Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
 |
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. 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. 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 request may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a discretionary sanction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
lists.wikimedia.orgContents
- 1 Kachelus
- 2 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
- 3 Wiking
- 4 Lugnuts
- 5 RolandR
- 6 GreatGreen
- 7 Dicklyon and Darkfrog24
Kachelus[edit]
| Editor has stopped editing. Since there is no active problem, closing. Please come back if problems recur. Hopefully they won't. Jehochman Talk 13:52, 14 January 2016 (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 Kachelus[edit]
This editor is a long-term WP:SPA who's involvement at Wikipedia since September 2009 is (almost all) editing longevity articles. Discretionary sanctions are warranted against accounts that have a "clear shared agenda" such as those who consistently edit articles, and vote in AfDs to favor the position of the Gerontology Research Group, as opposed to the goals of Wikipedia. This is that type of editor.
Kachelus As was suggested with respect to 930310 above, if you have any concerns about Legacypac, please propose a section here that explicitly explains the issues. It did no good in the section above and it will do no good here either. As to Ollie231213, I don't need to rehash the fact that a number of outside admins with no involvement in this area that agreed and supported the topic ban. If the same happens here, so be it. As to your editing, first, the issue is that the GRG has those categories and yet Wikipedia discussion after discussion among people who work on the entire encyclopedia and not the supercentenarian hobbyists have found the GRG unverified claims as not reliable sources. There have been numerous RFCs and debates on this policy with clear-cut support against the vast minority viewpoint that the GRG needs to be separately distinguished in any way. If you don't agree with that, fine but those views are considered disruptive and counter-productive here. It is not your opinions per se but the fact that your opinions reflect a complete disregard for the fundamentals behind Wikipedia's sourcing policy here with such things as demands to create a directory of supercentenarians before even considering deleting anything here that are problematic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Kachelus[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Kachelus[edit]Ok firstly sorry I have to say you are wrong, Ricky81682 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). In English wikipedia my main itenerary is longevity, yes, in other Wikipedias it is amateur soccer, politics, history and geography, but these are things you didn't know. So long-term WP:SPA is only partly true, because this topic is only dealt in English wikipedia. Over the years I tried to get the several lists in this topic to a similar content and show the correct historic names of regions about 110 years ago if they were not already written in these lists. In Wikipedia is not only GRG a source, several other media also reported supercentenarians I showed. Unfortunately GRG did not prove them, but that is not my fault when wikipedia lists made differences between verified, pending and unverified cases — it was not me who introduced that. I just want to keep information on wikipedia before people wish to remove them for reasons we cannot really understand. Over the years no one concerned about that, just now, I don't know why. But now I understand your wish to ban everyone who is not on your opinion (e.g. Ollie231213) and I think that is not what Wikipedia stands for. Legacypac nominates for AfD, and you wish to ban editors who have the opposite opinion (keeping), sorry that is not the way I want to waste my free-time for arguing against, I am not paid for that. Do, what you wish to do and be lucky with that. I wish you a very Happy New Year!--Kachelus (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by Legacypac[edit]The editor concerned named me in this discussion but did not tag or notify me. I only stumbled on it now. The tenacious editing, throwing all appeals to policy out the window is annoying. I suspect this editor is part of the off wiki coordinated efforts to clumsily vote keep on everything ever copied from a GRG list, then duplicated several times on Wikipedia in an effort to boast the credibility of that organization. Like the editors they defend who were banned, this editor needs some time to edit in an area they are less personally invested in. Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Kachelus[edit]
|
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )[edit]
| Closing as it is probably better to do nothing here, than to do something. Jehochman Talk 13:50, 14 January 2016 (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 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )[edit]
I alerted Richard Arthur Norton of the potential problems with these edits yesterday on his talk page.[4] He replied, and some further discusion followed.[5] Meanwhile, he continued making the same kind of edits (see diff in evidence above). The original sanction was in part due to problematic links to Findagrave. For the current links, the question is whether Wikidata is an external site or not (if so, it would be an obvious violation of the restriction), and whether avoiding linking directly to Findagrave by linking to self-created Wikidata pages where the (usually) only source is a self-created Findagrave page is enough of a loophole to avoid being a breach of the sanction. To me, these are violations of arguably the letter and certainly the spirit of the sanction, and the discussion shows that he doesn't really care one way or the other and continues anyway, even during the discussion we had. Fram (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC) @Carrite: the problematic edits (copyvio images, copyvio texts, and links to copyvios like copies of complete articles from Time Magazine, not "fair use" bits) continued until the ArbCom case, the "nearly a decade ago" was the worst period but the problems didn't end then. Otherwise the ArbCom case wouldn't have been started or would have been swiftly rejected. In January 2013, he added links to pages he created on things like Familypedia and Findagrave with e.g. a full 2012 article (not an obituary) from the Wall Street Journal in it. That's why the sanction was created, not because of edits from 2006 (these only showed that the problem was persistent, not a one-off mistake). That he now seeks a way to include his links indirectly anyway is very problematic, and your misguided or misinformed defense is not really realistic. Fram (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC) @Richard Arthur Norton: please don't try to give motives for my actions. I don't have a clue which AfD you are talking about, but I don't doubt you can find one where you opposed my position. I have participated in many AfDs, and many people have expressed a contrary opinion one time or another. That's hardly a reason for me to go after them in any way. Please accept the more logical explanation that I check your edits because you have been creating copyright violations and/or linking to them for years. I am highly dubious that the Wall Street Journal has in any way given you permission to reprint whole articles on websites (which is a rather extreme interpretation of "fair use" in any case, a reprint of a full article without any comment or reason), and I think this defense of yours only highlights again that your interpretation of what is fair use or copyrighted can not be trusted and is why the restrictions were created in the first place. I presume your subscription has something like this WSJ subscriber agreement[6]? No, that doesn't allow the copying of articles on freely accesible websites ("While you may occasionally download and store articles from the Service for your personal use, you may not otherwise provide others with access to such articles."). That you are still trying to defend the evidence of your links to copyright violations([7]) is cause enough to maintain all restrictions on your editing and to check your edits for further problems. Oh, and please don't change your post a day after you posted it, it makes the discussion hard to follow. Fram (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC) @Richard Arthur Norton: so you are claiming that I am still vengeful since the time of some undisclosed AfD, but not necessarily because of that AfD but because something else whih you don't name? And because I was feeling vengeful for some unknown thing from 5 years ago, I waited two years for the ArbCom case and a further three years for this clarification request, and supported the loosening of your sanctions (in some other aspect) in late 2014 probably as well? Are you going anywhere with that argument, or do you think that extremely vague accusations like that will somehow convince whoever closes this that the case should be rejected? Fram (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC) @Richard Arthur Norton: Murdoch bought the WSJ in 2007, your copyvio was from an article published in 2012 and made by you in early 2013. So your defense is clearly invalid by a quite wide margin. Fram (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC) @JzG: could you explain why? Why do you consider this frivolous and why don't you mention the editing restriction in your reply? It's not about the problem of people linking to Findagrave (or the problem of linking to Wikidata as if it is a Wikipedia article), but the problem of one specific editor with a specific editing restriction against linking to external pages he created doing exactly that but in a novel way. Fram (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC) @Hobit: it is thanks (in parts) to my checking of his edits that the problems were acted upon in the first place. Checking back to see whether the problems persist should not be a reason to cease doing that. Too many established editors with a known track record of problems are left alone anyway because not enough people can be bothered. I have seen the same pattern way too often in the past. Fram (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )[edit]Another fishing expedition by User:Fram to get me banned. He has been looking at my every edit for the past five years looking for another gotcha! moment that he can bring here. He is still vengeful from when I opposed him in an AFD debate 5 years ago. This is terrible convoluted logic, and a poor understanding of how the transitive property works. I am not to link to Findagrave entries, that I create, from Wikipedia. I link to Wikidata from Wikipedia. Wikidata links to Findagrave. Having me not link to my Findagrave entries was wrongheaded from the start, you are forcing the Wikipedia standard of fair-use onto an external website with a different standard of fair use. The terms of use for obituaries from the New York Times and Newspapers.com and Genealogy Bank and Familysearch, and yes even my Wall Street Journal subscription, Another lesson on logic and semantics. You wrote: "please don't try to give motives for my actions" because I wrote "He is still vengeful from when I opposed him in an AFD debate 5 years ago". Motives are about "why", I wrote about "when", which is the time frame. If I wrote "He is still vengeful because I opposed him in an AFD debate 5 years ago", you would have been correct, I would have been ascribing a motive for your actions, and not describing the time frame. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Carrite[edit]I have no idea why people are so out to get Richard Norton. He's a net positive to the encyclopedia; a group of shitty edits a decade ago and it's a never ending vendetta. Quite ridiculous... There is no logic to the original sanction, let alone with Vogonesque adherence to it. Carrite (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by Only in death[edit]While the linking through wikidata is one step removed, after this enforcement request has been opened, RAN has engaged in edit warring to overlink (I am being kind here, other editors have described this behaviour as linkspamming) findagrave *within* references. Cutting even closer to the restriction there, while technically he is not adding a reference, he is re-adding links to a website he is forbidden from adding references to, within the reference. Its pretty much the same story for RAN, get restricted, refuse to accept restriction, try every way to get around it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Hobit[edit]Three points
In an ideal world RAN would just stop getting as close to braking the rules as he can (stopping for yield signs isn't illegal to use his analogy and might show good faith) and in that same ideal world Fram would stop feeling the need to watch over RAN--letting someone else do it. Frankly, the close watching is counter productive. As much as I like RAN (and generally agree on his take of how fair use should work here), I suspect if no one was watching his edits for a year, he'd get himself banned as he seems to need to keep crossing over that line and when no one calls him on it for a while he'd push too far. Getting RAN to stop pushing boundaries just isn't going to happen. But the committee can suggest Fram stay away from RAN. I don't think an interaction ban would be reasonable, but a polite suggestion might be. Hobit (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )[edit]
|
Wiking[edit]
| No sanction. The editor was not given a proper notice of the discretionary sanctions before this complaint was filed. Jehochman Talk 19:42, 12 January 2016 (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 Wiking[edit]
Discussion concerning Wiking[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Wiking[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Wiking[edit]
|
Lugnuts[edit]
| Filing party warned not to abuse process. Jehochman Talk 14:33, 12 January 2016 (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 Lugnuts[edit]
This is just this editor's activity today that shows they are not interested in editing the Longevity area in a civil manner. Their past conduct has been unhelpful as well as editors try to clean up this area and bring it within WP policy. The assertion that most of my AfDs have not been successful is obviously false [16]. Some editors resent their pet articles developed with a gross disregard for policy being deleted. There are notifications of DS on the various Longevity pages. Anyway, DS are not required to deal with the uncivil behaviour. Legacypac (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Lugnuts[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Lugnuts[edit]This is the most WP:POINTY thing I've ever seen. Legacypac made three reverts to blank the page List of Japanese supercentenarians. I reverted the most recent with the edit summary of "this needs to go to AfD, per a previous edit summary. And one more revert and you'll break WP:3RR". User:Oscarlake made a similar revert stating AfD would be the best venue. Straight after doing the revert I posted a polite notice on LP's talkpage reminding him of WP:3RR. I have no idea about the alleged copyvio inserts or whatever the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity is. Looking at LegacyPac's recent contributions, he's gone out of his way to take longetivity lists to AfD, which most, if not all have been kept. He's also been told twice (once, twice) that his talkpage edits are not welcome. I'm not going to waste any more time on this pointless event. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Collect[edit]Tempest in teapot? Users have the specific right to remove posts on their own user talk page. Others who repeatedly repost material once deleted are, indeed, the ones who are misbehaving as a rule. Lug should not have used the F-word, but the context makes its use understandable, even if it ought not have been used. Otherwise, I do not see any reason to keep this "case" extant. Collect (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by AlbinoFerret[edit]Even if such a case is applicable here, I see no warning of Lugnuts of the DS. It appears that Legacypac is in need of sanctions. Started a merge discussion on the 6th.[18] Mentioning an AFD that was withdrawn.[19] and then waited 2 days and blanked the page with no other editors commenting on the merge.[20] WP:SILENCE is the worst form of consensus and after waiting two days on a merge discussion? Lugnuts did the correct thing and reverted the actions. Looking at the history,[21] Legacypac has been in a slow edit ware to remove the material and has been reverted by multiple editors. AlbinoFerret 16:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz[edit]Albino Ferret, above, has it right. Legacypac, whose actions make clear they are aware of the applicable DS, is behaving highly disruptively. A six-month topic ban would give more responsible editors the opportunity to sort out whatever might require expeditious action without require repeated, unproductive, tinewasting community intervention. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by Canadian Paul[edit]I've interacted with Lugnuts for many years and worked on cleaning up longevity articles for even longer, and I can say that I've almost never seen those two intersect, let alone in any way that would justify a topic ban. Such an action would do nothing but create a little trap that Lugnuts might one day accidentally step into and have it used against them. Lugnuts is one of the most productive editors on Wikipedia and contributes an incredible amount to the development of the project and building of an encyclopedia; that alone makes them a valuable editor. Most of the concerns here are with civility, about which I couldn't care less given the breadth of his contributions, but even if it were a problem, it would have nothing to do with a topic ban on longevity. Canadian Paul 16:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by DerbyCountyinNZ[edit]I concur with the pointts expressed by CanadianPaul above, and note that this seems like yet another WP:POINTy response by Legacypac to an editor taking issue with their abrasive and often disruptive edits. Legacypac has repeatedly used inappropriate forums such as this on such occasions, only relatively recently within the bounds of this AE, but given statements here and elsewhere by other editors, apparently in other areas of Wikipedia as well. It is time WP:BOOMERANG was applied (shades of John J Bulten!). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Lugnuts[edit]
|
RolandR[edit]
| No sanction. Jehochman Talk 14:16, 12 January 2016 (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 RolandR[edit]
User has reverted IP editors and has posted DS notices on talk pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:69.54.58.110&oldid=699317206
The issue here is one of posting false information on pages. While the initial revert of the IP edits may have been correct, I have reverted RolandR's edits once, and then in the edit summary, as well as on his talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RolandR#B.27Tselem_Fire (where he didn't address my concern that the information was false, he just repeated the mantra "IP IP"). He was actually reverting information that does not belong in the article let alone in the lead section. At this point in time, the news has come out that the fire in B'Tselem's office was a short circuit fire. I do not know why that needs to be included in the article. I do not know why it needs to be in the lead. At the point RolandR was reverting, he was doing it to push an undue bias into the article, but regardless, he has reverted more than 1 time and it was not to revert an IP edit. As you can see from the timeline, quite a few hours passed. The IP editor reverted the article, I posted on RolandR's talk page with link to news articles showing him that the fire was not arson. Then Nableezy edits the article in an unrelated way, and then a few hours later RolandR comes back and reverts. That should not be allowed. Firstly, the article was already "settled" if you will, or accepted. Secondly, the information currently in the article is false, yet if I revert, I will be violating 1RR because RolandR is not an IP editor.
This is one major issue with the whole IP issue and how false information can end up staying in an article. There ought to be a better way to deal with this.
@serialjoepsycho, I'm not sure why asking to remove this is wikilawyering. Do you think an electrical fire belongs here? It's one thing to revert an ip, but he just ignored me, and my point that it was not agood edit
@Number57, this is not a content dispute. After RolandR reverted the IP, in my edit summary, I put in the link to the news article showing that it wasn't arson. He reverted anyway, I then on his talk page pasted links showing it wasn't arson. But he still didn't care. He wanted an article on B'Tselem's lead to show that the right of Israel committed arson on B'Tselem's headquarters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARolandR&type=revision&diff=699411721 Discussion concerning RolandR[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by RolandR[edit]This is purely a content dispute, relating to the weight to give to a statement and the relative reliability of different sources. There is absolutely no breach of any sanctions. As the ruling states, "All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of Pending Changes, and appropriate edit filters". Sir Joseph does not contend that I have violated this, and has not suggested any other sanction that I have breached, so I fail to see why he has initiated this frivolous case. This is not an AE matter, and I have no case to answer.RolandR (talk) 11:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by Serialjoepsycho[edit]I'm counting one revert that would be counted per policy. RolandR's revert of Sir Joseph. The reverts to the IP's serve an administrative function and do not count. More specifically are exempt by WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 which RolandR highlights as his reversion rational. Reviewing the comments here by Sir Joseph and the conversation on on RoladR's talk page [22], I see what looks like some wikilawyering. AE is not the appropriate location to try to settle a content dispute. Perhaps the talk page of the article might be used.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning RolandR[edit]
|
GreatGreen[edit]
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 GreatGreen[edit]
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Ricky81682 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 21:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- GreatGreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Motion:_Longevity_.28August_2015.29 :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- November 23, 2015 Restoring the list of all "pending" and "unverified" GRG claims by stating "No place vor vandalism". The GRG has its own definition of "verified" for nearly a decade, there was a distinction here between what the GRG "verified" and what the GRG didn't, while completely ignoring all other sourcing policies we follow. Thus the page would be colored blue or red based entirely on a single source's definition.
- November 23th discussion on talk page After notifying the editor, I began a discussion on the talk page. The editor has no interest in responding about the RSN discussion or other policies, instead arguing that the coloring should be kept because "chance that they will become verified is characterized by a quiet long term" (again, that's only based on the GRG's definition, and ignores all other policies here).
- December 12, 2015 Again, restoring separate tables for "verified" claims and "unverified" claims along with OR tables of "Oldest living German person by state" and "Oldest German person by state of birth" (no source directly states that those people are the oldest person or living person by those states)
- December 18, 2015 Further talk page arguing for the restoration of those tables because "The article is NOT mentioned Verified SC" and that we are destroying years of work, finally arguing that if we were to remove those tables, then all biographies should be re-evaluated.
- More on December 18th. Again, arguing "that GRG does science and it is necessary to know about cases that are not verified but should be in future..." to again have claims that the GRG does not support listed here (while distinguishing them) so that our tables parrot the GRG's pending and verified tables without regard to our general sourcing policies.
- December 23, 2015 Restoring the headings saying that these are "verified" claims
- December 23, 2015 Again.
- December 23th on talk page "And it doesn't matter what the other articles says because these are all "rules" you "developed", but the problem is some of your so called rules are contradictorying. You were active enough to change all article so do it again for the other ones" implying that he will oppose it because he's active there on the German page.
- January 1, 2016 Continuing arguing about "undermining" the list and that there's no need to look for 'reliable' sources since "that isn't the fact, because to give a full research you have to mention at minimum these SC because being 110 years and older doesn't depend on a persons verification, it is a question of its real age. Just why these people are "ignored" by institutions like GRG or one document is missing for a full verification doesn't claim these cases are wrong." and that "The only point is (and that's where I understand you) to point out validated cases. E.g. unverified cases could be colored grey" again showing a GRG focus rather than the project.
- January 9, 2016 Adding von Staphni information (without attribution) after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irmgard von Stephani was closed with three comments all voting delete not merge like some of those have gone.
- January 12, 2016 Restoring von Staphni because "sense of deleting was to prevent a single article as famous people like deserve. The article has been also corrected" (no idea what has been "corrected" here nor why not take it to DRV or otherwise).
- January 13, 2016 Restored again, arguing for "a discussion" and that "Really, when you so called "guardians of AFD" start to read articles and click the sources." Again, note that he did not respond at all to the deletion discussion itself while editing here during that time period.
- January 13, 2016 on the talk page. When responding to a question about how to order the names, responds with attacks and then adds a section arguing about "the 'rules' of AFD getting von Staphni deleted.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Editor's edits to Talk:List of German supercentenarians include a notice at the top regarding discretionary sanctions.
- Editor was also specifically separated notified here
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This is another longevity-based ARE request. This editor here is focused solely on List of German supercentenarians going back to November 2013. English may not be the editor's first language but that's not the issue here. As an aside, I've also notified the editor about the non-compliant signature (lacking an link to the user or talk page) but that hasn't been corrected either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning GreatGreen[edit]
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 GreatGreen[edit]
This is discusting. Your behaviour shows you want to kick out everyone writing on this articles. You did it with so many others one and they gave up on the topic because you are as self-called "guardian" the only and best to know what to involve and what not. I will write later what my opinion of this all is and why it is a scandal somebody like you opens such themes. That is everything I have to write here for now.GreatGreen 17:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by 107.72.99.57 (talk · contribs)[edit]
| Please use your account to post |
|---|
|
Another attempt at censorship by Ricky here. He's been defeated on the last one so the lesson here is let the scientific consensus win not the rabid deletionists who don't care to understand the science of longevity tracking. -- 107.72.99.57 (talk · contribs) 18:59, January 14, 2016 . |
Result concerning GreatGreen[edit]
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I'm seeing battleground mentality, refusal to edit according to our inclusion standard/consensus of an AFD and edit warring. While I'm a bit concerned that one side of the dispute seems to be getting the brunt of the enforcement action, this seems a pretty clear issue here and I'd be minded to impose a topic ban should there be further support for this outcome. Spartaz Humbug! 22:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- I asked GreatGreen if they would accept the advice and change their ways. Please check their talk page and see how they respond. Resolution by agreement is better than by sanction. But if there's no agreement, I think a sanction is inevitable. Jehochman Talk 23:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Dicklyon and Darkfrog24[edit]
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 Dicklyon and Darkfrog24[edit]
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- RGloucester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 18:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Users against whom enforcement is requested
- Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Discretionary sanctions :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Too many diffs to count. Simply look at the edit history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support. Edit-warring has been going on between these two users for more than a week, filling that edit history with nothing but reverts. Also see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register, where a similar situation has arisen.
- See also this user page discussion on Darkfrog24's talk page and this user page discussion on Dicklyon's talk page. The dispute has clearly been personalised, with accusations of "lying" going back and forth.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Standard DS notice received by Dicklyon (March 2015)
- Standard DS notice received by Darkfrog24 (September 2015)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Back on 18 December, a user requested clarification on the MoS talk page about the quotation style used by Wikipedia. This discussion started out collegial, but has blown up into a protracted dispute between two users across many pages. Darkfrog24 and Dicklyon have been edit-warring constantly on the two MoS subpages linked above for more than a week, after discussion at the main page resulted in a stalemate. I haven't even bothered to provide diffs, because the edit history of those two pages consist only of reverts made by either user. WP:3RR has long since passed. Both users are aware of the MoS DS, and this type of behaviour should not be allowed to continue. I would suggest that some action is taken against both parties to the dispute, as other editors who participated in the civil discussion at WT:MOS had no trouble avoiding this type of edit-warring, which is exactly what the MoS case remedies (see remedy 1.2) were meant to stop. Both parties are veterans of MoS disputes. How long does this type of thing have to go on in little watched pages before someone does something about it? RGloucester — ☎ 18:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Dicklyon and Darkfrog24[edit]
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 Dicklyon[edit]
Neither of us has editted Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register for nearly a week. We have confined our edit war to a stupid subpage (Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style/External support) that nobody cares about; not clear why RGloucester thought that to be worth stalking and complaining about. Anyway, as long as the Dark Frog keeps saying that the MOS requires British style, I keep reverting, to the version that acknowledges that the style our MOS recommends, "logical style", is called "British style" by some sources. And I keep adding more sources of "support" for the MOS, as that's what the page says it's about.
If people would prefer to see us stop this, I would be happy to see a ban of any term, hopefully indef, on either of us editing this page. I'd go further and propose it for deletion at MfD, as it's just the DF's place to collect anti-MOS info, trying to set up WP:LQ to be an ENGVAR issue, which it is not. The sources are all clear on this style correlating more with region (American/Canada vs the rest of the world), as opposed to any tie to dialect. The sources I've been adding make it clear that many, or most as one source admits, Americans prefer the logical style; I acknowledge that the dark frog does not. Note that the page is essentially empty except for the one section Wikipedia:WikiProject_Manual_of_Style/External_support#Punctuation_inside_or_outside which was filled in by the DF as part of her campaign against LQ. It is inappropriate for her to be doing this (and yes, I admit it's inappropriate for me to be edit warring, too, but I honestly didn't think anyone would notice or care about this venue).
The closest thing to an accusation of lying was in my edit summary phrase "that's your lie" in this edit. I regret that I expressed it thus. I could have said "that's your interpretation"; anyway, no reason she should be including a controversial interpret of a source that way.
As for the so-called 3RR accusation, I don't think we've seen 3 or more edit cycles in any day. Methinks this is just RGloucester resurrecting his grudge. I have done my best to not interact with him, but he makes it hard now. Dicklyon (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Darkfrog24[edit]
This complaint is an overreaction. As the edits themselves show, this isn't a straight revert-and-revert situation. Dicklyon and I are triangulating our way toward a version that we can both live with.[23] [24] [25] We've both been compromising and giving way to the other here and there. He stopped removing the Chicago Manual of Style from the page after I took it to the talk page and gave a good reason why he should do so (see first paragraph at this link [26]). I didn't remove the ABA reference even though I don't think it's necessary. There are a few points on which I think he's flat-out wrong and I'm confident he feels the same way, but this is a work in progress, not a stalemate.
A few factual corrections to RG's report: There haven't been accusations of lying "back and forth." Dicklyon accused me of lying. To my knowledge, I've never said anything indicating that he doesn't believe what he says. However, this measure is still an overreaction. I went to his user talk page and asked him to stop. He agreed that "lie" was taking it too far, and he hasn't done it again. It's already been dealt with.
I concur with Dicklyon regarding 3RR. I don't usually count, but I don't think either of us violated 3RR. I thought I might have been close once, so I self-reverted just in case. I also deliberately slowed it down starting a few days ago, and it feels like he might've done so too. Dicklyon did mark two substantive edits as "minor," but that might have been an accident. Again, I just went to his user page (same thread as above) and asked him to be more careful. It's already been dealt with.
If RG or anyone feels that the text of MOS:SUPPORTS does not reflect consensus, then the answer is to bring in more people either with an RfC, at a noticeboard, or less formally. I took the issue to the NPOV noticeboard for that reason.
Correction to Dicklyon: I am not collecting anti-MOS info at MOS:SUPPORTS. I hate the British-only rule and would love to see it changed to allow American punctuation in American English articles, but I was the first one to add sources to MOS:SUPPORTS proving that it is indeed correct British English[27] and I didn't add any quotes that specifically said that it isn't correct American English, even though most of the sources cited there do contain that information.[28] Another correction: No Americans do not prefer logical style (better known as British style). Mainstream style guides almost universally require American style. For sources indicating this, see MOS:SUPPORTS and its talk page.
Response to SmC: I would love to apply neutrality rules to WP:SUPPORTS.[29]
In summary, Dicklyon and I are dealing with this just fine on our own. Neither of us should be banned in any way. The appropriate thing for other editors to do is to come to the talk page and give their two cents.
Statement by Tony1[edit]
I agree with the comment below that this is lame; but not that sanctions are appropriate here. Both involved users are valuable participants on MOS and other WP pages. They should simply agree to cool off and undertake to avoid cross-editing.
RGloucester is a well-known provocateur, and I believe started the thread here out of pure mischief. Regard his first post at the talkpage in question, then the starting of this thread at AE just 23 minutes later, before any futher activity on either the article page or talkpage there. Note also his statement that the page in question "has no standing within the MoS, no community consensus backs it, it is essentially a user essay, and should probably be put in the user space." It is, then, heavily ironic that he should seek to cause maximum disruption by using the apparent "DS" status of that page to start a thread here. It is disingenuous and not in the spirit of calming ruffled waters. Tony (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by SMcCandlish[edit]
I'm wary of getting involved in this without providing an enormous pile of diffs. For now I'll just say the following: Dick Lyon is trying to bring some factual rigor and neutrality balance to a page that is effectively owned by a single editor, and which serves no purpose but as a WP:POLEMIC of WP:GREATWRONGS activism against the WP Manual of Style on a few points of idiosyncratic interest to Darkfrog24. (I believe someone else created the page originally with the goal of providing off-WP documentation for every MOS point that could be approached that way. The entire thing is a WP:NOTHERE exercise. The WP does not exist to try quixotically to externally source its own internal consensus-based documentation, or to serve as a blogging platform for some of its editors to try to prove other ones "wrong" about some WP-internal question about which we already have consensus. We're here to source encyclopedia articles.) I was preparing a WP:MFD to deal with the MOS:SUPPORTS page, but Darkfrog24 is shopping their campaign against logical quotation at WP:NPOVN, tying up the SUPPORTS page in an ongoing DR process that cannot actually reach resolution. I've requested at WP:ANRFC that it be closed, since MoS is out-of-scope for the NPOVN noticeboard. I've also been preparing a WP:RFARB case to deal with Darkfrog24's 6.5-year, tendentious, POV- and OR-based, nationalistic "slow editwar" against logical quotation on Wikipedia, which has spilled over into mainspace at Quotation marks in English and even into related Wiktionary articles. If AE wants to address evidence of disruptive behavior by Darkfrog24 regarding MOS and related pages – behavior that has continued despite repeated warnings and a WP:ARBATC Ds/alert from an admin – I'll be willing to start the diffing and the detailed disruption report here, though it would likely be better saved for RFARB, and I won't be able to get to it for probably 24 hours or so.
Anyway, it's not wrong for Dick Lyon or anyone else to try to moderate the content in that page, while it still exists, even if reverting repeatedly isn't the best way to go about that. A revert in favor of consensus and neutrality is not the same thing as a revert to get one's personal, axe-grinding interpretation reinstated. There is in fact plenty of discussion on the talk page, not just REVTALK. What I see is Lyon taking logic-defended position, and DF24 engaging in a lot of hand-waving and fist-shaking. Each time the discussion plays out that way and comes to another DF24-cannot-be-swayed impasses, WP:BRD (which isn't policy anyway) has in fact been satisfied, and Lyon's not in the wrong to return to trying to edit the page to stop being an attack on MOS consensus. Since DF24 clearly acts to control the content of that page in great detail, and no one else cares about it other than it not be full of carefully targeted falsehoods while still in the "Wikipedia:" namespace), then a simple solution to the current dispute is to move the SUPPORTS page to DF24's userspace and let it be properly named as the user essay it is. That won't deal with the larger behavioral issues I've hinted at, but that probably is properly an RFARB matter. It's not just failure to comply with ARBATC; it's a host of highly specific behavior patterns that are not intrinsically MOS-related, just incidentally but consistently disrupting it in one editor's case. These same patterns are frequently brought to bear by various parties to control other material here, usually article content, and ArbCom tends to address these cases on an editor-by-editor, topic-by-topic basis. What I hope to not see here is AE treating all this as some annoying, pointless style dispute, then punish both parties the same just to make them shut up (or, worse, give a pass to whoever was better able to hide their incivility in florid wording), without regard to the underlying behavioral patterns and intent. If any restriction ensues (and a substantial one is long overdue for one of these editors), it should be broadly construed enough under ARBATC to cover articles on writing style/grammar/spelling/punctuation (though no wider – it shouldn't affect linguistics generally, writing generally, English generally, etc.) or it will not really have any effect at all but to move the POV/OR/EDITWAR problem entirely into mainspace, leading to further disputes and cases all centered on the same person and patterns. I don't share Tony1's enthusiasm for the contributions of both of the editors under discussion at MOS. Dick Lyon has been rational and collegial even when we've disagreed, sometimes sharply; always amenable to discussion and reconciliation; and remarkably consistent in his approach to WP:MOS / WP:AT (and other WP:POLICY matters). My experience with Darkfrog24 has been 180 degrees opposite, and while the editor has made some useful contributions to the MoS and related pages, they do not make up for or excuse almost 7 years of punctuated but extremely single-minded disruption and PoV pushing, across multiple namespaces and multiple WMF projects. That editor needs a lengthy break from the topic, most especially from quotation-mark-related content and discussions.
PS: The requester of this AE action, RGloucester, has had a long history of interpersonal disputes with Dick Lyon. So, this request shouldn't be interpreted as just a "hey, there are two editors editwarring over there" heads-up. Whatever the conscious intent, it has all the earmarks of trying to get rid of an old nemesis immediately after his return. I agree with Tony1's point about RGloucester's comments immediately before filing this AE request essentially making the request dubious at best, even aside from the interpersonal matter. That's two severable reasons to consider at least an admonition to the requester against abuse of processes, in addition to any outcome that emerges in response to the request. WP does not need self-interested hall monitors playing tattletale just to get people in trouble (over an essay probably less than 10 people even remember exists), meanwhile AE has more serious matters, most of them affecting mainspace more directly, to deal with than this sort of petty finger-pointing. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]
Result concerning Dicklyon and Darkfrog24[edit]
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Staggeringly lame. Both should be banned from that and related pages for at least three months. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Concur with JzG. It appears the editors have dug into position here, and are not even pretending to try to find consensus or see the other editor's view. KillerChihuahua 22:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Note: the above "result" comments were posted before any comments from the "Users against whom enforcement is requested".
