in a charitable way. As such, I think it's very difficult to work collaborately with BabbleOnto on the lab leak theory and related articles. ] (]) 21:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Short block (since this is a first time interaction ban violation), 24 hrs or so (12 if yer feeling nice), as a slap upside the head, to remind the user to observe the interaction ban and don't try and get sneaky with interaction ban violations would probably be in order. ] (]) 07:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
* '''Keep'''. Immensely ]. ] (]) 09:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
* '''LOL''' Yeah, ARBPIA3. Too many requests here based on the topic area. I blame the admins as much as the editors but I did say a bit ago that this was going to happen.<small>(edit: btw, I made this comment before seeing all of the parties involved. It as in no way a violation of the interaction ban but meant to be a comment on the multiple threads I am watching based on other editors I check in on.)</small>] (]) 05:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Newimpartial==== | |||
===Result concerning Jaakobou=== | |||
As the editor to whom BabbleOnto was responding in the diffs of the filing, I feel compelled to comment now that they have defended (to varying degrees) their first three diffs. I will reply as briefly as I know how to their defense of the diffs, . | |||
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' | |||
1. BabbleOnto is now doubling down on the claim that I {{tq|misquoted the article}}. I didn't "misquote" the article - I didn't quote the article, and I explained what my comment meant in the rest of the (now collapsed) thread that ends . Also, I provided a clear explanation of why I thought they were second-guessing sources later in the thread, but BabbleOnto never responded to that explanation. They are now responding to the accusation of ] with pure ]. | |||
== Smatprt == | |||
2. On this they say, now, that {{tq|The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it.}} This is repeating a misreading they made in the original thread, where they mistook a statement I made about another editor's comment as if it were about theirs. In this "defense", I see no attempt to read thoughtfully what other editors say in reply to them and revise their understanding accordingly; all I see is zero-sum mentality and ]. | |||
{{hat|1=Warned that his ban from the topic of Shakespeare includes talk pages. ] (]) 02:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC) }} | |||
===Request concerning Smatprt=== | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : ] (]) 02:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
3. BabbleOnto is now justifying an edit where they said to me, {{tq|You have a habit of inserting small lies into everything you say}} and {{tq|You're not adding anything constructive. You're just refusing to explain anything and saying conclusory statements, or lying about what you said}} - all this based on a misreading of what I had actually written - because I was going to refer to {{tq|a basic failure in reading comprehension}} '''''two hours later'''''. This seems like a time travel paradox. | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Smatprt}} | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
4. They don't bother defending themselves on this one, but just to point out the actual issue with the diff, they doubled down on their accusations that I {{tq|said a material lie}}, and that I {{tq|lied when said that quoted the article out of context. Pointing out being caught lying}} and then proceeded to STRAWMAN the rest of my comment to which they were replying. If they had read my prior comment with a reasonable level of attention, they would have understood that there were no "lies", just a misunderstanding or two in each direction. But ] again; even in responding to this filing BabbleOnto is still insisting I did things that I quite obviously didn't do. | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
] | |||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
It is exhausting to deal with this kind of quasi-CPUSH (not quite civil, but certainly push) behaviour. The Talk page in question has seen a recent influx of single-purpose or nearly single-purpose POV accounts, and in terms of editor energy, this one certainly seems not to be a net positive for Misplaced Pages as a project. Perhaps if they edited away from Covid and US politics, their track record might improve. ] (]) 03:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> | |||
# Smatprt violates topic ban while disingenuously pretending he does not know it violates the ban. | |||
# Smatprt reinstates above post after I reverted it. | |||
# Smatprt asks Jimbo a question while disingenuously failing to mention his connection with the external article and incidentally links that article from one of the most watched pages on Misplaced Pages. | |||
# Smatprt asks AGK the same question again failing to mention his connection with the external article. | |||
====Statement by Objective3000==== | |||
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) : | |||
Just a quick aside to Valereee's aside: {{TQ|Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn....}} ] currently has posts from 19 editors lacking the edits for extended confirmed. ] (]) 20:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. --> | |||
:@], this is also a problem at other CTOPs, and is likely to become more problematic. I assume due to off-Wiki forums. ECR might just produce more users gaming EC. I thought it would be useful to put your aside into the CTOP template at the top of CTOP TPs. But that assumes folks read it. Walt Kelly said something along the lines of: “If only I could write, I’d write a letter to the mayor, if only he could read." This discussion is likely better off elsewhere. ] (]) 21:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
#Informed of topic ban on by {{user|LessHeard vanU}} | |||
::Note: ] was just TBanned from the topic of COVID-19 and indef blocked until the accusations of off-wiki coordination made by them at ANI are retracted. Those accusations are like their suggestion made in their statement in this filing. ] (]) 12:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
#Informed of Arbcom decision including endorsement of topic ban on by {{User|AGK}} | |||
#Warned on by {{user|Future Perfect at Sunrise}} and reminded of scope of ban. | |||
====Statement by JoelleJay==== | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
At the very least, can we get more admin involvement on the lab leak page so trolling like ] doesn't disrupt things even more? ] (]) 07:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Add any further comment you have here --> | |||
Smatprt was community topic banned last year for tendentious editing at ] (SAQ) and related articles. Arbcom held a case earlier this year which endorsed the topic ban and applied discretionary sanctions to SAQ-related material. | |||
====Statement by IntrepidContributor==== | |||
Earlier this month an article appeared in '']'' by ] one of Smatprt's fellow "Oxfordians" criticising Misplaced Pages's handling of the SAQ and the related dispute. Smatprt provided the author with an interview from which a quotation appears in the article. (I have Googled the words of the quotation and they do not appear elsewhere except in derivative sites.) All well and good so far. Smatprt is entitled to say what he wants elsewhere. However, he then posted in the discussion on Misplaced Pages about the article defending his associate and promoting this associate as a legitimate source on the SAQ. This is a clear violation of the topic ban. There is some meally-mouthed wording in which he claims not to be sure it is a violation but, as he was previously reminded of its scopt by Future Perfect at Sunrise, I am sure he was fully aware of the violation and was just trying to protect himself against action by pretending he did not know and would be content to be reverted by an uninvolved admin. I am neither an admin nor uninvolved but as the violation was so blatant I decided to revert it. Smatprt reverted me and then went and posted on Jimbo's and AGK's talk pages pretending to need advice about whether he really was violating his ban. His post on Jimbo's talk page happens to link the ''Spectrum'' article thus bringing it to the attention of the many watchers of that page. In all three posts he has made he has failed to disclose that he was interviewed for the ''Spectrum'' page and is thus associated with his fellow Oxfordian. | |||
I have been observing BabbleOnto and while there are valid concerns about bludgeoning, I think the proposed sanctions are too much. His engagement in the Covid lab leak topic is driven by commitment to WP:NPOV, which our articles fail to adhere to, and he made the mistake of arguing with editors who were never going to listen (resulting in what looks like sealioning on his part). He's not only editor to raise issues in the topic and engage in good faith discussion, only to find themselves pulled to AN or AE disputes after staying out of the seasoning traps and refusing to capitulate to threats. In a parallel AN case concerning another editor in same topic, I suggest there may be possible off-wiki coordination , but it can also be on-wiki (). | |||
I initially reverted Smatprt's post and then when he reverted me I also posted a warning on his talk page. At the time I thought this was appropriate action. However I now think this was mistaken for the following reasons. | |||
One need only cross-reference names from , checking those that voted for labeling COVID-19 lab leak as conspiracy, with the names of complainants here. Contrast all these old timers with the steady stream of tens if not hundreds of regular editors complaining that our article fails NPOV, and see that their gentle approach doesn't work . Our chief complainant is already preparing his next case , and this might not be his first. | |||
First, I was not aware of Smatprt's contribution to Anderson's article. In writing in support of each other, Smatprt and Anderson can be compared to apes indulging in mutual grooming. As one of the fleas who might fall victim to this reciprocal arrangement, I feel that this relationship increases the seriousness of Smatprt's violation of the topic ban. | |||
I suggest that administrators consider a 1 to 2 month topic ban for BabbleOnto to provide opportunity for him to correct his approach, while staying alert to the tactics of POV editors trying to draw them into content debates to influence outcomes. | |||
Second, I was not aware of Smatprt's post to Jimbo's page. In posting a link to the ''Spectrum'' article to which he contributed, Smatprt is violating his topic ban. He is trying to influence other Wikipedians to look on the Oxfordian position over the SAQ and at his own topic ban more sympathetically. His plea about this being a genuine question is calculated to reduce the chance of the post with its link to the article from being reverted. | |||
] (]) 14:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Third, I was not aware of Future Perfect at Sunrise's previous warning to Smatprt about his violation of the topic ban. This has convinced me that he knew full well that he was violating the topic ban and so has made me see his expression of doubt on the matter as calculated, meally-mouthed and disingenuous. | |||
=== Statement by TarnishedPath === | |||
As far as sanctions are concerned, an extension to the topic ban is what I consider most appropriate. Smatprt has been pretty inactive during the period of the topic ban except when it was lifted during the Arbcom case. The article in which he has been most active in recent times concerns an organisation with which he is associated. He therefore does not seem to be greatly invested in Wikpedia except as a tool to promote his Oxfordian views. | |||
Please see ] where BabbleOnto edited ] restoring previously reverted content and ] using a shit source after they'd been told by multiple other editors in discussions ] and ] that the source was shit. Notably in the edit summary they wrote "{{tq|Read discussion page. Manual revert. No serious challenge has been made to these changes. Methinks an admin needs to get involved...}}" despite them being in a ] situation. If a clue is not gotten by the editor fast I'd suggest TBANs from both COVID and AP2 is warranted in order to cease their disruption. '']''<sup>]</sup> 04:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Noting the editor's continued behaviour at ]. Refer to ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
::and again at ] '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Smatprt&diff=443447023&oldid=443291799 | |||
===Statement by berchanhimez=== | |||
This user was given no less than 4 chances on the talk page to stop talking about bans/other editors and start talking about the content. They have continued crying about how they're scared of getting banned... yet they continue blabbing about other editors getting banned for their bad behavior ]. ''At a minimum'' a partial block from the talk page(s) in question is warranted, and it would be beneficial for a topic ban from the origins of COVID-19, broadly construed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | ] | ] 03:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===Result concerning BabbleOnto=== | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
*<!-- | |||
--> | |||
*{{u|BabbleOnto}}, please edit your statement down further to fit within the restriction. This also serves as an opportunity to rephrase your defense, which currently is not convincing at first glance. ProcrastinatingReader's description of the situation seems quite apt, particularly {{tq|BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible}}, which is currently a pretty fitting description of your response to them here, given that you zeroed in on the "superficially reasonable" part and ignored the much more serious parts of the testimony. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:Ok, having read through nearly every edit that BabbleOnto has made, I agree with the complainants that not only does BabbleOnto engage in sealioning, it appears to be almost exclusively what they do. The discussion at ] exhibits perhaps even more concerning argumentation than the diffs provided in the initial report. Throughout these discussions, BabbleOnto tends to demand a standard of stating the obvious (with respect to the context of said sources) that is absurd, and continues to lawyer for such standards even when the situation becomes ]. When criticizing sources' ability to account for basic claims, I can find no examples of BabbleOnto themselves attempting to find sources that would resolve the issues they identify--this is uncollaborative behavior. There is a clear pattern of engaging in this behavior across recent US politics topics consistent with the scope of ]. The only saving grace to BabbleOnto's track record is that none of this has translated into disruptive editing of actual articles, just unproductive engagement on talk pages. I am currently in favor of a topic ban from post-1992 American politics; if they are actually here to build an encyclopedia and not to provide a punching bag for debate club, they can use this opportunity to learn more constructive patterns of editing in topics that they are less personally invested in. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 01:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::{{u|Valereee}} in line with their follow-up response, I take Objective3000's comments as potentially a basis for community discussion rather than a call for protective action on the lab leak talk page right now. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 21:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* I have to agree, this looks like sealioning. {{u|BabbleOnto}}, you're new here, and I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt about your ability to learn to collaborate. WP works on collaboration and consensus, and sometimes consensus goes your way, sometimes it doesn't. You have to be willing to shrug, walk away, and go work on something else when consensus is against you. And you absolutely must not insist everyone else keep answering you until you're satisfied with their answers. I've seen editors at both the Thompson and the lab leak talks tell you they don't actually owe you an answer to your satisfaction. | |||
:Do you think you can learn to do that? Because if you don't think you can, this may not be the right hobby for you. | |||
===Discussion concerning Smatprt=== | |||
:<small>As an aside, I'm going to recommend what I always recommend to new editors who end up here: Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn. Go edit in noncontentious topics, where other editors are a lot less exhausted and have the energy to be more patient with new editors.</small> ] (]) 18:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Smatprt==== | |||
{{collapse top|title=Tangential}} | |||
::@], hm, yes, and ] also has 37 archives, and even with archiving at 21 days, 20 sections. Do you think an ECR is something that talk page needs? That's not part of the authorized restrictions an individual admin can place...hm, and I'm not sure of the policy w/re most efficiently getting that done and wasting the fewest people's time. @]? ] (]) 21:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::I would object to ECPing the talk page. COVID-19 ], though this specific ''article'' is protected. The purpose of protecting the page (in this case) is to push newer users to the talk page, where they can discuss changes they want made (such as by edit requests) and contribute towards consensus-building while not edit warring. Protecting talk pages is truly, ''truly'' a last resort. Ordinary good faith people would be entirely shut out and silenced—we'd not even get edit requests—and I frankly don't see anything near the level of disruption/LTA abuse that would justify jumping straight to ]. — ] <sub>]</sub> 01:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::@], not ECP. ECR: non-EC are restricted from anything but making edit requests. ] (]) 14:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::I see. In any case, ECR is the sort of remedy that should be reserved for more or less when all else fails—it’s still ''super'' restrictive. If new users/inexperienced users are trying to contribute towards consensus-building on the talk page (or even if they’re doing ordinary confused new editor things), and aren’t edit warring, I don’t think we’d actually be ] by enforcing ECR. | |||
:::::Suppose someone in good-faith sees “anyone can edit”, and they want to edit something topical. But then they see that the page that they want to edit is protected. They read the explanation that appears after clicking the “view source” tab. They then read that they can discuss this page with others, click on the first blue link, and then make a section using the “add topic” button in order to start a discussion. | |||
:::::“OK”, the newbie thinks, “maybe I will find someone else who agrees with me, or I’ll at least get some answer as to why the article is this way”. They leave their computer and come back in an hour. They then discover that their question has been removed by some random editor with edit summary “] violation, user not ]; malformed edit request” and find a contentious topics notice on their own user talk page, all because they don’t make a properly formatted edit request (i.e. “please change X to Y”). Or maybe they wont navigate the talk page history and they’ll angrily post that their earlier comment was deleted. Or maybe they just won’t come back. To top it off, nothing at any point in this process was obvious to them that such a requirement existed—there is no edit notice that says so, and so they couldn’t know. | |||
:::::] is ]y. It dissuades new voices from joining conversations, and it makes it somewhat hostile to true newbies. In particular, it dissuades people who, for example: | |||
:::::#Are Not hardcore/insane enough to deal with intense wiki-bureaucracy; | |||
:::::#Are unable to cope with handling unfamiliar wikitext markup when making edit requests for anything that is not a trivial word change, or who have abstract changes in mind more than concrete ones; | |||
:::::#Do not want to spend an hour of their time to figure out how to say the magic words to summon another editor to fix a typo. | |||
:::::The chief way that ECR works is by making LTAs/sockmasters have to put on a lot of effort or make a lot of edits. This raises the (time) cost of socking, and it has the benefit of possibly exposing tells along the way. But that also means that we’re imposing the same thing on good-faith newbies. | |||
:::::When deciding whether or not to impose ECR, we have to balance that it is extremely BITEy to good-faith newbies against its ability to prevent disruption. There are times where we are basically left to throw our hands up because of LTA/sockmaster abuse, and conclude that the tradeoff is worth it; the ArbCom has done this for certain contentious topics. But, the ArbCom had the wisdom to not enable ECR as a page sanction across all contentious topic areas—there is a very real tradeoff that needs to be really carefully considered. And I don’t the tradeoff leans towards embracing ECR ''here''. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">] <sub>]</sub></span> 15:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::I'm don't think we need to have this discussion here and now, but I don't disagree it's bitey and needs to be used only where necessary. I was just asking the question of someone who is working at that article: is this an article talk where it's necessary? ] (]) 17:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
{{collapse bottom}} | |||
*{{u|BabbleOnto}}, are you planning to answer my questions above? Do you think you're able/willing to shrug, walk away, and go work on something else when consensus is against you? Are you able/willing to stop insisting everyone else keep answering you until you're satisfied with their answers? ] (]) 13:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
====Comments by others about the request concerning Smatprt ==== | |||
===== Comment by LikeLakers2 ===== | |||
Are you sure he was fully aware of the topic ban? Perhaps he forgot about it, or perhaps he was actually telling the truth about that he didn't know it extended to that. (unless I'm misunderstanding, as I don't even know exactly what the topic ban was for) Basically, are you sure he was intentionally violating his topic ban? ] (]) 17:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Take a look at the wording of the topic ban on Smatprt's talkpage, LikeLakers2. The admin who instituted the topic ban per ANI consensus (LessHeardvanU), made himself extremely clear about its extent. Smatprt is "topic banned from Shakespeare and Shakespeare related articles, broadly construed, including their talkpages, your talkpage, and the talkpages of other editors, and other Misplaced Pages pages in relation to the subject matters, for 1 year, etc." I don't see how Smatprt could think that formulation leaves any room for doubt, or any occasion for the forum shopping Peter Cohen describes. ] | ] 18:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC). | |||
==Marlarkey== | |||
===Result concerning Smatprt=== | |||
{{hat|Marlarkey p-blocked from ] and formally warned to be more mindful of policies, guidelines and best practices when editing CTOPs, particularly PIA <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 19:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' | |||
*I happened to see the incipient revert war between Smatprt and ] about the Signpost news article. This led me to research the text of the topic ban, and find that the text was already posted on Smatprt's talk page (and still visible). It can be seen at ] The wording thus prevents Smatprt from commenting on Shakespeare anywhere on Misplaced Pages. I drew this fact to his attention by a post on his user talk. Unless Smatprt contests the issue, or continues to discuss Shakespeare, this should end the matter, and this report can be closed. ] (]) 18:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
**A warning for now should be fine. It's been a while so I don't think a block is appropriate, and we normally don't reset on the first topic ban violation. If there is another violation, then either a reset or a block (or both) would likely be in order. ] (]) 16:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
*Closing. Smatprt is warned that his ban from the topic of Shakespeare includes talk pages. ] (]) 02:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
{{hab}} | |||
===Request concerning Marlarkey=== | |||
== Miradre == | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|WeatherWriter}} 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Marlarkey}}<p>{{ds/log|Marlarkey}}</p> | |||
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' | |||
===Request concerning Miradre=== | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : ] (]) 11:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Miradre}} | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | ||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: |
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | ||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | ||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> | <!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> | ||
* (historic record of discussion on ]) | |||
'''''' | |||
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) : A warning was given in the discussion above. | |||
# - Mainspace PIA edit prior to EC status. | |||
<!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. --> | |||
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request and acknowledgement of aforementioned edit. | |||
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. | |||
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Accused another editor of vandalism. | |||
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Says, "I don't give a stuff about what you or Israel say about the declaration." | |||
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary. | |||
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary. | |||
'''''' | |||
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. | |||
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. | |||
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request..."''Someone has reverted my removal of Israel - Hamas *AGAIN* so I've taken it out *AGAIN*.''" | |||
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. | |||
# - Self-revert of direct previous mainspace reversion that was prior to EC status. | |||
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status...Made while this enforcement request was being typed up. This reversion by Marlarkey is of an edit with the direct edit summary of "Per ]". User is 100% disregarding CT requirements. | |||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : N/A. No previous blocks or topic bans. | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> | |||
<!-- Add any further comment you have here --> | |||
Miradre has been editing the article ] for a while now. The subject is not directly related to the topic ban, but there is nevertheless some proximity with topics covered in ] and ]. The article currently contains a section ] () which in its first paragraph discusses in detail the ''reification of intelligence'', a topic introduced by ] in the ''precise context'' of the debate on R&I in the two articles above (it is discussed in those articles). I have advised Miradre that even discussing that section, or proposing that he would move it and thus edit that content, is a clear violation of the topic ban imposed by {{admin|2over0}}. The responses of Miradre in the section linked to above were evasive and gave no recognition that this particular topic ("the reification of intelligence") lay well within the topic ban. The discussion took place on the talk page of the article because Miradre has previously blanked messages from me on their user talk page. | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): at 15:29, 21 November 2024. | |||
Another edit of this kind occurred in the section on ] in ], a week into the topic ban. The beginning of the section makes it clear that the criticisms were related to the debate on race and intelligenc: there is a wikilink to the article ]. This material, including its relation with sociobiology, is also covered in the article on the ]. Miradre edited the section here, two paragraphs after the paragraph where the debate on race and intelligence is discussed. Miradre has edited other parts of this article more recently. | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
Miradre added the section on IQ in ] 2 days before the topic ban, which is fine. But correcting somebody else's edit to it after the ban does not seem quite right. ] (]) 11:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC) <small>further edits. ] (]) 13:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)</small> | |||
User has been on Misplaced Pages (on and off) since at least January 2010. It seems there is a ]-related issue on ArbCom PIA/Contentious topics, given the very clear lack of ignorance of the ArbCom Notification and subsequent edit summary arguments. I do not necessarily believe a block will be of use in this case, due to this editor's on-and-off Misplaced Pages editing status (less than 500 edits since January 2010). Either a topic ban and/or a 1,000 EC status requirement (i.e. EC-status requirement is something higher than 500 edits) is being requested. '''The ]''' (] 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
{{collapse top|further comments}} | |||
*One of the edits by Marlarkey listed above from 13 January 2025 has been by {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}} for Marlarkey not being ECR logged. '''The ]''' (] 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*The content in this case specifically concerns Gould's use of the term "reification of intelligence" in the debate on race and intelligence as the historic link above shows. It has never been used in another context to my knowledge. ] (]) 11:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:*{{ping|Marlarkey}} I want to ], so I wanted to let you know that ] is what we call "broadly constructed". If you read ], it says, "{{tq|These are the current arbitration remedies applicable to any pages and edits that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.}}" The edit you are attempting to me is ''related'' to the Arab-Israel conflict. The page itself does not have to be entirely about the war to be covered under the restrictions. Any edit that is at least, even slightly related to the conflict is covered under the restrictions. While the page is about declarations of war throughout history, the specific edit is related to whether the Israel-Hamas war was a declaration of war. That is obviously related to the conflict, given it specifically is in regard to the ]. That is why the edits were reverted and why this violation report was filed. Hopefully that makes sense. Also, just a quick side-note, accusing other editors of vandalism is ] and is not really how Misplaced Pages operates. You should always ]. '''The ]''' (] 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::*{{ping|Marlarkey}} We are all working together to create a better encyclopedia. No one is against you and we do wish for all to edit Misplaced Pages. The ArbCom restrictions require that you have (1) at least an account of 30 days old and (2) at least 500 edits, to be able to edit content anywhere on Misplaced Pages regarding the Israel-Hamas war. At the time of all the edits linked above, you did not have 500 edits on Misplaced Pages. You were roughly at 490. At the time of this, you now have over 500 edits, which means you could now edit content regarding the Israel-Hamas war. That said, this report was made because of the several edits you made prior to reaching the 500 edit requirement. | |||
*As I have written, one of the references in the section under discussion is to Gould's ]. The subject is taken up in that reference in Chapter VI, "The Real Error of Cyril Burt: Factor Analysis and The Reification of Intelligence". In that chapter, Gould writes, "It is scarcely surprising that Arthur Jensen used Sir Cyril's figures as the most important datum in his notorious article (1969) on supposedly inheritable and irradicable differences in intelligence between whites and blacks in America." That makes the context very clear and leaves little room for ambiguity. ] (]) 14:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
* Miradre proposed moving the section here. He had moved another section to ] previously by deleting it and copy-pasting it into that article. ] (]) 14:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
* I am not going to comment on Miradre's edits elsewhere, which have involved conflicts with multiple editors and administrators on articles that prior to his editing were neutral and unproblematic. That is not the concern of this noticeboard. ] (]) 21:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
* I have reverted an edit by {{user|A.B.C.Hawkes}}, identified by checkusers as a sockpuppet acvount and now indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry by Sandstein. The original puppetmaster seems to be A.K.Nole, based on similar postings in the past on ArbCom-related pages (see ]). ] (]) 09:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
* My voluntary withdrawal from editing articles or talk pages directly related to race and intelligence, as interpreted by me, is my own choice. I am not under any formal ban. ] has nothing to do with the topic of R&I and Miradre is misguided in suggesting otherwise. Strict ArbCom topic bans apply to Miradre, Ferahgo the Assassin, Captain Occam and Ephery (= David.Kane). ] (]) 15:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
* '''Comment''' I don't believe that Captain Occam can comment here. He appears to be breaking the terms of his extended topic ban; and certainly, in reviewing my edits, which are subject to no formal restrictions, is way off-topic here.He is indeed treating this ArbCom noticeboard as if it were ], in a frivolous manner. I have made a request to ArbCom ] to clarify this matter. There I have also brought up the issues of meatpuppetry in which Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Asassin have been involved over the past year, in that way breaking the terms of their own topic bans through proxies. ] (]) 21:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
*'''Yet another side comment''' In the past two weeks or so Mikemikev has created a flurry of sockpuppets, some extremely malicious. The most malicious involve outing explicitly in user names. All traces of these have been removed from wikipedia, thanks to the kind help of Fred Bauder, Casliber, Elen of the Roads and LessHeard VanU. In addition Mikemikev has posted nasty racist comments on Stormfront and created two racist attack pages on ED.ch, dealt with by an administrator there with an account here. As Comicania he created an attack file on Commons which was dealt with here and on Commons with the kind help of MastCell, Moonriddengirl and Philippe Beaudette of WMF. It has taken a lot of effort and vigilance in project space, with the dedicated help of checkusers, to deal with this disruption connected with ]. Arbitrators have been kept informed about these problems and continue to be extremely helpful. Captain Occam's suggestion that I be restricted in project space shows no awareness of the ongoing problems caused by the community banned editor Mikemikev or of similar disruption by his own meatpuppets. ] (]) 23:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
*'''Sample "agenda driven" editing of Miradre''': Miradre adds BLP violating information about ] to ] based on a public tax declaration. Maunus removes the citation to the source. I remove the unsourced BLP violation per ]. On the talk page Miradre then suggests using an extract in the article drawn from this quote from a website: | |||
{{hat|click to view}} | |||
"Democracy Now’s pro-Muslim and anti-Christian bias shows again in their lopsided reporting on events in the Ivory Coast. If you hate Christians and support all Muslim actions, no matter how radical or violent, then you will love the reporting that issues from Democracy Now. | |||
"Far left media outlets such as Democracy Now are not so much actual media outlets as they are pro Muslim propaganda machines for the spread of radical Islam globally. A more appropriate name for what they are doing might be: 'Global Jihad Now' as every single news item which covers the Mideast out of this portal is strongly slanted in support of the global Islamic cause." | |||
{{hab}} | |||
:] (]) 01:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC) <small> and more recently this attempted BLP violation. ] (]) 16:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC) </small> | |||
*'''Samples of Miradre's editing in project space''' Firstly on ] here ]:, where two separate queries were raised by Itsmejudith and me. Miradre had suspected that Itsmejudith and I might be academics (he had repeatedly questioned us) and therefore should not be editing the article ] per ]. On ] Miradre is warned about harassment by Atama and his complaint dismissed as frivolous by multiple users, including MastCell. Secondly ] on ], where Miradre tries to get me sanctioned for reproducing inaccessible text for discussion and also temporarily making available off-wiki a copy of a source, that later turns out to be freely available on the web. Miradre had previously created content using only the abstract without checking the source, to which he had no access. ] (]) 08:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
*'''Captain Occam and Ludwigs2''' Please see this request by Captain Occam. . Captain Occam might find it helpful to look at ] and in particular ]. ] (]) 06:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
*'''My editing''' Contrary to Captain Occam's suggestions, my break from creating new articles this year is not due to a lack of interest but events in real life (research in mathematics, lecturing in Cambridge, a major concert commitment in June, several minor problems of ill health, including bronchitis in April-May and a head injury sustained near the ] two weeks ago, etc). Article creation for me at least is very time-consuming. At present I am more than halfway through learning BWV 529 from ], which I'm contemplating making into a blue link. ] (]) 10:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
{{collapse bottom}} | |||
:::Please understand this is for the edits that you made which were in clear violation of the policy, which requires you to have 500 edits prior to editing anything even remotely related to the conflict. This report was not that you are incorrect with your removal of the content. Not at all. This report is because you removed the content before you were allowed to (i.e. the 500-edit mark). Please understand we all are on the same-side here and no one is vandalizing anything. Once this is resolved, I would be more than happy to calmly discuss the content changes with you. I hope you can understand that this report is specifically because you made the changes before you were allowed to and not at all regarding the content in those changes. '''The ]''' (] 00:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*'''Concluding comments''' The extended topic bans imposed here on Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin should probably be revised to exclude compulsarily participation in ] requests related to ] in which they are not involved. As a result of Captain Occam's intervention, others, including me, have made general comments here on Miradre's editing patterns following his topic ban. | |||
*{{ping|Rosguill}} After my last reply, I realized I went 105 words over the 500-word limit. I would like to request that 105-word extension (so I do not have to reword or remove the last reply I made). I do not plan to reply again as I think everything I needed to say and link to has been said and linked to. '''The ]''' (] 00:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Taking into account the views of multiple experienced editors commenting here about Miradre's edits (presented as a consequence of Captain Occam's comments), it would appear that Miradre might be heading for a, regrettably unavoidable, indefinite community ban. That of course is not a concern of this noticeboard. ] (]) 09:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | ||
===Discussion concerning |
===Discussion concerning Marlarkey=== | ||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by |
====Statement by Marlarkey==== | ||
* The topic ban is regarding the ] of race and intelligence. There was no discussion regarding race. Neither was there a discussion regarding intelligence. I was simply pointing out that the given source does not mention evolutionary psychology at all. I was making no claim regarding and did not discus either race or intelligence and thus not their intersection. The ] is of course not something limited to race and intelligence or for that matter invented by Gould but a general logical fallacy discussed in numerous other areas. ] (]) 11:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:* Futhermore, the claim by Matschi that the terms intelligence and reification are somehow inseparable from the race and intelligence discussion and "has never been used in another context to my knowledge" is very strange considering that there is no mention of race in the "Reification fallacy" section. Furthermore, there are 18,600 Google Scholar hits for the terms "intelligence" and "reification". Most do not seem to mention race. | |||
:* Not sure why Mathsci brings up that quote from Gould's book. As noted above, I made no claims regarding and did not discuss either race or intelligence. Obviously therefore not their intersection. I stated that there is no mention of evolutionary psychology in the claimed sources. Neither does the "Reification fallacy" section discuss the race and intelligence controversy or mention race at all. The ] is a common logical fallacy in numerous different fields. ] (]) 14:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:* Mathsci has more recently also added a diff from the sociobiology article which he claims is related to an hidden, unsourced link several paragraphs away. The link is hidden under the name "controversies in the history of intelligence testing" and the article text itself does not mention race. Anyway, the ] is about statements of the type "if there is rape/infanticide/incest among some animal species, then humans ought to practice rape/infanticide/incest also". It is not about the race and intelligence controversy. None of the race and intelligence articles mention that problem.] (]) 12:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:* Note also this seems be part of a general harassment of me. Wherever I go Mathsci and sometimes Aprock appears to oppose me, even if they never had made any edits to the articles before. In particular Mathsci's almost only recent activity in Misplaced Pages is following me around as can be seen from his edit history. Often to articles he has never edited before I started editing them. As well as making numerous different complaints to various noticeboards or persons regarding me or the articles I edit. Something should be done about what seems to have become an almost scary obsession with me. ] (]) 21:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:* Also, the earlier topic banned Mathsci has clearly broken his promise to the ArbCom to stay away from this area. See for example his edits here in a discussion regarding Lynn's book ''IQ and the Wealth of Nations'': . ] (]) 14:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:* Mathsci has now added a strange, misleading, and inaccurate misrepresentation of a dispute at the Democracy Now article. I did not mention that quote in the talk page in response to removing the information from the tax statement as Mathsci claims. I mentioned that biased quote as an ironic counter against the equally biased self-congratulatory, self-published quotes that are prominent in the article. As anyone can see on ]. As well as Mathsci's refusal to include anything negative. Also, this is unrelated to this AE case.] (]) 02:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:* Mathsci continues with his misrepresentations. First he implies that I had made a COI complaint while I only asked him to consider this on the talk page of the article. It was Mathsci who made a complaint regarding this on COI board which lead to no action since I had made no COI complaint. Regarding the copyright complaint Mathsci had uploaded a copyrighted paper to his webpage and gave a public link to this. This link was of course removed by the reviewing administrator. Also, again, this is completely unrelated to this AE case so I do not understand why he takes it up. Seems to be further harassment.] (]) 08:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:* Mathsci continues with completely unrelated issues. Yes, I accept the result of the discussion at the BLP board which I initiated but it has nothing to do with the topic ban. ] (]) 16:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:* Continuing with yet more unrelated issues, Mathsci now starts talking of an "unavoidable, indefinite" community ban. Every one of the critical editors who have expressed opinions here are editors who have been involved in extensive content disputes with me. They are not uninvolved or representative of the community. I note that I edit constructively and add substantial new material to Misplaced Pages from academic sources while Mathsci's only activity these days seems to be to participate in disputes and ] and revert those editors he dislikes. See also Captain Occam's comments regarding this below.] (]) 17:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:* Mathsci is now accusing an evolutionary psychologist objecting to his view of having a COI. This is just as incorrect as it would be to accuse the anthropologists supporting him of having a COI. Also, it likely violates the prohibition against using COI accusations in order to gain the upper hand in disputes.] (]) 13:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
* Reply to Aprock: Aprock has already tried to get the ArbCom to ban me for editing such articles in the Request for Clarification but he was ignored. Again taking up exactly the same accusations (including the book '']'' and its rankings of the ''fame'' of ''individuals'') that was ignored by the ArbCom is harassment. None of the articles are about either intelligence or race. Obviously therefore not about their intersection. See also my earlier reply to his identical, ignored accusations earlier before the ArbCom: ] (]) 18:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:* Also, he includes an edit that I had self-reverted: | |||
* Reply to ResidentAnthropologist (As well as Maunus, AndyTheGrump, and Itsmejudith who consistently turn up and argue with the same strong personal POV on these topics): This comment is somewhat weird. He seems to be arguing that all pages with a discussion of liberal and conservative views are related to race and intelligence. I can assure him that they are not. Also his claim that my view is that "the mainstream consensus is wrong on R&I" certainly does not describe my POV on that issue. My POV is that the majority view among academic IQ researchers as has been determined in surveys is correct. Currently one focus for me is improving Misplaced Pages's articles on evolutionary psychology subjects which also include the application in anthropology. That is a sensitive subject for some anthropologists who reject evolutionary psychology. Which may be behind ResidentAnthropologist's (as well as Maunus's) objections. However, there are many things in politics and psychology that are not about the race and intelligence controversy. I have avoided any edits concerning either race and intelligence and thus also their intersection. Some seem to be using the topic ban as an excuse to stop me from editing any topic they personally disagree on.] (]) 03:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
** Additional comment to AndyTheGrump: He claims without any evidence that "almost all anthropologists 'reject evolutionary psychology". Of course, I have already cited evidence to the contrary such as introductory anthropology textbooks on the Cultural Anthropology talk page. But I think his complaint illustrates quite nicely the attempt to use AE enforcement to win content disputes on issues unrelated to the topic ban.] (]) 13:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
**Additional comment to Itsmejudith: She argues that my "English is poor too so when s/he adds large amounts of content, other people have to clean up afterwards." I am not a native speaker. But I have almost all of what I add on my watchlist and "cleaning up" does not seem to occur to any significant degree. Also, this does not seem to be an AE issue.] (]) 15:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
* Reply to Slrubenstein: Since Slrubenstein is another anthropologist ideologically opposed to evolutionary psychology also look above. First, the representation of the debate at the cultural anthropology has numerous factual errors and misrepresentations but since Slrubenstein admits it did not concern R&I arbitration there is no reason to go into details. Second, evolutionary arguments are not an important or even at all part of the debate and evidence regarding whether racial differences in intelligence are genetic or not. That evidence concerns statistical analyzes of IQ tests, brain scanning, reactions time, genetic testing, and on. Now, there may be evolutionary explanations if it is proven that the differences are genetic but that is another issue. The race and IQ debate is not dependent on evolutionary psychology but it may be that certain views and ideologies in anthropology that some anthropologists here endorse do are dependent on evolutionary psychology views not being true. Again I have avoided any edits concerning either race and intelligence and thus also their intersection. Some seem to be using the topic ban as an excuse to stop me from editing any topic they personally disagree on for other reasons. ] (]) 12:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
{{userlinks|WeatherWriter}} is repeatedly reverting edits which are removing information outside the scope of the page in question. My edits are validly citated within the scope of the page. {{userlinks|WeatherWriter}} has cited WP:ARBPIA but that is not relevant to THIS article which is not a Palestine-Israel article. This article is not a contentious topic - it is factual. | |||
====Comments by others about the request concerning Miradre ==== | |||
My edits are WP:NPOV. This article is about declarations of war - the opening statement states "A declaration of war is a formal act by which one state announces existing or impending war activity against another." | |||
=====Comments by aprock ===== | |||
1. Hamas is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hamas should not be included in the article | |||
2. Hezbollah is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hezbollah should not be included in the article | |||
3. Russia vs Ukraine are both nation states - the question then is whether there has been a declaration of war. | |||
In the case 1 & 2, the removal of these two entries is WP:NPOV and the inclusion or otherwise in this article is in no way a comment on the conflict in question - only whether they constitute a declaration of war by one nation state on another. Which they do not because they are nation states. | |||
I'll start by noting that Miradre has been testing the boundaries of his topic | |||
ban from day one. His | |||
for precise delineation of "broadly construed" was | |||
submitted within 24 hours of his topic ban. Since then he has gone on to make | |||
edits in a large number of articles testing the boundary. The topic area is | |||
"the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly | |||
construed" as described in the | |||
. Miradre has pursued two topic areas related to the topic ban. Miradre's edits in these topic areas have generated significant dispute and disruption. Extensive walls of text have been produced on talk pages and notice boards involving a diverse group of editors. Links to such discussions are included. | |||
In the case of 3, the inclusion of Russia vs Ukraine only relies on whether there has been a declaration of war. The citation I gave is documented evidence of Russia announcing that a state of war exists between Russia and Ukraine. | |||
The first topic area is that of evolutionary explanations for behavior and ability. | |||
This is a generalization of the point of view that Miradre was pushing in the | |||
topic area when he was banned. Specifically, Miradre was promoting content | |||
which supported the position that intelligence is genetically linked to race. | |||
I suggest that by taking the action they have that the complainant is the one acting in a that asserts a political opinion about the conflict | |||
Editing of artilces to promote the views of evolutionary psychology and genetic determinism. | |||
::* ]: genetically determined behavior | |||
::* ]: genetic evolution of rape | |||
::* ]: evolutionary explanations of aggression | |||
::* ]: 9 edits. genetic vs. social explanations | |||
::* ]: evolutionary psychology explanations for beards | |||
::* ]: evolutionary explanation of rape | |||
::* ]: promotion of evolutionary psychology | |||
::* ]: 106 edits. (see discussion above) | |||
::: ]: majority of talk page | |||
::* ]: evolutionary criticism of socialism from ] | |||
::* ]: 5 edits. evolutionary/genetic explanations | |||
::: ]: talk page discussion ('''quite the worthwhile read''') | |||
::* ]: 7 edits. removing eugenics information | |||
::* ]: 10 edits. criticisms of environmental explanations | |||
::: ]: talk page discussion | |||
::: : notice board discussion | |||
::* ]: genetic explanations for gender differences in crime | |||
::* ]: 9 edits. added evolutionary psychology content | |||
::* ]: 5 edits. moved evolutionary psychology material to the article | |||
::* ]: promotion of evolutionary psychology | |||
::* ]: 96 edits. evolutionary explanations | |||
::: ]: talk page discussion | |||
::* ]: 6 edits. social vs. evolutionary explanations | |||
::* ]: evolutionary explanations of rape | |||
::* ]: link article to ] | |||
::* ]: 35 edits. The article is about a popular book that argues for more consideration of genetic explanation of human behavior | |||
::: ]: talk page discussion | |||
::* ]: evolutionary/genetic explanations of violence | |||
::* ]: 10 edits. Inserting evolutionary psychology views from ] | |||
The second topic area is in the promotion of ]'s book '']''. As author of '']'' Charles Murray is a key | |||
figure in the race and intelligence debate. | |||
The reference by Weatherwriter to 21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Is only a partial quote - what I actually said was "I don't give a stuff about what you or Israel say about the declaration. I care about whether it is in the scope of this page." | |||
Editing of articles to promote Charles Murray's book: | |||
The key is the final point - the scope of this article and whether the edits are validly cited in accordance with the topic of the article...namely a list of declarations of war. | |||
::* Discussion at NPOV/N: (archived version: ) | |||
::* ] | |||
::* ] | |||
::* ] | |||
::* ] | |||
::* ] | |||
::* ] | |||
::: ]: talk page discussion | |||
::* ] | |||
Weatherwriter reversions of my edits serve to support a political opinion on a page which is about facts. | |||
Note that the diffs provided above are not meant to be an exhaustive list of all topical edits. | |||
'''I'm pretty angry about being accused in this way when MY edits were factually based and neutral point of view, whereas by reverting my edits it does precisely the opposite, allowing contentious and politically biased information to infect the page.''' GRRRRRRrrr | |||
=====Comments by ResidentAnthropologist===== | |||
I too like Captian Occam have been observing the MathSci/Miradre. MathSci is quite open about tracking Mirandre's edits to the encyclopedia. Miradre seems to spew their POV in any article they can think of. | |||
Examine the Scenarios Occam Pointed out, where Mirandre attempts this to continue their own POV pushing here: | |||
] (]) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*{{la|Academia}} Implicitly by suggesting that "Liberals" are in control of Academia and that they all in a massive "group think." (Thus the mainstream consensus is wrong on R&I) and does the same thing to {{la|Academia}}. | |||
*{{la|NPR}} and {{public broadcasting}} are other great examples of continuing "Liberal Vs Conservative" war consistent with far right thinking by attempting to suggest their harmful. | |||
*{{la|Social anthropology}} and {{la|Cultural Anthropology}} pages are extension of promoting the heredterian POV. ] <small>]•(])</small> 00:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
=====Comment by Captain Occam ===== | |||
On another point, following me reviewing the information in this complaint by WeatherWriter... | |||
I should start off by mentioning that although I’m topic banned from R&I, my topic ban makes an exception for AE, based on ] in which ArbCom determined that topic bans are not intended to prevent editors from opening or posting in AE threads. In ] where my topic ban was expanded, the suggestion that I not participate in AE threads related to the R&I topic area is listed as "not compulsory". This exception is based on the linked request for clarification: "The latest clarification request may have carved out AE requests as a special case, but I see no justification to expand that exception further." | |||
"If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)" The complainant cites a link to information which I have JUST accessed and have never seen before just now. I was NOT aware of this information so it is false to suggest that this constitutes evidence that I was aware. | |||
Again this makes me angry at the accusations being made against me. If you don't want people editing and contributing to wikipedia then please just say so. GRRR | |||
I’ve been paying attention to this issue involving Mathsci and Miradre because of an e-mail Mathsci sent me on June 30th, threatening me with some of the behavior that he’s directing at Miradre if I attempt to appeal my topic ban. (On June 30th I’d had no contact with Mathsci in the past several months—the only context of him e-mailing me was that I was discussing the possibility of appealing my topic ban with Newyorkbrad.) The last time I had to endure the full extent of this from Mathsci was sometime in February, so I’ve been watching his interaction with Miradre to get an idea of how he currently acts towards people whom he regards as his adversaries. What I’ve seen isn’t encouraging. | |||
] (]) 00:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:I give up... I'm being accused and being told off for responding to the accusation. I don't know anything about this procedure, have never seen this page before and know nothing about how this works because its new to me. | |||
*:But I get it - I'm not part of the club that decides things... so I'll let you get on with that. ] (]) 00:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::<small>(Moved from WeatherWriter's section</small> I get it - you'd rather call me out by this procedure than have an accurate encyclopaedia article. You've made accusations against me and put me through this over restrictions that I knew nothing about and policies I knew nothing about. I simply came across something inaccurate and followed what I understood to be WP principles and made an objectively accurate edit. | |||
::::So now the end result is that an inaccurate article containing a politically biased assertion is going to stay live. ] (]) 02:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===Result concerning Marlarkey=== | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
*<!-- | |||
--> | |||
{{u|Marlarkey}}, you have gone a bit over your 500 word allotment for responses. Please do not comment further unless directly asked to. I will remove an additional reply that was both over your limit and in the wrong section. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 00:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::{{u|Weather Event Writer}}, extension granted as that's essentially what Marlarkey has already taken. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 01:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
I am aware of five examples of Mathsci following to Miradre to articles he had never edited before in order to revert Miradre’s edits. In all five examples, literally the first involvement Mathsci ever had in these articles was reverting edits by Miradre. | |||
Ok, having now reviewed ]'s page history, its talk page discussion, and Marlarkey's contributions more generally, I find that: | |||
#] | |||
:* Marlarkey has repeatedly violated ] at ] since having received a CTOP notice | |||
#] | |||
:*Irrespective of whether it is correct or not to include the Israel-Hamas war, Israel-Hezbollah war, or wars between states and non-state entities more broadly, WeatherWriter's edits to the page are plainly not ], which has a specific (and serious) meaning on Misplaced Pages | |||
#] | |||
:*It appears to be a long-term status quo to include non-state entities provided that there is a citation to some sort of formal declaration of war, and the page's inclusion of conflicts involving non-states ] and ] do not appear to have been challenged at any point. | |||
#] | |||
:*Marlarkey is incorrect to assert that their edit is {{tq|objectively accurate}}. Whether the edit is accurate is subject to community consensus, and the talk page arguments in favor of inclusion base themselves on RS reporting which is a valid, policy-compliant argument. Marlarkey's arguments that a declaration of war can only occur be between two states do not make any reference to a reliable source stating this; while that text is currently in the lead of the article, it does not have a citation nor is it clear that any citation in the article directly backs this. | |||
#] | |||
:*In light of discussion at ], which at this point shows multiple editors in favor of keeping the Hamas and Hezbollah wars, only Marlarkey firmly for removing them, and one other editor calling for discussion as of December 31st, Marlarkey's edits to unilaterally remove the entries in January amount to slow-motion edit warring | |||
:*Given that Marlarkey has had an account for well over a decade, has edited a wide variety of topics, hit 500 edits while this was happening, does not appear to have otherwise shown interest in Israel/Palestine topics, and that the edits at Declaration of war don't fit into any clear POV-warrior pattern, I don't think that pulling extended-confirmed or issuing a PIA topic ban would help. | |||
I'm thus inclined to suggest an indefinite partial block from ] (but not its talk page) as a regular admin action for edit warring, and a logged warning to be mindful of CTOP standards. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC | |||
*As Marlarkey stated that they were unaware of CT, I wanted to confirm that I double checked and found that the CT notice was properly left in November. If Marlarkey chose not to read it, well, that's rather on him—we can only leave messages, we can't force people to read them. I would otherwise agree with Rosguill's assessment. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 12:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*I entirely endorse Rosguill's reading of this. I am not happy about Marlarkey's approach to our restrictions, but I don't see this as EC gaming, and I can't see how pulling EC rights could be justified at this stage. As such I endorse the proposed page block and logged warning. Marlarkey, you seem to believe that because you are right on the substance you can ignore process and guidelines - that simply isn't true. The arbitration committee has consistently held that ]; you need to be able to edit within the scope of our policies. ] (]) 17:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* Pretty much everything Rosquill said. {{u|Marlarkey}}, it doesn't look like you have a huge amount of experience working in ]s. I'm sorry you're finding this upsetting, but CTOPs are a whole 'nother world, and you're either going to have to learn how to nonproblematically work there, or not work there. ] (]) 18:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:FWIW, the CTOP warning was ]. You've got your archiving set so aggressively that you may be missing a lot of messages, and it's completely plausible that you missed this one, which was only on your talk for two days, and after it was left you didn't edit for a month. However, we do assume that if you've got your archiving set that aggressively, you're keeping on top of anything important by checking your notifications to make sure you didn't miss anything. | |||
*:You can probably prevent this happening in future by having your talk page archive ''no more frequently than you typically go between editing sessions'', leaving maybe the five most recent messages unarchived, and/or being sure to check your notifications when logging back in. Any one of those three and you've have likely seen the notification. ] (]) 18:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
{{hatb}} | |||
==DanielVizago== | |||
That’s only the articles in which Mathsci’s absolute first edit to both the article and its talk page was reverting Miradre. If one also includes articles where his first involvement was opposing changes from Miradre without reverting him outright, there are three additional examples: ], in which the first edit Mathsci ever made was tagging content that Miradre added as being non-neutral, as well as ] and ], in which Mathsci’s first-ever participation was to oppose Miradre’s edits on the talk page. The edits that Mathsci opposes from Miradre are on topics as diverse as the possible over-representation of liberals in academia, a book by the psychologist ], and public radio broadcasting. The only common theme to these edits is that regardless of where Miradre goes on Misplaced Pages, or what sorts of articles he edits, he can always count on Mathsci following him there and opposing him. | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
===Request concerning DanielVizago=== | |||
There are a few other ways that I think Mathsci’s behavior towards Miradre could be considered harassment: | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Schazjmd}} 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|DanielVizago}}<p>{{ds/log|DanielVizago}}</p> | |||
*Mathsci’s habit of ] when Miradre attempts to remove them. For example , , or . (Note the threatening edit summary in the last diff.) | |||
*In addition to that edit summary, there have been a few other examples of Mathsci trying to intimidate Miradre by threatening him with a community ban, such as and . | |||
*This isn't the only example of Mathsci being uncivil towards Miradre, but it might be the best one: | |||
*As I understand it, this last exchange (“Please respect my privacy”, and Mathsci’s reaction) is referring to another type of harassment that Mathsci has directed at Miradre, which is publicly posting . that Mathsci claims belongs to Miradre lists its owner’s real name on its main page, so this is an indirect way that Mathsci has '''revealed what he thinks is Miradre’s real name'''. | |||
*Mathsci has also continued to bring up Miradre’s alleged location in subsequent content disputes, even though Miradre has never voluntarily disclosed this information. | |||
Does it require any explanation what’s wrong with this? Anybody who’s been a Wikipedian for as long as Mathsci must be aware that it isn’t acceptable to try and intimidate another editor by posting private information about them, and that the request | |||
“please respect my privacy” from that editor should be responded to with something other than “Ha, ha, ha, ha.” More importantly, Mathsci has ]. I think in the past year I’ve improved on the behavior for which I was sanctioned in the R&I case (edit warring, etc.) but when I compare Mathsci’s behavior over the past month to the behavior described in his finding of fact, I don’t see any improvement. | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
--- | |||
I don’t have a strong opinion one way or another about the quality of Miradre’s editing, so the purpose of this post isn’t to defend him. However, I think that Mathsci’s recent behavior is problematic enough that admins should consider the application of ] here. Perhaps the most appropriate response to this thread would be for Miradre and Mathsci to both be sanctioned. | |||
I’m aware that in the past Mathsci has been a valuable editor because of his useful contributions to articles about math and classical music. However, according to his comment , as of the beginning of this year Mathsci has lost interest in making contributions to articles. Looking at all of his recent contributions, his exclusive focus now is on pursuing the editors that he regards as his adversaries. This is after several arbitrators already told him ] that he should cease his involvement in the R&I topic area. Quoting what Roger Davies said to Mathsci there: “I expressed the hope in the motion lifting the topic restriction that you'd walk away entirely from R&I-related issues. This is because I do not believe that participants in cases are the best people to push for enforcement as it only opens old wounds (as has happened here). If another editor's conduct is egregious enough, it will be noted by other - less involved - editors, who can initiate appropriate action. That advice still stands and I urge you to follow it.” | |||
I should reiterate what my reason is for caring about this: even though Mathsci has mostly left me alone since his attempt to get me site-banned in February, his e-mail to me on June 30th makes it as clear as possible that this is only a temporary respite from him until I attempt to appeal my topic ban. Therefore, it is almost certain that in the future I’ll once again have to put up with the behavior he’s currently directing at Miradre, unless something is done to stop it. It would be beneficial to the community if Mathsci could somehow be encouraged to stop defying the instructions he was given by Roger Davies, and go back to making useful edits on math and music articles. I don’t have a strong opinion about how that should be accomplished, but I think admins should consider the suggestion that Ludwigs2 made in the amendment thread linked above: that Mathsci be placed under a restriction that disallows him from commenting on the behavior of other editors. | |||
;Response to EdJohnston:It was a request for clarification, not a formal motion, and it's ]. In other words, an actual modification wasn’t necessary, because ArbCom decided that my topic ban hadn’t been intended to extend to AE in the first place. When Ferahgo’s and my topic bans were extended by you and Timothy Canens in ], the extension made a specific exception for AE because of this request for clarification. The instruction to not post about others’ behavior at AE was listed under the heading “The following is advice, and it is not compulsory”. The diff of where you included this exception is . --] (]) 23:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
;Additional comments:As I said above, I don’t have a strong opinion one way or another about the quality of Miradre’s content editing, and it may be that there are some legitimate POV problems with it. However, it’s important to understand that this isn’t just an issue of Mathsci following Miradre from one article to another. What makes this a problem is that it’s being combined with other types of behavior that can also be considered harassment, such as restoring his deleted comments in Miradre’s user talk, trying to intimidate Miradre by posting as personal information about him, and responding with incivility when Miradre asks Mathsci to respect his privacy. These are the specific things that cause Mathsci’s behavior to rise to the level of what I consider harassment, although it certainly makes it worse that there doesn’t appear to be anywhere on Wikipeda that Miradre can go to escape from this. | |||
:I'm kind of amazed by how often I see the attitude that some other editors are displaying here, which I think is best summarized as “Incivility and attempted outing are okay when the editor doing them is right about content.” Is there a policy that says this that I don’t know about? --] (]) 14:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
=====Comment by Slrubenstein===== | |||
I won't comments specifically on the R&I arbitration. However, I have yet to see Mirardre make a well-researched NPOV contribution to an article. I do not think Mirardre fits the bill of "single-purpose editor" but she is one step away. At the Race and Intelligence article, it turned out that the most persistent arguments that blacks are inherently inferior to whites in intelligence came from people promoting evolutionary psychology, which took Mirardre to EP articles. Then it emerged that one of the established academic disciplines most critical of EP is anthropology, which took Mirardre to Anthropology articles. I just spent the past few days undoing Mirardre's ] to various anthropology articles (in short: Mirardre found one journal article that had a comment to it that encouraged dialogue between anthropology between EP and anthropology. ''On the basis of this <u>comment</u> '''alone''''', EP added a whole new section to each article on the importance of EP within anthropology. Do I have to tell you how many peer-review articles are published on anthropology each year? Imagine if, for each article, we created ''a new section in the encyclopedia article''! And Mirardre was not even drawing on the article, but on a comment to an article. Note: academics do not list such comments on their CVs because they are not peer-reviewed (whether Mirardre doesn't know this fact or knows it but disregards it, either way it suggests she is not qualified to edit on academic topics. I deleted the addition because it gave undue weight to a fringe view, and from an inappropriate source. | |||
The really troubling thing is this: the article itself was an interesting article on the nature-culture divide, and was accompanied by several comments. I pointed out to Miradre that there are a number of other articles on this theme, and that she could draw on these different articles and write a very informative and appropriate section on emerging new approaches to nature-culture in anthropology. I was trying to take Mirardre's edit, and make a good-faith effort to consider what kind of work would lead to a genuinely positive edit, and give Mirardre constructive feedback. Mirardre just changed topics. | |||
Mirardre then went on to argu that a whole chapter of a current textbook on cultural anthropology is about EP. Again, my concern was, how to turn a source into an imporovement to our article, and I asked Mirardre to summarize the chapter. Mirardre became evasive, and refused to discuss the contents of the chapter, insisting that the important point is that there is a whole chapter.] Mirardre's claim and discovered that there is no such chapter. As Matchsci demonstrated, the topic occupied two pages in a 450 page book. Then Maunus found the textbook, read it, and discovered that the textbook "describes EP as a discipline that 'impinges on cultural anthropology.'" | |||
From this, we can see the following: | |||
*Mirardre does not have the reading comprehension level of a college student (the audeicne for the textbook) | |||
*Mirardre misrepresents sources in order to promote Mirardre's views | |||
*Mirardre gets upset when other editors actually know more than her | |||
I admit that this discussion ''on the surface'' is not about race and intelligence, but if you go back to the attempted mediation at R&I by Ludwigs, and subsequent arguments there, anthropology was consistently deprecated by advocates of EP in scholarly debates over race and intelligence. | |||
A final comment on MathSci, whose editing has been impugned. It is true that MathScie has written a great many articles for WP, all impeccably sourced and well-written. It is true that he does not write as many new articles any more. I do not either. That is because my job requires m to write articles for which I will get credit, and WP does not count. I cannot speak for MathSci but I think a minimum requirement for an editor of an encyclopedia is the ability to comprehend that volunteer editors have more pressing and time-consuming obligations that mean they contribute erratically. We must judge MathSci not by the frequency of his edits by by their quality. I just went into some detail about an exchange on a talk page because this is the kind of contribution Captain Occam deprecates. Yet here we see that MathSci's contribution was exemplary and in fact just the kind of talk page contribution WP depends if it is to exist: Matchsci provided the evidence that Mirardre lied about there being a whole chapter on EP; MathSci provided the evidence that Mirardre was violating WEIGHT; along with Maunus MathSci demonstrated that Mirardre misrepresented the source. Were Mirardre left to her own devices we would have articles with lots of sources - but the articles would be poorly written, misrepresent the sources, even lie about them, and misrepresent scholarly debates. I have tried to work collaboratively with Mirardre and Mirardre has shown no interest in real research. Until Mirardre is banned, ''someone'' will have to check every source she cites, and correct her mistakes. This is a takes MathSci has assumed. He (and Maunus) deserves our praise and thanks for this ] | ] 09:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
=====Comment by Itsmejudith===== | |||
I don't have much time to edit right now, but would just like to say in reference to comments above that Maunus and SlRubenstein are real experts in social science topics, while Miradre, as far as I can see actually is working like an SPA. His/her level of English is poor too, so when s/he adds large amounts of content, other people have to clean up afterwards. There seems to be a lack of understanding of how to summarise from academic texts, as opposed to direct quoting. ] (]) 14:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
===Comment by Maunus=== | |||
I would like to say that given Miradre's past and current behavior it is fully justified, indeed necessarry that editors who are aware of his history review his edits to almost any page that he might edit. He is clearly agenda driven in the large majority of his edits - wikipedia cannot afford to let that go unsupervised. There is a difference between hounding and actually watching out for potential content problems based on documented experience with certain editors editing patterns. ]·] 01:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
===Comment by AndyTheGrump=== | |||
I'd like to second Maunus's comments. I'm not going to suggest that any of us can ever approach Misplaced Pages with a truly neutral POV (I don't believe that such a thing exists), but I think that Miradre not only edits in such a way at to push a particular POV beyond any acceptable limits, but that also, from the evidence offered, actually goes out of his/her way to find ways to do so, knowing that this will provoke a response. Frankly, I see no way that this attitude can be seen as compatible with Misplaced Pages's objectives. If Miradre wishes to change public opinion, and/or the opinions of academia regarding issues of race, heredity, and related issues, fine - that is his/her right - just not here, and not in the belligerent manner exhibited. ] (]) 02:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I see that Miradre writes above: "Currently one focus for me is improving Misplaced Pages's articles on evolutionary psychology subjects which also include the application in anthropology. That is a sensitive subject for some anthropologists who reject evolutionary psychology". Given that ''almost all'' anthropologists 'reject evolutionary psychology' (or does Miradre have evidence to the contrary?), such 'improvements' are nothing of the kind - they are instead attempts to apply undue weight to theories of little relevance to the topic in question. This is further evidence of Miradre's endless POV pushing and general combative attitude. ] (]) 13:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::And now Miradre responds by claiming to have 'cited evidence' in ] regarding the significance of evolutionary psychology to the subject. Fine. Except that the 'evidence' turned out to be almost entirely based on misrepresentation of the sources - again proving precisely the point I made. ] (]) 13:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::"Slrubenstein is another anthropologist ideologically opposed to evolutionary psychology". And yet again, Miradre insinuates that any attempt to point out that the overwhelming consensus within cultural/social anthropology is that evolutionary psychology is of limited significance to the subject is based on 'ideology' - a highly dubious proposition, entirely lacking evidence. Anyone remotely familiar with the often-heated discourse within social/cultural anthropology will find the proposition that there is a common ideology laughable. Still, insinuations of bias are easy to make, and have the advantage that you don't have to offer evidence. Not directly related to this AR/E discussion, of course, except in that it may indicate why ''any'' topic ban is going to fail as long as Miradre persists with this battleground mentality and endless search for new articles to promote an ideologically motivated (yeah, I can do it too...) biological determinist perspective in subjects where such perspectives are fringe, if not entirely irrelevant.] (]) 15:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::And a response to Memills (below): are you going to offer any evidence to back up your suggestions that those commenting here have 'another agenda', or are you just going to leave it hanging, like the vacuous insinuation it is? ] (]) 14:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
===Comment by Memills=== | |||
The concept of a "construct" has a long history in science, long before Gould. Nor is it limited to studies of intelligence; the term "construct" is used in many, if not most, areas of science. See the relevant WP article: ]. That several editors above think that it only applies to intelligence is rather shocking. Rather, given the very strong anti-biological POVs of these editors, I suspect another agenda. | |||
The editors criticizing Miradre fail to note that there was previous discussion on the Talk page about moving this section, ''as well as other sections,'' which was initiated and discussed by several other editors (not Miradre), (see and ). The rationale for the move was that many of the criticisms of evolutionary psychology are actually more germane to the ] page than to evolutionary psychology in particular. The editors above who label evolutionary psychology as "genetic determinism," and/or who suggest that editors who are trying to accurately describe evolutionary psychology are "promoting" it, betray a strong anti-biological POV. | |||
The attempt to associate the suggested move with intelligence (to snag Miradre) is a red herring. It seems to me to be a POV-motivated attempt to harass an editor with whom they philosophically disagree. ] (]) 05:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
===Result concerning Miradre=== | |||
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' | |||
*I hope that ] can supply a diff to the place where Arbcom modified his ban to allow him to comment at Arbitration Enforcement in R&I requests where his own edits have not been mentioned. This Arbcom action would, I assume, have been a formal motion. Lacking such evidence, I urge him to cease commenting here. The only edits being reviewed in this AE are those of Miradre and possibly Mathsci. (Mathsci's own edits are subject to review since he is the submitter). ] (]) 22:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::OK, per the Captain's response, I agree that his previous topic ban allows him to comment at AE. Should the admins here decide that his posts are not helpful, they might comment on that or take action on that when this report closes. ] (]) 23:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
==Jonchapple== | |||
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' | |||
===Request concerning Jonchapple=== | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 12:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Jonchapple}} | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] ''All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related''.<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ||
# Added ] to a BLP, after CTOP notification and several talk page messages notifying DanielVizago that the category is not to be applied to articles about individuals (per category description, {{tq|This category is for issues relating to misandry. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly misandrist.}}); | |||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> | |||
# |
# and Removing sourced content from ] that states misandry is not a major an issue as misogyny; | ||
# Changing content in ] to emphasize misandry (reverted by another editor with edit summary {{tq|rv, poorly sourced (sources supplemented by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH), earlier version was better, closer to sources}}); | |||
# Second first revert. No violation. | |||
# |
# Added "bimisandry" to ], citing 4 sources, none of which include that term; | ||
# 14 Jan 2025, weird edits adding ] with piped names to unrelated articles, then those names directly to the category page; | |||
# restored the "bimisandry" edit to ], then a 5th ref that includes the term but is just a blog; I left a 4th-level warning on talk page; | |||
# (after final warning) adds <nowiki>] and ]</nowiki> to ]; those two individuals don't have articles and there is no mention in this article of their charges or convictions, even though the category solely consists of {{tq|articles of female individuals who have been convicted of rape in a court of law.}} | |||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | |||
# First Revert. | |||
*None | |||
# Second Revert. This violates the above enforcement. | |||
# Third Revert. This violates the above enforcement. | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
*I alerted them on | |||
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) : | |||
<!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. --> | |||
#Warned on | |||
#Warned on | |||
#Warned on | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | ||
Above diffs are all edits ''after'' the CTOP notification was provided. Before then, DanielVizago misapplied ] to 46 articles, which is what caught my attention. Their attempts to add "bimisandry" to ] started . On 28 Dec 2024, DanielVizago added a lot of content to ] about misandry, which another editor with edit summary {{tq|remove recently added pro-fringe section and put back the excerpt}}. Most of their 122 edits have been reverted by multiple editors. | |||
<!-- Add any further comment you have here -->The editor is well aware of the enforcement and sanctions, and has made it a habbit of arguing the point regardless. As the notices placed on their talk page illustrate, this disruption is spreed over a number of articles. As , the editor is just not intrested. The editor is knowingly violating this enforcement. Should addition diff be required I'm more than happy to provid them. | |||
Before the level 4 warning, I guiding DanielVizago away from CTOP; they don't engage on their talk page. (They've posted there once, to say "thanks" in response to a warning.) With their refusal to communicate, poor sourcing, and non-NPOV edits, I don't think they should be editing in this topic area. ] ] 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*Having explained the nature of the sanctions as best I could the editors responce supports my post above. My post considered a "tantrum." | |||
*, there responce to their next violation was much like they are suggestion now. | |||
*The editor suggests that they "''forgot''" that an article on a former ] prisoner would be ? | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | ||
* | |||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
===Discussion concerning Jonchapple=== | |||
====Statement by Jonchapple==== | |||
Bugger. All I can say in my defence is that I honestly forgot that this article would be subject to 1RR in my eagerness to try and enforce ]—i.e. that nationality, not ethnicity, should be referenced in the lead. This was by Domer48 with no edit summary or explanation at all, so he's not entirely innocent in all this either. | |||
I object to being told that I'm "just not interested" for removing Domer48's notice from my page—I'm entitled to keep my talk page at whichever revision I see fit; a right not two hours ago when I civilly tried to give an explanation backed up the MOS for my edit. However, it's true that I've been warned before and should have remembered 1RR, especially considering the subject of my edit was directly involved in The Troubles, so I'm at fault there. Go easy on me; I've kept my nose clean up until now. ]] 13:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:The "I didn't know Eamon was directly involved in The Troubles" quip was clearly meant as a joke (he was 87 when it all started), much like my remark about the UDA underneath. Additionally, your removal of a discussion about the County Londonderry page from your talk page in which I was nothing by civil was removed with a summary stating "nonsense", so you're again also guilty of what could be considered inappropriate edit summaries. ]] 15:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::It has now been 10 hours since Domer48 added the latest three edits that he says are proof of my violating the Troubles sanction, but he has yet to leave even a warning on the talk page of ]; the editor with which I had this editing disagreement. This, I believe, is poor form and clear evidence of an ulterior motive for this request for enforcement – namely that I feel often disagree with him with my edits and he clearly dislikes me. Nogger should have at least been warned, especially as Domer48 clearly feels very strongly about this particular sanction. ]] 06:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
====Comments by others about the request concerning Jonchapple ==== | |||
:Jonchapple is new into the whole sphere of Northern Ireland related articles, so a sense of naivity and initial forgetfulness can be very plausible. Note that Jonchapple did notify ] that they had violated the 1RR and should revert it - after being reported here so the message has got through i believe, especially after this. | |||
:In fact if you look at Jonchapple's first comment in that section of Ruairí Óg's talk page i've linked you too you can clearly see that he has now got it into his head to remember about the 1RR as he clear states that he can't revert the editor because of it. | |||
:Also it is very plausible that Jonchapple forgot as i've been involved in Northern Ireland articles for years and i regulary forget about the 1RR (even though i've yet to breach it as far as i'm aware as i usually stay out of Troubles articles). Thus a topic-ban for this i think would be an extreme punishment, and a probation does make the most sense as it allows for admins to see whether they are a trouble-maker as Domer48 is trying to make out or just actually a naive editor. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
===Result concerning Jonchapple=== | |||
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' | |||
* I find it somewhat implausible that one can forget such a restriction, having been warned no less than three times. I find it concerning that if we accept Jonchapple's word at face value, he allows his "eagerness" to lead him to forget restrictions, not indicative of a measured and calm approach to editing. I am even more concerned that he is using the "other people did it too" defense by bringing up Nogger, an approach which never helps, and often leads merely to increased sanctions for the one trying that as a "defense" and sometimes to sanctions for the other party - but mind you, "he did it too!" is not a plausible defense for one's own actions. I'm thinking a <s>full topic ban</s> probation period, given Jonchapple's "eagerness" and inability to remember the editing restrictions, for a period of 3 months; any violations to be dealt with by a series of increasing blocks. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 15:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC) - Note, I would also support a 1 week block, given that a topic ban is not listed among the choices for enforcement. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 16:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
*:I don't think we can do that. If I'm reading the case correctly, the only sanctions available under TROUBLES is either a block for the 1RR violation, or Troubles probation, which is basically a 1RR/week restriction plus civility parole. ] (]) 16:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
*Dang,you're right. For some bizarre reason, ArbCom limited the enforcement to probation (1RR/wk) or blocks. Ok, amending my preferred response to 3 months probation. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 16:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
*I agree with Tim and KC that three months Troubles Probation is appropriate. Jonchapple would be limited to one revert per article per week on all Troubles articles. All parties are advised that archiving of sanction warnings is preferable to deleting them from your talk page. If you want your good faith to be easy to observe. ] (]) 20:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
==Russavia== | |||
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' | |||
===Request concerning Russavia=== | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : ] (]) 07:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Russavia}} | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> | |||
# Russavia's reverts my earlier edit. | |||
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) : | |||
Sanctioned previously twice before for violating interaction ban: and | |||
<!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. --> | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
<!-- Add any further comment you have here --> | |||
Reverting edits is a violation of an interaction ban per ], note the same policy allows asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party, see ] and as affirmed by a subsequent clarification request to Arbcom. I don't know why Russavia feels he has to inject himself into this particular article ], but his arrival is disruptive to my further involvement in this article as we are under a mutual interaction ban. In this case I am requesting that an admin undo the violating edit so that my further involvement in this article is not compromised. | |||
*Reply to Petri Krohn. Whether or not the article belongs in ] is a content issue. You had ample opportunity to revert this edit yourself if you disagree and we could have discussed this on the article talk page. However with Russavia's revert I can not be involved in the subsequent discussion on talk due to the mutual interaction ban, and thus this disruptive. --] (]) 11:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
Notified | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
===Discussion concerning Russavia=== | |||
====Statement by Russavia==== | |||
It is plain to see that Tammsalu is attempting to use an interaction ban in such a way that he is able to assume ownership of articles. It has already been made clear to this particular EEMLer that merely editing the same article is not an interaction. Refer to Tammsalu's own request for clarification from the committee at . | |||
Moreso, Tammsalu's attempt to fling enough shit in the hope that some of it will stick is disruptive and furtherment of the battleground for which he was banned from EE topics, and also furtherment of harrassment of myself by him. Refer to ], in which the committee found that certain editors engage in vexatious reporting (of which this is), and have also engaged in harrassment of particular editors (of which this is), and also found that particular editors have displayed battleground mentality (which this very request is). One can also review ] where the committee found that Martintg (now known as Tammsalu) has abused the dispute resolution process (which this report is) and also found that he harbours a battleground mentality (again, which this very report is). | |||
Why have I edited on the article? Because it is clearly within my scope of interest, plus it has been in the news (albeit very briefly). I don't have to explain why I edit any article I may edit, but that is the reason. But have I interacted with Tammsalu? NO, I have not. | |||
===Discussion concerning DanielVizago=== | |||
I am making it very clear here, that if ] does not come back to Tammsalu in this case, I will be taking this to Arbcom directly for their intervention, because it is clear that Tammsalu is being disruptive and engaging in battleground behaviour. I am asking that Tammsalu be sanctioned for his artificial battleground creation, with the warning that if there is another such case that I will ask for him to be topic banned for battleground behaviour. | |||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by DanielVizago==== | |||
This is also not the first violation of the mutual interaction ban by Tammsalu, so any block should take this into account. One would also have to ask Tammsalu why if they have grown tired of the battleground bullshit (as per their talk page), they have clearly created one here knowing his own history and history of clarification from Arbcom? | |||
====Statement by caeciliusinhorto==== | |||
I will offer to Tammsalu the same offer that I have in past, drop this frivolous complaint with an apology for even bringing it here, otherwise I will ask that sanctions be placed on Tammsalu for both breaching his mutual interaction ban and for creating yet another EE battleground. --] <sup>]</sup> 08:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
Since this report was opened, DanielVizago has continued to make questionable edits adding articles to ]. | |||
* , categorising a living person who has been accused (but not charged, let alone convicted) of sexual assault as a rapist (cf. ]) | |||
====Comments by others about the request concerning Russavia ==== | |||
* adds the category to a disambiguation page on the basis of one of the people listed on that page, who had in fact been convicted not of rape but of | |||
===== Comment by Petri Krohn ===== | |||
* and edit categorise two sexually-motivated murderers as rapists despite no evidence that they ever raped anyone in the article (cf. ]) | |||
Tammsalu/Martin did not create this article, I did. As far as I am concerned, Russavia is welcome to contribute. | |||
However I am not at all happy to see Tammsalu editing the article. I try to keep a distance from him and avoid editing or even reading anything he is involved with. I only hope he would extend the same courtesy to me. This time I thought we would see the exception – agree on the content of an article and cooperate, albeit with minimal interaction. This enforcement request once again proves me wrong. | |||
] (]) 10:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
I see absolutely no way the article on ] should be included in the category ]. I thank Russavia for removing the misplaced category. I cannot see anything in the article history or article talk pages that I would describe as interaction. If Tammsalu cannot agree, I ask him to first explain why he believes the article should be in this category. -- ] (]) 11:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Simonm223==== | |||
: ] is an article on a current event--an gunman attack with international media coverage. It seems ]. Drambjan is described by ] as "a member of the marginal left-wing ]. The party is not in parliament and until recently claimed legal succession to Estonia's Soviet-era Communist Party." Misplaced Pages's article on ] says in the lead: "This generally includes anarchists, communists and revolutionary socialists."] (]) 12:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
Might be wise, as long as doing so wouldn't interfere with evidence, to get a revision deletion on some of the diffs presented above that make unfounded statements about BLPs. ] (]) 18:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::The issue is not about whether Karen Drambjan is in the general topic of ], that we all agree on. The edit in question was about inclusion of the article in the ''category''. If you bother to ] you will well see that the category is a top level category, not a place to dump individual politicians. I have no objection to the article being in some ''subcategory''. | |||
::As the the question of ], I am not stating ownership. I am saying that to my understanding I and Tammsalu have been following a voluntary mutual interaction ban. When entering into my editing domain he should follow the utmost courtesy. If he cannot accept this arrangement, then an administrator or ArbCom enforced interaction ban becomes the only option. As for this WP:AE request: it is clear indication of a ]ground mentality. -- ] (]) 13:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::: "I and Tammsalu have been following a voluntary mutual interaction ban" Ok, I didn't know that. The interpersonal politics in Misplaced Pages still largely elude me. Tammsalu seems to have a long term interest in (and knowledge of) Estonian topics, as do you. It's not very hard to discern you two don't agree on political issues though. ] (]) 13:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
==== |
====Statement by (username)==== | ||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
===Result concerning DanielVizago=== | |||
This shows a fundamental problem with interaction bans - I see no problem with Martin bringing this action here, moreover. WRT the claim that a person is ''not'' "far left" I consider the statement in the article that a person is "left-wing" and quotes him as saying : ''He calls Estonia a morally bankrupt neo-Fascist county'' is quite likely sufficient for the characterisation, and should be ''discussed'' with all interested parties. I suggest therefore that the 'interaction ban" has been shown to have an unintended consequence which should be examined carefully, with the possible resolution that Martin be allowed to engage in careful and civil discourse on the article talk page, and Russavia also be allowed the same careful and civil discourse on the article talk page, with any admin noting ''any'' lack of carefulness and civility and who has no prior involvement in the case be allowed to block either party as he or she sees fit. It is clear, however, that the revert ''is'' a technical violation of the interaction ban as written, and Russavia should be given a yellow card. Cheers. ] (]) 12:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
*I've p-blocked from article space to see if we can get this editor communicating. ] (]) 12:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===Result concerning Russavia=== | |||
*I want to hear what they have to say, but I'm going to need a fairly convincing explanation as to how they're here to build an encyclopedia and not to POV-push men's rights activism content where it doesn't belong. The IDHT and spammy behavior and the BLP vios on top of that aren't super encouraging, either, but if they decide to communicate, I'm happy to reassess. ] (] • she/her) 22:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
*:I'd like to hear what they have to say, too, but I'm also not averse to letting this archive with no further action since the p-block is an indef. I've left another message at their talk. ] (]) 13:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' | |||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
*<!-- | |||
--> |
Latest revision as of 13:41, 19 January 2025
"WP:AE" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:AE (disambiguation).Noticeboards | |
---|---|
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
General | |
Articles, content | |
Page handling | |
User conduct | |
Other | |
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards |
Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Important informationShortcuts
Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
Lemabeta
Lemabeta has acknowledged the warnings here to take more care and stay well clear of articles from which they are restricted from editing. Further violations are very likely to lead to sanctions, up to and including an indefinite block. Seraphimblade 12:44, 13 January 2025 (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 Lemabeta
I likely filed this improperly, but to sum it up they continue to make pages in a scope they were banned from. EF 20:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning LemabetaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by LemabetaYeah, my bad. Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed" I recognize my mistake. --Lemabeta (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Lemabeta
|
Boy shekhar
Blocked by Rosguill as a regular administrative action. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2025 (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 Boy shekhar
Discussion concerning Boy shekharStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Boy shekharStatement by VanamondeThis user hasn't edited for 4.5 years since they were TBANned, and none of their 31 edits show any ability to follow our PAGs. At the risk of sounding harsh, an extended AE discussion is a waste of time; a passing admin should indef them (I cannot, I am INVOLVED on most of the content they have edited). Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Result concerning Boy shekhar
|
שלומית ליר
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning שלומית ליר
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Smallangryplanet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- שלומית ליר (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:ARBPIA
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation of how these edits violate it
ShlomitLir (שלומית ליר) created their account back in 2014. The breakdown of their edits is as follows:
- 2014 to 2016: no edits.
- 2017 to 2019: 1 edit per year. None related to PIA.
- 2022: 7 edits. Mostly in their userspace.
- 2023: 21 edits. Again, mostly in their userspace. Made two edits in the talk page of Palestinian genocide accusation complaining about its content and calling it “blatant pro-Hamas propaganda”.
- 2024: Started editing after a 10 month break at the end of October.
- Made 51 edits in October and 81 edits in November (copyedits, adding links, minor edits).
- In December, that number rose up to almost 400, including 116 in December 6 alone and 98 in December 7. Became ECR that day.
- Immediately switched to editing in PIA, namely in the Battle of Sderot article where they changed the infobox picture with an unclear image with a dubious caption, and removed a template without providing a reason why.
- They also edited the Use of human shields by Hamas article, adding another image with a caption not supported by the source (replaced by yet another image with a contextless caption when the previous image was removed) and WP:UNDUE content in the lead.
- they also voted in the second AfD for Calls for the destruction of Israel despite never having interacted with that article or its previous AfD. They have barely surpassed 500 edits, but the gaming is obvious, highlighted by the sudden switch to editing in PIA.
More importantly, there's the issue of POV pushing. I came across this article authored by them on Ynet, once again complaining about what they perceive as an anti Israeli bias on Misplaced Pages. They have also authored a report for the World Jewish Congress covering the same topic. The report can be seen in full here. I think that someone with this clear POV agenda shouldn't be near the topic.
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 2023-04-05 and re-iterated on 2024-11-25 (see the system log linked to above).
- Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 2024-12-18 by Femke (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Adding some additional comments on 2025-01-16: On top of POV issues, the user has a number of tweets that appear to be a clear admission of gaming, implicit canvassing, creating and sharing lists of potential "most biased articles", and clearly calling for specific edits. They've also been cited as coordinating an off-wiki coordination hub for editing Misplaced Pages. If this - combined with the tweets, the forms, the op-ed and the report to the WJC, all under this user's name (that they also use to edit Misplaced Pages - this is not outing) isn't a clear cut case of canvassing, I don't know what is. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- Notification diff
Discussion concerning שלומית ליר
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by שלומית ליר
I believe contents of this filing to be in clear policy violation and have reached out to the arbitration committee for further clarification before commenting further.שלומית ליר (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was given clarification from an admin regarding my concerns and will now be drafting a response. Thank you for your patience. שלומית ליר (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Thebiguglyalien
This is the first ARBPIA report since the proposed decision was posted at ARBPIA5 and it's specifically a matter of POV pushing, responding admins should be aware of the "AE topic bans" remedy. The committee is discussing whether to implement a remedy stating that admins at AE are "empowered and encouraged to consider a topic ban" purely for biased editing. So far, the argument against is that it's redundant because AE admins are already supposed to do this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-03-29/Special_report
Statement by Selfstudier
To the extent that it is relevant, the WJC report was discussed at Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-03-29/Special report. Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by starship.paint (2)
I would to like to raise this 9 December 2024 edit at Battle of Sderot, where there had been an existing unsourced paragraph (On the morning of October 7, a tour minibus...
) that שלומית ליר added a reference to (archive 1 / archive 2) from the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation. The reference is relevant, but I believe it may not verify every detail in the Battle of Sderot paragraph (e.g. "Netivot", "Holocaust survivors"). The reference contains a short paragraph of text and a video that is 4:21 long. I can't watch the video in the reference, but I believe it is this same YouTube video that is 4:20 long which contains the same screenshot as the reference, on the same topic. Most of the video is an interview of the daughter of a dead victim who was on the bus (the daughter had been on the phone with the victim), except for 1:58 to 2:13 which appears to be a quote from the bus driver. The publisher themselves do not have too much reporting in their own voice (on the video), yet this reference was used to cite a paragraph entirely stated in Wikivoice. No attribution was made to the relative or the bus driver, or to the publisher. I can't be totally sure though, due to unfamiliarity with Hebrew. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by xDanielx
@Arcticocean: I don't really see how NPOV can be read as requiring edits which support both sides of a controversy. Our content policies don't impose any positive duties; they only tell us what not to do. The text of the policy doesn't support the notion that a pattern of edits could be in violation, even if no particular edit is in violation.
In principle, such a pattern of edits could violate the UCoC policy, but I don't believe this board has ever enforced it. If it were to be enforced, I think it should be for more serious violations like the double standards that e.g. this attempted to demonstrate, rather than mere opinion-driven editing which applies to the vast majority of CTOP editors. — xDanielx /C\ 03:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Hemiauchenia
This user has engaged in off-wiki canvassing regarding the IP conflict. Take the following recent tweet from the 12 January permanent archive
For posterity in case it is deleted it contains the following remarks:
If you can't handle the facts, just delete them Propaganda on @Misplaced Pages includes targeting Israel, demonizing it, and erasing inconvenient truths, from falsifying war outcomes to deleting Israeli inventions and attempting to erase the reality of Palestinian suicide bombers.
Along with this is a screenshot of the current AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Palestinian suicide attacks. People are of course allowed to be caustic about Misplaced Pages off-wiki, but calling out a specific AfD with highly charged rhetoric, essentially inciting canvassing seems out of line. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- For those concerned that this might be outing, שלומית ליר is very open about their real life identity on their userpage. See (archived). If you reveal your real identity on Misplaced Pages, your tweets about Misplaced Pages on your Twitter account connected to your real-life identity are fair game to mention. There's also reverse confirmation in this tweet . Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Cdjp1
As we seem to be ok to pull evidence from the statements of the editor in question, they have also commented more recently about running interference on Misplaced Pages (archive) in response to a question of if Misplaced Pages can be "saved". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Sean.hoyland
It has been several days. Perhaps שלומית ליר could clarify whether their belief about the way Misplaced Pages works turned out to be a true belief or a false belief so that this report can progress. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning שלומית ליר
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Users are allowed to have a POV - it's a rare user indeed who edits a contentious topic without having some strong opinions about it. For conduct to be actionable at AE it needs to be an actual policy violation. The misleading use of images doesn't rise to the level of AE action in my view, and judging whether an addition like this is UNDUE is not within AE's purview, as long as it is supported by the source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The PIA5 remedy hasn't passed yet, and its interpretation is as yet unclear to me: but in my view we are already empowered to deal with biased editing, in the sense of editing that violates NPOV. What I'm not willing to do is sanction on the basis of someone's opinions alone; they have to be shown to have let their opinions get in the way of following our PAGs. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see some evidence - based on Arcticocean's digging below - that שלומית ליר is using images without sufficient care, but I don't see that rising to the level of a sanction. As to the rest, xDanielx is correct - nowhere do our policies require treating both sides of a conflict equally - indeed our PAGs discourage false balance. Those diffs could be actionable if they individually or collectively violate policy, but I have yet to see evidence of that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The off-wiki canvassing is a problem. It merits a warning at least, I don't know if the formality thereof matters. If there was evidence that שלומית ליר was aware of WP:CANVAS I would consider something more stringent. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see some evidence - based on Arcticocean's digging below - that שלומית ליר is using images without sufficient care, but I don't see that rising to the level of a sanction. As to the rest, xDanielx is correct - nowhere do our policies require treating both sides of a conflict equally - indeed our PAGs discourage false balance. Those diffs could be actionable if they individually or collectively violate policy, but I have yet to see evidence of that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The PIA5 remedy hasn't passed yet, and its interpretation is as yet unclear to me: but in my view we are already empowered to deal with biased editing, in the sense of editing that violates NPOV. What I'm not willing to do is sanction on the basis of someone's opinions alone; they have to be shown to have let their opinions get in the way of following our PAGs. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- While I understand Vanamonde93's concerns, I think that we are required to assess the totality of the user's contributions. Contentious topic editors are required to uphold NPOV. Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics#Guidance for editors places an obligation to Within contentious topics,… edit carefully and constructively… and… adhere to the purposes of Misplaced Pages. The linked page provides that Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view… We strive for articles with an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. If an editor is only adding content that significantly favours one or the other side to the conflict, this is incompatible with their contentious topic obligation. That is because an editor making only one-sided edits will simply not be taking the necessary steps to ensure that the whole article is written from a neutral point of view. As their number of one-sided edits increases, the likelihood decreases that the editor is ensuring our content is neutral and impartial. Once we reach the point of being sure that they are not attempting to ensure neutrality of content, we can conclude the editor is not meeting their contentious topics obligations and we can issue a sanction. This can only be assessed with hindsight and by looking at the editor's contributions as a whole. arcticocean ■ 20:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Assessing the topic area contributions of the respondent (שלומית ליר) since they became extended-confirmed at 17:33, 8 December 2024, there is cause for concern. I counted 19 edits to the area conflict. Taken together, they significantly skew the articles negatively against the opposing side of the conflict:
- Adding a citation for a claim that Hamas terrorists shot dead a group of Israeli tourists.
- Replacing map with a photograph of victims of violence.
- Removing an outdated maintenance tag which was perhaps casting doubt on the relevant section, Massacre of pensioners, and again.
- Adding specification to claims of the use of human shield (specifying who has made the claims), therefore giving greater weight to the claims, in a context where the claims were already described at considerable length; adding another reference to that claim; and adding another.
- Adding an image contentiously captioned 'Weapons Found in a Mosque', then again Rockets hidden at a house, both to the first line of the article.
- Adding, without sufficient context, an assertion that a philosopher has determined that one side of the conflict is culpable and expanding other coverage of culpability of that side.
- On the talk pages, there has been a tinge of failure to AGF although I would be prepared to look past that (it was like meeting like). I am skipping a few further and insignificant talk page comments.
- There are then edits to LGBTQ rights in the State of Palestine: inserting a reference to execution into the first sentence of the lead; adding more references to news coverage of executions of LGBT+ people by the other side of the conflict. At Houthi movement, there is then an expansion, again of the article lead, to add references to terrorist attacks (with follow-up).
- Assessing the edits as a whole, it is difficult not to conclude that the respondent user is failing to meet their contentious topics obligation to edit neutrally in this topic area. As the number of edits is so far limited, if a sanction is imposed, it could justifiably be light-touch. arcticocean ■ 20:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- @XDanielx: Thanks for commenting. Most of the edits do not have a neutral, encyclopedic POV. There is an effort to influence our articles away from neutrally describing the subject without taking sides, contrary to WP:NPOV. Even if each edit in isolation is insufficient for sanctioning, taken as a whole the edits show an inability or unwillingness to edit neutrally. One non-neutral edit shouldn't be sanctioned; twenty is a different story. This is not about the percentage of biased edits but about the weight or amount of them. Therefore, the assessment wouldn't really change even had the editor made some 'neutral' edits along the way. I'm happy to concede that editors cannot be compelled to balance edits of one bias with edits of another, but I don't think that comes into it. In a nutshell, this is about Misplaced Pages:Advocacy. arcticocean ■ 08:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Assessing the topic area contributions of the respondent (שלומית ליר) since they became extended-confirmed at 17:33, 8 December 2024, there is cause for concern. I counted 19 edits to the area conflict. Taken together, they significantly skew the articles negatively against the opposing side of the conflict:
- The offwiki canvassing is a problem...שלומית ליר, you're fairly inexperienced here. Were you aware WP:canvassing is not allowed? Valereee (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- For transparency, שלומית ליר reached out to me, and I explained multiple policy and advised her to go ahead and respond here without waiting for individual feedback from her email to arbcom, which may or may not happen. Valereee (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I take it that per Barkeep49's brief oversighting of potentially-sensitive content in this report (Special:Diff/1269845558), and then restoration of the same (Special:Diff/1269848988), concerns of outing have been investigated and the report can proceed on its merits? signed, Rosguill 19:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's correct. I got a request, I didn't really feel it was OUTING, but as I indicated in my edit summary OS is a tool of first resort. I consulted with the OS listserv and received some responses quickly agreeing with me and so I unsuppressed and restored the material. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Luganchanka
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Luganchanka
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Luganchanka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 19:55, 12 January 2025 Reversion to version of article where the article says "He is a child sex offender" in the second sentence despite consensus at BLPN discussion that this is problematic because Ritter never actually interacted with a real child.
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
18:28, 12 January 2025 BLP CTOP warning given
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
At BLPN, there has been consensus that the version of the article describing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the second sentence of the article is problematic, as he did not actually have sexual contact with a child, only a police officer impersonating one. Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Scott_Ritter_Biography_-_Noncompliance_with_MOS_and_BLP_Guidelines. Luganchanka has been persistently edit warring against this apparent consensus. For which he has been warned by @NatGertler: , which he subequently blanked There has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article going back to at least August Talk:Scott_Ritter#First_sentence, but Luganchanka persistently cites a "consensus" for its inclusion that as far as I can tell does not seem to exist, with Luganchanka aggressively editing to enforce its inclusion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Luganchanka's response is disingenuous and misleading. Look at the Talk:Scott_Ritter#First_sentence discussion I linked above. Nobody other than Luganchanka thinks that Ritter should be described as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article. The dispute isn't about whether or not the convictions should be mentioned in the lead at all or not, it's specifically about the use of the phrase "child sex offender", and there is no consensus to include that as far as I can tell, despite Luganchanka's vociferous claims to the contrary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Luganchanka
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Luganchanka
The intro on the Scott Ritter page had remained largely the same for several months, as you will see on the talkpage it is an intro approved, and reverted to, by multiple senior editors. There has been a recent flurry of activity / edits. While I WP: assume good faith, it does look like those edits are attempting to downplay / whitewash Ritter's sexual offence conviction(s). I have not been 'aggressive' at all, rather I have simply referred contentious edits to the talkpage to build consensus, attempting to do my duty as a good Misplaced Pages editor.Luganchanka (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Please see the Talk:Scott_Ritter, where there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior wikipedia editors, that Ritter's sexual offence conviction should be included in the lead to the article. My edits have simply been aimed at ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article.Luganchanka (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you to @Valereee and @Red-tailed hawk for your feedback. If you see the Talk:Scott_Ritter, discussions -
14 August - Vandalism by removing all reference entirely to Ritter being a "Convicted Sex Offender"
andFirst sentence
. The latter discussion ended on 26th September, and resulted in the intro we had until a flurry of edits the other day, trying to move information on Ritter's sexual offence conviction, downplay it, whitewash it etc. My edits were aimed at restoring the edit reached by consensus, which had been in place for several months until the recent raft of edits with the clear aim of moving / downplaying Ritter's sexual offence conviction.Luganchanka (talk) 06:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for this (nest), I really do appreciate your feedback and advice here!!Luganchanka (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC) (moved from admin-only section — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC))
- As per Rosguill's comments:
"Unfazed by "Emily's" age, Ritter asked "Emily," "you want to see it finish?" Ritter then turned on the webcam and ejaculated in front of the camera for "Emily." Detective Venneman then notified Ritter of his undercover status and the undercover operation and directed Ritter to call the police station."
https://casetext.com/case/ritter-v-tuttle
Luganchanka (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by NatGertler
Editor's edits today focused on trying to main a negative descriptor of what subject believed, despite it not being in the three sources that were listed (nor in the old version they ultimately reverted to.) Efforts were first trying to simply restate the claim, then trying to source it to an opinion piece (problem) from the Washington Examiner (also a bit of a problem, per WP:RSP), then trying to state as a fact what had merely been stated in a non-prime article as an accusation. BLP concern was pointed out repeatedly via edit summary and on Talk page. Removal of unsourced contentious BLP claims and even false claims is not "whitewashing" despite how editor wishes to depict it, it is in accord with our practices. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Luganchanka
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- @Luganchanka: whether you're correct or not, you were edit warring. I believe an indef block from the article and/or a temporary site block would be an appropriate sanction here. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've blocked the user for 48h for violating 3RR based on the report at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Luganchanka, edit-warring to remove negative content at a BLP is an exemption to 3RR. I see that NatGertler mentioned this in their edit summaries and at talk. As voorts points out, it doesn't matter whether you're right when you're reverting an edit that is being claimed as an exemption, even if you believe Rosguillwhiyou are "ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article". The solution is to go to talk, discuss, and get consensus. If you'd like to respond, ping me to your response at your talk and I'll post it here. Valereee (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Luganchanka, if you really believe those two sections -- senior editors, indeed, this one was between someone with 13 edits and somcoen who wasn't ECR, for heaven's sake -- somehow prove consensus was strong, and you think that means you can ignore all the later ones -- at one of which you didn't even respond to a ping, where people were objecting -- then this is maybe looking like a WP:CIR issue.
- But even if you had been somehow editing to support a consensus you believed was settled, you cannot edit-war contentious material into a BLP when others are objecting to it. The solution, always, is to go to talk, discuss, and reconfirm consensus. There is zero urgency to have this information in the article. Including something negative in a BLP is not something you should ever edit war over. Valereee (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Luganchanka's reading of the state of consensus on the talk page as supporting their edits is so far off base that it borders on being a CIR issue if it's sincere. Indef block from Scott Ritter seems appropriate. signed, Rosguill 22:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see RTH's point about the "First sentence" section in isolation. I'd note that the link to WP:FORUMSHOP isn't really appropriate here, as bringing the discussion to BLP/N was an appropriate action (if it was then brought to NPOVN, NORN, etc., that would be forumshopping). I'd like to see some actual contrition around the edit warring and frivolous accusations of
whitewash
before writing this off as time-served. signed, Rosguill 15:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- That's fair; I'll strike the link. My point in including it was that, when conversations fragment, we sometimes get these sorts of chaotic incidents. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Understood, I think that meaning was clear for us here in the admin section, but I could easily see a new editor misinterpreting it unintentionally. signed, Rosguill 15:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am not at all comforted by the fact that Luganchanka has proceeded to make Special:Diff/1269831044. The cited BBC source does not state
masturbated and ejaculated on camera
, saying onlygraphic sex act
. As written, this is essentially another BLP violation, building a case that a ban from this topic is needed. signed, Rosguill 16:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- Having reviewed the other sources, reliable sources do confirm the masturbation claim (, ) but not ejaculation, which appears to be supported only by New York Post, a generally unreliable source. Luganchanka, in light of this clarification, can you please address your decision to include the claims as you initially wrote them? signed, Rosguill 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The detail is in the record of Ritter v. Tuttle (case No. 3:15cv1235 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2018)), so it isn't completely made up. But I would also like to hear from the user on this point as to whether there was secondary sourcing here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seeing Special:Diff/1269853673 here and Special:Diff/1269853955, Special:Diff/1269845272 at Talk:Scott Ritter, I see no comprehension of the use of primary vs. secondary sources, nor any reflection of their past errors in engaging with this topic. I believe that a block from the page is needed to prevent further BLP violations as they have shown no understanding of the relevant policies even after being given several warnings, reminders and opportunities to revise their position. signed, Rosguill 18:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Luganchanka:
- WP:BLPPRIMARY calls upon users to
not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person
. There are some narrow exceptions (whenprimary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source
), but adding material to the article not found in reliable secondary sources is... suboptimal at best under our biographies of living persons policy. - — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The detail is in the record of Ritter v. Tuttle (case No. 3:15cv1235 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2018)), so it isn't completely made up. But I would also like to hear from the user on this point as to whether there was secondary sourcing here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Having reviewed the other sources, reliable sources do confirm the masturbation claim (, ) but not ejaculation, which appears to be supported only by New York Post, a generally unreliable source. Luganchanka, in light of this clarification, can you please address your decision to include the claims as you initially wrote them? signed, Rosguill 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am not at all comforted by the fact that Luganchanka has proceeded to make Special:Diff/1269831044. The cited BBC source does not state
- Understood, I think that meaning was clear for us here in the admin section, but I could easily see a new editor misinterpreting it unintentionally. signed, Rosguill 15:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's fair; I'll strike the link. My point in including it was that, when conversations fragment, we sometimes get these sorts of chaotic incidents. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see RTH's point about the "First sentence" section in isolation. I'd note that the link to WP:FORUMSHOP isn't really appropriate here, as bringing the discussion to BLP/N was an appropriate action (if it was then brought to NPOVN, NORN, etc., that would be forumshopping). I'd like to see some actual contrition around the edit warring and frivolous accusations of
- @Luganchanka: Would you please provide a direct link to the talk page section you are referring to when you say
there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior wikipedia editors
regarding the lead? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)- @Luganchanka and Hemiauchenia:
- It does seem that the discussion at Talk:Scott Ritter#First sentence does indicate some support for that language i.e. (
convicted child sex offender
) in the lead, with some general lean against putting it in the first sentence. So, whileThere has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences
is true if it means the literal first sentence, I do see a rough consensus to include the material in the lead section in some way in that discussion. - That being said, the BLPN discussion had a bit of different tone and tenor from the discussion on the talk page. There was notification about a BLPN discussion on the article's talk page, but Luganchanka, despite having been pretty vocal about this subject in the past, hadn't participated in that BLPN discussion. They instead grounded their edits in the argument that the article's talk page had consensus for the current content, and nothing on the article's talk page had changed that consensus. And that much was true. In any case, we've got
two different forums with two different answerstwo different forums with two different answers here, which appears to be what's leading to the whole kerfluffle. - Then the analysis comes to whether or not the label is a straightforward BLP violation, requiring us to read the sourcing in the article. This NY Times piece, which is cited in the body of the article (but not the lead), does state that Ritter
was convicted unlawful contact with minors and other charges
in the state of PA (the PA statute is here; "unlawful contact with minors" is the verbatim name of the crime). When dealing with a sting operation, PA treats it asan offense of the same grade and degree
as if the criminal had actually contacted a child (unless it's a lesser crime than a third-degree felony, in which case it becomes a third-degree felony). This is an extremely common practice in the United States (there are lots of philosophical questions regarding mens rea and actus reus here, but that's not really relevant here). In any case, labeling this to be a child sex offense (or, alternatively, to simply use the name of the crime in the article) does not appear to be straightforward malice/POV-pushing/libel, and a reasonably informed individual might shorten it in this way. Whether or not that is wise or optimal to shorten it is the proper subject for content discussion. - Aside from the edit warring (which was not acceptable, and was aptly handled by a block), this looks like a content dispute. A heated one involving a living person, sure, but a content dispute nonetheless. I see good-faith—albeit passionate—disagreement. If the editors were to come together and engage in one forum (such as the article's talk page, where this has been discussed a bunch), rather than splitting the discussion over multiple pages, I feel like we might have our best shot at attaining a consensus going forward.
- In short, it looks like the conversation fragmented, and consensus-building broke down. Edit warring ensued, which was bad, but we've already blocked for that in order to dissuade it going forward. A Request for Comment on the article's talk page for what the lead should look like is probably the best way to go forward here.
- — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- RTH, are you objecting to a p-block from the article? Valereee (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Luganchanka has been blocked for a week by User:ScottishFinnishRadish for BLP violations and personal attacks. Liz 18:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just noting that this was a regular admin action and I wasn't aware this was before AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- With this in mind, I think we should wait to hear from RTH but otherwise expect to move forward to an indef p-block on top of SFR's stopgap action, as we haven't seen anything coming close to an adequate recognition of the relevant policies and practices from Luganchanka and after several second chances and nudges, I don't see reason to expect them to change course. signed, Rosguill 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just noting that this was a regular admin action and I wasn't aware this was before AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
BabbleOnto
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning BabbleOnto
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- BabbleOnto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19#Contentious_topic_designation
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 11 January 2025 Sealioning
- 11 January 2025 Refusal to get the message
- 11 January 2025 Personalizing an argument.
- 11 January 2025 Railroading the discussion.
This is all after I warned them about WP:AE sanctions, and they dismissed my warning out of hand. Very nearly a WP:SPA on the subject. I see no reason to continue tolerating this kind of obstinate tendetiousness. Additional diffs available on request from admins, but looking at the user history should suffice to indicate the problem is obvious, I hope.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 9 Dec 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This is a WP:SPA with respect to the topic and their disruption surrounding it has been subject to at least one WP:FTN thread that remains active: Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Gain_of_function_research. The hope was that they would WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on from this, but it seems they either will not or cannot. jps (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning BabbleOnto
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by BabbleOnto
I would first like to begin by point out the person filing this complaint is involved in the content disputes at issue. They have frequently left "warnings" which read more like threats on my talk page and others' talk pages for people who disagree with them. Nor would I be the first person who would they would get banned from this topic for disagreeing with them.
To be honest I'm not entirely sure what it is I'm being charged with doing.
I think in general the user is alleging I've been uncivil, unhelpful, and, in their words, obstinate and tendentious. I know when someone disagrees with you it may feel like they're getting in your way and acting in bad-faith, but that's not always true. I've never tried to be disruptive or uncivil. I've admitted when I was wrong, I've dropped arguments that were clarified to be wrong, I've tried to find compromise, at times begging people to provide their sources and work together. And when those editors refused to, I didn't provoke any further.
I now address the specific edits in the complaint:
1. I don't see how this is sea-lioning. The user misquoted the article. I pointed out the misquotation, then addressed a accusation against me that I was second-guessing the sources (A claim which was never substantiated). I then said any source would have to support that actual claim which was in the article. I don't know what this violates.
2. I don't see how this is refusing to get the message (IDHT). The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it. I replied with what I actually said. What part of that interaction is saying "I didn't hear that?"
3. Admittedly probably the strongest of the four allegations. I'm not pretending I was perfect in all of my comments. I should have kept my criticism strictly to their argument. I ask you to read it in context and keep in mind you're viewing a hand-picked assortment of my worst edits, and this is the worst they could find. Also consider that conversation accused me of having a basic reading comprehension problem, perhaps you can see I lose my cool sometimes too.
4. I'm not even really sure what "railroading the discussion" means. Thus, to keep this section short and to save words, I don't know what I'm being accused of doing wrong here.
All of this has stemmed out of arguments over two sources. I have tried to find compromise, I have tried to negotiate, I have tried to build consensus. I've been going through the proper channels, I've been participating in the RfC, I've been discussing it on the ANI, I source every claim I make, for a month now I've been trying to constructively explain my side and defend my argument against challenges. It's incredibly frustrating to now be facing an Arbitration Enforcement on grounds that I'm not working with others. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Edited. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by ProcrastinatingReader
I've interacted with BabbleOnto in several threads. There's a few problems, but ultimately, I think they have a certain opinion on what the article should say, and will debate endlessly to get the article changed to their position. I mean, sure, reasonable people disagree on how to interpret sources and apply policy, but I don't think BabbleOnto is actually interested in faithful application of policies to write high quality articles based on good sources.
That's not terribly problematic by itself, but most discussions with BabbleOnto are exhausting. Rather than actually trying to understand someone's argument in good faith, I think BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible, and making a superficially reasonable response ad nauseam. They reply endlessly in this manner. As well as misrepresentation of opponents' arguments, on multiple occassions BabbleOnto has either misrepresented sources or hasn't read their own sources. I can't think of a single thread where BabbleOnto didn't have the last word, or a single thread where it seemed like BabbleOnto was actually trying to understand the arguments of other editors in a charitable way. As such, I think it's very difficult to work collaborately with BabbleOnto on the lab leak theory and related articles. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Newimpartial
As the editor to whom BabbleOnto was responding in the diffs of the filing, I feel compelled to comment now that they have defended (to varying degrees) their first three diffs. I will reply as briefly as I know how to their defense of the diffs, as revised.
1. BabbleOnto is now doubling down on the claim that I misquoted the article
. I didn't "misquote" the article - I didn't quote the article, and I explained what my comment meant in the rest of the (now collapsed) thread that ends here. Also, I provided a clear explanation of why I thought they were second-guessing sources later in the thread, but BabbleOnto never responded to that explanation. They are now responding to the accusation of WP:CPUSH with pure WP:IDONTHEARTHAT.
2. On this they say, now, that The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it.
This is repeating a misreading they made in the original thread, where they mistook a statement I made about another editor's comment as if it were about theirs. In this "defense", I see no attempt to read thoughtfully what other editors say in reply to them and revise their understanding accordingly; all I see is zero-sum mentality and WP:IDHT.
3. BabbleOnto is now justifying an edit where they said to me, You have a habit of inserting small lies into everything you say
and You're not adding anything constructive. You're just refusing to explain anything and saying conclusory statements, or lying about what you said
- all this based on a misreading of what I had actually written - because I was going to refer to a basic failure in reading comprehension
two hours later. This seems like a time travel paradox.
4. They don't bother defending themselves on this one, but just to point out the actual issue with the diff, they doubled down on their accusations that I said a material lie
, and that I lied when said that quoted the article out of context. Pointing out being caught lying
and then proceeded to STRAWMAN the rest of my comment to which they were replying. If they had read my prior comment with a reasonable level of attention, they would have understood that there were no "lies", just a misunderstanding or two in each direction. But WP:IDHT again; even in responding to this filing BabbleOnto is still insisting I did things that I quite obviously didn't do.
It is exhausting to deal with this kind of quasi-CPUSH (not quite civil, but certainly push) behaviour. The Talk page in question has seen a recent influx of single-purpose or nearly single-purpose POV accounts, and in terms of editor energy, this one certainly seems not to be a net positive for Misplaced Pages as a project. Perhaps if they edited away from Covid and US politics, their track record might improve. Newimpartial (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Objective3000
Just a quick aside to Valereee's aside: Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn....
Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory currently has posts from 19 editors lacking the edits for extended confirmed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Valereee, this is also a problem at other CTOPs, and is likely to become more problematic. I assume due to off-Wiki forums. ECR might just produce more users gaming EC. I thought it would be useful to put your aside into the CTOP template at the top of CTOP TPs. But that assumes folks read it. Walt Kelly said something along the lines of: “If only I could write, I’d write a letter to the mayor, if only he could read." This discussion is likely better off elsewhere. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: IntrepidContributor was just TBanned from the topic of COVID-19 and indef blocked until the accusations of off-wiki coordination made by them at ANI are retracted. Those accusations are like their suggestion made in their statement in this filing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by JoelleJay
At the very least, can we get more admin involvement on the lab leak page so trolling like this doesn't disrupt things even more? JoelleJay (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by IntrepidContributor
I have been observing BabbleOnto and while there are valid concerns about bludgeoning, I think the proposed sanctions are too much. His engagement in the Covid lab leak topic is driven by commitment to WP:NPOV, which our articles fail to adhere to, and he made the mistake of arguing with editors who were never going to listen (resulting in what looks like sealioning on his part). He's not only editor to raise issues in the topic and engage in good faith discussion, only to find themselves pulled to AN or AE disputes after staying out of the seasoning traps and refusing to capitulate to threats. In a parallel AN case concerning another editor in same topic, I suggest there may be possible off-wiki coordination , but it can also be on-wiki ().
One need only cross-reference names from Feb 2021 RfC, checking those that voted for labeling COVID-19 lab leak as conspiracy, with the names of complainants here. Contrast all these old timers with the steady stream of tens if not hundreds of regular editors complaining that our article fails NPOV, and see that their gentle approach doesn't work . Our chief complainant is already preparing his next case , and this might not be his first.
I suggest that administrators consider a 1 to 2 month topic ban for BabbleOnto to provide opportunity for him to correct his approach, while staying alert to the tactics of POV editors trying to draw them into content debates to influence outcomes.
IntrepidContributor (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by TarnishedPath
Please see this edit where BabbleOnto edited Gain of function research restoring previously reverted content and WP:POVPUSH using a shit source after they'd been told by multiple other editors in discussions here and here that the source was shit. Notably in the edit summary they wrote "Read discussion page. Manual revert. No serious challenge has been made to these changes. Methinks an admin needs to get involved...
" despite them being in a WP:1AM situation. If a clue is not gotten by the editor fast I'd suggest TBANs from both COVID and AP2 is warranted in order to cease their disruption. TarnishedPath 04:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Noting the editor's continued behaviour at Talk:Gain-of-function research. Refer to Special:Diff/1270316266. TarnishedPath 01:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by berchanhimez
This user was given no less than 4 chances on the talk page to stop talking about bans/other editors and start talking about the content. They have continued crying about how they're scared of getting banned... yet they continue blabbing about other editors getting banned for their bad behavior rather than refocusing on the content as requested. At a minimum a partial block from the talk page(s) in question is warranted, and it would be beneficial for a topic ban from the origins of COVID-19, broadly construed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Result concerning BabbleOnto
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- BabbleOnto, please edit your statement down further to fit within the restriction. This also serves as an opportunity to rephrase your defense, which currently is not convincing at first glance. ProcrastinatingReader's description of the situation seems quite apt, particularly
BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible
, which is currently a pretty fitting description of your response to them here, given that you zeroed in on the "superficially reasonable" part and ignored the much more serious parts of the testimony. signed, Rosguill 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)- Ok, having read through nearly every edit that BabbleOnto has made, I agree with the complainants that not only does BabbleOnto engage in sealioning, it appears to be almost exclusively what they do. The discussion at Talk:Brian Thompson (businessman)/Archive 2 exhibits perhaps even more concerning argumentation than the diffs provided in the initial report. Throughout these discussions, BabbleOnto tends to demand a standard of stating the obvious (with respect to the context of said sources) that is absurd, and continues to lawyer for such standards even when the situation becomes WP:1AM. When criticizing sources' ability to account for basic claims, I can find no examples of BabbleOnto themselves attempting to find sources that would resolve the issues they identify--this is uncollaborative behavior. There is a clear pattern of engaging in this behavior across recent US politics topics consistent with the scope of Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics/American politics. The only saving grace to BabbleOnto's track record is that none of this has translated into disruptive editing of actual articles, just unproductive engagement on talk pages. I am currently in favor of a topic ban from post-1992 American politics; if they are actually here to build an encyclopedia and not to provide a punching bag for debate club, they can use this opportunity to learn more constructive patterns of editing in topics that they are less personally invested in. signed, Rosguill 01:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Valereee in line with their follow-up response, I take Objective3000's comments as potentially a basis for community discussion rather than a call for protective action on the lab leak talk page right now. signed, Rosguill 21:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, having read through nearly every edit that BabbleOnto has made, I agree with the complainants that not only does BabbleOnto engage in sealioning, it appears to be almost exclusively what they do. The discussion at Talk:Brian Thompson (businessman)/Archive 2 exhibits perhaps even more concerning argumentation than the diffs provided in the initial report. Throughout these discussions, BabbleOnto tends to demand a standard of stating the obvious (with respect to the context of said sources) that is absurd, and continues to lawyer for such standards even when the situation becomes WP:1AM. When criticizing sources' ability to account for basic claims, I can find no examples of BabbleOnto themselves attempting to find sources that would resolve the issues they identify--this is uncollaborative behavior. There is a clear pattern of engaging in this behavior across recent US politics topics consistent with the scope of Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics/American politics. The only saving grace to BabbleOnto's track record is that none of this has translated into disruptive editing of actual articles, just unproductive engagement on talk pages. I am currently in favor of a topic ban from post-1992 American politics; if they are actually here to build an encyclopedia and not to provide a punching bag for debate club, they can use this opportunity to learn more constructive patterns of editing in topics that they are less personally invested in. signed, Rosguill 01:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have to agree, this looks like sealioning. BabbleOnto, you're new here, and I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt about your ability to learn to collaborate. WP works on collaboration and consensus, and sometimes consensus goes your way, sometimes it doesn't. You have to be willing to shrug, walk away, and go work on something else when consensus is against you. And you absolutely must not insist everyone else keep answering you until you're satisfied with their answers. I've seen editors at both the Thompson and the lab leak talks tell you they don't actually owe you an answer to your satisfaction.
- Do you think you can learn to do that? Because if you don't think you can, this may not be the right hobby for you.
- As an aside, I'm going to recommend what I always recommend to new editors who end up here: Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn. Go edit in noncontentious topics, where other editors are a lot less exhausted and have the energy to be more patient with new editors. Valereee (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Tangential |
---|
|
- BabbleOnto, are you planning to answer my questions above? Do you think you're able/willing to shrug, walk away, and go work on something else when consensus is against you? Are you able/willing to stop insisting everyone else keep answering you until you're satisfied with their answers? Valereee (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Marlarkey
Marlarkey p-blocked from Declaration of war and formally warned to be more mindful of policies, guidelines and best practices when editing CTOPs, particularly PIA signed, Rosguill 19:54, 16 January 2025 (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 Marlarkey
User has been on Misplaced Pages (on and off) since at least January 2010. It seems there is a WP:CIR-related issue on ArbCom PIA/Contentious topics, given the very clear lack of ignorance of the ArbCom Notification and subsequent edit summary arguments. I do not necessarily believe a block will be of use in this case, due to this editor's on-and-off Misplaced Pages editing status (less than 500 edits since January 2010). Either a topic ban and/or a 1,000 EC status requirement (i.e. EC-status requirement is something higher than 500 edits) is being requested. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning MarlarkeyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MarlarkeyWeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly reverting edits which are removing information outside the scope of the page in question. My edits are validly citated within the scope of the page. WeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has cited WP:ARBPIA but that is not relevant to THIS article which is not a Palestine-Israel article. This article is not a contentious topic - it is factual. My edits are WP:NPOV. This article is about declarations of war - the opening statement states "A declaration of war is a formal act by which one state announces existing or impending war activity against another." 1. Hamas is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hamas should not be included in the article 2. Hezbollah is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hezbollah should not be included in the article 3. Russia vs Ukraine are both nation states - the question then is whether there has been a declaration of war. In the case 1 & 2, the removal of these two entries is WP:NPOV and the inclusion or otherwise in this article is in no way a comment on the conflict in question - only whether they constitute a declaration of war by one nation state on another. Which they do not because they are nation states. In the case of 3, the inclusion of Russia vs Ukraine only relies on whether there has been a declaration of war. The citation I gave is documented evidence of Russia announcing that a state of war exists between Russia and Ukraine. I suggest that by taking the action they have that the complainant is the one acting in a that asserts a political opinion about the conflict
Weatherwriter reversions of my edits serve to support a political opinion on a page which is about facts. I'm pretty angry about being accused in this way when MY edits were factually based and neutral point of view, whereas by reverting my edits it does precisely the opposite, allowing contentious and politically biased information to infect the page. GRRRRRRrrr Marlarkey (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Again this makes me angry at the accusations being made against me. If you don't want people editing and contributing to wikipedia then please just say so. GRRR Marlarkey (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Result concerning Marlarkey
Marlarkey, you have gone a bit over your 500 word allotment for responses. Please do not comment further unless directly asked to. I will remove an additional reply that was both over your limit and in the wrong section. signed, Rosguill 00:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm thus inclined to suggest an indefinite partial block from Declaration of war (but not its talk page) as a regular admin action for edit warring, and a logged warning to be mindful of CTOP standards. signed, Rosguill 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC
|
DanielVizago
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning DanielVizago
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Schazjmd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- DanielVizago (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_and_sexuality#Final_decision
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 29 Dec 2024 Added Category:Misandry to a BLP, after CTOP notification and several talk page messages notifying DanielVizago that the category is not to be applied to articles about individuals (per category description,
This category is for issues relating to misandry. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly misandrist.
); - 4 Jan 2025 and 5 Jan 2025 Removing sourced content from Misogyny that states misandry is not a major an issue as misogyny;
- 5 Jan 2025 Changing content in Male privilege to emphasize misandry (reverted by another editor with edit summary
rv, poorly sourced (sources supplemented by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH), earlier version was better, closer to sources
); - 13 Jan 2025 Added "bimisandry" to Biphobia, citing 4 sources, none of which include that term;
- 14 Jan 2025, weird edits adding Category:Female rapists with piped names to unrelated articles, then added those names directly to the category page;
- 14 Jan 2025 restored the "bimisandry" edit to Biphobia, then added a 5th ref that includes the term but is just a blog; I left a 4th-level warning on talk page;
- 14 Jan 2025 (after final warning) adds ] and ] to Hurtcore; those two individuals don't have articles and there is no mention in this article of their charges or convictions, even though the category solely consists of
articles of female individuals who have been convicted of rape in a court of law.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- None
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- I alerted them on 28 Dec 2024
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Above diffs are all edits after the CTOP notification was provided. Before then, DanielVizago misapplied Category:Misandry to 46 articles, which is what caught my attention. Their attempts to add "bimisandry" to Biphobia started 16 Dec 2024. On 28 Dec 2024, DanielVizago added a lot of content to Supremacism about misandry, which another editor reverted with edit summary remove recently added pro-fringe section and put back the excerpt
. Most of their 122 edits have been reverted by multiple editors.
Before the level 4 warning, I tried guiding DanielVizago away from CTOP; they don't engage on their talk page. (They've posted there once, to say "thanks" in response to a warning.) With their refusal to communicate, poor sourcing, and non-NPOV edits, I don't think they should be editing in this topic area. Schazjmd (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning DanielVizago
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by DanielVizago
Statement by caeciliusinhorto
Since this report was opened, DanielVizago has continued to make questionable edits adding articles to Category:Female rapists.
- Possibly the worst edit, categorising a living person who has been accused (but not charged, let alone convicted) of sexual assault as a rapist (cf. WP:BLPCRIMINAL)
- This edit adds the category to a disambiguation page on the basis of one of the people listed on that page, who had in fact been convicted not of rape but of sexual activity with a minor
- this and this edit categorise two sexually-motivated murderers as rapists despite no evidence that they ever raped anyone in the article (cf. WP:CATV)
Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Simonm223
Might be wise, as long as doing so wouldn't interfere with evidence, to get a revision deletion on some of the diffs presented above that make unfounded statements about BLPs. Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning DanielVizago
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I've p-blocked from article space to see if we can get this editor communicating. Valereee (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I want to hear what they have to say, but I'm going to need a fairly convincing explanation as to how they're here to build an encyclopedia and not to POV-push men's rights activism content where it doesn't belong. The IDHT and spammy behavior and the BLP vios on top of that aren't super encouraging, either, but if they decide to communicate, I'm happy to reassess. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd like to hear what they have to say, too, but I'm also not averse to letting this archive with no further action since the p-block is an indef. I've left another message at their talk. Valereee (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)