Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive85
Passionless
edit| Passionless blocked indefinitely by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs), rendering the matter moot. T. Canens (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Passionlessedit
Violation of npov, incivility, battleground behavior.
Discussion concerning PassionlesseditStatement by PassionlesseditThis will take awhile, but I will begin,
Comment by GatoclasseditPer T. Canens, this case is out of process since the edits in question do not fall under the domain of ARBPIA. Gatoclass (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Passionlessedit
Result concerning Passionlessedit
HJ Mitchell has blocked Passionless indefinitely. Therefore, this request is now moot. T. Canens (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC) |
Gnevin
edit| Request withdrawn. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Gnevinedit
Discussion concerning GnevineditStatement by GnevineditThe stretch to include the GAA in the scope of the trouble arb com is ridiculous this is a sporting article not a troubles or Irish nationalism article, anyway I undid the edits are requested by the user Gnevin (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning GnevineditI would like to withdraw this request as Gnevin has now self-reverted. Mooretwin (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Gnevinedit
|
NickOrnstein
edit| Ryoung122 reminded of the scope of his topic ban; NickOrnstein warned about edit warring. Admins may choose to notify forum participants of the discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning NickOrnsteinedit
Warnings explicit in ArbCom case and implicit in my diffs above. Also
I concur with EJ's proposed result, including his proposed amendment, per Amatulic. David in DC (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [47] David in DC (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Discussion concerning NickOrnsteineditStatement by NickOrnsteineditFrankly, I have not replied to a lot of "wars". It seems pointless replying back on List of disputed supercentenarian claimants, or anywhere of that matter, due to these battles lasting for months (since about October). I have not agreed with removing WOP sources (except from List of oldest living people by nation as of today), many correspondents are on the WOP. There are loads worth of articles with links on that site. So much important information is on the WOP. The group itself is almost as old as Wikipedia. World's Oldest People group is on Longevity claims, along with several other articles. The group is also a backup incase a link becomes dead. I haven't even bothered to read every little detail regarding the ongoing battles of Bulten vs. Young in the past, especially the fight over the WOP being "reliable". I am going to continue keeping WOP sources, unless there is a source on the internet that is reliable and can replace it. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Blogs are still surviving on some of the articles, some twitter and facebook links were on List of living supercentenarians for months. WOP deserves to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickOrnstein (talk • contribs) 00:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC) In the future, I will put forward an attempt to reply with "wars" and edits. See my edit here [48], if it shines any light on you guys. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning NickOrnsteineditMy only concern with NickOrnstein is his apparent inability to provide a rationale for his position other than a brief comment here and there as well as his inability to collaborate with other editors as he appears to have the view of "the other editor is wrong, therefore, I will be bold and revert without further comment or explanation". He has not justified why he reverted my attempts to add references to the WikiProject's World's Oldest People's Future supercentenarians subpage in the section I made to elicit a response from NickOrnstein. He has not made a response to date, and he is fully aware of David in DC and my efforts to add citations to the future supercentenarians subpage. So I feel that, at least, NickOrnstein should be warned to be more cooperative & collaborative, than to be bold all the time. Cheers, CalvinTy 18:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Comment by Melissa.vp198editI'd like to get clarification one one thing, if I may. Am I to understand that the RSN [[49]] page is concerned with the reliability of the GRG only and not the Louis Epstein pages, which I believe is what many of these edit disagreements are about? If so, should it be considered there as well? Epstein verifies cases in a very similar way to the GRG, although granted his work his barely ever cited in news reports etc. Maybe someone could give me a brief rationale as to why this is explicitly not a reliable source (ie not covered by the RSN page, where consensus seems to be leaning towards thinking the GRG is a reliable source)? In terms of NickOrnstein and his editing approach explicitly, from observation I would say he does need to try and be more collaborative. --Melissa.vp198 (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Comments by ItsmejuditheditSince the Arbcom finished, Ryoung122 has continued to manipulate a number of editors as meatpuppets in this area. I cannot currently add the links because they are blocked by the spam filter, but they are found easily by Googling for "110 Club Wikipedia". The editors colluding include, but may not be limited to, User:Brendanology, User:Melissa.vp198, User:NickOrnstein, User:DerbyCountyinNZ, User:Cam46136, and User:CalvinTy. This is probably the most blatant case of off-wiki collusion ever. Please take the time to review the pages you will find, which contain numerous personal attacks on editors, and discussion of tactics to subvert the ArbCom decision and continue to push points of view on Wikipedia. Ryoung122's topic ban must be converted into a general indefinite ban, and the meatpuppets should also be banned. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Robert Young and I have differing opinions on many things: certainly in terms of wikipedia. Surprisingly, I have my own mind...so does CalvinTy. I think Robert Young should back off from the oldest people pages of wikipedia completely, if not the whole site. In fact, seeing as you've been scanning the 110 club forum for evidence, you'll already know this. That fact that there are a group of people who want the oldest people pages to sustain/improve/grow is self evident. Your issue is with Robert Young and not those independently-minded individuals who choose to add their voice to any debate here.--Melissa.vp198 (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Comments by O FenianeditI was tangentially involved in a dispute or two leading up to the arbitration case, and I see little has changed. Over 20 hours after being notified of the thread here, and without having replied, he is making edits such as this which restores commented out information with no explanation. The information is sourced to messages in a Yahoo group, which is wholly unacceptable sourcing particularly if the people are still alive as some of them are. I would suggest something needs to be done about this. O Fenian (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Comments by CalvinTyeditSirFozzie, I just saw your comment. Be careful for jumping into conclusions with your comment, "Unfortunately, the admins at the 110 Club have removed all the threads from the forum they were in (either moving them to a read only/members only forum, or deleting them). One could say that this is them either realizing what they're doing is not allowed, or taking it private, and we won't be able to tell. I'd say it's pretty damming however." As a matter of fact, the founder of the forum (who -- to the best of my knowledge -- has no Wikipedia account and definitely has no hand in all of this disputes going on) approved, ironically today, the recommendation that topics which made predictions of which supercentenarians may live or die within xx number of months were not appropriate for public view, and topics that covers debates or opinions that members would not want the public to be aware of were also not appropriate for public view, as well as topics in where other members or administrators would admonish other member for their mistakes (such as insulting another member) and where the administrators did not want to split or delete the whole topic so all those topics were moved to a private section of the forum. This is out of respect for our forum members as well as everyone on the Internet as well. SirFozzie, please feel free to ask me any more questions but please do not jump into conclusions like that. Much appreciated. Cheers, CalvinTy 05:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
@EdJohnston, thank you for the link to the EEML ArbCom case so I can take a look over there about this to better educate myself about previous precedents on canvassing. I understand your interpretation of canvassing; just that my concern is the last part of the hypothetical sentence: "...so if you agree with me, I suggest you go over there and state your case." That seems to imply that the editor is just notifying other editors about a current event and that the person is being neutral by saying "if you agree with me, then I suggest you go over there and state your opinion". It's not an imperative statement (i.e. an order), correct? Just wondering. In any case, I don't have the time to go over old topics on our forum to see what kind of wording were actually used (and plus, there is the COI issue with myself). I just took a quick look at the EEML ArbCom case, and noticed one apparent erroneous statement by ArbCom unless they meant exactly what they meant: "9) While discussion of Wikipedia and editing in channels outside of Wikipedia itself (such as IRC, mailing lists, or web forums) is unavoidable and generally appropriate, using external channels for coordination of activities that, on-wiki, would be inappropriate is also improper." Did they mean to say "generally inappropriate"? Did I just catch a mistake that nobody had yet, eh? :-) In any case, in good faith, I can only state and defend myself that I did not canvass anyone to the best of my knowledge, and that I only provided my opinions in some of my posts on the forum to those members who were bringing Wikipedia disputes to our attention. Much appreciated, CalvinTy 19:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC) @To all admins, would it be more appropriate if this RfE focuses solely on the originator's (David in DC) request for a two-week block on NickOrnstein for his failure to collaborate with other editors and persistence in re-introducing Yahoo Groups WOP citations into various articles? Considering that most of us are in agreement that Yahoo Groups WOP is not a reliable source, myself included, I don't see a justification for the assumption that "all of the 110 Club forum members are engaging in coordination efforts (even if some of them could be guilty of canvassing)". If itsmejudith or any other editor (and a non-administrator) decides to make a new RfE case, then that's where the The 110 Club forum members can defend their position, not here. I fully recommend that this "drumhead trial" come to a stop here & focus solely on the original RfE. Thanks, CalvinTy 22:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Statement by A Quest for KnowledgeeditAlthough NickOrnstein has not violated WP:3RR on any article, he has been edit-warring for days to include citatations to Yahoo World's Oldest People Group in multiple articles, including those which involve claims about living people:
Since this RfE was filed, NickOrnstein has made over 100 edits[52], and has still not responded to this RfE. I asked NickOrnstein when they planned on responding to this RfE[53] but have not received a response. Since he is apparently unwilling to discuss matters either here or on the relevant talk pages, and he shows no sign of ending his edit-war, he should be blocked until his conduct issues have been resolved. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Statement by BlueboareditI have to echo the concerns that others have expressed. I have just had my own brief encounter with Nick on the issue of Yahoo groups, and he definitely seems to want to engage in a revert wars rather than discuss the matter on the talk page. The fact that this is ongoing and crossing over into multiple articles clearly indicates that admin action is needed. He is clearly violating the spirit of 3rr if not the letter. As he refuses to engage on talk pages, the only alternative is to get his attention through a block. Blueboar (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Further comments by ItsmejuditheditPursuant to a suggestion by EdJohnston, I would like this AE request to be broadened to cover all the members of the 110 Club that have been involved in the recent off-wiki canvassing: I am notifying all of those users, plus the following who seem to be members of the group but not involved in recent canvassing: The following diffs, currently accessible to me through Google cache, show the pattern:
Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Further comments by CalvinTyeditItsmejudith, the link you provided regarding RYoung122 advising me (which definitely was not the case) would be exactly what I mean by "just because forum members are talking about a Wikipedia debate in a PUBLIC forum, they are not automatically guilty of canvassing". As you can see in that link, I asked where the request for deletion of the WikiProject subage was made (as RYoung122 stated in the original post). Melissa replied with the correct link. I reviewed the discussions, and I myself had some questions for DerbyCountyinNZ and David in DC. I also felt that I wanted to provide my own input in the RSN as well (keeping in mind that NOBODY asked me to go to the RSN and make any comment). Yes, RYoung122 at the end complimented me for making points logically and maturely. (LOL, he probably knows that is a skill that he needs practice with, and he probably would confess to, heh.) However, at least in my view, RYoung122 was not canvassing us in that particular thread. Looking at WP:CANVASS, the four criteria are (and my justification that no canvassing occurred in THAT particular thread only): Limited posting: The 110 Club longevity forum has only 50 validated members (20-25 active members) and nobody was "mass-posting" anything in that thread. I imagine that there are at least 10 members that also have a similar Wikipedia account as well. Neutral: Everyone in that thread was providing information about where everything was being covered. I also posted my thoughts from my edits. Nobody was pleading anyone else to "change something". Audience: it is not fair to say that the audience is "partisan" because all of the forum members are interested in longevity. Why should it be an automatic strike on us when we are talking about longevity articles on Wikipedia as well as the WikiProject's World's Oldest People -- which many of the same forum members/Wikipedia editors are also a project member? This "small community" cannot be guilty of partisanship "just because we are too closely associated to longevity". Transparency: we forum members all fully knew that The 110 Club was a public forum, available in Google Cache, so when we were participating in that particular thread, we were transparent about our own opinions and thoughts. Summary: That particular thread does not meet ANY of the four criteria of canvassing. Like I said earlier, I fear that this has become a ""drumhead trial", clumping up all members of a small longevity forum as "guilty" for canvassing. NOTE: I am not saying that no canvassing has occurred in the past, but I was not active on Wikipedia and was not familiar with the WP:CANVASS so even if I am a forum administrator there, I had no idea whether some members may have been actively canvassing at that time. That's why I would appreciate a separate RfE for any direct evidence of canvassing against any alleged members like what itsmejudith feels that RYoung122 has done so in canvassing, as well as SirFozzie's point of view here. Expanding this RfE only complicates matters because I fear that NickOrnstein's stubborness reflects poorly on other longevity editors such as myself for no reason. I even admonished him myself, but has anyone here cares that I'm being neutral -- or that doesn't matter -- "because you are a forum administrator over there at The 110 Club so you are a guilty party"? If so, that's disappointing. I really don't want to go through the chain of command, but I feel like I am backed into a corner. If necessary, I will have to request enforcement (however that works, but I fear that I have to escalate this matter to a higher level) against any & all editors and administrators who keep insisting on "clumping up" and "generalizing" all longevity editors together from a small forum with the perception of us being a "bad bunch of people and guilty of violating guidelines" when I'm certain that several of us like myself and Melissa are just expressing our opinions on our own accord and, to the best of our knowledge and faith, we have not violated any guidelines.
Request from ItsmejuditheditPlease, as this AE is about to close, could everyone be encouraged to join in discussion on the talk page of the WikiProject? Still called WP:WOP, WikiProject World's Oldest People, but there are suggestions to rename. I have a question there about splitting list articles and would appreciate comments, otherwise I will just go ahead and do it. What wouldn't be good is if there is no discussion, and then I go ahead, and then there is an edit war. Admins, could someone explain to NickOrnstein, per his question below, why I and David in DC are allowed to be in the WikiProject? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Suggesting a potential compromise by CalvinTyedit@admins, first, what is a discretionary sanction? Of more concern, why should every member of The 110 Club forum receive one automatically regardless of their level of involvement, if any, in a possible violation of any guidelines (which, to date, is quite debatable and has not been sufficiently proven)? So, rather, I have a potential compromise here: I think a statement from each forum member voluntarily stating that "We have now reviewed WP:CANVASS and WP:MEATPUPPET guidelines, and we acknowledge not to violate those guidelines, and that we will not take action at the direction of any other Wikipedia editor." would be sufficient? If we make this voluntarily statement, and then one of us violate it, then that's where a sanction or enforcement of a ban of some length would finally be appropriate. Regarding NickOrnstein's actions, if the administrators feel that there is a consensus for him to receive a two-week ban then enforce that. Would that be a good compromise? Regards, CalvinTy 11:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a nation, it's "laws" are not binding. It's a website, and a social experiment gone horribly wrong. Instead of being about consensus and collaboration, it has become a virtual-reality video game, where Wikipedia editors build social networks and gang up on others, establishing who is the most powerful. How about some FACTS: FACT: Both David in DC and Itsmejudith have a long laundry list of poor editing decisions, whether it's accusing others of being "meatpuppets" or deleting articles that existed for five-plus years, after canvassing for AFD support with a few regulars (Grismaldo, where are you?...) Here's just a few issues: 1. David in DC mass-canvassed with JJB in November 2010, mass-nominating or i-voting in coordination. That's CANVASSING and as usual, Wiki rules don't seem to apply to certain editors. 2. David in DC, from the beginning, hasn't understood the principle of "recusal" when one is an involved party. As an involved ArbCom person, it was not his job to be "ArbCom enforcer." This is just typical of him mis-using the Wikipedia system. 3. When David in DC accuses certain off-wiki groups of trying to use Wikipedia as a "web host," that is typical B.S. that he should be punished for, but gets away with. The GRG lists exist whether they're copied on Wikipedia or not. No one is off-loading anything. We do see the Wikipedia lists offer a few advantages, such as being able to be updated by anyone, not just a 70-year-old man when he is not busy (Dr. Coles). 4. Itsmejudith's "let's delete everything" ideas certainly don't make Wikipedia a better place. 5. Itsmejudith has coordinated with JJBulten and David in DC to CANVASS to "win" debates. 6. Some of Itsmejudith's merge and delete proposals were so preposterous that even JJB was against them. For example, she wanted to delete Oldest People and Longevity Myths. Many of her proposals might succeed, that doesn't mean the right decision was made. It means she chased anyone away who dared oppose. In fact, the real test of whether an editor is going against consensus is to see how much difference there would be if that person took a week off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disputed_supercentenarian_claimants Woah, is that David in DC voting again to delete this list? Do you people realize that the purpose of such lists are EDUCATIONAL...i.e., to show the reader, demographically, how common such age claims are. In the same way that kids enjoy lists of home run hitters (but might actually learn math as well), there is a value to these lists that biased, POV-pushing editors like Itsmejudith and David in DC won't or can't see. We already see that David in DC confuses making fun of others as humor...it's not. 7. I might be "topic-banned," but it has been David in DC and Itsmejudith that has prompted me to return to this issue, again. 8. Both David in DC and Itsmejudith continue to talk about me. Get over me. It's NOT about me. It's about YOU TWO pushing against consensus. FACT: I originally opposed Wikipedia list expansion as it would "mirror" GRG lists. Then I realized that the Wikipedia lists were mostly just listed to top-100, whereas the GRG has 1,000+ case lists. So, it's not really accurate to say that the Wikipedia lists were "mirrors." So (don't laugh), I'm going to propose that Itsmejudith and DavidinDC be simultaneously topic-banned along with anyone else the RFC decides to punish, and start over fresh with neutral third-party editors, not those who had a personal vendetta even before they came across the topic. Wikipedia claims that bans are not to punish but to make Wikipedia a better place. If Itsmejudith is busy hurling "meatpuppet" accusations without doing research first (just as DerbyNZ, or check the edit histories of Brendanology and even Nick Ornstein), that's detrimental to Wikipedia. If Itsmejudith is deleting articles left and right and David in DC is claiming that list notability is not established even if a source is notable...well, here's an analogy. If MLB.com is a reliable source, NO ONE is going to say that lists of most home runs hit can't be placed on Wikipedia. Yet in effect that's what David in DC has been arguing. Finally, it was the admin of the admins, Carcharoth, that advised me that off-wiki actions are outside the scope of Wikipedia. And I agree. It's the actions done on Wikipedia that should be punished, from Itsmejudith's "everyone's a meatpuppet" accusations and suggestions that scientific material be banished from religious articles (virgin birth of Jesus) to David in DC's confusing Census 2010 with Census 1910. Because if this is an encyclopedia, then we should want the editing work here to be objective, fair, neutral, and reflective of outside sources, not the personal whims of egotistical nobodys who hide behind fake ID's. Have a nice day. Ryoung122 05:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
More comments from Ryoung122editEd, that is the crux of the issue here. Yahoo groups are generally unreliable, and I agree. However, the WOP group could be described as a "self-published source" by an "expert" (that would be me) or other experts who post messages there, where they must be approved first. In reality, it's a TOOL. Suppose, for example, Silvo Torkar reported that the oldest woman in Slovenia is still alive at 109, but Wikipedia deleted the case because it was "unsourced". Why not source to Mr. Torkar's statement on the WOP group, which provides and archived record of not just who said it, but the year, month, and day the comment was made. As an "expert" on Slovenian centenarians, it seems reasonable to give someone's message like that to be reliable. That is a practical and sensible argument. Of course, I don't expect the practical or sensible here. Let's face it: just like the "driving 55mph" rule, it's impossible for all rules to be followed precisely at all times. That was the gist of WP:IAR. It wasn't about anarchy, it was about being able to make common-sense decisions about applying rules appropriately. An expert's credential are affected by misreporting. If someone's reporting is not generally reliable, they are likely to be "fired." Thus there are lots of incentives to "get it right" the first time. Again, I tried to do the right thing on Wikipedia, repeatedly. Had I not, I would have been like Louis Epstein, who long ago metaphorically thumbed his nose at the system. Wikipedia has failed to live up to its own rules, allowing power-grabbing editors to carve out metaphorical "witch-hunts" while they ignore the reliable-source material outside Wikipedia that is accepted by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Tokyo Times, Science Magazine, etc. The reality is that humans are not computers; they are governed by irrationality, not rationality. That is the conclusion one must draw from years of editing on Wikipedia. It has been noted that Wikipedia editors are disproportionately male and under age 30. Thus, it's not surprising that Wikipedia finds high schools, minor college athletes, and fictional TV characters notable, but fails to consider notable material on supercentenarians, even when the mainstream scientific journals and news reports deem it so. Ryoung122 06:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Refactored by moving from the uninvolved admin's section. Courcelles 06:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Result concerning NickOrnsteinedit
Closingedit
|
Miradre
edituser notified of discretionary sanctions
|
|---|
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Miradreedit
I am not providing diffs at this time because of the nature of the problem. As this is civil POV-pushing no single diff is violating the sanctions, but rather the total editing pattern of the editor. I will start looking through Miradre's contributions tomorrow to begin providing diffs of the exhanges I find to be useful as examples of the conduct in question. Meanwhile, I direct the attention of the reviewing arbitrator to Talk:Race and intelligence and Talk:Race (classification of humans) where they can observe Miradre's interations with other editors for the past week. It is my claim that his editing pattern constitute disruption and civil POV-pushing, observe how his editing constantly issues ultimatums, opp challenges, flat rejections of the opposing argument, and red-herring type arguments.
{{{Diffs of prior warnings}}}
Comment to Sandsteinedit@Sandstein: I believe that the request is actionable.
Discussion concerning MiradreeditStatement by MiradreeditEssentially we have a couple of editors who want me banned for on the talk page asking for concrete reasons for keeping the NPOV tag. They themselves contribute almost nothing to improving the contents of the articles in the area. I would be happy to participate in any process for resolving the content dispute.Miradre (talk) 09:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC) No, I am not Jagz. The sockpuppet investigation is many months old. As are the false allegations there regarding behavior.Miradre (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Comments aprockeditWhen Miradre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started editing it was clear from his editing behavior that he is an editor with significant experience editing Wikipedia, so a sock puppet investigation was initiated to determine if he was any of the recently banned users from the R/I ArbCom case. Much of Miradre's WP:SPA and WP:CPUSH behavior was originally detailed in that SPI case. In the SPI, Miradre denied being one of the original four accounts listed. And while he did not deny that he is banned user Jagz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), further investigation into a link between those two accounts proved inconclusive. During the SPI, he was made aware of the arbitration, and discusses it on that page. I do not think he was made specifically aware of potential sanctions. His behavior has remained generally consistent with that of a single purpose account who's goal is to promote a specific viewpoint. He has generally gotten a free pass from most editors for three reasons. First, while he is pushing a specific viewpoint he also makes a lot of constructive edits. Second, the burnout induced by the ArbCom case caused a lot of editors to disengage from the topic. Third, he does a good job of avoiding edit wars and adhering to the letter of editing policy. At this point in time he has made substantial changes to the Race and Intelligence article consistent with promoting his personal viewpoint. When he met resistance to his attempt to remove the WP:NPOV tag, he dismissed every criticism and declared that unless his interpretation of policy was satisfied then there was no WP:NPOV problem, this despite ongoing discussions about general and specific issues involving five separate editors:
If you read the talk page, it essentially amounts to one giant wall of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, with every concern either dismissed or treated cosmetically in a way that does not address the problem. Thus begat the giant wall of text to defend the placement of a single WP:NPOV tag in one of the most contentious articles in the encyclopedia. Another aspect that of his editing is an over reliance on -- and misuse of -- primary sources which he represents as secondary sources [65]. Other behavior problems that he exhibits were detailed in the SPI with diffs.
Comments by others about the request concerning MiradreeditResult concerning Miradreedit
|
Lapsed Pacifist
edit| Blocked |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Lapsed Pacifistedit
Not applicable
Discussion concerning Lapsed PacifisteditStatement by Lapsed PacifisteditComments by others about the request concerning Lapsed PacifisteditResult concerning Lapsed Pacifistedit
|
Doktorbuk
edit| No action taken. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Doktorbukedit
Discussion concerning DoktorbukeditStatement by DoktorbukeditThe paragraph in question is below - "Notwithstanding Gerry Adams' public statement rejecting his new position,[11] the Parliamentary authorities in Westminster have removed him from the list of MPs[12] and the seat of Belfast West is now considered vacant.[13]" This breaks down into these parts -
I respect the decision of those involved in deciding the outcome of this case.
Additional Edit 12/03 The article Belfast West by-election, 2011 has been copy-edited by another editor, not connected to either party in this case. The offending paragraph has been removed. I consider this Request to be no longer necessary. doktorb wordsdeeds 01:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Doktorbukedit
Result concerning Doktorbukedit
Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case, the 1RR restriction looks like a community-imposed restriction and not an Arbitration Committee-imposed one. It is at any rate not clear that this 1RR restriction has at any time been imposed by a vote of the Arbitration Committee or by a person acting under its delegated authority. I am therefore of the opinion that it cannot be enforced in this venue or with AE authority. (There might have been a request for clarification about this, but I no longer remember). Sandstein 14:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
|
Jalapenos do exist
edit| Jalapenos do exist is warned not to misrepresent sources. Sandstein 16:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Jalapenos do existedit
Topic ban.
On December 20 last year, Jalapenos do exist was banned from making more than one global revert per day on I-P related articles, for a period of three months. This came on top of the 1RR restriction that was imposed on all editors in the I-P topic area. The first two diffs in the evidence section above demonstrate that Jalapenos has violated both restrictions by making two clear reverts on the same article only 8 hours apart. The third diff above, represents the state of the article as Jalapenos created it before others started to make substantial edits to it. I submit that the article he created represents a gross violation of NPOV, for several reasons:
Jalapenos has a long history of creating heavily biased content on this encyclopedia, as a look at his editing history will demonstrate. I'd like to think the user is capable of reform but I'm afraid I see no evidence of it with this latest series of edits. I am therefore requesting a topic ban for this user. Gatoclass (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
J. states that he was merely responding to a request to move the picture, but Biosketch's comment on the talk page included the comment: please consider that plastering photos of the victims all over the article is nonconstructive editing.[79] Clearly, he felt that the addition of three pictures was excessive. Jalapenos ignored this concern in restoring the image. Regardless, the condition of the article before others made substantial changes was demonstrably one-sided, to a degree that I think ought to be considered unacceptable. Excluding all but the most extreme Palestinian viewpoints and plastering the article with graphic images of "dead babies", to quote User:Y, should surely be evidence enough of that. Gatoclass (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
On reflection, though I believe the article created by Jalapenos was blatantly POV, I probably would not have brought this request on that evidence alone, it was that in combination with the 1RR violation, since withdrawn, that persuaded me to file it. Though Jalapenos has in my experience made some highly questionable edits at times, and in my opinion added some marginal content, I'm not entirely sure a sanction is warranted at this point. In the absence of further evidence from other users, therefore, and in the interests of collegiality, I am downgrading my enforcement request from a topic ban to a warning. Gatoclass (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Jalapenos do existeditStatement by Jalapenos do existeditI create a pretty good article almost single handedly, and instead of getting thanked, first I get hit with a frivolous AfD (snow kept)[81], and now this bullshit. In edit #1, a user had removed an image of a victim from the Reactions section with the statement "inappropriately situated, no connection to Reactions"[82]; I agreed, so I restored the image to the Victims section, explaining what I did and why.[83] A very mundane edit in the course of upkeep on an article I created, and by no means a revert. So much for the 1RR allegation. The NPOV allegation is nonsense. I really don't feel like going through all the falsehoods and carefully constructed half-truths, but if you just look at this article and my other articles, you can see that they are not biased, and many editors have said as much. I'm proud of the fact that I've received compliments from editors with declared sympathies on both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Please take a good, long look at Gatoclass' editing and complaint history. What's going on here is that Gatoclass has a strong partisan POV regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, he seeks to imprint his POV on any he article he can (typically articles where someone else did the real work), he relentlessly bullies anyone who gets in his way, and he attempts to manipulate the AE process for this purpose. Of course, people who share his partisan POV will support these attempts, and people who oppose it will oppose them. You guys can either find a way to put a stop to this behavior, or you can let your time get wasted with drama and watch as sensible editors continue to disappear from this area out of frustration. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Response to GatoclasseditHaving apparently abandoned the 2RR allegation, Gatoclass is now clutching at the idea that I ignored Biosketch's concerns when restoring a photo to the Victims section. Not exactly an issue for AE, but in any case Biosketch has explicitly stated "I support displaying one photo in the Victims section, as a relevant document illustrating the event with which the article is concerned"[84]. My position is similar, and we editors who are actually writing the article are, at this very moment, having a civil and rather nuanced discussion on what to do with the photos.[85] Cptnono, NortyNort and Biosketch essentially agree with me, and Robofish essentially agrees with Y, who unilaterally deleted all the photos by invoking WP:IAR. I agree with Biosketch that meanwhile the deletion "should be reverted pending a more articulate explanation", and you might say that our concern is being ignored, but I am bound by 1RR. Meanwhile, Gatoclass, who has contributed nothing to the article except a short series of POV-serving edits, has simply not participated in the discussion. And why should he, when he can circumvent the normal consensus-building procedures and just force his partisan position on the article by gaming AE? I guess that he will soon receive assistance from Mkativerata, who has not sullied himself with actual discussion on the talk page either. That's how it goes. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Response to Sandstein regarding Fatah and sourceseditI originally wrote in the lead: Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, the military wing of Palestinian Fatah, claimed responsibility for the attack, calling it a "heroic operation" This was based on the cited Guardian article, which wrote: The al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the armed wing of Fatah, the dominant political faction in the West Bank, said it had carried out the "heroic operation … ". Word for word. I also wrote in the body: Fatah, the group that controls the Palestinian National Authority, released a statement by its militia, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, in which it claimed responsibility for the killings. The statement said the "heroic" operation was a "natural response to massacres committed by the occupation against our people in the Gaza Strip and West Bank." This was based on the cited Jerusalem Post source, which wrote: "PA officials in Ramallah expressed skepticism over a statement released by Fatah’s militia, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades, in which it claimed responsibility for the killings. The statement said the “heroic” operation was a “natural response to massacres committed by the occupation against our people in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.” Again, word for word. (See also ElComandantChe's briefer statement on this.) Both cited sources state that Fatah's militia/the armed wing of Fatah, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, claimed responsibility for the attack. As do my statements. Neither source attributes any responsibility to the PA, nor do either of my statements. The Guardian source notes the commonly known fact that Fatah dominates the PA, as does my second statement. Everything in both statements is in one or both of the sources, though the second statement has a short explanatory clause that's only stated explicitly in the first source. Mkateriva deleted the second statement entirely[86] with the edit summary rm statement that falsifies and exaggerates source and throws in a copyright violation for good measure. I've already shown that the edit summary is at least partially false. I'm not sure what he meant by "throws in a copyright violation". He then proceeded to remove the first statement entirely[87], with the edit summary rm claim contradicted by http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=211909 This edit summary is also false (though it might have been an innocent mistake), because Mkateriva's second Jpost article does not contradict my Guardian and first Jpost articles; it merely notes that Al Hayat published a contradictory report, and it neither endorses nor challenges this report.[88] Al Hayat is owned by a prince of Saudi Arabia, a regime not known for allowing a robust independent press. While it would nevertheless be perfectly fine to include both statements side by side, there is no justification for simply deleting a statement agreed on by both The Guardian and The Jerusalem Post because it is contradicted by Al Hayat, an inferior source in both quantity and quality. In short, my statements did not misrepresent the sources in any way, and Mkateriva selectively removed them under flimsy and partially false pretexts. It is entirely obvious that he was uncomfortable with the claim of responsibility by Fatah's armed wing, reported by two mainstream reliable sources, and chose to deal with this discomfort by simply deleting them. What this episode illustrates is that with a strong enough commitment to deception and sophistry, any edit - any edit whatsoever - can be portrayed as sinister, and any selective removal of material, no matter how biased and egregious, can be gotten away with by using AE as a distractive. The logical conclusion of this type of behavior is Unomi's long missive which basically boils down to "there are things in the sources that JDE didn't use!" How true, and how tragic, since I would be going back to use the sources more thoroughly, thereby improving the article and Wikipedia, if only I weren't stuck here responding to spurious accusations. The question is whether people who act like this have to pay any price for it, or if they can just go on freely slinging their mud hoping that some of it will stick while they continue with their bad editing. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Response to Sandstein regarding Hamas and sourceseditThe main issue here is that the source has been changed since I used it. The cached original version is titled Palestinian takes revenge, kills 5 settlers. This is where I got but stated that the incident was a Palestinian "revenge" attack on Israelis. That the whole thing is a statement by Hamas is simple: the source is a Hamas website. The Hamas statement acknowledges that the attack occurred but, notably, does not claim responsibility. That Hamas denied responsibility has been stated explicitly in that same primary source[89] and in mainstream secondary sources, e.g. [90], but I was using the first source anyway and its indication by silence was sufficient to source the point. My summary of Hamas's position was accurate and representative of the source in every element. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Statement by MkativerataeditIn addition to the substantial evidence filed above, a few other issues demonstrate the relentless POV-pushing of JdE on this article:
Breaches of 1RR are forgivable, and it seems there weren't any here. But POV-pushing by source falsification and selective inclusion of perjorative material cannot be tolerated. This is exactly what topic bans were designed for. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
@Sandstein: Just a couple of points: (1) Unomi has presented more evidence of source falsification below (see the Hamas "revenge" issue). (2) A dispute about POV on a particular article is a content issue; an accusation that a user is pushing POV in his or her article work is a conduct issue. Pushing POV falls within the scope of ARBPIA sanctions as conduct that "seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". AE admins here aren't being asked to adjudicate on a content dispute (the content dispute at the article has pretty much settled down); they're being asked to sanction an editor for pushing POV. Accordingly, I think the POV accusations against JdE are actionable as an AE request. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
As another example of the POV-pushing in Itamar killings, JdE included 2010 Palestinian militancy campaign as a "See also" link. That article is a controversial article essentially claiming a concerted effort by Palestinian factions to use violence to derail the peace process in 2010. Including a see also link in Itamar killings was none other than a brazen attempt, unsupported by any reliable sources, to suggest that these murders were a cynical part of that so-called militancy campaign. It should come as no surprise that JdE is one of the principal authors of 2010 Palestinian militancy campaign. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC) @JdE's recent lengthy post, as it questions my own edits:
Statement by unomieditWikipedia is a collaborative effort, neither its selection of articles nor individual articles will ever be 'finished', we work together, sometimes competitively and at best cooperatively to continually improve presentation of the material available - in light of this we shouldn't hold any one editor responsible for 'perfecting' an article. I believe that this holds true when looking at the broad selection of sources available for any given subject, however, when an editor chooses to selectively include material from a source - and indeed materially misrepresent the content of the sources - then we have a problem. JDE was fairly recently sanctioned at AE, see here, where uninvolved admins stated: "I do, however, see other problematic editing, including apparent single-purpose, POV-driven editing affecting multiple articles, including article creation, ..." and "... we caution him that future misconduct on these articles can result in him being excluded from the topic area, blocked from editing, or otherwise restricted.". Did JDE fail to represent the sources he used adequately? Looking at the version indicated by Mkativerata above, starting from the bottom up. 1. Hamas, the group that governs the Gaza Strip, did not claim responsibility, but stated that the incident was a Palestinian "revenge" attack on Israelis and argued that Palestinian factions "have the full right... to use all tools and means of resistance" against Israel.[93]
2. Fatah, the group that controls the Palestinian National Authority, released a statement by its militia, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, in which it claimed responsibility for the killings. The statement said the "heroic" operation was a "natural response to massacres committed by the occupation against our people in the Gaza Strip and West Bank." It added that the perpetrator managed to return safely to his base.[94]
3. This LA Times article is used 3 times, mostly for details that in some cases are contradicted by sources closer to the event, such as the 2 unharmed children were hiding rather than sleeping. But much information in the source is ignored such as:
I can reach no other conclusion than JDE deliberately excluded information which would be of value to an encyclopedic article but might run counter to his intentions with wikipedia. We aren't talking about just not doing diligent research in finding appropriate sources, we are talking about intentional and consistent omissions from numerous sources that he had read. It is this kind of editing which is most problematic in terms of editor friction and is an impediment to a collaborative editing atmosphere, not to mention being just plain manipulative of wikipedia readers. un☯mi 21:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Regarding: "Whether the article as a whole conformed to WP:NPOV when it was created, or whether relevant information was omitted, is probably a content dispute that cannot be decided in an arbitration context" I have to echo the sentiment of Mkativerata above. The I/P discretionary sanctions state that this type of behavior is falls under the purview of AE: that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. it also explicitly mentions WP:NPOV: Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing. WP:NPOV has as its first line: Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. - it may be that this should be followed in theory but that in practice it rarely happens (especially in contentious areas), but that is more than anything the fault of those who should be enforcing the policy. One could argue that omitting material that speaks to possible motives, such as carried by the LA Times, might potentially be a content issue, but surely not that the PNA had condemned the attacks when half of the article is about 'reactions' and when the sources are brimming with the PNA reactions. It strikes me that intentionally omitting that the PNA had condemned the attacks, and even going so far as intimating that it was linked to them is such a gross violation when you consider that just about every single source JDE used carried the information that the PNA had condemned them. un☯mi 23:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Regarding: "The logical conclusion of this type of behavior is Unomi's long missive which basically boils down to "there are things in the sources that JDE didn't use!" How true, and how tragic, since I would be going back to use the sources more thoroughly, thereby improving the article and Wikipedia, if only I weren't stuck here responding to spurious accusations."
Regarding: "The question is whether people who act like this have to pay any price for it, or if they can just go on freely slinging their mud hoping that some of it will stick while they continue with their bad editing."
I never expected more to come of this than a warning and would find that a satisfactory conclusion to this request as well. un☯mi 14:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Jalapenos do existeditI was heavily involved in the Itamar article yesterday and also, albeit to a much lesser extent, with the Itamar attack article that split off of it. My immediately following comments may therefore be considered, and may indeed be, biased. On the matter of Revert #1, in all fairness it ought not to be classified as a Revert. I removed a photo placed in the Reactions sections, feeling that that was not an appropriate place for it; whereupon User:Jalapenos do exist proceeded to restore the photo in the Victims section – which, at least in relative terms, was a more appropriate place for it (or less inappropriate, depending on how you want to construe it). I can sympathize with User:Gatoclass' remark about the article taking on what could be considered, and indeed may have been, a biased character. I commented to that effect on the Discussion page with regard to the omission of Prime Minister Fayyad's formal condemnation and with regard to the (spurious, in my view) attribution of responsibility to the Fatah party. The Jerusalem Post article that was the source for the first paragraph of the Palestinian reaction did include information to the effect that Fayyad condemned the massacre, but the editor(s) elected not to include it in the article. It also explained that Fatah did not directly claim responsibility for the massacre but rather that a faction of Fatah's al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade did – but this comment too went unaddressed. However, I would not be as hasty as User:Gatoclass in concluding that User:Jalapenos do exist's edits deliberately left out information. One must keep in mind the fact that this was a clear case of aggressor and victim. Oftentimes that relationship is not so sharply defined in the ongoing cycle of violence between Israel and the Palestinians but, given the circumstances, in this case it is only natural to frame it in those terms. Furthermore, specifically with regard to the Fatah point, User:Jalapenos do exist may simply not have been informed enough as an editor on the dynamics of the Palestinian's quasi-political/quasi-paramilitary leadership structures. That is to say, he may candidly have been unaware of the distinction between Fatah and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. I'm not one to draw clear conclusions one way or the other, but these observations are what I have to contribute to the discussion for the benefit of those that will ultimately need to draw them.—Biosketch (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Since the concern over edit warring has been withdrawn this is only a case of POV pushing. I agree that JDE created a article that was overly emotional. It is an overtly emotional subject. We cannot punish an editor for writing about a dead baby. If he was not edit warring then he did nothing many editors would not do. So if he was not edit warring he was simply adding a POV that any rationale editor should understand. He did not edit war over it and instead let other editors counter the expected POV. When babies do not die then editors will not have to mirror the sources. Next time he should try harder but if an admin can honestly say they see a problem with an editor writing an article about an emotional subject then they need to go check out the new page patrol page. Gatoclass should accept that he made a request for enforcement on partially false pretenses and drop it. JDE should try harder to write less emotionally even when it deals with dead babies. Dead babies die in Gaza City so this statement could be reversed to apply to POV pushers on the other side. No edit warring? What is the problem Gatoclass? Cptnono (talk) 07:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Biosketch. If an article appears one-sided (as this one arguably did), the right thing to do is to correct or remove the bias and include missing info, not to file an AE request. Since there was no attempt by JDE to dispute or disrupt such changes, there is no justfification for any sanction (perhaps a warning). And both sides will do well by assuming good faith and avoiding gross incivility expressed in some comments above. On a more general point, I think admins should consider discouraging any future AE requests by editors involved in disputes. Why? Because this page itself has become a battleground. I think this should apply to both sides. Don't know how practical this is, just an idea. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC) - BorisG (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Jalapenos do existedit
|
Jacurek
edit| Jacurek, Volunteer Marek, Dr. Dan and Lokyz are sanctioned as described in this thread; M.K is warned. Sandstein 06:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Jacurekedit
Jacurek, who has a long history of disruption and sanctions relating to eastern European topics, after coming back from a ban, has focussed his editing almost entirely on lame edit-warring over the inclusion of Polish, German or Lithuanian geographical terms in the leads of various articles.
He also made the obvious WP:POINT move of removing the German name from Gdansk [116], explicitly in retaliation, and in blatant breach of the long-standing Gdansk rules. More edit-warring just under 3RR elsewhere: on Ukrainische_Hilfspolizei, [117][118][119] One thing that's troubling is that the same old cliques and tag-teams known from the WP:EEML days are still showing up together on the same articles regularly in many of these cases.
not applicable, has long history of Digwuren and EEML sanctions
Discussion concerning JacurekeditStatement by JacurekeditRecently, I focused my work on adding missing alternative names to the articles related to shared Lithuanian, Polish, Jewish, Belorussian or Ukrainian history and heritage following general naming policy . I have beed editing without violating any standards of behaviour and in line with normal editorial process. All my edits/reverts presented here are spread out over time, discussed by me [121], [122], [123] [124], [125], [126] or in line with discussion I followed [127] and ALL are supported by the WP:NCGN. I stated in my edit summaries why I'm doing such edits and the polices I followed [128] I was adding alternative names in various languages:
[132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138]
[144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149]
[152] [153] [154] [155] [156] Here however, all my edits were immediately reverted by Dr. Dan (talk · contribs), M.K (talk · contribs) and Lokyz (talk · contribs)) I was called Dyslexic [157], amusing, a troll [158], a nationalistic troll [159][160] chauvinist playing games [161] etc. Disrespect, taunting and incivility was also directed at other people by mentioned editors: ex-admin RPG player is trying to make a project of Wikipedia a playground of his own [162] [163] [164] Please note that one was warned by administrator because of these incivil remarks [165] and another complained about [166]. Here are just few diff's as an examples of the name removals by mentioned editors: [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174]
Third opinion of an uninvolved administratoreditAs per permission of the reviewing administrators third opinion has been requested[219] Thank you all for patience.--Jacurek (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning JacurekeditComment by Volunteer MarekeditThere's an ongoing discussion about the proper way of handling alternative names here [220]. The underlying problem is complete disregard for naming policy on the part of Dr. Dan/Lokyz/MK. This is compounded by the fact that there is some confusion over what the actual policy is. Hence the discussion. Jacurek's edits at Gdansk where a response - and in line with - to the discussion as it was occurring at Naming conventions (the diff above), with comments provided by a third opinion (which I requested) at Vilnius university [221], and are in agreement with views expressed by such individuals like User:Novickas and User:Deacon of Pndapetzim who are about as far as humanely and even super-humanely possible from being "same old cliques and tag-teams known from the WP:EEML days." As such Jacurek's edits are part of the standard BRD cycle, are not edit warring, and none of them are in any way a breach of policy. Throughout Jacurek has remained calm and civil despite several provocations. In particular, Dr. Dan has made several personal attacks against various users:
At the naming conventions discussion Deacon of Pndapetzim, who I think can fairly be characterized as an "opponent" of people who used to be on the Eastern European mailing list has stated: Without wishing to offend anyone, my experience of other language names in leads is that they function in practice as nationalist scent markings. Jacurek's edits were completely in line with this sentiment. Additionally Deacon stated, in reference to inclusion of German names in ledes of articles on Polish places: Can't say I approve of most of those edits. - again, in line with Jacurek's above edits. Likewise, Deacon said: in those cases this should be in the main text with citations not just in brackets at the lead, where it looks like simple nationalist scent-marking and is thus provocative. At Vilnius University, user Novickas, who can also be seen as usually on the other side of the issue stated: Yes, I think all articles ought to follow WP:Lead, which emphasizes concision and readability, but leaves room for an entity's multiple names by way of a dedicated name section. - again in reference to the inclusion of German names in Polish places. As such Jacurek's edits are not in any way a way of making a POINT but rather a response to what people are saying the policy is. Did I mention that none of Jacurek's edits in any way violated any kind of policy what so ever? Finally, let me point out that a discussion on the subject is actually ongoing and amazingly, for like the first time in a long while it is actually civil, calm and is even starting to look productive, people who previously have very strongly disagreed with each other in the past might actually be able to work something out and about the last freakin thing that is going to help here is a completely pointless and baseless AE report such as this one which good money says will do nothing but attract the usual infighting, bickering and sniping. What is the point of this AE report? How is it not counter productive? Why do you find it necessary to sabotage a potentially productive discussion?Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Response to Sandstein's suggestion and Ed Johnston You can't judge/sanction editors based on whether they're "engaged in a campaign of mass removal or mass addition" if the editor involved is following established naming guidelines. For comparison look at User:HerkusMonte's edits [226] (and I wish to be 100% clear that this is no way a criticism of Herkus), particularly all the edits with the edit summary "lang-de" which in the recent past have comprised the majority of Herkus' editing on Wikipedia. Jacurek's edits are no different than Herkus' and neither editor did anything wrong. The only difference is that when Herkus "engages in his campaign of mass addition" he IS NOT immediately reverted by tag teams of Polish editors who also refuse to discuss the issue meaningfully and some of whom engage in personal attacks - but this does happen with addition of Polish names to places with shared Polish and Lithuanian history. Unlike Jacurek, Herkus is left alone, because he is more or less following current naming policy (again, if that is the appropriate policy is another question) - just like Jacurek was.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Response to this "list" business Uhh, not sure what this list is supposed to be or what it is supposed to accomplish (in fact, it's a bad idea to begin with) but for what it's worth:
Bottom line: I made one edit at Suvalkija long time ago which was reverted within minutes and I made no subsequent edits. I made one edit at Vilnius University and when it was reverted, within less than three hours, asked for third opinion. At Bernardine Cemetery I initiated discussion on talk and only after it seemed like an agreement was reached for inclusion, and having given it enough time (3 months) did I make one edit and add the name. This too was reverted within minutes and I didn't edit the article any further. I think the picture that emerges here is crystal clear. I also got to ask why you are limiting this to just these articles? MK regularly edit wars with Belorussians editors over similar matters [243]. Herkus adds German names to Polish places all the time - but never gets reverted
This is completly wrong: Edit-warring to add or remove a language from any one article does not necessarily reflect bias, as there may be policy-based grounds for such reverts (even if these do not excuse edit-warring). But a pattern of consistently adding or removing the same language from multiple articles cannot be reasonably explained on guideline grounds, since the guideline makes reference to the use of names in English-language literature, which differs from topic to topic. Such a pattern of editing, therefore, can only be explained by a desire to put nationalist bias ahead of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. This makes such a pattern incompatible with WP:NPOV and, consequently, grounds for sanctions. Specifically: But a pattern of consistently adding or removing the same language from multiple articles cannot be reasonably explained on guideline grounds - no, but it can be explained by the fact that editors will add the language which they are familiar with to a topic which they are familiar with. I'd happily add relevant names to articles on Fiji but I have no idea what these may be. Such a pattern of editing, therefore, can only be explained by a desire to put nationalist bias - no, it can be explained by the fact that editors edit topics they are familiar with. This makes such a pattern incompatible with WP:NPOV - since when is AE in the business of adjudicating content disputes, which is what WP:NPOV involves? To quote Sandstein himself: compliance with this guideline is a content issue, because it requires editorial judgment, and cannot therefore be reviewed in an arbitration context. The above statement appears to be nothing but an attempt to find a flimsy excuse to sanction people who did nothing wrong. It is railroading plain and simple.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Add in light of Sandstein's insinuation of "nationalist editing I should also add that in the past I have
Thus, Sandstein's charge/insinuation of "nationalist bias" is highly inflammatory, insulting, and essentially a personal attack. None of the provided diffs substantiate it and it is exactly the kind of statement that he himself regularly tries to sanction other editors for. Since the same rules apply to Sandstein in this respect as they do to other editors, I ask him to strike that portion of his statement.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Response to Deacon Your comments at the naming conventions discussion did indeed imply that. But the point here is that after they were made Jacurek STOPPED adding names to the articles since it became clear that the policy itself was under dispute. His subsequent edits which are being dredged up here as "evidence" are completely in line with your view of the matter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Response to Ed Johnston's comments (copied from his talk) [247] This ban would be applied to all editors listed below who have previously been sanctioned under any Eastern European cases - Ed, can you please explain to me why you are including me in this group? It appears you are doing so only because Sandstein included me there. But if you actually look at the list and read the comments, then you will notice that out of the six articles listed by Sandstein, two I've never edited in my life, and on the other four I made a single edit, sometimes long time ago (I have over 20k edits, I've even forgotten some of these) and when I was reverted, I ceased making any further edits. There's no way that making a single edit on an article can be in any way construed as "edit warring" or anything else. I have also supported the inclusion of German names in Polish articles (within reason), and have added Lithuanian names to Polish articles [248] as well as Yiddish and Hebrew names to Polish articles (like I said, I got over 20k edits and I'm not going to waste my time going back and looking for the odd diff or so, but they're there). I've consistently applied WP:NCGN policy, regardless of the places involved. Of course I've mostly edited Poland related articles - I don't speak Portuguese, Yoruba or Nahuatl! At no point have I edit warred and in fact I asked for third opinion and discussed things on talk, and am currently in process of working on naming conventions guideline [249] in order to sort out this mess. Can you explain at all what would justify your proposal to sanction me?Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Comment on Sandstein and Deacon's discussion of BRD
The parts I disagree with:
Likewise
Comment by PiotruseditI am rather disappointed by FPS here. First, I'd like to ask: who gave you those diffs and requested that you post to AE on their behalf? It's not like you have edited any of the articles in question, nor have you been a participant to any talk page discussions, as far as I am aware. Second, I really hoped that the established editors with no axes to grind, in particular, respected admins (and I do respect FPS), would not use the "specter of EEML" poisoning the well argument. Instead of concentrating on editors who are creating the battleground through baiting and incivility (see VM post above), let's just go for the good, old EEML members, because, well, they are EEML, hence evil, hence the source of all problems, right? Somebody is being incivil to them? They surely deserved it. There is an edit war? Surely, they are the only guilty party. Third, Jacurek has not violated any policy. Has 3RR been violated, even once? No. Has CIV been violated, even once? No. Regarding [325], this edit is in line with WP:NCGN, and the implication of this for Gdansk rule need to be discussed; I recently raised this on talk there. As things stand, however, NCGN explicitly suggests moving of alt. names from lead to a dedicated section and states they should not be restored, and Jacurek was acting within NCGN to the letter (now, I started a discussion on talk to discuss whether this letter is correct and benefits Wikipedia, but this is hardly an AE issue). Lastly, yes, there has been a slow edit war at some articles, but in most if not all cases, Jacurek is enforcing NCGN, where other editors, propagating battleground and disruption, are attempting to go against policies on those articles. NCGN supports foreign name in articles as long as they are significant (and NCGN has nice, simple check for significance - 10% of English google sources). On Cathedral Square, Vilnius (talk) I've shown NCGN applies, yet Jacurek's opponents have not bothered to discuss it - they just revert him. Ditto for Bernardine Cemetery. Nobody has done an analysis for St. Anne's Church, Vilnius, but I expect NCGN applies as well. On two other articles, in Vilnius University the nameing section was just expanded enough to warrant an end to inclusion of the name in lead. I'd have to look at Suvalkija more closely. Ukrainische Hilfspolizei seems totally unrelated to that and I'll have to review it more closely again. Bottom line, Jacurek seems not to have violated any policies, most of his reverts are policy-supported (whereas most of those by his opponents are not), so how about the admins here focus on incivil, baiting editors and give the rest of us some breathing ground? All that said, 1RR for everyone would be a good voluntary rule to declare. I hereby do so for my self, for the next month on all naming-affected articles, and I would strongly suggest everyone else follows suit. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment by KotniskieditEchoing most of what Piotrus says, I note that this issue will never be sorted out by applying unilateral sanctions against a randomly chosen editor or two on one side of the debate. It's been going on for years; somehow those who consistently remove non-Lithuanian names from Lithuania-related articles seem to be exempted from any kind of rebuke or sanction (which of course in no way justifies the pointy removal of non-Polish names from Poland-related articles) - but in any case, it's necessary to resolve the underlying issues, through some kind of mediation or preferably involvement from the community at large, to work out the best ways to present this kind of important information to readers without being dictated to by those on various sides who are clearly driven mainly by irrational nationalist sentiment. --Kotniski (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved Hodja NasreddineditI followed several AE cases to understand what must be done by someone who wants to edit conflict-free, especially in the area of discretionary sanctions. Surprisingly, this boils down to a very simple rule: do not edit war under any circumstances. Even if you revert once a week, someone will bring you to AE. It goes like that: no reverts -> no conflicts -> no sanctions. This apply to all sides and almost all AE cases.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Comment by Deacon of PndapetzimeditDon't understand why my comments at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) were mentioned. In the comments Volunteer Marek/Radek was referring to, I expressed my opinion that we ought to be weighted against having alternate culture names in leads (in order to avoid nationalist wars). As it appears this AE request was brought against Jakurek for going around inserting such names into leads, I'm very confused as to why my comments are claimed to support his case? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Surprisingly, I am in (rough) agreement with Deacon here. At least one proposed sanction (on VM, who made no more than 1 revert to each article in question, and participated extensively in talk discussions) seems to say that "following BRD can still get you in trouble". Is this really a message we want to send to the community? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Comment by MymolobaccounteditProposing topic bans to all editors who are actively working on solving the naming dispute so they won't be able to achieve solution to the issue? That's wikipedia at its finest. Sandstein's behaviour here and proposals are one of the most counterproductive to Wikipedia and cooperation between editors from opposed POV's that I have seen. Two opposite sites are sitting down to talk and solve the issue, Sandstein comes in and proposes to ban active participants instead of letting them work out a solution on which they are working in good faith and in civil manner. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Comment by VecrumbaeditFor the most part I have pretty good relations with editor on both sides of the fence, generally being "pro-" both sides. I would be happy to assist in mediating, anything is better than more draconian measures which breed nothing but bad blood. Unless someone proposing any solution is intimately aware of the historical conflicts underlying naming disputes, any action they take (hello admins!) will make things worse, not better. PЄTЄRS
Comment by M.K.edit
user: Volunteer Marek constantly stalking editors again:
Comment by BorisGeditI would recomment to admins to err on the side of caution. If there are clear and persistent patterns of disruption (e.g. edit warring), sanctions may be called for. However without a persistent pattern, a warning is enough. Also if disruption is caused in a very niche area like this naming saga, sanctions should only apply to this activity. Topic banning editors for niche violations is throwing productive editors with the bathwater. I would also suggest that admins give a strong warning to all involved editors NOT to use the AE page as a battleground. - BorisG (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment by NovickaseditI'm really sorry to see that we haven't been working towards compromise and consensus on the alternate names issue. Not surprised; there's a lot of long-standing bad blood. But I think the problem would be better addressed by more discussion at the guideline pages and more participation by outsiders at the individual articles. (I don't think they need to be experts in the area.) I'd rather see a 1RR per week/per editor for renaming (in Sandstein's intepretation of renaming) at all Eastern European articles. Because the admins here will be wanting to keep clear of voicing their opinions at these articles, could we agree on a separate venue to discuss them? Pick some previously-uninvolved editor out of the pool of mediators, say? Novickas (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Jacurekedit
I encourage editors to make only comments directly pertinent to the request, because "the usual infighting, bickering and sniping", as Volunteer Marek puts it, is likely to WP:BOOMERANG in the form of sanctions. Fut. Perf., I agree that the request looks actionable at first glance, but without a WP:DIGWUREN notification diff, we are forbidden to act on it. Sandstein 14:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, as a preliminary opinion, I think that there is actionable evidence that several editors have engaged in edit-warring to remove or add names from the leads of the articles named by Fut.Perf. and Jacurek, as can be seen in the history of e.g. Bernardine Cemetery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I suggest that we compile a consolidated list of reverts by editor and decide on that basis whether to sanction anybody, after requesting the involved editors to comment. If not other admin disagrees, I'm going to start compiling such a list. Sandstein 06:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC) I believe that any campaigns of mass removal or mass addition of alternate-language names should be looked into. Sandstein's idea of making a consolidated list of reverts sounds good. EdJohnston (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Further admin comments about the Result concerning Jacurekedit
Name-changing reverts in the EE topic areaeditJacurekeditJacurek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (warning), partially copied from the request
Previous sanctions: many blocks up to 3 months for topic-related misconduct; WP:DIGWUREN 1RR restriction (2009) and interaction ban (2010); WP:EEML#Jacurek and WP:EEML#Jacurek topic banned (6 months in Dec 2009) Volunteer MarekeditVolunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), previously editing as Radeksz (warning)
Previous sanctions: Three non-overturned topic-related blocks; WP:EEML#Radeksz and WP:EEML#Radeksz topic banned (rescinded in June 2010) M.KeditM.K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified) (no warning found)
Previous sanctions: none Dr. DaneditDr. Dan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified) (warning)
Previous sanctions: 2 incivility blocks, WP:DIGWUREN interaction ban for 3 months in 2010 LokyzeditLokyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified) (warning)
Previous sanctions: One non-overturned AE block; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes#Lokyz admonished and restricted for edit-warring (2008) |
Tentontunic
edit| Closing as no action. Insufficient evidence provided for violation of 1RR and most recent revert cited is 54 hours old. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Tentontunicedit
Violation of 1RR:
(2 & 3 are adding new material - 1 & 4 are deleting material.)
Personal attacks on other editors: And Jonathan is wrong, it really ought to surprise me that you would restore a BIAS tag on this article, yet on left wing terrorism you remove one within a few hours. You argue on communist terrorism to no end, you appear to be tendentious in your approach to articles which may be critical of communism in fact. Did you not just get warned for just this behavior? We have here an article, about mass killings which happened under communist regimes, it does not matter how many died under capitalism, or democracy, or the rule of the evil overlords of the mole people. What matters on this article is how many died under Communist Regimes. Tentontunic (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[341] Then why do I require yours? Should you try and add your proposal to the article you will require consensus, just as I do. What you have written above is little more than propaganda, and an entire waste of time. You say you wish to see a NPOV article, then please try and write in a NPOV manner. Tentontunic (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[342] I added my proposed content above today, the proposal had two editors who agreed with the inclusion, P Siebert reverted this with the edit summary, no consensus. But then proceeded to add content only he himself has agreed to. I fully intend to remove this as it is nothing more than a propaganda piece. And I should like Paul Siebert to explain why he feels justified adding content with no consensus, but removing content which at least had two people agree to and only him objecting. Tentontunic (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[343] So what your saying is, I need consensus, and you do not? As stated, what you have written is pure propaganda, there is no other way to describe it. You have basically written "these are not communists" You have given undue weight to a fringe uncited paper, you have made an entire hash of it. It`s junk and needs to be excised, at least what I had written was mainstream and neutral. Tentontunic (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[344]
Discussion concerning TentontuniceditStatement by TentontuniceditComments by others about the request concerning TentontuniceditUpon reading the TFD's request I realised that some comments are needed, because the way TFD represented the issue is somewhat confusing, and for an uninvolved person it is almost impossible to understand the underlying conflict. I personally believe that this request is somewhat premature, however, as far as it has been filed, we have to continue with that. AE is to be used for complaints related in some way to the arbitration result for Digwren. In the case at hand, this is a case of TFD using WP as a personal battleground. His actions about Tentontunic are not based on seeking NPOV on WP, but on silencing a voice he sees as opposing his. Including but limited to a remarkable series of AfDs [357] [358] and an egregious example [359] (really - read this one as a sparkling example of WP:BATTLEGROUND!) where the only way he would have ever found the articles is by looking at Tentontunic's edit history and not by actually randomly seeking out articles in any specific group or for any specific rationale otherwise. AE requests by TFD against Tentontunic at [360], edit war complaints made at [361], SPI report made at [362] showing an ongoing battleground which, properly examined, should not be held against Tentontunic. In point of fact, while Digwuren has little to do with any of this, I suggest that whoever examines this (noting Paul's rather unique view of this, and his similar views on many pages including one where he asserted that I must hold a specifc view on pseudoscience becasue I disagree with him on whether Communist terrorism is a proper topic for WP) examine the use of noticeboards repeatedly for WP:BATTLEGROUND acts. Examples of Paul's acts in this include: [363] wherein he asserts that I was not "uninvolved" with regard to pseudoscience issues because " L2 and Collect have been extensively involved in disputes on several Communism related WP pages, such as Communist terrorism and Mass killings under Communist regimes. It is not a secret that the users working in this area frequently display more or less pronounced partisan behaviour, and, taking into account that Collect and L2 definitely belong to the opposing camps, Collect can hardly be considered as a neutral uninvolved party in a discussion about the L2 block. ... For sake of objectivity, I believe I have to explain that, since I myself also frequently participate in Communism related disputes, and since L2 and I belong to the same camp, I cannot be considered as an uninvolved party." Paul is clearly acting here as a battleground ally, and admits it as such when he improperly accused me of taking sides on a what he considered a pseudoscience issue, and where my position may be read by any arbitrator or admin. Collect (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
@ Sandstein. The 1RR restriction has been applied per the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Digwuren case. Therefore, if these sanction are in effect, then the article does have a connection with the EE topic (where the term "Eastern Europe" is defined broadly). However, if the topic has just a tangential relation to the EE issue (the point I fully agree with, unless the definition of "Eastern Europe" includes the whole Earth), then 1RR restrictions should be removed, because the Digwuren case is applicable to the EE issues only.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Comment by Volunteer MarekeditThis report is just another piece of evidence for the fact that WP:AE is just another weapon in the battleground toolbox, nothing more. It is the battleground, it creates battlegrounds, it makes existing battlegrounds worse, not better. You make blocks and sanctions cheap, demand for blocks and sanctions goes up. And so you get endless frivolous reports which just waste everyone's time, and embitter editors against each other.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment by MartintgeditWe all seem to agree this report is premature. Looking at the diffs presented by TFD there are no reverts. The only revert I see in the edit history is the one by TFD[367]. I have to agree with the others that this report appears to be an attempt by TFD to wikilawyer a sanction via AE to get the upper hand in a content discussion, this kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND antics is just as disruptive as any real edit warring. Therefore I think WP:BOOMERANG should apply. --Martin (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Tentontunicedit
|
ZjarriRrethues
edit| Athenean and ZjarriRrethues subject to an interaction ban and cautioned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning ZjarriRrethuesedit
Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Final_decision#Purpose_of_Wikipedia
ZjarriRrethues is an editor that frequently edits Greece-related topics in a persistently tendentious, incivil manner, misusing sources and engaging in other forms of intellectual dishonesty, lately exhibiting strong signs of WP:POINT and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and engaging in personal vendettas. Specifically:
Comments by others about the request concerning ZjarriRrethueseditEvaluation of the evidence by SandsteineditThis request makes very severe allegations in a very confrontative tone, so looking at the conduct of both users appears necessary. If the evidence holds up, sanctions against ZjarriRrethues appear unavoidable, but if much of it does not, the same applies to Athenean for making this kind of request. I'll use the space below to examine some of the claims made in the request.
General comment by Fut.Perf.editWhat we have here is a long-standing situation of a "travelling circus", with three users (Athenean (talk · contribs) and Alexikoua (talk · contribs) on the one side versus ZjarriRrethues (talk · contribs) on the other) following each other into countless disputes, often leaving yesterday's dispute half-resolved while getting embroiled in the next. None of the three is acting in bad faith, and all three could have something constructive to offer, but there are two factors that have made the situation unbearable. The first is the mutual, deeply entrenched, tendency of evaluating each and every edit under the single perspective of emphasizing the historical role of one's own ethnic group and de-emphasizing that of the other, making the one side look historically good and the other bad. Each and every topic, be it ever so trivial, is (mis-)used to serve this agenda – from ancient etymologies through the genealogies of medieval personalities through the roles of this or that political group during the wars of the 20th century, to the demographics of minorities today. It's an obsession, there's no other word for it. It's extremely tedious, and often extremely silly. The second factor is the equally mutual, equally deeply entrenched feeling of distrust that has evidently taken possession of both parties, and which regularly leads to talk page discussions breaking down. People on both sides regularly lack the patience of spelling out their arguments in concrete terms, dealing out accusations instead. They're so engrossed in their permanent disputes that they've in fact developed their own private dispute jargon that only they can understand. All of them act opportunistically when it comes to asserting or dismissing the reliability of sources, depending on whether they can offer an opportunity for scoring points in their ethnic tug-of-war; all of them are quick to point out the failures of correct sourcing in the other side while being prepared to resort to the same kinds of sloppiness themselves the next day. In terms of talk page behaviour and quality of source work, it is my personal, quite subjective impression that Athenean is slightly better than Zjarri, and Zjarri is a good deal better than Alexikoua; while in terms of content merits Zjarri is more right than wrong in about 60% of the time, and more wrong than right in the remaining 40%. Needless to say, these subjective impressions are impossible to prove with diffs. All three of them know I've gone on record repeatedly with exasperated calls for having the lot of them banned. But somehow that would be a pity too. I really don't know what else to do about them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning ZjarriRrethuesedit
After reviewing the evidence, I conclude:
I see two options how we could proceed here:
What do other admins think about how to proceed? Sandstein 20:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
|
The Sham
edit| The Sham (talk · contribs) is banned from List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2011 for a period of one year. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning The Shamedit
Discussion concerning The ShameditStatement by The ShameditComments by others about the request concerning The ShameditThe sham continues to make edits to the concerned page without making any reply here, maybe action should be taken wihout waiting for a reply from the sham. Passionless -Talk 20:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning The Shamedit
|
Lapsed Pacifist
edit| Blocked for a month. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Lapsed Pacifistedit
{{{Diffs of prior warnings}}}
Discussion concerning Lapsed PacifisteditStatement by Lapsed PacifisteditI have no problem defending those edits, but it kind of sticks in my craw, Gainline, that a sockpuppet-master like yourself with a brutal history of edit-warring and POV-pushing is the one to pull me on it. Your hypocrisy stinks. In the meantime, can anyone else advise me how to go about appealing those bans? One is ancient and the other is approaching old age quickly. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Lapsed PacifisteditResult concerning Lapsed Pacifistedit
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Volunteer Marek
edit| Sanction vacated by Sandstein (talk · contribs). T. Canens (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
Statement by Volunteer MarekeditThis is an appeal of a sanction resulting from this enforcement request: [560]. The sanction regarding myself was enacted based on Sandstein's assessment that: Volunteer Marek has made individual reverts in support of and in conjunction with Jacurek's nationalist edit-warring about names.. The original AE request involved five articles on Polish-Lithuanian topics. These were:
As far as I know, making single edits on two different articles has never been considered "edit warring" on Wikipedia, especially when these edits were accompanied by discussion on talk, and followed by requests for third opinion. As an editor with whom I frequently disagree with put it on my talk page afterward "this (sanction) puts arbitrary in arbitration". If single edits can really be considered "edit warring" this needs to be made explicit over at WP:EW and other relevant policy pages (see also discussion here: [569]) since otherwise people are going to violate these newly invented rules unknowingly (like I did). This kind of sanction also represent a tremendous extension of power held by admins who apply "discretionary sanctions" - under this interpretation pretty much any kind of single edit anywhere at anytime, no matter how policy-based-and-backed, is subject to sanctions on a whim of some administrator. Therefore I request that this sanction be stricken or at the very least, foregoing my insistence on the principle (and the principalities involved) here, shortened and transformed into something more reasonable and directly applicable (say a ban on removing or adding names from the lede of the articles, since it is extremely difficult to make edits to article text without sometimes removing or adding place names, especially in historical contexts).Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Sandstein, the EW policy does indeed state that edit warring takes place "when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. " - but in my case there was no "repeatedly" and I did try to resolve disagreement by discussion. Furthermore, I can't be held responsible for the fact that other editors started to edit war after my two separate edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC) I should also add that while another admin agreed with Sandstein at the AE request (which isn't surprising), pretty much every other editor who commented, something like seven or eight of them, generally disagreed with the sanction.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Statement by SandsteineditIn this case, as an example, Volunteer Marek's edit to Vilnius University, [570], was part and parcel of an edit war conducted at the same time by another editor, Jacurek, who made the same or similar edits multiple times ([571], [572], [573], [574]). As a further aggravating circumstance, Volunteer Marek, then editing as Radeksz, has previously been sanctioned by the Committee for covertly coordinating edits with Jacurek for the purpose of team-based nationalist edit-warring (WP:EEML#Radeksz). He should therefore have known that anything that gives even the impression of continuing such conduct would be viewed dimly. I consider WP:EW to be aimed at seeking to prevent the phenomenon of edit-wars (chains of repeated reverts) as such, rather than repeated reverts by any individual editor. This is supported by the text of the policy: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. ... Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned." This is why I believe that in this case, even four single reverts can be grounds for an edit-warring sanction, because these four single reverts continued four edit wars begun by others, often years ago. The proposed sanctions in this case were open for discussion in the admin section of the WP:AE page for two and a half days, in which no administrator opposed them and one supported them. For these reasons, I recommend that the appeal be declined, but I am open to lifting the sanctions on request after a month or two if Volunteer Marek commits not to engage in nationalist edit wars any more, and if his conduct in the interim is unobjectionable (in particular, if he does not engage in nationalist tendentious editing). Sandstein 07:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Sanction vacatededitWhile there is probably not a consensus to overturn my sanction so far, several uninvolved editors have commented to the effect that my application of WP:EW to this case was novel and unexpected and that Volunteer Marek may have believed in good faith that his continuation of Jacurek's reverts was compliant with applicable editorial standards. Taking this into consideration, I am vacating my sanction and replacing it with a warning not to continue nationalist edit wars by others. Volunteer Marek and other editors editing in this topic area are also warned that if they engage in a pattern of apparently nationalistically motivated name-changing (which I assume is the case where one particular nationality or language is systematically added or removed), this may in and of itself be grounds for sanctions, regardless of whether it is also edit-warring. I believe that this renders the appeal moot. Sandstein 06:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Statement by BorisGeditI strongly support this appeal. The wording of the policy can be interpreted in a number of ways, but no reasonable person should consider a single edit to be edit warring. - BorisG (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Statement by VecrumbaeditSupport per BorisG and editors commenting on the original case--including ones I don't always editorially agree with. If we've determined that EE is a bed of "chronic evil" per Sandstein, where exactly is the WP:AGF in that? (Although in fairness I have to also say that WP:AGF has been gamed in the past in EE.) In this particular case, with regard to editors most likely to be engaged in the Polish/Lithuanian etc. naming wars, Volunteer Marek is far from the first to come to mind. Again, I have good relations with a number of the editors involved (across party lines) and am glad to assist. Also, to Sandstein regarding EEML and citing thereof, in my case (and I suspect others), timings of "canvassing" are circumstantial as I explained (and was ignored without even the decency of an acknowledgement) regarding my personally checking Email at times only once a week or less--long after participating wherever I was accused and declared guilty of collusion. Please keep EEML closed and done. PЄTЄRS Statement by PiotruseditLong story short, making a single edit should not be punishable (unless it is a part of coordinated edit warring or other gaming the system, which this obviously wasn't). In fact, following 1RR and WP:BRD seems to be recommended by our policies and thus is commendable, not warnable. Further, as Sandstein notes, EW referrs to editors who make repetetive edits (the "repeatedly override" part) - which VM, making 1 edit to those article, obviously wasn't. There also seems to be a consensus at talk EW that making one edit should not be treated as an edit war, thus confirming that Sandstein's interpretation of EW was quite a way off. I will note that this appeal should be seen not so much about allowing VM to go back to reverting (which he has not done much in the first place), but about correcting the error in judgment which resulted in punishing an innocent user. I strongly support lifting the restriction from VM, and I suggest everyone thinks about the implications of the remedy in the first place - least they want to find themselves warned, restricted or topic banned for making some random, single revert in the future... PS. Per Peters, I'd appreciate if references to EEML would be kept away. They do nothing but batter AGF and poison the well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Statement by Malik ShabazzeditI, too, support this appeal. I believe the diffs from Vilnius University shown by Sandstein, which seem to indicate that Volunteer Marek has jumped into an edit war alongside Jacurek, tell a different story. After Marek made a single edit—an edit that was different from the one Jacurek had been making—he stopped editing the article. Jacurek started warring to keep Marek's change in the article. Why is Marek being held responsible for Jacurek's actions after Marek walked away from the article? Because two years ago they both were part of the EEML. Will Marek forever carry the mark of Cain for his past mistakes? Is there a point at which an editor's good behavior begins to offset the bad things they have done in the past, or does forgiveness never come? While Sandstein quotes the text of WP:EW, I believe he has missed part of his quote: ""An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." Repeatedly override, rather than discussing. Marek made only a single recent edit to each article, and he began discussions on the articles' Talk pages. According to the language quoted above, Marek appears not to have edit-warred. Finally, Sandstein notes that the proposed sanction in this case was open for discussion for two-and-a-half days without comment. I regret that I was not aware of them, or I would have made comments similar to those made here. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Statement by JacurekeditI would like to clarify that I was NOT tag-teaming with user Volunteer Marek, I was not aware of the fact that he made an edit or will be editing the articles. We hardly edit the same articles anymore and our edits were purely coincidental.--Jacurek (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Comment by Hodja NasreddineditLet's simply follow the policy. According to WP:Edit warring, "A number of experienced editors deliberately adopt a policy of reverting only edits covered by the exceptions listed above, or limiting themselves to a single revert; if there is further dispute they seek dialog or outside help rather than make the problem worse." Hence making only one revert in an article is expected from an experienced editor who does not want to be involved in edit wars. It also tells: "if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without you prompting them), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action.". That "another editor" was Marek. Of course, it was precisely the argument that Marek did reverts because Jacurek asked him. But since they both deny it, I tend to assume good faith on their part. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Volunteer Marekedit
Result of the appeal by Volunteer Marekedit
|