Request suspended because of the unclear status of Brandmeister's account; may be resubmitted if editing resumes. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Brandmeister
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :Karabakh KhanateThe diffs contain evidences of disruptive editing, violation of 1RR rule, thought technically the majority of reverts were not violating the 3RR as well but the RVs from 9 to 11 do, permanent deletion of referenced information which might be considered edits not in good faith; the article was blocked due to edit-wars until the 3rd of June for a consensus to be reached and just after the ublock Brandmeister jumped into editing it in the same manner without having consensus. According to WP:TE it's a clear pattern of Tendentious Editing.
Others include but are not limited toKhojaly MassacreBesides the reverts as such, Bradmaster jumped again into edit-warring right after the temporary block was lifted from this article as well. Nagorno-Karabakh WarIs a featured article.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected toBrandmeister was first placed under restriction and then topic banned for 6 months because it was not sufficient [1] and he clearly knows the rules. Some attempts to discuss and warn were also made as described in the "Additional comments". Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Re GrandmasterGrandmaster and Brandmeister are together with a bunch of editors (about 24 more) involved in quite a huge-scandalous Arbitration request on Ru.WP including canvassing and harassment of editors (also active on En.WP) in real life. I'd like to exclude any of those being able to participate in any formal processes (besides those concerning them directly) against any of the members of the group until the final decision of ArbCom. The notification of it has been made on the ArbCom talk on En.WP. Aregakn ( talk) 18:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Re the IP messageIf what the IP user said is true, he could participate in discussions and other activities by his IP anyway, as he did interestingly notice the AE. This only confirms that Brandmeister was/is not interested in consensus and discussions and the content of Wikipedia but has other goals. I'd also like to request all the IPs that Brandmeister used be checked and the result of this AE to be on those too. I'll add the latter to the sanction request. Aregakn ( talk) 18:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Enforcement action requested ( block, topic ban or other sanction)Topic ban: Formally placed on 1RR, then topic banned for 6 months. The editor showed clear pattern of Disruptive and Tendentious Editing with refusal of Consensus.
User informed. Aregakn ( talk) 11:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Discussion concerning BrandmeisterStatement by BrandmeisterFirst of all, I would note that since June 9 I have no access to my account, probably because it is compromised now. I have already wrote to stewards and Wikipedia functionaries about that. Regarding the request, I follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle. However, the Karabakh Khanate ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in particular suffered from repeated and obvious source distortion: at least three registered users and some IPs have been modifying the lead text to push systemic bias and I was ultimately forced to request a semi-protection. As for Khojaly Massacre, there was no "jumping again into edit-warring" there and I explained that to Aregakn on my talk page. There is no policy, which prohibits editing after protection has expired. As for Nagorno-Karabakh War, I would encourage Aregakn to discuss the sources at talk, this venue is not for dispute resolution. 213.154.5.92 ( talk) 07:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning BrandmeisterFrom what I see, many of reverts were on SPA IPs, which were used to edit war in this article. Some of reverts by IPs were accompanied by incivil comments, accusing others of vandalism, etc. Eventually the article was semi-protected to stop the IP disruption. Grand master 04:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Brandmeister
To resolve this request, we need to determine whether Brandmeister's account is indeed compromised, as is being claimed by the IP above. If yes, it should probably be blocked on these grounds, and the request is moot. I'm asking a checkuser whether they can help determine this. Sandstein 21:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
|
Gilabrand ( talk · contribs) blocked for three months and six-month topic ban reset. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning User Gilabrand
Sanction or remedy that this user violated : topic ban same topic ban extended for 6 months
Up to admin. But keep in mind that she has been blocked many times before for violating this: [11]
Discussion concerning GilabrandStatement by GilabrandComments by others about the request concerning GilabrandQuestion for AdminsSince ARBPIA "rules" are very vague (broadly construed/interpreted), is it possible that every article pertaining to Israel/Israelis could be considered as being part of the I/P conflict in one way or another? I ask this because some major world entities (Hamas, Iran, Syria etc) consider all of Israel to be "occupied Palestine" (and consider anything Israeli-related to be politically motivated -- one can even find Hamas' positions on nightclubs in Tel Aviv)...Also keep in mind that every aspect of daily Israeli life is impacted in one way or another by the IP conflict.. Anyhow, it would be useful for editors to know the answers to these questions. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 23:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by GilisaIndeed, many times bans are being interperted too broadly and by that only esclating the drama they were also intended to stop. As for the OP SD, during the last months he reported almost every breach, or what was viewed to him as breach of ARBPIA by editors with different attidue than the one he have through the I-P issue, to the ArbCom and on other boards. I truely wonder, and didn't check, if it's ok by Wiki policies or that it may be considered as WP:HOUND. -- Gilisa ( talk) 06:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by PedritoI thought it might be useful to remind everybody here that there is a precedent in which it was decided that all such edits fall under the WP:ARBPIA sanctions. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 07:45 15.06.2010
Comment By unomi[13] and [14] appear to be pretty straightforward violations. Unomi ( talk) 11:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment By ShukiI think that this is another frivolous effort by SupremeDeliciousness in his continued attempt to silence all editors that are not on his side. It is clear that there is only one problematic edit here on the Tourism article, and the edit on Palmach is not controversial at all. If only SD were so objective and also pursued like-minded editors on their topic bans, I would AGF, but here there is none. I was hoping that this battleground mentality was a thing of the past, but SD refuses to let it go. Incredible to see how much spare time some editors have in pursuing 'adversaries' instead of actually contributing to the project.-- Shuki ( talk) 16:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Comment by Hertz1888The Palmach edit is a routine matter of providing attribution. In the other edit still at issue, it is not unreasonable that an article on tourism in Israel would provide the reader with information on places of interest that are reachable only from Israel and under Israel control, whether or not that is the permanent status. Agreeing with Shuki, I think this filing is part of a vendetta by S.D., whose long history of hostility to Israel and Israelis, and battleground approach, is a matter of record. It strikes me as a ludicrous example of the "pot calling the kettle black". Gilabrand is a gifted and diligent editor with a multi-year record of outstanding contributions to Wikipedia deserving of appreciation. Let not this enforcement request turn into another instance of "no good deed goes unpunished." At most what is needed is gentle advice to tread carefully, but I think even that is too much, as it would reward S.D. for a frivolous filing that wastes everybody's time, and would encourage repeat performances. Hertz1888 ( talk) 19:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Please reconsider decision in light of mitigating factors just posted above. Hertz1888 ( talk) 19:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Comment by JiujitsuguyAnother successful effort to silence those who are perceived as being sympathetic to Israel. SD's AE is a transparent attempt to muzzle any voice that disagrees with his. Gilabrand's edits are by in large constructive and have added immeasurably to wikipedia both in terms of quality and quantity. The sanction is harsh and extreme and I ask that it be re-considered. Please don't reward frivolous complaints and personal vendettas with censorship.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 20:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Gilabrand
Again? T. Canens ( talk) 23:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
This request has merit. The user had been notified, has edited after notification, but has failed to respond to this thread. I therefore construe the silence to imply that no defense or mitigating factors are present. I find that [17] and [18] violate the user's ban from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic. This being her 5th topic ban violation, and the last block being one month, Gilabrand is blocked for three months, and the six-month topic ban is reset to begin anew upon the expiration or lifting of the block. Given her apparent inability to distinguish between edits that violate her topic ban and edits that do not, Gilabrand is urged to voluntarily avoid all content and discussions related to Israel for the duration of her topic ban, to reduce the likelihood of further violations. T. Canens ( talk) 19:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
|
Not actionable. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Nableezy
Sanction or remedy that this user violated :
Violations:
Clearly, these edits are to articles/text squarely within his broad topic ban related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Of note is what admin Tim Song pointed out in regard to another editor banned from the I-P conflict (where, as distinct from here, the ban didn't even by its terms mention that it was to be "broadly construed"). Sysop Tim Song (aka T. Canens), responding to a question as to whether "every article pertaining to Israel/Israelis could be considered as being part of the I/P conflict in one way or another? ... every aspect of daily Israeli life is impacted in one way or another by the IP conflict.", responded (hours ago, in the report directly above this one): " 'Broadly' means that if there's any doubt as to whether an article/section/paragraph/item/whatever falls within the topic ban, it should be avoided." Obviously, even-handed application of this interpretation to all individuals subject to the AI and PI bans mandates the same result here. We can't have different rules applied to people on opposite sides of the same precise issue, who are subject to the same topic bans. That's precisely the sort of thing that has led to bad press regarding wikipedia of late, charging that POV has led to wikipedia being broken when the IP conflict is at issue. That's not good for the project. Wikipedia:Topic ban states:
Similarly, construing "broadly" in an unrelated matter, sysop Bigtimepeace wrote "Broadly construed" means precisely that and y'all need to err on the side of caution in a major way." [19] And in another unrelated matter construing the meaning of the phrase, sysop Tznkai wrote: "When topic bans are "broadly construed" I think that means all ambiguity goes towards violation". [20] The number of editors (including sysop Malik Shabazz) who based their support for Nableezy's ban violations on a mis-reading and/or misapplication of Wikipedia:Topic ban, and even a mis-reading of the breadth of the ban (asserting that it was limited to the I-P conflict, which it is not ... and then saying they still have the same position, despite the basis for it having been completely incorrect) causes me some concern as to what is going on.
Importantly, the ban itself stated clearly that reverts of vandalism were not excluded from Nableezy's ban. Those who took positions that Nableezy should escape punishment for ban violations that are vandalism reverts have no basis for their views in a plain reading of the ban. The ban unequivocally states that included in what Nableezy is banned from doing are vandalism reverts. Nothing could be clearer. This calls to mind the arbitrators' strongly worded comments regarding similar poorly founded arguments as why a prior Nableezy topic ban should not be enforced according to its clearly stated language. To now not enforce the ban on the basis that some reverts are only vandalism reverts is not only contrary to the plain language of the ban, but it makes an utter mockery of bans and this entire process. It also encourages a lack of respect for bans, and is the sort of un-ven application of the process that leads to concerns among editors and others. And reflecting the raw "FUCK YOU, BLOCKERS" attitude of Nableezy, when he was informed of his block by his blocker, with a link to the details that made clear that "Reverts of vandalism ... are not excluded from this ban", what did he respond? He responded " I am going to revert vandalism where I see it (though I will restrict myself to blatant vandalism) and if an admin wants to block me for that they can." And guess what? He did just that -- he was a man of his word. Perhaps some sysops think its fine for Nableezy to, in the face of a clear directive, say that he will not obey his block, and then act on his words. Nableezy himself said -- if an admin wants to block me for that they can. For the sysops on this page to not mete out the appropriate punishment for clear, willing, intentional, Fuck-You violations of bans would be a failure on their part to uphold their obligations as sysops. The number of editors (including sysop tariqabjotu) who based their apologist support for Nableezy's ban violations on a mis-reading and/or misapplication of this aspect of the ban causes me some concern.
It is eye-catching that Nableezy has committed such multiple such violations: a) starting the day after his ban was instituted; b) in -- while a minority -- a substantial percentage of his articles edited under the Nableezy name during his ban; and c) after being on the receiving end of admin action so many times. Note as well, as was noted by admin Sandstein at the most recent admin action regarding Nableezy, Nableezy's problematic record as reflected at least in part here and here.
Up to admin. But please keep in mind that Nableezy has been blocked many times before for violating this: [21]
Discussion concerning NableezyStatement by Nableezy
A day before my topic ban is to expire, Epeefleche has chosen to continue his mission of seeing that I do not edit here. The only edit that comes close is my reversion of vandalism on the occupation page as there is indeed one line out of many that can be said to be included in the topic ban. Had I noticed that single line I would not have reverted it. I do remember editing that page and checking that I was not reverting the section that had to do with the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, but I did not think to check if there was any mention of Sinai. nableezy - 21:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Phil, the area of conflict defined in the ARBPIA case is the whole of the Arab-Israeli conflict, so the MFO in Sinai would fall under that. That was an honest oversight on my part, nearly two months ago. So there is one edit here that could be "actionable", though what action it merits is up to yall. nableezy - 21:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Tariq, are you saying that the Richard Goldstone article, of which less than 15% touches on the conflict, is as a whole part of the A/I topic area? nableezy - 01:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning NableezyComment by RolandR Of the eight edits listed above by Epeefleche, three(nos 1, 2 & 3) are obvious reversion of vandalism; one (no 4) consists of the removal of a large chunk of non-English text from an article; two (nos 5 & 6) do not appear to relate to the Israel/Palestine conflict, however broadly defined; one (no 7) is the addition of a missing, and clearly non-contrentious, word to an admittedly highly contested article; and one (no 8) is only very tenuously related to the area covered by the ban. It seems top me that this is an extremely poor case, entirely without merit. I am concerned that it is brought the day before Nableezy's topic ban is due to end, although most of these edits were made many weeks ago. And I note that this ban was imposed on the basis of a report which even the closing editoe described as "largely frivolous", and which led to the reporting editor being warned "that they may be made subject to sanctions if they file more largely inactionable enforcement requests". This too seems a frivolous and inactionable request, and I recommend that Epeefleche withdraw it. RolandR ( talk) 21:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Malik Shabazz Epeefleche seems to have misread Sandstein's statement concerning nableezy's topic ban, which was limited to "articles which (or whose edited parts) are broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict" (bold emphasis added). Editing an article about an ancient dynasty that controlled Palestine doesn't fall within the scope of the topic ban because it is not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict (a modern conflict). Editing Helen Thomas to change her ethnicity doesn't fall within the scope of the topic ban because the edited part is not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. So what's left of Epeefleche's complaint? A single violation that took place two months ago. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 21:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
And arb Carcharoth (w/whom arb Wizardman agreed) wrote with regard to your protestations that a topic ban did not apply to you elsewhere:
-- Epeefleche ( talk) 00:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by ShukiThis is a no brainer coming off the very recent open/close to Gilabrand, but I blame A) the original admin who only gave Nableezy a weird partial topic ban. Instead of encouraging Nableezy to take a time off, it let him continue on the talk pages and the many slips mentioned above came much easier than if Nableezy would have been on a total 'time off' from the subject, B) SupremeDeliciousness' recent flurry of AE activity. Reasonable people would give others a bit of flexibility, but SD looking for ways to silence opposing editors only motivates his 'opponents' to do the same. If Breein and Gilabrand are going to be held to such a zero tolerance standard, then it is not surprising that this wakes up others to demand the admins here be perfectly balanced and of course C) the editor himself for not being able to resist editing related articles. -- Shuki ( talk) 22:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by cptnonoYou just knew I was going to chime in on any request regarding Nableezy. There was a conversation on his talk page regarding the block where he said he as going to revert vandalism anyways. A couple editors reccomended that since he had access to the talk page he simply bring it up there and that he stay out of the main space on these articles. He reverted anyways. He thumbed his nose at the topic ban so principle dictates that something should be done. However, even I can see the reason in reverting vandalism and doubt any additional sanctions would accomplish anything. Cptnono ( talk) 22:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Nsaum75I'm going to disagree with this AE filing against Nableezy. However, I would like to state that AE is broken. The "administrators" who hand down "decisions" here are just as much at fault for the "disruption" on Wikipedia as the editors they are supposedly "bringing down justice" upon. By virtue of their continued involvement in these AEs, they are no longer "uninvolved" parties, but pawns to be used by warring factions against each other. What make this situation even more sad and depressing, is that very few seem to recognize it. I do not have a solution for this ongoing problem, but its plain to see that the system is broken. I guess someone could "punish" me for stating such an opinion, but, that would only make more evident the cancer that has metastasized in AE. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 01:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by GilisaI didn't read it all, but if I got the gist right and she is banned from editing in the I-P subject and she did edit in Helen Tomas article then this is a clear breach from her topic ban. Helen Tomas is high profile activist very well known for her opposing to the Gaza blocked and recently there were edit wars directly connected with her (see the TP of the article of the raid on the Gaza flotilla) and with the I-P subject. Yesterday Gilbrand was blocked for three month and her topic ban was reset for a less clear breach from her topic ban. The same standards should be applied here. -- Gilisa ( talk) 05:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Nableezy
|
ARBPIA, Discretionary sanctions, warned: [25] (November 2009)
UPDATE: Breein has continued to edit war and re insert the no-consensus version at the template: [31] He has done this twice now after that I showed him what the closing admin at the other article had said as shown above. He is removing the occupied territories when there is no consensus at any talkpage for them to be removed and then claims that he is "restoring the longstanding consensus." when its clear from the discussion that Breein is edit warring against consensus: [32] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 22:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Incivility/Behavior:
I find it inappropriate that Breein has opened up several long discussions with admins specifically about this AE outside of this AE request, instead of replying here: [89] [90] [91] and notifies an editor who edits on the same side as him in Arab-Israeli conflict articles to one of those off-AE discussions: [92] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 18:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
[93] (November 2009)
Permanent topic ban from Arab-Israeli conflict articles. His editing and behavior has been a long term problem within Arab-Israeli conflict articles. He has clearly failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia. He has been sanctioned and warned many times, but it doesn't seem like it helps. He has clearly shown that he cant collaborate with other editors within Arab-Israeli conflict articles and he causes a lot of disruption at them.
User Breein1007 has since he registered his account in November 2009 been banned 5 times [94] all of these banns are within the Arab-Israeli conflict. He has also been subject to an interaction ban: [95]
I can comment on Ani Majdul case and on asking Israeli admin to give him rollbacks rights in Hebrew language.
First, in the case of Ani Majdul, everyone on the ANI opened against Breein1007 agreed (including one or two admins), after detailed investigation by uninvolved editor was made and presented on the ANI, that he is most probably editor who write in bad English on purpose and that he's not the one he present himself to be (Arab refugee from Lebanon if I'm correct) both because of what seems as delibrate spelling and grammar mistakes, because of his style of editing and because even he presented himself as Arabic native speaker, he seems not to be able to communicate in very basic level of Arabic. Then, some suggested that he's Breein's sock. Breein seem to noticed the suspicious style of editing on Ani Majdul, he might go wrong anyway with mocking him a little, and there is possibilty that Ani is who he say he's, but the case is very complicated and Breein might feel that Ani mocking everyone so he responded accordingly but this case doesn't make it just to cast sanctions on Breein. If I'm not mistaken, it was monthes ago and the ANI case ended with nothing.
As for addressing Israeli admin in Hebrew. First, the nationality of one admin, let us all agree, is not relevant and we excpect admins who are involved emotionaly or at all in certain issues to be responsible enough to avoid any using of sysop tools in regard to these areas of editing or when dealing with involved editors. There is enough place to assume good faith here as I don't believe he realy thought Israeli admin will give roll backs rights without proper process and not according to WP policy. Second, Breein adressed me many times in Hebrew in issues which have nothing to do with Wikipedia, just because he seem to enjoy parcticing the language or something. He do it very frequently on his TP when corresponding with other Hebrew speaking editors in issues concern more with his everyday life than with WP. It's not uncommon that many many editors communicate with other editors in their native language when they have the oppertunity. Most times they even forget to add translation to English. I've seen editors communicating with each other in French, Arabic, Persian and Spanish many times before. No one realy think that it can hide what they write. There are enough very good speakers of Hebrew in both sides of the I-P area of editing and I can even name them. Some of those also have Hebrew tag on their UP. If I'm not mistaken, it was long time ago.
I don't intend to comment on other cases I'm not very familiar with, don't have time to and etc. Infact, these are the two diffs provided by the editor opened this case that I've read -- Gilisa ( talk) 19:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Shuki The past few months had been a welcomed respite from the battleground editing that Supreme Deliciousness and his like brought to the I-P conflict on WP. SD was topic banned on May 1 for 30 days and the quiet persisted. It is apparent though that SD has refused to calm down and decided to turn up the heat again with this frivolous report, somewhat similar to the one he filed on me in April in the hot recent spring. SD is fishing here and with no real point to grab on to. SD was also warned about his battleground mentality a couple of weeks before that in early April. -- Shuki ( talk) 21:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Statement by NickCT This is slightly silly. Anyone familair with Breein knows that if one took the time one could provide 1,000s on examples similair to the ones Supreme has offered above. His negative behavior has spanned over a long period of time. That anyone would speak for him here simply goes to demonstrate the disturbing bias that surrounds I/P issues. @PhilK - Sup is right about the recent block being for edit warring. These charges are different. PhilK, I'm a little surprised you were so willing to block me for suggesting Breein was a "bigot", and yet, in the face of the language and behavior above, which seems far further over the line, you do nothing. Is this a double standard? Is there a reason for it? NickCT ( talk) 03:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Housekeeping
more comments by Supreme Deliciousness moved up from below as per explicit guideline
CIreland, concernign (1), the majority of things here, he have never been sanctioned for, only the edit warring at one article, gaza flotilla raid. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
B, there has been many attempts at intervention. Look how many warnings he received, I posted them in the evidence. Look at his many blocks and interaction ban, all within Arab-Israeli conflict articles. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Note for reviewing admins: The people in this enforcement request that have come to defense of Breein1007, (Shuki, Gilisa, Nsaum75, Jiujitsuguy) are people who edit on the same side as him in Arab-Israeli conflict articles. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 13:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
B, if you follow the Wikipedia:ANI#Repeated attempted outing you posted , you'll see that Breein did not violate outing at all for a user that widely uses his real name. -- Shuki ( talk) 20:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Can some admin please rap this up? --
Supreme Deliciousness (
talk) 21:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Nsaum75
Breein1007's incivil behavior aside, I would like to remind the admins that that some of the POV issues that SD is raising about Breein's editing style, are the same editing styles that helped contribute to SD's topic ban in May [98]. Nobody is perfect and I would ask that the involved parties try to find a solution that doesn't escalate the already tenacious game of "tag" that appears to play out in IP related AE filings. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 04:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Re Shuki stating please note that absolutely no one on 'your' side has come to support your frivolous report. This usually means that they do not support it at all. above. Wikipedia does not function at its best when it is interpreted as a democracy, having 'X' number of editors jumping in and stating Agree/Disagree adds very little to a conversation and only serves to impede actual decision making, deferring to the mob. In cases such as these the evidence should be at the center of attention. There is simply no point in jumping in and me too'ing when the evidence is this strong, one would hope...
The fact that Breein was blocked for actions on the flotilla article does not in any way invalidate the claims made here,- that Breein is persistently acting in a manner that is in contravention of community norms and is exhibiting behavior that should incur Arbcom sanctioned remedies. Sanctions incurred for past misdeeds do not erase or even negate those misdeeds, only a demonstrated change in behavior can. Remember that we are not here to punish anyone, we are not here to ensure some balance of misdeeds vs sanctions, we are here to ensure a relatively constructive editing environment.
The gross civility violations obviously hinder encouraging a collaborative atmosphere, but the multiple willful misrepresentations of consensus and the actions of other editors absolutely deny it. I could understand if it was a one-off, but as the evidence collected by SD show, it is more of a MO than a slip-up; Specifically, using the 3 oppose vs 4 support no-consensus RfC (on a different article) to muscle through the 'Right ' version on a template is not something that we want to see.
I can understand that there is some frustration, but if editors are not willing to engage in centralized discussion then we are unable to untangle the misunderstandings. The general question of occupied territories has been sought discussed at IPCOLL the discussion has been widely advertised and many of the editors weighing at this venue have also weighed in there, except for Breein.
That Breein has so far refrained from commenting here, and instead engaged directly with commenting admins is, to my mind, deeply inappropriate. I urge all editors to work towards ensuring that our stated community goals and standards are met and enforced. Unomi ( talk) 23:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Applying the Tim Song rule of timely complaints, I fail to see anything here but a stale complaint. I'm having trouble seeing anything actionable within the past two weeks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 07:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi CIreland, having looked at the evidence presented again, I think my earlier comment was hasty. I suggest you go ahead and apply a ban. PhilKnight ( talk) 12:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I think there is a conflict between two approaches to arbitration enforcement here, both of which are legitimate.
When I advocated a topic-ban, above, it was largely on the basis of the second approach because I don't think adminstrators imposing run-of-the-mill 3RR blocks would necessarily look at the overall picture. By contrast, looking at an editor's contribution history overall is what I think should occur at arbitration enforcement. CIreland ( talk) 16:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Abd ( talk · contribs) blocked for 1 week. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Abd
Discussion concerning AbdStatement by AbdComments by others about the request concerning Abd
Seems to me that Hipo is correct, and there is a violation here. As to the appropriate penalty, I defer to others.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 07:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Abd
Appears to be a straightforward case. Unless another uninvolved admin objects, I'm going to block for a week. T. Canens ( talk) 04:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
|
Andranikpasha ( talk · contribs) blocked for three months. T. Canens ( talk) 20:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Andranikpasha
Discussion concerning AndranikpashaStatement by AndranikpashaAs for me, it is a clear case of BLP violation, and it is also an unsignificant quote (by a less significant person) which obviously attacks a living person. "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone" WP:BLP, and three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Andranikpasha ( talk) 07:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning AndranikpashaI have a question here, is Cox an Armenian? If she is not, this sentence would clearly be a violation of BLP and 1rr or not, users should not be blocked when they have real BLP concerns. There should be a clarification that she is not an Armenian, if she is not. Since any reader reading such a quote will wrongly assume something which is not true. Also, the applicant made two revert to the article and according to this, he has a 1rr restriction for an unlimited duration. Ionidasz ( talk) 04:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that BLP violations are to be reverted on sight, and do not count towards RR restrictions. Can you help explain to me why this particular statement is a controversial BLP violation? Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 07:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Andranikpasha
Looks like an unambiguous violation. I'm inclined to block for three months, escalating from the last one-month block, unless another uninvolved admin objects. T. Canens ( talk) 04:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Very well, I've blocked Andranikpasha for three months. T. Canens ( talk) 13:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
Borderline case, no action at this time. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Epeefleche
[111] Second revert (of this edit, June 17, 18:30). Cites BLP concerns, although the information cannot be in any way reasonably be construed as disparaging or libellous. It also does not infringe on the privacy of the persons.
Discussion concerning EpeeflecheStatement by Epeefleche
Second, I might as well make a point that the others didn't even see need to get to. As I would hope nom already knows, wp:BLP is not limited, as he would have others believe, to statements that are "disparaging or libelous" or "infringe on ... privacy". Where did that come from? Did nom just make that up? The guideline itself, which I had referred to, says something quite different. In just its second paragraph, using bolding to aid the lazy-eyed editor, it states:
And later, similarly, it instructs us (emphasis added, here) to "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced". This is certainly contentious material. It is certainly poorly sourced. All for reasons I alluded to in my edit summary and on the talk page. Those reasons included my observations that Der Spiegel failed to indicate the source for the statement. Failed even indicate to that there is a source. And, it speaks not to a fact, but as to the views of persons (as though they are known by Der Spiegel, and specifically that their current views at the time of the writing/reading are known). Given the circumstances, it of course a highly controversial statement, as it calls into question the persons' objectivity -- given their supposed views. As this is a BLP issue, and a highly controversial one, its a BLP violation. Per wp:blp, I removed it, as indeed I or others should have done post-haste earlier. I also offered that others should feel free to discuss it further (without reverting, under the blp rules. As wp:blp further makes clear, this applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Nom's misleading statement asserting that it need be libelous or disparaging is simply flat-out wrong. I wonder if it might perhaps not be better in the future for nom to read the actual language of the guidance alluded to by the editor whose edit he dislikes, and whose editing rights he seeks to chill, rather than concoct new language of his own and pass it off as the guidance. That might have the additional salutary effect of preventing him from introducing BLP violations into articles, as he has done here.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 22:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning EpeeflecheComment by Malik ShabazzCan you clarify why these edits are reverts by identifying the previous versions to which Epeefleche reverted? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 19:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by No More Mr Nice GuyIs this really the right place for this? Even if there were in fact two reverts,
WP:General sanctions says "Any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". (emphasis mine)
Result concerning Epeefleche
Cs32en, Malik Shabazz is correct. In order for these two edits to count as reverts, you must provide diffs of the action(s) they are reverts of. If such diffs are not provided, this request is not actionable. Sandstein 21:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
|
Physchim62 ( talk · contribs) topic-banned from the Israeli-Arab conflict for one month. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Physchim62
Discussion concerning Physchim62Statement by Physchim62What we have here is deliberate misrepresentation of my edits. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to accuse me of "antisemitism", the usual cheap slur against anyone who dares criticise the actions of the Israeli government, and Epeefleche ( talk · contribs) has obliged. It can't be long before someone tries to use this edit as "evidence" for my "antisemitism", so I'll save you all the trouble of looking for the diff! The deliberate misrepresentation starts with the original complaint by Ynhockey ( talk · contribs). I am "seen to be deliberately dehumanizing one side in the conflict;" and then "repeating the insult." No mention that the second diff comes from a conversation on my user talk page in which I try to justify the original words. At the risk of digging myself an even deeper hole, I will clarify that my comments were directed against a small group of IDF "soldiers" who were onboard the Mavi Marmara, and ask editors:
The second round of deliberate misrepresentation comes from Gilisa ( talk · contribs), and I apologize in advance for the length of my reply, but s/he has made so many groundless accusations and simple slurs that it takes a while to go through them all!
@Andrensath, I'd rather refrain from publically attacking individual editors over and above what is necessary to refute the allegations made against me; I don't think that such attacks are a constructive approach to improving the article.
UpdateOuuuhhh! Wheeee! We've got the big guns coming out now! Let me just summarise the personal attacks I've had in the last 36 hours or so (and I mean attacks against my person, not against some small group of people protected by anonymity by an organisation already accused of "war crimes" and a government which has been accused of "state terrorism" and "kidnapping", among other things):
Maybe that last diff is the most telling of them all. I am not up against this show trial for any comment I made on the talk page, or any hypothetical offense that might have caused: I am on show trial for having dared criticise the actions of the Israeli government, and the objective is not simply to silence me for as long as possible but also to send out a chilling effect to anyone else who might dare to criticise the Israeli government in the future. These so-called "editors" do not give a monkey's about Wikipedia. They couldn't care less about striving towards a neutral presentation of the information we have at our disposal. All they care about is abusing this project as a vehicle to promote their political views. Anyone who stands in their way must be persecuted, because the promotion of their political view is, to them, infinitely more important than this project to create a neutral encyclopedia. A person who tries to point out that other points of view are possible, and are held, is a person who is particularly dangerous, and one who should be singled out for special persecution. There's no patent on the methods, they've been known since Machiavelli at the very least, but let us not pretend that this farce has any other purpose than promoting one political viewpoint at the expense of proper coverage of another. Physchim62 (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Physchim62Comment by AndrensathI have to agree that the comments by Psychim62 deserve sanction, but the accusation by said editor that similar remarks were made about the IHH is worrying. If he can provide proof of editors making those remarks, I would suggest only a 1-2 day topic-ban. I would also be interested in the length of a topic-ban Ynhockey would push for, if one is applied. -- Andrensath ( talk | contribs) 02:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, for fuck's sake. Physchim62, please *stop digging*. The fact you criticised the Israeli government has nothing to do with the AE request, and if I thought it did I'd be arguing *against* sanctioning you. -- Andrensath ( talk | contribs) 01:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Comment by Cs32enIt should be taken into consideration that the editor has not insulted other editors nor any particular individuals. Also, the first edit that has been reported actually precedes the warnings that have been mentioned in the complaint, and the second is an edit on his talk page, not in article or article talk space. Having said this, the language that is being used in the edits does not help to resolve existing controversies related to the article. Physchim62 should be advised to refrain from using such language. Cs32en Talk to me 02:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by GilisaI would like to first make a short reply to Cs32en: Physchim remarks about IDF soldiers are nothing different than similar remarks on US soldiers, they are very offensive to many Israeli editors, especially when made on such a sensitive article. Implying me(?) and Israel (the country) are not sane [125]
And just an instance of what may seem as conduct problem when he reply to Zuchinni who request him to change his rude attitude through him [128] and in his reply to No More Mr Nice Guy [129]. Calling a RS journalist article "propoganda" [130] as excuse to not include it into the article, stating that the journalist couldn't see what he claimed to have seen [131] and taking another source unrelated statement (not refering to Ben Yishay's report) "in contrast with previous reports" as indication Ben Yishay's report is not reliable [132]. I think he's a great contributor in other fields, but should be banned from editing in the I-P area and for two months at least considering previous warnings and his nature as an editor on the I-P as was very briefly exemplified here. -- Gilisa ( talk) 07:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by RolandRIn an earlier case, still live on this page, a couple of editors complained about a remark on a user talk page describing a living person as a "chimpanzee impersonator", and then apologising to the chimpanzees. This, it seems to me, is a far more egregious comment than the one at issue here. The editor in question, who has been blocked several times, in contrast to Physchim's clean record, was given a warning not to repeat such comments. Under the circumstances, any more serious sanction against Physchim would seem excessive and unfair. RolandR ( talk) 10:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Sean.hoylandre: Ynhockey's statements, I'm not sure about the "Even in the highly controversial I–P area, regular editors are not used to this kind of vitriol" :) I completely agree with "turning a blind eye to such comments will invite more of them in the future, turning the already problematic I–P articles into an area that no regular Wikipedian can reasonably work at." Anyone foolish enough to try to edit I-P conflict related articles for an extended period will have encountered these kind of WP:NOT issues where editors express their opinions about the real world and/or other editors as if they matter and will probably have not complied with WP:NOT many times themselves. It ranges from polite expressions of personal opinion thru passive agressive (a wiki fav) to attacks, rants, vitriol and general nonsense. I don't think polite expressions of personal opinion about the real world are really any less irrelevant, disruptive and annoying than the vitriol personally but maybe that's just me. Setting aside the details of this particularly bit of drama, something should be done to discourage these shenanigans in general. Something simple, fast, and near zero tolerance/zero redtape based like one warning followed by a short block (e.g. 24hrs) if the warning is ignored might help. Just enough to stop the editor in their tracks, give them and everyone else a break. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Comment by JiujitsuguyI think this diff [133] is relevant to the discussion at hand and speaks volumes of Physchim62's mindset when editing Israel-Arab articles. In response to a vitriolic rant by an IP user, instead of informing the user of Wikipedia guidelines concerning inflammatory remarks, he actually encourages the IP user and makes a crude reference to Israelis drinking the blood of their victims.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 22:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by CptNoNoIt is clear that the remarks were inappropriate. This needs to be clear to the editor. I made some bad comments months ago but thought at least some of them were acceptable. I received a sanction to basically not do it anymore or face some stiff consequences. Been doing pretty well at toning down since. Let the editor know that he might find it acceptable but the community does not and if it happens again it will be dealt with. Good form on his part at admitting one of the recent edits was unnecessarily provocative. It was probably the least problematic but it is a start. And since my proposal would be fairly tame any continued behavior like this should get some harsh results. Cptnono ( talk) 23:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Comments by BroccoliI don't think that Physchim62 realizes the inappropriateness and severity of the language he used, as this edit clearly shows. I see no reason to believe that a warning or a short topic ban will help in this situation. I believe that Physchim62 should refact "murderous dogs" comment. If he refuses I believe that a topic ban of 6 months would be the right thing to do. Broccoli ( talk) 21:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Gilisa, I am aware of the facts of this case. As I said in my previous comment in this section, I thought you were referring to Broccoli's six month proposed ban as 'much too short', *not* the one week proposed by the neutral admins. My own suggestion, given Physchim62's behaviour since the AE request was made, would be for 3-4 months. --
Andrensath (
talk |
contribs) 08:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Physchim62
|
Request suspended because of the unclear status of Brandmeister's account; may be resubmitted if editing resumes. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Brandmeister
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :Karabakh KhanateThe diffs contain evidences of disruptive editing, violation of 1RR rule, thought technically the majority of reverts were not violating the 3RR as well but the RVs from 9 to 11 do, permanent deletion of referenced information which might be considered edits not in good faith; the article was blocked due to edit-wars until the 3rd of June for a consensus to be reached and just after the ublock Brandmeister jumped into editing it in the same manner without having consensus. According to WP:TE it's a clear pattern of Tendentious Editing.
Others include but are not limited toKhojaly MassacreBesides the reverts as such, Bradmaster jumped again into edit-warring right after the temporary block was lifted from this article as well. Nagorno-Karabakh WarIs a featured article.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected toBrandmeister was first placed under restriction and then topic banned for 6 months because it was not sufficient [1] and he clearly knows the rules. Some attempts to discuss and warn were also made as described in the "Additional comments". Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Re GrandmasterGrandmaster and Brandmeister are together with a bunch of editors (about 24 more) involved in quite a huge-scandalous Arbitration request on Ru.WP including canvassing and harassment of editors (also active on En.WP) in real life. I'd like to exclude any of those being able to participate in any formal processes (besides those concerning them directly) against any of the members of the group until the final decision of ArbCom. The notification of it has been made on the ArbCom talk on En.WP. Aregakn ( talk) 18:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Re the IP messageIf what the IP user said is true, he could participate in discussions and other activities by his IP anyway, as he did interestingly notice the AE. This only confirms that Brandmeister was/is not interested in consensus and discussions and the content of Wikipedia but has other goals. I'd also like to request all the IPs that Brandmeister used be checked and the result of this AE to be on those too. I'll add the latter to the sanction request. Aregakn ( talk) 18:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Enforcement action requested ( block, topic ban or other sanction)Topic ban: Formally placed on 1RR, then topic banned for 6 months. The editor showed clear pattern of Disruptive and Tendentious Editing with refusal of Consensus.
User informed. Aregakn ( talk) 11:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Discussion concerning BrandmeisterStatement by BrandmeisterFirst of all, I would note that since June 9 I have no access to my account, probably because it is compromised now. I have already wrote to stewards and Wikipedia functionaries about that. Regarding the request, I follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle. However, the Karabakh Khanate ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in particular suffered from repeated and obvious source distortion: at least three registered users and some IPs have been modifying the lead text to push systemic bias and I was ultimately forced to request a semi-protection. As for Khojaly Massacre, there was no "jumping again into edit-warring" there and I explained that to Aregakn on my talk page. There is no policy, which prohibits editing after protection has expired. As for Nagorno-Karabakh War, I would encourage Aregakn to discuss the sources at talk, this venue is not for dispute resolution. 213.154.5.92 ( talk) 07:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning BrandmeisterFrom what I see, many of reverts were on SPA IPs, which were used to edit war in this article. Some of reverts by IPs were accompanied by incivil comments, accusing others of vandalism, etc. Eventually the article was semi-protected to stop the IP disruption. Grand master 04:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Brandmeister
To resolve this request, we need to determine whether Brandmeister's account is indeed compromised, as is being claimed by the IP above. If yes, it should probably be blocked on these grounds, and the request is moot. I'm asking a checkuser whether they can help determine this. Sandstein 21:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
|
Gilabrand ( talk · contribs) blocked for three months and six-month topic ban reset. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning User Gilabrand
Sanction or remedy that this user violated : topic ban same topic ban extended for 6 months
Up to admin. But keep in mind that she has been blocked many times before for violating this: [11]
Discussion concerning GilabrandStatement by GilabrandComments by others about the request concerning GilabrandQuestion for AdminsSince ARBPIA "rules" are very vague (broadly construed/interpreted), is it possible that every article pertaining to Israel/Israelis could be considered as being part of the I/P conflict in one way or another? I ask this because some major world entities (Hamas, Iran, Syria etc) consider all of Israel to be "occupied Palestine" (and consider anything Israeli-related to be politically motivated -- one can even find Hamas' positions on nightclubs in Tel Aviv)...Also keep in mind that every aspect of daily Israeli life is impacted in one way or another by the IP conflict.. Anyhow, it would be useful for editors to know the answers to these questions. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 23:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by GilisaIndeed, many times bans are being interperted too broadly and by that only esclating the drama they were also intended to stop. As for the OP SD, during the last months he reported almost every breach, or what was viewed to him as breach of ARBPIA by editors with different attidue than the one he have through the I-P issue, to the ArbCom and on other boards. I truely wonder, and didn't check, if it's ok by Wiki policies or that it may be considered as WP:HOUND. -- Gilisa ( talk) 06:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by PedritoI thought it might be useful to remind everybody here that there is a precedent in which it was decided that all such edits fall under the WP:ARBPIA sanctions. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 07:45 15.06.2010
Comment By unomi[13] and [14] appear to be pretty straightforward violations. Unomi ( talk) 11:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment By ShukiI think that this is another frivolous effort by SupremeDeliciousness in his continued attempt to silence all editors that are not on his side. It is clear that there is only one problematic edit here on the Tourism article, and the edit on Palmach is not controversial at all. If only SD were so objective and also pursued like-minded editors on their topic bans, I would AGF, but here there is none. I was hoping that this battleground mentality was a thing of the past, but SD refuses to let it go. Incredible to see how much spare time some editors have in pursuing 'adversaries' instead of actually contributing to the project.-- Shuki ( talk) 16:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Comment by Hertz1888The Palmach edit is a routine matter of providing attribution. In the other edit still at issue, it is not unreasonable that an article on tourism in Israel would provide the reader with information on places of interest that are reachable only from Israel and under Israel control, whether or not that is the permanent status. Agreeing with Shuki, I think this filing is part of a vendetta by S.D., whose long history of hostility to Israel and Israelis, and battleground approach, is a matter of record. It strikes me as a ludicrous example of the "pot calling the kettle black". Gilabrand is a gifted and diligent editor with a multi-year record of outstanding contributions to Wikipedia deserving of appreciation. Let not this enforcement request turn into another instance of "no good deed goes unpunished." At most what is needed is gentle advice to tread carefully, but I think even that is too much, as it would reward S.D. for a frivolous filing that wastes everybody's time, and would encourage repeat performances. Hertz1888 ( talk) 19:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Please reconsider decision in light of mitigating factors just posted above. Hertz1888 ( talk) 19:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Comment by JiujitsuguyAnother successful effort to silence those who are perceived as being sympathetic to Israel. SD's AE is a transparent attempt to muzzle any voice that disagrees with his. Gilabrand's edits are by in large constructive and have added immeasurably to wikipedia both in terms of quality and quantity. The sanction is harsh and extreme and I ask that it be re-considered. Please don't reward frivolous complaints and personal vendettas with censorship.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 20:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Gilabrand
Again? T. Canens ( talk) 23:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
This request has merit. The user had been notified, has edited after notification, but has failed to respond to this thread. I therefore construe the silence to imply that no defense or mitigating factors are present. I find that [17] and [18] violate the user's ban from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic. This being her 5th topic ban violation, and the last block being one month, Gilabrand is blocked for three months, and the six-month topic ban is reset to begin anew upon the expiration or lifting of the block. Given her apparent inability to distinguish between edits that violate her topic ban and edits that do not, Gilabrand is urged to voluntarily avoid all content and discussions related to Israel for the duration of her topic ban, to reduce the likelihood of further violations. T. Canens ( talk) 19:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
|
Not actionable. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Nableezy
Sanction or remedy that this user violated :
Violations:
Clearly, these edits are to articles/text squarely within his broad topic ban related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Of note is what admin Tim Song pointed out in regard to another editor banned from the I-P conflict (where, as distinct from here, the ban didn't even by its terms mention that it was to be "broadly construed"). Sysop Tim Song (aka T. Canens), responding to a question as to whether "every article pertaining to Israel/Israelis could be considered as being part of the I/P conflict in one way or another? ... every aspect of daily Israeli life is impacted in one way or another by the IP conflict.", responded (hours ago, in the report directly above this one): " 'Broadly' means that if there's any doubt as to whether an article/section/paragraph/item/whatever falls within the topic ban, it should be avoided." Obviously, even-handed application of this interpretation to all individuals subject to the AI and PI bans mandates the same result here. We can't have different rules applied to people on opposite sides of the same precise issue, who are subject to the same topic bans. That's precisely the sort of thing that has led to bad press regarding wikipedia of late, charging that POV has led to wikipedia being broken when the IP conflict is at issue. That's not good for the project. Wikipedia:Topic ban states:
Similarly, construing "broadly" in an unrelated matter, sysop Bigtimepeace wrote "Broadly construed" means precisely that and y'all need to err on the side of caution in a major way." [19] And in another unrelated matter construing the meaning of the phrase, sysop Tznkai wrote: "When topic bans are "broadly construed" I think that means all ambiguity goes towards violation". [20] The number of editors (including sysop Malik Shabazz) who based their support for Nableezy's ban violations on a mis-reading and/or misapplication of Wikipedia:Topic ban, and even a mis-reading of the breadth of the ban (asserting that it was limited to the I-P conflict, which it is not ... and then saying they still have the same position, despite the basis for it having been completely incorrect) causes me some concern as to what is going on.
Importantly, the ban itself stated clearly that reverts of vandalism were not excluded from Nableezy's ban. Those who took positions that Nableezy should escape punishment for ban violations that are vandalism reverts have no basis for their views in a plain reading of the ban. The ban unequivocally states that included in what Nableezy is banned from doing are vandalism reverts. Nothing could be clearer. This calls to mind the arbitrators' strongly worded comments regarding similar poorly founded arguments as why a prior Nableezy topic ban should not be enforced according to its clearly stated language. To now not enforce the ban on the basis that some reverts are only vandalism reverts is not only contrary to the plain language of the ban, but it makes an utter mockery of bans and this entire process. It also encourages a lack of respect for bans, and is the sort of un-ven application of the process that leads to concerns among editors and others. And reflecting the raw "FUCK YOU, BLOCKERS" attitude of Nableezy, when he was informed of his block by his blocker, with a link to the details that made clear that "Reverts of vandalism ... are not excluded from this ban", what did he respond? He responded " I am going to revert vandalism where I see it (though I will restrict myself to blatant vandalism) and if an admin wants to block me for that they can." And guess what? He did just that -- he was a man of his word. Perhaps some sysops think its fine for Nableezy to, in the face of a clear directive, say that he will not obey his block, and then act on his words. Nableezy himself said -- if an admin wants to block me for that they can. For the sysops on this page to not mete out the appropriate punishment for clear, willing, intentional, Fuck-You violations of bans would be a failure on their part to uphold their obligations as sysops. The number of editors (including sysop tariqabjotu) who based their apologist support for Nableezy's ban violations on a mis-reading and/or misapplication of this aspect of the ban causes me some concern.
It is eye-catching that Nableezy has committed such multiple such violations: a) starting the day after his ban was instituted; b) in -- while a minority -- a substantial percentage of his articles edited under the Nableezy name during his ban; and c) after being on the receiving end of admin action so many times. Note as well, as was noted by admin Sandstein at the most recent admin action regarding Nableezy, Nableezy's problematic record as reflected at least in part here and here.
Up to admin. But please keep in mind that Nableezy has been blocked many times before for violating this: [21]
Discussion concerning NableezyStatement by Nableezy
A day before my topic ban is to expire, Epeefleche has chosen to continue his mission of seeing that I do not edit here. The only edit that comes close is my reversion of vandalism on the occupation page as there is indeed one line out of many that can be said to be included in the topic ban. Had I noticed that single line I would not have reverted it. I do remember editing that page and checking that I was not reverting the section that had to do with the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, but I did not think to check if there was any mention of Sinai. nableezy - 21:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Phil, the area of conflict defined in the ARBPIA case is the whole of the Arab-Israeli conflict, so the MFO in Sinai would fall under that. That was an honest oversight on my part, nearly two months ago. So there is one edit here that could be "actionable", though what action it merits is up to yall. nableezy - 21:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Tariq, are you saying that the Richard Goldstone article, of which less than 15% touches on the conflict, is as a whole part of the A/I topic area? nableezy - 01:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning NableezyComment by RolandR Of the eight edits listed above by Epeefleche, three(nos 1, 2 & 3) are obvious reversion of vandalism; one (no 4) consists of the removal of a large chunk of non-English text from an article; two (nos 5 & 6) do not appear to relate to the Israel/Palestine conflict, however broadly defined; one (no 7) is the addition of a missing, and clearly non-contrentious, word to an admittedly highly contested article; and one (no 8) is only very tenuously related to the area covered by the ban. It seems top me that this is an extremely poor case, entirely without merit. I am concerned that it is brought the day before Nableezy's topic ban is due to end, although most of these edits were made many weeks ago. And I note that this ban was imposed on the basis of a report which even the closing editoe described as "largely frivolous", and which led to the reporting editor being warned "that they may be made subject to sanctions if they file more largely inactionable enforcement requests". This too seems a frivolous and inactionable request, and I recommend that Epeefleche withdraw it. RolandR ( talk) 21:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Malik Shabazz Epeefleche seems to have misread Sandstein's statement concerning nableezy's topic ban, which was limited to "articles which (or whose edited parts) are broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict" (bold emphasis added). Editing an article about an ancient dynasty that controlled Palestine doesn't fall within the scope of the topic ban because it is not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict (a modern conflict). Editing Helen Thomas to change her ethnicity doesn't fall within the scope of the topic ban because the edited part is not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. So what's left of Epeefleche's complaint? A single violation that took place two months ago. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 21:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
And arb Carcharoth (w/whom arb Wizardman agreed) wrote with regard to your protestations that a topic ban did not apply to you elsewhere:
-- Epeefleche ( talk) 00:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by ShukiThis is a no brainer coming off the very recent open/close to Gilabrand, but I blame A) the original admin who only gave Nableezy a weird partial topic ban. Instead of encouraging Nableezy to take a time off, it let him continue on the talk pages and the many slips mentioned above came much easier than if Nableezy would have been on a total 'time off' from the subject, B) SupremeDeliciousness' recent flurry of AE activity. Reasonable people would give others a bit of flexibility, but SD looking for ways to silence opposing editors only motivates his 'opponents' to do the same. If Breein and Gilabrand are going to be held to such a zero tolerance standard, then it is not surprising that this wakes up others to demand the admins here be perfectly balanced and of course C) the editor himself for not being able to resist editing related articles. -- Shuki ( talk) 22:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by cptnonoYou just knew I was going to chime in on any request regarding Nableezy. There was a conversation on his talk page regarding the block where he said he as going to revert vandalism anyways. A couple editors reccomended that since he had access to the talk page he simply bring it up there and that he stay out of the main space on these articles. He reverted anyways. He thumbed his nose at the topic ban so principle dictates that something should be done. However, even I can see the reason in reverting vandalism and doubt any additional sanctions would accomplish anything. Cptnono ( talk) 22:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Nsaum75I'm going to disagree with this AE filing against Nableezy. However, I would like to state that AE is broken. The "administrators" who hand down "decisions" here are just as much at fault for the "disruption" on Wikipedia as the editors they are supposedly "bringing down justice" upon. By virtue of their continued involvement in these AEs, they are no longer "uninvolved" parties, but pawns to be used by warring factions against each other. What make this situation even more sad and depressing, is that very few seem to recognize it. I do not have a solution for this ongoing problem, but its plain to see that the system is broken. I guess someone could "punish" me for stating such an opinion, but, that would only make more evident the cancer that has metastasized in AE. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 01:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by GilisaI didn't read it all, but if I got the gist right and she is banned from editing in the I-P subject and she did edit in Helen Tomas article then this is a clear breach from her topic ban. Helen Tomas is high profile activist very well known for her opposing to the Gaza blocked and recently there were edit wars directly connected with her (see the TP of the article of the raid on the Gaza flotilla) and with the I-P subject. Yesterday Gilbrand was blocked for three month and her topic ban was reset for a less clear breach from her topic ban. The same standards should be applied here. -- Gilisa ( talk) 05:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Nableezy
|
ARBPIA, Discretionary sanctions, warned: [25] (November 2009)
UPDATE: Breein has continued to edit war and re insert the no-consensus version at the template: [31] He has done this twice now after that I showed him what the closing admin at the other article had said as shown above. He is removing the occupied territories when there is no consensus at any talkpage for them to be removed and then claims that he is "restoring the longstanding consensus." when its clear from the discussion that Breein is edit warring against consensus: [32] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 22:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Incivility/Behavior:
I find it inappropriate that Breein has opened up several long discussions with admins specifically about this AE outside of this AE request, instead of replying here: [89] [90] [91] and notifies an editor who edits on the same side as him in Arab-Israeli conflict articles to one of those off-AE discussions: [92] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 18:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
[93] (November 2009)
Permanent topic ban from Arab-Israeli conflict articles. His editing and behavior has been a long term problem within Arab-Israeli conflict articles. He has clearly failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia. He has been sanctioned and warned many times, but it doesn't seem like it helps. He has clearly shown that he cant collaborate with other editors within Arab-Israeli conflict articles and he causes a lot of disruption at them.
User Breein1007 has since he registered his account in November 2009 been banned 5 times [94] all of these banns are within the Arab-Israeli conflict. He has also been subject to an interaction ban: [95]
I can comment on Ani Majdul case and on asking Israeli admin to give him rollbacks rights in Hebrew language.
First, in the case of Ani Majdul, everyone on the ANI opened against Breein1007 agreed (including one or two admins), after detailed investigation by uninvolved editor was made and presented on the ANI, that he is most probably editor who write in bad English on purpose and that he's not the one he present himself to be (Arab refugee from Lebanon if I'm correct) both because of what seems as delibrate spelling and grammar mistakes, because of his style of editing and because even he presented himself as Arabic native speaker, he seems not to be able to communicate in very basic level of Arabic. Then, some suggested that he's Breein's sock. Breein seem to noticed the suspicious style of editing on Ani Majdul, he might go wrong anyway with mocking him a little, and there is possibilty that Ani is who he say he's, but the case is very complicated and Breein might feel that Ani mocking everyone so he responded accordingly but this case doesn't make it just to cast sanctions on Breein. If I'm not mistaken, it was monthes ago and the ANI case ended with nothing.
As for addressing Israeli admin in Hebrew. First, the nationality of one admin, let us all agree, is not relevant and we excpect admins who are involved emotionaly or at all in certain issues to be responsible enough to avoid any using of sysop tools in regard to these areas of editing or when dealing with involved editors. There is enough place to assume good faith here as I don't believe he realy thought Israeli admin will give roll backs rights without proper process and not according to WP policy. Second, Breein adressed me many times in Hebrew in issues which have nothing to do with Wikipedia, just because he seem to enjoy parcticing the language or something. He do it very frequently on his TP when corresponding with other Hebrew speaking editors in issues concern more with his everyday life than with WP. It's not uncommon that many many editors communicate with other editors in their native language when they have the oppertunity. Most times they even forget to add translation to English. I've seen editors communicating with each other in French, Arabic, Persian and Spanish many times before. No one realy think that it can hide what they write. There are enough very good speakers of Hebrew in both sides of the I-P area of editing and I can even name them. Some of those also have Hebrew tag on their UP. If I'm not mistaken, it was long time ago.
I don't intend to comment on other cases I'm not very familiar with, don't have time to and etc. Infact, these are the two diffs provided by the editor opened this case that I've read -- Gilisa ( talk) 19:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Shuki The past few months had been a welcomed respite from the battleground editing that Supreme Deliciousness and his like brought to the I-P conflict on WP. SD was topic banned on May 1 for 30 days and the quiet persisted. It is apparent though that SD has refused to calm down and decided to turn up the heat again with this frivolous report, somewhat similar to the one he filed on me in April in the hot recent spring. SD is fishing here and with no real point to grab on to. SD was also warned about his battleground mentality a couple of weeks before that in early April. -- Shuki ( talk) 21:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Statement by NickCT This is slightly silly. Anyone familair with Breein knows that if one took the time one could provide 1,000s on examples similair to the ones Supreme has offered above. His negative behavior has spanned over a long period of time. That anyone would speak for him here simply goes to demonstrate the disturbing bias that surrounds I/P issues. @PhilK - Sup is right about the recent block being for edit warring. These charges are different. PhilK, I'm a little surprised you were so willing to block me for suggesting Breein was a "bigot", and yet, in the face of the language and behavior above, which seems far further over the line, you do nothing. Is this a double standard? Is there a reason for it? NickCT ( talk) 03:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Housekeeping
more comments by Supreme Deliciousness moved up from below as per explicit guideline
CIreland, concernign (1), the majority of things here, he have never been sanctioned for, only the edit warring at one article, gaza flotilla raid. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
B, there has been many attempts at intervention. Look how many warnings he received, I posted them in the evidence. Look at his many blocks and interaction ban, all within Arab-Israeli conflict articles. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Note for reviewing admins: The people in this enforcement request that have come to defense of Breein1007, (Shuki, Gilisa, Nsaum75, Jiujitsuguy) are people who edit on the same side as him in Arab-Israeli conflict articles. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 13:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
B, if you follow the Wikipedia:ANI#Repeated attempted outing you posted , you'll see that Breein did not violate outing at all for a user that widely uses his real name. -- Shuki ( talk) 20:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Can some admin please rap this up? --
Supreme Deliciousness (
talk) 21:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Nsaum75
Breein1007's incivil behavior aside, I would like to remind the admins that that some of the POV issues that SD is raising about Breein's editing style, are the same editing styles that helped contribute to SD's topic ban in May [98]. Nobody is perfect and I would ask that the involved parties try to find a solution that doesn't escalate the already tenacious game of "tag" that appears to play out in IP related AE filings. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 04:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Re Shuki stating please note that absolutely no one on 'your' side has come to support your frivolous report. This usually means that they do not support it at all. above. Wikipedia does not function at its best when it is interpreted as a democracy, having 'X' number of editors jumping in and stating Agree/Disagree adds very little to a conversation and only serves to impede actual decision making, deferring to the mob. In cases such as these the evidence should be at the center of attention. There is simply no point in jumping in and me too'ing when the evidence is this strong, one would hope...
The fact that Breein was blocked for actions on the flotilla article does not in any way invalidate the claims made here,- that Breein is persistently acting in a manner that is in contravention of community norms and is exhibiting behavior that should incur Arbcom sanctioned remedies. Sanctions incurred for past misdeeds do not erase or even negate those misdeeds, only a demonstrated change in behavior can. Remember that we are not here to punish anyone, we are not here to ensure some balance of misdeeds vs sanctions, we are here to ensure a relatively constructive editing environment.
The gross civility violations obviously hinder encouraging a collaborative atmosphere, but the multiple willful misrepresentations of consensus and the actions of other editors absolutely deny it. I could understand if it was a one-off, but as the evidence collected by SD show, it is more of a MO than a slip-up; Specifically, using the 3 oppose vs 4 support no-consensus RfC (on a different article) to muscle through the 'Right ' version on a template is not something that we want to see.
I can understand that there is some frustration, but if editors are not willing to engage in centralized discussion then we are unable to untangle the misunderstandings. The general question of occupied territories has been sought discussed at IPCOLL the discussion has been widely advertised and many of the editors weighing at this venue have also weighed in there, except for Breein.
That Breein has so far refrained from commenting here, and instead engaged directly with commenting admins is, to my mind, deeply inappropriate. I urge all editors to work towards ensuring that our stated community goals and standards are met and enforced. Unomi ( talk) 23:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Applying the Tim Song rule of timely complaints, I fail to see anything here but a stale complaint. I'm having trouble seeing anything actionable within the past two weeks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 07:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi CIreland, having looked at the evidence presented again, I think my earlier comment was hasty. I suggest you go ahead and apply a ban. PhilKnight ( talk) 12:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I think there is a conflict between two approaches to arbitration enforcement here, both of which are legitimate.
When I advocated a topic-ban, above, it was largely on the basis of the second approach because I don't think adminstrators imposing run-of-the-mill 3RR blocks would necessarily look at the overall picture. By contrast, looking at an editor's contribution history overall is what I think should occur at arbitration enforcement. CIreland ( talk) 16:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Abd ( talk · contribs) blocked for 1 week. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Abd
Discussion concerning AbdStatement by AbdComments by others about the request concerning Abd
Seems to me that Hipo is correct, and there is a violation here. As to the appropriate penalty, I defer to others.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 07:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Abd
Appears to be a straightforward case. Unless another uninvolved admin objects, I'm going to block for a week. T. Canens ( talk) 04:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
|
Andranikpasha ( talk · contribs) blocked for three months. T. Canens ( talk) 20:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Andranikpasha
Discussion concerning AndranikpashaStatement by AndranikpashaAs for me, it is a clear case of BLP violation, and it is also an unsignificant quote (by a less significant person) which obviously attacks a living person. "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone" WP:BLP, and three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Andranikpasha ( talk) 07:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning AndranikpashaI have a question here, is Cox an Armenian? If she is not, this sentence would clearly be a violation of BLP and 1rr or not, users should not be blocked when they have real BLP concerns. There should be a clarification that she is not an Armenian, if she is not. Since any reader reading such a quote will wrongly assume something which is not true. Also, the applicant made two revert to the article and according to this, he has a 1rr restriction for an unlimited duration. Ionidasz ( talk) 04:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that BLP violations are to be reverted on sight, and do not count towards RR restrictions. Can you help explain to me why this particular statement is a controversial BLP violation? Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 07:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Andranikpasha
Looks like an unambiguous violation. I'm inclined to block for three months, escalating from the last one-month block, unless another uninvolved admin objects. T. Canens ( talk) 04:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Very well, I've blocked Andranikpasha for three months. T. Canens ( talk) 13:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC) |
Borderline case, no action at this time. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Epeefleche
[111] Second revert (of this edit, June 17, 18:30). Cites BLP concerns, although the information cannot be in any way reasonably be construed as disparaging or libellous. It also does not infringe on the privacy of the persons.
Discussion concerning EpeeflecheStatement by Epeefleche
Second, I might as well make a point that the others didn't even see need to get to. As I would hope nom already knows, wp:BLP is not limited, as he would have others believe, to statements that are "disparaging or libelous" or "infringe on ... privacy". Where did that come from? Did nom just make that up? The guideline itself, which I had referred to, says something quite different. In just its second paragraph, using bolding to aid the lazy-eyed editor, it states:
And later, similarly, it instructs us (emphasis added, here) to "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced". This is certainly contentious material. It is certainly poorly sourced. All for reasons I alluded to in my edit summary and on the talk page. Those reasons included my observations that Der Spiegel failed to indicate the source for the statement. Failed even indicate to that there is a source. And, it speaks not to a fact, but as to the views of persons (as though they are known by Der Spiegel, and specifically that their current views at the time of the writing/reading are known). Given the circumstances, it of course a highly controversial statement, as it calls into question the persons' objectivity -- given their supposed views. As this is a BLP issue, and a highly controversial one, its a BLP violation. Per wp:blp, I removed it, as indeed I or others should have done post-haste earlier. I also offered that others should feel free to discuss it further (without reverting, under the blp rules. As wp:blp further makes clear, this applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Nom's misleading statement asserting that it need be libelous or disparaging is simply flat-out wrong. I wonder if it might perhaps not be better in the future for nom to read the actual language of the guidance alluded to by the editor whose edit he dislikes, and whose editing rights he seeks to chill, rather than concoct new language of his own and pass it off as the guidance. That might have the additional salutary effect of preventing him from introducing BLP violations into articles, as he has done here.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 22:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning EpeeflecheComment by Malik ShabazzCan you clarify why these edits are reverts by identifying the previous versions to which Epeefleche reverted? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 19:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by No More Mr Nice GuyIs this really the right place for this? Even if there were in fact two reverts,
WP:General sanctions says "Any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". (emphasis mine)
Result concerning Epeefleche
Cs32en, Malik Shabazz is correct. In order for these two edits to count as reverts, you must provide diffs of the action(s) they are reverts of. If such diffs are not provided, this request is not actionable. Sandstein 21:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
|
Physchim62 ( talk · contribs) topic-banned from the Israeli-Arab conflict for one month. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Physchim62
Discussion concerning Physchim62Statement by Physchim62What we have here is deliberate misrepresentation of my edits. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to accuse me of "antisemitism", the usual cheap slur against anyone who dares criticise the actions of the Israeli government, and Epeefleche ( talk · contribs) has obliged. It can't be long before someone tries to use this edit as "evidence" for my "antisemitism", so I'll save you all the trouble of looking for the diff! The deliberate misrepresentation starts with the original complaint by Ynhockey ( talk · contribs). I am "seen to be deliberately dehumanizing one side in the conflict;" and then "repeating the insult." No mention that the second diff comes from a conversation on my user talk page in which I try to justify the original words. At the risk of digging myself an even deeper hole, I will clarify that my comments were directed against a small group of IDF "soldiers" who were onboard the Mavi Marmara, and ask editors:
The second round of deliberate misrepresentation comes from Gilisa ( talk · contribs), and I apologize in advance for the length of my reply, but s/he has made so many groundless accusations and simple slurs that it takes a while to go through them all!
@Andrensath, I'd rather refrain from publically attacking individual editors over and above what is necessary to refute the allegations made against me; I don't think that such attacks are a constructive approach to improving the article.
UpdateOuuuhhh! Wheeee! We've got the big guns coming out now! Let me just summarise the personal attacks I've had in the last 36 hours or so (and I mean attacks against my person, not against some small group of people protected by anonymity by an organisation already accused of "war crimes" and a government which has been accused of "state terrorism" and "kidnapping", among other things):
Maybe that last diff is the most telling of them all. I am not up against this show trial for any comment I made on the talk page, or any hypothetical offense that might have caused: I am on show trial for having dared criticise the actions of the Israeli government, and the objective is not simply to silence me for as long as possible but also to send out a chilling effect to anyone else who might dare to criticise the Israeli government in the future. These so-called "editors" do not give a monkey's about Wikipedia. They couldn't care less about striving towards a neutral presentation of the information we have at our disposal. All they care about is abusing this project as a vehicle to promote their political views. Anyone who stands in their way must be persecuted, because the promotion of their political view is, to them, infinitely more important than this project to create a neutral encyclopedia. A person who tries to point out that other points of view are possible, and are held, is a person who is particularly dangerous, and one who should be singled out for special persecution. There's no patent on the methods, they've been known since Machiavelli at the very least, but let us not pretend that this farce has any other purpose than promoting one political viewpoint at the expense of proper coverage of another. Physchim62 (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Physchim62Comment by AndrensathI have to agree that the comments by Psychim62 deserve sanction, but the accusation by said editor that similar remarks were made about the IHH is worrying. If he can provide proof of editors making those remarks, I would suggest only a 1-2 day topic-ban. I would also be interested in the length of a topic-ban Ynhockey would push for, if one is applied. -- Andrensath ( talk | contribs) 02:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, for fuck's sake. Physchim62, please *stop digging*. The fact you criticised the Israeli government has nothing to do with the AE request, and if I thought it did I'd be arguing *against* sanctioning you. -- Andrensath ( talk | contribs) 01:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Comment by Cs32enIt should be taken into consideration that the editor has not insulted other editors nor any particular individuals. Also, the first edit that has been reported actually precedes the warnings that have been mentioned in the complaint, and the second is an edit on his talk page, not in article or article talk space. Having said this, the language that is being used in the edits does not help to resolve existing controversies related to the article. Physchim62 should be advised to refrain from using such language. Cs32en Talk to me 02:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by GilisaI would like to first make a short reply to Cs32en: Physchim remarks about IDF soldiers are nothing different than similar remarks on US soldiers, they are very offensive to many Israeli editors, especially when made on such a sensitive article. Implying me(?) and Israel (the country) are not sane [125]
And just an instance of what may seem as conduct problem when he reply to Zuchinni who request him to change his rude attitude through him [128] and in his reply to No More Mr Nice Guy [129]. Calling a RS journalist article "propoganda" [130] as excuse to not include it into the article, stating that the journalist couldn't see what he claimed to have seen [131] and taking another source unrelated statement (not refering to Ben Yishay's report) "in contrast with previous reports" as indication Ben Yishay's report is not reliable [132]. I think he's a great contributor in other fields, but should be banned from editing in the I-P area and for two months at least considering previous warnings and his nature as an editor on the I-P as was very briefly exemplified here. -- Gilisa ( talk) 07:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by RolandRIn an earlier case, still live on this page, a couple of editors complained about a remark on a user talk page describing a living person as a "chimpanzee impersonator", and then apologising to the chimpanzees. This, it seems to me, is a far more egregious comment than the one at issue here. The editor in question, who has been blocked several times, in contrast to Physchim's clean record, was given a warning not to repeat such comments. Under the circumstances, any more serious sanction against Physchim would seem excessive and unfair. RolandR ( talk) 10:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Sean.hoylandre: Ynhockey's statements, I'm not sure about the "Even in the highly controversial I–P area, regular editors are not used to this kind of vitriol" :) I completely agree with "turning a blind eye to such comments will invite more of them in the future, turning the already problematic I–P articles into an area that no regular Wikipedian can reasonably work at." Anyone foolish enough to try to edit I-P conflict related articles for an extended period will have encountered these kind of WP:NOT issues where editors express their opinions about the real world and/or other editors as if they matter and will probably have not complied with WP:NOT many times themselves. It ranges from polite expressions of personal opinion thru passive agressive (a wiki fav) to attacks, rants, vitriol and general nonsense. I don't think polite expressions of personal opinion about the real world are really any less irrelevant, disruptive and annoying than the vitriol personally but maybe that's just me. Setting aside the details of this particularly bit of drama, something should be done to discourage these shenanigans in general. Something simple, fast, and near zero tolerance/zero redtape based like one warning followed by a short block (e.g. 24hrs) if the warning is ignored might help. Just enough to stop the editor in their tracks, give them and everyone else a break. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Comment by JiujitsuguyI think this diff [133] is relevant to the discussion at hand and speaks volumes of Physchim62's mindset when editing Israel-Arab articles. In response to a vitriolic rant by an IP user, instead of informing the user of Wikipedia guidelines concerning inflammatory remarks, he actually encourages the IP user and makes a crude reference to Israelis drinking the blood of their victims.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 22:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment by CptNoNoIt is clear that the remarks were inappropriate. This needs to be clear to the editor. I made some bad comments months ago but thought at least some of them were acceptable. I received a sanction to basically not do it anymore or face some stiff consequences. Been doing pretty well at toning down since. Let the editor know that he might find it acceptable but the community does not and if it happens again it will be dealt with. Good form on his part at admitting one of the recent edits was unnecessarily provocative. It was probably the least problematic but it is a start. And since my proposal would be fairly tame any continued behavior like this should get some harsh results. Cptnono ( talk) 23:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Comments by BroccoliI don't think that Physchim62 realizes the inappropriateness and severity of the language he used, as this edit clearly shows. I see no reason to believe that a warning or a short topic ban will help in this situation. I believe that Physchim62 should refact "murderous dogs" comment. If he refuses I believe that a topic ban of 6 months would be the right thing to do. Broccoli ( talk) 21:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Gilisa, I am aware of the facts of this case. As I said in my previous comment in this section, I thought you were referring to Broccoli's six month proposed ban as 'much too short', *not* the one week proposed by the neutral admins. My own suggestion, given Physchim62's behaviour since the AE request was made, would be for 3-4 months. --
Andrensath (
talk |
contribs) 08:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Physchim62
|