Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
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}}.
|
Kolya Butternut
Kolya Butternut is reminded to be more mindful of the boundaries of their TBAN. SPECIFICO is warned to be more careful in their use of gender pronouns, and to avoid the use of object pronouns for human beings. No further action at this time; if anyone wishes to file a broader AE request looking at the general conduct of either user, they are free to do so. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Kolya Butternut
American Politics Gender-related controversies
Editing of Biographies of Living Persons
This editor has recently begun to disregard their The following interaction with Wugapodes on his talk page may be illustrative of the sealioning and misappropriation of various policies and guidelines. Vanamonde93 Thank you for pointing out my oversight and misstatement as to the scope of KB's TBAN. I have inserted partial in all instances. In this diff KB deleted article text explicitly related to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's presidential campaign, so that edit is a clear violation of the limited TBAN. Admins might not consider each one of the cited 14 edits a violation, however in light of the wording of the TBAN -- relating to pages -- and given that 2020 Presidential candidate Gillibrand was the prime mover for Franken's resignation, and further in light of the gender-related issues with Biden and Trump, I would personally think these edits do fall within the scope. I can see that Admins might interpret it more narrowly, and I apologize for my imprecision and possibly erroneous interpretation in filing this case. SPECIFICO talk 22:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC) I have stricken the two instances of "it" and replaced them with "they". There's a brief discussion of this on my user talk page. I have made a point of referring to them as KB, acknowledging that to my knowledge KB has not disclosed a gender preference. KB, please accept my changes and apology for the instances you pointed out. SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC) To help get closure on this, I'm going to ping the editors who were involved in retrospective discussion at the bottom of the Anne Frank talk page I linked. This should clarify whether I've misinterpreted KBs behavior at that and the other linked gender-related evidence. @Guy Macon, JzG, Cassianto, and LokiTheLiar:. I presume the Admins here have read the entire page. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Kolya ButternutStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Kolya ButternutSPECIFICO just referred to me as "it"...twice, and cites a sanction I don't have. I hope I'm not being baited into an IBAN, I don't need that. This comes immediately after I invited him[1] to discuss his desired changes after he had fought so hard to reverse the ONUS onto me, as observed by El C. Now that I started editing Al Franken, SPECIFICO reverted my clearly neutral edits and does not appear to want to discuss them with me.[2] There are many more false statements I'll need time to look at, but please understand that everything I have done is in good faith, and I believe you can see from Talk:Aziz Ansari that I have tried very hard to do better to avoid unnecessary arguing, even if I didn't always succeed. Everything before my sanction has already been discussed in the past; I am trying to move on. I do see that my last edit to Talk:Joe Biden was actually on May 25th.[3] Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC) I see the Gillibrand text I had removed:
My comment about DeJoy in response to MelanieN is about his campaign contributions to Republicans in general, again, maybe I should have been paying closer attention. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC) @Floquenbeam: I assume he called me "it" because of how I identified myself in my old user page,[9] and because I edit trans and gender articles. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC) SPECIFICO typically calls me "she".[10] and "her" in his diff description #8 just above. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC) SPECIFICO saw Levivich call me "they".[11] Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC) I don't have an IBAN. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC) I've already said this to SPECIFICO: 1&2 addressed. 3&4. As Newimpartial saw at Talk:Anne Frank, editors were repeatedly making false statements and misrepresenting my arguments. No evidence of "95" comments. My RfC !vote and comment.[13]Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Apology.[14] Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Editors and admin present at Talk:Anne Frank who may offer insight into Talk:Anne Frank#Unwatching this page are Bondegezou and Swarm. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC) 5. Ask El C about the conflict at Aziz Ansari where SPECIFICO would not respect ONUS.[15][16] At WP:V I was asking for ONUS interpretation; Masem stated that my reverts were proper.[17] SPECIFICO has been making POV non-V edits with false edit summaries, as I showed.[18] Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC) 6,7,8,9, These were before my sanction; do I have to defend myself still? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC) clarify. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC) I feel that it is SPECIFICO who is violating the gender-related sanctions,[19] as witnessed by Wikieditor19920,Bilorv Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Same behavior that SlimVirgin witnessed.[20] Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC) SPECIFICO's logged warning violation.[21] Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC) In 2018, SPECIFICO was told never to refer to any editor as "it", and he responded, that "it" This July he was asked to please stop misgendering people.[23] SPECIFICO is routinely referred to by "they", as by several people in his AE case brought by Ergo Sum this year,[24] and he has been called "they" no doubt for years since adding a w/e pronoun infobox to his userpage in 2013.[25] SPECIFICO is so familiar with gender topics that he participated in a Sexology arbitration request about "TERFs" in 2014[26] , and also in 2014 participated in a discussion at the WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force where other editors discussed using WP:Xe, s/he, and Template:Gender-neutral as gender neutral pronouns for editors.[27] There is no reasonable doubt that SPECIFICO is very, very well aware that "they" is the standard pronoun for people of unknown gender. When he called me "it" here he was bullying me to provoke a reaction (perhaps to get me to waste my word count), and when he feigned ignorance at his talk page he was violating WP:CIVILITY 2. (d) lying, which I dare to say he regularly does (just read Talk:Aziz Ansari to observe the master manipulation). Is there such thing as a "net positive" editor we can't trust? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC) SPECIFICO's AE warning to follow WP behavioral standards.[28] Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC) One of SPECIFICO's ANI warnings: I would like to see an indef topic ban from sex and gender topics specifically for lying/dishonesty. The misgendering personal attacks towards editors and the misogyny towards women who make sexual misconduct allegations are the influencing factors, but the most toxic behavior to the community is the lying and manipulation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Statement by BilorvI'm busy in real life so I'm speaking perhaps more off-the-cuff than I normally would, but I am concerned to see this request. I've been pinged by KB, so take note of my POV, but I am a fan of and long-time lurker at Aziz Ansari, which this is about. Here is my perspective: around 24 August, SPECIFICO begins making rapid edits relating to Aziz Ansari, a topic they seem to be relatively unfamiliar with (not an insult, not necessarily an issue—I've edited lots of topics I know little about). Specifically, a woman (Grace) described a date with Ansari in which (both he and she agree) he acted aggressively and sexually towards her in a way that made her deeply uncomfortable. The way that I felt reading SPECIFICO's comments and edits is that they present Grace as a malicious actor, emotional woman or person who should be entirely ignored. For instance, this comment: I left the discussion almost immediately, realising it to be not productive to engage in a conflict which would drain me of energy. KB is the only user who has engaged in the discussion in a comparable level to SPECIFICO. If I were to be uncharitable then I would view SPECIFICO's actions as specifically intended to Gish gallop until all other users had been driven away, and this enforcement action as part of that behaviour. If I were to be charitable then I would view SPECIFICO's actions as a good-faith attempt to improve Aziz Ansari based on a reading of reliable sources that I disagree with, due to our different personal opinions and beliefs; I am happy to recognise mine but I don't know if SPECIFICO has commented on theirs. Either way, there is nothing here that KB has violated but people independent of the situation (not me) should evaluate whether SPECIFICO's use of the pronoun "it", filing of a non-actionable request and behaviour at Talk:Aziz Ansari has been made in good faith. — Bilorv (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC) Statement by Guy Macon(Responding because I was pinged.) At Talk:Anne Frank#Unwatching this page I wrote:
As I predicted, it is now at Arbcom, and I am pointing out that I withdrew from the discussion. Much of this request concerns current US politics, which I refuse to have anything to do with. If any Arb thinks that the part about Anne Frank is actionable, I can comment, but it seems to me that that particular content dispute was settled by RfC and that the page has been stable and NPOV ever since. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Statement by BondegezouAs I was pinged... I have only, as far as I remember, interacted with KB on the Anne Frank article and Talk page. Discussion there has got heated at times, but I saw nothing that warranted any action being taken against KB. Bondegezou (talk) 10:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Kolya Butternut
|
Alexiod Palaiologos
User is blocked per WP:SOCK and per WP:NOTHERE as a normal admin action by User:Guerillero. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Alexiod Palaiologos
The claim in 2020 United States racial unrest that 30 people have died during the George Floyd protest, and 40 people in total have died is unreferenced, so I removed one claim and tagged the other in this edit, explained on the talk page, both the edit summary and the talk page post explicity mentioning WP:BURDEN. Following an unjustified reversion by another editor in violation of WP:BURDEN, I amended the George Floyd total to a referenced figure here. They ignored this and reverted, can be seen above at diff dated 07:02, 14 September 2020. At Talk:2020 United States racial unrest#Unreferenced breakdown of deaths removed they constantly refuse to provide references while continuing to edit war their unreferenced total into the article. Objections to the total have been made by @Aquillion: here, @Slatersteven: here, @Dlthewave: here and here. We never get any references, instead we get directed to other articles (where the inclusion of certain incidents is disputed to begin with, or told to check references in the article, despite the fact that many references (small sample, others available) don't even mention George Floyd so can't be used to claim those deaths were part of the George Floyd protests, as Aquillion states
Discussion concerning Alexiod PalaiologosStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Alexiod PalaiologosSeems to be just a problem with the death toll. The death toll, of the George Floyd protests, is very clearly listed as 31, in the article Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests. The user in question who is trying to report me, is simply going onto that article, deleting information, then claiming that my edits (on 2020 United States racial unrest) are unsourced, (which they aren't, there is VERY clear sourcing in the article, 2020 United States racial unrest, which gives a complete breakdown of every death]]. The user in question has simply kept on removing my edits, claiming they are unsourced (which they are not, as I explained), and then wants me banned for edit warring? To be honest I am very confused, he seems to not understand that by reverting my edits, he is the one starting an edit war, not me.
Statement by (slatersteven)This has been argued about repeatedly. At issue is whether or not you can add up separate sources to come up with an authoritative figure for an ongoing event. I do not believe this is complaint with either wp:or or wp:notnews.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Note this also applies to deciding to add deaths that RS do not say are part of the protests.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Socking at an AE should be an indef.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC) Statement by DlthewaveIn my opinion, the problem is more about how this editor handles conflict in general than the WP:OR issue itself. I've interacted with Alexiod Palaiologos several times over the past few days in the 2020 protests topic area and their responses to legitimate concerns often devolve into personal attacks. In the death toll discussion mentioned above (permalink), they refuse to engage with the argument that we can't do our own calculations to arrive at the total. Instead, they state with apparently increasing frustration that "the citations are there" (none of the citations mention a total of 31) along with a personal attack Just before this disagreement, I had warned them about uncivil comments at Talk:Kenosha protests. A few examples:
Taken as a whole, we're looking at a pattern of refusal to engage in collaborative discussion along with a massive failure to assume good faith. This editor continues to demonstrate an inability to work with others in this topic area after multiple warnings. –dlthewave ☎ 17:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@Alexiod Palaiologos: You've mistaken someone else's suggestion for mine; I was not the one who proposed the map nor have I voiced an opinion on it. Regardless, if you think that invoking Nazi Germany is in any way useful here, I rest my case. –dlthewave ☎ 21:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (Fredericus Rex mein konig und herr)
Result concerning Alexiod Palaiologos
|
Albertaont
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Albertaont
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Albertaont (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 16:07, 14 September 2020 Restored death removed here clearly stating
unreferenced as anything to do with George Floyd protests
. The reference provided makes no mention of Black Lives Matter, George Floyd or racial unrest. I mean, seriously, is every single death in America fair game for being classed as being part of a George Floyd protest? - 06:37, 14 September 2020 Amends total from 19 to 23 at George Floyd protests, using references that don't mention George Floyd specifically this, this, this, and this
- 22:17, 13 September 2020 Restores unreferenced figure of 30 people killed during George Floyd protests despite it being specifically removed mentioning WP:BURDEN
- 02:51, 5 September 2020 Adds the death of Michael Reinoehl to the table at Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests. While a case could be made (by references of course) that the person he allegedly killed was during a George Floyd protest, Michael Reinoehl's subsequent shooting by police wasn't during a George Floyd protest
- 02:47, 5 September 2020 As diff above, only adding Michael Reinoehl to the article text. The reference makes no mention of George Floyd.
- 16:19, 1 September 2020 Restores information previously removed. The killing of Rayshard Brooks is a separate event to the killing of George Floyd, the references provided make no mention of George Floyd, they do however say
The fatal shooting occurred across the street from the Wendy's where Rayshard Brooks was killed by an Atlanta police officer last month
- 17:39, 31 August 2020 Reverts to include an unreferenced total of 30 deaths at George Floyd protests
- 06:25, 29 August 2020 Restores information previously removed, claiming
this article looks at the entirety of fatalities from all BLM protests, as some of the deaths in this article could also be reasonably attributed to outrage over Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery
. Um, no. The article is called Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests, protests relating to the shooting of Jacob Blake are not George Floyd protests. - 05:58, 29 August 2020 Reverts at George Floyd protests saying 30 is the death toll at another article. That would be the Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests article, where they edit war to include incidents of no direct relevance to George Floyd, even ignoring that Wikipedia articles can't be used as references.
- 14:51, 26 August 2020 Unreferenced change of total deaths at George Floyd protests
- 05:55, 29 August 2020 At Talk:George Floyd protests argues content of other articles should be added up to provide a death toll
- 02:47, 31 August 2020 Continues to argue content of other articles should be added up to provide a death toll
- 17:42, 31 August 2020 Continues to argue content of other articles should be added up to provide a death toll. Says I should
challenge any of the . . . additional deaths
. We've already seen what happens when entries are challenged at the other article as not being verifiably related to George Floyd protests, Albertaont reverts!
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Here they said to bring admin
to deal with their persistent violations of policy, which led to me reminding them of content policies here. Their constant attempts to include virtually every single death in America as part of the George Floyd protests are tiresome, and in violation of policy.
- @Slatersteven: the specific problem is the editor consistently adds unreferenced information, or uses references that don't mention George Floyd protests. It is not simply a case of adding together, it's adding apples to organges. FDW777 (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Alexiod Palaiologos: Considering your misrepresentation of references was brought up at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive270#Alexiod Palaiologos, it's probably not a good idea to misrepresent them again. You say
One of the deaths he removed was an incident where a car drove through a protest barricade, and was shot at by protesters
, and refers to this edit. The incident where a car drove through a protest barricade was supposedly referenced by this and this. As I correctly stated in my edit summaryremoved some incidents that did not verifiably occur during a George Floyd protest, the burden of evidence is on anyone restoring them to provide references proving they did
, since the references don't mention George Floyd. The references do however mention Rayshard Brooks, and the killing of Rayshard Brooks is a separate event to the killing of George Floyd. So the death of Secoriea Turner did not occur during a George Floyd protest, but during a Rayshard Brooks protest. FDW777 (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Albertaont
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Albertaont
Statement by (Alexiod Palaiologos)
As far as I can understand, this comes as a case of User:FDW777 refuses to engage in the talk section, and simply deleting random pieces of information in article, without any kind of consensus. One of the deaths he removed was an incident where a car drove through a protest barricade, and was shot at by protesters, yet User:FDW777 claimed it had nothing to do with the protests, which is ridiculous. User:FDW777 fails to assume good faith, and fails to reach any kind of consensus as to why he is removing large pieces of information from an article. So to then want to ban users for reverting information he deleted, is very surprising to me. He also gotten into edit wars with atleast four other users (possibly five, I'm not too sure because the article in question was attacked by vandals which makes it hard to read the history), so it seems his changes are generally not welcome. Suggest administrative action against User:FDW777 instead.
Statement by (slatersteven)
This has been argued about repeatedly. At issue is whether or not you can add up separate sources to come up with an authoritative figure for an ongoing event. I do not believe this is complaint with either wp:or or wp:notnews.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Its still a case of OR, my above still applies.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Result concerning Albertaont
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Springee
Springee has volunteered to limit themselves to 1RR until April 1, 2021, removing any need for formal administrator intervention here in my opinion. ~Awilley (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Springee
User has been repeatedly edit warring on pages subject to discretionary sanctions. Generally these are three reverts in a matter of hours.
As you can see, Springee's modus operandi is to repeatedly revert, but he is careful to avoid breaking the 3RR rule. (He is also aware of 1RR restrictions per this comment from 7 September, but I don't believe any of the pages I linked to fall under that category.) In many of the above cases, there are talk page discussions but they generally involve stone walling and moving the goal post. A recent thread at Carlson's talk page is a good example of the sort of discussion that follows. Springee's opening comment "arguably the material had consensus when you restored it by weight of numbers (2:1) but per ONUS you should have addressed my concerns prior to restoring the text" is illustrative of the problem. Another discussion of note takes place in several sections at talk:Steve Bannon.
Discussion concerning SpringeeStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SpringeeI agree, the multiple reverts is not the best thing. But there is another issue that was recently discussed by others here [[47]], namely that there is often a problem when a number of editors show up on both sides of a debate and then fail to follow policies like NOCON, ONUS etc. For the most part this wouldn't be an issue if both sides were more willing to be patient, talk first, get consensus, then restore (or not). Restoring disputed content while no consensus exists at the talk page is just asking for edit warring. Calidum failed in this regard when they restored disputed Tucker Carlson material earlier today.[[48]]. As mentioned above, Calidum restored disputed Tucker Carlson text earlier today. That material was added on 27 Aug. I reverted with a comment explaining my revert. Another editor restored, another reverted. At that point I opened a talk page discussion [[49]]. With the talk page discussion open I would have hoped that we could have reached a consensus on the talk page before anyone would restore the text. However, a few editors who were not initially talk page participants restored the material. Several editors including myself reverted the additions per NOCONSENSUS and ONUS. Since the discussion was active no editors should have restored the material until some sort of consensus/compromise was reached. I only made additional reverts of the disputed content when editors ignored the discussion and it's lack of consensus. That is specifically what triggered the 3 reverts today including one by Calidum who made it clear they were aware of the discussion via their comment here [[50]] made at the same time as their restoration. At Turning Point USA three editors including myself opposed the edits made by a single editor. The disputed edit was made on 11 Sept, reverted, restored, reverted, restored, then I reverted the disputed material (my first revert). The same editor then added a tag which I disputed and removed. It was restored, again by the same editor, I removed it again. Calidum restored the disputed tag (another editor reverted it later). Nothing after the first revert should have been on the article page as the editor who reverted the disputed edit started a talk page discussion. I think Calidum's concern would have more merit if they also chastised the other editor for failing to follow BRD/restoring disputed content 3 times after it was initially reverted. While the edit warring was an issue, I also felt there was clear space for a compromise options so I opened a discussion to try to work out the article lead disagreements on the talk page vs via back and forth edits.[[51]]
Replies Nomoskedasticity is failing to mention they are involved with me via a recent content dispute with a large number of editors on both sides. Calidum's update with a quote of mine needs context[[53]]. New material was added, I reverted. A second editor just reverted rather than going to the talk page. My comment about 2:1 is when adding new content I don't see 2:1 is a true consensus. All else equal, I see consensus at super-majority (ie, over 2/3rd). I also see long standing as something like a slight consensus in favor of the stable version. Thus 2:1 for a change is not quite consensus in my view (I've expressed this in the past) but I'm sure my view is not universal. Drmies, I agree it was not ideal and I have to admit, and I hate to be admonished by you because I've found you generally fair. Thus if I'm getting admonished by you that means I probably did screw up. However, I would hope you can see the issue with the involved editor who restored the disputed content twice, back to back despite being involved with the talk page discussion as well as Calidum restoring it even though they were aware of the talk page discussion. As I've said, if more editors would follow BRD I think we would have more collaboration even on pages where there is a disagreement. Springee (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Proposal Since the question seems to come down to reverting too much, I will suggest a self imposed 1RR restriction on all AP2 topics until after the election. Hopefully that will address concerns with regards to my editing. With this I would ask that admins not impose 1RR on any of the other involved editors, only to nudged them to please follow BRD when consensus is not agreed upon on the talk page. Springee (talk) 02:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Statement by DrmiesI saw the Tucker C. stuff go by yesterday and was wondering if that was a matter for ARE--well, here we are. That flurry of reverts on Springee's part was bad. CRYBLP does not help there. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (slatersteven)This has been argued about repeatedly. I note that "7) Edit warring is detrimental to the editing environment as it disrupts articles and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring." of the DS seems to means that 4rr over any time period is edit warring. I count 4 reverts at Tucker Carlson starting 1/9/2020 (3 in one day).Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Statement by AtsmeI'm not surprised that those who want to add negative material to a BLP would file a complaint against an editor who prevents it because it is noncompliant with policy. From my perspective in evaluating the diffs:
That's all I have to say at this point in time. I hope this complaint doesn't waste too much of our admin's valuable time Atsme Talk 📧 18:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Statement by NomoskedasticitySpringee's MO, evident over an extended period, amounts to a significant impediment to efforts to develop our encyclopedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Statement by AquillionRegarding WP:ONUS, a quick nose-count in the section discussing the topic from the most recent round of reverts (all comments in that section that I can see, are from before when the most recent round of reverts took place) shows editors supporting adding the contested material by a roughly two-to-one majority, something Springee was aware of and conceded in their comment linked above. Obviously consensus isn't a vote, but it shouldn't be about total intransigence, either, especially when discussions are so lopsided - those numbers would be a reason to slow down and not aggressively revert-war against inclusion. ONUS doesn't, after all, mean "every contested addition requires an RFC", nor does consensus require unanimity. And, more importantly, believing that consensus is on your side - or refusing to accept an emerging consensus you disagree with, in this case - is, of course, not a valid reason to edit-war. Also, I am not understanding what Springee meant by admitting there was a 2:1 majority against them but insisting that their objections had to be answered - this is not what WP:ONUS says at all. Obviously discussion is good, but if there's a consensus against your position then your arguments have been rejected; insisting people continue to answer them is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT / WP:STONEWALLING. --Aquillion (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Statement by ShinealittlelightI agree with what Atsme said. Springee was making a good faith effort to observe WP:ONUS and work on the talk page for consensus. It's true that he tends to hold a minority opinion on these topics, but he has been pretty effective at adversarial collaboration, as I think you can see here, for example. So I think it's not true that he has generally been obstructive, and he has made a real contribution to the project. Also, it's worth noting as well that these are extremely contentious articles, and that means it's not easy--and can be quite frustrating--to work on them, especially from the position of the minority viewpoint, and I think he keeps his cool and makes reasonable proposals. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Statement by Objective3000There’s been a dose of harassment and PAs also. On the Andy Ngo article, I asked a simple question: I decided not to take this to AN/I and let it die. But, there does seem to be a general pattern of bludgeoning to prevent negative material from articles about those on the political right, the three in the filing and Andy Ngo. O3000 (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Statement by PackMecEng@Drmies: The cry BLP argument is kind of lame given the discussion has pretty determined at this point it was a BLP issue since what was writen does not match the sources. I am curious why you did not mention the harassment Springee has received at the article, specifically stuff like this. Which is far from okay but no one really seemed to mind. You can find similar stories at all the articles listed. Things like accusations of whitewashing, stone walling, and just general failure to assume good faith. Then if you look at the edits he is reverting, generally amounting to news of the day being inserted with no context and largely undue to all those BLPs. From what I can tell they are largely legitimate reverts. PackMecEng (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC) @Drmies: I suppose that is the problem. You admittedly do not follow what is happening at these pages but then decide you know enough to comment with vague accusations. As you would say, it reminds me of someone on Twitter ranting about something they do not understand. That ends up being the problem a lot with pages like that, random indignation about The Truth™ and what Statement by North8000I try to be thorough which is why so far I looked only at the first article/situation listed. IMO the wording in question does not even match the sources (or quote) much less have the strong sourcing required for wp:BLP. Something that came from talk would probably not be as problematic and IMO Springee insisting that it first come from talk is a good thing. In the recent sequence people put it in 3 times and Springee took it out 3 times over a few days. I don't consider "tag teaming" to be an offense, but spreading the same edit addition amongst the three should not make the difference of one side getting in trouble and the other not. Of course the same edit in and out so many times without it coming from talk is not a good thing. North8000 (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Springee
|
FDW777
The user who submitted this request has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. ~Awilley (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning FDW777
Discussion concerning FDW777Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by FDW777Diff #1 is removing off-topic information from Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests, with an edit summary of Diff #2 is removing Diff #3 is removing the death of a policeman with a supposed reference that doesn't mention George Floyd. I cannot find one reference that says Tamarris Bohannon was killed during a George Floyd protest. My edit summary said Diff #4 is adding a referenced figure, instead of the unreferenced total of 31 that's obtained by including as many deaths as possible with references that don't mention George Floyd. Diff #5 was removing a lengthy list of belligerents that weren't mentioned in the article text, just like I explained at Talk:2020 United States racial unrest#Infobox 2. I mentioned MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE specifically, which says Diff #6 is amending the George Floyd protests total to a referenced one, instead of the unreferenced one Alexiod Palaiologos is intent on edit warring into multiple articles. The deaths are not Diff #7 is me removing a templated warning and personal attacks ( There's so many inaccuracies in the report it should be seen for what it is, battleground behaviour in retaliation for the report detailing many policy violating edits by Alexiod Palaiologos. FDW777 (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Diff #8 is nothing in particular. Diff #9 claims Statement by power~enwikiThe filer has canvassed a very new account with a grudge against FDW777 [78]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC) Statement by Warlight yahooIn defense of Alexiod Palaiologos, he did not violate any wikipedia guidlines. FDW777 accuses Alexiod Palaiologos of making unreferenced edits. That is flase. The edits made by Alexiod Palaiologos on 2020 United States racial unrest were all referenced by sources on Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests. We discussed this all on Talk:2020 United States racial unrest under FDW777 discussion (Unreferenced breakdown of deaths removed) wherein this has already been settled. FDW777 couldn't prove that the edits by Alexiod Palaiologos were unreferenced on any of the discussions so now he's here trying to ban Alexiod Palaiologos because he couldn't prove his edits were unreferenced. Therefore this complaint is unjustified. Result concerning FDW777
|
Cjbaiget
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Cjbaiget
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Cjbaiget (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 12 March 2020 Example of an incorrect statement at the talk page of the article, see below
- 13 March 2020 After being shown that the above statement is incorrect based on a RS, stated that the source is wrong, see below.
- 18 September 2020 Addition of doubtful material based on a blog
- 18 September 2020 Restoration of the above material
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 16 September 2020 partial block from Talk:New chronology (Fomenko) for personal attacks in the course of discussion of New Chronology
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Ds alert
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Cjbaiget is a user with less than 100 edits at the time of filing this request. All these edits are related to New chronology (Fomenko), which is a fringe pseudoscientific theory. All their edits try to promote the theory, to show that its adepts have academic credentials, and its critics were cited incorrectly and in fact did not claim what the article states they did, or at least that the New chronology is not universally rejected by the academic community, but only by some scholars (this is a very indicative edit). They started by posting wall of texts at the talk page; currently the whole talk page is filled by these walls of texts. Where other users could check them, these walls of texts contained incorrect statements, for example this edit said they believe that Fomenko never claimed that Rome was founded in 1380. In 15 minutes, I was able to provide a reliable secondary source saying Fomenko claimed this [79]. Then they said they believe [80] that the date was taken by the source from Wikipedia. Most of the walls of text remain unanswered, because other users can not be expected to read all of them. Tho days ago, the user was partially blocked by Doug Weller from the talk page for (I believe) this personal attack. Having bludgeoned the talk page, they started to bludgeon the article. When today they added a material added on a blog [81] "to put contrast to some wikipedist's opinion based on a 13 year old publication", I removed the addition citing WP:RS. After they have readded it [82] I felt we need a break from this user, hence we are here.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [83]
Discussion concerning Cjbaiget
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Cjbaiget
Hello all, please excuse my brevity.
I am not directed at promoting Fomenko in any way. This wikipedia article is just the first place I came to learn about it in the first place, about three years ago.
Anyway, and having great interest in the application of Astronomy, Computing, and Mathematics to chronological questions, and after having read almost the whole opus, I became aware of several, blatant mistakes that this article contains from the point of view of these sciences, which I am able to discuss in the talk page, a thing that I tried with my best dedication, but failed to open any rational scientific debate.
As contender says, I have very few contributions, but more in the talk page than in the article, whose structure I have never tried to change.
Beign so few, my only defence are my contributions to both article and talk page, which I beg to be read an placed to scientific and objective examination.
I have been sanctioned two times: the first as a newcomer, I committed the blunder of naming another editor as responsible for deep errors that I understood as lies. The second, yesterday, after a veiled, non-offensive response to a demonstration of contempt to a length and elaborated explanation I tried to make in the talk page to another editor. Please check also.
I'm available at any time to answer about any and every of my conscious words placed in this encyclopedia, on which I log on with my real initials and surname. Cjbaiget (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
About 'incorrect' statement about Rome foundation please understand that both dates can be taken as correct: As Rome (according Fomenko) was founded in 1380, on a *previously existing city*, which of course, had a previous date. Which date refers to "foundation of the city of Rome?", to resolve ambiguity will be necessary a longer explanation which was not going to be welcome in any way. (This same remark was made in the talk page then, but ignored.)
Regarding first concern made by Doug Weller about "the sauce issue": When I reduced Sheikos' claim to singular, I had previously *checked* than he was the only author in his source. When I allowed plural to Martin, I had previously *checked* that he represented the view of two other "dendro-dissidents", as is quite obvious from his article.
Regarding first concern made by Eggishorn: Please don't attribute your perception of my actions to my own *already stated* motivation, clearly expressed in the edit summary: Relevant opinion from an *actual active scientist and archeologist* about the reliability of current dendrochronology, to put contrast to some wikipedist's opinion based on a 13 year old publication on the paragraph above, for which I have tried an amend accordingly.
Btw, Mr Eggishorn has accused me in another thread of "intellectual dishonesty". I have never been accused of any kind of dishonesty by a pseudonym, so I'm not going to answer there. I feel that it IS intellectual dishonesty to grab some cryptic recommendation about valid sources to actually propose from a pseudonym the CENSORSHIP of relevant information to the reader.
About my role in Wikipedia I'm forced to explain that: Negative feelings about my contributions can be traced back to *my very first non anonymous edit* "First Edit".. , which I had to make after having "*anonymously tried*". "not Spain, but Greece". to finally reflect the *previously unknown HISTORICAL FACT to editors* that war *was in Greece, not in Spain* , and that *I had to explain that thoroughly*, so them can be called later "walls of text" *to editor Doug_Weller in the talk page*: ""Simple Explanation"". . and later *this FACT was forced by evidence* to make its path into the article, being my edit immediately obfuscated by him, but retaining the core word: Greece instead of *WRONG* Spain. Talk page testifies also the fact that, after this fact was explained, Doug Weller suggested it could make sense to omit it from the article.
Bwt, what is the difference between a "text wall" and a fruitful scientific debate? Just that the former has remained ignored by some irresponsible editor.
This error had been present for more than 8 years in the article, and several 'serious critiques' outside wikipedia have replicated it. Is only thanks to yours truly, accussed of being some kind of "Fomenko Pusher" now at the stake, that this is not the case anymore. Wikipedia has a responsibility. All errors residing in this article *have been already documented outside wikipedia*, but I was not going to betray this project I still believe by not trying to raise awareness of them at the same time.
This is just the tip of the Iceberg. This article is unmaintained and tries too hard to explain *a parody* of an actual serious research, which can be true or false, but doesn't compare in anyway with what the article draws. I want to insist that, *this is not a controversy regarding historical matters*, but *a controversy regarding scientific matters*. This article needs urgent scientific supervision. My points are already explained in the talk page. This article contradicts several *scientific critiques of topic "New_Chronology:Fomenko"*. I'm not even interested in editing the article, something that I'm trying to do from a sense of scientific duty.
Having said that, I've to call the attention again to *urgent mature scientific supervision* to force *another systematically rejected edition of mine* which irremediably will have to be made in the end, the sooner the better *for Wikipedia*: ""Robert Newton had NOT explained"". Cjbaiget (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Doug Weller
My issue with this edit[84] is not that it is a blog (by an expert however), but that it is written in a way that appears to support Fomenko, or at least a missing 200 years which is, according to the source, used by amateurs to prove that the Roman Empire fell 200 years later than is claimed by mainstream historians and archaeologists. In fact the article specifically states "A common idea about why this should be so is that the Church of Rome added a couple of centuries to its age to gain legitimacy: in other words, a conspiracy of early historians." And "a conspiracy of early historians" links to our article on the Phantom time hypothesis, not a million miles from Fomenko's arguments.
Also, he wrote :"Nowithstanding this, some relevant figures from both the professional and academic archeological circles like Swedish archeology professor from University of Łódź, Martin Rundkvist, claim that "professional dendrochronology is still almost entirely a black-box in-house endeavour, that is, it is still not a great science".[1]" Note the use of the plural in the same edit, "some relevant figures from both the professional and academic circles..." But then Cjbaiget's next edit has the edit summary "Source has a single author and doesn't claim to represent any syndicate of critics, nor has the credentials to do so. Erroneous and misleading use of the plural form amended." It's hard not to immediately wonder why the sauce for the goose isn't good for the gander. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Eggishorn
Coming here due to discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#New_chronology_(Fomenko) and repeating some of what I said there. The Rundkvist quote was presented dishonestly in that Cjbaiget is using a only part of it to say something that is almost the exact opposite of what the original author meant. The full quote from that blog post is: Professional dendrochronology is still almost entirely a black-box in-house endeavour, that is, it is still not great science. Field archaeologists: when you saw your wood samples for dendro, get two samples and send one to the amateur community! They practice open data sharing."
The "black box" Sundkvist objects to isn't scientific quality but data sharing. The rest of the blog post makes this difference even clearer: I mentioned published dendro curves. The rub here is that most dendro data are never published. They are kept as in-house secrets in dendro labs in order for these to be able to sell their services to archaeologists. So when the amateurs challenge the professionals’ opinion, all the latter can reply is “We know we’re right but we can’t show you how we know”. And that is of course an unscientific approach to the issue.
. Cjbaiget used this source to support the idea that an expert in the field is saying dendrochronology is "not science". The very next sentence in the original quoted statement makes it clear that the expert is saying the exact opposite thing. There is no conceivable way that this truncation was accidental -- it was a specific decision of Cjbaiget. This use of a source to say something other than what the source actually says is a violation of, among other things, the WP:NPOV and WP:OR policies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Cjbaiget
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
73.75.115.5
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning 73.75.115.5
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- 73.75.115.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 19 September Commonting on a contributor (me), no on the substance (and making a false statement)
- 19 September Casting aspersions
- 19 September Casting aspersions, making an irrelevant argument
- 19 Septembe Casting aspersions
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 9 September 3 weeks block from Talk:Kyiv
- 31 August 1 month block from Talk:Kyiv, later lifted
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- two AE blocks, see above
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
After being partially blocked by Barkeep from Talk:Kyiv for massive disruption, the user continued disrupting discussions on talk pages, without making relevant argument and instead making comments on the motives of other users, mainly me. This is currently a hot topic now, with a long of strong opinions from both sides, but contributions of this IP are really outstanding in this respect. I have provided only four diffs, mainly related to me, but most of the user's recent contribution are similar. I apologize for coming to AE twice in two days, usually I try to not overburden fellow admins with these issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [85]
Discussion concerning 73.75.115.5
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by 73.75.115.5
My only statement is diff--73.75.115.5 (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- p.s. Upon further thought, I think I will add this: I guess f an admin says
the user continued disrupting discussions on [other] talk pages, without making relevant argument
, it must be true (although my conversation, for instance with Leschnei on Talk:Kyiv (disambiguation), did seem constructive to me (<sarcasm> although probably I shouldn't have done any edits on Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Names and Wikipedia_talk:Lamest_edit_wars#Request_an_edit_on_semi-protected_page, because humor is a touchy subject for many</sarcasm>). When Ymblanter saysand instead making comments on the motives of other users, mainly me
- I guess he means my comments on Talk:Odessa, Talk:Territorial evolution of Russia and Talk:Kievan Rus' - I am sorry Ymblanter that you felt, i.e., that all my all comments were primarily about you (I did not wish to Wikipedia:WIKISTALK you in any way, and if you felt that way - I apologize to you). Looking at the diffs you provided, I do see that I was perhaps went too far in discussing your views/opinions, rather than your edits (and this is certainly not in the spirit of discussing content, and not the contributor, and for that I apologize to you Ymblanter and will strike those out). I also see how my comments might have cast an unfounded aspersions on you - and for that I also apologize, and, again, will strike them out. - pps. I think emotions might have been flying around on many sides after the tumultuous Kyiv/Kiev RM that I initiated couple of months ago, and as a result of those emotions, Ymblanter, you might have inadvertently also cast some unfounded aspersions against me that are blatantly not true (and honestly I wish you did not cast them), specifically I am referring to where you said
stop making assumptions about my motives and views, including my political views.
diff and therefore accused me of casting some aspersions about your political views - I have never said anything about your political views anywhere (because I myself find that totally inappropriate, i.e., everyone is entitled to their own political views and I never look down (or comment) on people for just being democrat/republican etc.). If you have a proof that I discussed your political views anywhere - please provide diffs. Otherwise, please strike those accusations out (I have already stricken my comments that you felt were casting aspersions against you, see diff, diff, diff, diff, because, as I said above, I do not want you Ymblanter to feel that i am wikistalking you or have any animosity whatsoever against you (because i do not)+.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning 73.75.115.5
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.