Revision as of 16:11, 7 August 2012 editCailil (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,119 editsm →Result concerning FergusM1970← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:24, 19 January 2025 edit undoLiz (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators769,720 edits →Prince Alexander of Georgia: Unused header | ||
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|WP:ARE}} | |||
<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 = 119 | |||
|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=== | |||
''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|EF5}} 20:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Lemabeta}}<p>{{ds/log|Lemabeta}}</p> | |||
===Request concerning Plot Spoiler=== | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : ] 04:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Plot Spoiler}} | |||
<!--- 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.--> | ||
# |
# - Made a draft on a European ethnic group, which they are currently barred from doing. | ||
# - Started a page on a Georgian ethnologist. | |||
; 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. --> | |||
# by {{admin|Sandstein}} on 6 April 2010 | |||
;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 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 : | ; 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) | |||
Plot Spoiler has been, for several months now, repeatedly removing material from the lead of an article without making any comment on the talk page. He has removed this sentence the following times: | |||
: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) | |||
#: <s></s> | |||
:: <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) | |||
# | |||
And then again . The user has exactly 0 edits to the talk page () | |||
The specific material was first added in June 2011, and discussed on the talk page at the time (see ]). The user was directed to that talk page discussion following one of his other reverts, also involving this same sentence (see edit summary). And there is in fact a discussion on the talk page '''right now''' that, among discussing the actual sentence, notes that the editor has '''yet''' to make a single comment on the talk page, despite repeated edit-warring. The material was unchallenged between June 2011 and this editors first revert at the end of December 2011. Since then, in what I can only describe as tag-team edit warring, it has been on occasion removed, with not one single editor having discussed its removal prior to my opening a section on the talk page on 23 July. It is unreasonable for people to have to debate the air as a user uses his 1 revert and leaves. At the very least, a restriction requiring the user explain and back up his reverts should be imposed, barring an article or topic ban. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 04:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
:Ankh, the material you claim that somebody has "glossed" over is completely irrelevant to the topic of the article. Kindly try to stay on topic here. The use of "several" was discussed on the talk page at the time the material was added, something that you, up until making one glib comment yesterday, and Plot Spolier had never done. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 13:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
@admins, I am sorry if you have ARBPIA fatigue. I dont know what you would have me do about that, other than not bringing such blatantly disruptive actions as long-term edit-warring and game playing to AE. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 14:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
:Yall may be frustrated, but please trust me on this, your frustration pales in comparison to the frustration of people who deal with this crap. Since coming back from my last topic ban, I have done all that I can to correct any missteps I have taken in the past, and I have tried to be as accommodating to the complaints of "the other side" in articles. I have sought out compromise, and there have even been productive discussions with users that I am quite certain despise me, or at least did in the not too distant past. But things like this, if anybody is at all serious about correcting the problems with this topic area, cannot go unanswered. This material was in the article for 6 months, unchallenged, until Plot Spoiler first removed it without making a single comment on the talk page. Once returned it remained for another 6 months before Plot Spoiler, again without a single comment, attempted to remove it once more. At that point AnkhMorpork, who only even saw this article because he checked Nishidani's contributions, shows up to tag in, and, again without making a single comment on the talk page removed the material. After it was returned, AnkhMorpork waits for an opportunity in which the revert rules will favor him. After a revert was performed an an unrelated issue, AnkhMorpork steps in to immediately, once again, remove the material, knowing full well there is not anything near a consensus for such a removal. Two other users (Plot Spoiler and {{user|Noon}}, neither of whom have said one word on the talk page) join, in true tag-teaming fashion, to expunge this long-standing material, material for which there was a talk page consensus for inclusion when it was first added, and not even a hint of discussion coming out of any one of them up to that point. Yall talk about "GAMING" and "BATTLEGROUND" non-stop. This right here, this is the game. You play it with your pals and systematically remove whatever happens to be on the agenda for the day. No attempt at seeking consensus, no attempt at even discussing the issue or saying, beyond "its POV", what the problem is. Yall want to fix the topic area? Then fix things like this. Thatd be a start at least. Just look at the history of the article, look at the talk page, and tell me how exactly you would have somebody deal with things like this. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 04:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
:Thank you. And if you want a suggestion on a discretionary sanction that will actually do something to fix most of the "behavioral" issues in the topic area, here's one. Any edit that reverted may not be re-reverted by anyone without a talk page consensus, with the standard BLP exemption. This is the most frustrating thing about the topic area, it plays out like a numbers game. The 1RR did not change the game, it just changed the math. If you want to fix something, change the formula. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 05:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
Plot Spolier, AE is the board used for enforcing arbitration decisions. As you are well aware, the topic area is under discretionary sanctions as a result of an arbitration decision. Your actions violated that arbitration decision, and this nonsense about AE being my personal battleground is just that, nonsense. I have said, several times, that I do not want people who are said to be on "my side" to comment in these cases. I am not responsible for any of the comments in the section below (save for one short reply to NMMNG). You however have continued to disregard the requirement that editors justify their reverts. Days after this request was opened, months after you first attempts at revert-warring without consensus, and you '''still''' have yet to make a single comment on the article talk page. You have '''still''' yet to make even a token attempt at justifying your repeated reverts. Eluchil404 recommended an admonishment, and if thats how it is decided then fine. But the fact that even after being brought here you continue to refuse to justify your revert makes me believe that stronger action is required. The pattern of behavior of revert-warring without discussion is readily apparent to anybody who even briefly looks at your contributions. A useful exercise for any admin is to count the number of Twinke reverts shown ] and compare that to the number of comments on a talk page. You routinely revert-war without so much as saying a word on a talk page. It is unreasonable to allow people to use their 1 revert and vanish into the wind, waiting for the next time to tag back in. That such actions constitute the majority of your contributions in the topic area should not go unanswered. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 17:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | ; 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 |
===Discussion concerning Lemabeta=== | ||
<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 Lemabeta==== | ||
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) | |||
:Nableezy once again plays the part of the righteous victim when he is in fact the problem. He believes that the louder he screams (by taking more and more cases to AE), the more sympathy he can elicit from the admins... which I expect they can see through. I also request he immediately strike this offensive statement that violates ] and ]: "You play it with your pals and systematically remove whatever happens to be on the agenda for the day." He's directly leveling the charge that certain editors are colluding offline to "game the system." That is a very serious charge without any merit whatsoever of course. It is just a part of his delusional fantasies that he's fighting some sort of dastardly cabal. ] (]) 14:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
::It seems clear that Nableezy should have never brought this complaint to AE. AE should be the ''last stop'' and not the first stop to resolve issues. There are many other forums he could have used, such as ], but he chose not to. The admins must warn and dissuade Nableezy from continuing to use AE as his personal battleground in which he knows all his counterparts will come and bandwagon with him. If Nableezy sees that AE is effective in aiding his battleground crusade, the admins should be aware that there will only be more and more cases that they will need to adjudicate on this board... and these insanely long threads of bitter acrimony. ] (]) 16:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::Admins, I respectfully request you enforce ] and ] here. @OhioStandard's comments are malicious, false and out totally out of line (e.g. "radical Zionist, territorially expansionist POV"). @OhioStandard, I have barely interacted with you and I have not encountered you on Misplaced Pages for lord knows how long. Your comments about me reveal a lot more about you than they do about me. Please strike your malicious personal attacks against me. I edit far beyond the topic area if you bothered to look at my contributions or user page (]). The same goes for @BaliUltimate's conspiratorial musings. Please close this case as soon as expeditiously possible so we don't have to deal with any more of this battleground nonsense... ] (]) 15:23, 2 August 2012 (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. | |||
====Comments by others about the request concerning Plot Spoiler==== | |||
: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) | |||
* Diff 1 and diff 3 removed the sentence "Several UN officials have said that Israel's actions are tantamount to apartheid and ethnic cleansing". This was agreed to be misrepresentative and Nishidani specified that in fact it referred "two UN human right consultants". | |||
::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) | |||
:::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) | |||
::::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) | |||
====Statement by (username)==== | |||
* Diff 2 is of no relevance and seems a 'padding' diff. | |||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
===Result concerning Lemabeta=== | |||
* Diff 4 makes the valid point regarding well-poising and the stuffing in the lead of marginal views of two insignificant people to create an unbalanced picture. Currently the lead makes no mention of the EU's view, the UN's view but instead Nableezy is insistent that it specifically contains the view of these two human right consultants that are already mentioned later in the article. Despite my request for balance, he chooses to gloss over that the he cites also states," | |||
:''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. --> | |||
''"Dugard was appointed in 2001 as an unpaid expert by the now-defunct UN Human Rights Commission to investigate only violations by the Israeli side, prompting Israel and the US to dismiss his reports as one-sided."'' and that ''"Israel's UN Ambassador in Geneva slammed Dugard's analysis."The common link between al-Qaeda and the Palestinian terrorists is that both intentionally target civilians with the mere purpose to kill,""'' | |||
*<!-- | |||
--> | |||
* 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) | |||
*{{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) | |||
*: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) | |||
*:@]: 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) | |||
*:@]: 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) | |||
* {{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) | |||
*{{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. | |||
: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). | |||
::{{u|EF5}}, OK, I see. Blocks and bans are ], and the block log only logs blocks. ] | ] 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC). | |||
*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) | |||
{{hab}} | |||
==Boy shekhar== | |||
Can Nableezy please explain: | |||
{{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=== | |||
# Why the view of two UN human rights consultants are more lead worthy than the EU's or the official UN view? | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Daniel Quinlan}} 06:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
# Does he thinks "several UN officials" accurately describes two human rights consultants? | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Boy shekhar}}<p>{{ds/log|Boy shekhar}}</p> | |||
This is a serious breach in NPOV and an experienced editor should know that inserting sound bytes which mention the words "Israel", "apartheid" and "ethnic cleansing" into the lead of an article should be done in a very careful and balanced way and the presentation of the views of these two human right consultants was hardly that. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 11:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
*I'd prefer not to waste my time on being drawn into this. But you are making this into a content dispute. It is a behavioural dispute, and (to reply to TCanens) there is specifically a problem in the use of 1R as an entitlement without the burden of doing some work to explain one's behaviour on the relevant section of the talk pages. That is the crux ARBPIA hasn't resolved, and concerns the creation of workable conditions in a work-hostile area. Both Nableezy and I and some others collegially spend a perhaps inordinate amount of time on talk pages (48 edits building that page) endeavouring to find common ground, or justify edits (84 edits). In this case a rapid sequence of reverts by ], ], ] took place after a piece of information in the lead, and and named the two distinguished international jurists, ] and ], who held that view. Leads summarise sections, and they are in the sections, with others. The rapid mass reversion is commonplace, as is the fact that, save Brewcrewer, none of the reverters has deigned to explain their view on the talk page. This is not collegial. None of you appear to have contributed to the page either. You are all active in reverting on it. So please keep your comments, if any, focused not on the content you dispute, but the behavioural patterns, if any.] (]) 13:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
:''"as is the fact that, save Brewcrewer, none of the reverters has deigned to explain their view on the talk page."'' False. I did my objection on the talk page. And as to your 'content dispute' obfuscation, the sentence in question was patently unbalanced and did not require a treatise to explain why that was the case. Neither of you have explained why your edit was not a gross breach of NPOV and | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
# Why you consider the views of two UN human rights consultants are more lead worthy than the EU's or the official UN view? | |||
# Whether you think "several UN officials" accurately describes two human rights consultants? | |||
<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 13:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
*Am I missing something obvious or does the first diff point to simple removal of unsourced content? I believe that's allowed per ], specifically ]. ] (]) 14:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
::It was sourced in the body of the article, as per ], and when it was restored sources were added to the lead. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
=====Comment by ZScarpia===== | |||
<!-- 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.--> | |||
According to AnkhMorpork, the professors of law and and are insignificant individuals and mere human rights consultants advising the UN rather than individuals with official positions in the UN. A rather swingeing, begrudging assessment I think. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%"> ← ] </span> 17:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
*{{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. | |||
:Not that it's relevant to this AE, or that you didn't bring it up for the sole purpose of mudslinging, but "human rights consultants" is Nishidani's wording , not AnkhMorpork's. ] (]) 18:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
::My response to AnkhMorpork's comment is more relevant than your cynical speculation about my motives. | |||
::AnkhMorpork is responsible for the arguments he is presenting here. One of the arguments he/she is presenting is that the (and it's worth reading the Misplaced Pages article) are outside the UN (that is, it is incorrect to call them UN officials) so that, therefore, their opinion has no more value than its being their opinion. Although, in UN parlance, they may not be officials in a constitutional sense, the Rapporteurs are appointed and work for the UN, albeit in an unpaid capacity. They are very much part of the UN. Part of the confusion has arisen because of the use of the word 'independent' in a UN source used in the article. However, what the word 'independent' signifies, as the Misplaced Pages article on Rapporteurs explains, is not that the Rapporteurs are independent of the UN, but that they are independent of the governments of the countries constituting the UN. | |||
::<span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%"> ← ] </span> 21:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::Did you know that a definition of ''several'' : '''being more than two''' but fewer than many in number or kind. That you can continue arguing in this being an accurate description of the two rapporteurs is baffling. What is even more worrying is that this inaccuracy was being used to make highly controversial claims in the lead of an article and several editors chose to restore this edit.<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 10:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::Ankh. As I re-edited all ambiguity was removed. Since the point was stable, removing it required at least a minimal amount of discussion. If you consider that an edit brings controversial claims, normal civil practice is, (a) introduce an edit to balance that claim, a counter-claim (b) take it up on the talk page. Just sequential reverting gets us nowhere, except, unfortunately, to AE. Peremptory reverting without the courtesy of explaining it to editors perplexed by a vague editsummary is not helpful.] (]) 11:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::And yet you understood the point I was making when I reverted and you set about rectifying it without the need for lengthy discourse. Some edits self-evidently require fixing and the removal of these gross NPOV violations in the lead should not have led to their prompt restoration. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''.''']'''</small> 11:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::I corrected your objection to (and misapprehension about) it (UN personel) by naming the people as, in fact distinguished jurists in international law, not a bunch of POV-hawks bureaucrats in that disreputable organization. Had you disagreed with me, a word on the talk page was all you needed to do to find me receptive to discussion. Instead 3 different editors blow-in and revert it, without discussion. I think this peremptory, basically silent swooping to drag editors into revert wars is what we need rules for to avoid. ] (]) 12:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::AnkhMorpork, with reference to your response to my last comment, you'll notice that the you linked to actually gives four '''separate''' definitions for the word 'several'. I should think Nableezy was using the third definition, separate or distinct, which corresponds with what seems to be the main definition of the word given in my copy of the Oxford English Dictionary. However, on Misplaced Pages it's best to be as precise as possible, so, if we mean two, it would be better to write two. From your point of view, what exactly is controversial? Are you trying to say that the comments by the two Rapporteurs aren't important enough to mention in the Lead? If that's the case, I've seen too many rent-a-bigots' comments being defacated onto articles to give you much sympathy. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%"> ← ] </span> 17:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | |||
Plot Spoiler wrote something very curious: "''The fact that neither you nor your counterparts here can even being to understand why the views of two extremely controversial and dubious UN figureheads should be in the lead clearly demonstrates that. Bear in mind that nobody is trying to excise their statements from the article. It simply doesn't belong in the lead. That simple.''" <br> | |||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> | |||
The Lead, of course, is supposed to summarise the contents of the article. Plot Spoiler seems to think that if the body of the article contains a description of comments made by people who he finds disagreeable, that disagreeableness is enough to proscribe mentioning those comments in the Lead. Using weight as an argument for not mentioning the comments might be reasonable, but Plot Spoiler doesn't mention that. In any case, the comments he doesn't like do figure fairly prominently in the body of the article. A second curious feature of what Plot Spoiler wrote is that it shows no awareness that, to successfully make the changes he wants, he would have to engage on the talkpage as requested and argue a case to try and establish a consensus in his favour. Instead, he seems to be driven by a sense of certainty in the correctness of his cause, that certainty making it desirable to ignore all opposition in order to make the necessary changes. <br> | |||
*{{diff2|972891251|Here}} is the topic ban for {{tpq|persistent insertion of ], use of unreliable sources or no sources at all, and ]}}. | |||
<span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%"> ← ] </span> 01:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
:When you say the comments "figure fairly prominently in the body of the article", you mean a whole 3 sentences in the last section. Or in other words, less than a 1/5th of a section that's less than a 1/5th of the article. Fairly prominently indeed. ] (]) 02:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
::Then, that being so, you have a legitimate argument to bring to bear on the talkpage in favour of summarising the article differently. But, I think it's obvious, this is a dispute that should have been resolved on the talkpage rather than through edit warring. <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%"> ← ] </span> 10:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
=====Comment by Sean.hoyland===== | |||
<!-- 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. --> | |||
No comment on this particular case but I'd like to say something about the admin comments regarding the number of AE reports and ARBPIA3. Compared to the number of events in the topic area that seem to me to violate the sanctions, I think the number of AE reports filed is very low. If you maintain a sufficiently large sample of the articles in the topic area and check them often enough you are pretty much guaranteed to see something AE report worthy everyday. I could have filed plenty of AE reports but it's tedious to prepare them. A large proportion of them would have been against editors who come and go, people who wouldn't be within scope of ARBPIA3. You could indef block everyone who edited an article in the topic area over the past month and it would probably be just as bad next month because there is a seemingly endless supply of people who shouldn't be editing in the topic area + socks (e.g. . The topic area is broken but I don't think less AE report filing or having ARBPIA3 would make it better. I don't know what would. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 19:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
*Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on by {{admin|Doug Weller}}. | |||
:I want to comment about socks I think new users without 500 non-minor contribs and one year of experience shouldn't edit this area at all or DS area in general.--] (])/] 19:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on (see the system log linked to above). | |||
::Excellent suggestion, Shrike. Other practical things, any of us could give a list, as I've often suggested to Ed Johnson. One would be IR is not a right. (2)If you use IR you are obliged to '''add''' something uncontroversial and constructive to the article and (3) if your revert is questioned, you are obliged to explain it collegially on the talk page. It may look tough on admins, but check any talk page. The amount of work one has to do there is an enormous sacrifice of time better spent actually building this encyclopedia, and those who are writing stuff rather than engaging in unconstructive editwars by people using their revert rights and little else over numerous articles need some practical guidelines to at least make it a level playing field.] (]) 19:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
=====Comment by Cla68===== | |||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> | |||
Here are the relevant "discussions": . I put "discussions" in scare quotes, because none of the editors participating in those discussions or involved in the edit warring appear to have managed any civil, productive discussion on the talk page about that particular line of text. All I see is unhelpful acrimony. Administrators, I think you know what to do. ] (]) 05:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
*I've edited the article so I am involved. ] (]) 06:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::I.e. permaban Nableezy, Nishidani and Tiamut? In link 3, Benwing argued his case fairly, and was answered fairly and civilly. There was no acrimony. On the other there was no 'discussion' because, when two pleas for discussion from the reverters were posted, only one of 4 reverters turned up (excluding Ankh who just repeated a claim/meme about 'well-poisoning' and exited). There was an edge of annoyance that unclear policy and misleading deductions were being raised by just one editor of the four, but you are effectively saying that people requesting that edit disputes be argued on the page, and that those who revert and disappear, actually return to help article construction, are being acrimonious and deserve banning. The one thing some appear to have learnt tactically from the earlier ARBPIA judgement is that the phenomenon of reverting will form the basis for banning people who are actively engaged on several talk pages. That can be gamed by only reverting and then disappearing so that your presence there is otherwise not noticeable when the talk page is reviewed by Admins engaged in arbitration, who will only see dispute, and link reverts to disputatiousness.] (]) 08:16, 27 July 2012 (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. ] (]) | |||
:::Benwing argued his case fairly, and you reverted him without participating in the discussion, in what you'd call "tagteaming" if it weren't you and Tiamut doing it. | |||
:::Then in the next section, other than making accusations, you didn't participate in any meaningful way in the discussion either. | |||
:::Also, somehow it seems that the fact Huldra reverted (to the version you like) without participating in the discussion either doesn't seem to bother you at all. | |||
:::Your accusations ring quite hollow. ] (]) 15:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::Yes, it does look evil, doesn't it. As I've always said, you can insinuate anything from diffs, ignoring context. Benwing came in editing out material with edit summaries like I '''restored''' yes, the deleted text because it contained three RS removed by previous editors, Moshe Ma’oz (no wiki article, but a very strong authority if you are familiar with his background and books), the and the ], with the edit summary . Benwing and Tiamut were discussing the issues on the page quite adequately. Where reverters start talking to one another, and do not miss essential points evident to a third party, I generally try as a rule not to intervene, because it can't help but look like swarming the argument. When Benwing, turned up after 9 days silence on the talk page, and remarked that he found 'frustrating', to discuss the issues. He disappeared, and the others did not show up. Please examine however who is actually building the page there, as opposed to those who appear to cancel or revert without actually showing up on the page often. That is the gravamen at issue. restores well sourced information, with a plea that those who cancel it address their points on the talk page. That said, some way has to be found to avoid the mechanical use of 1R without due explanation if challenged. ] (]) 18:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::Nishdani, yes, you've built the page in a certain manner and now you're clearly seeking to ] it to maintain a certain POV for a very biased article. The fact that neither you nor your counterparts here can even being to understand why the views of two extremely controversial and dubious UN figureheads should be in the lead clearly demonstrates that. Bear in mind that nobody is trying to excise their statements from the article. It simply doesn't belong in the lead. That simple. ] (]) 18:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I won't reply to the 'own'. It's silly. The article is certainly on a touchy issue. But it is one that is widely examined in mainstream newspapers, books and UN reports. First it was immediately up for deletion, and survived. When this happens, what those who dislike it should do is roll up their sleeves, and work on it, using the usual policy grounds. Very little that is bad, poorly sourced or POV-tilted can survive a master editor (which I am not)'s scrutiny. If one has a complaint of structural bias, just sitting and reverting something in the lead is no solution to the complaint, and silent reverting only engenders edit-warring. | |||
:::::::(2) When now for the umpteenth time you join others in saying ] and ] (please read the links) are 'two '''extremely controversial''' and dubious '''UN figureheads''',' you should recall that John Dugard got banned under the Internal Security Act in South Africa in 1976 because of the government of the day regard his use of international law as not only 'extremely controversial' but subversive. You don't get to Princeton University (Falk) by being a 'controversible figurehead'. You get there by peer-review working your arse off in your chosen field. Rats, I've missed the opening of the Olympics.] (]) 19:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
=====Comment by Nishidani===== | |||
Eluchil404. It is surely absolutely out of the question that ] be singled out for a ban or suspension type of sanction. I don't read much policy, but the 'discretionary' in discretionary sanctions I've always taken with the emphasis on 'discretion'. A general reminder to all editors, on whatever side, not to abuse the 1R by exercising it as a right devoid of an obligation to join the talk page, and respond to queries, is the maximum I would think any of the plaintiffs here would like to see expressed by admins. ] (]) 09:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
::<blockquote>I have said, several times, that I do not want people who are said to be on "my side" to comment in these cases</blockquote> | |||
:::Since this may be doubted, Nableezy has my full permission to send a copy to any administrator of one of the few emails we have exchanged these past months, in which he more or less tells me to fuck off and keep clear of commenting on any AE dispute he is involved in. I probably owe him an apology as well.] (]) 17:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::Im pretty sure Ive said the same on-wiki several times. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 17:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
:::::Seraphimblade. Just a minor note on a nicety. There are a lot of I/P reverts we all do uncontroversally, and I think none of us challenge them because they are patent examples of abusive, mostly one-off IP editing. This note just to refine the point. I don't think anyone here asks that that sort of anonymous POV stuff requires more than an edit summary, rather than a talk page, explanation. ] (]) 18:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
=====Comment by Tiamut===== | |||
* | |||
Is anyone looking at Plot Spoiler's contribs here? While he has had time to revert twice (once since the opening of this case), and comment here four times, he has not made a single edit to the article talk page. That's part of the reason we end up here. There is no collaboration, only revert warring and then explaining why the revert warring is justified to admins. | |||
Also, any honest review of the article history shows that its not those removing material who open discussions, but those who revert to restore. And no discussion by those deleting takes place until after cases are filed here. again, part of the problem. | |||
As to NMMNG's allegations of tag teaming, I have made exactly one edit to this article, restoring material deleted Benwing (not the current material under discussion either). Throwing around false accusations isn't very collegial and prevents identification of the root problem. I think Nableezy's suggestion is a good one that might help change the formula. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
:I have no issues with your behavior here. You made the first revert, which is fine. ] (]) 20:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
::Above, you state differently, but all of that is really beside the point. The text should be retained until a real discussion can take place about whether or not it should be in the lead. It should not be revert warred out and then when editors restore it and open a discussion on the talk page continue to be revert warred out without participating in the discussion. I mean its amazing ... the section on edit warring on talk was opened by Nableezy, commented in by Nishidani and no one else bothered to write a thing there for two days. Random editors just kept popping in to delete the same text again, without explaining why '''until after this AE was opened'''. I find that very revealing. I would have restored the text myself, but have been busy and unable to respond to Benwing's comments and did not feel I should intervene on this dispute without addressing his earlier points first. Those restoring the text are doing the right thing. Until a new consensus is forged, the old version stays up, as it did have consensus from a previous discussion. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
====Comment by Bali==== | |||
===Discussion concerning Boy shekhar=== | |||
Just a drive by comment. Strategic reverting, coordinated by email, to put the other "side" in the soup for naughty, naughty "reverts" has been taken to an art form in this topic area (by one "side" far more persistently than the other). This is plain as day to anyone who's been paying attention. A new approach is needed, but the senior editors ("admins") are reluctant to take an empirical look at the reality, and craft appropriate, grownup remedies. So what has been going on for years, will continue for years. Account names come and go. The game remains the same.] (]) 21:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
<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==== | |||
Oh, dear. Yes, blade my good man, I have a solution. But you won't like it, and if you did, the rest of Misplaced Pages would not allow it. Evaluate the use of sources, the commitment to representing both majority views of this matter (as reflected by a literature review) and a fair consideration of minority ones. Observe behavior - who is more interested in engaging the literature and higher quality news sources, who relies on marginal ones. Look for patterns of reversions by groups of editors without discussion (as I said, private coordination). And then ding the editors who come up lacking. Completely ignore shows of temper and OMG! 1rr violations in isolation. You're welcome.] (]) 22:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
:What evidence do you have to level such extreme claims that there is some cabal that is using "strategic reverting, coordinated by email"? Please strike those statements which constitute a violation of ] and ]. You've heard of a watchlist before, right? ] (]) 16:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Why do you blindly revert without using the talk page ? | |||
==== |
====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) | |||
:{{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) | |||
I used to be quite active in this topic area. I've stopped participating in it largely because of just the kind of aggressive, non-collaborative, anti-consensus-building behaviour Plot Spoiler has (yet again) demonstrated here. | |||
===Result concerning Boy shekhar=== | |||
More broadly, the topic area operates like the opposing parties in the historical film, ]. The level of disrespect, contempt, and blatant aggression is utterly ridiculous. In addition, throwaway sock accounts abound: used for only a few days, or intermittently, every few months, they constitute something like 20% of edits in the area. When coupled with the 1rr restriction, that means that the effect of edits by would-be contributors who refuse to sock, like myself, can very easily be negated. In addition, tag-teaming is very much the rule rather than the exception. | |||
:''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== | |||
If admins are content with the status quo, and are willing to accept the continued domination of the topic area by what are, in effect, partisan gangs who care nothing for the goals of the encyclopaedia itself, and by the very aggressive behaviour Plot Spoiler and friends have demonstrated in this instance, then they should do nothing. The result will be that editors who have greater allegiance to the integrity of the encyclopaedia than to personal "pro" or "anti" POV re the Zionist cause will continue to shun the topic area in the mean time. | |||
<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=== | |||
Full disclosure: I disapprove of Plot Spoiler extremely, and think the project would be much better off without him, and without similarly zealous partisans: It's my personal opinion that his interest in Misplaced Pages is exclusively in the platform it allows him for promoting a radical Zionist, territorially expansionist POV. It's been my unfailing perception that when it comes down to a decision between the best interests of the encyclopaedia and the best interests of the current Zionist-dominated government of Israel, that he will ALWAYS choose the latter. He was a close confederate of one of our most disruptive editors, now permabanned, thank goodness, Mbz1, and once , albeit indirectly, for having objected to that a book depicting Israel as a marvel of entrepreneurial innovation, much against other non-partisan evidence, was written by an extremely active advocate for ], the Israel Lobby in the United States, often described as one of the top three most powerful in the country. In fairness, I should note that he quickly reverted that "psychotic" characterisation after Ed Johnston noticed it, and warned him that it could result in a block. | |||
; 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> | |||
If admins want to see the persistent problems in this topic finally resolved, and want to attract editors to it who are actually committed to the goals of project itself, instead of only being interested in the project as a platform to push their own POV, they'll need to exclude editors like Plot Spoiler, who lack one or more of the patience, collaborative ethic, or just the maturity to work collaboratively and respectfully with others of very different political perspective to develop mutually acceptable and balanced presentations of admittedly complex, controversial topics. And some effective measures to exclude day-use and sleeper socks will likewise need to be implemented. Otherwise, it's my opinion that our articles in this topic area will simply function as vehicles for propaganda, as so many of them do, at present. | |||
I conclude this with an expression of my great respect, and my very (!) great appreciation for those of you who've tried for so long to regulate this extremely contentious topic area, and who have used the very limited tools and measures you currently have available to try to exclude the unscrupulous, POV-driven editors who make most of its edits. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 07:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
PS - Except for admins, if you want to reply, do so in your own section, via an "@Ohiostandard" comment. <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 07:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
==== Comment by The Devil's Advocate ==== | |||
Perhaps the Golan Heights restriction should be considered? The main objection appears to be failure to engage in talk page discussion.--] (]) 15:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
===Result concerning Plot Spoiler=== | |||
<!-- 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.'' | |||
*Am I the only one who is rather disturbed that the vast majority of AE cases we have recently involves ARBPIA? ] (]) 05:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
*:The thought crossed my mind as well. ] (]) 13:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
*:And me three. I'm not overly fond of the thought of ] turning blue, but if this continues, it might be necessary nonetheless. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 14:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
**:Make me four. And I am sure that the ArbCom itself is probably even less fond of the thought of ARBPIA3. But it is beginning to look kinda inevitable, isn't it? ] (]) 14:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
*Nableezy et al, we're not saying you did something wrong by bringing a complaint or discussing it, and we'll address it once we've had a chance to carefully research what's been said. But given the amount of trouble in this area, it does seem some discussion of next steps is needed as well. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
*@Bali ultimate; if you have a solution here, by all means say what it is, but don't snipe at everyone here. That's not helping anything. ] (]) 21:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
*:That's more or less what I try to do already; that's why I haven't commented on the substance of this issue yet. I want to make sure I get the best solution; I can't guarantee success, but I strive for it. ] (]) 23:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
*Reading the comments on this request, I notice that quite a few are addressed to the underlying content dispute (i.e what the appropriate wording and placement of the sentence in question might be). Please don't do this. It adds length to the request without adding useful context. AE will not decide the wording of the article lead, it will decide what of any sanctions to hand out to Plot Spoiler and perhaps other editors. On that note, my initial inclination, having reviewed the diffs is not to block but to admonish Plot Spoiler to discuss article wording on Talk pages rather than in edit summaries. ] (]) 07:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
* In order to uphold good focus in this complaint, I suggest that discussion about ARBPIA3 be moved to ] or another appropriate venue. After this complaint is dispatched (which I hope will happen soon), more general discussions about long-term strategy will be easier to conduct. ] ]] 16:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
*I'm not terribly impressed whenever I see a revert-and-run, and in this area it's just gasoline on the fire. I propose that we first, then, offer a crystal clear final warning here—if you revert, you're expected to (preferably without prompting, at the very least upon request) explain why you reverted, be willing to come to the table to discuss what you saw as the problem with the edit, and make a good faith effort toward finding a way to come to a wording that satisfies both sides (or at least to some reasonable extent satisfies both). Slo-mo edit warring combined with refusal to discuss is disruptive, and is grounds for an article or topic ban. That being said, it's expected that all parties involved will negotiate in good faith, and we won't tolerate "I didn't hear that" type behavior, nor veiled (or outright) nastiness. I'm still weighing whether any sanctions beyond that are needed here. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
*On this particular request, I agree broadly with Eluchil404 and Seraphimblade. I can go with either a warning, or a formal restriction to explain all reverts on talk page. ] (]) 03:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
== FergusM1970 == | |||
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' | |||
===Request concerning FergusM1970=== | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 18:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|FergusM1970}} | |||
<!--- 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 : | |||
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. --> | |||
# Revert #1 | |||
# Revert #2, within 24 hours (12 minutes to be exact) of revert #1 | |||
# Revert #3, within 24 hours of reverts #1 and #2 (revert due to re-addition of ) | |||
; 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 by {{user|Mo ainm}} | |||
#Topic banned on by {{user|HJ Mitchell}} | |||
*2014 to 2016: no edits. | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : Today's edits are essentially repeating made by the same editor back in April, making it a revert. There's also obvious POV pushing with since they weren't in possession of a bomb at all. Editor was previously topic banned for disruptive editing in this area, as noted above. Comments on his of "Now get the fcuk off my talk page. I don't like Provos" suggest similar action may be needed. | |||
*2017 to 2019: 1 edit per year. None related to PIA. | |||
::It would appear FergusM1970 doesn't actually know what a ] is, and how it differs from an actual execution. His claim that there was bomb found in Marbella is also false. Bomb making components including explosives were found, but that isn't a bomb. Given Marbella is over 80km from Gibraltar and the components weren't found until afterwards, I struggle to see how any reasonable person could possibly consider that the presence of bomb making components in Marbella after the fact somehow doesn't make the three people killed in Gibraltar "unarmed"? <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
*2022: 7 edits. Mostly in their userspace. | |||
::::I know ''exactly'' what a summary execution is, and I don't just mean a war crime. It is an execution carried out without a full trial. Therefore it is a subset of executions, which are a state-conducted legal process. Therefore only a state can carry out summary executions, although of course they're prohibited by the Geneva Conventions which all real soldiers have to obey. If a non-state actor kills someone without a trial that isn't a summary execution; it's just an ordinary murder.--] (]) 19:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
*2023: 21 edits. Again, mostly in their userspace. Made two edits in the talk page of ] complaining about its content and calling it . | |||
:::Oops, just checked and it was actually a bomb not just components. However the car was only found due to keys in the handbag of one of the people who had been killed, so the larger point still remains. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
* 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 ] article where they with an unclear image with a dubious caption, and without providing a reason why. | |||
**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. | |||
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. | |||
:Flexdream this isn't a content issue, that's just included to show how part of the edit is obvious POV. The issue is disruptive edit warring by an editor previously topic banned for the exact same. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
::I declined to answer your off-topic attempt to use your own ] to say it wasn't a summary execution when a reliable source (and more available) says it was. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
<!-- 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. --> | |||
:::OK then. What crime were Howes and Wood accused of and which state carried out their "executions"? Answer please.--] (]) 19:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on and re-iterated on (see the system log linked to above). | |||
::::I note that, in this instance, the complaining editor has made a seemingly malicious and false accusation of ] when in fact ] was quoting from the complaining editor's own source, namely the Misplaced Pages article on ]. There is clearly a group of editors intent on pushing their own POV by insisting that the term "summary execution" is inaccurately applied to this article, and as the defendant in this arbitration I request that this is taken into account in the solution to the complaint. Thanks.--] (]) 02:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
*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 : | |||
:Is there no end to the revisionist waffle from Flexdream? FergusM1970 was blocked and topic banned for 3 months after a Troubles 1RR breach in December 2011. So quite where you get "I think in good faith they deserve the benefit of the doubt that they didn't realise at the time they were in breach of a rule" is anyone's guess.... <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
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) | |||
::Well, I'll put my hand up and admit to having forgotten about that; I don't edit WP all that much as a rule and don't keep track of what's allowed and what isn't. My sole concern was to revert the repeated insertion of an inaccurately used term, namely "summary execution" for two killings carried out by a non-state actor without any legal justification whatsoever.--] (]) 19:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Oh great, now we have . Could this be any more POV and misleading, since it was allgedly a which is obviously a different thing entirely. The sooner this editor is topic banned again the better in my opinion based on that. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::What's misleading about it? The target was the band of the Royal Anglians and the plan was to spray them and their audience with shrapnel by detonating 140lb of Semtex in a car. You are attempting to gloss over the fact that this was an attempt to detonate a large bomb at a public event frequented by tourists.--] (]) 19:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:FergusM1970 claims . The only source currently being referred to is Brits by Peter Taylor. I've got my copy in front of me right now and there's nothing in the source that says that as far as I can see. Exact quote please? Should you fail to provide the quote, I think we can draw our own conclusions.... <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 21:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::False. The Taylor book is the reference currently numbered (2) in the article. Reference (3) is the ECHR report into the shootings. It clearly describes the terrorists carrying out reconnaisance and dry runs on the band assembly area.--] (]) 22:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::So what's the exact quote from the ECHR report that supports your comment of "the planned location of the attack was at the band assembly area which was right next to a large residential building, not at the steps of the Governor's residence where the guard would be changed, and that ''is'' in the source"? <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 22:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::Read Para 38-45. Here are some extracts: | |||
:::: ''"38. Detective Constable Viagas was on surveillance duty in a bank which had a view over the area in which the car driven in by the terrorists was expected to be parked. At about 12.30 hours, he heard a report over the surveillance net that a car had parked in a parking space in the assembly area under observation. A member of the Security Service commented that the driver had taken time to get out and fiddled with something between the seats... 39. Witness N of the Security Service team on surveillance in the car park in the assembly area recalled that at 12.45 hours a white Renault car drove up and parked, the driver getting out after two to three minutes and walking away. | |||
::::''A young man resembling the suspect was spotted next at about 14.00 hours in the area. Witness H, who was sent to verify his identification, saw the suspect at about that time and recognised him as Savage without difficulty. Witness N also saw the suspect at the rear of John Mackintosh Hall and at 14.10 hours reported over the radio to the operations room that he identified him as Savage and also as the man who had earlier parked the car in the assembly area.... 45. At about 14.50 hours, it was reported to the operations room that the suspects McCann and Farrell had met with a second man identified as the suspect Savage and that the three were looking at a white Renault car in the car park in the assembly area.'' | |||
::::''Witness H stated that the three suspects spent some considerable time staring across to where a car had been parked, as if, in his assessment, they were studying it to make sure it was absolutely right for the effect of the bomb."'' | |||
::::Will that do?--] (]) 22:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::Did you bother to read the question? It was - So what's the exact quote from the ECHR report that supports your comment of "the planned location of the attack was at the band assembly area which was right next to a large residential building, not at the steps of the Governor's residence where the guard would be changed, and that ''is'' in the source"? Would you like to answer that question, as opposed to an entirely different question that I didn't ask? <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 22:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::I did answer your question. If you read the quotes I just provided you will see repeated mentions of the words "assembly area," correct? You will see a description of actions consistent with a reconnaisance and dry run, correct? On the other hand there is ''no'' surveillance reporting of similar PIRA preparations for an attack on Main Street at the Governor's residence, correct?--] (]) 22:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::::As everyone can see, FergusM1907 is unable to provide a quote that supports his claim of "the planned location of the attack was at the band assembly area which was right next to a large residential building, not at the steps of the Governor's residence where the guard would be changed, and that ''is'' in the source", instead relying on the vague use of "assembly area". <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 06:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::::What's vague about it? The area referred to "vaguely" as the assembly area is, duh, the ''assembly area.'' What's hard to understand about this? Do you see references to "Main Street" or "The Governor's residence" anywhere in the surveillance reports?--] (]) 10:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:I see Flexdream is attempting to revise history again. He's ignoring (which was already in the report) which happened after FergusM1970 had supposedly accepted he couldn't revert further. 19:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:In reply to Slp1's comment below. We are dealing with a previously topic banned editor who makes comments such as to an editor who he is in dispute with. And for the sake of transparency, "Provos" refers to the ] and in the context it was used can only be assumed to be referring to the editor concerned. So good faith doesn't really apply to this editor in my book, given the circumstances. I further note the claim that "1rr reports. In the first, concerning Flexdream, a fairly infrequent editor, who reverted as soon as the 1rr problem was brought to his/her attention" has been claimed. is the history of the page in question. Flexdream emphatically *did not* revert "as soon as the 1rr problem was brought to his/her attention". <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 13:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::I really don't know about Fergus, but you are correct about Flexdream. He didn't revert. He immediately came here and acknowledged the 1RR problem , and 3 minutes later he was reverted by another editor (somebody who has also participated in this dispute with Fergus), which meant that he couldn't revert. But thanks for pointing out my error, I will correct my post below. --] (]) 13:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:So on an entirely new article we have reverts at , and . That's in addition to a POINTY campaign on many other articles. For example after not getting his own way on piece of content where the whole point of the incident was that three unarmed IRA members were killed (and that being pointed out by dozens of reliable sources) he's adding unarmed to every article he can find where people were killed by the IRA. , really? Can nobody see we've got a serious problem here? <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 06:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::That "the whole point of the incident was that three unarmed IRA members were killed" is very much ''your'' personal opinion. As far as I'm concerned the whole point of the incident is that a major terrorist bombing was prevented, and the fact that Savage, McCann and Farrell weren't carrying guns is not important. Clearly different people have different opinions, which is why Misplaced Pages depends on editors discussing their differences on the talk page in good faith rather than using tag-team reverts and manipulative 1RR complaints to get their own way.--] (]) 12:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:I notice Jonchapple claims to be uninvolved and alleges I have "non-collegial, bad-faith attitude towards editing here". I would suggest his comments of suggest the former is untrue, and the latter is better applied to himself. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 09:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::I've removed the uninvolved part, even though I'm not involved in this particular dispute. And how you choose to interpret comments made to other users on their personal talk pages is up to you, but even if there is some bad faith tucked in their somewhere, unlike you and your 14 frivolous AE reports a week I don't let it spill over into my editing. <font color="#004225">—</font> ]] 20:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
; 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 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) | |||
: 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==== | |||
The use of the term "summary execution" for the abduction, beating, stabbing and murder of Howes and Woods is straightforward POV pushing. An ] is a killing carried out with legal sanction by the state which PIRA, itself an illegal group, most certainly did not have. A killing carried out ''without'' legal sanction is murder, although I would accept "killing" in this article. I ''will not'' accept "summary execution." Ever. This is not because of my POV; it's because it's not accurate. Allowing it to be inserted is to give PIRA an implied level of legitimacy that they never in fact possessed and it has no place in an unbiased encyclopaedia. I request that this be made clear to everyone who edits this article in future to prevent further issues. | |||
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==== | |||
As for the three terrorists killed in Gibralter, they had a bomb. It contained 140lb of Semtex, it was in a car parked in Marbella and the car keys were in Farrell's handbag. To call them "unarmed" is as weaselly as a large bowl of weasels in weasel sauce. Their intent was to kill or injure several hundred innocent people and they had the means to do it. | |||
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 for my actual 1RR violation, I forgot about this rule and my previous sanction for it, and for that I apologise. When FlexDream reminded me of the rule I immediately accepted that and have carried out no further reverts to the article. Nor will I do so in future except in accordance with 1RR. However I request that, whatever the consequences of this complaint for me personally, a decision is reached that prevents the promotion of a pro-PIRA POV on this article and forbids the inaccurate use of the term "summary execution" to refer to these murders.--] (]) 18:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:@EdJohnston: The editors on the other side of this dispute, however, are systematically inserting false information into the article to advance their own POV and tag-teaming to make sure that nobody can revert it without breaking 1RR. Needless to say if they weren't doing that I wouldn't have violated 1RR...--] (]) 15:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::@EdJohnston, ''somebody'' has to rule on it. Attempting to discuss it on the talk page appears to be futile, as the reply is always "You don't know what summary execution means." Luckily, for anyone who really ''doesn't'' know what it means, there's a handy online resource called Misplaced Pages that will ], and it bears no relation to what happened to Howes and Wood. The editors who want the wording to stay refuse to justify themselves or discuss alternatives - both Flexdream and I tried the NPOV "killed," but got reverted - and appear to be gaming WP rules to make sure it stays there. I realise that this doesn't grant an exception to 1RR and I shouldn't have violated it - although I genuinely did forget; I tend to edit WP in fits and starts, and don't keep up to date with the rules - but what's really more important here? That I was a bit naughty or that a blatantly POV and thoroughly inaccurate term is being repeatedly put back into an article?--] (]) 17:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::OK, this is what is happening here. The article in question hadn't been touched for five weeks. Then Flexdream changed "Summarily executed" to "killed." He was immediately reverted. He attempted to discuss it on the talk page and was brushed off. I changed it to "murdered" (which is accurate according to WP's definition of "murder," but may be wasn't the best choice.) I was immediately reverted. I then broke 1RR and changed it to "killed," which is NPOV. I was reverted. I also attempted to discuss it on the talk page and was brushed off. The editors in question are simply not willing to discuss the wording in good faith. The fact is that 1RR is being gamed to keep ''false'' and ''POV'' wording in the article, and any resolution through the talk page is impossible because the reply is just going to be "Please don't ask irrelevant questions. Reference for summary execution added, good day to you," "Why don't you try reading what a summary execution actually is?," "Simply reading what a summary execution actually is should have addressed this" and so on. In fact of course a summary execution is a type of ''execution'' and an execution is a killing carried out ''by a state'' and as ''punishment for a crime''. Neither of these applies to the abduction, torture and killing of two men by a banned paramilitary organisation. As I said, I put my hands up and admit to breaking 1RR. I forgot; my bad. However the rule is being used to prevent this article being improved and personally I think that's a more important issue.--] (]) 17:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::This is getting pathetic. ] is now arguing ] that a summary execution is not in fact an execution, although amazingly enough he won't explain why not and in fact has repeatedly cited a source which begins "]" His only aim appears to be to maintain a pro-PIRA POV on the article; he has shown no sign at all of being willing to look for a good-faith solution, which of course is why we're now in arbitration. If content issues aren't actually important then so be it, but I ''was'' under the impression that we were trying to edit an encyclopaedia here rather than simply attempting to be even more narrowly legalistic than a Haredi rabbi in a delicatessen that isn't ''quite'' kashrut enough for him. The current situation is just as Heimstern said; 1RR can be used to ensure that the side that wins the dispute is the one who can out-revert the other without breaking the rules, rather than the one that's actually trying to improve the article. Howes and Wood weren't executed, saying they were makes WP look about as reliable as Andy Schlafly's little toy wiki and I was attempting to fix the problem. Sorry that I had to break a rule in the process of trying to bring the article into line with WP's policy on POV, but what exactly was the alternative? Leave it ''wrong''? So fine, I violated 1RR. Block me if you must, but next time I see something that can be improved I may just not bother my hoop to do it. Frankly an encyclopaedia that thinks revert violations are worse than inaccurate and biased content has problems I can't even begin to fix.--] (]) 21:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
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) | |||
To add to my previous statement, what this issue boils down to is: Is 1RR more important than ]? I admit to having inadvertantly violated one in pursuit of the other, but attempts to resolve this issue on the article talk page were not exactly productive and the other side of the dispute continues to ignore the dispute resolution request I initiated. The article is now locked with a blatantly POV phrase still in place, which may prevent 1RR violations but isn't doing a whole lot to help remove POV-pushing. As I have already said, I accept my error and that I may be blocked for it, but the ''status quo'' where POV is preserved for at least the next three months looks a lot like cutting your nose off to spite your face.--] (]) 16:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by xDanielx==== | |||
:@Cailil, if you check the article talk page you'll see that I asked for protection, with the intention of seeking a solution to the POV issue, before this complaint was even made against me. The reason I didn't go to DRN until last night was that until then I didn't know it existed.--] (]) 18:13, 4 August 2012 (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. | |||
::Also, can you remind me what Troubles-related sanctions I received in 2009? I can't even seem to find any relevant edits I made that year, never mind sanctions for them. Of course I may have missed one, but I don't recall making any.--] (]) 18:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
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) | |||
Not that I'm implying tag-team reverting or anything, but an edit I recently made to ] was reverted by ]. I changed it back (once, in accordance with 1RR) and it was immediately reverted again by ]. Previously TheOldJacobite hadn't edited that article since 21 September 2009, when he and Hackney again carried out the same revert in the space of 39 minutes.--] (]) 21:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
==== Statement by Hemiauchenia ==== | |||
@EdJohnson, Heimstar, Seraphimblade, Slp1 and The Blade of the Northern Lights - For my part I am perfectly willing to engage in the DRN process and will abide by its results; if it concludes that "summarily executed" is appropriate wording I will accept that and not change that wording again.--] (]) 22:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
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==== | |||
:::I know, I shouldn't be commenting here and I accept that you will move it, but I am doing so to make sure that it's noted as I'm sure you all have better things to do than continually re-read this page looking for changes. The DRN volunteers have closed the request due to ] and ]'s refusal to participate. I would prefer that the request remain open for at least a few days, but if not I'm willing to go to mediation and accept their ruling. Is this helpful?--] (]) 01:29, 5 August 2012 (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) | |||
====Comment from Son of Setanta==== | |||
I have been uninvolved in this discussion until now but have read the DRN case and note that some parties involved in the discussion do not actually wish to discuss anything. I reverted the information to what I believe it should be here ] but it was immediately reverted by Domer48. Fergus reverted it back to his/my version and that was immediately reverted again by Hackney. What we have here is a numbers game folks. An edit war which will be won by the grouping with the greatest number of reverters and that's the version which wil stay unless there is some form of adjudication on this. My opinion is that one set of followers are determined to subvert the article to reflect the fact that a stateless, banned, terrorist organisation, had the authority within the United Kingdom to authorise ] and was exercising its own form of law. That also appears to be the case here. Supporters of that banned organisation (which is now defunct) are determined that their heroes be shown in the most romantic light possible and not as the murderers they were/are. It's POV pushing at the most extreme and enforced by a posse of minions. ] (]) 16:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
====Request for Mediation==== | |||
I have now filed a request for mediation on the underlying content issue, which can be found .--] (]) 12:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:...and all the involved editors have now agreed to take part.--] (]) 16:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
====Confession==== | |||
I have possibly just violated 1RR again. I did it because someone reverted my ''sourced'' edit stating that the casualties of PIRA's campaign included Irish security forces (six police and one army.) I raised this on the talk page when I made my edit, and got flannelled. PIRA murdered six Irish policemen and one Irish soldier. This is a matter of record. I confidently expect that one of about six Misplaced Pages <s>reverters</s> editors, who I will willingly name if asked, will shortly submit a 1RR complaint against me for this. I note, however, that nobody is disputing the fact that six Irish policemen and one Irish soldier were killed by PIRA. Therefore the reversion of my edit should itself be regarded as a breach of WP rules, namely ]. Thanks.--] (]) 04:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:OK, apparently removing my edit was ''not'' a revert. Fine...--] (]) 04:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
====Further Allegations==== | |||
] has now also raised a ] against me, apparently based on nothing more than the fact that other people disagree with his "stable concensus" to use a POV term. Given that concerns have been raised below about his use of 1RR to push his POV, I think some more concerns about his behaviour in general are warranted.--] (]) 13:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
====Comments by others about the request concerning FergusM1970==== | |||
====Statement by Flexdream==== | |||
Before this AE was raised I reverted Fergus' edits and they have accepted that. That would seem to be that. Subsequently this AE has been raised over what is really a content dispute and can be discussed in the article. Is it really necessary for editors to raise an AE every time they can? Shouldn't some judgement be shown? --] (]) 19:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
"It would appear FergusM1970 doesn't actually know what a summary execution is" according to Hackney. According to that link a "summary execution" is where "a person is accused of a crime". Hackney has not been able to say what the crime was when asked . Is this really the forum to get into discussing content? Although it does explain why Fergus made their edit.--] (]) 19:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
Hackeny - I'm pleased you've now conceded that it was a 'bomb'. As for allegations of POV - they are easy to make but I don't see the relevance or helpfulness here. I thought my term in the article of 'killed' was less POV than your term of 'summarily executed'. But doesn't this discussion belong on the talk page? When I reverted Fergus' edits and told them about 1RR they didn't undo it or come back at me, they accepted it, so I think in good faith they deserve the benefit of the doubt that they didn't realise at the time they were in breach of a rule. I know I didn't when it was me.--] (]) 19:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
- how is it 'original research' to link to the very same wikipedia article ] that you do? Anyway, I think this is just clouding the issue now and getting verbose. Give the admins and others a chance to comment.--] (]) 19:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
So, Fergus breaks the 1RR rule. I revert the edit and inform Fergus they can't make a second edit. Fergus accepts that. However, Hackney then files a complaint. And now its being proposed that Fergus gets a 6 month topic ban? For a 1RR breach that I corrected, and they accepted, before the complaint? Have a look at the discussion between Hackney and Fergus, and the discussion between Sean Hoyland and Fergus for a contrast in how discussions can go.--] (]) 19:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Sean.hoyland==== | ====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. ] (]) 09:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Uninvolved comment - Regarding the edit that said that the IRA planned to bomb a "public music performance", the source actually cited in the article, Peter Taylor's ''Brits: The War against the IRA'', says that the intended target was the changing of the guard ceremony (as do many other sources), so the edit is inconsistent with the source and apparently deliberately so. I think it's exactly the kind of edit that in a topic area covered by sanctions should result in a severe warning or a temporary topic ban. Tampering with what sources say is far worse than a 1RR violation and the fact that the editor is trying to defend it suggests that they probably need a reminder that it's not okay. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 20:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Except the changing of the guard was right outside the entrance to the Governor's house and the planned location for the bomb was right beside where the band would be parading. This was a planned mass atrocity at a ''public event'' and would have resulted in heavy civilian casualties. They were planning to set off 140lb of Semtex wrapped in a ton of steel right beside a block of flats.--] (]) 21:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::Yes, I know, and I've been close enough to IRA bombs to feel the blast wave twice and seen what they do plenty more times than that, so please don't try to lecture me about it. What you added isn't in the source. That is all that matters here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 21:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::No offence intended, I've been too close to a couple of CIRA bombs and a couple more Taliban ones myself. However the planned location of the attack was at the band assembly area which was right next to a large residential building, not at the steps of the Governor's residence where the guard would be changed, and that ''is'' in the source. The issue here is editors pushing a POV by trying to grant some sort of legal respectability to the murders of Howes and Wood and simultaneously trying to minimise the scale of the atrocity planned by Farrell, McCann and Savage. Unfortunately they're very good at using WP rules to push this agenda, but hopefully the admins will see through it and come to a ruling about terminology to be used in this article.--] (]) 21:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
] | |||
::::No problem. It's easy to find more details about the intended target. There's no reason for editors to put their editing privileges at risk by making unsourced edits, edit warring over stuff like this or having to spend time filing reports about it. It's all avoidable with a bit of searching and collaboration. | |||
::::* "They are reported to have planted a 500lb car bomb near the British Governor's residence. It was primed to go off tomorrow during a changing of the guard ceremony, which is popular with tourists." BBC - | |||
::::* "The target of the car bomb was apparently the band of the Royal Anglian Regiment, which was to have performed on March 8 to mark the changing of the guard outside the Governor's office on Main Street, an area surrounded by a school, a home for the elderly and a bank. If the bomb had exploded, there would have been many civilian casualties." - ''The New York Times'' . <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 21:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::No problem, and thanks for the link. It's not actually relevant as the target of the bomb seems to have been the band assembly area, where Savage was seen making a dry run in a parked car, but either location would certainly have caused mass civilian casualties.--] (]) 22:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by |
====Statement by (username)==== | ||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
That the violation of the restrictions is clear and unambiguous goes without saying. That the editor, despite this report continues to flout it is inexcusable. It also makes this statement by them at best misleading at worst completely dishonest. That they are deliberately provocative simultaneously on a number of articles is blatantly obvious. That Flexdream having just been placed on notice, could even suggest that this is simply a content dispute is quite inexplicable, having offered the same excuse in their case above. This needs to be addressed. I agree with Sean above, having the same sources. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 22:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:The target of the bomb was the band, either during their performance on Main Street or more likely at their assembly area beside a residential block. This is made clear in a number of sources, including the ECHR report which is one of the sources listed. The repeated attempts to remove this information from the article and minimise the nature of the planned attack is the real provocation.--] (]) 22:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
===Result concerning שלומית ליר=== | |||
:Having been warned, topic banned, and being reported again you then go and revert again despite this report dose not bode well. That I will not be entertaining you goes without saying. That ONIH has illustrated above that you have been deliberately miss quoting sources supports Sean's comments above, which leaves nothing more to be said. Bye. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 22:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
::Misquoting sources? Where? Please give examples of misquotes.--] (]) 22:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
<!-- 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) | |||
:::It appears that since they have no excuse for their flouting of the editing restrictions, and attempting to suggest that it is a content dispute has been debunked with nothing else to lose they have decided to insert as much before sanctions are imposed which will have to be removed. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 15:56, 3 August 2012 (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) | |||
:::::Let me get this straight: I'm being accused of inserting "POV claptrap" by someone who claims a lynching is a legal process and signs himself "Fenian"? Yes Domer48, your neutrality is on display for all of us to see.--] (]) 16:18, 3 August 2012 (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) | |||
::::Domer is correct. Since the topic ban is still in place, all of Fergus's edits to Troubles-related articles should be reverted on sight, regardless of 1RR. By administrator decision, and with good reason, he has been banned from editing those articles, hence all of those edits should be regarded as vandalism. ---<font face="Georgia">''']</font><font face="Courier New">'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 16:13, 3 August 2012 (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: | |||
::* ]. | |||
:::::The topic ban isn't in place, the previous one expired. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 16:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::* ]. | |||
::* ] which was perhaps casting doubt on the relevant section, ''Massacre of pensioners'', and ]. | |||
::::::Just to clarify, its the 1RR restrictions that are being blatantly flouted. That they are now seeing things that aren't there, such as me making "claims" of some sort, should be seen for what they are, delusional. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 16:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::* ], 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. | |||
:::::::I haven't reverted anything since Flexdream reminded me of the 1RR rule last night. It's a one REVERT rule, remember, not a one EDIT rule. Anyway, why the eagerness to rush straight to EA rather than try to find a form of words that's acceptable to everyone? Is anyone going to ''finally'' explain why they think "summarily executed" is the appropriate wording for what happened, or are you just going to keep on gaming WP rules to keep it in there despite the fact that it's embarrassingly POV? The rules are there to assist the WP project, not stifle any disagreement. | |||
::* ] and ]. | |||
:::::::As for me "seeing things that aren't there," your comment about me inserting "POV claptrap" is five comments up. Are you seriously arguing that your determination to describe this incident as "summary execution" isn't connected with the POV implied by the word "Fenian" in your signature?--] (]) 16:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::* 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, ] (]). | |||
1RR prevents editwarring and invites editors to the talk page, promoting discussion. Ignoring the talk page discussion, using to get round the 1RR and then and then reverting with a misleading edit summary, can all be addressed here. Content disputes have no place here, and trying to conflate this into one dose not change the facts behind this report.--<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 14:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:: 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) | |||
:Except the editor in question has not discussed it on the talk page until now and has ignored the dispute resolution request I opened. To suggest that ''I'' have ignored the talk page discussion is frankly delusional. I removed my AE request against TheOldJacobite when I noticed that his reverts were in response to an anonymous editor's 1RR violation and were thus justified, EXACTLY as I said in my edit summary. Otherwise I'd have left it open, wouldn't I?--] (]) 14:56, 4 August 2012 (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) | |||
I don't think it was the intension of Admin's when holding off closing this case, that the time would be used to extend the scope of whats described as . The editor their willingness to continue . The articles effected now are, all covered by the restrictions and what appears to me at least as . --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 22:20, 4 August 2012 (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) | |||
:I find very offensive and acknowledged that all those who died were '''unarmed''' when they were killed by British soldiers saying "there was no point in trying to soften or equivocate" as "what happened should never, ever have happened". Cameron apologized on behalf of the British Government by saying he was "deeply sorry".--<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 22:42, 4 August 2012 (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) | |||
::Whether or not you find it offensive is utterly irrelevant both to me and to Misplaced Pages's mission as an encyclopaedia; as the dead were all civilians it could reasonably be assumed that they were unarmed, and I see no reason why it is any more necessary to state it than it is to state that the victims of, say, the Harrods bombing were unarmed. Insisting on the use of "unarmed" in respect to victims of the British security forces - even ''when by PIRA's own admission'' they were terrorists in the process of carrying out a major bombing - while objecting every time it's applied to victims of PIRA, is POV-pushing.--] (]) 23:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
'''Another violation of 1RR by the same editor:''' | |||
''On Misplaced Pages, means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of any editors.'' | |||
#1st Revert of John. John had reverted their edits. | |||
#2nd Revert of ONIH. | |||
#3rd Revert of DagosNavy | |||
#4th Revert | |||
#5th Revert | |||
Despite the good grace being shown here. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 23:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:You're stretching the definition of "revert" a bit now. I left the flag in, as per ONIH's revert, but re-added the Garda as a belligerent. As they carried out operations against PIRA, and lost men in the process, I don't see a problem with that. I'll shortly be adding the Irish Army, as they fought PIRA and lost a man in the process too. I also initiated a discussion to sort out the flag issue with ONIH.--] (]) 23:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
Insulting the intelligence of editors by allowing blatant POV editing and violations of editing restrictions "While bright-line violations of restrictions like 1RR are easy to address" but are being ignored. That is what I find offensive!--<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 10:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
'''Another violation of 1RR by the same editor:''' | |||
====Statement by Mo ainm==== | |||
It would appear Flexdream and Fergus are trying to make as much noise as possible to try and turn this into a content dispute on this noticeboard, when we should be just focussing on the 1RR breach from an editor with a documented history of problematic editing in this area. ]] 23:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:I agree with ]. This seems like smoke and mirrors to distract from Fergus's disruptive editing, refusal to show good faith, and his all around nasty attitude in an area where he is already topic-banned. I really have to wonder what more needs to be said here. He claims to have forgotten the 1RR rule and that he was topic-banned in any articles related to the Troubles? That beggars both imagination and credulity. ---<font face="Georgia">''']</font><font face="Courier New">'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 01:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::What seems like smoke and mirrors is the determined effort to use a narrow and legalistic interpretation of WP rules to stop anyone removing the ''inaccurate'' term ] from an article about the murder of two British citizens by a mob.--] (]) 01:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::You have invented a content dispute to distract from your problematic editing. And your repeated claims to both ignorance and innocence are laughable. Even as this discussion has been ongoing, you have continued to edit war and push your POV in the article. So, pull the other one. ---<font face="Georgia">''']</font><font face="Courier New">'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 03:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::I haven't invented ''anything''. This whole issue has come up because of the repeated insertion of inaccurate content.--] (]) 03:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::To expand: This whole problem has arisen ''solely because'' of a content dispute. Multiple editors are repeatedly inserting the term "summary execution" into this article when it is quite clearly ''incorrect'' according to Misplaced Pages's ] ] on executions. This is being done solely to push a fringe, pro-IRA POV; the idea that torture and killing by a mob is an execution - "a legal process whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime" - is bizarre to say the least. All attempts to change this wording have been frustrated and the editors responsible have been extremely quick to resort to AE to preserve their POV, while refusing to discuss the wording or even explain the reasoning behind it. Any attempt to ask why they want this wording is brushed off with "You don't know what a summary execution is" - we do; it's right there in the relevant article - and any attempt to change it to anything else, even the neutral "killed," is immediately reverted. We can get caught up in the letter of 1RR here, but I think it also may be beneficial to look at the spirit of trying to create an accurate, unbiased reference source.--] (]) 16:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::Or to expand properly: FergusM1970 has been edit warring to remove a long standing term from the article, one that he attempted to remove in April and was reverted at the time. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 16:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Fallacy: Argument from antiquity. It doesn't matter how long-standing it is; it's still POV and wrong.--] (]) 16:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::::As has already been identified "summary execution" was not a 'long standing term".]. It was added on 19 March ] and reverted by Fergus on 4 April ]. I make that 16 days later, and Hackney claims that is 'long standing'? I think from an experienced editor who can check these things that is misleading.--] (]) 14:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::I'd class April to August as long-standing. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 14:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::And I will repeat that that's irrelevant. It's only survived because ''you'' have been edit-warring to keep it there, and it is both POV and factually incorrect.--] (]) 14:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::Hackeny, you said it was long standing at the time Fergus attempted to remove it in April i.e. "remove a long standing term from the article, one that he attempted to remove in April and was reverted at the time." It was not long standing in April. --] (]) 14:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::And... *crickets* --] (]) 02:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
====Comment by uninvolved My very best wishes==== | |||
I never edited in this subject area, but just looking at the by FergusM, one can easily see that it is ''his'' edit that complies with our basic NPOV policy, which is not negotiable. I believe the filer of this request is attempting ] WP:CONSENSUS to promote their personal POV. Worse, he is trying to use this noticeboard as a weapon against his content opponent. If anyone needs to be sanctioned here, this is filer of this request (and not FergusM) per "boomerang" rule. ] (]) 01:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Hackney is that the term "summary execution" gives more information to the reader than "killed" does. I agree that this is his intention. However the additional information it ''implies'' is that Howes and Wood were legtimately killed as punishment for a crime, which is in fact not the case. Therefore the repeated inclusion of this wording is POV-pushing.--] (]) 15:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::I's not only "murdered" versus "summary execution", but also IRA "members" instead of IRA "volunteers" and the removed word "unarmed" ("unarmed IRA members preparing for a bomb attack") what makes your version obviously more neutral. This is not really a big deal, but the attempt to sanction an editor for following WP:NPOV policy makes this case <s>interesting</s> so common. Admins think they should not rule ''at all'' on the content. Let me politely disagree. I believe in ''the simplest cases like that'', they must rule if they ]. Of course they should not rule on the more complicated matters that require very good understanding of the subject. ] (]) 18:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::You'd have to explain how a bomb found in a car boot after the event (found due to keys on the body of one of the people killed) about 80km away doesn't make the three people killed "unarmed"? The whole point of the long controversy over the event is that they were indeed unarmed. As after all it's FergusM1970's contention that when the bomb was 80km away. Obviously that they were indeed unarmed is backed up by . <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 18:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::"Unarmed" means "not in control of a weapon," not the narrow definition you seem to mean of "not carrying a firearm on their persons." The dead terrorists ''were'' in control of a weapon, specifically a large IED. The exact location of the IED itself is not all that relevant; they had control of it. I suspect that you want "unarmed" in there to give the impression that they were somehow innocent victims. They were not. They were planning to detonate a large explosive device in a public location, and their decision to do this led directly to their deaths. If they hadn't taken a car bomb on holiday with them they would not have ended up dead on a Gibralter street, so the inclusion of "unarmed" is at best unnecessary and at worst misleading. --] (]) 19:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::I refer you to the dozens, if not hundreds, of reliable sources that state they were unarmed. Your own opinion of whether they were unarmed or not is irrelevant, except for being evidence that you were not trying to adhere to NPOV at all but to push your own POV. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 19:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::What POV was I pushing? I didn't edit the article to say that they ''were'' armed, after all. However I don't see what's gained by having "unarmed" in there. It gives an unwarranted impression of innocence to them. Unless you're OK with me adding the word "unarmed" to every one of the IRA's victims who didn't actually have a gun in their hands when they were killed? Of course as PIRA murdered over 2,000 people who fall into that category it might take me a while, so perhaps you'd like to help out.--] (]) 20:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::::OK, I have edited ] to include the word "unarmed." I assume you're fine with that. --] (]) 21:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Oh dear, apparently not.--] (]) 21:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
*They may or may not be armed at the moment, but insisting that a group of bombers ''must be described'' as "unarmed" is a POV of enormous proportion. I did not see that level of POV even in the subject areas related to Chechen wars. But this is not why I commented. This case clearly shows the problem with the system of discretionary sanctions. A group of editors with whatever ridiculous POV can easily ] of such areas and rule with an iron fist by (mis)using this noticeboard. That's why I am not really contributing in such areas any longer, just like many other editors better than me who were banned or stopped participation. ] (]) 13:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Is your account still inactive?--<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 14:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by uninvolved Ebe123==== | |||
I also think, as a DRN volunteer, not a sysop that we should wait for the result of the DRN discussion. ~~]]~~ → <small><span class="nowrap">]</span></small> 17:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Steven Zhang==== | |||
Hi. I'm also a volunteer at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Given the fact that at least two out of the five listed participants have made their lack of intent to participate at DRN clear, either implicitly or explicitly, I don't think AE should wait any longer. Whether the decision to not participate in content dispute resolution should be seen as stonewalling and addressed by the AE admins here is another matter, but it probably should be considered. Regards, <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 22:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Hi Steven. I see your point, but seeing as I requested dispute resolution on a Friday night and it's now Saturday night, the editors in question may have social commitments that mean they don't have time to participate in WP beyond making a few more <s>reverts</s> edits to their favourite articles. Maybe we could leave the DRN open for another day or two, just to give them a chance to take part.--] (]) 22:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:I was notified , are you seriously suggesting that I'm stonewalling? The discussion was closed by you . I have a RL, and was away from my PC. --<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 22:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::Domer48, I don't think you were one of the editors he was referring to, but I tend to agree. It's too early to close the DRN. The other two were notified last night but apparently you didn't get the message for some reason. --] (]) 23:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::No, I don't think you were stonewalling - my point is that there were two people mentioned in the DRN thread that declined on their talk page to comment in the discussion. For DR to be worthwhile (especially in the face of AE) all need to participate. As this will not take place, there's not much alternative. Mediation could be tried, but if all don't agree to participate, then again, it's pointless. <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 23:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::I'm willing to go to mediation if there's a chance it can solve the issue. Obviously that is going to require that the other editors participate, and that's problematic. I think Domer48 would be willing to, but ONIH and TheOldJacobite are dubious. However ''anything'' has to be better than this stupid wikilawyering, and I'm sure most of the admins who've looked at this case would agree, so if they keep stonewalling DRN until, say, Tuesday I'll ask for mediation and see how it goes. My aim here is to improve the encyclopaedia, not score political points, so I'm happy to put in the effort if others are.--] (]) 23:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::Obviously that depends on the DRN being open, so I'd be grateful if you could open it again. Thanks.--] (]) 00:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::@all the admins. OK, both DRN volunteers now concur that DRN will not work due to the refusal of ONIH and TheOldJacobite to participate. While I personally think DRN should be given more time, I am willing to take this to mediation instead. Comments?--] (]) 01:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I haven't declined to take part, I frequently clear my talk page. I was actually planning on adding something today, re-open the thread and I'll be happy to do so. I'll also add that I've continued discussing on the article's tslk page since the DRN thread was opened. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 06:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Your "discussion" consists of repetitively saying "Read the summary execution article," over and over again. You declined to explain why you think your preferred wording is more appropriate than "killed," you declined to explain what additional information you think it gives the reader and you declined to explain why you think a summary execution is not in fact an execution. Not really helpful, I'm afraid.--] (]) 14:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:@Domer - you may have been notified about the DRN at 19:55 but you were aware of it earlier when you replied to Fergus at 08:31 ]. I still think you should be given more time though. @Hackney - you're usually very quick to comment, but I think you should be given more time also. Similarily OldJacobite is welcome to change their mind and contribute.--] (]) 09:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::I am quite aware that I am free to change my mind. But, frankly, I would consider this all laughable if it weren't so disgusting and offensive. We are to be lectured on NPOV and dispute resolution by Fergus, who has, without question, violated 1RR, who has repeatedly demanded that he be allowed to have his own way (his idea of a resolution, as suggested on the article talk page, was that we editors who disagree with him simply change our minds, or shut up, and allow him to make the changes he has called for since the beginning), who has moved from article to article making POV changes, and who has repeatedly displayed an arrogant attitude toward those he considers "Provos." We are to enter dispute resolution with this man, who has a track record of disruption in Troubles-related articles, who has been topic-banned in this area of Misplaced Pages, and who is currently being considered for another topic ban in this same area. And yet, the admins, in their wisdom, have decided that resolution of the "content dispute," invented out of whole cloth, should precede enforcement of the long-standing rules that resulted from the Arbcom. We are to take this seriously? We are to trust that dispute resolution will now solve this matter? And we are to believe that this man, who has shown no good faith in the last 96 hours, is going to engage in discussion with a straight face? And, if he does not, are we to trust that the admins are going to do their job, which they have shown no sign of doing up to this point? He violated 1RR, and now emboldened by their refusal to act, he has expanded his campaign to multiple Troubles-related articles, including deliberately ] edits. Yes, ], I am free to change my mind, but, given these facts, I'd say there isn't an ice cube's chance in hell of that happening. You will all have to forgive me for now regarding this entire process as a fucking joke. ---<font face="Georgia">''']</font><font face="Courier New">'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 15:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::Stephen, I don't know where this leaves the DRN process. I have a lot of sympathy for you and Ebe as volunteers trying to facilitate a discussion between editors with strongly contrasting views. I honestly don't know now who wants to contribute to the discussion but I think it's still worth a shot, but if you decide otherwise I'd understand. Personally I think it would be best if several editors just wrote less and calmed down a bit. --] (]) 15:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::Hopefully the DRN process can be salvaged, but if not we need to find some other way to get an impartial judgement about what is or is not NPOV on the article. This back and forth reverting and refusal to discuss the issue is just stupid.--] (]) 16:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Jon C.==== | |||
As far as I'm concerned, the fact that One Night In Hackney filed two AE reports over a content dispute in quick succession and declined to participate in the DRN shows his own non-collegial, bad-faith attitude towards editing here. This should be taken into account when deciding the outcome of the request against FergusM1970. <font color="#004225">—</font> ]] 09:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Jon, in fact he ''doesn't'' edit here. All he does is revert any change made to Troubles-related articles which is intended to promote NPOV. The actual content he's added to Misplaced Pages is minimal if it isn't actually nil.--] (]) 13:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
===Result concerning FergusM1970=== | |||
<!-- 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.'' | |||
*FergusM1970 broke the Troubles 1RR restriction at ]. The question of how to describe the planned bomb attack in Gibraltar is a side issue. The editors on the other side of this dispute did not break 1RR. Meanwhile, since Fergus's last topic ban was for three months I suggest imposing a new topic ban for six months. ] (]) 15:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::@FergusM1970: Do you believe that admins should rule on whether 'summary execution' can be used to describe killings by the IRA? I share your distaste for that language but it falls into the realm of content disputes, so far as I can tell. In any case, removing those words is not an exception to the 1RR. ] (]) 17:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::<small>@FergusM1970 this section is for uninvolved sysop discussion of the case *only*. PLease do not comment here.--] <sup>]</sup> 17:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
*As Ed says above, content is not relevant to ArbCom enforcement. The diffs speak for themselves FergusM1970 has breached the WP:TROUBLES single revert restriction. Concur with Ed that ban of 6 months length for FergusM1970 is appropriate under the terms of WP:TROUBLES--] <sup>]</sup> 17:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
*This is the sort of thing arbitration, and Misplaced Pages in general, is terrible at. Things like 1RR can minimize disruptive edit warring but don't succeed at resolving the actual dispute; instead they result in the side with the numerical advantage winning by default. In a better Misplaced Pages, I would say "hold off on sanctions, let's find a way to resolve the content dispute via actual consensus first." But Misplaced Pages refuses to provide a method, so I guess sanctions it is. ] ] 17:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:*The discussion above is already tl;dr for me, but you might have: do you see anything by any party that looks like it would be called poor editing (POV writing, misrepresenting sources, etc.) by ''any'' objective observer? Who knows, maybe we will actually get an agreement to go after that. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 23:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:*I'd tend to agree with NW (including that I just skimmed the above), but if there's clear POV editing, baiting, nastiness during discussions, or the like, we can certainly act on those things. I definitely do not want to open up the can of worms of arbitrating content disputes here, but just because bad behavior happens while editing content doesn't mean we can't address that. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::*To answer, no, nothing is blatantly obvious. I'm a bit concerned about the use of "summary execution", but I haven't looked closely for fear of getting too involved, content-wise. As far as closing this, I think it's clear that, while sanctioning Fergus will deal with the specific problem of his edit warring, it won't solve the problem of content. And no, I haven't got any better ideas. I just think this is a really sucky weakness of our dispute resolution. ] ] 03:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::*(edit conflict) It also won't solve the problem of the use RFAE and 1rr as a blunt instrument to "win" over opponents and remove them from the arena. I'm concerned that ] has used this board twice within 9 hours to open 1rr reports. In the first, concerning Flexdream, a fairly infrequent editor, who <s>reverted as soon as the 1rr problem</s> acknowledged that they had broken 1RR as soon as it was brought to his/her attention (and the report closed as a warning); and here we have FergusM1970 also acknowledging that he had erred too. I think Flexdream had a point that the collegial, WP:AGF thing to do would be to assume that breaking 1RR was an error, and remind them on their talkage, and only report them here if they refuse. I've seen this done by other editors in other dispute areas. It is clear that strictly speaking FergusM1970 has broken 1RR, but I am concerned that the 1RR rule as written and applied rewards editors who have the bigger group of allies to revert and who use battleground approaches to get their way in a topic area. ] (]) 13:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::*In this case Slp1 where FergusM1970 has already been topic-banned a breach of WP:TROUBLES is recidivism. I do see your point vis-a-vis gaming but don't see it here. FergusM has a history of bans and blocks over edit-warring <s>in the WP:TROUBLES area (going back to '09) </s> an "oops" is not going to cut it--] <sup>]</sup> 17:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::*I don't think Fergus' issues all have been Troubles related (in fact, I think only the last one was), but yes, he does have a history in this area, and yes, an "oops" doesn't cut it. I wasn't defending Fergus' actions but rather seeking to take a look at this whole situation. It seems like editors (on both sides) seem to prefer to revert and report rather engage with the evidence and with each other. The suggestion below seems a possible way forward. --] (]) 22:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::::*I'm just going to clarify my comment above. FergusM1970 has a long history of edit-warring blocks and bans going back to '09 in a number of national topic areas (Israel-Palestine 09-'11 & Britain-Ireland '11-present) but also at BLPs. Per my remarks below I, at this point see what you were concerned about Slp1 (ie gaming) but I also see a lot of gaming from the other side too--] <sup>]</sup> 12:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
*Although I agree with Heimstern that the underlying issue is deeper (I think perhaps fully protecting the page for a while might do some good, but that seems hamfisted at best) we can at least resolve this specific problem with this editor. I concur that a 6 month topic ban would be in the works here. ] (]) 13:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
*FergusM1970 has now opened a discussion at ]. Does anyone object if we hold off closing this AE request until we see if DRN can do something useful? My guess is that this report would have to kept open as much as five more days, if other admins agree with that idea. ] (]) 16:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
**I actually think that's quite a good idea, and would like to caution everyone involved there that for anyone who chooses to participate, negotiation in good faith and in compliance with our behavioral requirements is expected. While bright-line violations of restrictions like 1RR are easy to address, they are generally a symptom rather than a root cause, and we will in due course address patterns of misbehavior like stonewalling discussions, tag team reverting, or chronic incivility/sniping. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
**<small>Moved statement by Ebe123 to section above. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 17:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC) </small> | |||
**Also think it's a good idea; at the very least, worth a shot. ] ] 20:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
**I like it too; if everything goes well and we don't have to resort to sanctions, that'd be great. ] (]) 20:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
**So do I; I'd also like to emphasize that all the participants in this dispute are very strongly encouraged to participate. As Seraphimblade says, stonewalling behaviours are not appropriate or helpful when it comes to writing an encyclopedia --] (]) 22:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:::<small>Comment moved to proper section. Please don't deliberately make work. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 09:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
*With this cases referral back ] & Steven's comment above, I'd move that at this point we consider conduct of ALL parties. FergusM1970 has breached the WP:TROUBLES ruling but in light of the conduct of all parties at WP:DRN and here I must retract me above and agree with SLP1: there is stonewalling here and I'm concerned that there are ] by both sides, rather than attempts to find source based consensus--] <sup>]</sup> 15:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
*:I think I more or less have to agree with Cailil here. Unfortunately, that leaves the editors here to determine what kind of sanctions to be levied, and which editors to levy them against. ] (]) 15:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
*OK enough is enough. There are games being played on ] with a current edit war including FergusM1970 <small>(for clarity only the 2nd of these diffs is a revert the first is the original edit)</small>, DagosNavy, One Night In Hackney, a throw-away-account, Portugalpete (who's ONLY edit to WP is in this edit-war), OldJacobite, and Son of Setanta. I'm suggesting a topic-ban for all the above (except Portugalpete who is ]) from WP:TROUBLES related topics for a duration of 3 months (none of them heeded repeated urgings from a series of admins to engage in constructive discussion and have within the last 24 hours begun further disruptive behaviour), with a 6 month ban for FergusM1970. The reason for the higher sanction on FergusM1970 is recidivism (as well as numerous conduct issues including an attempt at canvassing) but I'd support a 3 month ban as minimum. However given that FergusM1970's dispute withDagosNavy (which I consider them equally at fault for) has spilled over from ] to ] (both of which began within the last 24 hours) and considering the level of caution he has recieved above his behaviour is showing ]--] <sup>]</sup> 16:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
==Luganchanka== | |||
== Slovenski Volk == | |||
<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 Luganchanka=== | |||
''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|Hemiauchenia}} 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Luganchanka}}<p>{{ds/log|Luganchanka}}</p> | |||
===Request concerning Slovenski Volk=== | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : ] (]) 09:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Slovenski Volk}} | |||
<!--- 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 : | |||
# Brightline violation of 0RR restriction | |||
<!-- 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.--> | |||
# Brightline violation of 0RR restriction | |||
# 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. | |||
# Brightline violation of 0RR restriction, done as an IP. | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
BLP CTOP warning given | |||
; 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) | |||
Slovenski Volk is under a 0RR restriction in ] since January of 2011. He has violated that restriction several times since then, sometimes getting blocked for it , sometimes not, at one time coming close to being banned from the article . He again violated his revert restriction on July 2 2012, not once, but twice (the first time by editing unlogged). He again did so on August 5 . While I don't necessarily mind the content, what I find disturbing is a certain I-am-right-therefore-I-revert-as-much-whatever-I-want attitude. In addition, I am disturbed by the way he baits editors on the talkpage (the "deeply engrained nationalistic tendencies of certain editors" is clearly a dig at me), and especially this (a reference about the ongoing Greek economic crisis - really below the belt). | |||
: 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) | |||
; 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. ---> | <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | ||
===Discussion concerning |
===Discussion concerning Luganchanka=== | ||
<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 Luganchanka==== | ||
I cannot agree with Athenean's statements for several reasons. It is not I who has reverted, but I am the one who has 'been' reverted . I made a good-faith, well- referenced edit which was blanket reverted by another used (and collaborater of Athenean) for no good reason other than his own, dislike of the content, under the guise that it was a "pointy edit". Whilst his action is unjustified and counter to Misplaced Pages spirit, I made an effort to appease his concerns by modifying the sentence by adding the qualifiers ''"could be interpreted''" and adding further references (from another, excellent quality, specialist piece of literature). So this was not merely a re-reversion of his (blanket) revert, rather my actions clearly illustrate that I had recognized his concerns and addressed them by re-introducing the sentence in a modified way. I do not think this to be inappropriate action. | |||
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) | |||
With regard to Athenean's examples from 02/07/12, he has again misrepresented the evidence. The first edit (which he calls a revert) was in my mind a primary edit (done by me under IP 152.76.1.244 - I had forgotten to log in). What had happened was: someone had added a second (redundant) geographical qualifier for the openeing sentence of the lede ''at some point'' (who know's when, I certainly did not know), repeating exactly what was ''already included'' at the very start of the sentence (Ie "The Macedonians (Greek: Μακεδόνες, Makedónes) were a tribe from the northeastern part of the Greek peninsula, in the alluvial plain around the rivers Haliacmon and lower Axios, nowadays in the region of Macedonia, Greece".) This is tantamount to my saying "I live in western part of Australia, in what is now western Australia" Now, any native English speaker recognises that this is grammatically poor, containing a redundant second geographic adjective. So I , in good faith, amended it; to be reverted. So again, it was I who reverted by a different user (" A Macedonian"), with edit summary stating that he could not see the initial error (" Where is the second one (ie geographic adjective)?") . In my re-edit, I made him aware that what he wrote simply made no sense in the English language. Essentially, content was ''not'' removed, nor was the meaning of teh sentence changed in anyway, either. The sentence still stated what it had always stated, minus the circumlocution. This is not, as Athenean argues, a case of me arrogantly thinking I am right- the issue was not content or lay-out, but correction of frank grammatical redundancy. NB I have absolutely no issue with discussing otherwise more profound, complex content issues, as can be seen by the voluminous TP discussions here | |||
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) | |||
To re-iterate, I have ''not'' reverted any primary material added by the other editors, merely wish to be able to re-introduce material (which i modified to bridge an agreement) which had been unjustifiably blanket reverted without ''my'' being accused of reverting. Athenian seems to be unphased with the injustice and irony of his charge. | |||
: 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) | |||
As for his other concerns, they're just silly. He is offended by "Well, as I have stated earlier, that wording ("''generally considered''")sounds WEASALish and somewhat counter to what a sizable, even a majority of specialists currently conclude". What's wrong with that ?? I think his accusations are becoming desparate and really undignified. Rather it is Athenean's henchmen who makes personal accusations agains me, and blindly revert and decline ideas proposed by me on the TP based on their personal viewpoints without an academic leg to stand on (in fact, i doubt those chaps have even read 5% of the literature with which I am acquainted). They are ill-equipped to debate in any academic, meaningful, content-focussed way with me because (i) the volume of literature supports my edits (ii) they simply lack the capabilities / effort to even read any meaningful literature; so they're entire appraoch has been to mass-block any of my efforts and make it nigh impossible for me to continue making meanigful edits. The very reason I was placed on the 0RR in jan 2011 (for a probable 3 month period) was due to their tag-teaming efforts at edit-reverting. I was guilty for succumbing to their tactics, however, I feel that i am a competent, non-disruptive, and in fact , very positive editor, and should be able to make minor modifications of edits within good faith and reason without the threat of being accused of reverting; and (as above) I am more than happy to first go to TP for more potentially contentious issues ( as I have been doing) | |||
:: 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> | |||
] (]) 02:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:: As per ]'s comments: | |||
:-> I wish to re-iterate, if I may, that in my view I do not see the action I performed a "revert". I made an edit, it was reverted. I then modified, changed and added extra references to my original edit to appease whatever original concerns were voiced in the revert notes, and re-submitted the contribution. Surely this action does not constitute a blind, malicious "revert" ? Moreover, if I might propose, I will happily take a break from editing the article in question, and related articles, for 3 months; yet my account be not blocked so I may be involved in other areas (I have had no 'issues' anywhere else except the article in question) ] (]) 07:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
{{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."}} | |||
====Comments by others about the request concerning Slovenski Volk==== | |||
https://casetext.com/case/ritter-v-tuttle | |||
===Result concerning Slovenski Volk=== | |||
<!-- 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.'' | |||
*This appears to be a pretty straightforward 0RR violation, so I'm fine with either a 3 month block or an indef with the first year covered under ARBMAC. ] (]) 15:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
*Since the last block was one month, three months would be appropriate. Not particularly sure that an indef is needed here. ] (]) 03:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
**@Slovenski Volk: What other articles/topics do you have in mind? ] (]) 12:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
<small>@Slovenski Volk: please note that this section (as it clearly states at its top) is for uninvolved admin comments ONLY. Please do not comment here--] <sup>]</sup> 11:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
] (]) 18:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*There is clear violation (3 times) of 0RR within 5 weeks by SV and a clear ] re: reversion going on in their replies here so I'd concur with a 3 month block under the terms of ARBMAC--] <sup>]</sup> 12:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by NatGertler==== | |||
== Crystalfile == | |||
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)==== | |||
{{hat|Blocked 24h. ] (]) 03:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
===Request concerning Crystalfile=== | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : ] 21:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
===Result concerning Luganchanka=== | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Crystalfile}} | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
<!-- 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. --> | |||
*<!-- | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
--> | |||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
:@]: 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) | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
* @], 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) | |||
<!-- 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. --> | |||
*:@], 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. | |||
Violation of 1RR at ] | |||
*: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) | |||
#, partial revert of | |||
*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) | |||
#, straight revert of | |||
*: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) | |||
Violation of 1RR at Yasser Arafat | |||
*::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) | |||
#, straight revert of | |||
*:::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) | |||
#, straight revert of | |||
*::::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) | |||
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) : | |||
*::::::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) | |||
<!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. --> | |||
*:::::::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) | |||
#Informed of the 1RR and the violation at CAMERA (the user did not self-revert) | |||
*:::::::{{yo|Luganchanka}} | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
*:::::::] 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 ]. | |||
{{admin|Zero0000}} detailed several instances of distorting the sources cited at ] at the talk page (]). The user has not answered any of the concerns and instead reverted to include the poorly sourced polemic material. In addition, the user's edits in the topic area show very obvious signs of off-wiki coordination. No "new" user makes a series of reverts across a number of articles without being directed to (see the following series of edits, all reverts that were under discussion about material that was under discussion at article talk pages: | |||
*:::::::— ] <sub>]</sub> 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* restores, word for word, material removed , first added by Jiujitsuguy | |||
*{{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) | |||
*Immediately followed by , revert of (listed above) | |||
*:{{yo|Luganchanka|Hemiauchenia}} | |||
*Immediately followed by , revert of | |||
*: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. | |||
*Immediately followed by , revert of (listed above) | |||
*: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. | |||
*Immediately followed by , revert of . | |||
*: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. | |||
The editors edit was to ANI in a discussion about topic-banning Shrike, a "pro-I" editor, from a different topic. I hate to break the news, but "new" users dont find pages like these out of the blue. "New" users do not go on a revert spree spanning multiple articles. "New" users do not use the exact same sentence that was inserted weeks prior without somebody telling them to. Besides the now two 1RR violations, there are several instances of distorting cited sources (as discussed by Zero in the talk page section linked above), and clear evidence, or as clear as possible, of meatpuppetry. | |||
*: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. | |||
And immediately after being informed of this report, this "new" user makes edit to a page that I largely wrote, reinserting largely the same material added and discussed ]. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
*:— ] <sub>]</sub> 15:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:After being reverted, the user , making it now three 1RR violations in the span of one day. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 21:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
*::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) | |||
And finally, in response to the excuse making below, the user was explicitly notified of the 1RR, and explicitly told how their edits to CAMERA violated that 1RR. That doesnt even begin to get into the behavior of a spree of reverts, or the behavior at ]. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 22:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
*:Just noting that this was a regular admin action and I wasn't aware this was before AE. ] (]) 18:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:One last point. The 1RR violating edit at ] '''still'' can be self-reverted. The user has neglected to do so. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 22:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
*::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) | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
===Discussion concerning Crystalfire=== | |||
====Statement by Crystalfire==== | |||
I am trying to help with the article and he is not helping me. I asked him which is undo number 2 but he ignored me. I never knew I was undoing anyone at Al Azhar. I did one undo which changed it because of Maliks comment. Where is the second undo? I am sorry and will be more careful to listen to the rules. Please help me as I am trying to be a good editor. | |||
At Al Azhar I did '''one''' undo to fix a problem and not two. Nableezy is not being fair as I am editing properly after he told me this rule. I also asked him for help http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Yasser_Arafat#Unacceptable_edits but he does not want to. | |||
====Comments by others about the request concerning Crystalfire==== | |||
=====Comment by Activism1234===== | |||
Crystalfire clearly ] what he did wrong, and a simple explanation of it to him would've sufficed. Nableezy is also making assumptions that he's a sockpuppet, which I doubt he can back up, although is similar (but not exact) to accusations he ] in this closed ARBPIA request. The admin there also advised Nableezy "to be more circumspect about what cases he brings here." | |||
And actually, I can see how new editors wouldn't know about 1RR (the same was true about me when I first joined, but once I found out about it I stopped and self-reverted). That's not some out-of-this-world scenario. | |||
Just explaining to Crystalfile what 1RR is and how it applies should be enough, and good-faith edits certainly shouldn't be brought here. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']]'''</small> 22:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Aren't there big boxes on top of ] and ] that warn editors about ARBPIA—''including 1RR''? — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::Malik, yes there are. And their whole point is so editors don't violate 1RR. Unfortuantely, at least in my case, I just wanted to get into editing and ignored the big box at the top, which was very stupid of me, and I make sure not to violate 1RR after I was notified... It was a good faith edit, and that's what I brought up here - we should probably assume good faith for now, explain to him what 1RR is, and if he violates it again, then do the necessary whatever it is. | |||
::But that was just me... I don't intend to get overly-involved here, I was just giving my 2 cents. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']]'''</small> 22:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
Malik I only undid you because I thought I was fixing the reason why you undid me by making it clearer in the article. I thought I was helping and I only did one undo on this article after Nableezy told me about this rule. I am discussing this on the talk and will be very careful. I didnt understand this rule because I thought I only did one undo. Thank you. | |||
:Crystal, I think you need to comment in your own section, and also please sign your posts so Malik doesn't accidentally think your comment was from me. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']]'''</small> 22:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
===Result concerning Crystalfire=== | |||
<!-- 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.'' | |||
*Looks to me like a straight up case of a 1RR violation, so a 24 hour block would be in order here; I'll do it myself in just a couple minutes, because it looks like my connection is finally coming back and I can log into my admin account. I don't think we need to jump to topic bans just yet, though; let's see if a short block works first. ] (]) 23:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
{{hab}} | |||
==BabbleOnto== | |||
== Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount == | |||
<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=== | |||
''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|ජපස}} 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|BabbleOnto}}<p>{{ds/log|BabbleOnto}}</p> | |||
===Request concerning Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount=== | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : ] (]) 21:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Volunteer Marek}} and {{userlinks|MyMoloboaccount}} | |||
<!--- 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.--> | ||
# 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. | |||
Volunteer Marek (VM) has e-mailed me via wikipediamail on 28 Jul 2012 and called me a "shithead," said that he missed me, and that I'd encourage Molobo to get annoying. I am willing to forward this mail to a sysop, but I want to know first how this appropriately (i.e. legally) works. When I received this mail, I had not come across VM or Molobo for months, I haven't even edited between 5 April and 19 July at all, Molobo has not edited during the last months either. I had (?) however been a target of a subgroup of the ], where VM and Molobo were (?) active members. | |||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | |||
On the same day I received the e-mail, I edited the article ]. VM has only edited this article before to twice revert an IP and do a minor edit on , , and also , so I did not interfere with him at that point. A user had added a large, unsourced piece of text to the article , which three other users - Herkus Monte (HM), M.K. and an IP objected to because of WP:UNDUE and the lack of sources . My first edits were one minor c/e and adding a reference to a corrected sentence . Then HM made a few other edits. | |||
<!-- 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 ]): | |||
Thereafter, VM came to the article and already in the first 24 hours violated 3RR: | |||
<!-- 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. --> | |||
# VM "joins" editing with a revert of HM () | |||
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on (see the system log linked to above). | |||
# VM reverts HM () | |||
# VM reverts HM and IP (), "battleground" accusation in e/s | |||
# VM reverts HM () | |||
VM also added references he found on the web. I can not accept the addition of references which do not support the sentences referenced to them: VM did look in the source again, as is obvious from the diff before, and still restored it after my removal, so that it is now in the protected version - making wp not only unreliable, but misleading. | |||
VM also engaged in a kind of retaliatory tagging: He announced that unsourced sentences of the newly added section could only be removed when all other sentences lacking references would be removed, too , and started to tag as cn various sentences throughout the article which did not have an inline ref , thereby overlooking the fact that there are a lot of references given, just not inline but in the section for sources, and that most (all?) of these sentences have been in there and stable for years. Just before the article was protected, he started to remove sentences tagged by him, e.g. . | |||
What triggered this AE request is the following talk page posting I read this morning, where VM attacks me as follows: | |||
#: "You're lying your ass off," "little fake-diff," "you engage in these kind of deceitful tactics regularly," "*YOU* are misrepresenting the Bock source," "you're mistaking 'UNDUE' with 'IDONTLIKEIT'," "it's the same nationalist little group that's been running rough shod over Misplaced Pages content policies for years," "tag teaming," "your knee-jerk mindless support of your fellow POV pusher," "ganging up on me just to gang up" | |||
I have not responded to that anymore. | |||
Volunteer Marek has also assumed bad faith, insulted and accused other people recently (Jimbo got annoyed too ) so it is not ''just'' me but a general problem, as his block log and these random reactions indicate . | |||
His behavior at ] to other editors was no different, examples from his first talk page contributions directed at various editors, showing that ABF was there from the beginning, are | |||
# VM's first post to talk page: attacks HM with "tendentious and battleground-y," "battleground" and motivated by "IDONTLIKEIT" | |||
# accusation of POV-pushing and double standard | |||
# accusation of bad faith and disruption | |||
# accusation of tag teaming | |||
# accusation of "instead of mindlessly reverting and removing sourced text you actually try and do some constructive work" | |||
# accusation of "trying to sabotage good faithed attempts" | |||
# "Sorry to get all bad faith on you, but I know bait when I see it - this is just mindless tag-teamed reverts trying to draw me into a 3RR violation" | |||
#and so on | |||
Molobo, VM's tag team partner from the EEML, who was mentioned in VM's e-mail (28 Jul) as getting annoying when "encouraged," has not edited since 7 April. Let's look at his first contributions upon returning one by one: | |||
# Molobo returned to editing on 4 Aug, reverting a move HM had made () | |||
# Molobo reverted an edit of mine () (breaking the ref fmt btw) | |||
# then reverted some edits from an article where the EEML had attacked me before (was subject to the EEML arbcom and of that case), last edit before Molobo was made by HM | |||
# Molobo returned to previous article and makes another edit to a talkpage | |||
# Molobo arrived at the Königsberg article where also Piotrus, ex-(?)-leader of the EEML, had arrived even before | |||
I do not believe that Molobo returned from his break by coincidence just to revert HM, then revert me, then go straight to the Königsberg article, given the content of VM's email and the recorded history of VM's and Molobo's cooperation within the EEML. | |||
I do not want to have to put up with all that again and again. ] (]) 21:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
; 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. --> | |||
both editors have been subject to EEML | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | ||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> | <!-- 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) | |||
In response to VM's post below: | |||
*VM insists below that the references added by him were fine. I encourage sysops to evaluate the following analysis of mine to decide whether I am "lying my ass off" as VM said or not. Diffs, quotes and links to the sources are included: | |||
{{Collapse top|title=Response to VM, detailed analysis of his references not sourcing the sentences they had been added to}} | |||
lines sourced to Wodecki/Krasovec by you and removed by me (e/s "per failed verification for the most part") were | |||
*'''''quote 1st sentence:''' "<nowiki>In 1545 in Königsberg the first Polish catechism was printed by ].<ref name="bibel">{{cite book | title=Interpretation Der Bibel | publisher=Continuum International Publishing Group | author=Krašovec, Jože | year=1988 | pages=1223 |isbn=1850759693}}</ref></nowiki>"'': | |||
:'''failed verification:''' Given ref does not mention 1545 at all, neither does it say anything about the first Polish catechism. | |||
*'''''quote 2nd sentence:''' "<nowiki>In 1551 the first translation of the ] in ] came out, issued by ].<ref name="bibel"/></nowiki>"'': | |||
:'''failed verification:''' Given ref however says that ''" in 1551 published first the gospel of Matthew, some months later all four gospels, in 1552 other New Testament books, and finally in 1533 '''''' the whole new Testament in one volume."'' Either the 1533 date or the preceding dates are most certainly a typo, as the sentence makes no sense as it is > not a good source for these dates. Nonetheless, even though the source on the (not attributed!) page 1222 states that ''"the publishing of the first printed non-Catholic translation of the New Testament was procured by Jan Seklucjan"'' with M. ''"as translator"'' (ibid), the source does not say that happened in 1551, but as shown above gives the conflicting, not trustworthy date of 1533; and it does not say that M "issued" the NT. The source thus contradicts the sentence except for the rump where it says that the translation came out. | |||
*'''''quote 3rd and 4th senternces:''' <nowiki>Murzynowski's collections of sermons were delivered by ] and in 1574 by ]. The works of ] were printed here and ] announced here the publication of his ''Chronicle of Poland, Lithuania, Żmudz and all Rus''.<ref></ref></nowiki>"'': | |||
:'''failed verification:''' No reference to these sentences in the given ref at all: neither cited names nor cited dates are on that (or the next) page. | |||
Obviously, the source does not support what you sourced to it. <small>Apart from that, it was not published in 1988, the author was Wodecki not Krašovec, and bare urls are not recommended as refs.</small> | |||
Since you cited the source here, you should have noticed at least when you revisited the source that nothing in that source supports the sentences you sourced to it as I have shown in detail above. You failed to do so not only when you added the source in the first place, which is not good, but you also failed to do so when you went through the source again for your above post to quote the only line from the source referencing at least something from the text (rump of the 2nd sentence), which is far worse. And then you even accuse me of being "misleading" and "not true" in my e/s about that... | |||
{{Collapse bottom}} | |||
:::Note to VM's response, quote . The "section right above" referred to in VM's post is , titled "Illustrative example of Skapperod's misreprentations". This is however , not . The current version differs, VM is comparing apples and oranges here. Also, '''sysops need to closely examine this, as "the source" he used in his response here is not the one he used in the article!''' Please compare: | |||
:::quote VM : ''"The relevant current text of the article states: “ In 1545 in Königsberg a Polish catechism was printed by Jan Seklucjan” The source states: “In 1545 Seklucjan published a “Simple Text of the Catechism for the Simple People” "'' | |||
:::Compare the source given here by VM (i.e. Frick) to the reference given in (i.e. Krasovec, ed.), it is a completely different one! The reference in the article is still the one I analyzed above and does not mention 1545 at all! In his quote from the source for the second sentence ''" and finally in 1553 the whole New Testament in one volume"'', he misquoted "15'''3'''3" (in the source) for "15'''5'''3," which was part of my criticism above. The rest of the paragraph was rewritten/got other sources in the meantime, so no comment on that. ] (]) 12:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
*VM's accusation that I had misrepresented a source is also a serious PA. I encourage sysops to compare the source to that allegation: | |||
{{Collapse top|title="Comparison of VM's allegation to actual quotes from the source showing that I did not misrepresent the source"}} | |||
::quote VM below : ''"And the info itself added by Skapp is true enough, but what it fails to mention is that Weinrich was invited to Konigsberg with the specific purpose of printing Polish books and that the first translations of Luther Small Catechism were made by Jan Seklucjan, a Pole."'' | |||
::source: | |||
::quotes regarding the reason for Weinreich to settle in Königsberg: ''" Die Einrichtung der ersten Druckerei im Deutschordensland und nachmaligen Herzogtum Preußen ist auf das Engagement Albrechts zurückzuführen. Die Dokumentation der Geschäftsbeziehungen zwischen Hans Weinreich und Albrecht von Brandenburg-Ansbach beschränkt sich allerdings nur auf die aktenmäßige Überlieferung der Zustimmung Albrechts zur Königsberger Druckerei bevor er 1524 den ersten nachweisbaren Druck in Königsberg publizierte. Ebenso wie viele andere Drucker seiner Zeit profitierte auch er von der Reformation, Weinreichs erster Königsberger Druck ist dementsprechend die Weihnachtspredigt des samländischen Bischofs Georg von Polentz, der mit dieser den religiösen Wandel in Preußen einleitete und legitimierte. Die Gründe für die Verlegung der Druckerei Weinreichs in die herzogliche Residenzstadt sind vielfältig, aufgrund fehlender Quellen jedoch auch Gegenstand von Spekulationen. Wann Weinreich nach Königsberg wechselte, ist nicht genau bekannt. Ausschlaggebend für seinen Umzug dürften sowohl seine bereits zuvor bestehenden Kontakte in das Umfeld Albrechts als auch die religiöse Entwicklung im Ordensland gewesen sein. Hans Weinreich entschloß sich jedoch erst nach einer ersten Absatzkrise um 1528, polnische Drucke zu fertigen."'' | |||
::--> Weinreich was not "invited to Konigsberg with the specific purpose of printing Polish books" as VM says, but came there for multiple reasons, printed several German works, and only in 1528 decided for economic reasons to publish Polish prints in addition. I did not misrepresent the source. | |||
::quotes with regard to Seklucjan and the first catechism: ''" Als erstes verließ ein noch anonym verfaßter »Kleiner Katechismus« 1530 seine Königsberger Offizin."'' This first Polish translation of the small catechism is also listed on p. 144. | |||
::---> the first translation of Luther's Small Catechism were NOT made by Jan Seklucjan. I did not misrepresent the source. | |||
::quote regarding "Seklucjan, a Pole:" ''" Seklucjan war während seiner Tätigkeit als deutscher Pfarrer in Posen zum Luthertum konvertiert und mußte schließlich vor der Gegenreformation in das Herzogtum Preußen fliehen, wo er 1544 der erste Prediger der polnischen Gemeinde "'' | |||
::---> Seklucjan was a German priest in Posen before he came to Kbg., and "failure to mention" him and that he was a "Pole" should not be an issue here. The quote however provides inside how dangerous it is to apply modern national categories to the 16th century. I did, however not misrepresent the source. | |||
{{Collapse bottom}} | |||
:--> Can a German-speaking sysop please evaluate and clear me from the accusation that I have misrepresented the source and take the accusation as what it really is, a PA. ] (]) 07:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
*re VM below: ''"Herkus and M.K and also Skapp where at this point adding "citation needed" tags"'': I have to the best of my knowledge not added a single cn tag. Please provide a diff. ] (]) 07:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
; 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. --> | <!-- 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. ---> | <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | ||
===Discussion concerning |
===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 |
====Statement by BabbleOnto==== | ||
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. | |||
This statement by Skapperod consists of his usual tactic of "diff-padding" - of providing lots of "" which are either completely irrelevant (my argument with Jimbo over unrelated matters quite some time ago), or which simply don't support what he claims they show. I'm getting a little fed up with this behavior by Skapperod which happens in relation to '''both''' sources (sources don't support what he claims) '''and''' his perennially filed AE requests (diffs don't support what he claims. | |||
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. | |||
'''My statement was a response to a direct nasty personal attack made by Skapperod''' | |||
I now address the specific edits in the complaint: | |||
This , which Skapp gives above is in response to a statement by Skapperod where he said to me ''and remember that you first provided false sources''. This was a straight up, false, personal attack, as I had NOT provided any false sources. What happened was that ] was disruptively tagging <u>every other word</u> of a particular section of the article (one which he didn't like) with "citation needed" tags, while the remainder of the article sat there mostly unsourced and written like crap. As a result I was trying to get the sources he was asking for into the article. He kept moving and re-adding the "citation tags" which resulted in edit-conflicts and loss of a good time's worth of work, as I had to retype numerous citations again and again (anyone who's formatted citations knows what a pain in the ass that can be). As a result, I just started adding relevant diffs to end of paragraphs rather than particular sentences, standard practice for DYK articles, just to get them "down on paper". | |||
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. | |||
What Skapperod is lying about is that just because a ref I provided was at the end of the paragraph and didn't support every single claim in that paragraph (I was still working on this), I "provided false sources". I explained to him <u>several</u> times what had happened, and he responded, ergo, he read the explanation (and seemingly understood it). Yet here again he makes this nonsense accusation, which is soooo bad faithed that yes, I referred to it as "lying your ass off". What is worse, lying your ass off in a dispute in order to win it, or, driven by frustration, to point this out? | |||
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?" | |||
I take sources, and my reputation for integrity in using those very seriously, and it was clear that Skapperod's attack was completely unwarrented, bad faithed and false (false + bad faithed = ?) | |||
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. | |||
This is typical battleground behavior for Skapperod. | |||
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. | |||
'''Abuse of a source by Skapperod which prompted this exchange''' | |||
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) | |||
Keep in mind that the section under dispute is "Poles in Konigsberg". Skapperod added German language source to the article, although in a completely different section. I went and retrieved the source and then spend some considerable time translating it from German. As it turns out the source itself is very reliable and high quality. Unfortunetly Skapperod's edits based on the source do not reflect what the source says or what it is about. | |||
*:Edited. ] (]) 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:Sorry, the sub-header for this section says that only admins can edit this section, I didn't realize I was allowed to reply here. | |||
Specifically, Skapperod's edit says ''Duke Albrecht thus called in a Danzig book printer, Weinrich, who was soon joined by other book printers, to publish Lutheran literature not only in German and (New) Latin, but also in Latvian, Lithuanian, Old Prussian and Polish. Königsberg thus became a center of printing German- and other language books: In 1530, the first Polish translation of ] was published by Weinrich'' | |||
*:Yes, I will. I intend on taking an extended break from wikipedia, as well. ] (]) 17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC) <small> Moved from uninvolved admin section; you can answer questions, make comments, discuss, but all your input needs to be in your own section. ] (]) 17:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
**::{{TQ|an extended break doesn't solve the issues around understanding policy. An extended break from contentious topics -- while you edit in other topics and learn policy -- would be more helpful all around.}} | |||
**:: What I meant was that I'm willing to respect the consensus and not make any further edits or argue any more contrary to what the consensus decided. It seems to me that saying I have "Issues around understanding policy" and asking me to "learn policy" has subtext that says "Until you agree with this consensus, and you won't be allowed to edit at all." Is respectful disagreement with this consensus allowed? I'm afraid if in order to avoid a ban I have to ''personally agree'' with the consensus, beyond just respecting it, then there's nothing I can do. I still do disagree with the consensus's result. Nonetheless, I'm not going to edit or argue further, I'll respect it as a legitimate. | |||
====Statement by ProcrastinatingReader==== | |||
Note that in the citation provided Skapperod explicitly says '' pp. 127-155; esp. p. 127-131''. Pages 127 to 131 are the ones which I specifically translated. And the info itself added by Skapp is true enough, but what it fails to mention is that Weinrich was invited to Konigsberg with the specific purpose of printing Polish books and that the first translations of <s>Luther Small Catechism</s> New Testament (corected) were made by Jan Seklucjan, a Pole. In fact, Skapperod then edit warred to <u>remove</u> any mention of Seklucjan (or other Poles mentioned by his source) from the article, despite the fact that the very (German) source HE provided talks about him at length. More generally, pages 127 to 131 of the source he provided are all about Polish printing and religious life in the city at the time, but somehow he managed to pull out of all that just the fact that a print maker with a German name was invited (from Danzig/Gdansk, which was part of Poland at the time) to the city. | |||
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) | |||
I tried to point out similar problems with the mis-use of the Bock source (again, the source itself is perfectly reliable) on the talk page but Skapperod has not bothered to respond. ] 22:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Newimpartial==== | |||
'''Extensive tag teaming by the same old group''' | |||
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, . | |||
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 ]. | |||
The users involved in this dispute, ], ], ] (only active on the talk page) and Skapperod himself have long history of supporting each other in POV disputes involving Polish and German topics. In this instance the first two, as well as an anon IP, tag-team edit warred on the article while simultaneous refusing to participate in meaningful discussion on the talk page, aside from empty "IDONTLIKEIT" statements or simple "I support the other guy" claims. | |||
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 ]. | |||
As this was going on, I repeatedly raised issues on talk and tried to add in references which HerkusMonte was demanding (for like every other word of the section) with his citation needed tags. As I mentioned above in several instances, Herkus would add a <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki> tag, I would spend a good chunk of time looking up a reference, go to the article to insert it, only to find that the text had been removed by one of the other tag teamers - how are you suppose to provide a reference, to a piece of text that has been removed? | |||
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. | |||
But no, I did not break 3RR on the article (unless you count adding references after someone slaps in a "cn" tag "reverting"). So Skapperod is making stuff up again. Instead, extremely frustrated (especially for having my time wasted) I asked for advice at ]. | |||
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. | |||
The behavior of the above users, including Skapperod on the article has been extremely disruptive. In particular this practice of first adding a "citation needed" tag to a piece of text, then after another person (myself) spends considerable time finding citations, removing the text all together is very very very annoying. It is also obviously done in bad faithed - why are you even adding "citation needed" tags if your intent is to remove the text anyway? Unless you are *trying* to waste people's time? | |||
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) | |||
'''The ... "misrepresentative" diff padding by Skapperod''' | |||
====Statement by Objective3000==== | |||
- as my comment clearly states, HerkusMonte started removing several portions of the article <u>very shortly</u> after they've first been added, but well after I've began the work of providing sources (my first additions of sources were at 6:51 July 31, Herkus' comment was 15:12 July 31). It was clear that I was working on providing the sources so why was he trying to make my job harder by removing stuff in the middle of this work? Additionally, as I point out, ALMOST THE WHOLE article was unsourced at this point, yet Herkus chose to pick on just this one section - so yes, this is a ] kind of thing. | |||
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) | |||
:@], 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) | |||
::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) | |||
====Statement by JoelleJay==== | |||
Actually, you know what, I don't want to make this any more ] then it already is. So here I am just going to relist the diffs Skapperod provides as "evidence". Please click them. | |||
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) | |||
====Statement by IntrepidContributor==== | |||
* - statement of fact, that Herkus is spamming {cn} tags into what at that point is the best sourced part of the article. | |||
* - me pointing out to Herkus that he just wasted a whole bunch of my time by causing edit conflicts by adding {cn} tags to every other word in the section <u>at the same time</u> as I was clearly busy finding and adding sources | |||
* - the anon IP involved in the tag team reverting responded to my comment with a comment which clearly indicated that s/he had not read the sources I provided. It was a knee-jerk denial by the anon IP. And yes at this point the tag-teaming was in full swing. | |||
* - again, my post just describes what has happened. M.K had not bothered to provide any sources, to participate in discussion, just kept hitting that revert button, as if it was a button on a game controller. | |||
* - yup, at this point I was extremely frustrated. Herkus and M.K and also Skapp where at this point adding "citation needed" tags, then when I would add the requested citations, just remove the now sourced text. Wouldn't you call that "disruptive"? Isn't it a bit like purposeful sabotage? At the same time, minimal to no participation in talk page discussion, except "I don't like it" stuff. | |||
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 (). | |||
'''Illustrative example of Skapperod's misreprentations''' | |||
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. | |||
Skapperod says: | |||
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. | |||
''VM also added references he found on the web. I can not accept the addition of references which do not support the sentences referenced to them: In this post I compared in detail sources VM added to four sentences, and they do not match. VM did look in the source again, as is obvious from the diff before, and still restored it after my removal, so that it is now in the protected version - making wp not only unreliable, but misleading.'' | |||
] (]) 14:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
First, these were not "references found on the web" but rather academically published works. Skapp doesn't tell you that and instead insinuates that I ... I dunno added links to blogs or something. | |||
=== Statement by TarnishedPath === | |||
In his post he notes his objections, sure. But, as it has already been explained to him, there was a simple misunderstanding - the relevant diff was at the end of the paragraph rather than the end of the appropriate sentence. | |||
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) | |||
Now, let's look at this super-wrong-evil text that got protected into the ], which makes Misplaced Pages oh so unreliable and misleading. | |||
::and again at ] '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===Statement by berchanhimez=== | |||
The relevant current text of the article states: | |||
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) | |||
''“ In 1545 in Königsberg a Polish catechism was printed by Jan Seklucjan”'' | |||
===Result concerning BabbleOnto=== | |||
The source states: ''“In 1545 Seklucjan published a “Simple Text of the Catechism for the Simple People”'' | |||
:''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. --> | |||
The relevant current text of the article states: | |||
*<!-- | |||
''“ In 1551 the first translation of the New Testament in Polish language came out, issued by Stanisław Murzynowski.”" | |||
--> | |||
*{{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) | |||
The source states: ''“(Seklucjan) used a very modest but talented humanist Stanisalw Murzynowski from Krolewiec as translator, and in 1551 published first the Gospel of Matthew, some months later all four Gospels, in 1552 other New Testament books, and finally in 1553 the whole New Testament in one volume”" | |||
*: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) | |||
The relevant current text of the article states: | |||
* 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. | |||
''“Murzynowski's collections of sermons were delivered by Eustace Trepka and in 1574 by Hieronim Malecki. The works of Mikolaj Rej were printed here by Seklucjan”'' | |||
The source states: ''"Source:”Seklucjan also published the works of Mikolaj Rej, the father of Polish literature”'' | |||
Note the previous source also discusses Malecki and I was about to add a source for Trepka – part of the difficulty is that his name was misspelled – but the article got protected before I had a chance to do so | |||
The relevant current text of the article states: | |||
''“ Marcin Stryjkowski announced in Krolewiec the publication of his Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmudzka, i wszystkiej Rusi ("A Chronicle of Poland, Lithuania, Samogitia and all Rus")”'' | |||
The source states: ''"Source: In 1582, Stryjkowski published his chronicle at Konigsberg (Krolewiec)"'' | |||
So please, tell me, is there any truth to Skapperod's contention that I was using 'false source' (which I "found on the web") and that these references do not support the text referred to? Is Misplaced Pages really going to lose all credibility because this material is included in the ] that got protected? | |||
If not, then just keep in mind what's going on here and that this kind of ... mischaracterization, well, characterizes Skapperod's entire report. | |||
:--> Response to Skapperod's "Response to VM, detailed analysis of his references not sourcing the sentences they had been added to" | |||
:Look, it's not that hard. Compare the text of the article, to the text of the source as I've done in the section right above. Do they match up? Yes? Then your accusations that I was "presenting false sources" is ... well, "untrue". | |||
:What you are doing is very typical - you're picking on minor points, like the fact that I included the name of the editor of a work rather than the author originally, and hanging your whole "you're misrepresenting sources" on that very feeble peg. '''All''' the issues you raised were answered and addressed on the talk page '''and''' the section right above makes it clear that the sources do indeed align very well with the text. And since you acknowledged that by responding, why do you turn around and keep making this accusation that I "presented false sources". Since you know what is actually going on, yet you insist on making these accusations, is that not "lying"? ] 07:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::---> Response to Skapperod's latest | |||
::''re VM below: "Herkus and M.K and also Skapp where at this point adding "citation needed" tags": I have to the best of my knowledge not added a single cn tag. Please provide a diff. '' - my bad, you weren't the one adding {cn} tags, you were just the one removing text that had first been {cn} tagged by Herkus, which I then apparently wasted my valuable time finding sources for | |||
::'' Seklucjan was a German priest in Posen before he came to Kbg., and "failure to mention" him and that he was a "Pole" should not be an issue here.'' - nope, Seklucjan was a "German priest" only in the sense that he spoke German and was a priest for the German congregation in Poznan. Sources clearly call him a Pole (. He was born in ] deep within central Poland (not even in any of the "disputed" areas). So this is just more typical misrepresentation. | |||
::The bottomline here is that the very source YOU added, Vanessa Bock, discusses Seklucjan at length, including his role in translating works into Polish, with help from Weinreich. | |||
::'' the first translation of Luther's Small Catechism were NOT made by Jan Seklucjan. I did not misrepresent the source.'' - a small mistake on my part, Seklucjan was the first to translate the New Testament not Luther's Small Catechism. Which I already explained on article's talk. The misrepresentation of the source involves '''completely omitting''' Seklucjan from the article (whether he was the first to translate NT or LSM) and additionally to mention the first translation by Liboriusz Schadlika. Yes, it is perfectly possible to misrepresent sources BY OMISSION. | |||
::Overall, here are the relevant passages from the source which are very relevant but which Skapperod just... "skipped" over (he did mention the Seindammer church): | |||
:::''Die Kirchenordung legte zudem die Bereitstellung von Buchern zum Lesen und Singen fur die Gemeinden fest. Durch den Druck reformatorischer, religionspolitischer und fremdsprachiger Literatur wurde diese Forderung vom ersten Konigsberger Drucker erfullt. Fur die Wirksamkeit landesherrlicher Verwaltungs- und Kirchenordungen und die Verbreitung des neuen Glaubens war die Existenz dieser ersten Offizin unentbehrlich. Auch Herzog Albert selbst forderte die Predigt in der jeweiligen Muttersprache. Die Polen und Litauer, oftmals Glaubensfluchtlinge, hielten ihre Gottesdienste in Konigsberg in der Seindammer Kirche, spater auch in der Elisabeth kirche; zudem wurde vierzehntägig im Dom und in der altstadtischen Kirche eine polnische Mittagspredigt gehalten, wodurch die Reformierung des Gesindes gewahrleister werden sollte.'' | |||
:::and: | |||
:::''Als erstes erliess ein noch anonym Kleiner Kathechismus 1530 seine Konigsberg Offizin. Die eiligst angefertige polnische Ubersetzung des Kathechismus wies jedoch sprachliche Mangel auf, die dem Herzog durch Liborius Schadlika, einen polnischen Philologen aufgezeigt wurden. Schadlika selbst nahm sich der Uberarbeitung an, so dass 1533 ein zweiter, sprachlich verbesserter polnischer Kathechismus in der Druckerei von Weinreich entstand. Zwar sind diese ersten polnischen Drucke auf Initiative Weinreichs (und somit durchaus auf Geschaftsinteresse) entstanden, sie erfullt jedoch zugleich die in der Kirchenordung geforderte und von Herzog Albert aktiv unterstutze Ubersetzung zentraler evangelischer Schriften in die jeweiligen Volkssprachen.'' | |||
:::''1543 und 1544 wurden in Preussen erstmals staatliche Verordnungen ins Polnische ubersetz und ebenfalls von Weinreich gedruckt. Dem Herzog und seinen Beamten ging es zugleich mit der religiosen Unterweisung seiner polnischen Untertanen um deren Intagration in der preussischen Territorialstaat. Allerdings bleibt ungewiss, warum nicht bereits fruhere Landes -oder zumindest Kirchenordnungen ubersetz und gedruckt wurden. Die Notwendigkeit, liturgische und religiose Grundtexte in die Sprache des Volkes ubersetzen zu lassen und dafur zunachst Tolken einzusetzen, hatte bereits die Kirchenordnungen von 1525 betont, doch herrschte im sakularisierten Ordensland offensichtlich zunachst noch ein Mangel an sprachkompetenten Predigern.'' | |||
:::''Herzog Albert personlichem Engagement war es zu verdanken, dass aus Polen viele Pfarrer, die sich dem Luthertum zugewandt hatten, nach Preussen ubersiedelten. Seit 1530 wirkten in Ostpreussen u.a. "seit 1537 Johann Maletius in Lyck, und seit 1544 Johann Seclutian an der Polnische Kirche auf dem Steindamm in Konigsberg als Pfarrer in herzoglich-preussischen Gemeinden" Ihre Berufungen waren fur die Entwicklung des polnischen Buchdrucks in Konigsberg ausserst folgenreich. Nach wie vor war die Zahl der polnischen Pfarrer jedoch unzureichend. Mit der Grundung der Universitat im Jahre 1544 wurde deshalb auch das Ziel verfolgt, die Versorgung v.a. der landlichen Bevolkerung mit polnischen - aber ebenso litauischen - Pfarren zu verbessern:'' | |||
:::''Herzog Albert hatten sieben Stipendien fur Studenten mit guten Polnisch - kenntnissen gestiftet und zugleich Universitatsbehorden angeordnet, solche Studenten desto eifriger zu suchen und aufzunehmen, weil solche Pastoren und Kirchenleute auch die Schule in preussischen Landen wegen Unkenntnis der deutschen Sprache besonders notig haben.'' | |||
:::''Die polnischen Pfarrer spielten die entscheidende Rolle in den Anfangsjahren des polnischen Buchdrucks in Konigsberg. Drei Jahre nach der Publikation der Ubersetzung von Schadlika verliess ein weitere Ausgabe des polnischen Katechismus die Presse Weinreichs. Ob dieser Druck eine zweite Auflage von der Schadlika bearbeiteten Ubersetzung war, ist nicht nachweisbar, doch wurde auf Veranlassung von Paul Speratus 1545 in eine Auflage von dreihundert Exemplaren diese Ubersatzung in Wittenberg erneut gedruckt.'' | |||
:::Again, this is misrepresentation by OMISSION, not your run of the mill pretend-source-says-something-it-doesn't kind that only newbie POV pushers engage in. How can you take source whose title is "Beginnings of Polish Printing in Konigsberg" and write about it so as to almost completely fail to mention anything to do with Poles? | |||
:::Skapperod says ''This is however the current version, not the one that was debated by me above'' - yes, 1) you were complaining that the ] got protected so I discussed the current "wrong version" and 2) the first version was "debated" and I explained what was going on to you, then made corrections. | |||
:::Skapperod says ''sysops need to closely examine this, as "the source" he used in his response here is not the one he used in the article!'' - let them examine, please! The source I gave is the one I suggested on the talk page, along with a statement about Trepka . Keep in mind that the article was protected shortly thereafter. Since you were participating in that discussion YOU KNOW THIS. Additionally that source was being used elsewhere in the article already. You know this as well. Does the source support the text? It does, which you are also well aware of. So why are you playing these games? | |||
] 08:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
'''This is standard MO of Skapperod for which he has been warned before''' | |||
This AE request bares an uncanny resemblance to filed a while back by Skapperod, (as well as numerous others of his). In that AE request Skapperod was trying to get me blocked for stating that Skapperod was behaving "disruptively" (he was). Here he is trying to get me sanctioned for pointing out that several users, himself included, were behaving badly on the Konigsberg article, by spamming {cn} tags (while remainder of the article was unreferenced), by removing text and making it hard to actually provide the citations they requested, and then by removing the text which was now sourced, as well as misrepresenting sources (Skapperod in particular with the Bock source, as outlined above). All the time not bothering to participate in talk page discussion. | |||
In fact, ]'s closure of that AE request is worth quoting in full: | |||
''This looks like a misuse of WP:AE (by Skapperod - VM) in order to win the upper hand in a content dispute. The edits cited in the request are not objectionable; rather, they reflect routine disagreements about content. In particular, it is not disruptive to state one's opinion that "Removing a large chunk of text without discussing it first is generally seen as "disruptive"". Unless other administrators disagree, '''I will close this thread with a warning to Skäpperöd that AE is not a substitute for, or part of, proper dispute resolution, and that he may face sanctions if he files more unfounded enforcement requests.''' '' (my emphasis -VM) | |||
and then this comment made by former arbitrator Shell Kinney | |||
''I am in complete agreement with your reading of the situation Sandstein.'' (consequently Skapperod would attempt to get Shell in trouble, possibly in retaliation) | |||
and then Sandstein concluded: | |||
''No action. Skäpperöd is warned not to file more unfounded requests.'' | |||
That's all that is going on over here. Again. In fact, Skapperod has been trying to "get me" for quite awhile now. I had the hope that he turned a new leaf and was ready to participate in a constructive manner in improving the relevant articles, since he is somewhat knowledgeable about sources (how he uses them, is another matter). But I guess not. Same ol' same ol'. | |||
I have no comment on anything by MyMoloboaccount and I haven't even really looked at his edits. I did not ask him in any way what so ever to comment, edit or otherwise become involved in this article. | |||
'''@Devil's Advocate''' | |||
Actually, MyMoloboaccount's first edit since returning WAS NOT in support of any edit I have made. His first edit was to Konigsberg but it was not related to any issues I have been involved in . In fact, I disagree with him in this regard - he thinks the article should be moved/merged to "Kaliningrad", I'm ok with where it is. | |||
His second or so edit was to the ] article (btw, Herkus is now move warring on that page). I actually have no strong opinion as to what name the article should be under either (though I find this tendentious insistence on German names for places/events in Poland annoying and a waste of time). | |||
So actually, two of MyMoloboaccount's first couple edits are not even ones with which I agree with. Skapperod is just paranoid/trying to use imaginary non-happenings as a way of winning a content dispute. | |||
Anyway. If you're involved in Polish-German topics, you come back from a four month absence and you look at your watchlist what are you gonna see? Well, people are discussing Konigsberg a lot, so you go there to check out what happens. | |||
And seriously, don't you just see how dripping with bad faith statements like "where EEML attacked me before" by Skapperod are? Just because someone reverted him once somewhere. This is just the usual "oh noes they won't let me push my POV in peace" complainin'. | |||
And with regard to this EEML well-poisoning (which Skapperod also has been warned about in the past) let me just point out a Principles from a recent ArbCom case: | |||
*''Editors are expected to comment on the substance of other's edits, and not attempt to use editors' affiliations in an ad hominem method to attempt to discredit their views. Attempts to do so may be considered a Personal Attack.'' . I assume that applies equally to some vague affiliations from almost three years ago. | |||
Please also see my comment at DA's talk page . Bottomline is that if there's supposed to be some kind of tag-teaming by me and MMA then ... well, where is it? | |||
] 05:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
] 22:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by MyMoloboaccount ==== | |||
UPDATE:Only now I realized what trick Skapperod used. He flooded his request with so many links, that one crucial element is missing. What exactly should be enforced ? I am not DIGWUREN of sanctions nor was I subject to EEML sanctions. In fact Skapperod falsely claims: Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) ''both editors have been subject to EEML''. '''I haven't been placed on EEML sanctions'''. If Skapperod disagrees then he should give a link to the post where I am placed on any sanctions regarding EEML. In fact he failed to provide any diff for such thing. This is a typical shotgun shooting for sanctions, especially as the case open against VM, block wall of links which lead often to unrelated things provided then casually another user(me) thrown in, even when I am not on any sanctions mentioned, and no link is provided to any sanction to be enforced. | |||
Now to continue | |||
*First of all, this yet again another part of never ending saga regarding Skapperod's constant attempts to get me or VM blocked, and which probably started somewhere around when I discovered Skapperod was using Nazi propaganda as sources for Polish history. Since then he behaved aggressively towards me while occassionally repeating attempts to introduce sources of such nature into Misplaced Pages. | |||
*Second of all I was present at the article about Kaliningrad/Konigsberg since years ago, as the history of the city is part of my interests, any brief search of the history of the article will discover my edits there '''since at least 2008'''. And the topics discussed by VolunteerMarek were debated by me years ago on that page already | |||
In fact in 2008 I already wrote | |||
'In the meantime still gathering research to NPOV the article, extermination of Jews whose population count I added above, discrimination of Polish minority(classified as lower then animals by German state in WW2), use of slaves to develop a city within 1000 year planned Reich, local Nazi movement, and post war revanchist role the city played in contrast to other Germanised territories that underwent degermanisation after the war are interesting subjects which need expansion. --Molobo (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)'' | |||
*Third of all the revert I did to HM was regarding a move of an page name to Germanised version of Polish location without end of Request for Move-perfectly in order as per Misplaced Pages rules. | |||
*Fourth of all my long absence is due to my sickness and stay at hospital, to which I am returning tomorrow, and won't be able to respond further this week and probably throughout the next month as well. | |||
--] (]) 22:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
PS:I love the title "Ex-leader of EEML". Actually we title ourselves Silver, Red Dragon. And the leader is titled the Golden Egg on Emerald Throne. | |||
--] (]) 22:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
BTW: What is exactly that I am accused of? Of editing articles that aren't even subject to any discussion between Skappoerod and VM?:" Molobo returned to previous article and makes another edit to a talkpage''? This is ridiculous, and seems just shotgun shooting of Enforcement request in hopes that somebody doesn't even follow the links that lead to nothing of substance or anything controversial. | |||
--] (]) 22:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
*Devil's Advocate-I was present on the page for years and took part in many discussions there. The topic is close to my interests.I edited the page as Molobo before that account was hacked. Do feel free to see history of talk and page history-you will find me there debating those things before Skapperod arrived to that page, | |||
What Skapperod mislead here(among many other things) was ''both editors have been subject to EEML''-'''I haven't been subject to ANY sanctions in EEML case.''' This very typical-he usually throws numerous accusations that are baseless, eventually someone doesn't double check what he writes or doesn't follow the links, so something manages to go through. Note that he avoided giving link to support his statement-because there isn't any. | |||
In any case I performed all my edits on my own, and I haven't been in contact with VM or Piotrus in any way, either by email, or by any other means. | |||
''Molobo's first edit is to comment on the talk page of this article in support of Marek''.- Where? I commented on other issues. As far I remember I didn't comment on the issue VM was debating at all, can you provide a diff supporting this claim? | |||
--] (]) 06:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
====Comments by others about the request concerning Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount==== | |||
===== Comment by The Devil's Advocate ===== | |||
It is rather conspicuous that after nearly four months Molobo's first edit is to comment on the talk page of this article in support of Marek. To Molobo's query, the DIGWUREN case has since been renamed to be consistent with its function as an Eastern Europe arbitration case and that case allowed admins to issue sanctions at their own discretion against anyone editing in the topic area in violation of policy. The EEML mention appears to be referring to the admonishment to all members of the mailing list to avoid off-wiki collaboration. So there is nothing inappropriate about Skap's report in that respect.--] (]) 05:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
===== Comment by HerkusMonte ===== | |||
I don't have the time and the patience to go into detail, just a short comment | |||
1. Marek's claim: | |||
:''"The users involved in this dispute, User:M.K, User:HerkusMonte, User:Estlandia (only active on the talk page) and Skapperod himself have long history of supporting each other in POV disputes involving Polish and German topics. In this instance the first two, as well as an anon IP, tag-team edit warred on the article.."'' | |||
This is absurd, I didn't even know M.K. before and we never made any edits on the same article. To call this ''"Extensive tag teaming by the same old group"'' leaves me speechless. | |||
The whole tag team allegation is completely absurd and just shows Marek's persistent assumption of bad faith. | |||
2. I (not Marek) tried to start a discussion about the lack of sources , however Marek's answer was extremely aggressive ("Tell you what Herkus..." followed by the ususal allegations of "disruptive","tendentious" and "battlegroundy" editing, hardly a constructive way to react). Honestly, I don't see a reason to discuss on such a level of bad faith. | |||
3. Maybe I missed something, but Marek doesn't deny he called Skäpperöd a "shithead" in his email, does he? ] (]) 15:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
===== Comment by Piotrus ===== | |||
I try to avoid getting involved in AE, but seeing as Skapperod mentioned me already "Piotrus, ex-(?)-leader of the EEML", I would like to point out that dragging an old (2009) ArbCom case is not only a case of poisoning the well, but of a personal attack; I do not enjoy seeing my name dragged through ancient mud, and I'd very much prefer if Skapperod would try to move on from the old battlegrounds. What's more, Skapperod uses a single diff to imply I am still a leader of EEML; this is a slanderous claim without any basis in fact, to say the least, and I request that it is refactored, and apologized for. | |||
Further, VM cites an example of an AE where Skapperod was warned not to abuse AE to win content disputes. It is worth noting that complaining about VM seems to be a popular pastime of Skapperod's: ; ], and others I don't have time to find. He has also been warned about outing VM (). Back in 2011, when the last of EEML remedies were amended and discarded by the Committee, he was very active in campaigning against them; see my comment , where I list close to a ten of examples of Skapperod either requesting sanctions against VM and other EEML members, or commenting in support. And almost always, his requests have been denied. | |||
I don't want to get too involved here; I'd suggest that both VM and Skapperod are asked to be more civil in his on-wiki comments, and that Skapperod's engagement with AE is scrutinized by the admins; I feel it may be a time that a restriction from filling AE requests is served here, or perhaps an interaction ban would do more good, as it seems clear to me that Skapperod still feels the need to drag out old incidents and relive old battlegrounds. As most of us have no wish to join him in those reenactions, some remedy is clearly needed. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 19:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
===== Comment by Lothar von Richthofen ===== | |||
Few things here annoy me more than unwarranted resurrection of EEML (“curly quotes” and dynamic IPs might trump that). Really what I see here is the standard back-and-forth of two "national interest groups" which is typical of basically anywhere in the topic realm of Eastern Europe. The phantom mailing list stopped being spooky a long time ago, and invoking its name nowadays just comes off as petty mud-slinging. But neither side has clean hands here. A stern and final warning would be my prescription for this, given that both sides have a lot to contribute to the project in spite of their at-times problematic behaviour. I'm not too keen at all on an interaction ban, given that those have tended to compound problems in the past <small>*cough*Polandball*cough*</small>. ~~ ] (]) 19:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
===== Comment by M.K ===== | |||
Wherever VolunteerMarek goes there will be trouble. I don't like being dragged into these types of his quarrels, least of all involving him. Initially I decided not to comment here, however after noticing ] (aka ]) insinuations regarding my character I can’t be mute. | |||
'''VolunteerMarek’s claim of tag teaming is fiction''' | |||
It seems that I am only editor who edited Königsberg article , but still VolunteerMarek is filling various pages emphasizing that I am in some sort of tag team ending with various editors. | |||
Then Estlandia is actually , one of the former members of ]. Only ] now renamed user account to ]. This clear illustration how desperate this guy to mud other editors and fuel another battleground. | |||
'''VolunteerMarek’s actions are below any reasonable standard''' | |||
Just look into his block log and various reactions which this person had. | |||
I just scrolled down of the recent VolunteerMarek’s “contributions” and Königsberg article’s talk page is not exception . Behavior like is became a standard to this user: | |||
* | |||
* | |||
*. I could make even more comprehensive list however I am lack timing to searching those diffs. | |||
On the Königsberg article’s talk page past few days VolunteerMarek brought my name at least 9 times if I counted all, in negative context included, like in “disruption”, “tag teaming” etc. Then I brought this name ZERO times. And this is not the isolated article I am afraid. Mostly due to this type of harassment I limited my time on Misplaced Pages to minimum. Thus I requesting that VolunteerMarek would be placed on interaction ban towards me as I am disgust to see my name all over the place, spammed by this editor. Re-institution of his topic ban should be considered as well, which had only been lifted on the false expectancy that "any relapse is likely to be poorly received." | |||
''' Good standing editors should be protected ''' | |||
My clean block log perfectly well shows that I am following good editorial practice from all my heart. Yet, I had to limit my time on WP as good standing editors are not protected from similar harassment and mistreatment (most Lithuanian editors departed unable to withstand such level of harassment). I understand that uninvolved administrators are sick and tired from EE conflicts, but failure to act or comparing the EEML to people targetted by them only bolsters such editors like VolunteerMarek. Action should be taken at least now that “knee-jerk mindless support” “you're an abusive asshole” “*real* nationalist edit warriors” harassment would never show up again. | |||
: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. | |||
'''Old WP:EEML is not gone, at least the most of it ''' | |||
:<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) | |||
I belive that no one can honestly say VolunteerMarek, Piotrus and other members have changed their ways. The same behavior which was stressed during WP:EEML arbitration. Everyone wanted to believe the EEML was gone immediately after the revelation in September 2009. In December new mails leaked again. When does that blind-believer crowd vanish? Apparently, Abd, who had joined the EEML, admitted only last year the EEML still exists. I say it is time to end this now. ] (]) 14:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
{{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) | |||
===Result concerning Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount=== | |||
*:BabbleOnto's response understanding this as a suggestion to take a break from Misplaced Pages as a whole isn't quite what I was hoping to see. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 17:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
*:@], an extended break doesn't solve the issues around understanding policy. An extended break from contentious topics -- while you edit in other topics and learn policy -- would be more helpful all around. | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' | |||
*:@], I'd support a tban, but is AP2 enough? It seems like COVID and fringe science need to be included? ] (]) 17:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::AP2 + COVID? I see the same behavior at the Brian Thompson article and Havana Syndrome, so COVID alone doesn't seem adequate. Oddly, the intersection of "medicine and politics" would appear to cover all affected topics but maybe that's too bespoke? <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 17:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== |
==Marlarkey== | ||
{{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)}} | |||
<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 Marlarkey=== | |||
''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|WeatherWriter}} 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Marlarkey}}<p>{{ds/log|Marlarkey}}</p> | |||
===Request concerning SonofSetanta=== | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 16:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|SonofSetanta}} | |||
<!--- 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.--> | ||
# Revert #1 | |||
# Revert #2, within 24 hours of the first | |||
# Revert #3, within 24 hours of the first | |||
# Revert #1 on a different article | |||
# Revert #2 on that article, within 24 hours of the first | |||
'''''' | |||
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) : | |||
# - 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. | |||
'''''' | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : Since I'm sure I'll get cries of "content dispute" from the usual suspects, I'd better explain this fully. Flexdream initially on 29 July, and was . Flexdream then decided to add on 31 July, and was . In the discussion at ] I made it clear the addition of the new content was problematic, as was the existing content, but that you don't solve problems with bad content by adding more bad content. I further made it clear why I hadn't removed the prior content at the same time, as the removal of that had already been reverted by Nick Cooper. Nick Cooper hadn't participated in the discussion and no sources have been produced as requested, so the existing problematic content was removed by me. SonofSetanta has restored the new problematic content in revert 1, and the existing problematic content in revert 2. Quite why he's doing this when my removal of the existing problematic content is supposed to solve the dispute is anyone's guess? <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 16:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
# - 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. | |||
::No 1RR breach from me, since a self-reverted edit by JonChapple makes my edits consecutive. You'll find reverting content relating to the IRA is very much covered by the Troubles restrictions, try reading them. And there's no "harassment" inolved, you turn up again after months away and revert on two articles without any attempt to take part in the ongoing discussions. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 16:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
<!-- 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 ]): at 15:29, 21 November 2024. | |||
:I can't be bothered to correct the laughable attacks and assumptions of bad faith below, except to point out the restriction is "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles" and if that information has got information in it relating to the IRA during the Troubles then, yes, edits to that information are covered by 1RR. That's a long-established principle of what "related" actually means. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 06:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
::The '''article''' is about a terrorist bombing carried out by islamists. It has nothing to do with the Troubles. This is blindingly obvious. The 1RR rule only applies to '''articles''' about the Troubles, not to any mention of the IRA anywhere on Misplaced Pages.--FergusM1970<sup>Misplaced Pages policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.</sup> 08:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
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) | |||
*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) | |||
:*{{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. | |||
:::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) | |||
:::If it mentions the IRA, editing those parts of the article is covered by 1RR. That's what "related" means. Or are you suggesting the phrase is nothing to do with the Troubles at all? <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 12:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
*{{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) | |||
:3rd revert added. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 12:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:1RR violation added for another article. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 12:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
::He has self-reverted that. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 12:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Further to SonofSetanta's spurious allegations below, it seems he is totally unaware of ] and the lengthy discussions on that page's talk page. <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 12:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
My apologies for editing an article three hours within the time restriction for 1RR. As noted I have self reverted. It is nice to know my mistakes will be pointed out quickly. I feel quite privileged to have my own watchkeeper. ] (]) 12:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
; 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 SonofSetanta==== | |||
Firstly: the article ] is not covered by the 1RR restriction, it is under the 3RR rule. Secondly: If I am guilty of breaking 1RR so is the complainant for his reversions here ] and here ]. ] (]) 16:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
'''Additional information:''' It needs to be noted that this complaint is part of a campaign of edit warring which the complainant and several others are part of and has resulted in the complainant making three separate cases on this page against me, FergusM1970 and Flexdream. What we are seeing here is gaming on a major scale with the intended result being the subversion of the Wiki. ] (]) 16:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
====Comments by others about the request concerning SonofSetanta==== | |||
====Statement by Domer48==== | |||
''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.'' | |||
The editor is well aware of this.--<font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 16:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:I assume he's also well aware that the 7/7 bombings had absolutely nothing to do with the Troubles, what with them being carried out in London by islamic terrorists rather than in London''derry'' by Irish ones. To apply the Troubles 1RR rule to this is simply ].--] (]) 20:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Jon C.==== | |||
This is getting beyond a joke. You're a big boy, Mr Hackney, can't you settle your own disputes without constantly running to the admins? This is not what AE is supposed to be used for. <font color="#004225">—</font> ]] 19:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:Agreed. There is a clear pattern here. ONIH goes straight to AE without any attempt whatsoever to find a compromise. It's also obvious that every 1RR violation he complains about involves the same small group of editors who repeat his reverts. It's very hard to escape the conclusion that a tag-team is operating on anything that might cast Irish Republican terrorists in a bad light.--] (]) 20:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by FergusM1970==== | |||
This is the third time this editor has gone to AE in the past four days, all to do with 1RR violations and all to do with edits which have presented an image of the IRA which he happens not to like. On no occasion has he engaged in any attempt to find a compromise or discuss meaningfully on talk pages, preferring to accuse the other party of not knowing what they are talking about. When I raised a DRN in an attempt to solve a content dispute he ignored it, and only became involved in mediation after admins dealing with his complaint against me began expressing a desire for a resolution to the dispute rather than AE action. At the same time he contributes little or no content to Misplaced Pages himself; his consists almost entirely of reverts. It seems likely that his only aim is to push his own POV regarding the Troubles and that he is not above gaming WP rules to do so.--] (]) 21:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Flexdream==== | |||
Domer quotes that "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." | |||
An article on the London 7/7 bombings, which has no Irish connection or dimension, cannot reasonably be construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland. 1RR does not apply. This rush to AE is an abuse of process and should be treated accordingly. --] (]) 23:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:I'm confused now. The complainant has removed from the London 7/7 article the references to the IRA ] and seems to now be agreeing with my making the same edit when I made the comment that the IRA was irrelevant. So the complainant seems to agree with me that the IRA is irrelevant. The London 7/7 article is not Troubles related for 1RR, and even the complainant seems to think that by the edit they have made which is a repeat of the edit I made. And now they raise an AE on the basis that the article is Troubles related for 1RR? I don't follow the reasoning. --] (]) 01:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
====Comment by Son of Setanta==== | |||
I would call on adjudicating editors to be aware of the '''Statement by Steven Zhang''' above (under the FergusM1970 complaint) which states clearly that the editors in opposition here, including the complainant, have refused to take part in dispute resolution regarding the complaint against Fergus. With this knowledge it should be obvious to anyone that resolution is not the agenda of Hackney and his associates. Rather we are seeing attempts to subvert the Wiki to their own aim - the glorification of the Provisional IRA. This has been going on for years but so far the well intended volunteers who do their best to police the Wiki have been unable to find a solution to it. I would respectfully suggest a very long term ban on Hackney for a start and perhaps the same for Domer48. These two seem to be the main exponents of the bullying which stops other editors from removing POV from articles which contain references to the Provisional IRA. ] (]) 12:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
'''*''' I also respectfully submit that perhaps adjudicators might examine the number of 1RR complaints made by all particpiants in this discussion on articles relating to the Troubles. I believe the results would be quite interesting. ] (]) 12:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
===Result concerning SonofSetanta=== | |||
<!-- 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.'' | |||
== Arbitration enforcement action appeal by GoodDay == | |||
<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found ]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. <p>To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see ]).''</small> | |||
; Appealing user : {{userlinks|GoodDay}} – ] (]) 17:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Marlarkey==== | |||
; Sanction being appealed : ], I've been banned from the topic of diacritics across Misplaced Pages, the ban apparently includes my own userspace. ] (]) 17:48, 6 August 2012 (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. | |||
; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|Coren}} | |||
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." | |||
; Notification of that administrator : ''The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a ] of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.'' | |||
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. | |||
===Statement by GoodDay=== | |||
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 wasn't fully aware of the extent of the topic ban, concerning my secondary page (since deleted). Imho, the block can be ended, as I wish only to make gnome edits. I was blocked (]) after ] was tabled. It concerned content on m (now deleted) ] page. I will not make anymore direct ''or'' indirect posts concerning diacritics - period. I will not praise or condem editors involved with the 'said' topic. Also note, along with deleting my secondary page, I've removed my ''2'' conditions for which posts I'll allow on my talkpage. Furthermore, I've added links to my Rfc/U, ANI case & Arbitration case, for easier access & study purposes - in order to change my ''behaviour''. ] (]) 17:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
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 | |||
===Statement by Coren=== | |||
Copied from GoodDay's talk page without comments on the substance. Given that I both expressed an opinion in the original AE request and closed that request, I'll recuse from further involvement. — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
===Statement by snowded=== | |||
I was one of the editors in conflict with GD on UK related issues. Overall the pattern of behaviour over the years has been that when he gets involved in a subject he has no sense of proportion. Edit warring, provocation of talk pages and the like are all well documented. One suspects however that Misplaced Pages is his life. However a brief examination of his talk page indicates that there is no understanding on his part that he has in any way done anything wrong. The opposite if anything, he blames his woes on politically minded editors against whom he stands as a martyr to whichever cause he is advocating at the time. Even now his reason for wanting to be restored is that he didn't understand the nature of his ban, which to any reasonably minded editor was very very clear. | |||
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." | |||
My recommendation is that he should serve his time, it may be the only way he can start to understand the level to which the communities patience has been exhausted. As long as he claims martyrdom any readmission which just (as it has always done in the past) lead to a repetition of the same behaviour. To my mind the only reason he has escaped a permanent block is the mind numbingly trivial nature of his interventions. ----] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
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. | |||
Weatherwriter reversions of my edits serve to support a political opinion on a page which is about facts. | |||
===Statement by Djsasso=== | |||
'''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 | |||
He says "I wasn't fully aware of the extent of the topic ban". However the first time he violated the ban he stated . Which indicates he was fully aware of the extent of his topic ban since he was specifically told in his first enforcement request that he wasn't allowed to discuss them on his user pages. This is him just pushing the boundaries yet again and wasting editors time yet again. I wouldn't be opposed to reupping this to arbcom for a full out arb case on his behaviour overall not just in the topic of diacritics per the comment by Br'er Rabbit below. -] (]) 11:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by GoodDay === | |||
In the ] the led to this block ''two'' sitting arbs suggested that the issue be referred back to the AC for review. That's what should happen here. ] (]) 02:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
====Comment by A Quest for Knowledge==== | |||
Good grief, didn't we just finish this a few days ago? GoodDay says, "''I wasn't fully aware of the extent of the topic ban.''" But shouldn't they have made themselves fully aware when they were originally topic-banned? Or when the first RfE was filed? Or the second RfE? Considering there was some support for a 6 month ban, I would say to let GoodDay complete the 30 day sanction. ] (]) 03:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
====Comment by One Night In Hackney==== | |||
Suggest speedy decline as he was aware of the scope of the topic-ban per ], in particular . <font face="Celtic">]<sub>'']''</sub></font> 06:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
On another point, following me reviewing the information in this complaint by WeatherWriter... | |||
====Statement from Resolute==== | |||
"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. | |||
I'm sorry my friend, but you knew the range of your prohibition after your first AE block. I myself tried to impress on you what it meant: , . Consensus at the ] supported that interpretation. You need to accept that you are banned from this topic. That you may not comment on it, ''anywhere'' in any way. Please, just take the summer off, then return with a fresh purpose. As I said in one of those comments, I can think of plenty of projects for you to gnome about that won't put you afoul of your topic bans. ]] 14:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:I would also like to add, simply for the record but requesting no action, that I feel the four anti-diacritic editors on your talk page after you were blocked are doing you no favours by attempting to impress the martyr-complex on you. I think they would be well served to let you be as my impression is their comments led you into this appeal, which has no hope of success and can only further test the community's patience with you. If my impression is accurate, then they have done you a great disservice, even if their intentions were noble. ]] 14:56, 7 August 2012 (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 | |||
===Result of the appeal by GoodDay=== | |||
] (]) 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.'' | :''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. --> | |||
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
*<!-- | |||
--> | |||
{{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) | |||
== Arbitration enforcement action appeal by The Devil's Advocate == | |||
Ok, having now reviewed ]'s page history, its talk page discussion, and Marlarkey's contributions more generally, I find that: | |||
<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found ]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. <p>To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see ]).''</small> | |||
:* 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== | |||
; Appealing user : {{userlinks|The Devil's Advocate}} - 20:19, 6 August 2012 (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 DanielVizago=== | |||
; Sanction being appealed : | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Schazjmd}} 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Topic ban from the subject of the September 11 attacks, imposed at | |||
:], logged at | |||
:] | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|DanielVizago}}<p>{{ds/log|DanielVizago}}</p> | |||
; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|WGFinley}} | |||
; Notification of that administrator : | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
===Statement by The Devil's Advocate=== | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
As this was a massive case I intend to focus on the substantive points raised about my conduct in the discussion as there was quite a bit of trivial commentary. For the sake of making things easier, as this is going to be long, I will summarize the main points and include evidence and commentary after that in sections. The main points of my appeal: | |||
# 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.}}); | |||
# 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}}); | |||
# 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 : | |||
*The alleged edit-warring on the September 11 attacks article was me attempting to undo a glaring error that resulted from another editor's manual revert of my changes. | |||
*None | |||
*Claims of tendentious editing in favor of 9/11 conspiracy theories are based on edits I made that were actually less favorable to a conspiracist view. | |||
*The case I filed against ] was related to articles in the 9/11 topic area and did include serious conduct issues. It was not a frivolous request regarding any "personal dispute" between us nor an attempt to "silence an opponent" to my edits. | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
My reason for citing the ] is because ] cited the case as a reason for his position on the MONGO case (the one that resulted in my topic ban). In that respect I would ask that ], who made several comments on the DHeyward case, be considered involved as that case is related to the enforcement action. | |||
*I alerted them on | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
==== Edit-warring ==== | |||
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. | |||
The first substantive allegation raised was by Tom harrison. He claimed that I was edit-warring over a "Warnings" section to the article on 9/11 to "force in" a rewrite I did of the section. This is the initial revert of my changes by A Quest For Knowledge: | |||
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) | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
What should be noted about this revert is that it was a manual revert spread over that tried to preserve some of my changes while removing others. The unintentional result was that two of the paragraphs in the section were essentially identical and sourced material about a well-known August memo was removed entirely. Here is exactly what was in the article as a result of this revert with the exact duplication bolded: | |||
* | |||
{{quote|During the Bush Administration such warnings intensified due to an increase in intelligence from June to July of 2001, called "the threat spike" by ] ]. At a July meeting CIA counter-terrorism chief ] and CIA director ] informed Rice '''about communications intercepts and other top-secret intelligence showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States. Rice listened but was unconvinced, having other priorities on which to focus. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld questioned the information suggesting it was a deception meant to gauge the U.S. response.'''<br/><br/>In July 2001, J. Cofer Black, CIA's couterterrorism chief and George Tenet, CIA's director, met with Condolezza Rice, the ], to inform her '''about communications intercepts and other top-secret intelligence showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States. Rice listened but was unconvinced, having other priorities on which to focus. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld questioned the information suggesting it was a deception meant to gauge the U.S. response.'''}} | |||
Both paragraphs were clearly the same with minor alterations to the beginning. When I reverted this change I was very clear that I was reverting the duplication of this paragraph: . The editor responsible for the error stepped in to revert a second time by citing WP:BRD and restored the error: . Once more I reverted the error to note that it had also mistakenly removed the information about the August memo as I believe AQFK's revert was not meant to completely remove material about the memo: . At this point Tom harrison reverts it, citing BRD like AQFK did: . However, he quickly notices the duplication and removes it: . A few days later I restored the old structure of the August memo paragraph: . That change was not reverted, unlike the others, suggesting the main objection was simply to the changes I made to the section. | |||
===Discussion concerning DanielVizago=== | |||
Another note is ] immediately after my first revert that, despite me even suggesting possible problems in advance and seeking to address them, was up nearly four days with many comments from other editors about the need for discussion before anyone other than myself ''actually discussed'' any specific issues with the changes I made to the section. | |||
<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==== | |||
==== Tendentious-editing ==== | |||
In suggesting the ban WG claimed I was engaged in tendentious-editing, which is defined as editing that is "partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole" and this was the main allegation of many editors in the case. However, to demonstrate from the above dispute, it is clear these allegations are at best misunderstanding the evidence if not cherry-picking it. One of my to the Warnings section in the 9/11 article changed the characterization of Rumsfield's reaction to certain warnings from "dismissed the information thinking it was a deception" to "questioned the information suggesting it was a deception meant to gauge the U.S. response", which clearly put Rumsfield's reaction in a more favorable light. Then, after Tom an inaccurate quote from Rice, I the accurate quote, which once more put the situation in a far more favorable light. Ironically, a piece of information that was clearly a disservice to a conspiracist POV was actually removed by AQFK's manual revert, and re-added in my subsequent reverts. It is thus very hard to frame my edits regarding that section as tendentious. | |||
====Statement by caeciliusinhorto==== | |||
During the case AQFK noted a separate dispute regarding the 9/11 CT article. Another editor, Ghostofnemo, added a section about the ] program, and AQFK by stating that it was not about 9/11 conspiracy theories. I re-added the section with a sourced sentence establishing the conspiracy theory connection (). Admittedly that was a lazy edit, but it did serve to address the objection. When AQFK reverted it a second time by arguing that this was not a major element of CT's, the matter began being discussed intensely on ]. After a few days of discussion where numerous additional sources were presented to establish this as prominent among conspiracy theorists, I a substantial rewrite regarding the material. While Nemo's version was argumentative regarding the original claims, mine described the original complaint as "claiming the U.S. government was negligent in not heeding the information about the hijackers for fear of the political fallout", which presents a very non-CT explanation for the issue and follows it with "A six-month investigation by the ] was concluded in December of 2006 without finding evidence to support the claims." It is very hard to regard those new additions as tendentiously pushing a CT POV and they were in direct response to concerns raised on the talk page. Contrary to AQFK's characterization of the dispute, that change was described by JoelWhy on the talk page as being "on the right track" though he said more needed to be done to satisfy his concerns. | |||
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. ]) | |||
==== DHeyward case ==== | |||
* 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 | |||
To explain this one requires a bit of context. I had filed ] against Tom because of certain tendentious edits he made to the 9/11 CT article. All three admins that commented rapidly agreed the edits were so severe as to warrant an indefinite topic ban. Several editors, such as MONGO, were greatly displeased with that result and plainly expressed that I should have been sanctioned instead. During a discussion about that topic ban on MONGO's talk page is when MONGO insinuated that I might be a sockpuppet based on a misguided examination of my first edit, if he had looked that hard he would have noticed that all the templates were copy-pasted from a section directly above my edit. That is when DHeyward to suggest that I was a sock of Giovanni33. | |||
* and edit categorise two sexually-motivated murderers as rapists despite no evidence that they ever raped anyone in the article (cf. ]) | |||
] (]) 10:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
While we had interacted before, his comment at MONGO's talk was the first time his conduct stuck out. Soon after that was the random vexatious delete vote at the AfD mentioned in diff #3 of the case I filed, which on its own was nothing, but clearly set the tone for his later conduct. One thing I did not note in the case is at Timotheus Canens talk page a day prior to filing the AN report to have Tom's ban repealed. His motives for going after me, and its connection with the 9/11 articles were more than clear in that comment. It was my fault for not being clear enough about how DHey's conduct towards me was related to the 9/11 topic area, but there were still several serious issues that any admin should surely have noticed. Particularly, his when appealing for the removal of Tom's topic ban (diff #6 on the case) comparing me to ] should have been a giant red flag for any admin looking over the evidence in the case and I find the failure to notice or comment on it to be a gross lapse on the part of all three admins. | |||
====Statement by Simonm223==== | |||
As noted above, my reason for mentioning this case is because it was explicitly mentioned by Ed as part of his reason for supporting a ban, indeed it constituted most of his comment at the MONGO case. He described the case as being "almost frivolous" and suggested it was an "attempt to silence an opponent", something I think the above clearly illustrates as a gravely mistaken proposition. One of the other admins who commented at the DHeyward case, Timotheus Canens, also subsequently commented at the MONGO case to support the topic ban against me. Amazingly, on that same case pointed to yet another serious conduct issue where he described dealing with me as being "like trying to deal with someone with OCD, Asperberger, paranoia and infinite time on their hands to constantly disrupt the project." | |||
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 conduct issues are all stale, so to be clear my point here is just that I was not trying to "silence an opponent" as Ed suggested. DHeyward's conduct was upsetting me quite a bit as it would reasonably upset anyone and the thought of having to deal with that conduct, not just in the 9/11 topic area, but anywhere I go on Misplaced Pages left me feeling like I had to request admin intervention to have any respite. | |||
==== |
====Statement by (username)==== | ||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
Given all the issues above I feel the admins who supported this topic ban were not very thorough in their examination of the situation and were too hasty in suggesting such an action. Honestly, I am not even particularly enthused about the idea of being able to edit in this topic area and will probably only be minimally or tangentially involved in the 9/11 CT dispute for some time should this be lifted, but I all the same would like to see some comment from uninvolved admins about the reasons given for this ban. | |||
=== |
===Result concerning DanielVizago=== | ||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
WG, as you were the first uninvolved admin to definitively suggest a topic ban and subsequently several other admins supported your suggestion with you then being the one to implement it, it is reasonable that I would name you above. Now, would you please provide a more substantive explanation of your reasons for suggesting a topic ban and why you think the above does not illustrate any issues with those reasons?--] (]) 05:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
:NW, would you please put your comment in the involved editor section?--] (]) 14:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
*I've p-blocked from article space to see if we can get this editor communicating. ] (]) 12:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===Statement by WGFinley=== | |||
*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) | |||
*: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) | |||
<!-- 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. --> | |||
*<!-- | |||
--> | |||
==USERNAME== | |||
Not sure why I'm being specifically named here, I was the closing admin moving on a consensus of admins and not independently. That being said, I can't think of a single thing more to add to maintain this ban than TDA has said in his treatise himself. This is a signature case of someone who has a long way to go before contributing in a hot stove area like this. --] (]) 03:52, 7 August 2012 (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 USERNAME=== | ||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Bamdad bahar}} 17:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
The Devil's Advocate (TDA, for short) is in his second topic ban on this subject. This second topic ban is only 6 months. The examples listed above by TDA as far as content, clearly demonstrate why he is so difficult to work with in this venue...for TDA, anyone making a slight alteration to his preferred version is then subjected to an endless, mind-numbing talkpage discussion...by the time the discussion is sort of concluded, an entire new archive page is needed. TDA and lots of other folks seem to think the September 11 attacks article is supposed to be a coatrack for every piece of only mildly related information. The primary reason the article is a long way from featured status is due to this issue...anyone trying to misuse the website to promote fringe material over the known facts should seek out a new hobby.] 13:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|USERNAME}}<p>{{ds/log|USERNAME}}</p> | |||
===Statement by (involved editor 1)=== | |||
===Statement by (involved editor 2)=== | |||
===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by The Devil's Advocate === | |||
====Statement by NuclearWarfare==== | |||
*I would recommend rejection of this appeal. TDA ''is'' a tendentious editor in this topic area, despite his protestations otherwise, and basically every uninvolved administrator who has scanned his edits agrees on that. Discretionary sanctions are meant to allow administrators to use their judgment. While I am obviously ], I would posit that ours was not so totally incorrect that it merits reversal. Furthermore, I see no indication that anything has changed since the March request. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 14:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
===Result of the appeal by The Devil's Advocate=== | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
<In editing Alexander's family and descendants' information, editor Prince Tehran keeps deleting edits and reverting to unfounded information. A new reference has been cited in Persian, and there has been considerable research conducted to confirm that Prince Alexander had two sons (not recorded in Georgian texts - for obvious political reasons). I am respectfully requesting that this editor(Prince Tehran) NOT be allowed to make these changes (or undo the edits). In a very practical sense, its a little ridiculous to suggest that Alexander had two children in his 50's but somehow did not have any when he was younger. The data from Iranian sources is correct. !--- Here and at the end, replace Prince Tehran with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
*As a sysop who has commented on neither of the cases cited by The Devil's Advocate (TDA) I'll have a look at this. I've gone through the appeal and the previous case (but haven't finished the Dheyward case yet) and at this point I see no grounds for over-turning. I'll have a couple more run throughs before commenting further, but as TDA has based this appeal on the legitimacy of the sanction alone (not any change of his behaviour since it) the grounds are quite narrow--] <sup>]</sup> 14:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 18:24, 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)
- Sorry, the sub-header for this section says that only admins can edit this section, I didn't realize I was allowed to reply here.
- Yes, I will. I intend on taking an extended break from wikipedia, as well. BabbleOnto (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC) Moved from uninvolved admin section; you can answer questions, make comments, discuss, but all your input needs to be in your own section. Valereee (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
an extended break doesn't solve the issues around understanding policy. An extended break from contentious topics -- while you edit in other topics and learn policy -- would be more helpful all around.
- What I meant was that I'm willing to respect the consensus and not make any further edits or argue any more contrary to what the consensus decided. It seems to me that saying I have "Issues around understanding policy" and asking me to "learn policy" has subtext that says "Until you agree with this consensus, and you won't be allowed to edit at all." Is respectful disagreement with this consensus allowed? I'm afraid if in order to avoid a ban I have to personally agree with the consensus, beyond just respecting it, then there's nothing I can do. I still do disagree with the consensus's result. Nonetheless, I'm not going to edit or argue further, I'll respect it as a legitimate.
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)
- BabbleOnto's response understanding this as a suggestion to take a break from Misplaced Pages as a whole isn't quite what I was hoping to see. signed, Rosguill 17:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @BabbleOnto, an extended break doesn't solve the issues around understanding policy. An extended break from contentious topics -- while you edit in other topics and learn policy -- would be more helpful all around.
- @Rosguill, I'd support a tban, but is AP2 enough? It seems like COVID and fringe science need to be included? Valereee (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- AP2 + COVID? I see the same behavior at the Brian Thompson article and Havana Syndrome, so COVID alone doesn't seem adequate. Oddly, the intersection of "medicine and politics" would appear to cover all affected topics but maybe that's too bespoke? signed, Rosguill 17:56, 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)
USERNAME
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 USERNAME
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Bamdad bahar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- USERNAME (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
<In editing Alexander's family and descendants' information, editor Prince Tehran keeps deleting edits and reverting to unfounded information. A new reference has been cited in Persian, and there has been considerable research conducted to confirm that Prince Alexander had two sons (not recorded in Georgian texts - for obvious political reasons). I am respectfully requesting that this editor(Prince Tehran) NOT be allowed to make these changes (or undo the edits). In a very practical sense, its a little ridiculous to suggest that Alexander had two children in his 50's but somehow did not have any when he was younger. The data from Iranian sources is correct. !--- Here and at the end, replace Prince Tehran with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->