Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 959: | Line 959: | ||
: Diff/link #12. This section starts with my comments on some edits. No names were mentioned. If, according to MVBW, such posts are not allowed on article's talk pages, what these pages are needed for? Frankly, I don't understand what exactly MVBW wanted to demonstrate by providing this link, because the whole thread tells nothing negative about me: Actually, this particular thread is a clear demonstration of my good faith, becasue instead of reporting MVBW on ANI fro 1RR violation, I just described this incident (without providing any names) on the talk page, thereby giving MVBW a chance to self-revert. What is obvious from the thread is that it tells a lot of negative things about MVBW's own behaviour, and it explains why my reaction was sometimes redundantly emotional. |
: Diff/link #12. This section starts with my comments on some edits. No names were mentioned. If, according to MVBW, such posts are not allowed on article's talk pages, what these pages are needed for? Frankly, I don't understand what exactly MVBW wanted to demonstrate by providing this link, because the whole thread tells nothing negative about me: Actually, this particular thread is a clear demonstration of my good faith, becasue instead of reporting MVBW on ANI fro 1RR violation, I just described this incident (without providing any names) on the talk page, thereby giving MVBW a chance to self-revert. What is obvious from the thread is that it tells a lot of negative things about MVBW's own behaviour, and it explains why my reaction was sometimes redundantly emotional. |
||
:--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 18:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC) |
:--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 18:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC) |
||
Re: "MVBW@The Blade of the Northern Lights" This post contains so many false accusations, that need to |
Re: "MVBW@The Blade of the Northern Lights" This post contains so many false accusations, that I need to address (although I didn't plan to talk about that initially). |
||
*Re "Paul produces very long and fruitless discussions on article talk pages and refuses to accept consensus or the lack of consensus." An RfC (note, this RfC was opened not by me!) is currently open about removal of the Black Book from the article's lead [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#RfC:_Should_we_remove_the_%2285_and_100_million%22_number_from_the_lead?], and the votes are 50:50. Interestingly, some voters who oppose removal, make a reservation that criticism of this book should be added. The RfC that was open by me [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#RfC_on_figures_presented_by_Courtois_in_the_Black_Book_introduction] asked a question about the need to add criticism every time this source is being cited, and many users supported this idea. In separate sections, started not by me, but other users, they present a lot of evidences demonstrating that the source MVBW is trying to advocate is very questionable. The examples of these posts are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=844507784&oldid=844480737 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=845801845&oldid=845800913 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=844970282&oldid=844927045 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=842151786&oldid=842145139 this], or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=842177807&oldid=842175432 this]. This means, the question about Courtois and his figures is being raised by many users, who provided serious arguments against this source. MVBW was a participant of majority of these discussions, and MVBW cannot claim they were not aware of that. |
*Re "Paul produces very long and fruitless discussions on article talk pages and refuses to accept consensus or the lack of consensus." An RfC (note, this RfC was opened not by me!) is currently open about removal of the Black Book from the article's lead [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#RfC:_Should_we_remove_the_%2285_and_100_million%22_number_from_the_lead?], and the votes are 50:50. Interestingly, some voters who oppose removal, make a reservation that criticism of this book should be added. The RfC that was open by me [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#RfC_on_figures_presented_by_Courtois_in_the_Black_Book_introduction] asked a question about the need to add criticism every time this source is being cited, and many users supported this idea. In separate sections, started not by me, but other users, they present a lot of evidences demonstrating that the source MVBW is trying to advocate is very questionable. The examples of these posts are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=844507784&oldid=844480737 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=845801845&oldid=845800913 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=844970282&oldid=844927045 this], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=842151786&oldid=842145139 this], or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=842177807&oldid=842175432 this]. This means, the question about Courtois and his figures is being raised by many users, who provided serious arguments against this source. MVBW was a participant of majority of these discussions, and MVBW cannot claim they were not aware of that. |
||
*The arguments I present on talk pages are based on a result of |
*The arguments I present on talk pages are based on a result of an absolutely neutral search described [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=844970282&oldid=844927045 here]. As a result of that search, I produced a set of the top quality [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=842633176&oldid=842498250 reliable sources] : the articles published in the most reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals. These sources tell us that the Black Book of Communism is generally seen as a questionable source ''due to the statements Courtois made in the introduction'', i.e. the very statements MVBW is advocates. The results of this work deserve at least a serious discussion, however, all discussions that involve MVBW are just repetition of the same stupid arguments and ignoring elementary facts. The most frequent trick MVBW uses is to refer to [[WP:V]] during a dispute about neutrality [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&diff=842639509&oldid=842633176], so my time and efforts are being wasted in fruitless discussions with a troll, who brings no fresh reliable sources or reasonable arguments. Not only I, but many other users, including [[user:Fifelfoo]], [[user:AmateurEditor]], [[user:The Four Deuces]], [[user:Aquillion]], [[user:Vanamonde93]], [[user:RhinoMind]], [[user:GPRamirez5]], [[user:C.J. Griffin]] and others seem frustrated: some of them minimized their activity, others express their dissatisfaction openly. Examples are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&diff=841090578&oldid=841087475 this comment (the last sentence)], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&diff=843987103&oldid=843969384 this comment], or Woogie10w's comment below. |
||
*Not only MVBW ignores a criticism on the talk page, they are trying to remove any mention of ''Black Book'' criticism from the article. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&diff=844233398&oldid=844217273 Here], MVBW removes the mention of controversy from the lead, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&curid=23849734&diff=842644510&oldid=842643651 here], MWBV is doing that again, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&diff=845695915&oldid=845672169 here] MVBW removes it again ''along with a POV tag'' (despite the fact that a hot discussion was in progress on the talk page). MVBW is doing that with a very misleading edit summaries, and all these edits directly ignore multiple arguments and sources presented by several users repeatedly. |
*Not only MVBW ignores a criticism on the talk page, they are trying to remove any mention of ''Black Book'' criticism from the article. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&diff=844233398&oldid=844217273 Here], MVBW removes the mention of controversy from the lead, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&curid=23849734&diff=842644510&oldid=842643651 here], MWBV is doing that again, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&diff=845695915&oldid=845672169 here] MVBW removes it again ''along with a POV tag'' (despite the fact that a hot discussion was in progress on the talk page). MVBW is doing that with a very misleading edit summaries, and all these edits directly ignore multiple arguments and sources presented by several users repeatedly. |
Revision as of 00:48, 21 June 2018
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}}.
|
Calton
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 Calton
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- D.Creish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Calton (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
Repeated personal attacks in edits to American Politics articles:
- Identity Evropa "Your inability -- or pretense thereof -- to understand plain English is not my problem." [2]
- Alexander Downer Personal attack in edit summary: "No, genius, I said nothing -- zip, zero, nada -- about the source. Pay attention: WP:DUE for the purpose of insuation which, again, has fuck-all to do with reliable sources. Any more non sequitors?" [3]
- Lana Lokteff He restores an unsourced "white supremacist" label in a BLP (The source uses "white nationalist.") Personal attack in edit summary: "Far left? Cool, way to out yourself." [4]
- He continues the edit war. Personal attack in edit summary: "Please don't make shit up about VOX. The talk page awaits you." [5]
- Continues. Personal attack in edit summary: "Your link doesn't say what you claim, so yep, making shit up. Talk page? Have you heard of them?)" [6]
- Continues. Personal attack in edit summary:"I DID prove it: you pretended not to understand it." [7]
- Prostitution in the United States Personal attack in edit summary: "Get over yourself and your persecution complex. Repeat: per WP:UNDUE" [8]
- Continues attacks on editor's talk page with Section title "Your garbage edits"; "Making shit up about other editors's motivations for basic quality control isn't go to fool anyone, son." [9]
- Andrew McCabe Personal attack in edit summary: "Thought you could sneak out the Russian-contact mention, eh?" [10]
- Alexander Downer Removes content sourced to thehill.com with edit summary "Save this insinuating crap for Breitbart News. [11]
- Political correctness Personal attack in edit summary: "You've got an ax to grind? Find a blacksmith." [12]
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
Many previous blocks for personal attacks and incivility [13]
- Blocked in August 2006 for "repeated personal attacks"
- Blocked in September 2007 for "Persistent incivility and taunting of other users"
- Blocked in November 2007 for "Continued incivility and taunting after previous block"
- Blocked in August 2008 for "Incivility"
- Blocked in September 2009 for "Personal attacks or harassment"
- Blocked indefinitely in March 2013 for "Personal attacks or harassment: racist edit sumamries & general awful attitude to others"
- Unblocked after "Assurances given that offensive epithets will not be repeated"
- Days later "Per ANI discussion. The consensus on ANI is any further use of edit summaries to make any sort of disparaging comments about other editors will lead to another block"
- Blocked in April 2015 "Further use of edit summaries to make disparaging comments about other editors, after being clearly infomred that doing so would lead to another block."
- Blocked in January 2016 "Personal attacks or harassment"
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on June 29 2017
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Despite many warnings and blocks editor is unwilling to refrain from personal attacks.
- In suggesting they won't consider this report, Black Kite and Seraphimblade do a disservice to the editors against whom these PAs were directed which includes established wikipedians @HiLo48:
- As far as my own comments and edit summaries, I'm not concerned as long as they're evaluated objectively - PA on talk page vs PA on article page under discretionary sanctions; pattern of PAs vs a single example; unblock on the condition that further PAs would result a block vs clean block record; and so on.
- Maybe an excess of good faith but I can't imagine a single offensive response to an editor who ignored my request to stay off my talk page will be judged more harshly than continuous incivility across the project. D.Creish (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
(Redacted)
|
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Calton
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 Calton
I can already see where this is going, so I'll only say a few things, unless otherwise required.
- Lana Lokteff involved a brand-new account (User:Hansnarf, with 5 edits, and their previous IP) edit-warring to remove "white supremacist", despite sources -- a constant problem on this and other pages about alt-right and white-supremacist pages. Amusingly, the editor proclaimed one source as invalid because it was from a "far-left" website (VOX), despite the fact that their own "proof" of this didn't say what they claimed. I did make a mistake: I didn't notice that the VOX source wasn't attached directly to the lede, so I have fixed that. My apologies for not noticing.
- Identity Evropa involved yet-another brand-new account (User:Barbarossa139, with 29 edits) edit-warring to remove "Neo-Nazi", despite sources and the talk page, with wikilawyering demands that I show where in policy the term "whitewashing" appears. I don't play that game, where someone establishes a false framework and demands that I justify it.
- Continues attacks on editor's talk page with Section title "Your garbage edits": that was from indef-blocked Miacek (talk · contribs) -- whom you may remember from here, odd how D.Creish leaves off the name -- who left this bad-faith gem on my talk page:
- Eager to just pick up a fight, yes?
- A pretty much a textbook case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING I guess [15]. What next? Gustav Naan? Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes? Miacek (talk) 03:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
This is all I care to respond to unless necessary. --Calton | Talk 02:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe it's not directly a matter for this page and maybe it's just me, but does anyone else find this entire conversation just a tad suspicious? --Calton | Talk 06:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Addendum: Given @Sandstein:'s comments, I'd again urge him to take a look at this entire conversation on D.Creish's talk page. --Calton | Talk 13:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@GoldenRing:: I'm also not seeing the equivalence between an account with a clean block log who has made one uncivil remark and an account with a log as long as your arm covering 10+ years with 10+ diffs of recent incivility that would lead to equal sanctions. If the block log is your only measure, then you really really haven't been paying attention to the conversation. Look above your comments for some context. --Calton | Talk 13:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Dave Dial
Most of the links given by D.Creish are of Calton rightly making sure some of the articles concerning or about white supremacists/neo-nazis/racists remain NPOV, without obvious whitewashing. Some edits reverted were ips, obvious sock accounts or throw aways. If anything, D.Creish should be topic banned. One of his examples he writes:
Lana Lokteff He restores an unsourced "white supremacist" label in a BLP (The source uses "white nationalist.") Personal attack in edit summary: "Far left? Cool, way to out yourself." [16]
In the NPR source it states:
Asked how she would pitch the alt-right to conservative white women who voted for Trump, but are also wary of being labeled a white supremacist, Lokteff told her, "we have a joke in the alt-right: How do you red-pill someone? ("Red-pill" is their word for converting someone to the cause.) And the punch line was: Have them live in a diverse neighborhood for a while," Darby says. "She also said that when she is talking to women she reminds them that white women are under threat from black men, brown men, emigrants, and really uses this concept of a rape scourge to bring them in."
The edits of D.Creish and the editors he is defending really speak for themselves. This is absolutely an attempt to rid these articles of editors that know the subject so they can more easily be whitewashed. Dave Dial (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by SPECIFICO
I urge Admins here to take a close look at the DCreish account's history and behavior on Wikipedia. Here is his editing history profile [17] This ID has few edits, but an extraordinarily high proportion of aggressive AE, AN, and other noticeboard complaints, and what I evaluate as aggressive and uncivil POV editing and wikilawyering. This is a NOTHERE account, in my opinion. SPECIFICO talk 12:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved SMcCandlish
I would urge caution. There is a MEATy campaign going on to white-wash the articles of far-right, alt-right, white-nationalist, white-supremacist [which are not quite the same thing, despite considerable overlap], and neo-Nazi [ditto] subjects. It's not surprising that an editor with a bit of a WP:HOTHEAD past can be successfully baited by a round-robin tagteam of sockpuppets and trolls into losing their temper momentarily. There's a good chance this is an actual goal: game the system to thin the opposition and take ownership of the articles. I agree with comments below that imposing lengthy blocks and bans on long-term contributors who are actually trying to follow the core content policies in the face of a wave of PoV-pushing is neither going to be a constructive result nor going to go over well. It's excessive legalism in an editorial community that's trying to produce and publish quality content, not set up as moot court or a political simulation game. Our rules exist to serve us, not the other way around. And it's more important that the reader-facing content rules be followed closely than than editor-to-editor conduct rules be applied too narrowly, especially when many of the "editors" who maybe got their feelings hurt are bogus and had it coming. [Disclaimer of sorts: As far as I know, I have no significant involvement at any of the articles under discussion, nor with any of the editors under discussion. However, I have dealt with similar bullshit at various articles covered by WP:ARBR&I, WP:ARBAA2, etc., so I know exactly what's going on here, and have been subjected to similar antics by the nebulous PoV-pushing crowd on these issues.] — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Result concerning Calton
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- One of the first things I always do when looking at an AE request is check the contribution history of the editor filing the complaint. On this case, I don't think there's any reason to even go further than that. Black Kite (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Per Black Kite's suggestion to check contrib history, without even looking at any diffs, I straightaway see this: [18], with the edit summary of "Didn't I already tell you to fuck off? If not, consider yourself notified." If D.Creish is advocating that sanctions be placed for uncivil comments, I think they might want to carefully consider who that might cover. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- D.Creish, providing a long list of diffs, some from more than ten years ago and others having nothing to do with the topic area, is not helpful. This is WP:AE, not WP:ANI. --NeilN talk to me 19:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- I've removed submissions not pertaining to the AE request at hand. If you want to present general and old editing history then open an ANI discussion separate from an AE request. We are focused on specific topics covered by discretionary sanction here. --NeilN talk to me 19:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- I am minded to turn this around and TBan D.Creish instead. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Since I've been pinged. The unblock referred to by D.Creish was back in 2013 and is way too long ago to be germane to this discussion. --regentspark (comment) 20:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think I missed a memo somewhere. Can someone explain the enthusiasm for a boomerang against D.Creish? Yes, that one diff provided by Seraphimblade is not good but it's one diff. If everyone who reported here had to have a clean history, we could almost mark this page as historical and focus our energies elsewhere. --NeilN talk to me 20:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- We could, but seriously, look at the history. D.Creish involves themselves at one contentious article or another (Ahmed Mohamed clock incident, Men's rights movement, The Hunting Ground, Debbie Wasserman Schultz Murder of Seth Rich), gets involved in various AE and ANI shenanigans around those articles, then disappears again. A while later, they pop up again, find another article ... rinse and repeat. Their very first edit was this, with an edit-summary invoking WP:COATRACK. Hmmmm. No, I don't expect people bringing AEs to be sparkling clean, but this report is a waste of time; let them bring it to ANI, and let's see what happens there. Black Kite (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not necessarily suggesting a boomerang. More just how frustrating I find it when people will happily dish it out, but run straight to AN-(insert letter here) when they get a bit of their own medicine in return. It's rather like when someone reports to the edit warring noticeboard, and both of them are well past 3RR. And realistically, I find Calton's comments to be somewhat abrasive, but not really what I'd consider attacks. But if the level of discourse you practice is "fuck off", you'd probably best not be too surprised when people in turn speak that way to you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- I've blocked Hansnarf (talk · contribs) for 48 hours making accusations of racism against Calton after warnings and several opportunities to just stop. Acroterion (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Calton's edits reported here fail WP:CIVIL, particularly in a contested area, and they have a relevant sanctions record. On the other hand, Seraphimblade above cites an edit by D.Creish that is at least as problematic, and D.Creish seems generally to be here to engage in political drama. I'd either topic-ban both for a month or take no action, depending on what other admins here prefer. Sandstein 13:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Sandstein that Calton's edits are not acceptable. This is from an editor who has been repeatedly, over a period of years, unblocked on the basis of assurances that "offensive epithets will not be repeated" and "any further use of edit summaries to make any sort of disparaging comments about other editors will lead to another block" (quotes from the block log). The message has clearly not gotten through. I appreciate that the objective of their recent editing has been good, but this is not a license to be offensive. I'm also not seeing the equivalence between an account with a clean block log who has made one uncivil remark and an account with a log as long as your arm covering 10+ years with 10+ diffs of recent incivility that would lead to equal sanctions. I'm sorely tempted to simple block Calton indefinitely as a normal admin action; the history more than warrants it. If other admins object to this, please say so here. GoldenRing (talk) 09:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- As Wikipedia's resident civility enforcement fundamentalist, I can hardly disagree with this argument, but my experience has shown that lengthy civility blocks, particularly against long-established editors, are among the most controversial admin actions and can generate an inordinate amount of drama, perhaps because it signals to very many editors that Wikipedia is not in fact their private playground but a work environment - a collegial, collaborative project among adult professionals. That's not to say that the drama isn't occasionally worth it. So feel free to go ahead as far as I'm concerned. Sandstein 10:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- No, don't do that, for goodness' sake. I think I'm on pretty safe ground when I say that indeffing someone for an incident in which they were not even the worst behaving party would go very, very, badly indeed - especially given the existence of this and similar. I agree with Sandstein's original point. above - either topic-ban both for a month or take no action. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- What Black Kite says. Calton isn't a model editor (I've blocked them before) and they have a fairly short fuse, but the disruption in these articles wasn't caused by their behavior. I also agree with some others that topic banning D.Creish from this area will be a larger and more meaningful action. While I appreciate Sandstein's measured approach, the two editors are not equivalent. Incivility is one thing but political grandstanding (which is what Sandstein and others, including me, think D.Creish is engaging in) is far more harmful to the project. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Aside from Dave Dial, other participants have given no diffs of D.Creish's problematic editing and have settled for "just look at his editing". If a separate request was brought against D.Creish it would probably be rejected if that's all the reporter presented. If editors think D.Creish should be sanctioned, provide evidence. Any admin sanctioning D.Creish would have an interesting time justifying themselves during any appeal when all they have to point to is one diff. --NeilN talk to me 15:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- What NeilN said. From my (relatively cursory) look through I got the impression that most of what Calton was reacting to was from a range of other editors, not D.Creish. GoldenRing (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, a range of other usernames, though I'd be surprised if every one was a different person. The only established editor that Calton has had an issue with in that list is User:HiLo48. But, let's look at the users and behaviour that Calton was reacting to in that laundry list. (I'll add diffs if required, but most of them have so few edits that it's simpler just to look at their contrib history).
- Identity Evropa - in reaction to User:Barbarossa139 (67 edits) edit-warring to whitewash the article of (well-sourced) references to Neo-Nazism.
- On Alexander Downer (twice), User:Wesley Craig (152 edits), whose entire modus operandi is to simply remove unflattering sections from the articles of right-wing politicians, regardless of how well they are sourced or written.
- Lana Lokteff - a 2-edit IP that simply reverted his edits, and User:Hansnarf, since blocked.
- Prostitution in the United States - User:Miacek, since indeffed.
- Andrew McCabe - User:PZP-003, since indeffed for sockpuppetry.
- Far be it for me to say "there's a pattern there", but ... there's a pattern there. Frankly, given that list of editors and their editing, I'd be more surprised if Calton didn't get irritated more often. Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Calton, you are aware that because of your previous blocks for incivility, there's going to be increased scrutiny of your posts and you are walking a narrower tightrope than most editors. If you want to edit in this area, you'll have to avoid taking the bait from editors who may not be here to improve the encyclopedia according to our content guidelines. This will entail biting your tongue (or stopping from clicking "Publish changes") and using a rather more staid tone to get your point across. Can you do that? Because if not, its likely you'll be here or at ANI again and I see little point in doing this all over again. --NeilN talk to me 18:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- Could someone just close this, please? It's obviously not going anywhere. Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
My Lord
No action. Sandstein 13:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning My Lord
I am finding his editing style to be too aggressive. His reverts are accompanied with attack terminology on other users' edits, words in the edit summaries include "useless", "irrelevant", "pov", "pseudo".
He is also too ready to assume bad faith of others. He makes unsubstantiated accusation of socking on another user and accuses another of edit war. But what I find most concerning is the misrepresentation of talkpage discussions and false claims of consensus for their preferred page versions.
I am finding that this user's editing behaviour in relation to other users is just too confrontational. This "you lose buddy" [29] edit summary is just symptomatic of their battleground mentality. They also recently filed two [30][31] groundless enforcement requests against two users. This user has already received multiple warnings for unconstructive editing[32], disruption[33], and for pov deletions[34]. I would like the administrators to stop this user's disruption on Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, Violence against women during the partition of India, Kashmiris and Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014. In the last one he unilaterally removed a section[35] which was originally merged into the article per a community discussion at AfD.[36] Farhan Khurram (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:My_Lord&diff=prev&oldid=845151250
Discussion concerning My LordStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by My LordStatement by Danish.mehraj26Sandstein may be right that the first batch of diffs is not actionable but the third batch is very concerning. He has been falsifying consensus and misrepresenting talkpage discussions to do reverts. He has also removed content from Cow vilgilante article even though it was added there after a community discussion. For someone who has already been warned not to do POV deletions[37] and disruption,[38] the kind of disruptive behaviour Farhan Khurram has reported of My Lord doing reverts and falsification of talkpage consensus to support those reverts is disconcerting. Here is additional evidence of this user's battleground attitude,[39] in addition to this edit summary[40]. Danish Mehraj 03:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC) Discussion by uninvolved editorsStatement by WBG
Statement by DarSahabI have just checked Winged Blades of Godric's statement. His statement says that the first two batch of diffs showen are non-actionable. Agreed. But the meat of the problem is in the third batch of diffs. Winged Blades of Godric accepts that the behaviour on Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus is problematic. But WBG is silent on the fact that this is a part of My Lord's general trend of disruption on pages such as Kashmiris and Violence against women during the partition of India where he reverts with false claims of consensus and talkpage support in his edit summaries. The removal of content on Cow vigilante violence in Indian since 2014 is also a problematic because that content was merged into the aticle per a community discussion on AfD. [41] That in my view is disruptive. The warnings cited of POV edits and unconstructive editing are still relevant because they give an idea of the kind of disruption this user has done before and its even more relevant now because he is still doing similar disruption. These diffs[42][43] for battleground mentality are actionable because it shows that he has the same, even worse, behavioural issues as the T-Banned parties. I wonder why does WBG on one hand think that its okay for My Lord to say stuff like "You lose buddy" and "That's clear WP:IDHT from you. I had explained it in edit summary as well as here, but you have no concerns about using a weak source for your POV pushing. And when you are telling that others are "censoring" removing content cause they "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" as defense for clear POV content, it is just not gonna help", but on the other hand argue that if others respond in kind they deserve to be T-Banned? Why not just be fair? DarSahab (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC) I am adding RaviC to the category of users involved in this style of disruption. He chimed into Kashmiris to repeat My Lord's behaviour[44] with the same misleading edit summary which basically falsifies consensus. There is nothing on the cited talkpage thread[45] indicating any consensus for that version (actually it shows the opposite). Not just My Lord but RaviC is also actively practising this deception and this I believe is disruption.
Statement by SpasageThe diffs shown of this user's conduct are enough to convince me that this user is not helping the project. User writes incorrect statements in edit summaries across several articles is not only disruption but also WP:BLUDGEONING. Not just by this reported user but by RaviC as well. I have seen My Lord's talkpage disputes, which he conveniently only began after this AE was filed for being deceptive while doing reverts on the mainspace articles, and having know how of these topics what I have read from these discussions has reaffirmed my feeling that My Lord is bludgeoning. Instead of refuting valid arguments he starts to nitpick and raise red herrings. I feel sorry for the users who are debating him because they are just going to get frustrated with all this. I am also going to add Kautilya3"So this division you imagine seems to be in your own imagination" and Joshua Jonathan"Bullshit" here for incivility and WP:BLUDGEONING of other users. The former accuses a user of WP:OR even when that user referred to scholarly sources/historians such as Gulshan Majeed and Abdul Lone. Statement by Obaid RazaMy Lord's talkpage interactions were highly uncivil.[46][47] He was let off for this in his last AE due to the intervention of the same sympathetic admin, WBG. Sadly, My Lord has not improved since. There is what other users have reported of his recent and constant lying in his edit summaries. He is still lying and using diversionary tactics, an example is his posting a link to a very recent discussion as an answer to a question about locating support for his version in an older discussion.[48] Its a shame that English Wikipedia administrators choose not to act on such disruptive users until the water is over our heads and these users have infuriated everybody else. In a similar case, WBG came to my talkpage to ask for already posted evidence about Kautilya3's disruption.[49] Sadly, Kautilya3's own incivility is continuing in the same places as My Lord. He recently commented at Talk:Kashmiris like this, Result concerning My Lord
|
Netoholic
No action. Sandstein 13:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Netoholic
Just days ago, another AE complaint was raised about Netoholic: permalink. I suggested cutting him some slack, [53]: "In the next several days, I plan to do a top-to-bottom rewrite of that page. In the past, that would likely have led to edit warring. But let's wait a couple of days, and see whether that happens now. I'm crossing my fingers that it won't." On that basis, TonyBallioni closed the thread: [54] (sorry Tony!). Unfortunately, exactly what Netoholic was supposed not to do is what he did, and repeatedly. He had every reason to be aware that DS were in effect. And please note that there was overwhelming support from other editors for the revisions that I had made: [55], [56], [57], [58], [59]. And before anyone gets the idea to go boomerang-y, I've been trying very hard to be fair to him: [60], [61], [62], [63]. When he added material that I thought should not be there: [64], I nonetheless made edits to try to improve it: [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72]. (Looking at Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia#Conservapedia, it looks like this may be happening at other pages too.) At the very least, you need to topic-ban him from American Politics, explicitly including "political bias". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
As of today, multiple other editors have arrived at the page, and all have disagreed with Netoholic. Nonetheless, he is engaging in reverts against consensus at that page and others: [83], [84], and made the bizarre assertion that the self-stated opinions of a BLP subject (with whom Netoholic disagrees) should be removed on the basis of supposedly violating BLP: [85]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning NetoholicStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by NetoholicStatement by LioneltI do not see a consensus. I just see Tryp and Netoholic going back and forth on the Talk page and at the article. Occasionally another editor will chime in with "Good" or "Not good" but I would not call that consensus. I, for one, have voiced concern with Tryp's efforts at the article. It's extremely difficult to completely re-write a controversial article from "top-to-bottom." Perhaps even ill-advised. It severely limits the ability to compromise over fine points. Imagine if an editor attempted to re-write Presidency of Donald Trump from "top-to-bottom"? Yes, there does appear to be frustration at the page. However I do not see any violations which rise to the level of sanctioning. Our normal dispute resolution process should be adequate. Since this appears to be a content dispute primarily between Tryp and Netoholic, perhaps WP:3O is the solution. Statement by (username)Result concerning Netoholic
|
Rafe87
Closing as no action. If people feel that the Yaniv's actions merit further looking into at AE, they can file a new request. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Rafe87
Discussion concerning Rafe87Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Rafe87Statement by power~enwikiProcedurally, as the first two diffs are consecutive, they only count as a single diff for 1RR purposes. While a gap of 23.5 hours between reverts does violate 1RR here, if there's no larger pattern here a warning should be sufficient. Largely thanks to Rafe87's lack of edit summaries, it's not immediately obvious whether these edits are reverts. The first diff is clearly a revert based on יניב הורון's evidence (and the second diff can be considered part of that); but the last one does not add the middleeasteye reference, and in fact removes an addition by Erictheenquirer. It's hard for me to see how two reverts, 23.5 hours apart, one adding a source and another removing that same source, should justify anything other than a warning to be extremely conscientious editing in this controversial area. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by NableezyThe reverts by יניב הורון (talk · contribs · logs) across a range of articles should be looked at. But at this article Ill just note that the complainant here has made four edits at this article, all reverts, and exactly zero edits at the talk page. A look at their contributions will quickly demonstrate this user is strictly a revert warrior. Would be happy to expand on that if invited to do so. But at this article specifically an admin should look at who is drive-by edit-warring without even attempting to collaborate on the talk page. nableezy - 04:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by TheGracefulSlickThe filer not-so-ironically has been more disruptive at the article. Here he removed the Middle East Eye source; he was reverted and could have contributed to a talk page discussion. Instead, he waited and reverted again without discussion, this time calling it "propaganda". As Nableezy said, this editor is strictly a revert warrior and has not learned from past reports against himself. At Quds Day for instance, he has replaced a long-standing image without consensus three times [90][91][92], oddly citing an ongoing discussion that has no consensus. In a small twist, he actually engaged in discussion, but wrote a heinous, in my opinion, blockable personal attack: "Says the guy who comes from a country where dissidents are hanged in cranes". If BOOMERANG can be applied to AE, there is no better time than now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by IcewhizI want to note that the Middle East Eye is a very borderline source, and probably not a RS (see RSN discussion). It is definitely not a source that should be used on a contentious subject that has been widely covered by mainstream media - removing this source was entirely within policy, and frankly adding (or reverting by Rafe87 - [93]) material based on a such source is quite questionable.Icewhiz (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by יניב הורון@TonyBallioni: Sorry for the off-topic, but what TheGracefulSlick apparently "forgot" to mention is that this comment I made was a response to a previous personal attack by Expectant of Light (quote: ...It's not Israel here where you have your opponents either shut up or shot up!). My contributions speek for themselves. As for my previous mistakes, I was already sanctioned for them, despite some editors keep talking about them (while trying to invent new reports based on spurious reasons). I'm confident that you are an honest administrator who can investigate the matter by yourself without being influenced by users who are obsessed with banning me for political reasons. Thanks.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC) @Zero0000: This POV aberration of yours was a "mistake" or intentional? That's one example of many. You are the least appropriate to judge my edits.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 03:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by Expectant of Light regarding -יניב הורוןI was notified on this talk by -יניב הורון but I want to confirm a complaint by Nabzeely that -יניב הורון engages in revert wars on other pages, often citing irrelevant reasons in his explanations or reverting many edits while citing only one truly problematic edit. A recent example can be found on the Houthis. He reverts an edit claiming the source is a blog, then when reverted back explaining that the source is not a blog but a very reliable source , then reverts again this time claiming it's an opinion whereas the author is an high ranking expert named Bruce Riedel Statement by Zero0000In this AE case less than a week ago, יניב_הורון was "warned to be extremely careful with their reverts. Any future violations may result in more severe sanctions than usual given the editor's past history in this area." Mention was made of יניב_הורון's habit of making repeated "mistakes" that always seemed to match his POV. I'd like to mention this "mistake" only a day ago in which יניב_הורון removed text on the grounds "not supported by source" even though it consisted of direct quotations from the sources. As other people have written here, יניב_הורון is the paradigm edit warrior with no redeeming features. Zerotalk Result concerning Rafe87
|
TheGracefulSlick
Apparent honest mistake, immediately corrected. No action necessary.--regentspark (comment) 19:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning TheGracefulSlick
The policy is quite clear on this ". If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit."--Shrike (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning TheGracefulSlick Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by TheGracefulSlick Sigh, here I outlined my edits and, according to my time stamps, I was six minutes past 24 hours. I asked Shrike if I was understanding this correctly; if I was wrong, I will gladly revert my mistake. Instead we are here, wasting time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning TheGracefulSlick
|
SPECIFICO
No action taken, but SPECIFICO is advised to use more caution going forward. Awilley's advice to everyone below is also sound. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning SPECIFICO
In normal circumstances, I would have given SPECIFICO a chance to self-revert, but given the numerous warnings she recently received in the AP2 area, a closer examination by the DS/AE board is warranted. — JFG talk 13:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SPECIFICOStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SPECIFICOSimple error. We generally don't file such AE complaints about an obvious error before posting a friendly warning on the perp's talk page. At any rate I self-reverted and replied to OP on my talk page. [97]. SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by NomoskedasticityJGF apparently missed the bit where Specifico already self-reverted: [98]. Hard to fathom, no? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by WinkelviWhile SPECIFICO did revert herself, the revert didn't occur until more than an hour after her original reversion (that went over 1RR) and a half hour after this report was filed. That doesn't seem like an "Oops, I forgot about 1RR" error to me where she would try to honestly correct her error on her own volition. An hour later seems like damage control to me. It should also be pointed out that she didn't revert and then leave her computer or Wikipedia to do something else, then return to see the notice JFG left on her talk page; she performed two edits after the 2RR [99] [100]. All this considered, she absolutely did violate the 1RR rule for that article, the bright line was crossed, and I believe she knew it and didn't act until she was caught. It's not as if she's not well aware of the 1RR restriction at that article. Anyone who regularly edits there knows it. SPECIFICO is a regular editor at the article (116 edits since 10/3/16) and at the article's talk page (684 edits since 12/11/16). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by Objective3000Winkelvi: Statement by NetoholicIn SPECIFICO's own words:
I am uninvolved with the Trump article. -- Netoholic @ 04:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning SPECIFICO
|
TheGracefulSlick
Withdrawn |
---|
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 TheGracefulSlick
Only today he have broke 1RR [103]
User today created the article and used the word "terrorist" his orignal edit was reverted and he restored the usage of "terrorist" once again The policy is quite clear on this ". If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit." As he original author of the article he have to wait 24 hours especially if it was created today. Also the user seem can't grasp 1RR he have history of not adhering to the rule for example: [105] [106] [107] @TGS Becouse you doesn't seem to grasp 1RR.--Shrike (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning TheGracefulSlickStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by TheGracefulSlickI did not realize the creation of the article counted as the "first" edit. Why could you not discuss this at my talk page, Shrike?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning TheGracefulSlick
|
Talatastan
Talatastan indefinitely blocked, first year under arbitration enforcement. --NeilN talk to me 02:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Talatastan
User doesn't care about ARBPIA restrictions. As soon as the sanction expires, he comes back to edit the same articles. An indefinite block might be necessary.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning TalatastanStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by TalatastanStatement by (username)Result concerning Talatastan
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Netoholic
There is consensus to decline this appeal. GoldenRing (talk) 08:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, 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 NetoholicMy edits to COIN were in no way disruptive. Seconding the concern of another editor's report and asking for uninvolved editors to look into that concern is the whole point of having a Noticeboard. In essence, every Noticeboard discussion involves an existing dispute of one form or another, and this warning has a chilling effect on my ability to participate if I am to fear a block every time I post about a concern. TonyBallioni was petitioned directly to enact this block, and I was given no opportunity for uninvolved admins to evaluate whether my post was disruptive at all, as such a concern is normally brought to AE first. The person who asked for this block had a previous AE request closed with no action, and that's why I suspect they petitioned Tony directly instead today. Per discussion about this warning with TonyBallioni, he and others provided extensive clarification that the warning was to encourage me to "think twice before submitting reports that the rest of the community would think should not be resolved through admin boards" and should NOT be thought of as a TBAN. --Netoholic @ 21:38, 17 June 2018 Statement by TonyBallioniIn my view Netoholic used COIN inappropriately and disruptively and clearly against the spirit of the warning they had previously about use of the administrative processes here on Wikipedia to further disputes with other editors. It resulted after this thread, in which a new user made a retaliatory COIN filing against MrX. It was closed by Jytdog, a COIN regular, because COIN doesn't deal with NPOV issues and there was no evidence at all that an established user. Netoholic then posted under it conflating NPOV with COI issues (which we recently saw with the Andrevan saga) and then implying that MrX might have created a promotional article [125].This is simply not how COIN works, occurred after a regular at the board had closed it, and was aspersion without evidence made against one AP2 regular against another in a thread initially about American politics. As MrX had noted, they were already in a dispute elsewhere and this seems like a clear use of a board mainly used to fight spam to deal with someone they were in conflict with on AP2. Tryptofish closed it again, and Netoholic commented again. This was reverted by Dave Dial [126] (against TPO, but a possible application of IAR and the edit summary summed up basic practice at COIN.)This was reverted by Netoholic still insiting on his COI concern (unclear if he was referencing cryptocurrency or politics). Looking at his contributions and based on the fact that he should have known better than to use COIN for these purposes after the warning and after three editors had told him such, I blocked him for 72 hours to prevent further disruption at COIN and because of the battleground behavior he was displaying in the topic area. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by MrXNetoholic made this unsavory post a WP:COIN as an unprovoked retaliation for my edit on Ideological bias on Wikipedia, following up to his assumption of bad faith here. He then edit warred with three other editors who intervened attempting to put out the fire. TonyBallioni's block was both reasonable and proportionate given Netoholic's recent battleground conduct.[128] - MrX 🖋 22:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC), 22:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by DlthewaveOne more example of Netoholic's misuse of noticeboards is a recent spurious post at BLPN. After multiple editors rejected the BLP concerns and directed Netoholic to the NPOV and RS noticeboards, they continued to raise non-BLP concerns, culminating with this critique of another editor's recent contributions. The block seems appropriate given their seeming inability to take a hint. –dlthewave ☎ 23:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by JzGI advocate declining this appeal. Netoholic appears to me to be in violation of the Law of Holes. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by TryptofishIf anything, a 72-hour block is rather lenient. Not only did Netoholic unambiguously violate the previous warning from Tony, but he edit warred over it. And not only did he do that, but, just since the previous AE filing, he has made himself into a huge time-sink for the community at multiple pages, some of which have already been pointed out above (don't say I didn't warn you). He has edit warred against consensus at Political views of American academics (AP2), [129], and at Neil Gross (AP2 and BLP), to make deliberate BLP violations denigrating Gross, [130], [131], [132], in an attempt to discredit an inconvenient source at the political views page – where a content RfC is going overwhelmingly against him and he seems to be setting up an attempt to argue that the community consensus is invalid for when it closes, [133]. In each case, multiple editors have been telling him that he is acting against consensus: [134], [135], [136]. And here's the bottom line: he doesn't get it and is pretty much telling us that he will take up right from where he left off once the block ends. There is nothing in his appeal statement that acknowledges having learned anything or indicating that he will try to do better in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: Thank you very much. Personally, I agree with the sanction as you have written it. If I were to take into consideration the concerns by Sandstein and Tony about the complexity, then I would simply make it a topic ban from AP2 and BLP, subject to appeal after not less than x months. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
(Lionelt's statement sounds to me like mooning the jury, which is probably obvious, but I think this: [137], gives it a little context, and not necessarily in a good way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)) Statement by PudeoGot to love MrX lecturing others about user conduct whilst a while ago telling people to "fuck right off". It's amazing how much the policies are bent for some, and how strictly observed for others (Netoholic). This is a perfect example how letting some users off the hook and selectively being strict against others forms an unfair snowball effect: sanctions will be placed on the existing sanctions. --Pudeo (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by OIDWhile we are here - and to avoid opening *another* discussion, just to expand on Trypt's comments. I cannot see that Netoholic has previously been warned under the DS for editing BLP's - but if admins would like to take a look at the Neil Gross issue (discussion at BLPN and on article talk page). Netoholic has demonstrated an amazingly incorrect understanding of the BLP - he genuinely argued that it was a BLP violation to quote a subject directly because there may be other quotes by the subject (not identified or even evident they exist) that differed - and even a quick look at the quotes in dispute shows thats is unlikely. When multiple editors told him he was wrong he then vindictively selectively edited the biography in a deliberately cherry-picked negative manner, I need to echo Trypt's comments that we will be back here soon. The only reason I didnt look deeper into starting a discussion about getting them restricted from biographical articles is because of this similar block. Opening a discussion at a relevant noticeboard is fine, arguing with people til you are blue in the face when the consensus disagree with you is not. Nor is then deliberately violating a number of policies out of spite. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by LioneltFolks I think we've really jumped the shark here. This editor in good faith disputed the warning from the outset. To say it is ambiguous is an understatement. He came here, again in good faith, to seek redress for a block based on a warning which he felt unfair. This veteran, productive editor, has had no blocks in 4 years. Setting aside this recent incident. So how on earth does an editor like this who comes here for some kind of justice--not only doesn't get any satisfaction--but instead gets topic banned? In a recent expose Signpost reported editors have a 73% dissatisfaction with ANI and a major contributing factor to this is boomerang. I guess AE is not that much different from ANI. Same admins. Same problems. – Lionel(talk) 20:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by (editor)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by NetoholicResult of the appeal by Netoholic
|
SPECIFICO
No violation. Sir Joseph warned not to open frivolous AE requests. --NeilN talk to me 14:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning SPECIFICO
WP:ARBAP2, CIVILITY RESTRICTION
To those claiming that SPECIFICO didn't make these comments but is merely putting them into Trump's mouth, that is just as offensive and a BLP issue as well. These comments have no place on Wikipedia and I'm shocked that there are people here defending them. To Objective3000, my comment on WV's talkpage has nothing to do with this request or of Wikipedia. I was making a comment about the growth of antisemitism in the US. SPECIFICO's antisemtic comments were not read with any bias, I read them simply as they were typed out. Let's not start to blame the victim here.
Discussion concerning SPECIFICOStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SPECIFICOI see that MrX has given the full text of my remark on the talk page. Several editors misrepresented that by cutting words out of context. I asked them to stop. Instead, here we are. To provide additional context, it was a long thread that got off into OR back and forth, so I started a subsection to focus on the only issue I was raising, to wit NPOV. This was a Trump interview by a small Jewish publication with a very defined readership in Brooklyn, NY on the occasion of Trump's attendance at a Jewish recognition ceremony. The interview was not picked up by mainstream media, and in the absence of any confirmation of its significance, it fails DUE WEIGHT as an indication of Trump's core values or beliefs. It was directed to a certain audience on this occasion and, as I said earlier in the thread, is typical of the kind of meaningless statement public figures or political hopefuls will make to win affinity from various defined groups. To my great surprise, MelanieN had a different view and wrote the following [139] . My reply responded to this (which, in its insinuation that many folks would disown Jewish offspring, may be quite offensive to some readers, BTW). My response simply posed the opposite interpretation of Trump's statement -- that he was acting only out of self-interest and that there was nothing to indicate this Ivanka snippet contradicts his well-documented and amply sourced record of anti-Semitic statements, enablement of neo-Nazi supporters, etc. My post clearly states that it's just as likely that Trump is at best indifferent to religion, Jewish people, and religious hatred, and that he is motivated only by perceived self interest in such matters. I hope that's clear enough for the present thread. As some of the Admins know, I have been stalked and singled out over the past month or so by a series of mostly pro-Trump editors who have brought a series of specious or exaggerated complaints about me, possibly because I have insisted on NPOV editing and valid sourcing in articles that concern him. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC) @MelanieN: @MelanieN: Of course I was indicating a possible Trump mindset, to tell you I rejected your confidence in your take on his mindset. That's plain from my English words. Thanks for your comment. I believe I was also clear -- but perhaps assumed too much context -- that my take on public figures' attitudes is often not that they have strong views, but that they don't care about the substance of this or that issue, they care about how it affects their image and popularity. I said Trump may just not care at all about religion. That's a personal interpretation, but not a disparaging one and not inconsistent with acknowledged fact. I also said, and gave the "unwashed" definition to demonstrate, that expression does not refer to folks who don't bathe or something. It's a colloquialism for the hoi polloi - for the sort of folks that don't travel in Trump's circles, that will never be business partners, counterparties, power-brokers, or other useful contacts. They are not in the market for Trump condos or golf memberships. They have other interests. Etc. etc. That means he might be completely indifferent to these folks, except for their votes and possible campaign contributions. And like the other bit, it was expressing the likelihood not that Trump is personally virulently anti-Semitic, but rather that a public figure courting favor with any group reflects the needs of a public figure, not an inner good or bad will. I'd previously illustrated the same point using the name of Hillary Clinton. SPECIFICO talk 18:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC) I'll be glad to provide citations that point to Trump's tolerance or enablement of anti-Semitism, but I didn't do so here at AE because it's a content matter. As a matter of fact I've been looking for the best references to add more content to the article, because it is a longstanding and noteworthy aspect of Trump's public persona. SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC) I've just begun to look for valid sources, but per MVBW, it's surely not a BLP violation to suggest that Trump might be indifferent to or tolerate Anti-Semitism. @Tryptofish: Just for the record, the problem with cutting OP some slack for misreading my words is that by the time this complaint was filed, the whole thing had been hashed over 3-4 times on talk. Look at this user's recent block record [140]. SPECIFICO talk 01:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by MrXHere is what SPECIFICO actually wrote:
She did not say Hasidic Jews are unwashed; she posed a hypothetical of what Trump might think, using an idiom commonly understood to mean poor or unsophisticated. She also did not say that Hasidic Jews are dumb. To characterize these comments as antisemitic is ridiculous.- MrX 🖋 15:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Comment by MONGOSPECIFICO seems to think the purpose of a BLP page is to make assumptions about what the subject of the BLP thinks with nary a supporting reference to hold up the claim, which in itself would in this instance be relegated to an opinion piece anyway.MONGO 15:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC) SPECIFICO has been warned repeatedly by what appears to be neutral admins, not pro-Trump editors. two in this thread alone, [142]MONGO 16:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by Objective3000I wouldn’t have said this as someone might misunderstand it or try to use it against me in a completely unrelated thread (a la [143] two hours ago). Looks clear to me that was a hypothetical about possibilities of the thinking of another person used to give alternatives to a previously mentioned possibility. That’s not anti-Semitic. O3000 (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by WinkelviAnti-semitic remarks on a talk page for an article that has views which number in the tens-of-thousands where anyone "off the street" could wander into the talk page discussion are incredibly unacceptable and inexcusable. What's more unacceptable is that after making excuses for why her unqualified comments were acceptable and having that pointed out to her by two editors (one being an admin), SPECIFICO didn't admit her error or strike with an explanation next to the strike. Such comments should never be just left without a qualifier and explanation. As they are written in the original comment, they are unabashedly anti-semitic, full stop. If an editor who's Jewish sees SPECIFICO's comments as anti-semitic, the proof is in the perception by those in the protected class, regardless of how many explanations are provided and how many apologists for her comments emerge. Indeed, if anti-discrimination law and the ADL or the ACLU and Southern Poverty Law Center would consider those comments discriminatory hate speech, why wouldn't we? Here's a hypothetical: if anyone who is Jewish (regular editor, infrequent, newbie or just a reader) happens to stop by there and read them and is insulted and/or offended and feels discriminated against, then there's extreme damage done. And not just to the person who is offended, but the reputation of Wikipedia. Which could also then become a feeling of "Wikipedia makes excuses for and allows editors to promote anti-semitic commentary". Can anyone not see this? I agree with what Sir Joseph said above: it's shocking there are editors defending these comments. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by My very best wishesOne should look at the comment by SPECIFICO in appropriate context [148]. This thread is a discussion of content, which includes such things as conversion to Judaism. This is something widely published. The comment by SPECIFICO is obviously not directed against any other participants of the project. Neither this is a BLP violation. Does it qualify as "antisemitic"? I do not think so because she discusses something published in sources. Winkelvi tells: "If an editor who's Jewish ...". I think it is precisely the kind of argument one must avoid around here. OK, I am also partly Jewish. So what? My very best wishes (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by GeogeneMONGO said, SPECIFICO seems to think the purpose of a BLP page is to make assumptions about what the subject of the BLP thinks. Actually, the evidence already given seems to show it was MelanieN doing that. Geogene (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by MelanieNIn an effort to Assume Good Faith, that was a possible interpretation I put onto SPECIFICO's comment - that maybe she was trying to convey that was how Trump thought about it. SPECIFICO has not confirmed this interpretation; she has related the use of "unwashed" to the term "great unwashed" meaning lower class or working class. It should be noted that I initially said "Shame on you" to SPECIFICO for using this language[149] - not realizing that it would escalate into a major issue. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by JFGNo strong opinion on this particular dispute, except that the whole conversation looks excessively emotional for a talk page where everybody should be focused on improving article content instead of blaming each other. But I do challenge the admins' response: how many times is SPECIFICO going to walk away from her inflammatory attitude with yet another warning to edit more carefully and be more respectful of her fellow editors? — JFG talk 20:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by TryptofishI've been looking at this section while participating more actively in the section above. I think it would be reasonable to cut Sir Joseph a little slack over initiating this report. I can appreciate how, seeing the language in question, a person acting in good faith could become concerned about it, even though, at the same time, it looks to me that SPECIFICO was not actually stating it as an antisemitic assertion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Bus stopThis might squeak by as not being antisemitic but it is egregiously gratuitous. Bus stop (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning SPECIFICO
|
Paul Siebert
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 Paul Siebert
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Paul Siebert (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
- Eastern_Europe#Standard_discretionary_sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [150] (last phrase at the bottom) - This is a BLP violation - accusing Stéphane Courtois of forgery; accusing a scientist of a scientific forgery is a very serious accusation.
- [151] - This is a repeated BLP violation - contrary to claims by Paul, Courtois was not accused of forgery by his colleagues. They only had a public disagreement about numbers in a book and some interpretations.
- [152] - This is a personal attack on article talk page (if a person behaves as a troll, then it is reasonable to conclude they are a troll, etc.) Paul argued about his edits: (a) (edit summary: "The source did not say the order was to use gas vans" and (b) [153]. Note that based on his own words (diff #3), Paul was well aware that the sources did say it, contrary to his edit summary. Here is whole thread. Paul make this edit to remove phrase "who acted on the orders from the higher NKVD administration" (his edit summary is "It is not clear that usage of gas vans was authorised by Berg supervisors...". This is also the title of the thread he started. How he justifies the removal? He tells (diff #3): "Nobody claims executions [of prisoners in gas vans] was Berg's own initiative. Obviously, he was doing that according to the order of his supervisors. The question was if the construction and usage of gas vans was the order of his supervisors." Does it sound logical?
- [154] - This is personal attack on article talk page (starting from You cannot pretend you are an educated and skillful person...). This is clearly a personal comment, not just a criticism of something I have written during any discussions. He responds to this my comment.
- [155] This is an unsubstantiated accusation of bad faith.
- [156]. His "explanation" why I act in the bad faith.
- [157] (last phrase at the bottom of the diff) - This is false accusation of misinterpreting a source. The accusation is completely groundless.
- [158] Paul tells: if you see no anti-Semitism in these Solzhenitsyn's words, that tells something about you - reply to this. No, I do not see anti-Semitism in this quotation (last diff). Do you? What it suppose to tell about me? Yes, some writings by Solzenitsyn were debated as possibly antisemitic.
- [159] - Long political rant culminating in accusing user Woogie10w of ... not respecting Paul's grandfather and Soviet people (your father came back .... because my grandfather was killed... Please, show respect to the people whose deaths allowed you to live. They were not just cattle...).
- (older) [160] (at the bottom) - This is bad faith assumption - accusing Collect of deliberately violating a policy: You are repeatedly adding the text that violates WP:NPOV without properly explaining this addition on the talk page, citing a deliberately wrong reason. Their conversation resulted in such exchange: [161] ("you accused me of lying"), [162] ("I never accused you of lying, ... You falsely accused me in 1RR violation.")
- [163] - misleading edit summary. The edit was explained on talk page [164], and Paul was well aware of this (some further comments: [165]).
- (older) [166] - a thread started by Paul on article talk page. This is a violation of talk page guidelines. As banner on the top of the page tells, one should discuss only the improvement of the corresponding main space page. The thread by Paul was not about improvement of the page, but a flow of bogus personal accusations. They were bogus because there was no 1RR violation or any other "violations" alleged by Paul. This is actually a perfect example to explain how and why numerous article talk pages in the project are transformed to the "battlegrounds" simply because contributors (Paul in this case) start accusing others on the pages which exist only for discussing the improvement of content.
- 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
I was very reluctant to submit this request and thought it might be avoided. Therefore, prior to filing any requests, I tried to explain to Paul that his editing was problematic (whole thread), but he responded with offenses (diffs #5, #6, "that's a lie", "you continue to pretend"). Moreover, he continued doing the same (for example, diffs #1, #2 and #9). All these discussions were related to Eastern Europe.
@The Blade of the Northern Lights. I added a few more diffs. In addition, Paul produces very long and fruitless discussions on article talk pages and refuses to accept consensus or the lack of consensus. For example, speaking about "Black Book", he posted this question a few years ago. He recently re-posted it again [167]. He received no support, but still continue defaming the author of the book on WP pages (diffs #1 and #2). And no, his sources to discredit Stéphane Courtois are absolutely cherry-picked, quoted out of context, and do not support the assertion by Paul that the notable academic has been involved in a scientific misconduct (it is a very serious accusation). It is a BLP violation and WP:OR by Paul.
@Woogie10w. Most my diffs were not about the "Mass killings" page, but I am not surprised you do not want edit this subject. I think one problem is that Paul clearly exhibits an WP:TE editing pattern on the talk page (diffs #1, #2, #10, and #12; #9 was also related to this page). He also starts multiple threads trying to discredit the "Black Book of Communism", which is probably one of the best academic RS on the subject of this page. He does it over and over again: [168],[169],[170],[171]. And he continue doing the same on this AE page - see his response below [172].
Speaking about responses by Paul below [173], I think this is an illustration why discussing anything with him is difficult. For example,
- Diff #7. Paul continue to insist that I mistranslated or misinterpreted something. Where? Any diff with my alleged "translation"? There is nothing.
- Diff #8 (antisemitism accusations) -No, there was no any misunderstanding. Please check my comment Paul responds to in diff #8. Paul, what does it "tell about me"?
- Diff #11. No, I did not make my edit against consensus. Paul provided incorrect/misleading link to something that had happen much later, after his and my edit [174]. Here is the state of discussion at the moment of his edit. What consensus? In fact, these words were unilaterally just inserted by Paul [175] (so I acted per WP:BRD).
- Diff/link #12. I asked Paul previously not to make personal comments on article talk pages [176]. Nevertheless, he started this thread on article talk page 10 days later. Why? Paul tells that discussing other people on article talk pages is a proof of his good faith [177]. ??! No, Paul, I think you did not report these alleged "violations" on the ANI only because they were not violations. Paul tells this thread was not personal. How come? He made this title: ??? + POV pushing and provided diffs with comments about non-existent "POV pushing" by another contributor. My very best wishes (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Paul Siebert
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 Paul Siebert
I have to skip the most ridiculous accusations because of space limitations.
1. Re: Forgery etc: reliable sources say that Courtois "manipulated"[1] or "deliberately inflated"[2] some figures, which he then used as a proof for his theory. A beginning if the discussion of this question can be found here, all diffs cannot be provided because there were a lot of them). Manipulation of figures by Courtois lead to a serious conflict between Courtois and his co-authors:[3] Two main contributors of this book (Werth and Margolin) claimed that Courtois took the figures produced by them and produced the figures that were considerably inflated as compared to the original data. Such manipulation is not necessarily tantamount to forgery, but it is very close. That is exactly what I say ("it seems Courtois simply forged his figures"), and a well documented public scandal over this story demonstrates that my statement was hardly an exaggeration.
2. redundant
3. Re: "if a person behaves as a troll, then it is reasonable to conclude they are a troll": To explain this, I need to briefly describe a content dispute in a formal way. Durin a discussion, I said: "I agree that the facts A and B did occur. However, I disagree that C follows from A and B. [4] MVBW twisted my words, and claimed "You admitted that A and B did occur, which mean you yourself agreed with C". To me, such behaviour is a typical trolling.
4. Re: "You cannot pretend you are an educated and skillful person..." Truncation completely changed the meaning of this sentence. A brief summary of my full post is: "You are smarter than the posts you make, please, return to a rational discussion". (MVBW is a scientist who is supposed to be familiar with the criteria applied to scientific publications and good articles).
5. Re: "This is an unsubstantiated accusation of bad faith" (partially addressed above (#4)). The whole discussion can be seen here. Obviously:
- There were no accusations of bad faith, it was an answer to a direct question: "do you accuse me of bad faith?" MVBV asked me on my talk page.
- It looks like MVBW started the whole discussion in attempt to force me to make this statement (as if they were already contemplating to file this AE request).
- The policy does not prohibit accusations of bad faith, it prohibits unsubstantiated accusation. In this particular case, my words were not "an unsubstantiated accusation", but a logical summary of a long discussion.
6. Re: This diff see above.
7. Re: "last phrase at the bottom of the diff". A key point here is that the exact translation of the word "расстрелять" (that means not "execution" (a general term), but "shooting").[5] Obviously, if one sees this my phrase taken out of context, it looks somewhat rude. However, taking into account that, as a rule, any discussion with MVBW makes several rounds where all arguments are being repeated ad nauseum, some degree of irritation is quite understabdable.
8. Re: "if you see no anti-Semitism in these Solzhenitsyn's words, that tells something about you" retrospectively, I see that it was just misunderstanding. I thought we were discussing this statement,[6] whereas that book described the same subject in two different chapters, and the wording in another chapter was less anti-Semitic.
9. Re: "Long political rant" Actually, it was a friendly discussion between Woogie10w and me on our talk pages, where Woogie10w and I disclosed some personal information about our ancestors. I feel very uncomfortable that a third person wedged into this discussion, and I am not intended to discuss the details here. Although Woogie10w and I interact very rarely, I think he is a very kind and interesting person, and I am glad he thinks the same about me. Since I believe off-Wiki communication is something we should avoid, my email is disabled, so a talk page dialogue was the only way to communicate with Woogie10w. In my opinion, MVBW's behaviour in this particular case was profoundly dishonest.
10. Re: "accusing Collect of deliberately violating a policy" Don't have space to discuss this unrelated story.
11. Re: "misleading edit summary" In reality, (MVWB was acting against talk page consensus (see the "War breaks out in Europe; a pretext for a Soviet invasion" section).
12. Re: "a thread started by Paul on article talk page" This thread must be read in full from the beginning to the final TFD's post. It is a representative example of MVBW's behaviour. I just wanted to add that although I know MVBW since very early times (starting from his conflict with another user, which gave a start to the WP:EEML story, when MVBW was editing under the currently deleted account "Biophys"), I still assumed MVBW's good faith until June 2018. Regrettably, after this case, I have no possibility to assume it any more.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Through the manipulation of numbers (...) the impression is created that Communism is four times worse than fascism and that the Holocaust was not a uniquely evil crime
- ^ Hiroaki Kuromiya. Review Article: Communism and Terror. Reviewed Work(s): The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, and Repression byStephane Courtois; Reflections on a Ravaged Century by Robert Conquest. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 191-201. [1]
- ^ Courtois enormous body count of Communism's victims certainly sparked the ire of some of his detractors - including Nicolas Werth, a contributor of the Black Book of Communism who broke over several aspects of the introduction, including the fact that Courtois used a figure of twenty million dead at the hands of Soviets, whereas Werth's own estimate, given in his chapter of his volume, was fifteen million
- ^ More concretely, (i) the source says that a person X obtained general instructions from his supervisors; (ii) to implement these instructions, X had to do some technical step; (iii) however, the source does not say this particular technical step was a part of instructions X got from supervisors.
- ^ The source says about Stalin's Great Purge. It tells about one person, Berg, who was accused of inventing the gas van. Berg explained that he was acting in accordance with the orders of his supervisors, who demanded his team execute (literally, "shoot") a huge number of people. The team was incapable of doing that, so he had to build a gas van. The source uses the word "shoot", not just "execute", which means the order to execute people did come from Berg's supervisors, but creation of gas vans was Berg's own initiative. Since MVBW is proficient in Russian, they could not make this misinterpretation just by mistake.
- ^ Google translates this fragment as follows: "And - I call on the Jews. Repent not for Trotsky-Kamenev-Zinoviev, they are already on the surface, they can be brushed aside: "they were not Jews!" And - to look honestly at the depth of the early Soviet oppressor apparatus - to those "invisible" like Isai Davidovich Berg, who created the famous "gas vans", which killed the Jews themselves too, and even to more inconspicuous people who were doing routine paperwork in the Soviet apparatus and never went public." In other words, Solzhenitsyn directly accused Jews, as an ethnic group, in inventing gas vans.
additional comments (I don't know if this is included in the 500 word limit, and I see no problem if this my post will be deleted)
Re: "My very best wishes (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC) "
- Re: Diff #8. The citation from this diff was taken from the the Wikipedia article, and I was not sure the source was quoted correctly. To check that, I opened Solzhenitsyn's book, and the first fragment of the text that I found was the one I already presented in a footnote (a highly anti-Semitic one). Anyway, if a book contains at least one statement of that kind, that makes a whole book anti-Semitic. I believe everybody agrees with that. If MVBW disagree, that tells more about MVBW than about me.
- Re: Diff #11. Yes, exactly. MVBW expressed a concern about one edit. This edit was previously supported by one user, and another user expressed a concern, that I successfully addressed (Piotrus agreed with my explanations and supported this text later in a separate post). MVBW was dissatisfied with this edit, and we started a discussion. The diff provided by MVBW demonstrated that, instead of addressing my last argument, MVBW unilaterally decided to delete the statement from the article, and provided no further explanations a response to my last argument. Obviously, that step looked as a refusal to discuss, and, therefore, my edit summary absolutely correctly described a situation as I saw it given the facts available to me by that moment. I sincerely don't understand what is the point MVBW are trying to demonstrate in this post.
- Diff/link #12. This section starts with my comments on some edits. No names were mentioned. If, according to MVBW, such posts are not allowed on article's talk pages, what these pages are needed for? Frankly, I don't understand what exactly MVBW wanted to demonstrate by providing this link, because the whole thread tells nothing negative about me: Actually, this particular thread is a clear demonstration of my good faith, becasue instead of reporting MVBW on ANI fro 1RR violation, I just described this incident (without providing any names) on the talk page, thereby giving MVBW a chance to self-revert. What is obvious from the thread is that it tells a lot of negative things about MVBW's own behaviour, and it explains why my reaction was sometimes redundantly emotional.
- --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Re: "MVBW@The Blade of the Northern Lights" This post contains so many false accusations, that I need to address (although I didn't plan to talk about that initially).
- Re "Paul produces very long and fruitless discussions on article talk pages and refuses to accept consensus or the lack of consensus." An RfC (note, this RfC was opened not by me!) is currently open about removal of the Black Book from the article's lead [178], and the votes are 50:50. Interestingly, some voters who oppose removal, make a reservation that criticism of this book should be added. The RfC that was open by me [179] asked a question about the need to add criticism every time this source is being cited, and many users supported this idea. In separate sections, started not by me, but other users, they present a lot of evidences demonstrating that the source MVBW is trying to advocate is very questionable. The examples of these posts are this, this, this, this, or this. This means, the question about Courtois and his figures is being raised by many users, who provided serious arguments against this source. MVBW was a participant of majority of these discussions, and MVBW cannot claim they were not aware of that.
- The arguments I present on talk pages are based on a result of an absolutely neutral search described here. As a result of that search, I produced a set of the top quality reliable sources : the articles published in the most reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals. These sources tell us that the Black Book of Communism is generally seen as a questionable source due to the statements Courtois made in the introduction, i.e. the very statements MVBW is advocates. The results of this work deserve at least a serious discussion, however, all discussions that involve MVBW are just repetition of the same stupid arguments and ignoring elementary facts. The most frequent trick MVBW uses is to refer to WP:V during a dispute about neutrality [180], so my time and efforts are being wasted in fruitless discussions with a troll, who brings no fresh reliable sources or reasonable arguments. Not only I, but many other users, including user:Fifelfoo, user:AmateurEditor, user:The Four Deuces, user:Aquillion, user:Vanamonde93, user:RhinoMind, user:GPRamirez5, user:C.J. Griffin and others seem frustrated: some of them minimized their activity, others express their dissatisfaction openly. Examples are this comment (the last sentence), this comment, or Woogie10w's comment below.
- Not only MVBW ignores a criticism on the talk page, they are trying to remove any mention of Black Book criticism from the article. Here, MVBW removes the mention of controversy from the lead, here, MWBV is doing that again, here MVBW removes it again along with a POV tag (despite the fact that a hot discussion was in progress on the talk page). MVBW is doing that with a very misleading edit summaries, and all these edits directly ignore multiple arguments and sources presented by several users repeatedly.
- The space limitations do not allow me to present all evidences, however, I can do that in a separate place if arbitrators decided that that case deserves their attention. As far as I know, MVBW is one of two accounts of the former user Biophys (see WP:EEML) (the second account is pretty innocent, and I don't see any problems with it), and I do not see why one person should have two accounts, one of which is being used for civil POV pushing. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Statement by (--Woogie10w (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC))
I got involved in this discussion about Mass Killing under Communist regimes and gave up. The discussion degenerated into a gigantic POV storm because the editors, including myself, were not discussing the source Courtois. When I tried to discuss the various sources related to the topic I was ignored. The editors I interacted with constantly argued based on their own POV rather than citing reliable sources. I suspect that the editors were acting in good faith but were not familiar the topic and the sources. In my case I made the big mistake of wasting my time engaging a long winded discussion that involved my own POV, I realized my mistake and opted out of the discussion. Paul was acting in good faith and really needs to base his arguments on reliable sources that can be verified. I have hard copies of the sources and am willing to work with editors who want to improve the article.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Result concerning Paul Siebert
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- At first glance it does look as if Paul Siebert needs to dial it back a few notches. I'm not sure whether this necessitates sanctions at this point, I could be persuaded either way, but clearly several of those comments add much more heat than light. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The Rambling Man
No violation. Stephen 23:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning The Rambling Man
Explanation below.
In the past, I've repeatedly noticed TRM threatening to take editors to ArbCom and never following through. This produces a chilling effect on contributions. I noticed these edits earlier today on my watchlist [183] [184] [185], prompting me to place a polite note on TRM's talk page asking he avoid wielding ArbCom like a weapon in his disputes. I was attempting to de-escalate that situation, but instead I was accused of making some type of threat toward him [186], something I very clearly did not do. The two diffs linked above speculate wildly about my motivation for posting that note on his talk page, ascribing it to some type of ArbCom conspiracy to "get him". This is a rather blatant violation of his prohibition against speculating about the motivation of others. In the past, TRM has asked me to use his talk page if I have any concerns instead of going to a noticeboard, which is what I tried to do here. Evidently, that doesn't work, as even a short and polite note receives this sort of response, so here we are.
Discussion concerning The Rambling ManStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by The Rambling ManDespicable that a member of Arbcom has resorted to such. Just leave me alone. Even the admin in question who I am building the case against has encouraged me to do so. Baited and entrapped. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC) By the way, a few thoughts:
With no irony whatsoever, I've received many emails which aren't anonymous from long-standing editors who haven't contributed to this case who support me completely. I guess that's what happens when these kinds of "reports" are made. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by Vanamonde93
Statement by FramSanctioning an editor when he first is baited, reacts as could be expected, and then gets reported by the baiting "concerned editor", seems more like a self-fulfilling prophecy than anything else. TRM should know when to shut up, but Bu Rob certainly should know where his "concerns" are likely not wanted and bound to be counterproductive. An ArbCom member talking about ArbCom to an ArbCom sanctioned editor shuoldn't be surprised that them posing simply as a "concerned editor" isn't really convincing or helpful. Trout Bu Rob and TRM and drop this for the non-event it actually is. Fram (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by DwellerDismiss this nonsense, per what the others above say. And once again, Sandstein, I maintain that you are not an uninvolved administrator when it comes to TRM. If you don't believe me, look at how every time he's brought here, you opine below that he should have some hefty block and the community roundly disagrees with you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
There's consensus. Move to close --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by WBG
Statement by Davey2010Personally I feel the comments were baiting, Had TRMs comments been made over a few days or weeks then I could kinda understand the message but as they were made within an hour I feel the message was OTT, I also feel BuRob should not have replied (or if they felt the need to then they should've replied with "okay well this was made in good faith and that's it" and then left it at that), Speedy close, Speedy decline. –Davey2010Talk 15:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Statement by JbhunleyI just want to note the relavent part of INVOLVED reads: One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. While it seems to give a pure pass for 'purely administrative role' the whole point of INVOLVED is to limit administrators from acting as administrators in situations where they may have formed a bias based on their prior editing and interactions. It does not really envision a long term conflict between an admin and editor where the admin has potentially formed a bias because of administrative work. While I do not know enough of the history between these two I have seen Sandstein's netutality with respect to The Rambling Man questioned in good faith by respected editors and administrators. If Sandstein does not want to step aside simply to avoid the appearance of bias and out of respect for those who have repeatedly expressed concern, I would suggest biting the bullet and opening up an AN thread to address the question. I do not know that I like the idea that INVOLVEMENT can be triggered by any administrative interactions, even if long term and adversarial as this one seems to be. Generally I would expect an admin to recognize when their judgement may be compromised, as envisioned by INVOLVED, regardless of whether they meet the letter of it. Failing that I would expect that they would step aside once several editors repeatedly bring the matter up; If for no other reason than to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Since this has not occurred and leaving the matter outstanding will ultimatly lead to Sanstein's administrative actions being questioned and the inevitable drama which will follow, I strongly suggest the matter be resolved sooner rather than later. Jbh Talk 15:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Statement by power~enwikiI do see a clear violation here in TRM's comments to BU Rob here (speculating on Rob's motives); I also feel that was deliberately baited and recommend closing with no action. An ARBCOM case regarding conduct at WP:DYK has been widely speculated for quite some time and I don't feel TRM's comments on that topic justify any action. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Result concerning The Rambling Man
|
Nishidani
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 Nishidani
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Nishidani (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/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
13:43, 18 June 2018 Revert of Material that he removed [191] and not waiting 24h before the last revert [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khan_al-Ahmar&diff=846303318&oldid=846174932 21:00, 17 June 2018]- 14 June Calling editors "Pov warriors"
- 15 June calling editor "revert specialsit
- 16 June Calling other editors that don't agree with him insane( "No one in her right mind..")
- I urge the admins to look at the diffs presented by IceWhiz
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
Was blocked in March as AE sanction [192]
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Except the 1RR violation and edit warring that should be taken care by admins the editor creates toxic atmosphere around him, calling the editors he don't agree various names to diminish them and create a chilling effect its not the fist time its happens since the topic ban was lifted by ARBCOM(he was banned exactly for that) take for example case from the last year [193]- Yes I well aware that other user might violated 1RR in this article like I noted[194] and if the admins see fit they may sanction them or not but the problem with Nishidani editing are going beyond that
I just like to remind everyone that revert is an edit too of course so the rule does apply so please stop WP:Wikilawyering Per WP:3RR " An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert".So yes now that he reverted he became the original author of the edit as it his revert.Also if there are still any doubts please look at TGS case[195] it was ruled as violation- And if there some problem with user editing there are appropriate venues and its not talk page of RSN board by doing that he crated vexatious atmosphere --Shrike (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- BellezzasoloMaybe I missed that we have a new rule that editors that under WP:SPI investigation could be reverted at sight? Shrike (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- I urge you to look at the diffs presented by IceWhiz. Also do you think commentaries like "revert specialist" and "pov wariors" are acceptable in the topic area?
* No he didn't wait for 24 hours from the last revert, he was reverted at [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khan_al-Ahmar&diff=846303318&oldid=846174932 21:00, 17 June 2018] and then he reverted back 13:43, 18 June 2018
- As it was noted the 1RR is very complex rule I was mistaken and I am sorry but the WP:NPA violation are still not acceptable in topic area
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Nishidani
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 Nishidani
Sigh. Shrike,AE is not a venue to get rid of editors. It serves to deal with problematical behaviour that is obstructive of rational constructive and collaborative work to make wikipedia authoritative in its neutral presentation of the realities of the world based on a capacity to ascertain grounds for compromise. You well know that, as in the past, I have, save for one distant exception, when notified of a perceived 1R infraction either immediately reverted or consulted an expert to make a call, and adhere to his or her judgment.
What your interpretation is saying about 1R strikes me as bizarre. I must wait 24 hours after a bad edit is made before reverting it? I waited three days, watching Attack Ramon persist in restoring poor material against the advice of three editors?
I notified Attack Ramon that his sources were deeply defective, at 17:19, 15 June 2018, reverting him, and as is proper immediately (2 minutes). told him he was using an appalling source for a controversial edit. He added a further non RS source, ignoring my point that the Gatestone Institute cannot be used for facts, by adding two more very dubious sources, without removing the former. I told him to go to the RSN board (as I regularly do) if he doubts my judgement (based on this, to cite one of several. He persisted in reintroducing bad material, had no talk page backing, indeed was contrary to the provisory consensus there, and I reverted him 3 days later, advising him to take up the matter at the RSN board, which he refused to do. In Shrike’s interpretation of 1R, Attack Ramon (the name says it all) can break 1R, persist against consensus in restoring quarter baked opinion pieces from dubious sources in several edits over some days, and I must wait a full day after his last edit in order to revert him.
Without wishing to blow a personal trumpet, I go to great lengths on any I/P page I happen on to lay forth abundant academic textual material that would appear to lend weight to my edits. It takes hours to do this. See here, Here (regarding the extensive addition I made here, or at the page in question where I am accused of a 1R violation here.
If I have a big problem with an editor I try to avoid AE and reason it out with a neutral umpire, even if my request is met with silence. My revert warrior remarks merely annotate the reality: only Icewhiz appears to trouble himself with talk page arguments for his edits or mine. The rest sit round, turn up and either ‘vote’ against any edit I may make, or drop a one liner in favour of anyone whose POV they share. People who do not read up sources, who insistently restore notoriously bad sources into a text, or, rather than tweak, simply revert mechanically trusting that the 1R rule will block intelligent editorial changes are, in my book, not committed to wikipedia’s core policies. Our encyclopedic function is not to erase, revert, vote,or use egregiously bad sources to support a POV: it consists in the careful weighing of evidence fairly and its inclusion or exclusion according to strict standards of quality.I think of the score or more of people regularly editing the I/P area five or six understand this. The rest read everything in terms of which nationalistic POV is at stake.
- ‘no one in his right mind’ refers to anyone who who deny that a Palestinian murdering innocent people constitutes terrorism. Everyone on that page would agree with that, and my point was that, law is neutral as to acts like these, (and therefore if a Jewish Israeli group goes round murdering innocent people it logically falls under the same commonsense definition , as I evidenced by mustering 22 academic or quality specialist sources which define such acts committed by the Irgun as terrorism). I have personal matters to attend to for most of this day.Nishidani (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Nableezy
Um Shrike, Nishidani isnt required to wait 24 hours from the last revert to remove material from an article. The restriction you are misreading says the original author of an edit may not restore that edit for 24 hours after the revert. Nishidani isnt the original author of that edit. In fact, if you were interested in actually enforcing the rules here, there is one violation of that restriction, but it isnt by Nishidani. Attack Ramon (talk · contribs) is the original author of the edit, and was reverted by Nishidani. Attack Ramon however did not wait the required 24 hours to revert the revert. So, if you are interested in a neutral application of the rules, perhaps you should refactor this request into one about Attack Ramon. nableezy - 22:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- Youre also, either purposely or otherwise, misreading the no one in their right mind quote. nableezy - 22:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The talk page reverts are reverts of a user making unsourced claims about a living person explicitly calling for terrorism. That a user sees that as evidence to bring for banning the user removing BLP violations rather than the user making BLP violations is I guess quaint is the most appropriate word I can muster. nableezy - 18:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- He shouldnt have removed the other things though, Nishidani take care to not remove non-BLP violations when removing BLP violations. nableezy - 18:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Bellezzasolo
It looks like the WP:1RR provision was technically violated, on the "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit." clause. In my experience, it is this clause that catches people out, and I can see no evidence of a self-revert request before coming to AE. Whether Nishdani is aware of the intricacy of that clause or not is therefore questionable (although, given a previous block, they should have checked the details). The other factor here is that Attack Ramon has an attitude towards GAMING 1RR. Finally, there exists Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100, where Attack Ramon is listed, so we should allow that investigation to conclude before judging the 1RR violation, under WP:NOT3RR. Diffs 2 and 3, while not CIVIL, well, given gaming. 4 doesn't seem to be a directed attack to me. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- It's also been pointed out that Nishdani is no tthe original author of the edit. In which case, I don' think there's anything actionable here. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Shrike: It's a dodgy area, and I'd only do it when I'm certain that the user is indeed a sock (and is being disruptive, even if it's not clear vandalism). But reverting edits by banned/blocked users is exempt, and that clause I'd say does apply. Of course, if you get it wrong, there's the double whammy of edit warring and treating the non-sock uncivily. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 09:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Hijiri88
(Disclosure: I am technically a Nishidani talk page stalker, but I rarely check in, but the notification of this report appeared on my screen after I saved an unrelated message I just left him, and I decided to check out of curiosity.)
Just noting that, regardless of whether a violation of 1RR technically took place, the other diffs are apparently bogus.
- "revert specialist" refers to an editor of whose mainspace edits roughly 50% include edit summaries beginning "Undid", "rv", "restoring", etc., and the other 50% would need to be checked to determine how many are manual reverts or had their edit summaries altered from the automated ones that giveaway whether they are reverts.
- "POV warriors" does not refer to any specific named editor, and in context clearly only applies to editors who themselves make an arguably worse accusation against the "other side", calling them "activists" which carries implications about off-wiki activity. Basically this is not a "personal attack" but an assertion that there are POV warriors in the topic area, which is a truism, and is the reason this stuff is reported in AE.
- "No one in her right mind" refers to editors on Nishidani's "side" who insist that Palestinian terrorism should not be called "terrorism"; it is not an attack on "other editors that don't agree with him". These kind of bogus reports are what makes it so difficult to get sanctions against people when they actually are constantly questioning other editors' sanity.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Icewhiz: Haven't clicked on your diffs, since you probably wouldn't provide quotes that, out of context, looked more benign than the actual comments. None of the quotes you provide seem particularly egregious, and in fact most seem like fair descriptions and are quite polite given the context. As above, there are POV pushers; if there weren't, this wouldn't be a problem area on which ArbCom had to place sanctions. The Khazar comment in particular is completely benign, and actually very even-handed and reasonable. I don't know how "right" he is on the substance (I personally have never heard the theory cited by anyone but antisemites, but I don't read as much as I perhaps should on medieval Jewish history), but the fact that he "attacks" (to use the language of those who apparently want to sanction him) both sides evenly actually argues against the claim that he is a POV-pusher who attacks editors who disagree with him. That, plus the fact that the Khazar theory is only very loosely related to the Arab-Israeli conflict; neither Khazars nor Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry is apparently subject to the general prohibition as neither appears to be under any level of protection, let alone EC protection. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Describing, for example, the removal of this apparent BLP violation as prohibited by TPO is extremely questionable. If you believe there are legitimate content concerns being raised by the SPAs in question, then you should raise them yourself. Nishidani did not invoke the General Prohibition in his blankings, so there's no indication that he has misunderstood it as applying to talk pages as you imply (
non-extended confirmed users are permitted to post suggestions on talk pages
); those kinds of blankings would be justified -- or at least justifiable -- on any BLP's talk page, ARBPIA or no. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)- Claiming that 1RR applies to talk page removals is questionable -- has the Committee ruled on this? I ask because removing multiple different questionable messages over any period of time is not "edit-warring" by the traditional definition, especially if the messages were by multiple editors. Additionally, if at least one was a BLP violation, then it was not a 1RR violation since only one of the reverts counts. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Shrike, it should be noted that you have not addressed the fact that your accusations of NPA violations have been questioned and you have not responded, and per WP:WIAPA your accusation that Nish broke some kind of 1RR restriction with the weak evidence you provided is itself an NPA violation. This is your fifth ArbPIA AE filing in the last two months, and your third that specifically cited 1RR; you should be more familiar with it by now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Shrike: Huldra's advice is good. You should take it to heart. If you had mentioned this on the talk page first, someone might have pointed out to you that the 1RR concern was invalid and what you were interpreting as "personal attacks" definitely are not such except if one assumes a high degree of bad faith (per, for example, my and BK's notes on "revert specialist"). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Claiming that 1RR applies to talk page removals is questionable -- has the Committee ruled on this? I ask because removing multiple different questionable messages over any period of time is not "edit-warring" by the traditional definition, especially if the messages were by multiple editors. Additionally, if at least one was a BLP violation, then it was not a 1RR violation since only one of the reverts counts. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Describing, for example, the removal of this apparent BLP violation as prohibited by TPO is extremely questionable. If you believe there are legitimate content concerns being raised by the SPAs in question, then you should raise them yourself. Nishidani did not invoke the General Prohibition in his blankings, so there's no indication that he has misunderstood it as applying to talk pages as you imply (
Statement by Icewhiz
Some additional diffs:
- Revision as of 18:40, 19 June 2018, Revision as of 18:48, 19 June 2018 - removal of posts of others in violation of WP:TPO, the posts by the new users user:Brileiweis user:Charlotte253 were addressing possibly valid content concerns, and non-extended confirmed users are permitted to post suggestions on talk pages.
- Revision as of 14:27, 17 June 2018 -
You are a serial POV reverter of fair and balanced information
- against a different editor (myself) than the one labelled above. - Revision as of 14:43, 18 June 2018 -
I discount Shrike’s mechanical edit, which was meaningless policywise
. - Revision as of 07:42, 18 June 2018
" As you readily admitted several times, you are a beginner unfamiliar with the niceties of policy, and this practice, with false edit summaries, is called drive-by reverting"
. - Revision as of 09:07, 16 June 2018 edit summary
Patently silly revert POV pushing
. - Revision as of 07:09, 12 June 2018
"This is the usual POV-driven nonsense reverting."
. - Revision as of 13:54, 7 June 2018
" Despite the best efforts of politicized POV pushers, who have tried to wreck this article in order to equate the Khazar theory with anti-Semitism, or who have argued to the contrary that the Khazar theory has nothing to do with anti-Semitism"
. - Revision as of 13:08, 7 June 2018
There's a cognitive or stylistic error in 'repeated lack of responses'
These comments are directed towards at least 7 different editors (some are general comments on a group of editors - so that's why I'm using "at least" - others are specific).Icewhiz (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- In regards to claims that the talk-page removals were BLP violations - some of them definitely weren't. Tamimi was convicted for violence (and a few incidents were filmed), and incitement. Renaming the "Slapping incident" has some merit (due to the conviction, and indeed it included more than just slapping - though the slapping has been the media focus). The connection (which goes beyond blood - e.g. travelling to the wedding in Jordan) to Ahlam Tamimi (of Sbarro) and Nizar Tamimi (also convicted) is source able - and has been covered in RS - e.g. [197][198]. The ""Slapping incident" should be retitled" section definitely wasn't a BLP vio, and the other section - should have had perhaps soruces next to each assertion - but sources could've been placed next to each one. I'm not sure I support the editing suggestions of the new users (this article is on my watchlist - and I choose not to reply) - but there is a potential discussion to be had. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers is a guideline - and removing a new user's talk page posts (without even a followup to their talk page) is not very friendly.Icewhiz (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Also the talk page removals (2 reverts - 8 minutes apart, intervening edit by other user) are 1RR violations beyond just TPO - the exception would be removing a BLP violation perhaps - but they don't look like a BLP violation and that hasn't been asserted in the edit summaries.Icewhiz (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by TheGracefulSlick
As of late, Shrike has seemingly been waiting to pounce on "violations" committed by editors he does not like. True, my cases were violations, but editors make mistakes and Shrike gave me no opportunities to correct them before running to AE. What would make it irritating for someone like Nishidani, a dedicated content creator, is that Shrike hardly contributes to content or discussions. His comments are synonymous with a yes-man, and his edits to the I/P area are largely reverts that contribute to edit wars "within the rules". I can provide diffs of this behavior if the spotlight shifts on Shrike's behavior, but I would much rather see him just change his behavior and walk away from this.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Huldra
Shrike seem to have developed a habit of reporting users, without discussing it on the relevant talk pages first, and without asking them to revert first. (Disclosure: I was reported by him last year Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive220#Huldra, also without any warning) (And there are two report by Shrike, of TheGracefulSlick, closed without action, presently on this page)
Mostly these reports end in nothing...just a massive waste of everyones time. Shrike should be gently reminded that he shouldn't report editors to WP:AE, or WP:AN/I, without having discussed the problematic edit(s) on the relevant talk page(s) first, Huldra (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
PS, and calling someone a "revert specialist", is pretty accurate, when 150 to 200 of each of their 500 edits is an "undid" edit.
Statement by (username)
ResuRlt concerning Nishidani
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- The 1RR restriction is frankly too complicated for me to figure out and so I leave that aspect to others. (If I were an active editor in that topic area, I'd probably inadvertently break it on a daily basis.) The "in her right mind" is harmless hyperbole. The "revert specialist" and "POV warrior", though, are battleground-like conduct if not personal attacks, and I could see sanctions for that. Some of the diffs by Icewhiz are also of concern. Waiting on other admins to comment. Sandstein 11:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Sandstein that the 1RR sanction is way too complicated. The way I read it, Nishidani had to wait 24 hours after the first revert after removing the material. Which they did (they waited three days). So that's not a violation. (The text reads may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit, note the first (emphasis mine) rather than last that is stated by the complaint. So we can forget about that one. --regentspark (comment) 18:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Looked at the other ones. Frankly, I find it hard to take seriously a complaint that interprets the use of "no one in her right mind" in an argument as an accusation of insanity. I would deny the appeal made by Shrike. Admins with more patience are welcome to look at the diffs provided by other editors but I think we need to put a stop to this culture of throwing trivial stuff at AE, perhaps with the hope that other editors will emerge with more diffs. --regentspark (comment) 18:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Per Regentspark. Oh, and calling someone a "revert specialist" if a very large proportion of their edits are reverts is not a personal attack. Black Kite (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek
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 Volunteer Marek
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Power~enwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Volunteer Marek (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) :
standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
For Donald Trump, a variety of other restrictions apply, including civility and "consensus required".
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 2018-06-20 18:28 Adding
despite the fact that it has resulted in several indictments and guilty pleas of Trump campaign aides and associates.
to the lead of Donald Trump. - 2018-06-20 16:37 Adding the {{update}} tag to Donald Trump.
- 2018-06-20 13:51 - on Talk:Donald Trump -
More evidence of how dysfunctional the situation is here where a vocal minority obstructs to prevent obviously relevant info from being added to the article.
- a reasonable statement, but evidence he is fully aware of the dysfunctional editing situation here. - 2018-06-19 15:58 Adding the {{NPOV}} tag to Donald Trump. This tag had been removed by L293D less than 3 hours earlier.
- 2018-06-19 14:46 Adding what I believe to be an absurd-on-its-face amount of content regarding the Trump Foundation to the lead section of Donald Trump
- While any single diff between Atsme and VM is defensible, their recent back-and-forth at Talk:Donald Trump is troublesome. Some of Marek's hostile comments towards Atsme include [199], [200], and [201] (though some of Atsme's comments are equally problematic).
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 2017-11-15 1-month TBAN from Trump-related topics
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 2017-11-15 by GoldenRing (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
American Politics has been a contentious area for some time, and the recent actions of President Trump have escalated it further. Volunteer Marek is making WP:POINT-ed edits, and additions to the lead that have no chance of obtaining consensus. This makes it more difficult for normal editing to find consensus, and requires an interminable series of lengthy talk-page discussions. Throwing maintenance tags at the article to try to get one to stick is so far from constructive behavior that some action is necessary.
@NorthBySouthBaranof: - that diff is evidence of his awareness of the editing situation, presented in context with his perpetuating that situation in other diffs. I can move it to "Additional comments by editor filing complaint" if you prefer. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@Sandstein: Discretionary sanctions are discretionary; I'm not claiming there's any specific remedy breached that requires enforcement. This is the forum to request discretionary sanctions against previously alerted editors
. I feel Marek's edits violate the expectation to follow editorial and behavioural best practice
and refrain from gaming the system
. An editor of his experience should know that tag-bombing Donald Trump is entirely un-productive, and I get the sense that his recent additions to the lead were deliberately controversial to create a pattern of "reverts of additions to the lead". power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- I would have considered it needlessly bureaucratic to propose "Non-inline maintenance tags should not be added to this article (Donald Trump) without prior discussion on the talk page" before opening this thread, but that may be necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [202]
Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek
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 Volunteer Marek
Am I missing something or is this whole request just a "he edited the article" type of complaint? None of these edits violate any of the discretionary sanctions.
Like the first one - yeah, I added it. Am I not allowed to edit the article or something?
The second one - yeah, I added it. Am I not allowed to edit the article or something?
Third one - talk page comment. Am I not allowed to comment on the talk page? And while the comment makes a general criticism, it's perfectly civil.
Fourth one - I added the tag for a different reason then another user. The tag I added was because of the POV coverage of the issues related to the Trump Foundation. Somebody else apparently had a problem with some other, unrelated part of the article. Incidentally, User:L293D broke the 1RR restriction with his two reverts but I decided to let it go. As always, no good deed goes unpunished and I'll remember for the future that any opportunity to file a WP:AE report should be seized as quickly as possible else, someone else will do it to you (sarcasm)
Fifth one - I'm sorry that the user feels this content is "absurd" (it's not - in fact the complete absence of any mention of the foundation is a glaring POV problem), but regardless, there's no violation of any sanction here. Am I not allowed to edit the article or something?
Likewise my comments with Atsme were perfectly appropriate. She posted a source claiming it supported her views, whereas in fact the source was actually contradicting everything she said (hence, she probably didn't read it past the headline). She explicitly stated that she regards reliable sources as "propaganda" and that they shouldn't be used. I have no idea how you're suppose to achieve consensus with someone who takes that position - that they just not going to observe Wikipedia policy because it doesn't fit in with their POV - but at the very least the position should be noted. Likewise, claiming "WP:RECENTISM" in regard to an edit and subject matter which goes back to ... wait for it, wait for it, wait for it... 1988 (no, there's no typos there, it's a one, followed by a nine, followed by two eights - so, you know "recent") is in fact ridiculous. Actually it's worse than that. It basically shows that Atsme was struggling to find an excuse to perform a blanket revert and couldn't find one, so she went with just some random one. Which is pretty clearly WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:GAMEing.
Again, there isn't a single violation here, it's just power_wiki complaining that I had the nerve to make edits to the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
User:NeilN actually I wasn't aware of this discussion (I searched the talk page for any thing related to the topic before making the edit but missed it). If you look at my edit history, you can see that my editing fell of sharply between May 15th and May 28th. I made only a few edits in these two weeks and none of them were Trump related. This is because I was travelling, had only sporadic access to the internet and stopped following all but a few pages. The discussion you reference occurred between May 20th and May 23rd, so yeah I missed it. I would not have made my edit if I had known about it.
Coincidentally, that discussion is another example of how the "consensus required to restore" provision is so easily WP:GAMEd by certain editors. No matter how reasonable and how well supported by sources, it only takes a few voices (and it's always the same few voices) to sabotage discussion and veto any proposal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
User:NeilN - as JFG notes below, there is a list of "Current consensus" items [203] and in fact I checked it prior to making that edit. There's nothing about indictments on it. The relevant discussion was buried in the archives. I'm not quite clear what you expect here - that every user memorizes the entire archive of the talk page so that they don't accidentally restore something that has been removed prior?
As for the POV tag - I put the tag in in good faith, because I believed and still believe that not including any information about the Trump Foundation in the article on Donald Trump is a POV violation (and removing such information under the pretense of "RECENTISM" is ridiculous). The "consensus required to restore" restriction can't apply to inclusion of tags for different reasons. Otherwise it would mean that once somebody removes a POV tag from an article, it can never be put back (without a lengthy process), which is of course unworkable. And in response to User:Sandstein - we have top level articles tagged all the time. This is the first I hear of such a practice being considered "disruptive". If I had restored the tag after it was removed, you'd have a point, but I didn't (L293D did violate 1RR in removing it though).
And sure I can refrain from making any edits to the article for a week. I'm pretty sure there'd be blind-reverted anyway, since that what happens to pretty much any attempt to update that article, all thanks to the stupid "cannot restore" restriction which gives anyone a veto power over content.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Also, want to note that it's not true that I "tag-bombed" the article. That would involve adding numerous tags for spurious reasons, see WP:TAGBOMBING, or adding a whole bunch of tags to whole bunch of articles. I didn't do that. I just added a tag in two different instances and explained the rationale each time. This is standard procedure actually, it happens all the time, and it's the removal of the tag that is disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Masem, the discussion from June 5th started by Ellen was about including "his administration's record number of criminal indictment". That's not what I added. My edit just provided context to the "witch hunt" part that's somehow included in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof
How is a talk page post that even you admit is reasonable, does not in any way constitute a personal attack, and is a cogent, non-judgmental summarization of the issue at hand, in any way evidence which justifies sanctioning someone? If we're sanctioning editors for saying the words "vocal minority," we better be ready to sanction every editor on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- That doesn't answer the question. The fact that you disagree with their edits, and the fact that consensus requires "lengthy talk-page discussions," are not grounds for sanctioning anyone. I could probably scour through the article and talk page histories and find enough reverts and talk page posts by you, JFG or any number of other people highly active on that page that I could use to declare that you are "making it more difficult for normal editing to find consensus". But that's not how the discretionary sanctions should be used. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Your first "evidence" diff is VM adding something to the lede of the article which is provably true and arguably relevant. The fact that you have reverted the addition is evidence that you disagree with VM, but it is not evidence of any DS violation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- @NeilN: If I felt like editing that article (and I don't, really), I would not have known to search a month (or more?) deep in talk page archives to try and deduce what there has and hasn't been consensus reached on. The revert is eminently reasonable on the "Consensus required" grounds, but it seems to me that articles with "Consensus required" sanctions should have a talk page header box with quick references to talk page discussions where such consensus has been reached, so that editors don't unintentionally run afoul of consensuses long ago reached. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by involved editor MelanieN
VM, I see that you did the same thing at Presidency of Donald Trump: Added a {{POV}} tag to the article because a portion of one item got removed. [204] I’m not sure if this was before or after this kind of edit became an issue at this AE report, but this kind of spite-tagging is something you need to stop doing. IMO it amounts to petty vandalism of the page. --MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Power~enwiki: I think more to the point would be something like “Volunteer Marek is prohibited from adding maintenance tags to Trump-related articles” - or “to articles he is actively editing” - or maybe “in retaliation for one of his edits getting reverted”. --MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by L293D
Thanks for the ping, VM[sarcasm], I had no knowledge of this thread. But since he decided to ping me, Ill comment here. VM clearly broke DS because the {{NPOV}} tag had already been added to the article here. I contested the addition of the tag, and then VM added it again. VM has long history of disruptive editing and POV-pushing, as seen here, when he added an {{update}} tag to the article simply because he was not happy with a detail of it, or here. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by JFG
NorthBySouthBaranof wrote: it seems to me that articles with "Consensus required" sanctions should have a talk page header box with quick references to talk page discussions where such consensus has been reached, so that editors don't unintentionally run afoul of consensuses long ago reached.
That is exactly what we have on this article: Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus, and it has tremendously helped to avoid rehashing settled issues, while leaving changes open per WP:CCC (which happened a few times, see documented amendments and stricken items in the consensus list). I would agree that such a summary should be applied to other high-profile articles under DS/CR with a long history. — JFG talk 20:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
On the merits of each cited diff:
- This sentence was discussed extensively during the Andrevan debacle from 23 to 29 May, and no consensus was reached to keep it in the lede. I understand that VM was not paying attention at that time, so he may well not have noticed. However, the same discussion was re-ignited (with a broader scope) by EllenCT on 2 June, and VM actively participated in that thread, making 13 edits in 3 days. Specifically, he expressed on 4 June an opinion that indictments of Trump-connected people should be included,[205] so he was definitely aware on 4 June that this addition was under debate and had not gained consensus. This context places his bold edit today in a poor light.
- Nothing wrong, just an unhelpful tag that I reverted, asking VM to specify what should be updated. He hasn't responded yet.
- Along with numerous prior edits to the talk page, this shows VM's disdain for the DS restrictions in place. Wrong venue to debate them.
- Bright-line DS/CR violation. That another editor had added[206] the same NPOV tag for another reason does not give VM a free pass against restrictions in place. The correct attitude would have been to open a talk page thread, stating what is purportedly non-neutral, and suggesting paths to improvement.
- Fine as a bold edit, but it was rather pointy to add so much material smack in the middle of the lede, given VM's good understanding of the editing caution advisable on this article. In the ensuing talk page discussion after this was reverted, VM's proposal faced near-unanimous opposition, and was rejected by a WP:SNOW close.
- Testing the limits of civility and assumption of bad faith (see also MONGO's list of inflammatory diffs below), but we all know Marek is a good editor despite his abrasive language. In the November 2017 case closed by GoldenRing, in addition to his Trump TBAN, VM had been
warned to edit collegially and assume good faith
.[207]
Overall, this string of edits looks like the result of VM's personal exasperation with the way Trump is covered in his BLP, and our DS restrictions that prevent him from righting great wrongs unilaterally. No idea whether any of this is worthy of sanctions. I'll leave admins to ponder this remark by VM on 3 June: So you have a situation where one side acts in good faith, the other side acts in bad faith... guess whom an absolutist sanction such as this one benefits most? It's a no brainer. It's a bad sanction. It kills articles. It goes against spirit of Wikipedia. And the 5 pillars.
[208] — JFG talk 22:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by MONGO
Frequent aspersions about the motives, editing and other perceived issues VolunteerMarek has with those he disagrees with do absolutely nothing to help the articles. It definitely comes across as bullying and it is not in the least bit conducive to a collaborative editing environment:
- [209] "Yup. More evidence of how dysfunctional the situation is here where a vocal minority obstructs to prevent obviously relevant info from being added to the article."
- [210] "...I'm going to say it again. It's simply impossible to arrive at WP:CONSENSUS with people who live in an alternative delusional reality and refuse to even agree on some basic facts, or who refuse to respect the Wikipedia policy of reliable sources. It's simply idiotic to give such individuals veto power over any edit made to the article in the way that the "consensus required to restore" provision does."
- [211] "...You're trying to excuse the inexcusable and should really reevaluate what kind of a person you want to be."
- [212] "...Oh this is ridiculous. It's the biggest story of the past two weeks, it's reported on everywhere, internationally, domestically, in conservative and liberal outlets, and yet... Wikipedia is not suppose to mention it because... a couple users realize that it's making the president look bad so they start with the WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT."
- [213] "WP:NOTAFORUM|NOTAGODDAMNFORUM" (removed the links to show he swapped NOTAFORUM to well, what he said.)
- [214] "there are actually compassionate reasons why the separations are done" <-- only a certain kind of person could say something like that with a straight face."
- [215] "...I'm always amused by the logical pretzels some people will come up to justify their WP:IJUSTONTLIKEIT."
- [216] "...Oh, nonsense. It's pretty clear from his statement that he indeed meant it literally. You are demanding that he say "I mean it literally" at the end of his every claim, or it's not meant literally. Again, this is just lame ass excuse making for an obvious lie. Oh, wait. For "speaking figuratively". Hey, I guess some people enjoy being lied to."
- [217] "...Oh jebus freakin crust but this is dumb. No, there's no fucking ISIS camp on the US-Mexico border [218] (and this is why JudicialWatch is a garbage source)and I'm sorry but anybody who believes in that nonsense is a total fucking idiot. Senators or reps or secretaries included. And it's precisely by treating people who say dumb ass shit like that seriously and pretending like this stuff can be part of regular discourse among intelligent people that we get into a situation like this, where obvious bullshit is being presented on part with established facts, and where absurd conspiracy theories are treated as possibilities, and where people walk into pizza parlors with the intent to shoot them up cuz they heard something somewhere. Enough. COMPETENCE IS REQUIRED and that applies to the very basic ability of being able to differentiate between plausible phenomena and obviously witless conspiracy theories."
- [219] "Oh BS. And a good thing that Wikipedia users' ridiculous personal "testimonies" are not considered as reliable sources and have no bearing on what content we include or not include. This is WP:FORUMSHOPPING and belongs in some conspiracy subreddit, not on a talk page of an encyclopedia article."
Statement by My very best wishes
I simply think the "consensus required" restriction should never be used on WP pages because a contributor must be well aware of all previous discussions and previous editing history of the page to follow such restriction. This is very difficult even for the most experienced and well intended contributors. See an example here [220]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Volunteer Marek
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- The first diff came up on my watchlist and caught my eye as it seems to be an obvious violation of consensus-required. The only thing saving Volunteer Marek from a block was I couldn't find any indication they were aware of this discussion. If anyone can provide evidence that VM was aware they were restoring contested material then harsher sanctions are in order. Otherwise, I'm considering an editing ban for article space on Trump-related articles. --NeilN talk to me 19:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek: Your tagging of the article isn't great behavior, either. It distinctly reminds me of editors, frustrated at not getting what they want, resort to tag-bombing the article. Will you voluntarily refrain from editing Trump articles for one week (you can still use talk pages)? --NeilN talk to me 19:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- @NorthBySouthBaranof: I don't disagree with you but almost every thread is a discussion about content and there are tens/hundreds of sentences being discussed. These discussions either achieve consensus for something or peter out with no consensus being achieved. Documenting this would probably be less fruitful than telling an editor to go read the archives. If it's any consolation, I don't think I've sanctioned any editor yet for (credibly) unknowingly violating consensus-required. --NeilN talk to me 19:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- These look like content disputes, which are not AE's business. The request does not indicate how exactly these edits violate which specific restriction or remedy. Looks not actionable to me so far. Sandstein 19:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- OK, I see now that the tagging of the article with such tags as {{NPOV}} or {{update}} is disruptive. Top-profile articles do not need these kinds of tags to draw editor attention because there's already a lot of attention on these articles, and adding such tags nonetheless looks like a case of WP:POINT. I wouldn't oppose an article ban of some kind in response to this. The rest I still think are content disputes. Sandstein 19:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with Sandstein (again!). I don't see a battleground behavior or gaming of the system here. Content disputes are best handled on the article talk page and that's where I suggest this be redirected. --regentspark (comment) 19:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- @NeilN: The discussion in your question "ended" on May 29 (date of seemingly latest comment) and was removed and archived on June 6. VM did not edit the talk page during the period the discussion was had (May 23 to May 29) but did edit on June 2 [221] and several days after. In other words, that un-hatted discussion was visible on at least on the version of the talk page that VM had to edit.
- To try to give VM the benefit of the doubt, EllenCT raised the question that included why the other indictments weren't included, and said they could not find where in the archives this was decided. No one appeared to provide a link but clearly it was there (and as I see, the "Peripheral_indictments_in_lead" section is still visible on the page as of June 2). But giving benefit of doubt towards VM, there is still this closed discussion about adding, among other things, the indictments to the lead that was closed as no consensus by Galobatter on June 5, during a period that VM was active on the talk page (eg June 4 edit - June 8 edit). In other words, that closed but non-collapsed discussion was there when Marek was editing the talk page.
- Granted, the method for tracking "consensus required" additions or omissions in a situation like this is woeful, but if we're working on the principle that an editor has edited a page that had some obvious message or caution in the specific edit that they have thus must have knowledge of it, VM definitely should be considered to have been aware of this one. And thus, of course a June 20th change that countered that would be out of line. --Masem (t) 20:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- Um, this request is pretty ... I'm not sure how to express this ... thin. If you have to go back into the history of multiple articles to work out what was visible when and where, then to be honest I don't think it rises to something that has to be dealt with here. The tag-bombing is not ideal but as Sandstein said in his original post, this is mostly a content dispute here. Black Kite (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)