Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive157
WeijiBaikeBianji
edit| No action, but all involved are advised to observe the relevant conduct policies. Sandstein 08:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning WeijiBaikeBianjiedit
This editor recently reverted the same article five times in six hours. These edits concern the authors of The Bell Curve, a well-known book related to race and intelligence. (I reverted his edit three times, so I won't be reverting him any more today.)
N/A
This editor has claimed that including Charles Murray (author) in the hereditarianism article is a BLP violation, but it isn't. There are hundreds of sources that describe The Bell Curve as a hereditarian book, and its other author (Herrnstein) has always been listed there. WeijiBaikeBianji's edit caused the hereditarianism article to include one of The Bell Curve's two authors, but not the other. The reason I'm reporting this here, instead of at the edit warring noticeboard, is because I would like admins to address WeijiBaikeBianji's history of edit warring and advocacy over a long period. He also edit warred on the IQ and Global Inequality article a week ago, and made the same revert four times in 24 hours: He was warned by an admin for this in his user talk on September 26. WeijiBaikeBianji's edit warring in the race and intelligence topic was the subject on an RFC/U in 2010, which documented a case where he made the same change twenty-eight times, while being reverted by seven different editors. He does not appear to have learned from that, because he's resumed making the disputed changes within the past year: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Other behavior/advocacy issues also need to be addressed. An early concern about his editing was his inserting allegations of white supremacism against living people in articles. [8] [9] An example of something similar from this year was this edit, where he removed all of the sources taking the perspective that race can be useful as a proxy for ancestry when determining the correct dosage for a patient. The same edit added quotes in support of his POV from several of the remaining sources, which is abnormal in a "further reading" section. This editor's advocacy often has been a source of conflict on race and intelligence articles. Here is an example from 2010, related to him renaming several articles at once without consensus. Here is an example from last month, related to him misusing sources on an article's talk page. This editor has consumed a lot of other editors' time over the past four years, so I request that admins try to address his behavior in the long term. @Sandstein:: Could you please also examine the other examples of behavior that I presented, and not only the most recent one? He was warned for edit warring on a different article in this topic a week ago, and this is similar to some of the conduct covered in the RFC/U about him. This report was meant to be about the long-term pattern of behavior, not only about the current dispute. Deleet (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC) @Sandstein:: The talk page Talk:IQ and Global Inequality states that the article is covered by discretionary sanctions from the race and intelligence case. The edits where he resumed removing the human intelligence template, which was one of the actions covered in the RFC/U, are from December of last year. The edit to the further reading section of the race and health article is from April, and the thread in which multiple editors complained he was misusing the article talk page is from last month. Last month he also posted an identical thread on Talk:Race_and_intelligence, and Maunus removed it for the same reason. I'm not sure if I should use examples that require some knowledge of the source material, but these two edits, [10] [11] both from September 16, were also a problem. First he removed an entire section from the article, and next he removed several sentences of content cited to Earl Hunt's book Human Intelligence. The content he removed was well-sourced, and can be found in the book at Google books. He seems to have removed it only because he disagreed with it. There are things like this every few months, and the purpose of the older examples is just to show how long this has been happening. I haven't made an AE report before, so I didn't know it was necessary to have dates on all of the diffs. Deleet (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning WeijiBaikeBianjieditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by WeijiBaikeBianjieditI'm trying to make sure that WP:BLP is correctly applied in controversial articles. I see that the latest edit to the article Hereditarianism is a section blanking by Maunus, essentially a self-revert of his previous edits there.[12] I appreciate his concern, expressed in the edit summary, to ensure correct sourcing of the entire section, and indeed of the entire article. I had earlier this year noticed a very anomalous edit to that same article by an I.P. editor,[13] which I reverted, assuming good faith,[14] with an explanatory edit summary. I noted the WP:BLP policy after that I.P. continued to insert unsourced statements about living persons, which I again had to revert.[15] Another I.P. editor (the same person?) restored some unsourced content in another section I had just removed, and I reminded that editor too about WP:BLP.[16] The recent edits by the complainant here appear to be part of the same editing pattern about the same issues, and I have to ask why the complainant didn't simply provide a reliable source as he began editing. In August 2010, in the presence of all the arbitrators then working on the case for which enforcement of sanctions was requested here, I announced an intention to clean up articles when the case decision was finalized. Implementation of that intention has been opposed by "new" Wikipedians who were later found by the Arbitration Committee to be socks and puppets for the first several editors who were topic-banned or site-banned under this case. (Some of those incidents are described, from the instigators' point of view, in the recitation of background facts by the complainant here. Check the record of this case for the ban and block record of some of the editors with whom I have been accused of "edit-warring".) I continue in the intention of cleaning up the long-term mess that was left in dozens of articles by point-of-view pushers who were not (by ArbCom findings) seeking to build an encyclopedia. Building a reliable, well sourced encyclopedia is what I am here for. Naturally, I welcome comment from the arbitrators, from any administrators looking on, and from any of the rest of our fellow Wikipedians about how I can improve in my efforts to clean up and fix past article problems and help build a collaborative editing environment that increases volunteer participation in improving Wikipedia. Thank you for your kind attention to the details of the request here and to this response and to comments by others. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Statement by MaunuseditFor the record I disagree with Weiji's edits to the article, but believe he was acting within policy which does allow for aggressively removing possible libel - especially unsourced. Weiji clearly thought that this was a case in which libel was a possible issue. I think he was wrong, but since that is a subjective judgment I don't think his edit warring should be considered problematic. Secondly, the information he was removing was unsourced. Deleet (and myself) was reinserting obviously contested information without providing a source, which I guess we shouldnt have done since we were acting against policy. The best course of action from Weiji in my opinion would have been to either remove all of the unsourced section on "hereditarians" or provide a source (which I was able to do in ten minutes of google time). But on the other hand he was under no obligations to do so. The accusations of advocacy are in this case fairly suspect, given removing Murray from the list to protect him from possible libel, would tend to suggest a pov in favor of Murray - which is the opposite pov that Weiji has previously been associated with in AE requests. Given that Weiji is a seasoned editor and acted within policy, whereas Deleet is a new editor, himself with a clear POV agenda, who was not acting within policy (and has been inserting unsourced material in other articles), I believe that the best course of action would be to instruct user: Deleet on the sourcing policy and on the policy of edit-warring. Being a seasoned user, I don't personally have an excuse for reinserting contested unsourced material - except for the fact that I was able to provide sources. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Statement by Volunteer MarekeditThe edits appear to follow WP:BLP policy on inclusion of unsourced material and as such do not fall under the scope of either 3RR or even discretionary sanctions (I think, not clear on which one trumps which on that latter part). EVEN IF somehow this wasn't a BLP issue, it's pretty clear that WBB believed in GOOD FAITH that it was. Volunteer Marek 15:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Statement by The Devil's Advocateedit@Sandstein: IQ and Global Inequality is explicitly tagged on the talk page as being subject to discretionary sanctions under ARBR&I. Richard Lynn, the author of the work the article is about is well-known as a hereditarian concerning the race and intelligence debate and this work is widely seen as an extension of the debate, hence why the usual suspects on both sides such as Rushton and Nisbett make appearances in the reception section. If you need something a little clear then check the summary of Chapter 9 in the article, which says "discusses the genetic and environmental contributions to differences in national intelligence, and argues that racial composition of the population is a major factor." Another thing to note is an edit to the main R&I article that is cited above. The edit removes "A prominent proponent . . . is J. P. Rushton who has argued" and simply says "J. P. Rushton argued" instead. The former version implies numerous proponents, while the latter version seems to imply no other proponents. In the edit Weiji also removes material stating Earl Hunt, who seems to be regarded by most editors as an authoritative source on the subject, believes brain size differences could be an important argument for genetic causes. Given that the Nisbett et al material, which suggests that there is no genetic significance to brain size differences, is kept with no action by Weiji for weeks to address the matter further, it appears these changes were intended to remove reliably-sourced material and undermine the hereditarian perspective.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC) Result concerning WeijiBaikeBianjieditThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The question is whether WeijiBaikeBianji engaged in misconduct by repeatedly reverting to remove Charles Murray from a "list of notable hereditarians". I believe that they did not. The entry for Murray in that list was unsourced, and the article about Murray does not mention the word "hereditarian", let alone a source for that association. Hereditarianism is, according to the article about it, "the doctrine or school of thought that heredity plays a significant role in determining human nature and character traits, such as intelligence and personality." Because this appears to be a controversial position, any (contested) association of such a position with a living person requires good sourcing (edited to add: referenced in the article) per WP:BLP. WeijiBaikeBianji's reverts were therefore justified to remove this violation of the biography of living persons policy, and no sanctions are warranted against them. I invite comment about whether the reporter, Deleet, shoult instead be sanctioned for repeatedly reverting to reinsert this unsourced controversial assertion about a living person. Sandstein 06:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Sandstein's assessment on the Hereditarianism portion of the report. Regarding the other pieces:
@Sandstein: some of the diffs provided are ~10 months old (some even older), so I agree that they would not be actionable here at this time. Suggest closure with no action at this time. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 04:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
|
SPECIFICO
edit| The topic ban applying to SPECIFICO is expanded to cover everything and everyone related to the Austrian School of economics, in addition to the Ludwig von Mises Institute and persons related to it. Sandstein 08:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning SPECIFICOedit
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics#SPECIFICO_topic-banned : "SPECIFICO is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Ludwig von Mises Institute or persons associated with it, either living or deceased. This topic-ban does not extend to articles concerning Austrian economics but not related to the Ludwig von Mises Institute; however, should SPECIFICO edit problematically in the broader area, the topic-ban may be broadened if necessary through the discretionary sanctions. SPECIFICO may request the lifting or modification of this topic-ban not less than one year from the close of this case."
Though the ArbCom decision made an exception for SPECIFICO to edit related to Austrian economics as long as they don't mention LvMI or persons related to it, his inability to avoid breaching that restriction, either by intent or error, would indicate that the exception will lead to more violations of the specific ban because of the closely-related nature (LvMI is a leading think tank and resource in the world of Austrian School economics). The ArbCom decision allows broadening to the wider topic area, and I recommend, in addition to a punitive block for this infraction, that the topic ban be broadened to include Austrian School and all topics related to Austrian economics to avoid future ones. -- Netoholic @ 03:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC) This is a response to SPECIFICO's "final statement" on this report. As to his first claim, the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate that his intent was to revert obvious vandalism, both at the time of his revert and now, and I believe this claim clearly untrue on its face. The edits he reverted were clearly not vandalism (vandals don't often leave edit summaries with their rationale), and SPECIFICO's edit summary of the revert that violated this topic ban does not address it as vandalism. His claims of that now are an attempt to avoid sanctions. In his fourth comment, his promise "to refrain from ‘’any’’ edits relating to the material defined in my TBAN – vandalism or not" is a null offer -- the point of his topic ban is limit his editing within that topic. From all of his responses, it sounds like he still fervently intends to edit related to Austrian economics and is still claiming that Ludwig von Mises and Hayek are not part of his TBAN (though they clearly are as confirmed by admins responding here). Unless he can acknowledge the limits of the generous exception that he was given in his initial TBAN, then it will continue to not work, and removing the exception would put him on par with the others in the ArbCom case who have managed to avoid repeated oversteps. -- Netoholic @ 02:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SPECIFICOeditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Statement by SPECIFICOeditI reverted vandalism by an editor who has a history of blanking content while posting false and misleading edit summaries.. I undid blanking of longstanding text which was blanked. The edit summary falsely referred to relocating the text, but it was not relocated, it was blanked. SPECIFICO talk 13:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC) Moreover, Netoholic's complaint continues his pattern of stalking and hounding me with vexatious complaints per WP:AE. Please see [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. In addition, it is grossly disrespectful of this forum to disrupt it in pursuit of the complainant's personal agenda. SPECIFICO talk 14:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC) The editor who blanked the criticism is a self-confessed WP vandal. [25] SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC) If, as @Penwhale: believes, my action violated my TBAN with respect to Mises Institute, why would the appropriate sanction would be to broaden the TBAN? Of the three individuals mentioned in the text which had been blanked, only Murray Rothbard was affiliated with the Mises Institute. Mises died over a decade prior to the founding of the Institute and we have no RS for the claim that Hayek had any association with the Institute. [26]. The alleged violation, therefore, has only to do with the Topic already defined in my TBAN -- Netoholic's statements to the contrary notwithstanding. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC) I posted the following neutral notice of this Enforcement Request on the Austrian School talk page: [27]. User Netoholic removed the notice here and incorrectly called it canvassing: [28]. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Regarding the comment of The Devils Advocate: 1. His claim as to the Molyneux article -- that I am banned from the Molyneux article -- was posted here in May, 2014 by the same complainant, Netoholic, and was rejected here. 2. His falsely states that I called for the deletion of the Molyneux article. I am one of several editors who has questioned whether Molyneux is notable. I stated no conclusion as to the matter. It's odd, in that Molyneux is irrelevant to this request except for the problematic involvement of Netoholic. Regarding the comment of the IP who blanked the Austrian School commentary: The tone and substance of his remark confirms my belief that he was willfully vandalizing the article. SPECIFICO talk 00:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
First, to reiterate my initial statement, I reverted vandalism in the form of section-blanking [29] of well-sourced longstanding article content with a false edit summary which referred to relocating criticism within the article but did not do so. The editor whom I reverted has a history of similar actions and a confession of vandalism on his talk page, cited above. Second, this has nothing to do with the Molyneux article and after I provided links showing that issue to have been adjudicated here, I am disappointed to see The Devil’s Advocate repeat and expand his discussion of the irrelevant Molyneux article. It’s particularly inappropriate that he presents half-truth and out-of-context references to my initiation of an RfC as to whether the article should call Molyneux a “philosopher” – particularly since my view was sustained in an orderly RfC, the result of which was tendentiously denied by Netoholic, such behavior contributing greatly to his topic ban on Molyneux. The bit about scare quotes similarly states a meme of Netoholic’s which was false and misrepresents the history on that article. Third, I am concerned that the notice of this AE Request was removed by Netoholic, and I would like to ask the Admins here whether they feel it would be appropriate to reinsert it, so that we can get uninvolved views of editors familiar with the Austrian and Mises subject matter and editing history. Fourth, I regret having made this revert, since in hindsight it seems clear that sooner or later another editor would have done the same thing. I have noted that other similar instances of blanking vandalism in Mises Institute Related articles have been promptly reverted by @Srich32977: and @Binksternet:. No doubt one of them would have done the same in the present case. I particularly regret that the resources of AE and Arbcom are occupied with this matter when there are numerous larger issues on their agendas. I take responsibility for that and I apologize to the admins. For that reason, I intend to refrain from ‘’any’’ edits relating to the material defined in my TBAN – vandalism or not – obviating any recurrence of threads such as the present Request. By creating this bright-line I will ensure that no further cases need come to this board. Fifth, discussion here about punishment and discussion about broadening the TBAN to an area where there has been no alleged violation do not address the issue at hand. SPECIFICO talk 23:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Comment by MONGOeditAdmins are likely aware that an arbcom case which names SPECIFICO as one of the named parties is likely to be accepted and commence soon. Should that be the case any ban/block will have to be modified to allow SPECIFICO to be able to post to pages related to the case.--MONGO 13:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by The Devil's AdvocateeditI would point out that SPECIFICO has extensively edited the BLP of Stefan Molyneux and Molyneux has written a number of articles for LewRockwell.com, which is noted in the lede. LewRockwell.com was started by two of the three co-founders of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Lew Rockwell and Burton Blumert, after the death of the third co-founder Murray Rothbard. Note that SPECIFICO can be found on the talk page of Molyneux's article advocating for the deletion of his bio. LewRockwell.com is definitely associated with the LvMI and SPECIFICO fighting over the article of a regular writer, even calling for said article's deletion, should be seen as problematic.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Statement by (username)editResult concerning SPECIFICOeditThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The request has merit. In adding the text "... also embraced by Murray Rothbard ...", " Hayek’s successful appearance on the London scene" and "Hayek's development of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory", SPECIFICO did add material related to Murray Rothbard and Friedrich Hayek, who are persons related to the Ludwig von Mises Institute, as set out in that article's lead. This violates SPECIFICO's topic ban from "articles and other pages relating to the Ludwig von Mises Institute or persons associated with it". That the addition occurred by way of a revert is not relevant. I would impose a one-month block (doubling the previous block duration) if no other admin disagrees.
|
Ithinkicahn
edit| Ithinkicahn topic-banned from Armenian Genocide topics. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Ithinkicahnedit
I've tried to work with the user on countless occasions. In the past, I've granted him a barnstar and was always supportive of his edits in Turkey related articles. However, once the user started editing in Armenian related topics, it turned into an entirely different story. His deletion of massive amounts of information (often times sourced) concerning the Armenian Genocide is highly problematic. Most of his edits regarding the Armenian Genocide are driven by his own personal opinions and fall contrary to the general consensus Wikipedia has instilled regarding the subject. Consequently, the deceptive edit-summaries make it necessary to tend and examine each edit. Furthermore, an uncompromising attitude towards those that don't fall into the user's POV makes it almost impossible to work with him. Hence, for the reasons I have mentioned, I suggest that the user be banned from all topics related to Armenia and Turkey.
Discussion concerning IthinkicahneditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by IthinkicahneditStatement by (username)editResult concerning IthinkicahneditThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
John Carter
edit| How unusual this request is, the edits reported are not violations so I'm closing this request without action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning John Carteredit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites_3#Remedies
"indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Ebionites, broadly construed." The Ebionites are an ancient Christian movement, according to Wikipedia: "a patristic term referring to a Jewish Christian movement that existed during the early centuries of the Christian Era. They regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah while rejecting his divinity..." Being banned from a religious movement from the early centuries of the Christian era broadly construed means being banned from topics related to religion, or at least to Christianity, or at the very least to early Christianity. Topic ban policy: "...a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as: weather-related articles and lists, such as Wind" Also, the 2nd link I gave above seems pretty unfair. It is a notification on a Christian-interest page that like-minded members should go influence or monitor a Christian topic. That kind of thing is going to really distort the consensus process. And, obviously, no belief about Christianity in the minority will be able to compete.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Carter#Topic_ban Discussion concerning John CartereditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by John CartereditStatement by (Howunusual)editThis is an odd comment: "The three diffs have to do with early Christianity, but they seem unconnected with the Ebionites." Ebionites are a form of early Christianity. I merely read the rules. A topic ban covers "'everything else related to {topic}."' Early Christianity is related to the topic very directly. In fact, religion is related to the topic very directly. You might as well assert some edits have to do with the wind, but seem unconnected with the weather...thus the example from the policy page is wrong. Howunusual (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Ignocrates (uninvolved)editI asked EdJohnston if I could comment here, so this is my opinion regarding the scope of the topic ban: I left a comment on the talk page of the Ebionites 3 arbitration regarding the scope of the topic ban in case a situation occurred in the future just like this one. You can see my suggestion there about the specific articles that fall under the topic of Jewish Christianity broadly construed. The general topic of early Christianity is much broader, and articles such as the Historicity of Jesus and the articles now linked within the disambiguation article are outside the scope of this topic ban. Ignocrates (talk) 01:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Statement by Ian.thomsoneditSeconding EdJohnston and elaborating: if his topic ban was on Early Christianity, his topic ban would be on Early Christianity, not merely the Ebionites. Drawing on the weather example, John's edits would fall under gaseous chemistry or ecology, not weather. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Statement by DougwellereditAgreed. If the intention was to ban him from all edits on Early Christianity the ban would have, or at the very least should have, said so. This is a stretch too far. Dougweller (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Result concerning John CartereditThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Wlglunight93
edit| Wlglunight93 is blocked for 48 hours. Sandstein 13:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Wlglunight93edit
Following my earlier report of this editor, s/he was warned by HJMitchell to "take more care". However, s/he has continued to edit war over many articles, and was subsequently warned by Nishidsani over edit warring at 1929 Hebron massacre. Today, as well as the clear breach of not just 1RR but 3RR at Yom Kippur War, this editor also appears to have breached 1RR at Israeli-Palestinian conflict[44][45] and Foreign relations of Israel.[46][47]
Discussion concerning Wlglunight93editStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Wlglunight93editDespite the obsession of that user who tries to block me, I have not broken 1RR in Israeli–Palestinian conflict and Foreign relations of Israel. In the first case, I added new references to support the content, unrelated to the Jewish Virtual Library. While in the second article, I didn't make a single revert (I did remove POV-pushing language, but I wasn't reverting any edit in particular, while in this case I simply changed the wording without deleting the information). Regarding the Yom Kippur War, I reverted several times a user who pretends to remove sourced information despite the long-standing version (which is a direct result of consensus achieved on the talk page before), but only after he broke 1RR first. Am I not supposed to revert more than once after another user did it first? Did RolandR report ScienceAuthority for breaking 1RR? I don't think so. Nevertheless, I thought I was entitled to breach 1RR if another user did it first on the same article, in order to maintain the long-version before the edit-warring.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Statement by KingsindianeditI am sorry to pile on, because this editor is relatively amenable to reasonable arguments and willing to compromise. He is mainly too enthusiastic for his own good. But this incident is too bizarre. I would like WP:AE to remind him that WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVOCATE are very important. Editors can have POV (I certainly have one), but one can't make egregious edits like this. Briefly, he copy pasted a large section from below (October 5), and then removed the Palestinian portion from it (October 5), just leaving the Israeli portion. He gives some bizarre explanation on the talk page, please see it and judge for yourself whether it is credible. See also this edit October 4 and my comment here. Also see this edit September 28, which has still not been corrected, even after I left a message on the talk page. This editor has a pattern of rapid-fire edits, reverting and editing without any care at all for WP:1RR or WP:BRD. I have warned him multiple times, but he refuses to listen. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)editResult concerning Wlglunight93editThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Plot Spoiler
edit| Plot Spolier blocked for 24 hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Plot Spoileredit
After restoring material a few days ago I left a message in the relevant section of the talk page saying why I had done so. Plot Spoiler has twice reverted, today, and as in the past has not said one word on the talk page. See Talk:Quds_Day#removal_of_protest_against_occupation
Discussion concerning Plot SpoilereditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Plot SpoilereditStatement by (username)editResult concerning Plot SpoilereditThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Lecen
edit| Lecen blocked for a week the panda ₯’ 23:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Lecenedit
There is also less-evident examples, such as [50] and [51], but these are not actionable. It is the clear indirect mentions listed above that are actionable.
Wikipedia's banning policy (WP:IBAN) has four clear orders, one of which is the following:
Lecen is clearly violating this by consistently making references to "the editors with who I have a mutual interaction ban." Lecen is doing this with purpose. What purpose? The usual, which is that of associating Cambalachero and me with Fascists, misogynists, and other offensive groups. These insults are obnoxious, and I previously complained about it in the arbitration board ([52]). This continues to besmirch my reputation (which goes against the casting aspersions principle), and exhibits battleground conduct that is unacceptable. Moreover, for what it's worth, Lecen clearly disregards Wikipedia's rules because he also disregards the community who enforces them ("I'll have to deal with a bunch of incompetent administrators and arbitrators" [53]). To conclude: My name, whether directly or indirectly, should not be associated with any claims of anti-Semitism, racism, or misogyny. There is no reason for it. Lecen is a repeat offender who consistently skirts the interaction ban (let's not forget the proxy editing! [54]). I plead the enforcement board to take swift action in this case.--MarshalN20 Talk 16:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning LeceneditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by LeceneditOne editor has repeatedly requested to provide an explanation to why revisionist sources are not acceptable. I warned said editor that I had an interaction ban with other editors (without mentioning either Cambalachero or MarshalN20) and thus I could not further elaborate the reasons. I told him to see the ArbCom case to understand the matter regarding revisionists. The focus of my comments weren't Cambalachero nor MarshalN20, but the question of whether revisionism is a reliable source. I was pretty clear about that:
I did warn the editor that using revisionist sources isn't a good idea, since one who attempts to use it may be topic banned. See here and here. I was also explicitly clear that I wanted to avoid at all costs having to deal with the ArbCom again:
When I asked for a mutual interaction ban with Cambalachero and MarshalN20 my idea was to prevent them from harassing me again (see the ArbCom case), and not to prevent me from mentioning the ArbCom case. Again: my intention was not to mention, comment on, to talk about Cambalachero and MarshalN20, but to warn an editor of the gravity of using revisionist sources. If, however, the ArbCom believes that I crossed a line here, I'm sorry. It was not my intention. --Lecen (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC) Obs.: I removed my previous messages, as I learned that I'm supposed to bring my concerns to another forum, not this one.[63] --Lecen (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC) Comment from The ed17editThe administrator comments belong raise many questions. The most pertinent: we're going to sanction an editor for engaging in a low-level content dispute that has nothing to do with the original purpose of this AE? No. This isn't Malleus pt. 2. Go to AN for that. Arbitration enforcement would only be applicable if said dispute was between Lecen and Marshal/Cambalachero. Now, onto less important things. @FPOS: if we have so-called "revisionist" sources a, b, and c, and an editor keeps trying to use b, continually labeling b as a revisionist source isn't a "weapon". It's a statement of fact. Now, should they be included? Great question, and it's one they're trying to hash out right now. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC) Statement by AstynaxeditAs MarshalN20 has again posted diffs containing an entirely unjustified complaint made against me, let me note that the insinuation that Lecen, I or others have been waging a campaign of personal attacks against him (what he terms a "Black Legend") both here and at ANI, allow me to note that MarshalN20 has offered not a shred of evidence for this fantasy. It simply has not happened and, unless it is just an offensive way to raise his side of the case, inexplicable. His insinuation that Lecen is "proxy editing" through myself and Neotarf is equally offensive. Saving a single report on the Arbcom case in a Signpost article, MarshalN20 is the one who keeps bringing up the subject of his participation in WP:ARBARG, along with unsubstantiated charges.[64][65][66][67][68] MarshalN20 may also have been skirting the boundaries, and perhaps techically violating the Tban[69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76] (this despite the AN topic ban review that somehow concluded history does not apply to articles involving the history of sports). Since the conclusion of WP:ARBARG, the Juan Manuel de Rosas article has lain fairly fallow and largely unfixed. There are as well many related articles where the pushing of revisionist theories has not been corrected. It is only now, when Lecen and I have finally been closing in on removing the last of the PoV and filling large gaps in the Rosas article, that suddenly a couple of editors (who have almost no previous history with the article) again have begun pushing the same fascist/Peronist neo-revisionist sources that were at the root of the arbitration, and MarshalN20 again and simultaneously raises yet another complaint to Arbcom. Something smells fishy, whether this is an attempt to pay back Lecen, whether it is a way of supporting editors who are pushing his PoV while circumventing his topic ban or whether this is simply bizarre coincidence. It is extremely frustrating to have PoV-pushers interrupt constructive edits. The PoV-pushing and chasing away of editors who attempted to make the article reflect mainstream reliable sources began before Lecen's involvement with this particular article, and I have not the slightest inkling why at this juncture the cause of pushing the exact same revisionist PoV seems to have been taken up anew. I'd also like MarshalN20's sniping from the sidelines to stop, but am most concerned that the pushing of the revisionist PoV has again raised its ugly head. • Astynax talk 23:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Statement by CambalacheroeditAs I'm mentioned in this discussion, I guess I should say something about it. I just want to say that I'm not involved with any of this, and if someone indirectly said something nasty about me, then I forgive him, so we can move on. As for the ongoing discussion itself, if the arbitrators do not want to see it escalate up to all the discussion venues and end in a similar arbitration case yet again, you may consider placing the article under discretionary sanctions, as in my original proposal. That option is better suited for cases like this. Cambalachero (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Wee Curry MonstereditIt has been brought to my attention that a private email I sent to Lecen has been quoted here out of context to infer that I believed MarshalN20 and Cambalachero were co-ordinating with other editors off-wiki to push a POV on the Rosas article. I am perfectly willing to share that email but wish to state that I made no such accusation. I saw two editors who have collaborated in a WP:TAG team before, repeating the same behaviour on the Rosas article and I wanted to make him aware of that. I resorted to a private email, not something I do often, since the same two editors have previously monitored my contribution history and followed me to other articles and talk pages. I simply wished to avoid further confrontation. In addition, email allowed me to speak rather more plainly than I could otherwise. I do not believe either Marshal or Cambalachero are connected in any way to those editors. There is a Revisionist Historical movement in Argentina, which has published prodigiously and whose views are considered mainstream in some circles in Argentina. Outside of the country, they are not widely regarded, as the scholastic standards are somewhat lacking and the content heavily influenced by internal Argentine politics allied to the Peronist movement. In the original arbcom case, Cambalachero based edits upon sources from the revisionist movement. One of the reasons he was sanctioned was an edit he later acknowledged used an unreliable and revisionist POV source. One of the few positives things to come out of the case was a comment on the use of unreliable and biased sources but that has never been followed up. I acknowledged the problematic personal interactions and the problems in sourcing in my original evidence, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Evidence#Evidence presented by Wee Curry Monster, I still stand by my evidence in that case. Like most arbcom cases there has been a lasting legacy of ill-feeling amongst the parties. I have seen the case referred by Lecen and Asyntax to in manner that has unfairly maligned Marshal in a way that he believe affronts his personal reputation. Marshal may well be over-sensitive about this and had he asked me I would have advised this case was a bad idea on this occasion. However, since it was launched it has been used as a pretext to repeat the same comments. This is unfortunate and I would suggest that perhaps now is the time to consider appropriate remedies to prevent a recurrence. Lecen believes I am compromising my standards because of an alleged friendship with both Marshal and Cambalachero and would charge that my commenting here is motivated by that personal relationship. I acknowledge Marshal as a wiki-friend and a copyright editor whom I have great respect for. Cambalachero as an editor I believe is flawed by his inability to recognise when his own POV is compromising a NPOV and his patriotism. Nonetheless I have been able to interact with him despite our differences and I would acknowledge that he has been able to put aside his personal POV as part of the consensus process. However, I doubt he or I would ever consider ourselves friends. Lecen needs to note that I have always disavowed the reliability of revisionist sources but arbcom considers user behaviour not content. I do agree with Lecen that the issue of unreliable material published in what would normally be considered a reliable media is a problem for content in wikipedia. The Revisionist movement is a case in point and the normal recourse in WP:DR is not really set up to handle POV pushing based on such material. WCMemail 19:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Result concerning LeceneditThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Gamergate controversy article
edit| Thanks for the input all, I'm going to hold off on the 1RR at least for now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Gamergate controversyedit
Clarifying that I'm bring this here per WP:AC/DS#Expectations of administrators as uninvolved but asking for others opinions. Some evidence on why I think it's necessary:
Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Discussion concerning Gamergate controversyeditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SandsteineditI offered an opinion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GamerGate (edited to add: and have edited topically related articles), so if anybody believes that I should not express myself as uninvolved here, please say so. In principle, this article is a valid target for WP:NEWBLPBAN sanctions because it contains BLP content. Personally, I'm not a fan of 1RR restrictions because of the enforcement overhead they generate. Also, the BLP sanctions are intended to help counteract BLP violations, whereas revert restrictions are a tool best employed against recurring edit wars, which are a different type of conduct problem. If there are recurring BLP violations on this article, I recommend sanctioning the individual users who are responsible for them instead. But if an admin thinks that 1RR would help here, I'm not opposed to such a restriction. Sandstein 11:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Statement by EdJohnstoneditPinging User:Dreadstar and User:Cuchullain who are two of the admins who imposed full protection at Gamergate controversy during the last thirty days. (User:Callanecc is the third admin but he is also the filer here). A frequent need for protection could be the sign of an ongoing problem with the article. These admins might have an opinion on the value of a WP:1RR. Also leaving a ping for User:SirFozzie who was the closer of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GamerGate. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC) Statement by CIrelandeditI am definitely involved, having commented on the chief issue that has led to edit-warring, the addition of I do not think a simple 1RR restriction would be appropriate here because the article has and continues to be heavily discussed at external venues. A simple 1RR restriction would effectively hand the article over to single purpose agenda accounts. However, I would suggest a WP:ARBPIA style 1RR restriction may be worth considering. For those not familiar, 1RR applies to all WP:ARBPIA articles but reverts of anonymous users do count towards that (but do count towards the normal 3RR). In the case of the Gamergate article, it would only make sense if extended to accounts less than 4 days old (i.e. not autoconfirmed) as there is no chance the article will not be semi-protected for the forseeable future. This is just a suggestion for consideration, however. I am personally somewhat squeamish about anything which might lead to two tiers of users, no matter how militant some of the new faces might be. CIreland (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC) Something definitely needs to be done on Gamergate controversy, related articles and their talk pages. There's probably more disruption and BLP violations on the talk pages than in the actual articles. 1RR may give the single purpose accounts an advantage; the discretionary sanctions are very helpful, but we need more administrative eyes on the pages - that would be the biggest help. Another problem is editors repeatedly raising the same points over and over and over again, it's a tiring process to keep tabs on the talk pages. Need help please! Dreadstar ☥ 22:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Statement by NE EnteditFull protect longer. Sandstein I don't see any problem with you commenting here based on Afd participation. NE Ent 22:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC) Statement by The Devil's AdvocateeditSandstein, I think your participation in the very closely related Gender representation in video games should probably keep you from asserting yourself as uninvolved on this matter. On the issue raised here, it seems to me that most of the issues leading to the article being locked are not strictly related to BLP and are thus not a basis for invoking the discretionary sanctions.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC) Statement by CuchullaineditI'm responding by request from EdJohnston. I don't know how much help I'll be here as an admin from here on; I haven't been involved in the article, but it has grown to discuss topics I have been involved in. In my opinion as an editor, however, something absolutely needs to be done. I think a 1RR restriction will cut back on some of the edit warring, but as CIreland says, the real problem here is the large number of single-purpose (or limited-purpose) accounts coming to the article with an agenda. I worry the restriction won't stop that issue while still hamstringing positive editors on either side. What we really need is more regular attention from admins, as well as admins making use of the tools at their disposal for preventing the obvious problems: preventative blocks; discretionary sanctions for repeat offenders; and closing discussion sections that violate WP:TPG, WP:NOTAFORUM, and WP:TEND.--Cúchullain t/c 20:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)editResult concerning Gamergate controversyeditThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Wlglunight93
edit| Wlglunight93 is blocked for a week for his third 1RR violation in the space of a fortnight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Wlglunight93edit
Immediately on return from the previous block for breaches of 1RR, this editor resumed edit-warring on several articles. On the two articles for which diffs have been given, there is a clear breach of 1RR. The editor's edit summaries make it clear that s/he was aware that these were reverts.
Here.[80] Discussion concerning Wlglunight93editStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Wlglunight93editStatement by (username)editResult concerning Wlglunight93editThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Aaron Abera
edit| Blocked (though not for 1RR) and alerted before I saw this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
}
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Aaron Aberaedit
There was no positive contribution from this account so far, only experimenting/POV pushing/vandalism
Discussion concerning Aaron AberaeditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Aaron AberaeditStatement by (username)editResult concerning Aaron AberaeditThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Alexyflemming
edit| Not actionable because this topic area is not covered by discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 05:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Alexyflemmingedit
This account is an SPA who tries to find evidence of increased acceptance of Northern Cyprus in the areas of UN declarations, recognition by international organisations, university education and court decisions. They also use and create templates that promote the idea of Northern Cyprus as a separate entity from Cyprus and they eliminate any mention of Cyprus from the template. The account has a habit of using walls of text and write loud remarks on talkpages, including writing in bolded and sometimes underlined all capitals. They also use original research and synthesis to advance their POV.
Discussion concerning AlexyflemmingeditI will not bother to address points 1-7 of Alexyflemming's so-called rebuttal, as too trivial. Parts 8. and 9. of AlexyFleming's points are exactly where the problem lies with his edits. Regarding point 8. he has forced me to gather many sources just to keep him from inserting his POV synthesis into the article to dilute the non-recognition of TRNC by the international community. Just check his massive walls of text on Talk:Northern Cyprus where he has dumped his loud and synthetic POV which has found no supporters to date. As far as point 9. it is just another misleading representation of my arguments during the past move discussion where I was referring to the commonname of Cyprus where the massive volume of WP:RS referred to Cyprus as "island nation". But Alexyflemming creates his own version of WP:RS in his own mind, while at the same time rejecting the massive number of sources that don't suit his nationalist POV. That's nothing new. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC) I see AlexyFlemming has added points 10. and 11. Part 10. are just the usual personal attacks on which AlexyFlemming thrives. Nothing new here. Part 11. is another clumsy attempt to relive his failed move arguments of Turkish invasion of Cyprus. It is useless to respond further. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Part 12. is another great show on Alexyflemmings immense POV. He disregards the great volume of RS to concentrate on a few UN papers. Part 13. The usual clumsy attempts at shifting blame. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC) @Heimstern: Thank you Heimstern, but prior to making this report I asked EdJohnston and he indicated it should be ok. Ed has also warned GiorgosY under ARBMAC regarding Northern Cyprus. Also this user tries to use Kosovo as a lever to push his POV into this area, and Kosovo is covered under ARBMAC. On the other hand, the link you pointed to is significant and for sure this matter should be resolved amongst the AE admins. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Statement by AlexyflemmingeditI know Dr.K. for a long time (I am a wikipedian since 2010). He and me were, are, (perhaps will be) many times discussed various Cyprus dispute-related articles including Northern Cyprus.
His stance and my stance to the coverings are generally different. I stick to neutralism which WP dictates. I observed that he is very, very, very biased towards Turks, especially towards Turkish Cypriots.
As a flemish, I have no prejudice towards Turks.
2. Instead of using the Talk Pages of the Wiki articles, Dr.K. polluted my personnel user page frequently. I warned him many times.
Dr.K. removed this development from WP immediately!
12. Dr.K. strongly opposes the usage of neutral covering of United Nations in Cyprus related topics:
13. It is written in this page that: If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it.. I demand Wiki admins to take care this important criterion and get necessary action towards Dr.K.. Statement by (username)editResult concerning AlexyflemmingeditThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Andyvphil
edit| Not actionable. Sandstein 23:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Andyvphiledit
Discussion concerning AndyvphileditStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by uninvolved LithistmaneditIt should be noted that the main area of "dispute" with the material Andyvphil restored was with the phrase "washed out" regarding Dr. Tyson's time at UT. The source itself says he was "essentially flunked out" or something to that effect. Other than that one phrase, the material actually reflects the source quite well, and I would contend that "washed out" might actually be perceived as not any less kind than the way the source puts it, and accurately reflects what happened. Dr. Tyson himself notes, in the article serving as a source, that he's not particularly proud of the effort he put forth at UT. With all that said, given the context, I don't feel a topic ban is an appropriate course of action in this case. LHMask me a question 04:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Statement by AndyvphileditI'm not sure what to make of Arzel's evenhanded suggestion that if I am sanctioned for incivility, Verditas be as well. As far as I know this notice was triggered solely by a main page edit, my first of any kind in a couple days, I believe. But, we can do better than that link for Verditas. Somewhere on the Tyson talk page is Verditas' comment that I would fit right in with the "climate change deniers" and other neo-Nazis (the whiff of "Holocaust Denial" is of course intentional) of his fervid imagination. Then we've got Objective300's denunciation of this edit as, iirc, "the most disgusting ever" and Gamalael's dismissal of it as "bullshit". When it comes to civility I don't think they're standing on the high ground. ...and then there's Gamalael's simple falsehood (on one or two of his reverts) that the replaced text better reflected the source, which is absurd. As I pointed out at the very beginning of the discussion of this passage on the talk page the version which has been repeatedly reverted to claims there was a "vote" to dissolve Tyson's dissertation committee, which "vote" appears nowhere in the source. None of the editors who are unwilling to reveal in his biography that Tyson washed out of the UTA PhD program have bothered to attempt to fix even that. They just revert my attempt, which a number of editors have now remarked closely matches the cited text. And there no doubt that Tyson washed out, a better description of what happened than the source's "essentially flunked" (he got his Masters, he didn't really flunk), but when Objective300 first reverted I asked in the edit comments if he would prefer "essentially flunked", to no reply except that bit about "disgusting". If I can be topic blocked for this, there's no hope for this process. Andyvphil (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC) The amended complaint doesn't appear to address admin Sandstein's grounds for rejecting this block. In particular no explanation is given as to "which specific assertions in the edits are thought not to match which source". I'm just faithfully following the cite, a source that was already used in the article long before I ever edited it, just no longer failing to reveal a significant element in what it says. Andyvphil (talk) 08:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC) I will further note that in the cite Tyson is quoted as saying that if he had been in his professors' position he, too, might well have agreed to "kick out" Neil deGrasse Tyson. Of "kicked out", "flunked out" or "washed out" the last is really the most accurate and requires the least explanation. Probably least "negative", as well. The idea that there could be a good-faith assertion, on the part of very experienced Statement by GamalieleditAndyvphil has been belligerent and uncivil with other editors and uses the talk page to post lengthy harangues about other editors, the subject of the article, and his thoughts on Wikipedia policies. This is why we can't have nice things. Gamaliel (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Statement by ArzeleditLHM has stated it well. The statement certainly was not a violation of BLP as it reflects the source quite well. One could find fault with his wording, but as LHM stated, it is not effectively different than what the actual source stated, and was directly related to the statement about the dissolution of NdGT's PhD's thesis committee. As for Andyvphil's claimed lack of civility. Viriditas has not been a shining example of civility either. If Andyvphil is sanctioned for civility, Viriditas should be as well. Arzel (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Statement by ObsidieditI believe the source said "essentially flunked out", which "washed out" is close enough that it had the same essential meaning without any additional negative connotation to it. As such I do not believe it violates WP:BLP. --Obsidi (talk ) 05:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC) This request for enforcement was brought about to request enforcement of BLP discretionary sanctions. As such I ask that we bring any complaints of incivility to the appropriate forum at WP:ANI. As Viriditas has edited the complaint I wish to respond. It is my belief that WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE is being used to WP:Gaming the system. Basically what is happening is that editors are having content disputes. Instead of going through the normal WP:BRD process, they wish to skip all that. They revert and claim that there are WP:BLP problems, when others disagree they assert WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and say there is not consensus as they still disagree. In so doing they keep the content out of the article and then WP:FILIBUSTER as long as they can. Now for poorly sourced or no sourced content WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE is there to prevent potentially libelous statements from remaining on Wikipedia while the editors debate on the quality of the sources. It is not there to win content disputes on properly sourced material, and I believe that is what is happening. --Obsidi (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Oh and the WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE requires "good-faith BLP objections", not just any BLP objections. Given the tiny difference between "washed out" and "essentially flunked out" in context, it is my belief that Andyvphil did not believe this to be a "good-faith BLP objection" and as such was not bound by WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. --Obsidi (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Statement by DrmieseditHJ Mitchell et al., I do not agree that "flunking him" and "washed out" are the same thing at all. "Flunking" doesn't need much explanation, but "washed out" denotes "remove the dirt" (OED, first entry for "washed out") and thus, figuratively, carries a moral connotation to it that in the context gives one reason to pause. In addition, I've been considering blocking Andyvphil for some other suggestive language on the same topic--"It is of course virtually certain that Tyson got special consideration on account of his race (and maybe political connections)" (on the article talk page) and "it's virtually certain that Tyson got special consideration on account of his race" (on his own talk page). This is the kind of thing you can listen to on right-wing talk radio, but Wikipedia should not have statements of this kind anywhere in its space: the suggestion that the country's best-known astrophysicist was washed out like a piece of dirt from Texas and then accepted at Columbia only because he was black. Drmies (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Result concerning AndyvphileditThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The complaint is not clear enough to be actionable. It does not explain how exactly the edits at issue are believed to violate WP:BLP, that, is, for example, which specific assertions in the edits are thought not to match which source. "Against consensus" has nothing to do with WP:BLP. I would take no action on this complaint as it is presented here. Sandstein 05:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
|
Wlglunight93
editThis request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Wlglunight93
edit- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Wlglunight93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:ARBPIA : 1RR violation
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 07:17, 19 October 2014 Edit summary: "Undid revision 628418226 by 183.171.175.71"
- 07:36, 19 October 2014 Edit summary: "Undid revision 630205026 by Dr. R.R. Pickles"
- 05:23, 19 October 2014 Edit summary: "Undid revision 630195365 by 150.203.246.127"
- 07:33, 19 October 2014 Edit summary: "Undid revision 630204742 by Dr. R.R. Pickles"
- 03:03, 18 October 2014 Reversion of this edit by Nomoskedasticity
- 03:11, 19 October 2014 Repeated reversion (after 24 hours and 8 minutes)
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 14:44, 6 October 2014 48 hour block for breach of 1RR
- 15:39, 10 October 2014 One week block for breach of 1RR
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Fresh back from a second block for repeated edit-warring in the topic area, this editor has returned immediately to the same behaviour, reverting scores of edits by many editors on many articles, including those on which their previous edits led to sanctions.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Wlglunight93
editStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Wlglunight93
editStatement by AcidSnow
edit- Support. Per latest statement by EdJohnstom. AcidSnow (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
editResult concerning Wlglunight93
editThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- Reverts of IPs are exempt from the 1RR, so there's no violation on Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades or Palestine Liberation Organization, but the two edits to Oslo Accords are both reverts of Nomoskedasticity, and of content Wlglunight knew to be disputed, and thus do constitute a 1RR violation, his fourth(!) in about three weeks. I've blocked him for a month. There was no support for a topic ban last time; I wonder if that's changed now that we're up to four obvious 1RR violations, the most recent of which have come almost immediately after the expiry of a block for the same. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- I would support a topic ban, although I would make it of reasonably short duration, say six months. KillerChihuahua 21:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that a six-month topic ban would be reasonable since there has been yet another 1RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I should note that I'm in discussion with Wlglunight93 by email, so perhaps we can suspend discussion of a topic band pending the outcome of that discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)