Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive90
Ludwigs2
edit| Closed without action; dubious (socky?) filing circumstances, and addressees of the cited attacks have expressed no desire for sanctions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Ludwigs2edit
Ludwigs2 should be given an interaction ban so he doesn't continue to violate the spirit and the letter of the arbcom caution. A six month topic ban from all articles related to pseudoscience might help cool him down a bit too.
Discussion concerning Ludwigs2editStatement by Ludwigs2editComments by others about the request concerning Ludwigs2edit
Result concerning Ludwigs2edit
|
Piotrus
edit| No action taken. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Piotrusedit
I have just read Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus's inform. He had written: rv move: in Polish context, it is wójt, not vogt. First of all, we rather use English words, than Polish, Russian, etc., in the English Wikipedia. Look at the article, please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellion_of_vogt_Albert The Rebellion of vogt Albert was an uprising of burghers of the Polish city of Cracow in the years 1311–12. What is he taking about? -- Mibelz 21:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
|
Nableezy
edit| No action taken. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Nableezyedit
Block and extend or rest topic ban
Not making a WP:POINT here, just making sure we use consistent standards. I asked the admin who imposed the sanction on Nableezy what the difference is, and he said i should ask here. I do so, and now I'm to be blockewd for this? Rym torch (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC) @HJM: are you saying an article that specifically discusses the subject's involvement in the conflict is outside the topic ban scope, but an article about bandages is within the scope?
Discussion concerning NableezyeditStatement by NableezyeditCan somebody block this sock of NoCal? Magda el-Roumy is not in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. Yes, she has sung a few songs about Israel, and the things that beacon of light for all humanity has done, but most of her songs are love songs and other such things. Every single Arab singer of any import over the last 60 years has at least one song about Israel. From Abdel Halim to Umm Kulthoum, from Fairouz to Abdel Wahab. If I cant even write about Arab musicians without a sock of NoCal hounding my contributions to report me here then you might as well block me and be done with it. I did not touch any part of the article that deals with the conflict. My edit removed a link to a non-existent image. If that is a topic ban violation then Wikipedia as a whole is in the Arab-Israeli topic area. But really, can somebody please block this NoCal sock? Pretty please? nableezy - 23:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezyedit
Result concerning Nableezyedit
Removing a redlink on a page of a "Lebanese singer and a soprano"? I don't see how that is a topic ban violation. T. Canens (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Closing as no action. Note that filer has been blocked indefinitely for reasons unrelated to this complaint. T. Canens (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC) |
Nableezy 10 May 2011
edit| Nableezy topic-banned from P/I for 2 months. AGK [•] 20:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Nableezyedit
At administrator's discretion
The editor is just out of their yet another topic ban and back home to pattern of WP:DE. While in topic ban the editor did not produce any significant contribution to the project. The editor disregards civility and engaged in slow motion WP:EW denying WP:Consensus and WP:BRD as appropriate WP:DR procedure, which might appear as WP:GAMING. The disruption which spells WP:IDHT is across multiple articles in I/P topic area, though I have gathered diffs for Ramot and Quds Day article, where East Jerusalem is pushed as a fact into the lede. I am involved in Ramot. EJ is pushed as a fact location, where actually the source used as ref "They began planting neighborhoods such as Ramot Allon on annexed West Bank land..." says West Bank.
Long discussion follows, during which the editor prefers to discuss contributors and not contribution. Finally stating: BRD is an essay, it has no special status that allows you to choose the lead. "No consensus" is not a valid reason to revert. I ask again, do you have any sources that contradict the many sources that say the settlement is in EJ? The final revert WP:ES is typical: this is silly, you havent given any sources disputing any aspect of the lead. brd is not a tool to filibuster any movement of the article Similar edit pattern could be seen at Quds Day, where I have never been involved, the editor is pushing East Jerusalem into the lede.
Long discussion, involving 3rd opinion intervention, the discussion is disregarded. Notification to editor of this discussion Due diligence: Initially I've been WP:SPA and have WP:EW history at Gaza War with editor in question. Topic ban which since expired helped me to realize I've been lame and helped me to contribute more constructively to Wikipedia
Initially it appeared as violations of I/P policy, but later the editor commented on the talk page, they probably forgot. To me, this history spells WP:IDHT and WP:CIRCUS. Bottom line there is such thing as WP:DE, so I clearly support User:Cla68 observation and suggest to widen the topic to GH article or maybe even wider. Do I dare to say whole I/P area? Otherwise I would not be surprised, based on previous history, to see the discussed editor starring on this page again and again, maybe be in a role of a user who is submitting this request for enforcement or as a user against whom enforcement is requested. I'll pull up a chair and start some popcorn first though - it would be a good show. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning NableezyeditStatement by NableezyeditAt Quds Day, I went and asked for the 3rd opinion. That 3rd opinion backed my position and I made one further revert. The revert was re-reverted and the author of the 3rd opinion reverted back to my edit. To say I "disregarded" the 3rd opinion is so blatantly dishonest that I cannot think of a way of describing that statement without making a personal attack. At Ramot, Agada has been filibustering, without cause or sources, the inclusion of a statement that has 5 reliable sources listed on the talk page backing it up. The user also reverted an entire section on the legal status of the settlement ([3]) despite the consensus at IPCOLL on this very issue. The user has been doing almost nothing at that page except for reverting based on "no consensus" and "brd" (eg [4], [5], [6]). Despite several requests for a single source backing his position (eg [7], [8]) the user has declined, instead choosing to say BRD and no consensus. These bad faith maneuvers to disrupt the progress of creating an encyclopedia article should not be tolerated. The user refuses to discuss the actual issues, instead choosing to rely on any guideline that supports his quest to remove any material he personally dislikes. The fact is I have provided several sources for each of my edits. Agada has, instead of looking for sources that dispute mine, has chosen to stick his fingers in his ears and yell out NA NA NA NA I CANT HEAR YOU and revert without cause. nableezy - 18:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Cptnono, casting aspersions without evidence is a personal attack. I object, strenuously, to the backhanded swipe made without a shred of evidence of sockpuppetry on my part. Your "most problematic" set of edits
Cla, this isnt a revert, this is me restoring a tag. You are left with 3 reverts over a week. Please look at Agada's "contribution" to the talk page. It consists of one of two things, misuse of a source or repeating the mantra BRD and no consensus as a means of filibustering. You cannot compare our contributions. Of course Agada supports your proposal, the reason he does all this is to have me banned. It does not matter to him if he is likewise banned, so long as I am then he did what he sought out to do. His purpose here is to filibuster any material that he dislikes, and he sees an effective way of doing that by having me removed. nableezy - 13:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Tim, I understand your frustration, but believe me, it pales in comparison to my own. I dont know what else I am supposed to do. I am hounded from article to article by a collection of sockpuppets, accounts that barely understand clear English (or at least feign to not understand for the purpose of stalling), ones whose sole purpose is to filibuster any change I make, and ones that willfully make things up out of thin air and say no when asked for sources. I no longer edit war, I try to be as civil as I possibly can, I make edits that are supported both by the sources and the policies of this website. What else would you have me do? Just give up and leave them to it? The reason there are regular requests for enforcement against me is simple. I am effective at adding content that the "pro-I" group would rather not include. But because I add this content with reliable sources it is difficult for them to give an honest argument for removing it. So the easier route to stop the inclusion of such content is to have me removed. To illustrate the point, how many enforcement threads have been opened against me that resulted in no sanctions? How many have been opened by accounts later shown to be socks of banned editors (and I have no doubt the one recently archived will soon be added to that list)? I am repeatedly brought here on the most trifling of charges, often on completely spurious grounds. Asinine accusations, such as the one below of sockpuppetry, are routinely made without evidence. But all these charges add to the perception, rightly or wrongly held, that I am the problem. That without me the topic area is "better". If by "better" one means that it is easier to ignore the Palestinians and present a slanted account of their history, when not completely denying it, then sure that part is true. But if by "better" one means that the articles reflect the policies of WP, such as NPOV and V, then that is emphatically not true. If you tell me what exactly you think I am doing wrong I will correct it immediately. But dealing with the type of bullshit that I regularly see from some of the editors commenting here makes me much more frustrated than I could imagine you being. nableezy - 16:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezyedit
Just a month ago I would not have argued about banning a user for using the word "trolling", but another editor was banned for doing just that Should we be consistent here? While the differences presented in Mbz1 case were collected over a few months I'd like to bring your attention to two differences for the last 2 days made just a few week after user:Nableezy prior topic ban expired. user:Nableezy has been repeatedly warned over uncivil comments he made. Let's see his reaction: Another "crime" for what Mbz1 was topic banned was described by user:passionless as "Inability to work co-operatively . Here is a similar example by user:Nableezy. I am not saying user:Nableezy should be sanctioned over the differences I presented. I am simply looking for some consistency. Broccolo (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I suggest article-banning Nableezy and AgadaUrbanit and I think the current conflict problems with that article will largely evaporate. Cla68 (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning Nableezyedit
|
46.38.162.18
edit| Proxy sock 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 46.38.162.18edit
block of this and all related socks.
This IP, apparently part of a disruptive sockfarm targeting IP articles, persists in adding or removing material from articles on the basis of mis-citing sources. Please note that, under the terms of the arbitration: "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty".
Discussion concerning 46.38.162.18editStatement by 46.38.162.18editI have no idea what any of this means - all I know is this: he initiated an edit war with me, warned me of 3RR, he then BREACHED 3RR, i reported him - then this appears. And he still continues to delete all my contributions. Voila. 46.38.162.18 (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning 46.38.162.18editResult concerning 46.38.162.18edit
I've blocked the IP as a socking anonymising proxy used by a blocked or banned user. Also, Roland's identification of this sock elsewhere is correct, IMO. I consider this request closed. Other socks should be dealt with at ANI or as they turn up. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC) |
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Nableezy
edit| Appeal unsuccessful. After more than one week of discussion, it is clear that there is no "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" sufficient to overturn the sanction at issue. T. Canens (talk) 04:27, 18 May 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 NableezyeditAGK uses as evidence of me "gaming" my asking for a third opinion at WP:3O about a dispute. He says that because no other users were involved the 3O is a valueless exercise, and at worst an attempt by Nableezy to gain some pretence of validation for his edit. Of course there were only two editors involved, why else would I ask for THIRD opinion. To use my using a proper DR procedure as cause for topic banning me is ludicrous. Next, AGK identified 4 reverts that took place over the course of a week. The first of those "reverts" was not a revert, it was in fact one of my first edits to the article in some time. I challenge AGK to say what edit this "revert" reverted. That leaves 3 reverts over a week. A two month topic ban for making 3 reverts in a week is not justified. I did exactly what I was supposed to do at Quds Day, instead of continuing to revert, I went through DR. In fact, WP:DR contains the following advice: If you need neutral outside opinions in a dispute involving only two editors, turn to Wikipedia:Third opinion. At Ramot, yes, perhaps I made more reverts than I should have. However, the other user, Agada Urbanit, was completely ignoring the sources and misrepresenting the one that he had. When it was shown that the source he was claiming supported his view (the Israeli NGO B'tselem) actually explicitly contradicted his view he simply reverted again under the guise of there being "no consensus". I admit, I have little patience for such bad faith filibustering tactics. But since that time, and before this sanction, I have opened an RFC on the issue. AGK has completely ignored the bad faith actions by the filer of the above request for enforcement and has sanctioned me on the basis of me properly following DR on Quds Day and making 3 reverts over a week on Ramot. It is true, I have been sanctioned a number of times under ARBPIA. I have only appealed once, the one time that I felt that the decision was completely unwarranted. I feel that this decision is likewise completely without merit and request that it be lifted. nableezy - 21:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Ed, I would like you to clarify your statement. You say the original report shows enough reverts by me to show I was placing back my preferred position. Are you referencing Quds Day or Ramot, or both? On Ramot, 3 reverts over a week while multiple sources were provided backing my position and the other reverting editor providing none supporting his is enough to show that there was both "no consensus" and that I was simply putting back my preferred position? How are you defining "consensus"? nableezy - 20:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Re Ncmvocalist. Yes, opening an RFC is what I should have done from the start. The reason I did not is because this is a manufactured dispute that should not need an RFC, anybody who looks at the sources should be able to come to that same conclusion. When users refuse to provide sources backing their position, or when the sources they do provide are shown to not back their position, I dont consider their objections as having any merit. Everything that happened at Ramot was predicated on filibustering, or, as George put it, bureaucratic bullshit. I dont deal well with bullshit. My offer to AGK to abide by a 1RR/week was not meant to say that I am entitled to revert once a week, but rather to make it so I have to open RFC and other such processes to deal with such nonsense instead of reverting. Ill go through these processes if it is necessary, but yall should understand that what happened at Ramot was caused by inane arguments by those insisting on ignoring the sources with the sole purpose of impeding me at that article. The same user has done this at a number of other articles, always reverting because of "no consensus" where he takes "consensus" to mean that if says "no" there is "no consensus". nableezy - 13:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC) This is clearly going one way, so there is little need to continue. But I would like to make clear a few points. I am given a two month topic ban for 3 reverts in a week on one article. The reverts at Quds Day cannot be used as justification for this ban, I did exactly what WP:DR says to do. If I am to be sanctioned for that then there is no point to any of this; all that is left is 3 reverts over one week at Ramot. Im cool with two months off, but know I that I will use this as the baseline for future AE reports. An editor makes that many reverts in a week and they should be subject to similar sanctions. Yall make the rules, thats fine. But be prepared to enforce those rules for everybody. Starting with the users who were also reverting at Ramot and Quds Day. I say AGK, hows that review going anyway? Feel free to close this out, aint much of a point in keeping it going. nableezy - 19:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Cptnono has repeatedly made false and disparaging comments about me, and has repeatedly made accusations without diffs, and on an administrative board no less. I am fed up with reading that bullshit without responding, could an admin please inform this "editor" that such behavior is not acceptable? Unless of course you all would like to see how I respond to some fool saying I "breed cancer". nableezy - 13:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Statement by AGKeditI did not say that Nableezy "gamed" the 3O; I said that that could be a motive for his continued reversion with that flimsy thinking. Nableezy says nothing of his two serious arrays of reversions, which is telling of the baseless nature of this appeal. Nableezy also cites the "the other party did as much wrong as me" argument, which first does not mitigate his own conduct, and second ignores my stated intention to evaluate the conduct of the other editors within the next few days. These sanctions are as warranted as the previous ones on Nableezy were. AGK [•] 22:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Statement by GeorgeeditNot sure if I'm considered involved. I was part of some of the discussions on the Ramot article talk page with Nableezy and AgandaUrbanit, and also edited that article. I haven't read the entire conversation above, and just noticed that Nableezy was topic banned for two months. I can't comment on the Quds Day article, as I haven't checked the diffs and wasn't involved in that discussion, but I have been witness to the Ramot article discussions and reverts. The first point I'd like to address is AgandaUrbanit's contention that Nableezy made a bold edit, inserting "East Jerusalem" into the article on April 30, 2011, which was then reverted. This isn't completely true. Here is a version of the same article from two years to the day earlier, which states:
Here's the version of the same article from three years to the day earlier:
So the concept that this is some new, bold change Nableezy had reverted is somewhat flawed. Now, let's consider who reverted Nableezy first. The editor in question is named Editorprop. They have made 142 total edits, 66.2% of which were to this very article.[22] They are the very definition of a single-purpose account in my book, and I largely question their neutrality. Who subsequently reverted Nableezy? AgandaUrbanit. His reason? "No consensous for this edit, please discuss on talk page."[23] Nableezy's response? To try an alternative. The result? That too got reverted, and there was indeed lots of discussion on the talk page, which led to an ongoing RfC. But let's take a step back for a moment. What's really going on here, and who's to blame? Nableezy makes an edit, and a relatively new editor, Editorprop, reverts it. Nableezy reverts them, and Aganda reverts Nableezy, citing no consensus. In my opinion, there are a few problems with this series of events:
If action was deemed necessary, I would have expected to see all three editors given similar punishments (and, to be clear, it would be a punishment - I don't view this sanction as preventative). And that punishment should have been far less severe than this sanction. But what action should have been taken here? None. There was a lot of good discussion going on with all three editors, and Nableezy opened an RfC on the issue (which is 5 to 1 in his favor at the moment). It would have eventually worked itself out, and while we might have been going in circles for a while, there wasn't any foul, and the conflict didn't appear to be escalating. Just my two cents, anyways. ← George talk 06:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Statement by RolandReditMoved from uninvolved section; see Wikipedia:ARBPIA for involvement in the topic area.
Statement by Al Ameer soneditMoved from uninvolved section; contributions from May 3 to May 10 (as a sample) indicate he is involved in the topic area.
Statement by ZeroeditDisclosure: I have been editing the Middle East section of Wikipedia since 2003 (must be a bit of masochist, eh?). Nableezy wanted to write that Ramot is in East Jerusalem. Where else is it? The fact is that the vast majority of sources agree with Nableezy and hardly any disagree. It isn't a matter of Israeli opinion versus the rest, either, since most Israelis would also agree that Ramot is in East Jerusalem. What is really going on is that some of the Israeli right wing persuasion want to suppress use of the common place names East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem because they might hint to the reader that "Jerusalem, unified forever" is not the whole story. It may well be that Nableezy could have handled this better than he did, but on the other hand he was trying to write an article conforming to the rules while his opponents were not. I suggest that the penalty be greatly reduced and that his editing opponents receive at least the same. Zerotalk 09:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Statement by Sean.hoylandeditAGK, if your decision had a clear and reasonable rationale I don't think you would get an eminently reasonable and sober minded editor like George spending the time to add a detailed analysis which I sincerely hope you read. It accurately describes the state of affairs upon which a clear and reasonable decision could have been made. The validity of an argument or objection isn't a function of the degree to which an editor is involved or uninvolved. Editors aren't allowed to grade the validity and policy consistency of content arguments on talk pages based on the degree of involvement in an issue according to things like nationality/ethnicity/political views etc. They have to address the arguments themselves. Since you have the privilege of being an admin surely that obligation applies to you here even more than non-admins ? I'm involved in the topic area, although not the articles in question, but I can't see any possible justification for a topic ban based on the actual events that transpired. If a few reverts over a week is now the state of edit warring and disruption in the I-P topic area there has been an impressive improvement and people should be being encouraged not punished. People can say whatever they want about Nableezy but as a process he tries to increase the degree of policy compliance in articles by actually making sure that content complies with mandatory policy by using policy based arguments and reliable sources. A topic ban will not result in an improvement of article content. Quite the opposite. We shouldn't be encouraging the manufacturing of controversies via talk page disputes when there isn't really a controversy in reliable-source-world by punishing editors who try to build an encyclopedia based on policy. If Nableezy were editing the same way in the evolution topic area where there is zero-tolerance for POV pushing, fringe views, unreliable sources, non-policy based arguments on talk pages, content edits that don't comply with policy etc, no one would bat an eyelid and he certainly wouldn't be topic banned. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC) re: Ncmvocalist's comment at 10:57, 12 May 2011. With respect Ncmvocalist, I think you're missing the point a bit. The key point as far as I'm concerned is that an editor shouldn't be put in a position where they have to make a revert over silly things like where Ramot is in the first place and they shouldn't have to post an RFC to ask whether Ramot is partly located inside the spatial object that is referred to by reliable sources as "East Jerusalem". It is, as a simple matter of objective spatial positioning, partly inside East Jerusalem just like the Portland metropolitan area is partly inside Washington state. It's this kind of thing that shows how out of touch with reliable-source-reality things have become in the I-P topic area and how editors are being forced to jump through hoops that shouldn't be there to write articles based on reliable sources according to policy. Not that it will ever happen, but imagine if someone were to change the description of the Portland metropolitan area from "an urban area in the U.S. states of Oregon and Washington" to "an urban area in the U.S. state of Oregon". They would be reverted over and over and over again until they were either persuaded to stop or blocked no matter what they said on the talk page. Too much effort is spent trying to solve "disputes" with editors on talk pages when the dispute doesn't matter and it has no legitimacy from a policy perspective because the sources are clear. Editors need to at least be able to make edits based on policy that improve articles without getting punished for it. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Statement by BroccoloeditI support the ban. user:Nableezy is violating 1RR on a regular basis. Please see the article List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2011. The user made 3 reverts in less than 5 hours. Broccolo (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Statement by TiamuteditNableezy has been given four topic bans by two administrators: AGK and Sandstein. AGK issued his first topic ban ever [27], based on a report filed by a sockpuppet of banned user User:Dajudem (of the CAMERA scandal). He set it for four months and after multiple complaints about it being unwarranted, lowered it to two and blocked Stellarkid (the name of the filer) for two months (before he was ultimately blocked for being a sock). Nableezy was burdened by the sanction which has since been used as a baseline every time he has been brought to this board. Shortly thereafter, Nableezy was topic banned by Sandstein, who lifted the ban on appeal [28] after numerous complaints about it being unwarranted. Sandstein later topic banned Nableezy for two months based on a report filed by User:Shuki which Sandstein himself described as "largely frivolous", but invoking Nableezy's "problematic record", a sanction was deemed justified nonetheless. [29]. Now we have this topic ban, which is based on 4 reverts made at two articles over the course of a week. Ed Johnston claims this alone is enough for a two month topic ban. Really? From now on, all users who revert 3 times at one article over the course of a week, while engaged extensively in talk, adding sources, moving toward compromise wording, can be sanctioned if reported here from now on? I submit this sanction is overkill, as were Nableezy's previous sanctions. Nableezy has a lot of enemies for being persistent in bringing forth good sources to support his arguments and for hunting down socks. As Stifle once said though, if you throw enough mud it will stick. Tiamuttalk 06:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Statement by AgandaUrbaniteditMoved from uninvolved section; see Wikipedia:ARBPIA for involvement in the topic area.
Response to George by CptnonoeditMoved from uninvolved section; see Wikipedia:ARBPIA for involvement in the topic area. It isn't a good thing that Nebleezy spends so much time on socks. Yes it is good that he flushes them out but it is on one side only. He has even admitted that he does it on one side only. If he actually attempted to clean up the topic area overall then it would be a good thing. But instead he spends time here and at SPI in a battlefieldesque effort. How many SPI and AE comments has he had since his return vs actual constructive edits? He is a POV warrior. Being good at using SPI to take down what he sees as an enemy is not a net gain for the project. Cptnono (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor)editDiscussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Nableezyedit
Result of the appeal by Nableezyedit
|
Mbz1 topic ban clarification
edit| Create article in user space to be reviewed. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Statement by Mbz1editI'd like to write an article about Israeli medical high pressure bandages please. This article is not falling under my topic ban restrictions as they were specified here There are not going to be any single word about the conflict, and I mean this.User:Gatoclass requested I consult him about my new articles, if I have a doubt about the topic. I have zero doubts, but I did ask Gato, and he eventually agreed that I could write this article without violating my topic ban. I also asked my banning administrator , and he declined my request, but kindly allowed me to ask for a review of my proposal at AE, so here I am. If I am to write the article, I will write it in my user space and present it for review before it is moved to main space. I will not touch the article and its discussion page after it is moved to the main space. I will not nominate it on DYK, and, if somebody else will I will not comment on the nomination. IMO it is important for a topicbanned editors to be allowed to write such articles in their user spaces, the articles that are not violating their topic bans at all, but might be seen as borderline. Why it is important? It is important because it teaches an editor to behave in the topic he/she is banned for. It is a very harsh punishment not to be able to edit and/or to comment on your own articles, it is very difficult not to watch what's going on there, but it does teach to be patient and more tolerant to other users opinions. May I please write this article? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Sanction or remedy that might prevent writing this articleedit
Discussion concerning Mbz1's requestedit
I support this request, provided that Mbz1 abides by the guidelines she herself set out above: she will only edit it in her own userspace, and will not edit it after it is in the mainspace (nor submit it for DYK or the like). The only caveat I would add is to be clear that it should only be only be moved to the mainspace by an administrator. Remember folks, this should be preventative, not punitive, and under those restrictions I see no reason to refuse this request. If we don't allow banned editors the option of structured contribution (with review) as a way to improve their behavior, we only push them to circumvent policies (like writing the article in notepad anyways, and emailing it to a friend to post). ← George talk 02:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I want to write this article for two absolutely different reasons:
My understanding of the purpose of topic bans is it is imposed to prevent an editor from causing disruptions in the topic. What are disruptions? According to this guideline disruptions are:
I hope any reasonable person would agree that there is no way to violate any of the above policies while writing a new article in one own user space. I strongly believe that any topic banned editor should be allowed to write a new article in their own user space, move it to the main space in one edit, and never touch it again while under the ban because the purpose of topic ban is preventing an editor from causing disruptions in the topic, and not preventing a constructive contributions to the topic because preventing constructive contributions to the topic is an absolute absurd, and is not good for Wikipedia's image.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Tim, thank you for clarification of your position. As I pointed out above there is a discrepancy between the The actual wording here, at AE request and this notice left at my talk page. The first one states that I am "topic banned from all articles and pages covered by WP:ARBPIA ...", The second one states: that I am topic banned "from all articles and discussions related to Palestine, Israel, or the Arab-Israeli conflict". I am not sure if such discrepancies are usual, if it was 2/0 intention, but why we should second guess 2/0 intentions, if HJ asked 2/0 this very question and 2/0 responded "no (the state of Israel yes, but not diamonds just because Israel exports them).--Mbz1 (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
There is another interesting thing on the matter of my topic ban. Please take a look at the language 2/0 used to close the request: "An argument could be made for dismissing this report with prejudice given the weak and highly inappropriate nature of the filing statement"(highlighted by me). So my banning administrator understood I should not have been banned at all, but banned me because of "consensus". I am far from saying I have done nothing wrong. I did, but I am being greatly over-sanctioned because of what I call "a name recognition" :-) The only thing I am interested in doing in this particular topic is writing new articles. So in an unfortunate case my topic ban cannot be lifted now with no restrictions as it should be lifted IMO, here's my motion to modify its conditions. I hope you find this motion to be fair, and reasonable because the proposed restrictions would completely prevent me from causing any disruptions in the topic and it is a sole purpose of topic ban.
I told Mbz I couldn't see a problem with this topic. The reason I said that is because none of the sources she proposed to use mention the A-I conflict, and, somewhat to my surprise, a quick Google search did not turn up any additional sources on this topic that mention the conflict either. I did however have some concerns about the notability of the topic, which might best be tested by an AFD. As regards the "Israeli boosterism" issue, I'm not especially concerned about that and it seems to me a stretch to consider articles about Israeli (or Arab/Muslim) achievements to be a violation of an ARBPIA topic ban. However, I am concerned about articles which deal with Arab/Muslim-Jewish relations, because it's been clear for a long time that the Arab-Israeli conflict has spilled over into this area, and I think it would be appropriate for topic banned users to avoid such articles. I also think it's inappropriate for topic banned users to make edits which portray the opposing ethnic group in a negative manner. The longer term solution for these issues might be to file a request for clarification/amendment with arbcom. Finally, I might add that I think it unhelpful to interpret ARBPIA sanctions as applying solely to article subjects rather than to edits. Lots of articles can be about a subject almost entirely outside the topic area but which touch in some respect on the topic, while at the same time it's possible to make edits which do not actually touch upon the topic to an article which is plainly within the topic area. IMO it's better to focus upon edits rather than article subjects, but certainly, topic banned users should not be authoring articles which cannot be effectively covered without mentioning the topic. I've yet to see any evidence, however, that this particular proposed article falls into that category. Gatoclass (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I think one particular reason to grant this request is that it can serve as a test case. If indeed Mbz1 can create a good article on the subject while managing to avoid the obvious pitfalls then she will have demonstrated that she is capable of making constructive edits. One of the ongoing themes here has been that Mbz1 does in fact make lots of constructive edits (and images!) but that when she steps into the I-P battle arena, she tends to get into trouble. If she succeeds here she will have demonstrated that it is possible to separate out the controversial from the non-controversial here. With that in mind, I think HJ Mitchell's suggestion of a resolution (creating the article in namespace, etc.) is a good one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Result of Mbz1's requestedit
I have two questions. One for 2/0 and/or other admins who were in favour of the topic ban at the previous AE request and one for Mbz.
If 2/0's answer is no and Mbz's answer is satisfactory, I don't see a problem, providing one of the admins who comments on this request reads the article before it's moved to mainspace. On a more general note, I think it shows a desire to to adhere to the topic ban that Mbz has requested this clarification rather than risk violating the ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
|
Mibelz
edit| Banned for three months from changing names from one national variant to another, under WP:DIGWUREN. Details within. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Mibelzedit
I am not fond of ban/blockhammer use, and whether any blocks are necessary, I leave to the discretion of AE regulars. However, action is needed to stop an editor from move warring and ignoring discussions. Further, Mibelz's incivility is problematic, as such comments directly lead to battleground atmosphere. I'd ask that 1) he is reminded and warned about civility 2) warned that move warring can lead to a block and 3) that the article in question is moved back to the long-established name by a neutral party and move-protected for the next few weeks (with no prejudice to a proper RM being started). PS. I am also open to withdrawing this request if Mibelz apologizes for his incivil comment, and self-revets himself. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
On April 18 Mibelz (talk · contribs) moved Rebellion of wójt Albert from its stable location to Rebellion of vogt Albert without a talk comment, and with a rather uninformative editing summary. I reverted him with a more informative edit summary and as I saw no further activity on the article, I thought the matter settled. Today he moved the article again, with a hardly more informative edit summary ([34]). I reverted him (since it was almost a month since the last revert), explained my rationale in detail on talk, and noted that explanation in my edit summary, also asking that any further moves are made through WP:RM. Less than an hour later, he reverted me again, this time with an incivil edit summary ("some Polish nationalists"). Given this unconstructive attitude (lack of discussion, incivil comments, willingness to move war) I am hesitant to revert him again, as I expect he would just revert me back - and a "move war" would hardly help. If it wasn't for the incivility, I'd likely start a 3O/RfC, but with the incivility added into the mix, I am bringing this incident here. PS. Minutes after move, an IP changed all instances of Kraków to the obsolete, old-English redirect Cracow: [35]. In the context of the relatively recent blocks for name-reverting, this is another worrisome sign. While I realize that AE deals primarily with editor behavior, I'd also appreciate a comment on 1) whether the article can be moved back to the stable name and move protected and 2) whether and when I can move it back so that my action is not seen as "move warring". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Update: Mibelz has not bothered replying here; he has still not bothered commenting on the article's talk page, he has however reverted another editor again, forcing his preferred name spelling (in violation of WP:NCGN: [36]. Note that I have explained this naming issue on talk as well, at the same time I made my original explanation regarding the article's name. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Update 2 Mibelz is still refusing to comment on talk, even after Ncmvocalist asked him to. He has, however, made several talk page comments in which he again shows bad faith: [37], [38], [39]. His Kraków example, relevant to him edit warring about the name in the article, is contrary to WP:NCGN (note also that the article itself is at Kraków, Cracow is a redirect, and the name has been discussed on that article's talk, with the consensus still being "keep Kraków"). His latest comment shows part of his POV; but contrary to his statement he has not been reverted yet, because he even added it to the article after making the complain in question (complain, edit)! (Note, also, first, that he does not add information on Polish origin, nor that it is customary for articles to state such origin in the way he is doing it). As such I will not be surprised if he is reverted by another editor. Reviewing his edits, while it seems his contribution to chess/sports articles are usually fine, his recent contributions to historical articles, as demonstrated in this incident, are not very constructive. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Response to Mibelz: yes, you have "argued", in your edit summary to your second revert. You still have not replied to any of the issues raised on article's talk. And if you want to rename Kraków to Cracow, raise it on that article's talk page, although I doubt it will succeed, as this issue has been debated many times, and the consensus is to keep the article at Kraków, which, despite your assertions to the contrary, is widely used in English language. What we are trying to tell you here is that 1) you should use talk pages 2) you should be civil and assume good faith and 3) you should not engage in edit warring, and you should try to discuss issues before reverting more than once (WP:BRD). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning MibelzeditStatement by MibelzeditComments by others about the request concerning Mibelzedit
I think that a merit discussion is important, not insinuations - for example: "he again shows bad faith" (Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus), or "you are ridiculous" (81.164.215.61 who renamed of Cracow in the Rebellion of vogt Albert). I have argued that "English name is Cracow, as well as Nuremberg, Munich, Cologne, Prague, Warsaw, etc., not Kraków, Nürnberg, München, Köln, Praha, Warszawa, etc." Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus also wrote: "Reviewing his edits, while it seems his contribution to chess/sports articles are usually fine, his contributions to historical articles, as demonstrated in this incident, are not very constructive." Look at some history articles I expanded considerably (i.e. Galicia (Central-Eastern Europe), Grand Prince of Kiev, List of Ukrainian rulers, List of Polish monarchs, List of Russian rulers, History of the Jews in China, Kaifeng Jews, Shanghai Ghetto, etc.), please. By the way, I do not intend to write how constructive are Piotrus's articles. -- Mibelz, Ph.D. 18:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Russavia, when did your sanction from the Russavia/Biophys case get revoked? As far as I know you are still "prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with editors from the EEML case, except in the case of necessary dispute resolution." [41]. You were already banned once for breaking this restriction [42] [43]. Yet here you are agitating for topic ban against Piotrus ("topic ban needs to be placed both ways"). Or did I misunderstand that? Since you are not involved in the original disagreement on "Rebellion of (mr.) Albert", this is obviously NOT in any way a "case of necessary dispute resolution". The sanction in the R/B case against you interacting with people from the EEML case was designed to prevent EXACTLY this kind of battleground behavior. How about you strike your comments and withdraw before more trouble and unnecessary drama ensues?Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Mibelzedit
|
Wessexboy
edit| Blocked 24 hours for 1RR violation on a Troubles article. Details within. EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Wessexboyedit
Block or article ban.
Wessexboy first appeared on the Troubles radar almost a year ago with this edit, which is virtually (with the exception of the addition of Londonderry) a revert to a version from over a year before which included this section where a known tendentious editor had added the claim that regarding a death threat a living person had received 'subsequently many people were reported to say "couldn't happen to a nicer guy"'. Virtually every edit he makes to the British Queen's visit article is tendentious.
Their two talk page contributions are little except attacks on other editors. There is little constructive coming from this editor, so I do not believe a short block will accomplish much other than a day or so's respite before the problems start again, so I request they be banned from the article. There are very few other ways of dealing with editors who persistently make multiple tendentious edits to an article at a time when it is on the main page, since anyone wishing to revert them is hampered by the one revert restriction. Making a tendentious edit, wait for someone to revert it, make a totally different tendentious edit which that person will be unable to revert - that is gaming the system. O Fenian (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning WessexboyeditStatement by WessexboyeditComments by others about the request concerning Wessexboyedit
Result concerning Wessexboyedit
|
GoodDay
edit| User:GoodDay formally warned for breaching WP:Editwar, no further action taken as GoodDay recognizes his mistake--Cailil talk 15:16, 22 May 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 GoodDayedit
The user GoodDay has broken sanctions on an article relating to The Troubles and should be topic banned from those articles. The Troubles are defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland. The user GoodDay reverted three times within 24 hours on the article Northern Ireland, in breach of WP:1RR restrictions placed on all articles by Arbcom at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case related to The Troubles, which says "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related." Additionally, the user is a persistent low level disruptive editor. Numerous requests to edit constructively appear regularly on their Talkpage. There seems to be no awareness that their opinion should be supported by verifiable, reliable sources. Their heavy involvement in sensitive, delicate areas does not seem to be accompanied by sensitive, delicate editing e.g. despite having an extensive knowledge of WP:BISE and WP:BITASK they added "British Isles" to an article here directly contradicting their statements here, here and here at BITASK. Consequently, an extension to the topic ban should be considered to include any British related issues.
Discussion concerning GoodDayeditStatement by GoodDayeditI messed up 'big time' on this article, even though I was trying to restore the status-quo version of that article's intro. A version which 'ironically' I oppose. I plumb forgot about the 1RR restriction on the article-in-question & so I should be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC) BTW, the "threat" that Daicaregos mentions in his 22:52 post, was 'in fact' a typo, which I (moments later) fixed. Therefore, there was/is no threat. GoodDay (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning GoodDayeditPlease note that I have been contacted by User:GoodDay here, which I consider to be further evidence of their inappropriate behaviour. Daicaregos (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC) ... and they have continued to post inappropriately both at this page and at my Talkpage. Daicaregos (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC) ... and User:GoodDay continues to intimidate me. It is highly inappropriate for them to contact me while this is live. Would someone please ask them to stop. Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC) ... on and on Daicaregos (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Jeanne, don't know what AVDL's motives are with his interventions. On this issue I'm assuming good faith and would give GoodDay the benefit of the doubt. However, I urge admins who are eye-balling this section and who will make the final decision to take note of what people are saying regarding GD's persistent, below the radar, troll like activities. Many editors have asked him over the course of many months maybe years to modify his behaviour but he refuses to get the point. Admins really have to involve themselves on his future activities. --Bill Reid | (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning GoodDayedit
|