Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive241
149.241.170.48
[edit]| Blocked as a non-AE action by Ymblanter. Sandstein 08:13, 30 August 2018 (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 149.241.170.48[edit]
IP (and his new user account) keep restoring disputed, POV, speculative content based on unreliable sources. This is ARBPIA-related so he shouldn't be able to edit there in the first place. But even if it wasn't, he already broke 3RR.
Discussion concerning 149.241.170.48[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 149.241.170.48[edit]Statement by Ymblanter[edit]I blocked the IP for WP:3RR for 31h.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning 149.241.170.48[edit]
|
יניב הורון (et al)
[edit]| Withdrawn, as it appears questionable whether the relevant article is under ARBPIA or not. |
|---|
| 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 יניב הורון[edit]
Previously blocked twice for arbitration enforcement in the ARBPIA area.
Background: I removed a report by User:ThurnerRupert to WP:AIV earlier, where he was complaining about the reaction of User:יניב הורון who swore in an edit summary after being templated for vandalism. Since the templating was completely wrong, I felt that the reaction by יניב הורון was reasonable. However, this dispute has led to a small edit-war on that article, covered by ARBPIA, where both editors have broken 1RR. יניב הורון also appears to have broken 1RR on another article obviously related to ARBPIA, although that article does not have the ARBPIA DS notice (see above). I note along with this report that יניב הורון was unblocked (correctly) at 13:49 UTC today, since when they have reverted edits on twenty-three other articles, mostly in the ARBPIA area, many controversial, including seven in the first five minutes of today's editing (and I ignored the ones that were obviously typo fixes or vandalism reverts). I do start to wonder if this editor is a net positive in this area of editing. Black Kite (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning יניב הורון[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by יניב הורון[edit]Statement by ThurnerRupert[edit]Statement by Debresser[edit]I just wanted to make a procedural note, that I am not happy with an editor who regularly comments on WP:AE reports as an uninvolved admin, starting to report editors himself. Debresser (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC) Statement by Icewhiz[edit]Poorly crafted report. Neither are ARBPIA violations. ARCA has ruled that Iran/Israel is not part of ARBPIA which makes the first set of diffs moot as it is entirely about the Iranian's PM comments on Israel. The second set of diffs is an enforcement of the general prohibition against an IP editor which is explicitely exempt from ARBPIA 1RR. Most of Yaniv's reverts are vandalism or reversion of extreme POV related. ThurnerRupert questioning the reliability of long standing content sourced to WaPo, Reuters, ABC, and no lack of additional sources being rather extreme. One should note Yaniv has been the subject of frivilous reports at AE and a SPI complaint (form a long dormant editor) which was false - he was unblocked after being blocked for false reasons.Icewhiz (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning יניב הורון[edit]
|
Activist
[edit]| Withdrawn. Sandstein 12:32, 3 September 2018 (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 Activist[edit]
There is a consensus required restriction on this article. After the first violation, I informed the editor about the editing restrictions on the article on 19:57, August 24, 2018. This was followed by a second violation on August 27th in which the editor restored content that was removed after discussion. I asked the editor to self-revert a second time on August 27, but the editor has not self-reverted or responded. I am filing here because I would like the editor to self-revert - I don't want to confuse the situation further with back and forth reverts. There are discussions open for both of these edits on the article talk page.
This seems to be pretty much resolved at this point. An ip has removed the non-consensus content [12] and Activist has returned to the talk page to discuss the jogging edits where there is rough consensus for a new proposal made by Icewhiz subsequent to this complaint being filed. I don't see any harm in closing this complaint, provided Activist understands the consensus required restriction on the article and does not continue to restore the disputed content. Seraphim System (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Activist[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Activist[edit]I haven't been through this AE process before, so please understand that I'm trying to figure it out and try to bear with me. I made a few reverts to this article without having gone back and looked at older edits and reverts and was unaware of their existence. In one case, I edited a statement about some trivia that I thought shouldn't be included in the article at all, but tried to preserve them despite my disagreement with their inclusion. I was trying to accommodate whatever editors had posted the existing text. The subject of the article, Brett Kavanaugh, was described as a "runner," and an "avid marathoner." and as having "ran" the Boston Marathon. In fact, Kavanaugh is a jogger as defined by Wikipedia*, rather than a "runner." In order to be allowed to run in that marathon, he would normally be required to post a maximum time for a qualifying race, 3 hours and 30 minutes for both the 2010 and 2015 races. That's a fairly slow pace. His actual finishing time in 2010 was "3:59:45," {a pace of nine minutes and nine seconds per mile, really a fast walk) which was described in the same sentence as, "under four hours," a redundancy. I eliminated the redundancy and provided some context to give typical Wikipedia readers a grasp on what the times actually indicated, including his age at the time of the 2010 race. (Runners typically begin to run gradually slower as they age, after their mid-30s.) Since I'd given his age for the 2010 race (always held on the third Monday in April, the Massachusetts holiday, "Patriots Day"), there was no need for me to include his age for 2015. His time there was "4:08.38," nine minutes and 29 seconds per mile/ six miles per hour, a slightly slower jog than five years earlier.) My edit has been accepted by other editors, it appears. Seraphim System (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Suggested two alternate renderings. One restored the redundancy (3:59:45) plus "under four hours." That sentence was followed by a sentence fragment.
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Activist[edit]
|
יניב הורון
[edit]| Inadequate request, no action. Sandstein 15:59, 2 September 2018 (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 יניב הורון[edit]
יניב הורון's first edit to this article was to change 1973 Arab-Israeli War to surprise attack against Israel on Yom Kippur. He started editing the article after I started this RFC on the main article. His only involvement with the article has been to pipe this link and to restore non-reliable sources like a workshop page from a University that does not even verify the content it is cited for. He has removed content that is supported by a reliable source in the process (like the embargo against Rhodesia, South Africa, etc.) Restoring unsourced information this way after it has been discussed on the talk page is basically a form of subtle vandalism of the article. He does not seem to be worried that DS may apply to him. He has previously said his edits were about content about Soviet support and said he added a reliable source after the talk page discussion. In my last round of edits I left that content in and merged the two versions based on that discussion, restoring the links to Bar Lev Line and the sourced content that his edit had replaced with content that was not supported by a reliable source. He reverted again with a false edit summary - this revert technically violated 1RR because it was within 24 hours of a revert of content he had added, but I didn't report it. The edit summary is false because it has been discussed on the talk page already and it was explained again in an edit summary. I restored the reliably sourced content and link to Bar Lev line again, but self-reverted because I thought the page might be covered by 1RR and added an ARBPIA notice to the article talk headers (if the article is not within ARBPIA this notice should be removed). My next edit copied stable consensus content from the second paragraph of the lede of the Yom Kippur War article. My hope was that this would be consensus content and end the dispute. (This technically fell within 1RR by 4 minutes.) Yaniv left this message on my talk page. I was not expecting the consensus content from the main article to be controversial but I started a talk page discussion asking Yaniv to explain his objection to the content. Yaniv's last edit to the article was only to restore this piping. It was done without replying to the talk page discussion and also violates 1RR on the article.
Discussion concerning יניב הורון[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by יניב הורון[edit]Anybody can take a look at this and see who is edit-warring. As a matter of fact, I was thinking of reporting Seraphim System for breaking 1RR (1st revert, 2nd revert), so I left her a warning. But apparently she didn't think it was a 1RR violation (although she reported ME for some strange reason). In my opinion, a WP:Boomerang was never more deserving than now.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by Icewhiz[edit]Poorly crafted report. Yaniv is not the original author of diff1 (from 3 July) - in fact it seems to appears in 21 June, and for the most part in the stable version of the article, prior to Seraphim System's editing. Diff2 is thus not a 1RR original author violation (which applies to the first revert of originally authored content). diff3 is different content all together, and seems to be mainly fixing a missing wikilink. One should also note that no request for a self-revert or warning was posted on Yaniv's talk page (which is not required, but is generally a common courtesy in the area - particularly for non straightforward interpretations of reverts).Icewhiz (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Mhhossein[edit]The reported user has certainly violated the remedy by performing more than ONE revert in less than 24hrs:
Admins need to take care of it urgently.--Mhhossein talk 12:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Hi Black Kite. This might be noteworthy for you as you aimed to watch his edits. --Mhhossein talk 12:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning יניב הורון[edit]
|
HappyWaldo
[edit]| 1RR editing restriction for three months imposed by Swarm. Sandstein 08:16, 3 September 2018 (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 HappyWaldo[edit]
I even gave him a chance to self revert his violation, see Special:PermaLink/857715872#August_2018, and he refused.
Discussion concerning HappyWaldo[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by HappyWaldo[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning HappyWaldo[edit]
|
יניב הורון
[edit]| Blocked for 1 week for 1RR violation.--regentspark (comment) 22:34, 8 September 2018 (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 יניב הורון[edit]
It seems that there was a dispute over linking the phrase to an article and the reported user kept on reverting the other user.
The former request was closed without action only because it did not "make clear what the specific sanction or remedy" was to be enforced. This new request has fixed this issue and focuses on 1RR instead of the original author bullet. The user has clear issues with regards to this area of IP articles. Despite many warnings and two blocks, he continues his behavior, just as before. Just see their talk page. Let him go without action and he's here again, soon or late. --Mhhossein talk 06:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC) I think that would be useful if he gets prohibited from editing the articles in this area, for a while. --Mhhossein talk 06:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
He's aware of it. --Mhhossein talk 06:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC) Discussion concerning יניב הורון[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by יניב הורון[edit]Anybody can take a look at this and see who is edit-warring. As a matter of fact, I was thinking of reporting Seraphim System for breaking 1RR (1st revert, 2nd revert), so I left her a warning. But apparently she didn't think it was a 1RR violation (although she reported ME for some strange reason). In addition, as Sandstein said above, it's not clear the article in question is part of ARBPIA. It's not the first time Mhhossein starts an AE for spurious reasons. In my opinion, a WP:Boomerang was never more deserving than now.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC) @RegentsPark:: As far as this edit remains, I have no intention of reverting anymore. I don't object that version of the article. And if I did an infraction in that article (which is not part of ARBPIA as Sandstein said in the previous report), then Seraphim System did the same before (1st revert, 2nd revert in less than 24 hours), despite I warned him and he didn't care. Therefore you should block both of us or none. That would be fair.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC) @RegentsPark: No, actually if you pay attention Seraphim System self-reverted, but then he made a second revert in less than 24 hours.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC) On a different note, I apologize, since I did not realize that edifying Yom Kipur War was a revert, though now I do and I would self-revert if I had the chance to (I notified Seraphim System of a possible 1RR, so he did a partial revert afterwards, while I got reported straight away without warning).--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by Icewhiz[edit]Diff2 is not a revert - it adds a wikilink to the existing text, and the previous edit did not change the wikilink. It should be noted that the previous, closed report, was filed after Yaniv asked Seraphim System to self-revert for a 1RR vio on the page (which they did). Mhhossein has filed quite a few reports against Yaniv which has been closed without action, e.g.:AE on 17 Aug - on an article clearly out of scope of ARBPIA, which Mhhossein should have been aware of since he was involved in the recent May 2018 ARCA that determined this, and EW warring on 2 August.Icewhiz (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by Seraphim System[edit]I am pretty fed up with this, including the number of "good faith editor" warnings Yaniv has been given. What Icewhiz says above is not accurate. The edit is not fixing a missing wikilink. And I did not self-revert the second edit. The 1RR violation was within 4 minutes of 24 hours. Most likely I will end up being sanctioned for it, but whatever, it happened. By the time Yaniv had pointed it out around 45 minutes later, it was too late for me to self-revert. What I ended up doing was restoring the article to exactly how I found it before the edit warring started - there have not been any significant contributions between then and now except those that I have made, so technically was a self-revert. I am willing to accept a sanction for the 1RR violation just to remove my own content from the article and not have to continue pretending this editor is doing something other then vandalizing this article that he followed me to. I'm through working on it. Goodnight. Seraphim System (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@יניב הורון: Can you explain why you continued to revert instead of responding to this ping on the talk page? Did I spell your username wrong? Seraphim System (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Also his last comment on the talk page is
Result concerning יניב הורון[edit]
|
Wolfman12405
[edit]| Blocked 1 week for edit warring after notification of DS. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2018 (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 Wolfman12405[edit]
The editor was notified on his talk page of the following restriction, "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit". He was requested to self-revert his violation which he refused to do. He was informed of the rule and still refused to self-revert at which time this complaint was made. NOTE: Since this was originally submitted, Wolfman12405 has made a 3rd violation clearly after having read the Alert on his talk page which he responded to. See the 5th diff above. UPDATE: On September 7, Wolfman12405 has reverted 4 other editors, so far, by reinserting his edit in a period less than 24 hours breaking the revert rule three times in one article. Diffs provided above (6-9). And once on another article (10-11). His Talk Page shows that no block has been instated yet. When can we expect one? This is getting out of hand and requiring too much time just reporting it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wolfman12405&diff=prev&oldid=858279040 Diffs provided above. Discussion concerning Wolfman12405[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Wolfman12405[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Wolfman12405[edit]
|
MPants at work
[edit]| Not actionable. Sandstein 20:19, 8 September 2018 (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 MPants at work[edit]
N/A
While reporting a recent case of sockpuppetry by Anglo Pyramidologist, my attention was drawn to user:MjolnirPants / user:MPants at work, who seemed to be acting as an apologist for the sockpuppeteer in the above diff from 5 September. After looking into this user's history, I believe there to be a serious problem with his behavior, and it should receive admin attention. Race and intelligence is a lively topic of debate in psychology, with sources such as Cognitive Capitalism arguing for a genetic component to group differences in IQ (with an emphasis on differences between nations but also discussing race/ethnicity), and sources such as Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments arguing for an entirely environmental cause. Reasonable people may differ on the correct balance between these viewpoints in Wikipedia articles, and it is essential to assume good faith about those who have a different perspective on what that balance should be. However, the essay in Mpants' userspace suggests he is not capable of doing that, as its original version made no distinction between individuals who disagree with him in this area and actual Nazis. (He eventually changed "nazis" to "racists" after others suggested this change on the essay's talk page.) This attitude is borne out in his conduct towards other editors, which has included inventing spurious reasons for rejecting sources that he disagrees with, as in the first and second diff above, and directing profanity-laced tirades or encouragement of harassment against them, as in the second and fourth diff. This pattern of behavior creates a toxic editing environment on the articles.
Discussion concerning MPants at work[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MPants at work[edit]I think my defense has already been made for me, so I have little to add. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by Simonm223[edit]This compliant looks completely baseless from the diffs provided. Yes, MPants at work is open about not being welcoming to nazis and other racists. That's to the benefit of the encyclopedia. I hope the filer catches a WP:BOOMERANG for this. Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by Tryptofish[edit]I'm watching AE because of the case above, so I saw this report, and I have edited with MPants many times, so I feel like I have some familiarity, even though I wouldn't, myself, touch race and intelligence with a ten-foot pole. I've read the evidence above, and I do not think that MPants is seriously endorsing sockpuppetry or harassment; rather, those were comments to be understood figuratively. Purely as a procedural matter, a comment at the fringe theories noticeboard does not satisfy the requirement for DS awareness. A significant amount of this complaint is a matter of a content dispute, about how much due weight to assign to sources that advocate an environmental aspect, versus how much to assign to sources that argue for some degree of genetic influence, versus how much to assign to sources that carry the genetic argument to the extent of claiming differences between races. The first two of those are outside the role of AE. As for the third, I'm personally no fan of cussing, but if there is a topic where it can be understood, this is it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]It appears to me that this is a content dispute. It also appears to me that Godotskimp needs to be indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by Objective3000[edit]Four edits selected over a six month period? O3000 (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by 89.163.221.47[edit]This Arbitration request is all nonsense. The real issue is the filer. The user MPants at work is a decent editor who has done nothing wrong. Godotskimp is a sock-puppet of the white supremacist Emil Kirkegaard who has been advertising on his personal twitter for his friends to help him on Wikipedia. If you check Godotskimp's editing history he was inactive on Wikipedia for months, he turned up to file a sock-puppet request last week after someone turned attention to Emil's conflict of interest on the London Conference on Intelligence article. Godotskimp repeatedly claims this was 'harassment', if you check the talk-page of the London Conference on Intelligence article (Godotskimp has deleted users comments) you will see the user was merely quoting a news source that described Kirkegaard as a racist. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center Richard Lynn is a white supremacist [21] and Emil Kirkegaard hold's racist views who works for Lynn's controversial institute [22], [23]. This user should not be editing articles on race and intelligence. The intelligence (journal) is edited by white supremacists [24]. The editorial board past and present has included Richard Lynn, Gerhard Meisenberg, Arthur R. Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton etc. Godotskimp has no case and this should be closed. 89.163.221.47 (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by Pudeo[edit]Justifying harassment by a long-term sockmaster (diff) who has made over 100 socks is 100 % WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, although probably not actionable alone. The topic area is very controversial and that's why you have to behave well - it's definitely not an excuse not to. --Pudeo (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning MPants at work[edit]
|
Netoholic
[edit]| No action for now. The dispute was about Political views of American academics. Anyone who desires to improve this article is expected to actively work toward consensus. Report again if problems continue. EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Netoholic[edit]
This is a revert of these two edits by me: [25] and [26], made with no follow-up comments in talk. There are underlying content/POV issues here, but my concern for this report is specifically about describing my two edits as "disingenuous editing" and having "inaccurate edit summaries". I think that it is clearly a personal attack, made in a battleground-y way, that does not accurately describe the edits or edit summaries that I made, and is at a level that should not occur under DS. Had the edit summary simply been about a concern over NPOV, I would not be raising this here, but instead would be discussing it in talk. The page is Political views of American academics, so it is entirely within the scope of post-1932 US politics. It is important to consider, also, that there have recently been two community RfCs that were held at Netoholic's request, in which the community strongly rejected his views about page content: 1 and 2, so it is not like my edits were contrary to talk page consensus or his revert was consistent with consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I've had past experience with premature closing, so I'll make note of this: [39]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Netoholic[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Netoholic[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Netoholic[edit]
|
Let Me Help 2018
[edit]| Let Me Help 2018 is topic banned from Brett Kavanaugh and his nomination process for the US Supreme Court, broadly construed, for six months. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:05, 11 September 2018 (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 Let Me Help 2018[edit]
Brett Kavanaugh was placed under Discretionary Sanctions on August 4, 2018 for Post 1932 American politics. I suggest Let Me Help 2018 be topic banned from Brett Kavanaugh for a period of anywhere from 1 month to 6 months.
Let Me Help 2018 keeps trying to force in WP:PROMO to the WP:LEDE of Brett Kavanaugh through edit-war, in violation of WP:1RR and without any discussion on the talk page.
Let Me Help 2018 is well aware of these warnings, because he/she individually deleted each of the the three warnings. I also warned the editor at the talk page of the article here.
Notice: [44] Revised Notice.
Discussion concerning Let Me Help[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Let Me Help[edit]Statement by Drmies[edit]Well, Tornheim, thanks--I was halfway through filing for the same thing. Let me Help is just being tirritating and I'd block them myself if I hadn't been friendly enough to revert them first. They're uncommunicative, they removed warnings and sage advice from their talk page, and that's disruptive. A block is warranted, given they've been warned before. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by Jdaloner[edit]The reverts continue beyond what is identified above, making 3 times in approximately 18 hours. I don't know whether I'm supposed to edit/add to David Tornheim's list above, so I'll just add the new ones here:
Jdaloner (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by ...it could be you![edit]Result concerning Let Me Help[edit]
|
Born2cycle
[edit]| The areas of dispute are outside the scope of arbitration enforcement that the case allows. Sanctions will need to be considered by either the community, or the Arbitration Committee. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:32, 12 September 2018 (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 Born2cycle[edit]
and, more importantly
After the original AE and block, B2C should never have been able to return to his standard of disruption on move requests and article namings. I hope that this AE will reach the coinclusion that the previous one did, before it was (in good faith) short-circuited by the block. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Here. Reply to TonyBallioni[edit]Hi Tony, yes I considered that, however I brought it here because it concerns an AE discussion that was not completed due to the block; the majority of the evidence is at AE rather than the ArbCom case. However I'll let others decide what the best venue is; it's 01:00 here so I won't be active for a few hours now.
Discussion concerning Born2cycle[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Born2cycle[edit]I've been careful to not comment too much in any one RM discussion. Though many other editors do this all the time, I've been told when I do it it's Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing, so I've refrained from engaging in such behavior. But what's "too much"? For example, Black Kite notes I have 6 edits at Talk:Nosedive, accurately, but Crouch, Swale has 7, SmokeyJoe has 19, Diego Moya has 30... why am I singled out? Similarly, at Talk:Freston, Suffolk, while I do have 7 edits, Crouch, Swale has 30. At Talk:Disambiguation where I have 18 recent edits, Widefox has 25 and Diego Moya has 49. Are these other more prolific editors in violation of Tendentious Editing or disruption? I certainly don't think so. Do you? Then why am I? I'm not aware of any other policy or guideline that anyone is even alleging I'm violating. As my user page and FAQ has long explained, my primary interest at WP is stabilizing titles (and, thus, title policy), so of course I don't have much main space editing. Why is this even considered a violation of some kind? It's certainly not a documented one. In each of the two cases where I've been accused of super voting in my closes, only one person has objected. Normally, challenged RMs are taken to RM Review. But not me. Straight to Enforcement I go. I don't think it's fair to enforce imaginary rules, but that's exactly what seems to be going on here. What I'd like to see is a clear explanation, from someone, anyone, of what written/published policy I'm accused of violating, and how they believe I'm in violation of it. I would be happy to comply. Simply disagreeing with me about titles should not suffice as a reason to support banning me from RM discussions. Right? --В²C ☎ 00:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC) Black Kite claims "B2C ignored most of the discussion ... and unilaterally moved it to Didi (where it still is)", while RegentsPark sees what actually happened: "b2c seems to have actually read the discussion, discovered that three editors (not one) are fine with DiDi because that's the name used internationally and by several reliable sources. Seems reasonable to close it that way, imo". Indeed, rather than ignoring "most of the discussion", I read it carefully, and found consensus favoring DiDi over the current title, and not just by numbers. I have a history of similar differences in perspective/understanding with SmokeyJoe, Dick Lyon, and others. --В²C ☎ 00:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by power~enwiki[edit]I endorse a TBAN on Born2cycle closing RM discussions based on the diffs provided (the close at Talk:DiDi also appears to be a supervote), but I'm not convinced yet anything more is necessary. The Nosedive discussion (which I participated in) was a clusterfuck for reasons other than this editor. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by TonyBallioni[edit]Black Kite, it is my suggestion that this be taken to ARCA. The DS only apply to policy discussions and for violating the warning, we could block but not TBAN as it is outside of DS. I don’t think ANI would work well here as it’s been tried before to little avail. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by SmokeyJoe[edit]Support a ban on Born2cycle (talk · contribs) closing discussions, especially RM discussions, and from editing any titling policy or guideline. His understanding of "compromise" in consensus is not there, instead he invokes black and white thinking, discarding others views that conflict with his bias for his long held titling theory objective. His objective he states as "stabilizing titles (and, thus, title policy)", but it is better described as "Title Minimalism" and "Algorithmic titling decisions", the second being inconsistent with consensus decision-making, and the net effect is disruption. Weak opposition to banning from RM discussions or policy talk discussion on titling, but:
or
My longer opinion was expressed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement 23:47, 7 March 2018. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by RegentsPark[edit]Not clear to me what b2c is doing wrong here. I looked at the closes mentioned above, and they aren't unreasonable. Even the DiDi case presented as a particularly egregious example is not really that outré. Rather, b2c seems to have actually read the discussion, discovered that three editors (not one) are fine with DiDi because that's the name used internationally and by several reliable sources. Seems reasonable to close it that way, imo. --regentspark (comment) 00:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by Dicklyon[edit]Support at least a ban on closing RM discussions and on editing any policy or guideline page; SmokeyJoe says it well, so I don't need to repeat. Discussion is OK, but some reasonable limits might still be in order. I think we've had a solid 10 years of this nonsense, with some breaks now and then. Dicklyon (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by Calton[edit]Given Born2Cycle's antics at Talk:Bend, where he tries to declare as invalid a move request that was his idea originally and promptly went against him, ArbCom -- here or elsewhere -- should go ahead and make topic ban official. --Calton | Talk 00:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC) @Born2Cycle:: What I'd like to see is a clear explanation, from someone, anyone, of what written/published policy I'm accused of violating, and how they believe I'm in violation of it. You appear to have confused Wikipedia with a legal proceeding or a video game. But here you go, if you missed it the first time. --Calton | Talk 00:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by wbm1058[edit]I concur with TonyBallioni that the better venue for this may be Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. The sanction proposed for enforcement is " Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Born2cycle[edit]
|
Crawford88
[edit]| Blocked for one week for a clear violation. Crawford88 should note that unless they edit in other areas, they are not really complying with the topic ban and they are in danger of heading toward an indef block.--regentspark (comment) 17:28, 12 September 2018 (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 Crawford88[edit]
[45] One previous block for violating the same topic ban.
Discussion concerning Crawford88[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Crawford88[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Crawford88[edit]
|
Petrarchan47
[edit]| Petrarchan47 indefinitely topic banned. AGK [•] 18:17, 19 September 2018 (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 Petrarchan47[edit]
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting aspersions :
Petrarchan47 has been around since the original GMO ArbCom with battleground behavior and casting aspersions, etc. with arbs stating There's also been a trend of going to Jimbo's talk page saying Wikipedia has a Monsanto problem, etc. that's very similar to The links above show just some of the sporadic but steady stream of aspersions editors have been mostly ignoring over the last few years. The topic has settled down finally, but editors coming in doing this sporadically are the few still stirring things up. Trying to caution Petrarchan about all this seems to result in more Monsanto is controlling Wikipedia or bending over backwards for Monsanto type statements. They seem pretty committed to still being pointy on article talk pages given this history and warning, so while I was hoping the old GMO stuff could die down, it looks like this editor still needs attention from admins. This is what the aspersions principle was meant to prevent. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Petrarchan47[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Petrarchan47[edit]KingofAces43 seems a conflicted editor who accuses others of what he is doing. He has admitted a COI (his specialty is pest management) on his userpage, and his edits seem to always favor the industry, although he claims he can be a neutral editor. He is engaging in bad faith editing by misusing WP:MEDRS. In his above complaint, he refers to the wrong edit.
I've asked if he looked for newer sources, he has never responded, but instead he brings me here. In this edit Kings adds reference to the source SERA 2003. However, this source has been updated to SERA 2011. If he'd done his due diligence, he'd have found it. By relying on the older source, he minimizes concerns scientists are raising about the “inert” adjuvants and surfactants. But the science has been changing ([48],[49],[50],[51]), and he's not including that in his edits, because he relies on the older sources. MEDRS requires him to refer to updated sources.
Sera 2011 *:
Monsanto/Bayer and Wikipedia articles try to conflate Glyphosate with Roundup. KingofAces43 most recently did that here, misrepresenting the science (see Sera 2011). I confront him here. His misrepresentation follows talking points coming from Bayer, new owner of Roundup. Wikipedia should not allow this to continue. Bayer is facing over 8K lawsuits worth billions, similar to the one in California. The jury heard ”Monsanto has known for decades that glyphosate and specifically Roundup could cause cancer” Reuters; ”Glyphosate” and ”Roundup” aren't synonymous. Wikipedia must stay fact-based especially regarding contentious issues. petrarchan47คุก 02:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Additionally:
@Drmies, please revert the reopening if indeed your actions violated this policy (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement#Dismissing_an_enforcement_request_(alternate)). If not, never mind. petrarchan47คุก 01:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Tryptofish[edit]I'm not sure that the filing statement makes the problem sufficiently clear, but I want admins to know that the problem here is a very serious one. As I see it, the central issue is this conclusion from ArbCom: Casting aspersions. For admins unfamiliar with the history, the GMO topic area was plagued with aspersions of editors supposedly editing on behalf of Monsanto. (It's fine to say something like For NPOV the page should have more criticism of Monsanto, but it's unacceptable to say You are suppressing information on this page because you are editing on Monsanto's behalf, unless there is solid evidence presented at the proper venues.) And, just since the time of the most recent DS notice on her talk page, here are edits where Petrarchan does exactly that: [52], [53], [54], [55] (see also: [56] and [57], never answered). That's just recent stuff; she has long advocated that editors are editing on behalf of the company: "Monsanto mafia". She also considers the community consensus at WP:GMORFC to be invalid: [58]. (At that RfC, she submitted a WP:POINTy un-serious proposal: [59], [60].) The other thing I want admins to know is that Petrarchan is essentially a single-purpose account, whose purpose is to crusade against what she sees as editors conspiring to suppress The Truth. If you look at her talk page, she considers herself retired from editing content, and if you look at her contributions, you will see that all she does is show up from time to time to cast these kinds of aspersions. Except for her, the GMO topic area has been blessedly quiet for over a year, but she is disrupting it. You need to understand that she is not going to change her mind about any of this. Give progressively increasing blocks, and she'll just come back after each one with the same agenda. At a minimum, you need to topic ban her from GMOs. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Just now: [62], calling other editors "WP:NOTHERE". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by JzG[edit]It seems clear to me that the project would be better off if Petrarchan were separated from this area, where xhe has very strong opinions that constantly run up against NPOV and RS. Guy (Help!) Statement by Veritycheck[edit]From an uninvolved editor who follows this page and does not know any of the editors. Not one DIFF presented here singles out any editor on the receiving end of aspersions.Tryptofish does offer two DIFFS [63] and [64] which try to bait Petrarchan47 to make aspersions by attempting to put words into his/her mouth. This attempt on Tryptofish's part certainly doesn't make a case. On the contrary, what is far more telling is that they both go 'unanswered' showing that Petrarchan47 does not engage in aspersions. What is expressed in these DIFFS is that there may be self-interests groups at work, as is true throughout Wikipedia. Let’s not be naïve. WP:GOODFAITH faith is a philosophy not a guarantee. But bringing this back to the accusation, how about providing something more concrete if you have it. Otherwise, not only is it smoke and mirrors, but also a rather sad attempt to squelch what appears to be an important contributor who brings NPOV to the article. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by MPS1992[edit]As another uninvolved editor, I would like to know if the statement "Editing with the goal of protecting Monsanto is antithetical to building a NPOV encyclopedia and in a sane world, should be grounds for a topic ban" -- part of a diff provided above which is being used as evidence for a topic ban now -- is something I would not be allowed to say on Wikipedia. And if so, why. MPS1992 (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Atsme[edit]I don't edit in this topic area but I am familiar with some of the history. The diffs presented against Petrarchan47 are innocuous, and certainly nothing deserving of a t-ban. Petrar is not a SPA and has made significant contributions to controversial articles in the past without incident, including BP, Corexit, and Deepwater Horizon oil spill to name a few. I do hope that the points she brought up in her statement are carefully reviewed because her editing contributions over the years are evidence that she adheres strictly to NPOV and closely follows RS guidelines. The accusations against her are meritless, and if anything, a boomerang may be in order. Atsme📞📧 02:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Dialectric[edit]I left the GMO sanctions alert notice for Petrarchan47 on August 17, 2018. All but the most recent 2 diffs submitted by Kingofaces43 predate this warning. In answering this request, a Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment may be in order. I suggest arbcom clarify what falls into the category of actionable aspersions. The specific language in the GMO case principles is singular, and targeted - “An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence” etc. Some difs presented by Kingofaces43 are general and do not call out any specific editors - statements like “there is no shortage of folks bending over backwards to defend Monsanto”. Dialectric (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by Seraphim System[edit]Some brief comments - my understanding of WP:ASPERSIONS is that it means to make repeated accusations of misconduct without presenting evidence. I don't think all of these diffs would be considered aspersions. Without getting into too much detail. there is evidence and diffs supporting at least some of what Petrachan47 has said here. The complaining editor does not exactly have clean hands here. Seraphim System (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Minor4th[edit]I have not looked at these Monsanto articles in a long time, until today when I was trying to find info on the recent jury verdict and damages award against Monsanto. What struck me right off the bat was KingofAces' ownership-like behavior in these articles and his engaging in what looks like edit warring to me. I do not think the diffs provided amount to casting aspersions in the least. The diffs reflect more poorly on KoA in my opinion. Not to cast aspersions, but I wonder if KoA might be, consciously or unconsciously, using the Arb sanctions to bully away from the Monsanto and pesticide articles those editors who do not share KoA's pro-Monsanto editing behavior. Minor4th 21:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Statement be Aircorn[edit]I have been an involved editor in the GMO topic area for quite a few years. My point of view very much aligns with Tryptofish when it come to the science around safety and other aspects in this area. I have clashed with Petrachen in the past, particularly over the WP:GMORFC. The current dispute essentially stems from the Round-up/Glyphosate articles and while I am only tangentially interested in them, the discussions and participants are similar to what was occurring at the GMO pages when it was at its most intense. It has thankfully settled down now and as a result the articles are getting much needed improvements. There is a lot of history here that may be lost on some new editors just looking at the individual diffs presented. Edits that are viewed to favour GMOs have long been labeled as pro Monsanto and those that don't part of an anti GM agenda. I have apparently been working for Monsanto since 2010, although I am also an anti GM activist. The accusations got so persistent and nasty that the inevitable ARB case made a point about casting aspersions. It should have been clear to anyone involved in it that this was not to be tolerated anymore. Some stray thoughts
Statement by Coretheapple[edit]Commenting on this because it appears to have been reopened, based on the talk page post I saw in petrarchan's talk page. I am acquainted with her, and have edited some of these GMO articles but not in a very long time. I think that the diffs presented here are innocuous, and do not rise to the level that they justify a sanction under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting_aspersions . In fact, considering the high level of abuse and insult that I see thrown around Wikipedia constantly, sometimes by administrators, I find myself amazed that they are introduced as evidence to throw the book at this editor. Coretheapple (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Adding link. Coretheapple (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC) Result concerning Petrarchan47[edit]
|
יניב הורון
[edit]| יניב הורון is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from the Arab-Israeli conflict. Sandstein 07:09, 20 September 2018 (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 יניב הורון[edit]
Supposedly sourced to this NYTimes article. The article contains nothing of the sort, and even a cursory reading of 1948 Palestinian exodus would quickly disabuse you of the notion that saying in Wikipedia's narrative voice that the Palestinian flight from Israel was not compelled but was predominantly voluntary is um not in keeping with the NPOV policy. Regardless the user claims in the edit summary that the material is supported by reliable sources and attributed when it is in fact neither attributed or sourced in any way. The user was alerted to the fact that the material is not in the source and asked to self-revert. There was no response. I wrote on the user's talk page that reverting without reading the sources while lying about what was in them would bring a report here. The response was seemingly saying that the user is not responsible for the content they revert. Which was then followed by the user again inserting into the article the same sentence that is not in the cited source. While making a singular comment on the talk page that does not in any way even attempt to engage in good faith collaborative editing. Regardless, the user has repeatedly blindly reverted to include straight up lies that do not appear in the sources cited.
Discussion concerning יניב הורון[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by יניב הורון[edit]On a second look NYT might be an accidental miss-citation, but Karsh is cited at the end of the passage and definitely supports it. In any case, there's currently a discussion in the talk page of that article involving several editors from both sides. All the complains, arguments and whining belong there, not here. I would appreciate that next time someone fills a spurious report based on "I don't like his edits" instead of specific violations of Wikipedia policy, be sanctioned per WP:Boomerang. The problem is that garbage reports to censor someone you don't like have no consequences for reporters, which leads to more nonsense reports by people who don't think twice before wasting everybody's time, including the administrators'. I recognize I have made mistakes in the past, for which I have paid and learned, but this report is simply rubbish. Also Nableezy has been threatening me on my personal talk page, as well as other editors who don't agree with his viewpoint (see WP:OWN). This user's lack of basic WP:Civility is astonishing, but even more surprising is the fact that he hasn't been sanctioned for it so far.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 06:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000[edit]This editor continually engages in edit-warring towards a strong nationalist POV, with knee-jerk reverts and false claims about consensus being specialties. Admins who have previously issued warnings include: NeilN and Black Kite. User:Black Kite closed this AE case with "יניב_הורון is warned to be extremely careful with their reverts. Any future violations may result in more severe sanctions than usual given the editor's past history in this area." But, if it is possible, his behavior is worse than before. Perusal of his talk page shows an exceptional number of complaints from other editors. "Hello, first of all could you please stop being so trigger happy with reverts" and so on and on. Here we see a typical Yaniv edit. The edit summary says "(per Hebrew, see talk page)" but the sources don't support the text and the talk page shows a strong consensus against the edit. Problems like this are so common with Yaniv's edits that every one has to be reviewed closely at the cost of good editors' time. Here is another perfectly typical Yaniv edit. Claiming to "restore source" he puts back a dead link to an article than doesn't mention the subject. The worst recent revert was this one with the summary "see talk page, no consensus for this". The revert put back dead links, sources that don't contain the material cited to them, a copyvio, and lots of similar trash which had been exposed on the talk page. Needless to say, and true to form, Yaniv had not contributed to the talk page discussion at all. Zerotalk 04:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC) I hardly started but I have to run. Probably I'll revise the above later. Zerotalk 04:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by Icewhiz[edit]Yet another spurious complaint against Yaniv. The stmt is attributed to Efraim Karsh - a well known historian. While it does seem that there is an errant citation to NYT mid-passage, Karsh clearly says this (in this, clearly cited at the end of the passage) -
I will further note that Karsh isn't saying anything extraordinary - Arab evacuation orders are well documented in some cases, the implication of evac orders is a long standing claim, and this is attributed to Karsh regardless. Conversely - stating on the article talk page that a user was 19:22, 19 September 2018 (Nableezy) -
Statement by Kingsindian[edit]Let's start from the main point: Karsh does not say that the Palestinian flight was "predominantly voluntary", or anything even remotely like this. Indeed, I doubt you can find a single serious historian who would make such a ludicrous claim. Here's what Karsh actually says:
The edit by Yaniv is deficient in multiple respects. First, it is not supported by the reference provided (NYTimes article). Let's WP:AGF for the moment and assume that Yaniv meant to cite Karsh instead of the NYT source. Even then, the edit is deficient because firstly, Karsh doesn't say anything like that, and secondly, the edit doesn't attribute the claims to Karsh, but presents it as a matter-of-fact view -- which is completely backwards. Karsh is, in that article, arguing against the general view -- namely the "New Historians" view. I don't know how Yaniv edits in general, so I have no comment on what action to take. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning יניב הורון[edit]
|
GHcool
[edit]| GHcool is urged to be more careful next time. No further action is deemed necessary at this time. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2018 (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 GHcool[edit]
GHcool has a history of blocks, no less than six now, in the area of the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Apparently, blocks are meaningless to him as is shown with his complete disregard of respecting Active Arbitration Remedies that spans a decade. His userpage includes an almost 4000 word article, including 14 sections, that expounds his strong, unashamedly POV, views on Israel. The very style and format may violate WP:FAKEARTICLE as it resembles an article with section headings, links and sources. What is certain is the overwhelming bias he has that is so clearly written in his words concerning the conflict. These views combined with half a dozen blocks, all in the same area, show that he is unsuitable for participating in this topic.
We seem to have a different interpretation of, “If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit”, and specifically the word, “FIRST”. FIRST means (my reverting his content earlier today - the 'first revert' within "24 hours"). It seems that at least one other editor here, Kingsindian, confirms my interpretation. If the interpretation is incorrect, then I withdraw the complaint. But I expect that is not the case. The word 'First' does not mean the first revert to an edit ever in the history of an article. That would be virtually impossible for wiki editors to determine, and is not the correct interpretation. A couple of editors, here, have used this fallacy to defend GHcool. I do believe strongly that there has been an infringement, and accordingly, I expect sanctions to go ahead taking into full consideration the blocks and history already mentioned. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 12:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
He has been notified. Discussion concerning GHcool[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GHcool[edit]I appreciate what Icewhiz, Shrike, Kingsindian, and Sir Joseph said on my behalf. I have nothing to add at this time, but am available to answer any questions if clarification is needed. --GHcool (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by Icewhiz[edit]Spurious report - "original author" a year+ back. This provision applies to the first revert of content. This has been previously removed - e.g. by Veritycheck on 7 Sep - making the set of diffs (removal+revert) from 20 Sep moot. I would point out the filer has been using edit summaries to convey aggressive messages - [70] or make conduct remarks - [71]. Formulating a RfC question in a non-neutral manner and canvassing (namely 15 users on their talk pages + "bumps") at [72] is also instructive. Veritycheck also GAMEed 1RR reverting 24 hours + 4 minutes apart on Israel - 16:42, 12 September 201816:46, 13 September 2018.Icewhiz (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Shrike[edit]@Black Kite: There are no two reverts by Ghcool one of the reverts is by Veritycheck.Please check this. The only relevant revert is the 20 september but its not a violation as it not first restoration of his edit.So it doesn't violate the rule. --Shrike (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by Kingsindian[edit]The purpose of the remedy is to make the editor wait 24 hours after the other guy reverts. The revert violates the remedy, clearly. But it is an extremely stupid remedy, because nowhere except in ARBPIA does one find this interpretation of 1RR. I warned ArbCom at the time that this would happen (and Icewhiz didn't believe me). Perhaps I should collect all these absurd cases and open an ARCA request. I suggest no sanctions. GHCool should be warned to discuss the matter on the talk page in this section. I see no real discussion by them, except simply saying that their edit is self-evidently correct. Discussion doesn't work like that, I'm afraid. The WP:ONUS is on the person adding the content, not the person removing it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]I don't see anything actionable here. VC is claiming that a 2017 edit should be the original edit and then hides in the list of reverts that the revert was done by VC and not GHcool. I see this as a bad faith request. Using this logic, nobody would ever be able to revert. VC made an edit and GHcool reverted, that is what happened here and that is allowed. Using his months back prior editing is ludicrous. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC) Result concerning GHcool[edit]
|