Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
Jiujitsuguy (talk | contribs) |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 763: | Line 763: | ||
::::::Yet you added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=416113488 this] immediately before apologizing to Mitchell for battlefield behavior. The best approach to making changes to the articles would have been to ease back into editing, not a barrage of changes and AE filings. This is not the first time an admin has cited you for battlefield behavior, and eluding to the belief that certain editors should be disregarded because you believe they follow a certain POV or edit style, is not helpful or constructive. If I were in your shoes, I would sit back for a bit and chill out. Its not always necessary to have the last word. --[[User:nsaum75|<span style="background:#acf;padding:2px;color:white;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"> '''nsaum75''' </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:nsaum75|<span lang="he" xml:lang="he" dir="rtl">!Dígame¡</span>‎]]</sup> 23:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC) |
::::::Yet you added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=416113488 this] immediately before apologizing to Mitchell for battlefield behavior. The best approach to making changes to the articles would have been to ease back into editing, not a barrage of changes and AE filings. This is not the first time an admin has cited you for battlefield behavior, and eluding to the belief that certain editors should be disregarded because you believe they follow a certain POV or edit style, is not helpful or constructive. If I were in your shoes, I would sit back for a bit and chill out. Its not always necessary to have the last word. --[[User:nsaum75|<span style="background:#acf;padding:2px;color:white;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"> '''nsaum75''' </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:nsaum75|<span lang="he" xml:lang="he" dir="rtl">!Dígame¡</span>‎]]</sup> 23:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::::I believe its important to know where the accusations are coming from, Cptnono wanting me topic banned because I followed WP guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and you saying Golan Heights was "stable" without me. --[[User:Supreme Deliciousness|Supreme Deliciousness]] ([[User talk:Supreme Deliciousness|talk]]) 00:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC) |
:::::::I believe its important to know where the accusations are coming from, Cptnono wanting me topic banned because I followed WP guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and you saying Golan Heights was "stable" without me. --[[User:Supreme Deliciousness|Supreme Deliciousness]] ([[User talk:Supreme Deliciousness|talk]]) 00:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
=====Comment by Jiujitsuguy===== |
|||
In addition to what Chesdovi noted below, I have some things to say on this for obvious reasons. I will not comment on the AE that SD filed against me but I will comment on some of the edits he’s made after receiving the Wikipedian equivalent of parole from his Topic Ban. Less than 2 hours later, he began making edits to the Golan Heights and subsequently made a series of edits in rapid succession including these two blanket reversions of the views of United States Presidents and US foreign policy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&diff=416060694&oldid=416060013][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&diff=416061032&oldid=416060694] Also these problematic edits by SD have yet to be addressed. Reversion of sourced material without the use of edit summaries [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Supreme_Deliciousness&diff=397981484&oldid=396656586][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Supreme_Deliciousness&diff=398334248&oldid=398332564] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Supreme_Deliciousness&diff=392676653&oldid=392635530] He has also engaged in an editing pattern that is dismissive of Jewish or Israeli viewpoints and often attempts to downgrade the Jewish nexus with Israel. |
|||
*Dismisses views of editors deemed “pro Israel”[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=392404152] |
|||
*Unilaterally changes name of Jerusalem International Airport[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Israeli_airports&diff=402035484&oldid=399797620] |
|||
*Labels noted historian as “Jew”[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khazars&diff=403411933&oldid=403409877]. This diff speaks a volume and demonstrates that the user approach has never changed. Exactly as in the differences I provided above the user dismisses a view Jewish administrator and Jewish editors the same here. The user adds "Jewish" to the name of historian to demonstrate that this fact alone makes him not trustworthy because I see no other reason for that edit. |
|||
*Removes all historical Jewish connections to the city of Gamla[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gamla&diff=403190513&oldid=401749851] |
|||
*Rejects the opinion of a closing admin because he’s considers Jews not neutral[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Golan_Heights&diff=prev&oldid=298090826] |
|||
Supreme Deliciousness has on at least five (3) occasions used pejoratives to refer to members of the Jewish faith, describing them as “thieves.”[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hummus&diff=next&oldid=295161306][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Za'atar&diff=293977266&oldid=278064627][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Za'atar&diff=295751511&oldid=295748788] The last three diffs are older and are used here for '''demonstrative purposes''' to show that SD displays an extreme bias and an obsessive animus toward Israel and members of the Jewish faith. He has yet to offer a retraction for making those obscene comments despite being challenged and given opportunity to do so. This is clearly someone who should not be editing in the topic area.--[[User:Jiujitsuguy|Jiujitsuguy]] ([[User talk:Jiujitsuguy|talk]]) 09:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
=====Comment by Chesdovi===== |
=====Comment by Chesdovi===== |
Revision as of 09:01, 27 February 2011
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
![]() | Important information Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
PCPP
PCPP and Asdfg12345 are topic-banned. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning PCPP
I apologise for the length. Well done to the people who read this, examine the dispute, and make judgement. I give a sampling of diffs below. There are many more compiled here, on the RfC I opened against this user. I recommend whoever judges this to look into the background there and read the remarks. That background is pretty crucial to understanding the evidence here. We are talking about what are often quite complicated discussions and disputes. There are any number of ways to present what the dozens and hundreds of sources say about any given topic. And particularly on a topic like this, which has proven to be quite controversial on Wikipedia, there are multiple possible presentations. The key thing is, however, that PCPP has no interest in any other presentation than his own. And he asserts it emphatically, and does not shy away from engaging in revert wars against multiple editors to advance his view. Except for perhaps the recent case and a few other egregious edits, most of the time it is hard to put your finger on precisely why what PCPP is doing or saying is a clear violation of the rules: everyone is allowed to remove inappropriate content, or question sources, or rephrase things, or reduce things. But when he does it constantly, including revert wars, all centering around removing negative information about the Chinese Communist Party, it becomes a troubling pattern. And it is infuriating for editors who want to do serious research on the pages. Thus, PCPP is guilty of violating the central tenets of Wikipedia: he is a biased, tendentious editor who edit wars to remove or reduce information he perceives as negative about the Chinese Communist Party, and does not engage in meaningful discussion or research. Most of the diffs below fit into this rubric. Recent dispute: [1] [2] [3] Explanation: In these edits PCPP goes against an emerging consensus to simply blank information that accords with RS and is relevant to the topic in question. Why? Only he knows. Tiananmen square self-immolation page:
Persecution of Falun Gong page:
Falun Gong page:
Organ harvesting page: [13][14][15][16] -- each of these would be potentially OK, the point is that he did not really discuss properly and always much tendentious edits meant to change what sources say when it comes to something about the CCP. In the edit about the Amnesty info, when you check the ref 56 on that page, it is a different thing Amnesty says--so there was not a duplication, as he claimed. Each of these edits, isolated, would be potentially fine. The point is that they are strokes in a large picture. The point is this: the views that PCPP holds, and even his editing with them in mind, is not in and of itself something he can be prosecuted for. Theoretically, if he states his point clearly, bases it on fact and good research, and argues it elegantly, he could get away with much. The trouble is that he is aggressive and uncommunicative, he ignores long and careful discussion in favour of the quick revert. He has contributed little to the pages except frustrating the efforts of those who want to do good work.
I suggest the indef topic ban because this has already dragged on for so long, ever since PCPP began editing Wikipedia. If you look through the RfC you will note this clearly. If he is allowed off the hook this time I assume he will simply become more sophisticated and waste a lot more of other editors' time in the long run (unless they give up editing Falun Gong pages first, which is a possibility). It is clear that he is not here in good faith. Others have already come to that conclusion. He turns every discussion into a battle, immediately polarising the debate, making the editing environment simply an opposition, a battle. He is not here to work intelligently, but to fight for his point of view, and he does not stint from edit warring to promote it. If more evidence is needed to substantiate these claims, please advise me.
Comment by filing editor concerning PCPPFor a long time now PCPP (talk · contribs) has been engaging in disruptive editing activity on Falun Gong related articles and any articles that include content related to Falun Gong. He does it with other articles related to the Chinese Communist Party, but Falun Gong appears to be his forte. As for evidence, his edit history is probably the best possible example: most Falun Gong-related edits are disruptive, very few of them are about adding new information, and nearly every single one of them is about degrading or simply deleting information that is unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party. I suggest simply looking at his history. But the specific "incident" I want to highlight here happened on the List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll. See the history and discussion. The point is this: he is opposed by three editors who find it legitimate to include information about the persecution/genocide against Falun Gong in the article about alleged genocides. A judge ordered an arrest warrant against Jiang Zemin and Luo Gan, leaders of the persecution, and called it a genocide. That is in this article. There was other media, too. PCPP has already done three reverts on this page within a few hours. He has been doing this for a long, long time. Please check his edit history on this topic. His primary method is to be aggressive and edit war. When he does discuss things it is never substantial. He throws out a few sentences, sometimes irrelevant, and continues in the same vain. Meanwhile other editors (including myself) present long explanations for their thinking and changes. He ignores it all and just deletes the stuff he doesn't like. Editing the pages becomes extremely tiring. Here is a long list of his biased editing that I made a long time ago. Since then he has done much of the same. He came within a hair's breadth of being banned a couple of years ago, and has only gotten worse since then. It is my neglect that has allowed this to simmer for so long. I think it is extremely clear that this editor should no longer be involved in anything related to Falun Gong, and I believe the other editors, when they hear of this motion, will be greatly relieved that something is finally happening. I know of at least three other editors who take an interest in the Falun Gong articles that, from what I can tell, are fed up with PCPP's disruptive behaviour. Falun Gong is one of the articles on probation. PCPP is a longtime disruptive editor who has now just done three reverts against the consensus (two explicit, one implicit) of three other editors for including reliably sourced information. He should simply be banned indefinitely from the pages, and I don't think anyone who edits the articles will disagree.
(I take the liberty to simply collect these from different places and present them here, but I hope others take a look and weigh in directly.)
I urge someone to look into the matter and make the appropriate judgement. I will alert PCPP now. --Asdfg12345 20:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning PCPPStatement by PCPPSigh, I consider this a bad faith attempt by Asdfg to rid of me. He was previously given a 6 month topic ban on the Falun Gong articles by AR on the evidence of numerous editors[29], in which Sandstein found him to be a [30] "single purpose account dedicated to editing articles related to Falun Gong so as to make that movement appear in a more favorable light, and that he has repeatedly participated in edit wars to that" and is "more committed to promoting Falun Gong than to our encyclopedic mission, which makes his contributions detrimental to that mission." Clearly, his editing patterns still reflect that. The edit war on the List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll article was again instigated by his problematic editing. The ordeal of Falun Gong in China is a contested topic, and Asdfg inserted controversial material classifying the repression of FLG as "genocide", a term not agreed by any serious sources on the topic such as scholar David Ownby, and human rights organizations such as Amnesty International. The source he used comes from a local court decision in Argentina and Falun Gong's own website, which fails RS. I noted these on the talk page, but Asdfg joined in by issuing personal attacks against me during a talk page discussion with another editor [31]. He referred to me as a "disruptive troll that does not care about the encyclopedia or any objective standard of research" and that I'm "here to push CCP propaganda and that's it."--PCPP (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning PCPPPersonally I find all this very unsavory. But I am involved, so I should probably speak up. In my various interactions with PCPP, I have tried to hold my tongue and avoid accusations of bad faith. This is not because I have the slightest regard for this individual, though, or for his intentions. I have encountered this editor on several articles related to either Communist Party history or Falun Gong, and have found him to be exclusively concerned with massaging the image of the Communist Party and maligning Falun Gong, in spite of any facts that may stand in the way. I cannot recall one instance in which he contributed in a productive way, let alone an objective way, to these articles. He mainly deletes content, and when challenged, he is typically unable to offer a reasonable defense for doing so. He does make numerous weak attempts to justify his edits, consuming much time; his recent reverts on List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll is a good example of how he’ll delete with one excuse, and when it is shot down, he will simply embrace another justification for deletion, and another, and another... By the end, he is arguing that Falun Gong should not be on a list of genocides because the National Endowment for Democracy is an American propaganda agency, or because David Ownby has not said it is a genocide (even though Ownby states that he is not an expert on the human rights issues related to Falun Gong, but instead on the religious and historical context surrounding it). It's exhausting. As inhumane as it may be, my problem is not with this editor’s ideological bias per se. Nor do I care that he has recently taken to accusing me of bad faith.[32] My problem is with the means he uses to advance his point of view, which include blanket and repeated reversions without discussion, editing against consensus, leveling personal attacks against editors who disagree with his aggressive behavior, misrepresenting sources, cloaking controversial edits under innocuous edit summaries, and deleting anything that does not comport with his view of the world. I can imagine that cognitive dissonance is a difficult thing to live with. It’s hard to accept that Mao Zedong is not a saint, and that innocent people are victimized by the Communist Party. But I would recommend that the best way to cope is to try accepting facts, rather than deleting them from wikipedia in a vain and annoying attempt to shape the world to accord with one’s personal beliefs. Asdfg was concerned that in filing this request for arbitration, PCPP would attempt to distract from his own behavior by drawing attention to Asdfg’s history. I was prepared to file this request in his stead, because I do not want the conversation to be derailed. I have wasted enough time unpacking the specious arguments that PCPP offers to support his indefensible position on these topics. Homunculus (duihua) 22:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Timeline and analysis by AsdfgThere is some important information that I would like to bring to the discussion. I hope it can be evaluated in an impartial light. Consensus and discussion are fundamental to Wikipedia: even if the editors in a discussion were discovered to be wrong on a fact, or a source, or a statistic, in a post-hoc analysis, does not mean that the discussion at the time was not important or should not have been participated in. Such errors could have been corrected through the process of consensus and discussion, rather than revert warring. But in this case I think any errors have been magnified and can be easily fixed. Firstly, it is important to note that the talk page discussion was ongoing, and that there appeared to be a consensus between three editors that the content should be there. The talk page discussion was not belated. Secondly, it was said that I made personal attacks: (go away, troll), and also that I added content that was not a reliable source because I cited Clearwisdom and a blog (by Ethan Gutmann, an expert on the matter). On the first, I am wrong. The best I can point out is that PCPP does the same, and that the atmosphere he has created is already poisoned. But that is no excuse. I assume that I do not have to pretend he is editing in good faith, but should refrain from statements like troll, etc. I will seek clarification separately on what is permitted, but I have had worse things said of me (see my userpage, with no consequences—and nor should there have been consequences.) Is it the case that editors should not be allowed to share their views about the character of another editor? On the second, PCPP cited the quality of these sources (in no great depth) to delete the entire row, rather than offer a solution about the sources. We sought discussion on the talk page and were reaching a consensus, but he reverted repeatedly. I added in information that may not have had a reliable source, and we may not have come up with one: but that does not justify repeatedly deleting an entire row of content. Please note that "personal attacks" seem now part and parcel of editing these pages with PCPP. Regarding Homunculus saying that Chinese officials had been found “guilty” rather than “indicted”: that’s clearly a technical mistake and a good faith edit. If that had been discussed, those words simply could have been changed rather than the whole line deleted. It seems to cheapen the discussion to pick him up on what was clearly a good faith mistake that can be corrected by the change of a word. But ultimately, please simply note this timeline of events. I think this best demonstrates what happened.
The rest is history, the talk page discussion can be seen here: [46] -- clearly it was not belated, at least on the part of other editors. But one could say it was belated on the part of PCPP, because only after he had reverted three times did he begin trying to talk in a normal manner about the inclusion of the material. The question of reliable sources was discussed on the talk page. The best solution the editors who were actually talking about it suggested was to simply cite Falun Dafa Information Center, or something. We didn’t come up with something better for the moment. Wikipedia is a work in progress. That’s not wrong. But where there are problems, or imperfect sources, I would hope that interested editors can discuss and work together in a good-faith manner to arrive at solution. Deleting all content when one source or one word is off creates a needlessly hostile editing environment. The complaint about Gutmann as a source is also a separate matter: it doesn’t seem to make sense for an outside admin in a post-hoc analysis to determine that a source is not reliable and then read that decision into the proceedings. Gutmann as not reliable was not properly thrashed out on the talk page. It is, at the very least, something that can be discussed. But in the end he is an established expert who has conducted years of research on the topic and has been invited to Congressional panels to share his research. The information I cited was the transcript of a testimony he had given, as an expert, on the topic. It was republished on his blog. PCPP gave no substantive reason for disputing the Gutmann as a reliable source; he charged only that Gutmann’s relationship with the National Endowment for Democracy disqualified him. I hope the above helps to put things into perspective.--Asdfg12345 15:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC) Analysis by SandsteinI'll be taking a look at this if I have time over the next few days. This space is for my notes about the contested conduct.
Comment by BorisGFrom a brief look at the diffs provided, there appears to be a pattern of tendentious editing by PPCP (talk · contribs). Like in so many ideological and ethnic disputes, no party is without fault. However, to me, it seems that PPSP is less willing to seek and respect consensus and compromise than Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs) or Homunculus (talk · contribs).
Comment by Enric NavalWow, not a bad solution. Asdfg has been needing a perma-ban from Falun Gong for a long time, and PCPP might finally learn to be less aggressive. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC) Comment by The Resident Anthropologist (talk)Having observed both individuals in action neither is a benefit to the topic area. A Sandstien has observed PCPP is overly aggressive in editing style as to include a negative portrayal of FLG. Asdfg12345 has the same issue but with the opposite POV.
Ohconfucius, makes a good point about below "I have also seen and experienced enough concert parties, aggression and lawyering at FLG articles to drive me away from editing that topic for good." This is our enemy here those who show "aggression and lawyering at FLG articles" tend to drive others away the topic. Behavior that causes people to be driven away from "editing that topic for good." are what we are dealing with here. Looking over old talk page discussions this seems to be the the issue. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Enric Naval and Resident Anthropologist. Asdfg does not have sufficiently clean hands in this topic area to be granted enforcement against others with no blame coming on to him/herself. It does seem that PCPP is also in need of a topic ban. In short I recommend a round of topic ban's for everyone involved. (I briefly attempted to mediate Falun Gong related articles ca. 2 years ago - I left because of the enormous amount of civil pov-pushing from the pro-Falun Gong side then (among them asdfg)- most anti-Falun Gong editors were banned in that period)·Maunus·ƛ· 21:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC) Comment by OhconfuciusFalun Gong articles have been a hot and disputed area, polarised by the omnipresence of Falun Gong activists (mainly) and their opponents editing this series of articles in a more or less SPA-fashion. Following the Arbcom case, after Samuel Luo and Tomananga got themselves indeffed for socking, the FLG SPAs have been in ascendancy. I and a number of others got involved for several months, but the path is strewn with carcasses. Today, all that is left to buttress the relentless advocacy of the FLG cabal is PCPP. I advised him not long ago to abandon the FLG articles, and he appears to not to have taken up my advice. The reason I suspect he remains there is not that he enjoys the conflict, but that he feels deeply that there ought to be some counterbalance to the FLG cabal. I was able to collaborate sufficiently with asdfg to help build 'Self-immolation', but it only truly achieved FA status through the efforts of respected editors SilkTork (talk · contribs) and Jayen466 (talk · contribs), who helped put the WP:NPOV issues into sharp focus. A quick glance of the article in its current state – as has already been observed by Sandstein – indicates that the strong pro-FLG bias has once again been restored. That alone says enough. PCPP is not at all easy to work with, and the FLG editors a little less so – but there are more of them. Their very strong and persistent advocacy of their cause amounts almost to conflict of interest editing. PCPP is over-reliant on the revert button, whilst the FLG cabal relies much more on saliva and lawyering. In addition, since his topic ban, asdfg is visibly much more bitter at the way WP works vis a vis the FLG viewpoint. Just looking at the edit history to 'List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll', it seems that there may have been tag teaming against PCPP's revert button. This is a case of six-of-one and half-a-dozen-of-another. They need a big dose of something stronger than a trout. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Reply to Biophys: Here is the edit removed by PCPP which you call: a "relevant text sourced to Reuters":
The Reuters article does not claim that 3,000 were killed, but that Falun Gong makes that claim. Furthermore, the notes are entirely sourced to the Falun Gong website. TFD (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Comment by ZujineI hope my comments do not come too belatedly, but I see others continue to weigh in on this matter, so I will add my piece. I was not involved in the edit war at List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll, but I have read through the diffs and the timeline provided by Asdfg, and am not surprised at PCPP’s behaviour. The patterns of editing he displayed on that article — to delete large amounts of content without discussion, and to do so repeatedly against consensus — is consistent with what I have observed elsewhere. I would favour a lengthy, if not indefinite topic ban against PCPP. As to Asdfg, there is little doubt that he has an emotional investment in the subjects he edits (namely Falungong), and while this usually finds manifestation in very active editing and discussion, it can turn to incivility when it comes to PCPP. I have also been extremely frustrated by PCPP, though I express it quite differently, so I can emphathise with Asdfg on this point. Crucially, when PCPP is not around, I have found Asdfg to be easy enough to work with. I do not always agree with his edits, nor he with mine, but we are nonetheless able to hash things out and move forward on editing pages. If he is not banned, I hope that he will learn from this experience and be more circumspect in the future. If he is banned, the editing environment on Falungong articles might be more relaxed, but I would also count it as a loss, as Asdfg does bring in good quality research and is probably more intimately familiar with the relevant sources on Falungong than any other editor. —Zujine|talk 18:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Result concerning PCPP
|
Shrike
Both Shrike (talk · contribs) and Passionless (talk · contribs) placed under various restrictions. T. Canens (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Shrike
Discussion concerning ShrikeStatement by ShrikeFirst of all the claims of the User:Passionless are not true there was no edit warring between me and user:Usama707 becouse I accepted his last version.As time passed by various anonymous users deleted the information so I reverted the vandalism then User:Passionless came and reverted me back to the vandal version.[77] deleting all the information and against the consensus that we reached with user:Usama707. The diff that he claims that he proposed as a "compromise" wasn't proposed in talk in any way and there was no discussion about it.Also I tried to incorporate all the sources thatuser:Passionless brought as could be seen in the last version of the article.The claims about that user:Banu hoshech is my sock puppet was based on one edits that he reverted user:Passionless disruptive edits, there were other users that did the same for example [78].It only natural that Israeli(I am not sure if it is) will revert from POV version to more NPOV version on this matter and like I said before he was not the only one The deletion of material in United Nations Human Rights Council was done after another user [79] deleted part of the subsection so I thought the best alternative would be deletion of the whole subsection and just redirect to the main article. About the canvassing I was not familiar with the rule and I wasn't aware of it as it was pointed I just wanted to bring other people to the article I understand now it was mistake the way I did it. The user:Passionless was too warned by ARBPIA [80] for his edit warring [81] The User:Passionless was engaged in edit warring in the same article.[82],[83],[84] and many more as could be seen from the history of the article. I am asking that if the request is accepted it will be case against User:Passionless too as he broke ARBPIA guidelines.If not I will file separate case latter.--Shrike (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning ShrikePlease note I never abused WP:Rollback- each time I used it I was undoing multiple edits and I did leave a message in the talk page each time too. This is in following the guideline- "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page". Passionless -Talk 01:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Also, what is gaming the topic area? The diffs listed show where I had broken 1RR, than self reverted a minute later, than later reinstated my explained edits. And can someone please tell me what sanctions are against me so I can edit again? Passionless -Talk 06:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Passionless have broken sanctions against him[86] and created new I/P article [87] the article should be deleted.Also he tried to circumvent the ban and asked another user to write article for him [88].--Shrike (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning Shrike
This request primarily concerns long-term edit warring on the Refaat Al-Gammal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. To somewhat simplify consideration of the matter, I'm considering only edits made in 2011, except to the extent that older edits are considered when needed for contextual purposes and in determination of sanctions. There appear to have been a series of reverts made by Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Passionless (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):
A sockpuppet investigation concludes that Banu hoshech (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is a sockpuppet of Shrike (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) based on behavioral evidence, which was not contradicted by technical evidence. Having reviewed the matter, I concur that it is more likely than not that Banu hoshech is either a sockpuppet of Shrike, or someone acting in concert with Shrike. I conclude that both parties have engaged in sanctionable misconduct.
In addition, Shrike (talk · contribs) has also engaged in edit warring on the United Nations Human Rights Council article ([103][104][105]) and has a history of edit warring, dating to at the latest 2007, in this topic area (e.g.,[106][107][108]). Accordingly, unless another uninvolved administrator objects, I intend to impose the following sanctions per WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions:
T. Canens (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Closing this. Per AGK's agreement above, and under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions:
These sanctions replaces the three-month topic bans imposed by AGK; the one-week blocks imposed by AGK remains in effect. T. Canens (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC) |
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Passionless
Unblocked by blocking admin. T. Canens (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by PassionlessAt the time of my 'breaching edits' the WP:AE which put the sanctions on me was stated that my sanctions were "a three-month topic ban from Refaat Al-Gammal, with a concurrent six-month 1RR/week restriction in the entire area of conflict." I followed these rules, yet I get blocked for writing my ITN. And look at User:Shrike too, no one told him talk pages were off limits too, but when he was told so he went and reverted his edits. The sanctions are fine and I don't mean this as a personal attack, but the blocks on both me and Shrike are a case of assuming bad faith.
Statement by AGKDuring the initial Arbitration Enforcement thread, there was an edit conflict between T. Canens and I. We both actioned the request at almost the same time—he first, me a moment later—but I got to the case log of sanctions first, and then notified both users first. Once I'd informed both users that they were sanctioned, I then noticed that T. Canens had already done so (having not had an edit conflict notice because of MediaWiki's edit conflict auto-resolver) and suggested that we replace my sanctions with his. Nothing further came of the discussion, because we kept missing one another when we were next online over the next day or so, and so the discretionary sanctions stood. It is understandable but not excusable that Passionless saw the discussion here about modifying the sanctions and thought that my sanctions were no longer in place or were being challenged. But I wonder why he thought that he could still make the edit he did, when T. Canens' proposed sanctions superseded mine in that they were less lenient. I cannot help but feel that Passionless' edit was a last-ditch attempt to squeeze in a last few edits before my sanctions were replaced by T. Canens', but that is of course speculation. What I can say without speculation, however, is that the sanctions, whilst under discussion, had not been lifted or modified and were very much in place. On that basis, I would recommend that this appeal be declined. I would be willing to lift my block early on the basis that there was an understandable misunderstanding, and I am of course happy for my block to be reversed by a consensus of uninvolved administrators. For whatever it would be worth, I would request that, in either case, the block be lifted only if Passionless accepts that the topic ban still applies, and that, if he is found in violation of it again, he will be again blocked. On a slightly different note, I see that Sandstein is proposing that it be lifted as redundant because my topic-ban is being superseded by T. Canens'. I reject that thinking and think to lift a block in such a way would be rather odd and somewhat pedantic: what is happening here is that my signature on the topic ban is being replaced with T. Canens', as a courtesy to the fact that he got there first and that it was my fault for not noticing that there was an edit conflict, and that some additional sanctions (a 1RR, a per-article topic ban, etc.) are being placed separately by T. Canens. Tl;dr: The new sanctions are a modification of my previous ones, and do not nullify all enforcement made under my sanctions when they were in effect (as seems to be assumed below). Likewise, as a matter of principe, we should not waive the enforcement of a legitimate discretionary sanction on the basis that the sanctioned editor wrongly believed that his sanctions had invisibly been lifted. Any reasonable person would at least have asked for clarification, if the obvious reality was not clear from simply reading the discussion, instead of creating a brand new I/P article. No? Respectfully, AGK [•] 11:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by PassionlessIt appears that the sequence of events is thus: (1) Passionless is made subject to a wide topic ban [110], (2) he violates this ban possibly because he believes that the ban had been reduced in scope, (3), he is blocked in enforcement of the ban [111], (4) only then is the ban actually reduced in scope [112]. On this basis, it would appear logical to lift the enforcement block, because the topic ban it is intended to enforce no longer applies – based on the principle that blocks are preventative and not punitive. For these reasons I think that the block, while certainly correct at the time it was issued, is no longer necessary and should be lifted. Sandstein 10:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Passionless
Note: Moved from [113]. T. Canens (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
|
Fifelfoo
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Summarily declined because no diff of the required warning about discretionary sanctions is provided. Warning now issued. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Fifelfoo
{{{Diffs of prior warnings}}}
If this is the incorrect notice board for this please remove the complaint and let me know were one does complain about this form of behavior. Tentontunic (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Fifeloo now appears to be looking for support for his actions from other editors who share his POV. [117] [118] Tentontunic (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
In response to Fifelfoo`s four points.
One final thing, Massacre at Huế Dak Son Massacre To say I did not look in the archives is another bad faith assumption, neither of these issues have been brought up on the article talk page before now. Tentontunic (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Discussion concerning FifelfooStatement by Fifelfoo
Comments by others about the request concerning FifelfooI would suggest that Fifelfoo be strongly cautioned as to language. In particular, the use of accusing others of "not hearing" when the same complaint might be easily laid at Fifelfoo's feet. It is always amusing to see a "defense" make clear the problem. Meanwhile, the source is WP:RS under WP policy - the issues on the article talk page are strongly reminiscent of some other pages where only "right" information is allowed, and "wrong" information is disallowed. WP readers are expected to be able to examine the references, not to have "correctness" determined by any group of editors. Collect (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC) I am in an ambiguous situation: from one hand, I have been informed by Fifelfoo about this case, and, as a result, I ought to abstain from participation in this discussion, however, from the another hand, I am watchlisting some key pages that make me aware of these type events even despite the Fifelfoo's post. Therefore, I decided to express my opinion.
Fifelfoo could write:
Whereas the first version is a comment on a contributor, the second one is a comment of a contribution, which is absolutely in accordance with WP policy. However, everyone will agree that the main idea (a correct idea, btw) is preserved in the last version. Therefore, if Tentontunic wants Fifelfoo to formally meet WP behavioural criteria, this result can be easily achieved by slight re-wording of the Fifelfoo's posts (the step I would strongly recommend to do in any events). However, if Tentontunic is interested in a genuine collaboration, they will never achieve this goal by posting here. What I would recommend to Tentontunic is to make a short break, and during this break to read the archives of the Mass killings under Communist regimes talk page (I concede the archives are very long, and I am ready to explain how to find a relevant section). I agree with Fifeloo that not all sources that adhere to WP:RS are equal. Peer reveiwed articles and books are preferred to non-refereed sources, especially on matters requiring complex research. However even if he is 100% correct on the sources issue, that does not negate the need to AGF and adhere to Wikipedia civility policies, the policies that he dares to violate on this very page. He needs to describe comments and edits, rather than editors. BorisG (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Fifelfoo
Discretionary sanctions require a prior warning about the possibility of discretionary sanctions ({{uw-sanctions}} or equivalent). Because no diff of such a warning is provided in the enforcement request, it is summarily declined without examination on the merits. The editors involved should use normal means of dispute resolution. However, in reaction to the personal attacks in evidence here, I am issuing a formal arbitration enforcement warning to Fifelfoo myself. Sandstein 16:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC) |
Alinor
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Alinor
- User requesting enforcement
- Enric Naval (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Alinor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- Wikipedia:ARBKOS#Modified "Editors of Kosovo and related articles who engage in (...) or other disruptive editing,". Also WP:ARBKOS#Kosovo_related_articles_on_Article_probation, Alinor was doing copy/paste moves without consensus in an article under probation.
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [120] Copy/pasting all of Kosovo into Republic of Kosovo, he undid my revert [121].
- [122] Copy/paste 2/3 of Kosovo into Kosovo (region), he undid my revert [123]
- Alinor was unable to gather consensus in his RfC for a split, but he went ahead and made a copy/paste split, and then he re-made it.
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- [124] Warning by Enric Naval (talk · contribs)
- User_talk:Alinor/Archive_1#1RR_violation_on_Kosovo Blocked for 1RR in Kosovo's infoboxes by DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- Dunno, maybe forbid him from implementing or proposing any Kosovo-related splits or merges?
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Alinor started an RfC about splitting the article, it has 7 options, 6 of them involve splitting the article. Now he is trying to summarize himself the conclusions here. Then he has done these two copy/paste moves. As far I am concerned they are clearly splits from Kosovo, and an implementation of one of the split options in the RfC. Alinor claims that he has performed no splits and no moves, and that it's not necessary that an admin makes a formal closure of the RFC, see here.
- A split proposal had already been rejected in August here. A month before Alinor's RfC, there had been an unsuccessful
RFCproposal to split the article here. Alinor says that he only wants to clarify the topic of the article, but his new RfC has 7 options to choose from, with only 1 of them not involving an article split.
- He had already proposed similar splits in October here. He has rejected all arguments about WP:COMMONNAME, for example here.
- So, thia split has been rejected twice already, he didn't get consensus either in his RfC, he has not addressed the arguments against the split, and now he is forcing the split. It is disruptive editing to force your changes when you are unable to get consensus for them.
- He claims that this is not a move, but a copy but he has been modifying several redirects to the Kosovo article, so they would point instead to his copy/pasted text in "Republic of Kosovo" [125][126][127][128][129][130] and other 9 redirects.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [131]
Discussion concerning Alinor
Statement by Alinor
First, to make it clear, I haven't made any split/content-move of the Kosovo article. My edit there is [132] - few changes to the navigation templates on top. Following my edits the Kosovo article text (including lead, infoboxes, etc.) remains unchanged and still has its status quo topic "APKiM+RoK", that doesn't make any sense - and that I have proposed multiple times to change to something meaningful. So, I haven't changed anything in the Kosovo status quo topic or text.
I'm not an editor involved in the Kosovo or Serbia articles, but as a passer by some time ago I found something strange at Kosovo article and I asked at the talk page: Talk:Kosovo/Archive_26#Autonomous_Province_of_Kosovo_and_Metohija_-like_redirects. At first, by looking at the article, I (as a passer by reader) thought that it's topic is RoK (Republic of Kosovo), but there was a navigation note on top about APKiM redirecting there and I asked why (APKiM/Serbia province and RoK/independent state are the competing political entities that claim the territory of Kosovo (region), They should be mentioned in each others article - as the competing side in the dispute, but I couldn't imagine any reason for these two to redirect to each other.) The answer I got was - no, there is no mistake, the article topic is about both APKiM and RoK. Then I made a proposal to arrange RoK content at Republic of Kosovo, APKiM content at Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (1990–), Kosovo region content at Kosovo. But because of the Serbia POV vs. Kosovar POV there were editors opposed - because each sides hopes somehow to outmaneuver the other side and to get the Kosovo article name for itself. At the time of my initial involvement the Kosovar POV had the upper hand and was managing and enforcing a pseudo-consensus/compromise (citing a less than a day long discussion where only they participated) to merge the multiple infoboxes into one infobox with heading "Republic of Kosovo", but showing map of Kosovo-as-part-of-Serbia. They also tried to remove APKiM redirects. Eventually, the article was restored to a more balanced state (still in Kosovar POV favour), but in all discussions it is obvious that the editors opposing content arrangement to properly named articles with clear topics are doing this with the hope to get Kosovo topic changed to their preferred one (but they never say that openly - they aways say "I like status quo, no consensus for change" - without real explanation why do they like a non-sensible mixed topic of APKiM+RoK). In addition, IMHO, constant edit-warring (and trying to force the other side topic out - step by step) and discussions about "who gets the Kosovo article name" prevented real progress with the actual content of the article - and I identified a serious gaps there. Nobody of the "who gets the name" people cared about that. IMHO the best solution is Kosovo to be a redirect - to Kosovo (region) (NPOV), Kosovo (disambiguation) (NPOV) or even Republic of Kosovo (if Kosovar POV camp convinces others about their COMMONNAME claim) - but the issue of "who gets the article name" to be decoupled from editing the actual content. Anyway, the status quo APKiM+RoK topic doesn't comply with their COMMONNAME claim either - but they support the status quo vigorously. Looking at past edits, IMHO this is because they hope to get rid of APKiM elements step by step (but nobody supported option6 in the RFC: "change topic to RoK" - strange, if they claim that this is what COMMONNAME shows. I think a NPOV redirect is better solution). We've been trough a RFC presenting all 7 options (previous discussion were about "status quo vs. particular-split" - this one presented all possible options for topic change). I know Wikipedia is not a democracy/polling, but the status quo camp is obviously in minority and most people supported one of the two NPOV redirects plus establishment of RoK and Kosovo region articles.
What I did was to establish the articles Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo (region) (and related redirects) - both have clear, sensible topics about notable subjects - see Talk:Republic of Kosovo#Notability of the Republic of Kosovo and Talk:Kosovo (region)#Notability of Kosovo as a region. The case of Republic of Kosovo is very telling - this is an independent state recognized by over 70 countries, but it doesn't have an article in Wikipedia about it. All other states, even those with limited recognition, like RoK, that are in dispute with another state - all have their own articles, where the topic is the independent unrecognized/partially recognized state. Only RoK didn't have such.
Anyway, I invited anybody that questions RoK notability or Kosovo region notability to do this on their talk pages. There are users supporting the creation of these two articles. The opposing opinion is not about their notability, but some "no consensus for Kosovo article split" comment. But there is no change to Kosovo article made - it remains with its topic of APKiM+RoK, nobody has made changes to that or to its text - if the editors at Talk:Kosovo think APKiM+RoK is a notable and sensible topic - then it will remain, as it is in its status quo. This doesn't make RoK less notable. And APKiM is represented in two articles - its own article and the APKiM+RoK article (Kosovo). RoK should also have its own article, like APKiM and all states. And I haven't seen any objection to RoK notability as a subject so far.
ZjarriRrethues below points to the only block on my account so far. This block is for 1RR violation at Kosovo - because I thought that restoring the consensus version is not a revert and then made additional revert after an edit-warring/POV user pushed for a non-consensus version. As you can see in the article - the edit I got blocked for is valid and still remains on the page. So, my edit is correct and still stands, but I got "burned", because of the constant edit-warring and POV pushing by some at Kosovo.
I don't think I have made any disruptive edits and I try to refrain from editing Kosovo/probation articles. Alinor (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Alinor
BorisG
It is unclear to me as an uninvolved editor how the diffs presented violate the ArbCom ruling. - BorisG (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
WhiteWriter
This is not violation of ARBKOS, as BorisG already stated. Alinor is fantastic user who edited the sensitive subject with great care and respect, while listening the others and always staying cool headed and peaceful. Also, Alinor edits are following great discussion and majority agreement as "Option No 5". And he didn't eves still implemented that what we agreed. This unfounded request should be disbanded urgently. --WhiteWriter speaks 17:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
@Sandstein. It is alredy written. Wikipedia:ARBKOS#Modified. But he just obviously didn't breached it. --WhiteWriter speaks 21:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
ZjarriRrethues
Alinor has been trying for months to get a consensus and every time the result of the discussion wasn't the one he wanted it to be(article split), he restarted the same discussion. He was eventually blocked for violating 1RR and at that time he said to the blocking admin I'll give you time until the blocking period ends - and if the account is not unblocked in advance I will not forgive you this hostile act.. After the block he continued starting new discussions, but this time didn't even say that his discussion was regarding the split of the article and when the consensus again wasn't the one expected he started making similar changes. Btw I didn't block him, since I'm not an admin.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning Alinor
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Please fix the link to the specific sanction or remedy that is believed to be violated. Sandstein 20:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Jiujitsuguy
Request concerning Jiujitsuguy
- User requesting enforcement
- --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated : Discretionary sanctions
Violation of npov.
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Jijutsuguys long term behavior of pov pushing, violation of npov, is a long term problem and was brought up in a previous enforcement request where he added to articles that the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights and East Jerusalem "were Israel": [133]
Admin Gatoclass replys to the evidence brought forward about Jijutsuguys non neutral pov edits/tendentious editing: [134], another admin HJ Mitchell replys to Gatoclass comment:[135] and [136]
Jijutsuguy was topic banned 3 months from the Arab -Israeli conflict articles:[137]
His topic ban was then reduced to two months and lifted on 2 February: [138]
Unfortunately, the very same of Jijutsuguys behavior of non neutral pov pushing/tendentious editing, removing neutral worldview and replacing them with views of one country, inserting of falsehoods into articles and presenting them as facts, and other disruptive behavior, has continued after his latest topic ban was lifted prematurely:
- 3 Feb. At the Yom Kippur article, I and two other editors discussed several changes to the article. One of the sentences we discussed can be seen here: [139], I then added it to the article with the edit summary: "Map and regained okeyd at talkpage.", we also discussed changing "defenders" to "Israelis", all agreed [140] and it was changed:[141]. I also copy edited a sentence, removing negative wording referring to Syria regaining control of its territory: "fall" had been used:[142] and added a fact tag at a location:[143].
- When Jijutsuguy topic ban was lifted, he reverts what I and the two other editors had discussed and agreed upon, and reverts my copy editing and the fact tag I had added, with the edit summary: "tweak". He does not say anything at the talkpage.
- 3, 6 Feb. At the Gamla article there was a discussion about the map in the infobox[144]. I and Nablezzy did not want to use a map of a different country (Israel) then the country Gamla is internationally recognized as located in (Syria). Jijutsuguy participated in that discussion and there was no consensus that we should violate npov and use a map of a different map then the country where Gamla is located. Per that a map of Israel for a location in Syria was in the article, tags were added:[145][146]
- After Jijutsuguys topic ban was lifted, and him being fully aware of that both me and Nableezy are topic banned (Nablezzy was topic banned together with him and he knows I was [147]), he goes back to the article, makes a dishonest question that has already been replied to in the discussion where he participated in, and him being aware of that neither of me or Nableezy can repeat our comments: [148], and then later he removes the tags "Tags removed having received no response at Talk".
- 7 Feb. Mount Hermon is a mountain completely located in Syria and Lebanon, part of it in Syria is also in the Golan heights. There was a location map in the article showing the two countries the mountain is located in, Syria and Lebanon. Jijutsuguy removes this location map following the international view and also ads Israel to the infobox: [149], he is claiming that the Golan Heights is Israel. At the talkpage he claimed that the location map highlighting the two countries Mount Hermon is located in, Syria and Lebanon "violates NPOV and is extremely misleading.", and claims it is located in a "third" county. He has removed a location map from the article following the international view, based on his pov believes that Golan Heights "is Israel".
- 7 Feb. At the Rujm el Hiri article he previously removed the location map:[150], he did not explain his edit so it was reverted:[151] he then comes back and removes the location map of the country it is internationally recognized as part of and replaces it with with a location map showing it within Israel: [152], he does the same pov edit at two more articles, removes the international view, and replaces it with the view of one country:[153] [154].
- 10, 14 Feb. At the Syria article there is a six day war section, Jijutsuguy removes sourced information showing that: "Israeli tractors with police protection used to go into the DMZ." and makes it into a Syrian claim when there were two sources in the same section alone showing that it wasn't a Syrian claim. He removes that "Israel also expelled Arabs from the DMZ and demolished their homes.", he removes that the Israeli defense minister Moshe Dayan said that Israel provoked more than 80% of the clashes with Syria. He removes the reason why Syria supported the Palestinians because of Israel taking over more land in the DMZ and why the Palestinians refugees started raids on Israel, and because they were denied the right of return or compensation. When Jijutsuguy twice removes all of these things and only keeps one side of what happened, he then calls his edits "NPOV" [155][156]
- 15 Feb. At the 2006 Lebanon War article, Jijutsuguy replaces the "Golan heights" with "northern Israel" [157]
- 17 Feb. At the Hexagon pools, article, about a place in the Golan heights, Jijutsuguy changes it to: "The Hexagon Pool in Israel" and "Golan Heights, in northern Israel." [158]
- 18 Feb. At the Golan Heights article there is a "Territorial claims" section, I previously explained at the talkpage why I had removed the claim that France got "primarily in exchange for French concessions in the oil rich areas of Iraq", and replaced it with that Palestine got lands in Syria and Lebanon including the entire sea of Galilee: [159], Jijutsuguy previously reverted me: [160] and said at the talkpage: [161]. I then explained in great detail why the source he wanted to use is unreliable about what happened [162],
- Then, without saying anything, without addressing any of the points I brought up at the talkpage, he reverts it once again: [163]
- 18 Feb. At the Six Day War article there was this sentence in the article: "Israel also expelled Arabs from the DMZ and demolished their homes", the sources used in the article say: "Arab villagers residing in the DMZs were evicted and their dwellings demolished, 'as the status quo was all the time being altered by Israel in her favor.' The Security Council called on Israel to let the villagers return, but Israel..." p.131, "On the latter point, Bull's reflections are worth quoting in full: I imagine that a number of those Arabs evicted settled somewhere in the Golan Heights" p.132, "'the status quo was all the time being altered by Israel in her favor' as Arab villagers were evicted, their dwellings demolished, and 'all Arab villages disappeared' in wide swaths of the DZs." p.186
- Jijutsuguy changes this sentence to: "Israel also expelled Arab squatters and trespassers from the DMZ and demolished their homes." [164]
- 20, 21, 23 Feb: Jijutsuguy repeatedly uses insults in his edit summary's when reverting other editors contributions, calling them "troll" at Jerusalem: [165][166], and at 2006 Lebanon War: [167][168]
- 25 Feb: At the Golan Heights talkpage there has previously been long discussions about the map in the infobox:[169]. Jijutsuguy and a few others wanted to use a modified CIA map where the placement of the name "Syria" is moved from a place internationally recognized as part of Syria, and "Israeli occupied" is removed underneath "Golan Heights". Jijutsuguy participated in the discussion and the arguments he used were replied to: ([170] Reply) * ([171] Reply) * ([172] ReplyReply), after his last argument he used, he had previously also changed the map in the middle of the discussion to the modified one:[173]. Overall in this discussion with many participants, no consensus was established to use the modified map.
- Despite this, now after, Jijutsuguy has once again changed it to the same modified one:[174]
- Reply to JJG:
- I addressed the Gamla tags above, JJG knew why the tags were in the article and knew that I and nableezy couldn't repeat it.
- At the Mount Hermon talkpage, JJG has picked a couple of sources that follows the pov of Israel including a source saying "Israel's Golan". JJg is a smart guy, and he knows this is the view of Israel and not the International community, he also edited text at the main Golan Heights article about the view of the IC:[175], this text is sourced to a GA resolution voting 161-1. The lead also contains UN Resolution 497. This is something that is easily researcheable and JJG is an active editor within the topic area, other sources for the IC can easily be found.
- AT SDW, that a long term active editor needs to be told not to change sourced text of an article so it doesn't follow the source is astonishing.
- At 2006 Lebanon War, the source shows the war also was in the Golan heights. You also called him troll after his second edit to the article, and you did not discuss it either at the talkpage like him at that point of time.
- As shown above, the map was discussed in great detail with many editors, JJGs arguments were replied to, there were clearly no consensus to change it, yet still he changed it to the same one without any new discussion.
- I explained in great detail at the talkpage why I removed the views of two US presidents from the article. Please see here:[176]. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Reply to JJG:
- Concerning Sol Goldstone, I had no idea what he did, so I asked him to come back. I just saw now that he was blocked this morning. What does that have to do with me? At the Golan Heights article and talkpage a wide range of socks have shown up to do the same edit as JJG, nick fatzpatrik: [177] same pov, changed the Dayan quote as JJg has done the same, another one, removes form the infobox that its internationally recognized as part of Syria: [178] same edit as JJg did recently to the article: [179]. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- [180]
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
Topic ban.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Jijutsuguy
Statement by Jijutsuguy
I am currently a bit busy in RL but will respond shortly. Thank you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your indulgence thus far. Real Life obligations have prevented me from responding sooner. Apologies to all for the delay. I am now in the midst of compiling the many diffs necessary to prove my case and rebut these spurious charges. Unfortunately, unlike SupremeD, I didn't have a month to prepare so it will take some time and making matters worse, my computer is acting up thus delaying me further. Accordingly, I ask for a bit more time to set forth my defense. Once again, thank you for your indulgence and patience.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I will address each and every issue point by point but before I do so, what I find astounding is that SD would stalk me so closely as to watch each and every edit I made during the period of his topic ban and not two hrs after his ban is prematurely lifted, he files an AE against me. Some may feel that there is nothing inherently wrong in doing so but let me point to HJ Mitchell’s wording when lifting SD’s ban I've lifted your topic ban and amended WP:ARBPIA to reflect this. In lieu of the remaining month on your topic ban consider this a caution to edit within the letter and the spirit of ARBPIA and all applicable policies and guidelines. Consider it a chance to prove that the topic ban was unnecessary. I suggest that at the very least, this AE violates the spirit of the reprieve if not the letter. Let me also point out that, as indicated by tool server, SD has made more edits to AE than nearly any other editor, nearly 400 posts[182]. This is an astonishing figure when compared to others in the topic area. The instant AE, coming not 2 hrs after the lifting of the ban coupled with the frequency with which this particular editor appears on these boards, both as a respondent and a complainant, evidences a battleground mentality in the extreme.
As for my own actions, I consider myself a content editor who complies with WP policy concerning WP:RS. I’ve made extensive use of article talk pages and attempted to iron out differences at IPCOLL. There is not one example in SDs complaint evidencing edit warring, violation of 1r, gaming or lack of usage of talk pages. I try to edit from an NPOV perspective but I am human and accordingly, I am prone to making mistakes. However, when I do make mistakes I acknowledge them and self revert as will be amply demonstrated below. Unfortunately, the same can not be said for my colleague, SD.
- At Gamla, I removed the Tags but only after addressing the matter at the Talk page and waiting for comment.[183] After receiving none, either con or pro, I removed the Tag.
- Similarly at Tourism in Israel, I removed the Tag but again, only after posting at the article’s Talk page for discussion on the matter[184]. Having received no response, I removed the Tag. I also made another edit to the article but again, only after posting at the article’s talk page and providing sources for the edit.[185]
- At Mount Hermon I made edits that I believe made the article more compliant with NPOV but only did so while making simultaneous commentary on the article’s Talk pages, providing sources including those from National Geographic and Popular Mechanics to buttress support for the edits.[186] Please also note this comment from me indicating a desire for collaborative editing I'd like to hear from others on the subject. In the interest of collaborative editing, I'm perfectly willing to self-revert if consensus establishes otherwise and these [187][188] One can not deny that I made extensive use of talk pages and I received support from other editors as noted at the article’s discussion page.
- At Yom Kippur War, I contributed massively to this article and improved it by adding content and resolving many disputes at the Talk pages, receiving accolades from editors from across the spectrum. [189] [190][191] [192] [193] By contrast, SD’s edits there were singularly focused, nay obsessed on establishing Syria’s claims to the Golan Heights. There is nothing per se wrong with that but in conjunction with his other edits, portrays an editor who is an edit warring SPA.
- Six Day War. Here I acknowledge my error but as usual, SD tells only half the story. Another editor alerted me to my problematic edit and I immediately acknowledged that I was in error[[194]. He also conveniently omits the fact that I self-reverted edits that the same editor saw as POV pushing.[195][196] As I stated earlier, I am human and try as I might to avoid them, I make mistakes. The mark of a good editor is one who acknowledges mistakes and tries to learn from them so that he or she can become a better editor. My actions in this circumstance speak for themselves. I immediately acknowledged my mistake and self reverted edits that another editor believed (rightly so) violated NPOV. The other editor subsequently thanked me for my conciliatory responses and remedial actions.[197] Another editor who observed the exchange, praised us both for the amicable way in which the matter was resolved.[198] I should also note that my work on the Six Day War article earned me recognition from my peers[199]
- 2006 Lebanon War Concerning my use of the word “troll” in connection with an IP hopping editor from Georgia, again SD tells only half the story. The IP in this case began making contentious edits to the article’s infobox without use of the article’s talk pages, despite being told to do so by another editor.[200] Not only did the IP fail to engage on Talk, he actually began editing from a different IP leading Ed Johnson to place the article under Semi Protection with the following comment in the edit summary Changed protection level of 2006 Lebanon War: Violation of the 1RR restriction by an IP-hopping editor from Georgia As for my edit reflecting the situs of the conflict to Northern Israel,[201] that is precisely the way major news outlets reported it. See for example, VOA Rockets hit Northern Israel Canada.com Dozens of Hezbollah rockets hit northern Israel and MSNBC Rockets knock down a three-story house in northern Israel. I think that it was a reasonable edit considering that that's the way it was reported internationally.
- Golan Heights Here I introduced a map that I thought was better because it shades and highlights the region in question so that the reader can get a better viewing of the disputed area. My edit was accompanied by the following edit summaryBetter map though if anyone thinks the previous is better, pls note so at talk and I'll self revert. Thanks The edit summary speaks for itself and my reasoning for making the edit was sound. I should also point out that Sol Goldstone, a user who sided with SupremeD on the map issue and made this edit[202] in connection with the map issue has just been indefinitely blocked, in part for abusing multiple accounts[203] It is interesting to note that the last person to leave a comment on Sol Goldstone's Talk page (just prior to his block) was SupremeD with the message Come back
Now let us examine SupremeD’s edits just coming off the topic ban. He makes 8 edits to the Golan Heights in rapid succession including the reversion of these two which include the views of United States Presidents[204][205] and then, like a coiled spring, he jumps in immediately with an AE against me. This coupled with his propensity to frequently appear on these boards, either as a respondent or complainant and the fact that he’s made nearly 400 posts to AE, evidence battleground mentality. I think I have explained my position clearly enough. If I inadvertently left anything out or overlooked something, please inform me of same and I will gladly offer explanation and include whatever diffs are necessary. Thank you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the detailed statement. Could you please amend it to include the dates Supreme Deliciousness uses in their request so that the request and your statement can be more easily compared? And could you please also respond to my concern that your 18 Feb edit to Six Day War attributed statements to the source cited there (Finkelstein, 2003) that the source may not actually support - for instance, by quoting the text from the source that does support your changes? Sandstein 08:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Jijutsuguy
I think this request is too long. I won't read it before it is made concise. - BorisG (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is at an appropriate level of detail in my opinion. Because you are not an administrator, there is in my opinion little need for you to read complicated AE requests, in any event, given that you cannot act on them. Sandstein 23:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sandstein you yourself stated that some diffs reflect normal content disputes. Why not ask SD to limit their claim to those diffs that specifically violate the sanction? Would makes life easier for community and admins alike. - BorisG (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- True, but discretionary sanctions cover every possible misconduct, so a certain variance in interpretation is to be expected. Sandstein 08:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sandstein you yourself stated that some diffs reflect normal content disputes. Why not ask SD to limit their claim to those diffs that specifically violate the sanction? Would makes life easier for community and admins alike. - BorisG (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note to Admins
- SD's 2nd ARBPIA topic ban[206] just ended a few hours ago[207] - a month early for good behavior[208]. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡ 20:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- How is this relevant with respect to this request, which does not concern the editing of Supreme Deliciousness? Sandstein 23:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
All problems that give rise to a topic ban originate from one basic shortcoming -- the inability to edit collaboratively with fellow editors. AE report-filing is not something that collaborative editors typically undertake, so when editor files and AE report within a few edits of being released from a topic ban that editor has apparently learned little from being placed on the topic ban.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I am concerned, making AE requests is only a problem if the requests are wholly or mostly meritless. We'll see whether that's the case here. Sandstein 08:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning Jijutsuguy
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
This request may be closed if it is not amended to cite the specific sanction or remedy believed to be violated. Sandstein 20:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm awaiting a statement by Jijutsuguy. At first glance, though, the request seems to have merit. With respect to some of the edits it is not clear how they reflect more than a content dispute, but several may reflect sanctionable conduct both individually and as a whole. I invite Jijutsuguy to address, in particular, the edits of 3 Feb (misleading edit summary); 7 and 15 Feb (WP:NPOV); 18 Feb (NPOV and possible source misrepresentation: does "squatters and trespassers" and "guerilla attacks and acts of sabotage" appear in the cited source?); and 20-23 Feb (WP:NPA).
- I also invite Jijutsuguy to address what I perceive, based on the submitted evidence, as a lack of communication with respect to several of the edits cited (lack of talk page communication or informative edit summaries), and as tendentious editing (that is, an overall pattern of editing Wikipedia so as to systematically advance a particular partisan point of view rather than a neutral point of view). Sandstein 23:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
The Sham
Blocked for 24 hours and warned. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning The Sham
Discussion concerning The ShamStatement by The ShamComments by others about the request concerning The ShamResult concerning The Sham
This request may be closed if it is not amended to cite the specific sanction or remedy believed to be violated. Sandstein 20:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
|
Supreme Deliciousness
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Supreme Deliciousness
- User requesting enforcement
- Cptnono (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles (expanded per request) Namely the principles of the final decision (see 4.1):
- "Purpose of Wikipedia" "Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for... advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts,... and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited." That is exactly what SD has done.
- "Decorum": "Unseemly conduct, such as ... gaming the system, is prohibited." I think SD has been treating Wikipedia like a game. Spending his time collecting diffs on JG during his ban shows that we should have little faith that the ban served its intended purpose. It is counter to what any one would consider appropriate decorum in such a contentious topic area.
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Editor was topic banned for two months based on this AE request concerning gaming and reverting. It was lifted after only 1 month.[214]
Problematic behavior began immediately.
- Within 3 hours, [215]: Placed the Arabic translation in an article before the Hebrew. Do we really want an editor who does that in the topic area? This has surprisingly been an issue and it seems petty.
- Within 2 hours, [216]: Opened up an AE against an editor he has long had differences with. It is clear that instead of using the time topic banned to improve his editing, he waited until he was not topic banned to continue battlefield behavior.
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- "...In lieu of the remaining month on your topic ban consider this a caution to edit within the letter and the spirit of ARBPIA and all applicable policies and guidelines. Consider it a chance to prove that the topic ban was unnecessary." (HJ Mitchell)
- Two topic bans and a 1/rr block based on actions in the topic area.[217]
- Enforcement action requested
Resumption of topic ban
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Caution all you want, Sandstein. If you do not see a problem with coming off a ban early just to start the same behavior that caused the ban in the first place then you are simply wrong. Sandstein usually stays pretty level headed so I don't want to be a jerk about it but I for one disagree with you completely. If it was only those two edits it would not be worthy of notice but months of this behavior is. But I guess we will see. I got a wikibet on it that he will be back here (deservedly) within 6 months and banned again. I would love it if he proved me wrong but so far he has only proved me right. I will try not to say "I told you so" if it happens.Cptnono (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
But feel free to close this out. The unbanning admin has expressed the concerns perfectly and maybe that will be enough of a reminder. (User talk:HJ Mitchell#Supreme Deliciousness.Cptnono (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Supreme Deliciousness
Statement by Supreme Deliciousness
I made a post at the Golan heights talkpage about my edit [219]. Two users had recently changed the position of the placement, putting the Hebrew translation before the Arabic in a place internationally recognized as in Syria, neither had explained this change.[220][221]. So I reverted this and explained the change, Syria's official language is Arabic.
The enforcement I filed above against user Jiujitsuguy is a 100% legitimate enforcement request against a user who is constantly violating npov and his other disruptive behavior. There is no "battlefield behavior" about opening a legitimate enforcement request. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Reply to AGK: The position was changed before by Chesdovi, and I then also had opened up a discussion explaining why Arabic should be first: [222]. Chesdovi did not reply to me. Now Chesdovi just came back and reverted it again without saying anything.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Important note for reviewing admins: Both Cptnano and Nsaum75 edit Wikipedia articles according to the same pov as Jiujitsuguy. They usually show up to the same articles, same edits, show up to the same enforcements, either defending the same editors are wanting the same editors topic banned. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Supreme Deliciousness
- Q: "Plac[ing] the Arabic translation in an article before the Hebrew […] has surprisingly been an issue" - could we have some diffs as evidence of this, please? AGK [•] 21:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- I will see what I can pull up. For the Golan Heights, his edit summary was "Restore unexplained changes of translation" so restore means that he obviously reverted someone. Maybe he should have opened up the discussion and waited instead of reverting, no? SD has expressed concerns over translations in a manner that I feel shows that there is a battlefield and POV issue. For example, Falafel. Note that we got it to GA just the other day! I will find some more but it has been over multiple articles so my recollection is not perfect.Cptnono (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hummus Again, is this the sort of thing we need or want in the topic area? A crusade against Hebrew translations is really nothing more than rocking the boat in a nationalistic effort.Cptnono (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have previously opened up discussion about the translation when Chesdovi changed it, and he did not reply then, and now he did the same thing again.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Both Falafel and Hummus are Arabic words so they're translation are the only one that are relevant, there has been several discussions at the talkpage where I participated, see also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English): "The native spelling of a name should generally be included in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the Anglicization isn't identical."--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- I have previously opened up discussion about the translation when Chesdovi changed it, and he did not reply then, and now he did the same thing again.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Q: I am assuming that this complaint is filed under the "Discretionary sanctions" remedy of the P/I arbitration case? At present, only the case page is linked to, but we need a specific remedy to proceed; Cptnono, could you please edit the complaint information and be more specific? AGK [•] 21:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment
A number of articles mentioned above (including the Golan Heights article) have been battlefields with nationalist "nit-picking", "prodding" and claims of "pov pushing" over things like translation order or where photos were taken. If you look at the history of them during SD's topic ban, however, they have been stable and this AE enforcement board has been relatively quiet in regards to ARBPIA filings. During his ban the article on Falafel, which is under ARBPIA 1rr restrictions due in part to political editing that SD had a hand in, also reached GA status with the input of several editors and an admin, Malik Shabazz. I would ask that this be taken into consideration. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡ 21:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Like me opening up discussions at the Golan Heights talkpage and explaining my edits with no reply, and then later the same editors come along and just revert everything without explaining they're reverts, is that "stable" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- WP is not a battle ground. I'm not commenting on the "correctness" of their edits, but rather your continued battlefield behavior (as partly evident in your immediate ARBPIA AE filing against other editors almost immediately after your own ban was lifted for good behavior) and your continued failure to recognize your own battlefield behavior (as you mentioned above, when saying there is nothign battlefield about opening an AE proceeding). -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡ 22:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Correct, filing a legitimate enforcement request against a user who is constantly violating npov and his other disruptive behavior is not battlefield behavior. Its filing a legitimate enforcement request.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC) --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sigh...[223] -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡ 23:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't know that I shouldn't have filed an enforcement request after a topic ban ended. It came out wrong. It wont happen again. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yet you added this immediately before apologizing to Mitchell for battlefield behavior. The best approach to making changes to the articles would have been to ease back into editing, not a barrage of changes and AE filings. This is not the first time an admin has cited you for battlefield behavior, and eluding to the belief that certain editors should be disregarded because you believe they follow a certain POV or edit style, is not helpful or constructive. If I were in your shoes, I would sit back for a bit and chill out. Its not always necessary to have the last word. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡ 23:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- I believe its important to know where the accusations are coming from, Cptnono wanting me topic banned because I followed WP guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and you saying Golan Heights was "stable" without me. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yet you added this immediately before apologizing to Mitchell for battlefield behavior. The best approach to making changes to the articles would have been to ease back into editing, not a barrage of changes and AE filings. This is not the first time an admin has cited you for battlefield behavior, and eluding to the belief that certain editors should be disregarded because you believe they follow a certain POV or edit style, is not helpful or constructive. If I were in your shoes, I would sit back for a bit and chill out. Its not always necessary to have the last word. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡ 23:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't know that I shouldn't have filed an enforcement request after a topic ban ended. It came out wrong. It wont happen again. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sigh...[223] -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡ 23:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Correct, filing a legitimate enforcement request against a user who is constantly violating npov and his other disruptive behavior is not battlefield behavior. Its filing a legitimate enforcement request.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC) --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- WP is not a battle ground. I'm not commenting on the "correctness" of their edits, but rather your continued battlefield behavior (as partly evident in your immediate ARBPIA AE filing against other editors almost immediately after your own ban was lifted for good behavior) and your continued failure to recognize your own battlefield behavior (as you mentioned above, when saying there is nothign battlefield about opening an AE proceeding). -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡ 22:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Jiujitsuguy
In addition to what Chesdovi noted below, I have some things to say on this for obvious reasons. I will not comment on the AE that SD filed against me but I will comment on some of the edits he’s made after receiving the Wikipedian equivalent of parole from his Topic Ban. Less than 2 hours later, he began making edits to the Golan Heights and subsequently made a series of edits in rapid succession including these two blanket reversions of the views of United States Presidents and US foreign policy. [224][225] Also these problematic edits by SD have yet to be addressed. Reversion of sourced material without the use of edit summaries [226][227] [228] He has also engaged in an editing pattern that is dismissive of Jewish or Israeli viewpoints and often attempts to downgrade the Jewish nexus with Israel.
- Dismisses views of editors deemed “pro Israel”[229]
- Unilaterally changes name of Jerusalem International Airport[230]
- Labels noted historian as “Jew”[231]. This diff speaks a volume and demonstrates that the user approach has never changed. Exactly as in the differences I provided above the user dismisses a view Jewish administrator and Jewish editors the same here. The user adds "Jewish" to the name of historian to demonstrate that this fact alone makes him not trustworthy because I see no other reason for that edit.
- Removes all historical Jewish connections to the city of Gamla[232]
- Rejects the opinion of a closing admin because he’s considers Jews not neutral[233]
Supreme Deliciousness has on at least five (3) occasions used pejoratives to refer to members of the Jewish faith, describing them as “thieves.”[234][235][236] The last three diffs are older and are used here for demonstrative purposes to show that SD displays an extreme bias and an obsessive animus toward Israel and members of the Jewish faith. He has yet to offer a retraction for making those obscene comments despite being challenged and given opportunity to do so. This is clearly someone who should not be editing in the topic area.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Chesdovi
[237], [238], [239], [240], [241], [242]. Chesdovi (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning Supreme Deliciousness
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- It is claimed that Supreme Deliciousness' change to the translation was a revert. I can't find any record of the translation previously being changed. And, I see that he immediately opened talk page discussion of his change. I do not see a wider pattern of disruption here, nor any problems with general conduct on this article; if there is one, we will need evidencing diffs, Cptnono. AGK [•] 21:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC
- I agree with AGK. The Arabic edit, on its own, does not demonstrate disruption. Nor does making an AE request that is, at the least, not evidently meritless (see my comment in that respect above). Without objection, I propose to close this request as not actionable. I would also caution Cptnono not to make unsubstantiated AE requests, and Supreme Deliciousness not to make wide-ranging (and unnecessary) accusations about others without proof, as he did in his statement. Sandstein 00:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Validuz
Blocked for 24 hours and warned. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Validuz
Discussion concerning ValiduzStatement by ValiduzI corrected and continue to correct blatant POV errors in the opening statement of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_Jewish_control_of_the_media where the term "antisemitic canard" was used as opinion, but stated as a fact. It's a blatant disregard for the most basic neutrality of information. Neutrality is one the "five pillars" of Wikipedia, yes? Besides that, I wasn't aware of the "one revert per day" rule until be notified on my talk page, but I don't know why/how that applies to someone intentionally inserting their opinion into an article and me correcting it. Why is the default/standard for the opening statement contain a personal opinion in the first place? It's so obviously biased/skewed. Validuz (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Validuz
Result concerning Validuz
This is a clear breach of 1RR. In fact there have been multiple reverts over the same text over the past 24 and 48 hours despite warnings and information about 1RR. Just so you know, Validuz, there is absolutely no dispensation in these rules for NPOV, however justified you feel about it. As a result, I will be blocking Validuz for 24 hours, and also giving you the formal warning about Israel-Palestine sanctions. I see that you are a new editor here. Please take this time to look very carefully our policies about dispute resolution, particularly in controversial areas such as this. --Slp1 (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
|