Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 322: | Line 322: | ||
====Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging==== |
====Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging==== |
||
====Statement by Paul Siebert==== |
|||
First of all, since US politics is not a subject of Eastern_Europe#Discretionary_sanctions, it should be discussed elsewhere. |
|||
Regarding the rest, |
|||
*This [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icebreaker_(Suvorov)&diff=916491605&oldid=916489491 edit summary] is actually correct: the IP MVBW is referring to just restored the text removed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icebreaker_(Suvorov)&diff=722869556&oldid=720690261 by another IP]. This second IP(97.115.131.125) made [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/97.115.131.125 just two edits], another one [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Final_Solution&diff=prev&oldid=722869325 removed information about persecution of Jews], which allows us to claim that IP is whitewashing Hitler and blames USSR and US lend-lease in the German attack of USSR. Therefore, by removing the content that was previously removed by an obvious pro-Nazi IP, MVBW implicitly supported it. Therefore, a deeper analysis is needed to figure out if TheTimesAreAChanging's edit summary was a personal attack, or it was just an adequate description of what happened. |
|||
*The MVBW's edit summary is questionable in other aspects: he claimed that the text removed by one IP was added by another IP. However, first, that is not a legitimate reason for removal: any IP is allowed to edit. Second, this statement is actually false: this content was a result of a collective work of several users, for example, a significant part of the fragment removed by a pro-Nazi IP and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icebreaker_%28Suvorov%29&type=revision&diff=916483449&oldid=890861013 then by MVBW] was added, and properly sourced, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icebreaker_%28Suvorov%29&type=revision&diff=295243443&oldid=286578651 by me in 2009]. |
|||
*By removing properly sourced material under a misleading edit summary, MVBW committed a serious violation. That is exacerbated by the fact that he was ''de facto'' acting as a proxy of an antisemitic IP. |
|||
*Importantly, significant amount of evidences that became available to me allows me to suspect that this and similar MVBW's actions are not just good faith errors. Thus, upon having read TTAAC's edit summary, I decided to refresh my mind about this case, and looked through my talk page archive. I found this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Paul_Siebert/OldArchive/2010/June Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list]: an old discussion when a [[User:Viriditas]] was trying to convince me to read EEML emails, because the EEML members were contemplating against me. I recall, in 2009, I refused to read EEML's emails, but after I realised that Biophys may be dangerous not only for me, but for other users too, I decided to take a brief look at those emails, which are currently easy to find. What I found shocked me and dispelled my remaining beliefs in Biophys/MVBW's good faith. |
|||
I had almost no illusions about MVBW even before that (I do have reasons), he is not welcome on my talk page, and I do not comment on his comments. I actually imposed a voluntary one sided interaction ban with him. However, I was taking no actions against him, because I believed that that was only my problem. Now I started to realise that his activity is harmful for Wikipedia in general, and I would like to present evidences against him. In connection to that, it would be correct to suspend this case, and to wait for arbitrators' opinion on the evidences I am going to present. If the conclusion will be that I am right, then the TTAAC's edit summary was just a statement of fact, although redundantly emotional one. If the decision will be in MVBW's favour, than TTAAC's words are a personal attack. Since I was not going to report Biophys/MVBW before that case, I need some time to collect the evidences. Should I present them here, or they should be a separate case?--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 23:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
====Statement by (username)==== |
||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
Revision as of 23:56, 19 September 2019
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}}.
|
Lsparrish
Lsparrish is given a logged warning to avoid edit warring or promotion of fringe material on articles under discretionary sanctions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Lsparrish
Requesting a topic ban from fringe science topics.
Lsparrish is basically a WP:SPA advancing the fringe field of cryonics, an area which is a long-term focus of civil POV pushing by advocates of the commercially lucrative but scientifically insupportable freezing of recently deceased individuals, or parts thereof (normally the brain).
See [1]. Edits to:
These support fringe views pretty much consistently. Lsparrish has occasionally tried to make these articles less like sci-fi and mroe like an encyclopaedia (e.g. [2]) but the overall weight of contributions is consistently to advance a field that is, bluntly, a scam.
Discussion concerning LsparrishStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by LsparrishHello everyone. It is good to see more eyes on these edits, as well as constructive comments from uninvolved editors. I fully acknowledge that cryonics is unproven and does not enjoy general acceptance. However, I feel I have raised reasonable concerns with the current text of the Cryonics article. I would be interested in resolving these in collaboration with others if permitted to to so. As you can probably tell, I'm still getting the hang of editing Wikipedia, and some of the rules as to what is considered edit-warring are still a bit opaque to me. I've been mostly puzzled by the very rapid (and often accompanied by snarky and/or accusatory comments) reverts to my recent changes on the article, which were (I thought) not particularly POV pushing, rather the opposite. I hoped that a few reverts here and there of these seemingly hostile reverts would draw additional scrutiny from uninvolved editors. Edit warring, according to my previous understanding of the concept, involves attempts to wear out the opposition with repetitive reverts, something I've never purposely done and have no intention to do under any circumstance. Regarding my comments on Talk being basically POV pushing, it may be that I've been a bit more verbose or stubborn than was merited. I've tried, perhaps unsuccessfully, to strike a balance between pushing back on extreme POV (which seems to be that anything speculative must therefore be fraud) and the demands of brevity / Wikipedia's scope. Cryonics has been marketed as speculative from the beginning, and I'm hopeful that further sources will be found noting that this is actually okay, regardless of whether I'm involved in the article's future development. That being said, I'd be grateful for another chance to get this right, and welcome any feedback on how to do a better job and be a better editor. Lsparrish (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by David GerardLsparrish has an extensive history of attempting to edit-war WP:PROFRINGE edits into the article, and long-winded and tendentious justification of his edit-warring on the talk page - look at the history and talk for many examples. He has been warned several times, both on his own talk page and the article talk page, that discretionary sanctions exist in the area, and is quite aware. It would be good if this stopped, but he's been promoting cryonics online for at least the last nine years, and there's no visible reason to say he'll stop even if he were to claim he would - David Gerard (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by LevivichThoughts from an uninvolved editor:
Statement by BuffsI was going to add my two cents in here and had a list of things I'd found... Suffice to say "what Levivich said" is sufficient/spot on. Buffs (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by JFGThis is essentially a content dispute. The editor under scrutiny has been warned against pushing fringe POV, and s/he welcomes a civil debate on the wording of the article. No sanction necessary. — JFG talk 10:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by JzGLsparrish says Statement by Calton
Statement by Beyond My KenThe discussion below gives the false impression that the sentence "It is a pseudoscience,[3] and its practice is quackery" is the lead sentence of the article. It is not. The lede sentence is a technical description. It is followed by the very reasonable observation that mainstream science regards cryonics with skepticism. Only then does the above sentence appear. There is value -- even in a neutral encyclopedia -- in saying things directly and without caveats. Cryonics is indeed a pseudoscience, and its practice is indeed quackery. Saying anything less definitive would be deceptive and a disservice to our readers. I suggest that those below arguing that the sentence above is "unencyclopedic" or that there is some amount of doubt about the nature of cryonics would be better advised to do some research about it rather than to shoot from the hip. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Lsparrish
|
Lo meiin
Not currently actionable, but Lo meiin is warned to avoid battleground-like conduct. Sandstein 07:41, 19 September 2019 (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 Lo meiin
None, a new user
Lo meiin is a new user who immediately took interest in the I/P area. They opened multiple garbled RFCs (1, 2, 3), two of them on the same article at the same time. Responded in uncivil manner to an opinion they didn't like and repeatedly made significant POV changes against consensus.
Discussion concerning Lo meiinStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Lo meiinFirst of all I’d like to begin by refuting the allegations made against me. I started out filing an admin notice on auh20s talk page as I saw he is engaged in editing conflict with some editors not as a personal attack but as an appropriate means of dispute resolution. I’ve also requested countless RFCs, 3O before editing, and I even recognized where I went wrong apologized and learned from the experience in order to grow as an new editor. In addition, even after I apologized, I was labelled profanely as a “punk”, despite condemning previous personal attacks on auh20 republican by other editors. Why I combined both generally and substantially recognized states in Asia together is to avoid contention over the issue and satisfy all parties to the dispute. In addition, I attempted to present the facts in an NPOV manner by plainly and objectively stating the facts and by making no significant changes to Taiwan and Palestine’s labelling. Despite my personal reservations on the issue and me being mainland Chinese, I conceded to labelling Taiwan as a “country” for the sake of Wikipedia. Auh20 and his ally warkosign (who happens to be Israeli, making him POV on the issue) are once again hungry for conflict by reverting these edits, possibly due to their bias towards Israel over Palestine. I would also like to mention that auh20 has made several reverts to already established articles that group un member and observer states together to impose his view without previous consent. I suggest combining the two categories together to end this ceaseless feud and to turn to a new chapter on Wikipedia; and if this request is granted, I will vow never to edit any Arab- Israeli related articles until I am a confirmed user. Lo meiin (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by NableezyThere was supposed to be some sort of clarification on broadly vs reasonably construed and what is subject to the edit-restriction. AFAIK, currently only articles that are themselves as a whole related to the conflict are covered, and edits elsewhere, such at Airbnb, and consequently List of sovereign states, are not. nableezy - 20:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by Sir JosephARBPIA 30/500 is clear and the amendment request referenced here is also clear. The article itself should not be under ECP but the editor should be blocked for violating ARBPIA 30/500 and for being disruptive. He was warned several times that he can't make edits in this subject area and that talk page edits are generally allowed if they're not being disruptive (I am not sure if RFC's are allowed). We had a similar case over at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive256#Bill_Josephs just a few days ago where a new user was behaving similarly and was blocked. This seems to me a clear case and not sure we need a drawn out AE action and most certainly don't need any more articles protected. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC) On your part, you are in no position to tell me what to do in this matter when you yourself are a POV editor and advocate for the state of Israel Lo meiin (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by AuH2ORepublican
Statement by (username)Result concerning Lo meiin
|
WikipediansSweep
WikipediansSweep is indefinitely topic-banned from everything related to fringe science, including but not limited to Walter Russell. Sandstein 17:49, 19 September 2019 (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 WikipediansSweep
[24] Alerted to DS in PSCI by Bradv on September 7
I originally got pulled into this debate (on whether Walter Russell was a genius and discovered Plutonium before Niels Bohr, among other issues) as a result of a WP:3O request. I tried to be very calm, civil, and helpful, and took WikipediansSweeps less than civil behavior and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality in stride. But after more than a week, its become clear that WikipediansSweep is a WP:SPA who strongly wants Walter Russell to be portrayed in their chosen POV. For additional evidence of WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND, see Talk:Walter_Russell#Third_opinion, and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Walter_Russell. Please let me know if I've done anything wrong in this request, I have never filed a claim at AE before, and the process is a bit confusing. I tried to be very patient with WikipediansSweep, and I'm dissapointed it had to come to this. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Discussion concerning WikipediansSweepStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by WikipediansSweepConcerning the above comments in regards to changing or reverting edits that do not match the criteria prescribed recently does not seem to be ingeniune as i am actually finding sources which support the conclusions and statements i have undone edits on. One example is the Modern Leonardo claim about Walter Russell which I supported in the talk portion of the article. There have also been sweeping edits in regards to multiple paragraph deletions and other credibly sourced portions upon which i am now paying for subscriptions to support and to find. The fact this man was an architect, painter, sculptor, speaker, musician, ice skater, and inventor are all supported in my sources recently mentioned. I do not have a battle ground mentality but request sensible edits that do not step over the bounds to match someones point of view rather than find the material questionable without research. I do find a lot of edits sensible and have not touched those, but major edits in regards to things as simple as personal history to well documented sources and saying "read the rules" as its justification whenever it fails to even meet that criteria is a bit absurd. I admit to somewhat of senseless ramblings but let us be humble and admit our shortcomings and imperfections. I also do believe Einstein was somewhat fringe in the years he published his famous papers which were originally scorned and then brought up many worlds theory and how it was initially scorned, both were seemingly fringe at the time, the mentioned how planck stated that science progresses one funeral at a time. But there are some ramblings in there i do admit. But i am simply trying to publish the truth out into the world and am conforming to every standard i see that requires more due dilligence. For example there was major edits done in regards to this man bein a master musician, artist, sculptor, architect, and how was able to successfully defend his points in the new york times against outspoken scientist, where i have them, albeit clumsily in an failed embedded format, sourced. This man was also personal friends of thomas edison, mark twain, and theodore roosevelt, and many more outstanding people in our society. I also am using a mobile device for most of this if not nearly all so forgive my lagish response and failure to be more formal in multiple places such as this. I also am noting how many warnings i received and honestly have only gotten one on this end. Also my friend above, whom i thought i was in good standing with now due to my lengthy sourcing last night, originally deemed this man a kook, quack, and in my opinion shot from the hip and demanded major editing was required on this article due to simply being ill informed. Also it seems as if i am the one doing the most work on the page as i am the one find sources, and asking for validation on edits rather than "fringe stuff removed" sweeping edits that include many things not considered fringe. It was a mans unique universal perspective or philosophy if nothing more being removed as fringe to where it begets the concern on how philosophy itself doesn't classify into the same spectrum. All of which i have asked for clarity on in the talk page with some but not adequate response. So apologies as i am in an attempt to actually uncover the truth in a format befitting to all readers, not defend my point of view strictly in regards to this individual. But obviously one of the best painters, sculptors, architects, and considered by a considerable few a polymath does not seem to be quackery by any stretch of the imagination. There are articles of him giving edison medals of honor from his society and it seems almost foolish to see a man never deemed a quack in his time of prominence to be in our times deemed such by people whom lack the full information on him. I am doing my best with the little i have and do not adopt battle ground mentality but a sturdy one finding only support for my claims. I apologize if this is over my word count. (Added 10 minutes after original comment: as i said i have only received one warning on this end and admit to somewhat senseless ramblings, i am using a mobile device mostly due to situational standards, i do apologize for the lagginess and informality of much of my input, i also apologize for seemingly brutish behavior which is not intended as such, i am only trying to find the actual material accepted by standards laid out here and question the exact reasons behind some things not being seen as reasonable sources, and i have a very limited pallet, and somehow even with 10 other editors, i can, on my phone, validate many claims with dozenz of sources previously deemed kookie by other editors, that should be stating something, i hope to be in good standing and will continue to find other sources, something i was in the process of until i saw this) WikipediansSweep (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Additional: look i will take this as a formal warning because i am new to editing on wiki and for the most part am swamped in response complexities i find it hard to retort. I will cool it on my end and keep the discussion strictly professional and if there are further warnings you can ban me. For now I'm the only one adding source information previously deemed unfindable and thrown to the way side with lack of scrutiny. It honestly seems as if no one is reading those either and it seems the edits go far beyond the bounds of normal desire to present the facts and instead with a scorn for something that goes against the mainstream. Almost as if the vigor against faith healing is applied to this. That is my two cents though, I would honestly love to hear advice and feedback as it seems many eyes will view this and would be beneficial. WikipediansSweep (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning WikipediansSweep
|
TheTimesAreAChanging
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 TheTimesAreAChanging
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Discretionary_sanctions :
- 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
- (edit summary) 05:14, 19 September 2019, a personal attack (“known troll”, “in an effort to bolster WP:FRINGE nonsense defending Nazism” and more)
- (edit summary) 18:14, 19 September 2019, a personal attack again ("Stop defending Hitler!"), even after receiving a notification/reminder about discretionary sanctions in the Eastern Europe subject area
- [26], [27], [28], [29],[30],[31] - All these edits seem to be in a violation of his topic ban of American politics [32]. The topic ban concerns “all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States”. That covers foreign politics and wars by the United States. TTAC just decided to completely ignore his topic ban.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- [33], 7 February 2018 - topic ban on editing in the area of US politics imposed by Sandstein
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- The contributor was previously sanctioned at WP:AE and frequently contributed with comments, complaints and appeals on WP:AE [34]
- [35] - a notification for EE area, 16:49, 19 September 2019
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- I thought TTAAC would apologize [36] and start discussion of a disagreement [37] after his edit (diff #1). However, instead of doing just that, he responded with another offense (diff#2).
- Note that in the both diffs, #1 and #2, TTAC restored the following text: "Suvorov is often accused (or praised by historical revisionists) of shifting the blame of World War II on Stalin...[citation needed]... In his later books, Suvorov insists that Stalin was a true evil genius (although unlucky), while describing Hitler as evil but grossly incompetent.[citation needed]" This is an obvious WP:OR content which was unsourced for a long time, possibly also a WP:BLP problem. Also note that TTAAC never edited this page before. He just followed my edit to blindly revert and make an offensive edit summary.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [38]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Discussion concerning TheTimesAreAChanging
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 TheTimesAreAChanging
Statement by Paul Siebert
First of all, since US politics is not a subject of Eastern_Europe#Discretionary_sanctions, it should be discussed elsewhere.
Regarding the rest,
- This edit summary is actually correct: the IP MVBW is referring to just restored the text removed by another IP. This second IP(97.115.131.125) made just two edits, another one removed information about persecution of Jews, which allows us to claim that IP is whitewashing Hitler and blames USSR and US lend-lease in the German attack of USSR. Therefore, by removing the content that was previously removed by an obvious pro-Nazi IP, MVBW implicitly supported it. Therefore, a deeper analysis is needed to figure out if TheTimesAreAChanging's edit summary was a personal attack, or it was just an adequate description of what happened.
- The MVBW's edit summary is questionable in other aspects: he claimed that the text removed by one IP was added by another IP. However, first, that is not a legitimate reason for removal: any IP is allowed to edit. Second, this statement is actually false: this content was a result of a collective work of several users, for example, a significant part of the fragment removed by a pro-Nazi IP and then by MVBW was added, and properly sourced, by me in 2009.
- By removing properly sourced material under a misleading edit summary, MVBW committed a serious violation. That is exacerbated by the fact that he was de facto acting as a proxy of an antisemitic IP.
- Importantly, significant amount of evidences that became available to me allows me to suspect that this and similar MVBW's actions are not just good faith errors. Thus, upon having read TTAAC's edit summary, I decided to refresh my mind about this case, and looked through my talk page archive. I found this: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list: an old discussion when a User:Viriditas was trying to convince me to read EEML emails, because the EEML members were contemplating against me. I recall, in 2009, I refused to read EEML's emails, but after I realised that Biophys may be dangerous not only for me, but for other users too, I decided to take a brief look at those emails, which are currently easy to find. What I found shocked me and dispelled my remaining beliefs in Biophys/MVBW's good faith.
I had almost no illusions about MVBW even before that (I do have reasons), he is not welcome on my talk page, and I do not comment on his comments. I actually imposed a voluntary one sided interaction ban with him. However, I was taking no actions against him, because I believed that that was only my problem. Now I started to realise that his activity is harmful for Wikipedia in general, and I would like to present evidences against him. In connection to that, it would be correct to suspend this case, and to wait for arbitrators' opinion on the evidences I am going to present. If the conclusion will be that I am right, then the TTAAC's edit summary was just a statement of fact, although redundantly emotional one. If the decision will be in MVBW's favour, than TTAAC's words are a personal attack. Since I was not going to report Biophys/MVBW before that case, I need some time to collect the evidences. Should I present them here, or they should be a separate case?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning TheTimesAreAChanging
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.