| Wickey-nl is indefinitely banned from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Sandstein 16:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Wickey-nl
Its clear that user violations of WP:NPA, bad edits like restoration of WP:COPYVIO, false edit summaries and not properly attributing advocacy organisations clearly shows that user came here not to edit in neutral way. Kingsindian It really doesn't matter who put it in the first place every one is responsible for their own edit and it doesn't matter if it revert or something else.There was more problems with this edit that its cherry-picking the source to present only one piece of information though it discuss the issue at large.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 03:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC) @@ Bbb23 and Sandstein: Even in this AE thread the user continue his violation of WP:NPA [2] by calling other users "hasbara activists" and their "mates". I must agree with Robert McClenon on this regard some admin action is need to stop the disruption.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 15:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Wickey-nlStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Wickey-nl
-- Wickey-nl ( talk) 09:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
@Bbb23
-- Wickey-nl ( talk) 14:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC) @Bbb23: Wrong conclusion. While this is not the place to evaluate the system, I do not say that I will not take into account the reality of the existing dominant interpretations. I will do, I only say these interpretations are not obvious. Some are trapped by the use of a single word, not even present in the request of the submitter. I do not have evidence, so I should not have used the c-word, and I striked it out. Having said that, I view the threatening with a topic ban inconsistent with the conclusion that the very submission of this complaint is poorly substantiated. You cannot simply say: the arguments filed by the submitter do not justify a sanction, but Wickey-nl is a problem, or even Wickey-nl [have not] "the competence required to edit productively and collaboratively in this topic area".
Statement by (Kingsindian)As an editor involved in 2 of the 6 diffs above (number 3 and 4) directly, and one indirectly (number 1), perhaps I should say something. The good part: About diff 4, the copyvio was
inserted by another editor, in the beginning,
User:Shrike
reverted it, and as a sort of compromise, I
moved the essence of the edit to another section while keeping out the copyvio.
User:Wickey-nl reverted me, I
explained the edit and he did not revert it again. The bad part: Seems that User:Wickey-nl has a habit of accusing others as sock-puppets and other personal attacks, and has a very strong bias in his edits in the I/P area. I do also have my own bias (and rather in his direction), but I try to keep it under control (I hope with some success). With the recent events in I/P, tempers are inflamed everywhere. I do not know what WP policy is regarding these things (this is my first post to Noticeboard), but perhaps these are things to keep in mind. Kingsindian ( talk) 18:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Statement by BrewcrewerPlease review these additional diffs:
In summation, besides for the 1rr violations and personal attacks (mentioned in other reports), more importantly, Wickey-nl has exhibited a pattern of pov-pushing disguised as proper editing while not holding himself to the same standard he demands of others. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by ZeroThis report is unusually weak. Sandstein identifies this edit as "problematic" and indeed it is. But it is just a commonplace mild copyvio that is easily fixed by some paraphrasing. This should have been done by Shrike instead of removing it wholesale, since it is obviously relevant and well sourced. Identifying this edit alone as sufficient cause for a topic ban seems extraordinary. (Problematic content suppressed instead of struck, Sandstein 03:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)) Zero talk 00:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC) @Sandstein: You wrote that I made "personal attacks" but in fact I made comments on editing behavior. Your words are a clear violation of WP:ASPERSIONS and I invite you to remove them. Zero talk 04:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Robert McClenon : As an administrator who sometimes blocks people, I expect that some of them will give me lip for it. But I think it is a right to be able to criticise an administrator's actions (within some generous limits) and administrators should be able to take it. Once we start blocking people for being angry when they are blocked, we will look like a bunch of power-freaks and community respect for administrators will plummet. Zero talk 14:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by IRISZOOMI can't see what makes this a case for sanctions as it looks like to be normal disagreements, except for the copyright issue which easily could have been fixed - even by Shrike instead of making a case of it. Regarding Wickey-nl's response here, I think one word or so is unacceptable but he seems upset over the 48h block mentioned in the same sentence. That wording shouldn't be used but I certainly don't agree that he can't collaborate with others, as I think he has proven it, like being very active in talk pages, and doing many improvements on articles. A topic ban would be very hard to understand. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 06:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by NishidaniI've disagreed with Wickey-nl in the past (I thought he could not spot an evident POV for example), but generally find that he is a very good wikipedian. Unlike most editors, he actually goes through pages diligently from top to bottom, expanding them significantly (see Beit HaShalom. Edit warriors can be identified easily. They don’t build pages (too much work) they tend to intervene to revert, or to add some succulent piece of information that tells against one side. They are morbidly interested in AE report: they appear to spend a lot of time watching selected editors’ contribs, and reporting people. I can't see anything, rather than the trivial BBC diff in Shrike's original report. This fits some profiles here: it does not strike me as appropriate to Wickey-nl. Brewcrewer's report is wrong from the outset (dragging up stale diffs, never reported at the time if they were believed to be serous, rather than content disputes):
Brewcrewer is much taken by content disputes with wickey-nl at Palestinian land laws, where he had edited however only once recently, and over the years never, except recently, used the talk page as against 27 edits by the editor he is reporting. His edit was an egregious piece of POV slanting of the lead, ignoring the historical background in order to prioritize an ethnic sense of those laws, which are mirrored in Israeli law, being offensive. As a glance at the talk page will show, the whole article is a misnomer, the earlier drafts preferred by Brewcrewer showcased the article as evidence that Palestinian land laws are anti-Jewish/Israeli. I think that was one of the purposes of the article. The article gets great attention because of its I/P polemical value: compare the ignored, but parallel article Israeli land and property laws (Background . 93% of the land in Israel is state-owned land originally confiscated from Arabs and held in trust for the Jewish people: of the remaining 7% most is Arab-owned, but even there some is encumbered in a way that only allows the Arab vendor to sell it to Jews). Editors who jump at the Palestinian article to raise a spectre of offensive laws, quietly ignore the other article. NPOV requires we be serenely descriptive of the facts, and not focus on one article of a pair to push a POV. Third point. Yes, Wickey-nl is distressed at this report, you can see that by the unusual intensity of his grammar and spelling errors, which suggests to me he thought, the way things go in here, he's another goner. I don't think fishy reports should function to provoke upset language so that the evidence of being upset substitutes for the original evidence as grounds for conviction. Wickey-nl might well be told to exercise more care, but the original report was both frivolous and instrumental (attempting to remove an editor out of dislike, as is, sadly, often the case recently). Nishidani ( talk) 10:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Robert McClenonWickey-nl was already advised to strike the reference to a "corrupt admin" and has not done so. Maybe Wickey-nl thinks that the Wikipedia admin system is inherently "corrupt" or otherwise abusive; that does not excuse a very strong personal attack on the integrity of an administrator. If there really is evidence of abuse of the admin privilege, let alone "corruption" in the use of the admin privilege, it should be taken to the ArbCom, rather than being used idly to poison discussion of disruptive editing in WP:ARBPIA. Recommend a block for the personal attack, without prejudice to whether a topic-ban is also in order. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Statement by EdJohnstonAt 18:27 on 16 June I left a message for Wickey-nl, pointing out a 3RR complaint about editing at Civilian casualty ratio. He was one of the people who had edited, he had seemingly made two reverts, and it would be in his interest to respond: At that time I hoped that he would make a conciliatory response and there would be no need for any follow-up on my part. Instead, at 11:24 on 17 June Wickey-nl added his own comment at the 3RR board, accusing User:Yarron and User:Brewcrewer of various things, but without mentioning the fact he'd been warned about 1RR himself. I considered this an inadequate response by someone who seemed to have made a 1RR violation. After this exchange (or non-exchange with Wickey-nl, since he didn't really respond) a different editor noticed I had warned Wickey-nl and filed a new 3RR complaint naming him for a 1RR violation, and linking to my warning: WP:AN3#User:Wickey-nl reported by User:JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (Result: 48 hours). I blocked Wickey-nl for the 1RR violation per this message on his talk page, at 01:30 on 18 June, i.e. giving him plenty of time for him to respond to the June 16 warning if he wanted to. Wickey-nl made an unblock request, stating It was hard for me to reconcile this claim with my having notified him that he seemed to have broken 1RR at 18:27 on 16 June. Is it possible that he simply overlooked the warning? Certainly I didn't deprive him of 'the opportunity to defend himself.' Does his mention of 'hasbara' (a kind of propaganda effort by the Israeli government) intended to imply that admins are in league with that government? His unblock request timed out without an admin deciding on it because nobody accepted or declined it within 48 hours. After his block expired, Wickey-nl opened a a complaint about my actions at ANI on 20 June.
This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It is not unheard of for the blocking admin to leave a comment if someone makes an unblock request. This helps any reviewing admins come to their own conclusion as to whether the block was sound. Anyone may comment on an open unblock request. Wickey-nl has claimed that 'the system is inherently corrupt', in part due to my failure to comment on the ANI. I was out of town when he filed the ANI and it was inconvenient for me to get to a proper computer to make a response. User:Bbb23 wound up closing the ANI with no action on 21 June. He stated "This was a baseless report from the get-go and has not improved since...". In terms of the earlier background: Wickey-nl should be somewhat familiar with how the 3RR board works. A complaint was filed against him back in August 2013 by User:Number 57 for edit warring on Template:Palestinian elections. According to the submitter, he made four reverts. He was warring to keep some West Bank elections of 1972 and 1976 out of the list, asserting in his edit summary that they were 'fake elections.' At that time no block was issued; the article was protected instead by a different admin. EdJohnston ( talk) 15:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Before making further comments, I see I have to correct a false attribution to me of the statement that 'the system is inherently corrupt'. Please keep the discussion honest. I did not say that. -- Wickey-nl ( talk) 09:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Result concerning Wickey-nlThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The NPA and NOTFORUM concerns are, in my view, too slight, on their own, to warrant a sanction at this point. Diff no. 5 seems to be mainly a content issue. I have not evaluated Brewcrewer's diffs because they are undated and many seem to be relatively old. But the BBC copyright issue, Shrike's diff 4, is problematic. And Wickey-nl's response is so incoherent and confrontative that I doubt that they have the temperament and the competence required to edit productively and collaboratively in this topic area. I advise a topic ban. Sandstein 18:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Of the six points mde by Shrike, only two bother me much, #1 and #2. It's not that he violated NOTAFORUM with #2 so much as it evinces bias. As to #1, I'm very tired of editors accusing other editors of being socks in the PIA area, in all fairness, Wiki-nl is not alone in this failing. It's not that they are wrong all the time. But if they have the evidence to prove it, then they should take it to SPI; otherwise, they should not make the accusation. The NPA allegations are close to worthless, and the copyvio is not a big enough deal to merit any sanction. As for the edit-warring claim, he was blocked (and very rightfully) for that, but he should not have to double-pay for his error. At the same time, it does disturb me that many editors who edit in this area don't understand - or at least say they don't understand - policy. It also bothers me that apparently as of June 19, he finally realized that 1RR may be violated if there are two reverts of different material, yet he went ahead and filed a report at ANI on June 20. That's pretty over-the-top. As for no one responding to his unblock request, this was a block per ARBPIA and can only be accepted by the blocking admin or by an appeal by the user, so it's not surprising that no one responded. The majority of the diffs by Brewcrewer are stale. I can't say this editor isn't a problem. He is, and his attitude here doesn't help him, but I would favor a stern warning to be followed by a topic ban if this kind of behavior continues. That said, it's a close call, and I'm interested in what other admins have to say.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
|
| No further action Waggers TALK 10:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Wickey-nl
In my opinion this phrase even without any AE of the topic ban require some administrative action. I would care less about his editing if he would not edit I/P conflict I really don't care about this user I have in past little interaction with him.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 15:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Wickey-nlStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Wickey-nlStatement by KingsindianThis whole discussion might be moot since Wickey-nl said that he is done with WP (though of course he could change his mind). However, it would be good to know if this kind of stuff on one's own user talk page, in response to another editor (in this case, me) constitutes a violation of topic ban. I don't plan on getting topic-banned anytime soon, but just in case. Kingsindian ( talk) 12:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Statement by AlanSIt seems extreme to me to say that a topic ban means more than not being able to edit on articles and talk pages within that topic area, that it also means you can't mention the topic on your own talk page. As for the proposer of further sanctions I find it a bit unsettling that they were monitoring Wickey-nl's behaviour looking for infractions. AlanS ( talk) 13:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000I think that a topic ban does apply to user talk pages (with some exceptions listed at WP:BANEX), though I wish the rules were clearer. At WP:TBAN it says "all pages" but then makes a fairly extensive list of page types without mentioning user pages at all. Casual readers could easily get the wrong impression. I don't see a very clear-cut consensus on the talk page of that policy about this issue either. It is reasonable to ask Wickey-nl if s/he knowingly broke the ban or thought s/he wasn't breaking it. Independently of that, WP:TBAN should have user pages either explicitly included or explicitly excluded so that nobody (least of all admins like me) will have any doubt about it. Zero talk 14:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Another unclear point is that WP:BANEX gives the exception "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum." The word "appropriate" is a WEASEL word, and "forum" I don't think is a Wikipedia technical term (does it necessarily mean "administrative noticeboard?"). Since blocks and bans are usually argued on user talk pages, why isn't that an "appropriate forum" for arguing the correctness of the ban? (Probably this does not apply to everything Wickey-nl wrote there, though.) Zero talk 14:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Wickey-nlThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. WP:TBAN says "a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic" including discussions and suggestions about the topic. On that basis, yes, Wickey-nl is technically breaching the topic ban in the diff provided. However with an indefinite topic ban already in place I see no justification for further formal sanctions based on such a minor infringement. Wickey-nl should, though, take this as a warning and a reminder that a topic ban does include discussion of the topic, including on user talk pages. AlanS raises some valid concerns and I would advise User:Shrike to read and heed WP:HOUND and to refrain from wasting administrators' time with pedantic reports. While there is a technical infringement of the topic ban here a modicum of common sense is required; this is this is not a game and administrators will not look kindly on pettiness or pedantry. I'll wait and see if any other administrators wish to comment rather than closing this right now. Waggers TALK 14:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
|
| No action taken. Zero talk 09:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
Discussion concerning Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )I have created over 150 new articles without incident on my user page here: User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and accidentally started one in Wikipedia space by clicking a red link, and for that I am sorry. You can treat it like Javert would in Les Misérables as a "gotcha" moment and block me from editing, but what good would that serve Wikipedia? Last time I was blocked I stopped creating new articles for over a year. Use this opportunity to look over my article creation list and remove the restrictions if you think the new additions are of Wikipedia quality. Look at the 150 + articles I have started on my user page and ask if Wikipedia is better without them. Ask what purpose the restriction serves other than stopping me from adding new content that improves Wikipedia. At some point we are punishing for the sake of punishment and lose sight of the "why". I love a good "gotcha" moment as much as anyone else, but in a time when we are losing editors, and the addition of new content has slowed, why are we still punishing someone that is adding quality biographies? Show mercy and we can work together on creating the most amazing reference work ever. Twice in 150 article creations, I hit a redlink instead of creating an article in my user space. I think in the next 75 to 100 article creations the same thing will happen. Why would I create 75 articles in user space and then create one in Wikipedia space just to try and slip one past everyone? I was blocked last year for making the very same typo, and was banned before I could even appeal. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 14:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Statement by CarriteRichard Norton is now, and always has been, a very productive content writer. A significant number (albeit a minor fraction) of his 2005 to 2007 era edits proved to be problematic in terms of 2014 Wikipedia copyright standards and practices, and a CCI case was started against him. CCI is backlogged, understaffed, and their investigative methodology does not scale and the ensuing case ended up being a massive clusterhug, if you will. Draconian and ill-conceived sanctions were imposed and the effectiveness of a highly productive contributor was severely attenuated. These sanctions don't need to be enforced, they need to be removed, but we are now in the realm of Franz Kafka. There have been ZERO problems with Richard Norton's created articles moved to mainspace by others, there is no reason to believe there will EVER be a problem with one of his current articles in terms of copyright... Yet instead of amending the ill-conceived restriction, here we are with another exercise which he must certainly feel is little more than bullying. Stop this nonsense! Carrite ( talk) 14:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite ( talk) 14:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved John CarterMistakes happen. Richard is saying this was a mistake and I think it very well could have been one. If that is the case here I cannot see any good sense in blocking someone for a lengthy period for what may well have been basically a big typo. There is the possibility I suppose that this article could conceivably have been a good faith effort by Richard to fix a problem from earlier. If that were the case he should have nominated it for speedy deletion and moved the content to user space to go through standard review, and I would very strongly suggest that if it ever happen again he do exactly that. But I do think a lengthy block based on the evidence presented to date would be a dramatic overreaction to this development. John Carter ( talk) 15:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by uninvolved editor KingsindianI have to say that I am very inexperienced in these matters, so my statement should be treated with almost zero weight. But, perhaps an outside member can bring some perspective? 3-6 months block for a prolific content creator who by his own account made a simple mistake in 1 out of 150 cases? This seems way over the top. I should add that I consider the "sentences" handed out here in general really harsh, but perhaps that is just my temperament. Kingsindian ( talk) 16:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved AndyTheGrumpI can't see any evidence that this was anything but a genuine mistake by Richard Arthur Norton, and nor can I see any evidence that the error caused any harm to Wikipedia. Accordingly I have to suggest that a block would seem undue - I think that it is safe to assume that having this dragged up here is sufficient in itself to ensure that RAN is more careful in future. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Comment by Wnt@ Sandstein: WP:BMB begins by saying "Editors are only site-banned as a last resort..." in explanation. This editor was not site-banned at the time. Provided that he was in fact trying to improve the encyclopedia (and indeed, adding copyvios would not be improving it) WP:IAR applies. If this is not the policy ArbCom is going to enforce, you need to mark IAR historical and remove the confusing preamble from BMB. Wnt ( talk) 19:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC) @ Fram: I think that providing explanatory quotes of this length in the references is a pleasant style, and clearly not a copyright violation. Sites like PubMed routinely claim the right to quote 300 words from larger copyrighted texts. I don't think Wikipedia has a specific standard, and ArbCom could have imposed a restriction on quote length on this one editor, but I wouldn't think it would be useful to have special, super-restrictive standards of 'copyright violation' targeted to particular editors. Either these articles are now violations, and need to be changed, or they aren't; I would say the latter from your examples. Wnt ( talk) 21:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by Fram (filer of this section)
Statement by AlansohnRAN and I have overlapped on our edits for nearly a decade, editing and enhancing many of the same articles related to the New York City / New Jersey metropolitan area. His material is well-done and thoroughly researched. I had moved some of his content from his user area into mainspace earlier on in this process and he has been rather careful to create content under the terms of enforcement. The incident described here is someone using Wikipedia the way it's designed to work and a review of RAN's past few thousand edits makes this clear; The error was inadvertent. If anything needs to be done here, it's to end what comes across to me as a vengeful effort to get the goods on one of Wikipedia's most productive editors so that needless blocks can be imposed. Let's end this game and put an end to this enforcement process once and for all. The point was made and there is no evidence that it serves any further purpose. Alansohn ( talk) 23:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by Rich FarmbroughRichard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has been subject to ongoing prosecution, some of it successful, even though based on shaky foundations. In this case there is really nothing to get excited about. An article was created, in the "wrong" namespace. It can simply be moved back into his user-space, the work of a moment. Manifestly this error is unlikely to be repeated, and even if it were, two clicks of the mouse and a few keystrokes fix it. To deprive the project of yet another productive contributor, even for a short time, would be unfortunate. And I think a more fitting sanction would be to work RAN harder, rather than give him a holiday. A block might cause a frisson of excitement (and let us hope that's all it is) to some, but it would be a shame, and would disappoint the vast majority of those who commented here. I would remind anyone considering this to remember the virtues outlined in this years State of the Wiki address, as I remember, patience and forgiveness were in there somewhere. Though with such a minor slip as this, I would hardly think they need to be invoked. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 01:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC). Statement by (username)Result concerning Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
| Request withdrawn. Sandstein 12:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Darkness Shines
None that I can see which is directly related and recent.
Mentioned by name here.
I do not want any harsh sanctions. I simply want DS to be made aware of WP:PRESERVE and WP:NPOV policy, WP:LEAD and the "citation needed" template. Per WP:LEAD - most people only read the lead. Not all statements in the lead require a citation, since they are summaries of the whole article. It is illegitimate to tamper with a stable lead like this, reading sources pedantically and one-sided addition and removal together with any refusal to compromise. As an aside, while I did self-revert, can someone tell me whether I broke 1RR or not? As far as I can see I followed WP:BRD but it is a bit unclear to me. (copying statements from below) Most of Darkness Shines' statements deserve no response. However the last one is a perfect illustration of WP:ROPE. I quote from the source he himself cites (which is the UN report at issue in diffs 1-7). Page 34 "Events aboard the Eleftheri Mesogios" Quote is: "A number of passengers were injured, including one passenger whose leg was fractured". Kingsindian ( talk) 17:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I withdraw the complaint unconditionally. After still more time and cooling down, whether or not DS was notified or not, I don't want to continue. Of course people are still welcome to examine my conduct per WP:BOOMERANG. Kingsindian ( talk) 23:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Darkness_Shines&diff=622487882&oldid=621604526 Discussion concerning Darkness ShinesStatement by Darkness ShinesSweet jesus in heaven, on the first diff, I was correct, neither of the cited sources say "execution style", so the question here is why KI restored it saying, It is indeed in the source. Page 29 Furkan Dogan On the second were KI self reverts, no idea as to why that is mentioned here? On being shot in the back, what I actually said was The source does not state they were shot from behind deliberately, and we should not infer that they were. On broken bones, the source did not say bones had been broken, and so I amended the sentence to reflect the source, which also included the fact that the passengers on some vessels, not all, claimed they had been beaten. On the last, again why is that even here? There was no humanitarian aid on the Mavi Marmara, KI even says that in his enforcement request. I have been accused of POV pushing and adding "blatant lies" by GGranddad, perhaps KI ought to be commenting on those PA`s rather than dragging a dispute over wording here. Darkness Shines ( talk) 17:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC) One other thing, and what seems a second example of source falsification, KI claims here that this report states that passengers had bones broken, the only mention of a broken bone, a leg in fact was after the incident, when IDF forces are reported to have broken a guys leg, after they got back to land. Pages 41-42 Darkness Shines ( talk) 17:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Re KI post at 17:40, 23 August 2014 Wow, my bad, I searched the document for "broken", tell me, how does one fracture translate to "some ending up with broken bones" Darkness Shines ( talk) 17:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by ShrikeThis case against Darkness Shines should be dismissed he was not warned about WP:AC/DS in the last 12 month. But I suggest that admin will check if there was indeed a source falsification by KI as I couldn't find in the source ""execution style". Source falsification is very grave problem in the past people were sanctioned for it.-- Shrike ( talk) 19:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC) @GG -- He was not blocked as part of WP:ARBPIA enforcment.-- Shrike ( talk) 20:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeavesThis is a ridiculous filing, and a waste of ArbEnforcement time. ANYONE can warn anyone else about sanctions - this board is for issues required ENFORCEMENT action by admins. To top it off, the filer cannot even do it right - they now have multiple sections where they've commented. Beware the boomerang the panda ₯’ 19:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by GGranddadI believe that Darkness Shines is pushing a POV in his edit about there being no aid on the Mavi Marmara while ignoring it was a passenger ship and that there was aid on the other ships that were cargo ships. I think his editing is just trying to delete things that might put Israel in a bad light,like removing the shot in back statement and broken bones, these things did actually happen and are well documented.As to my claims of lies being posted, after further research those remarks have been removed. @ Shrike: Darness was banned and blocked for 2 months in May 2014 I believe. GGranddad ( talk) 20:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Result concerning Darkness ShinesThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
| Not actionable because this is not an arbitration enforcement request. Sandstein 03:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Supreme Deliciousness
User:Supreme Deliciousness is a veteran editor at Syria-related articles. In the past, he was involved in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine related incidents and was sanctioned in May 2010
[24],
December 2011 (by arbitration committee on ARBPIA) and finally 2 week block for disruptive editing in August 2011. It should be pointed out that since 2011
User:Supreme Deliciousness indeed turned more careful for the next couple of years, but his dedication to Syrian related topics, unfortunately brought him to engage on Syrian Civil War related topics. It is important to note that ARBPIA sanctions in regard to Syrian Civil War had initially been applied in March 2013, and were superceded by
WP:SCWGS in August 2013, as a community sanction.
Notified [25]. GreyShark ( dibra) 22:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC) Discussion concerning Supreme DeliciousnessStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Supreme DeliciousnessStatement by Zero0000I'm an "uninvolved admin" in Syrian matters, but since this case involves Israel I will be conservative and comment only in this section. This is a content dispute and doesn't belong here. In fact I think Greyshark does not provide any evidence of a behavioral problem. Greyshark claims that SD is trying to portray Israel as a combatant in the Syrian civil war, but none of the diffs indicate that. There is a map of Syria showing who is in control of different regions, and SD wants the map legend to indicate the state of the Golan region rather than leaving the map with a region of unique color whose nature is not given in the legend. One can argue for or against it; it is certainly not a behavior issue. At Talk:Syrian_Kurdistan#Military_map_issues you can see that some other editors have the same opinion as SD and that SD agreed to visually separate Israel from the Syrian War combatants using a dotted line. The question should be solved by consensus on a talk page or content noticeboard. Zero talk 00:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Supreme DeliciousnessThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
![[21]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/?title=File:Syrian_civil_war.png&diff=122435343&oldid=122435268){kind=link}
| No action because it is not clear that the topic ban was violated. Both parties are advised to stop following each others' edits to minimize the likelihood of problems. Sandstein 05:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Ignocrates
I have been tolerant in the past of Ignocrates' attempts to cast himself in a dubiously defensible light. At this point I believe it more reasonable to adopt a strictly zero tolerance attitude toward further such contact from him. John Carter ( talk) 15:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Sandstein: I have expanded the descriptions in the hope that the context clarifies the nature of the problematic behavior. Ignocrates has been rather careful to avoid naming me in particular in his edits but I believe the edits taken in context and with a review of the broader history of his own edits would clearly demonstrate that the only way he could have come to those discussions would be if as Worm had implied on his talk page or if he had actively been reviewing my edits for some reason. I regret to say that having had no prior experience trying to raise such cases and the roundabout nature of Ignocrates' use of language it can be less than apparent. @ EdJohnston: and @ Worm That Turned: may be able to provide some better indication as to how they came to their conclusions that the behavior of Ignocrates did constitute an interaction ban better than me given their greater degree of familiarity with them and I am pinging them for their input. John Carter ( talk) 18:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning IgnocratesStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by IgnocratesThe following additional links are relevant: User talk:Worm That Turned#Gentle reminder?, User talk:EdJohnston#Please advise. Most of the rest of this complaint is nonsense; or trolling. The issue comes down to deciding when it is ok or not ok to post at ANI. Dave raised the one legitimate issue (imo): Is it ok to post at ANI when John Carter is the subject of the ANI? Dave thinks it isn't; I think it's a judgement call, and I explained my reasoning on his talk page. And lest we forget, John Carter has a diff of his own to explain. It's curious that he failed to mention it. I believe a WP:Boomerang is in order, and should at least be considered. That's it. I'll respond to specific questions from AE. Ignocrates ( talk) 17:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I suppose as long as we are here anyway, we might as well discuss John Carter's violation of his T-ban from the same arbitration case. Ignocrates ( talk) 18:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC) @ EdJohnston, I already explained the reason for the first diff. I returned to editing and decided to check ANI for the hell of it. This case was at the top so I read it. Unfortunately, the editor missed my point completely: don't feed the beast at ANI. Frankly, I felt a measure of pity for the guy; it was like watching a train wreck in slow motion. How this has anything to do with John Carter is beyond me. JC wanted him sanctioned, and I agreed diff; a sanction was necessary to stay consistent with the precedent established by ArbCom. It's true that I don't edit in this topic area; so what. Comments from uninvolved editors should receive more weight than those who are invested in the outcome. Ignocrates ( talk) 02:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by Hullaballoo WolfowitzUnder WP:IBAN, "editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other". John Carter has not provided any evidence clearly indicating that Ignocrates has breached this limit. When two editors are under a mutual interaction ban, the first to comment on a particular issue cannot preclude the second from commenting on the same issue, especially regarding a general subject where both have actively edited. More needs to be shown than simply labeling an edit "stalking". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 18:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by OccultZoneIt is easy to establish that some of these threads are relevant. I would start with the link to ANI thread, it depicts Ignocrates following John Carter's edits. It is also obvious that he was pointing to his feud with John Carter. Per IBAN he was not allowed to refer to John Carter. Fearofreprisal has been a member for over 6 years and Ignocrates never posted on his talk page, he posted only when he got to know that this person has issues with John Carter. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning IgnocratesThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. It is not clear from the request, and I can't readily imagine, how exactly these edits by Ignocrates are supposed to constitute an interaction with John Carter, who is not named in any of these edits. I would take no action except a warning to John Carter not to make any more meritless interaction ban complaints, because such complaints are contrary to the purpose of an interaction ban of separating the parties from each other. Sandstein 18:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
|
| Baseball Bugs is blocked for two weeks. Sandstein 22:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Baseball Bugs
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#Baseball_Bugs_topic-banned
[28] warning for previous violation
Corrected link to remedy. Regarding the diff: the submission template (in the hidden text) clearly states "You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs" NE Ent 10:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Baseball BugsStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement.1 by Baseball BugsOn that same ANI page, I am asking for either my ban to be rescinded, or the user in question [Int21h - see below] to have the ban extended to him, as he has made the same statements that I allegedly made that got me banned a year ago. I ask for fairness and consistency. If it was BLP-violating hate speech a year ago, then it still is, and a random handful of users don't have the right to decide otherwise. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC) To Sandstein: The original topic ban was based on a lie, a gross personal attack alleging bigotry on my part, which I stated at the time and no one cared. How likely are they to care a year later? And the current threat to block is based on a lie as well: My complaint at ANI and here is not about "transgender issues or persons", it's about double-standard treatment of me vs. the other user. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC) To TParis: I am not sufficiently interested in either subject to ever want to work on them again. My topic ban can stay as-is. My complaint here and now is about unequal treatment, double standard, whatever the term would be. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC) To Tparis: I involved myself on this occasion because I was angry at the double standard, and am still angry from a year ago of being accused of being a bigot, which is a total lie, yet it's what they hung me on. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by YworoI have to say that if BB is restricted from participating in discussions about transgender interpreted over-broadly, it seems he would not be able to appeal related decisions. I am sure WP policies don't allow an interpretation so broad that he can't ask for his ban to be rescinded or edit his own appeal! Yworo ( talk) 03:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by PenwhaleI am sympathetic to this, although I think that ANI should not have been the place for Bugs to make that statement, as the community (currently) cannot unilaterally overturn an ArbCom sanction and as such his request is meaningless at ANI. I would suggest Bugs to make an amendment request at RFAR, because to appeal his own TBAN that's the only place he could go. (He's asking for 1 of two choices, and 1 of the choices cannot be done there, and thus the whole request was placed at the wrong spot.) - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 08:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by TParisI go through a love-hate relationship with Bugs. Sometimes I think he's spot on and at other times I think he's on a rampage. In this case, Bugs didn't make the simple "Bradley is a man" comment. The Arbcom evidence lists these diffs supporting the topic ban to include casting aspersions of advocacy ( [29] [30] [31]), soapboxing against gender identity ( [32] [33] [34] [35]), and then calling all "supporters" abusers of Wikipedia ( [36]). That's quite a bit more than what has been described here by Bugs. Bugs described Manning as "wanting to be female" only as a plea deal and that it would make Wikipedia look stupid. That's quite a claim. Not only that, but Bugs is also topic banned from any case of leaks of classified information. Would this appeal affect both topic bans?--v/r - T P 17:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment by A Quest for KnowledgeBaseball Bugs topic ban may very well have been unjustified, but regardless, they must abide by the terms of the ban. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by Hullaballoo WolfowitzI do not think that Baseball Bugs' participation in the ANI thread was particularly constructive. However, I think we should be careful about limiting a topic-banned editor's ability to participate in policy/guideline-related discussions merely because an aspect of the discussion involves the application of the policy to that topic area. Bugs skated perilously close to the line here, at best, but did not display animus or an attempt to disrupt. I therefore would suggest that, if the consensus is that they breached their topic ban, the outcome in this case should be a strict warning. No one has yet cited a parallel case where sanctions were imposed; if we have an established practice on the general issue, I would take a different position. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 20:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Baseball BugsThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I am sympathetic to Baseball Bugs' argument and the Committee should consider it in the appropriate forum. ANI threads unrelated to Baseball Bugs are not the appropriate forum, and this argument should not be allowed to derail them. The language of the topic ban would seem to cover ANI, but I think a clarification and warning should be sufficient in this case. Gamaliel ( talk) 05:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
|
| Not actionable for lack of prior notification. Sandstein 11:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Int21h
At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#Disruptive_participation_by_Tarc, ArbCom ruled that the statement "Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make a heifer become Marilyn Monroe" was "inflammatory and offensive" (added 00:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)) when applied to Chelsea Manning, a living transgender person (end addition). This ruling was also applied to insisting that Chelsea Manning is male: "Bradley Manning simply doesn't become a woman just because he says so". Int21h engaged in exactly parallel behavior, even to the extent of using animal analogies in an attack against a transgender subject, stating that "Painting a horse does not make a zebra" and further stating, "Chelsea is a male, not a female, therefore the proper pronoun is 'they' with accompanying cases. From wikt:she: 'A female person or animal.'". I request that given the exact parallel, Int21h should be subject to the same remedy that Tarc was for such inflammatory and offensive attacks against a transgender subject: a topic ban.
Not aware of any except Tarc's, but they may exist.
ArbCom established a precedent that contradicting the gender-identification of a transgender person was "inflamatory and offensive" in the instance of Tarc's comments. Beside applying similar discretionary sanctions in the case of User:Int21h, I ask that ArbCom confirm that in general contradicting the gender-identification of a transgender person is "inflamatory and offensive", whether in an article, on a talk page, or anywhere else, and affirm that such comments may be removed from talk pages under the provisions of our Biographies of living persons, specifically under the sections titled Non-article space, which allows removal of personal attacks against a living subject from talk pages and also under the heading Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced.
Discussion concerning Int21hStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Int21hThis so-called English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) has never been "established by the community" per the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use. As discussed on its talk page, ArbCom was established by Jimmy Wales. Neither has it been established by consensus. It has only retained its status by desysopping and threatening to desysop admins. Nor is it proper for a body that asserts and exercises authority as an arbitration committee, without first being established by the community, to purport to establish itself as an arbitration committee by submitting and adopting its own proposal in less than two weeks with a "simple yes or no vote". Only WP:ANI can be classified as one of the "dispute resolution bodies that are established by the community for the specific Project editions", so this discussion should be continued or merged with the current discussion there. I should also note I resubmitted my proposal here, and although deficiencies in MediaWiki's diff logic could not discern much of it, I attempted to make as much clear in this edit. Given as much, and my intention to continue to say the same, forcing another discussion here on substantially similar facts would be overly burdensome and contravene WP:NOTBUREAU. Any guideline or application thereof which contradicts WP:NPOV, including WP:MOS, are void ab initio, the proper procedure being modification of WP:NPOV. The application of MOS:IDENTITY to the article at hand contravenes WP:NPOV because instead of using gender-neutral terminology the article's tone assumes that Chelsea should be referred to as a "she", despite documentation of significant contradictory viewpoints, e.g., the Government of the United States. So the proposal in question and its forum are appropriate. I obviously disagree that my comments were in any way other than in support of, and supported by, WMF and Wikipedia policies. Int21h ( talk) 03:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by Knowledgekid87This was brought up at ANI where a majority of editors agreed that it was not hate speech. Tarc made a total of three comments that were intended to be offensive, all that was seen here was one that was from an opposing point of view. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the user was aware of sanctions on the article as Penwhale gave the notice after the comment was placed. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC) I also want to add that Tarc has denied [37] that the reason given above is why he was topic banned. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC) @Yworo::The problem with that is who are the ones that are going to go through each comment to make sure it is ok to post? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC) @Yworo::There is also WP:CHERRYPICKING you are taking the "Bring it on" comment out of a larger discussion. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC) @ EdJohnston: I think a consensus has been established here, I mean I haven't seen any indication that AE can do anything in this case given the facts presented. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 02:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by PenwhaleUnfortunately, most of the issues brought up at ANI happened before the alert was given, and as such I do not think anything is currently enforceable. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 00:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Statement.2 by Baseball BugsTo Penwhale [above]: Whether actionable at this time or not, do you agree then, that the editor's words would have qualified for sanctions a year ago? ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC) To Valeron [below]: I was topic-banned for just such an "absurd" accusation. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Statement by ProtossPylonI feel that we've been creating a battleground out of a non-issue. The unnecessary zebra remark notwithstanding, Int's original comment, regardless of its correctness, makes it perfectly clear that he intended to start a meaningful discussion in an attempt to neutralize the article; not that he was deliberately attacking the subject - an allegation that Yworo was making in the ANI thread. This is at odds with Tarc's comments, which were vitriol-filled argument bait. Int has also not repeated this kind of discussion at all, so I fail to see the point or effectiveness of a topic ban. Protoss Pylon 01:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Statement by JohnValeronThis discussion, which has spilled thousands of words on Wikipedia today, has nothing to do with proving that the accused is guilty. It's a case of the accuser trying to save face after lodging an absurd accusation. JohnValeron ( talk) 01:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by TParisMisgendering is bad. Casting aspersions is bad too. Saying "Chelsea is male" is an opinion and we do not punish thought-crimes. Comparing Chelsea to a pig is hate speech. Throwing around words like transphobia because people don't believe the same way you do is casting aspersions. I say topic ban both Int21h for disruptive editing and Yworo for casting aspersions and let's call it a day.--v/r - T P 02:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment by WntThat article has gone back and forth between extremes a few times, and the present version is unsatisfactory: "Manning became the target of bullying at the school because she was the only American and was viewed as effeminate (she was living as a boy at that time). Manning had identified to two friends in Oklahoma as gay..." We should recognize there is a genuine need for further discussion to nudge it back into line; specifically, I think that the gendered pronoun appropriate for the subject's stated gender at the time is appropriate for sentences about past events. I think Int21h was a little off in raising the gender issue as a whole, in relying only on an original logical argument, and in looking at ArbCom authority as a whole; nonetheless, he was much more right than wrong, and his contribution here is (or should be) appreciated. ArbCom should not set up an environment where it is dangerous to begin good faith discussion of something you see in an article that looks off, nor one where people look to it to decide content issues -- and that is well established precedent. Wnt ( talk) 13:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by Hullaballoo WolfowitzIf you read the proposed decision page for the original Manning decision, it is evident that ArbCom rejected the idea that use of "animal analogies" alone was insufficient to justify sanctions. The Committee considered, and rejected, the position that "offensively comparing the life choices of transgender people to pretending to be an animal" was enough to justify sanctions. At no point did it suggest that the mere use of time worn proverbs which are routinely applied to many varieties of human behavior (eg, "a leopard can't change its spots") was seriously disruptive. (Tarc was sanctioned after admitting he chose a particular animal metaphor in order to offend/disrupt). Int21h's comments here were of the timeworn proverb variety, and therefore do not justify sanctions under the ArbComm ruling. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 20:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by Rich Farmbrough
Statement by Two kinds of porkYworo's complaint is about Int21h's using an animal analogy. Had Int21h used a "negative" animal analogy (lipstick/pig, snake/grass, vulture, mad dog, etc) then it would be easier to make the case that Int21h was being intentionally offensive. But he didn't. As Wolfowitz states, Int21h used an expression that has been used since time immemorial. Arbcom did not establish these analogies were actionable via sanctions, but encouraged the community to choose their words with care. Comparing women with livestock is inexcusable, for example. Arbcom did sanction editors whose comments they deemed was inflammatory, either by intent or willful ignorance. Int21h's chosen metaphor does not fall in either of these categories. IMO, this request to block/ban Int21h is just a vehicle to have Arbcom establish stare decisis between gender and sex. Now as Tparis puts it above, misgendering someone isn't very nice, and doing so can cause offense. Some people think abortion isn't very nice, and calling it a choice is offensive to them. You don't have to agree with someone's opinion, but you should be respectful in your disagreement. IMO Arbcom ruling on gender vs sex is a very bad idea; it will stifle debate. Only once society firmly comes down on the side of gender would such an edict be palatable. But by then it would be (hopefully) useless. A little off topic, because this is about Int21h, but Arbcom did establish that calling someone transphobic without clear evidence could be sanctionable. Maybe Tarc didn't use that exact word, but calling someone a bigot amounts to the same thing. As a participant in the Manning case, @ Tarc: knew full well that accusations of transphobia was a major component of the case. Since he apparently chose to "call out" Int21h for his stance on gender vs sex with a personal attack, he should live by the consequences. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 05:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC) @ TParis: perhaps you are correct. The case did deal with some accusing everyone who took a certain position as being transphobic, even if they were doing it out of ignorance. Tarc's accusation does not match those parameters. Regardless, Tarc's comment was out of line and I'm disappointed no one took him to task. Including myself. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 06:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by <Your user name here>Result concerning Int21hThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
According to his or her user page, Int21h has been an editor for 8 years and 3 months. This is ample time to bring before the community objections or concerns regarding the jurisdiction of the Committee. To raise this issue of the Committee's jurisdiction only now as a defense for his or her behavior is disingenuous; to expect it to be effective before the Committee itself is an issue of WP:COMPETENCE. While Int21h's behavior does not seem to fall within the scope of the Committee's decision as per Penwhale's comment, TParis' suggestion should be considered if Int21h's behavior continues. Gamaliel ( talk) 05:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
|
| Editor blocked one year as an enforcement for declining to observe his topic ban. EdJohnston ( talk) 01:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning DXRD
I warned DXRD that she/he was violating the topic ban on 20 August 2014.
Discussion concerning DXRDStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DXRD
Statement by (username)Result concerning DXRDThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
| Warned. EdJohnston ( talk) 15:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning WarKosign
WarKosign is trying to diminish the fatalities of the Palestinians civilians, while he keeps the one about Israeli ones. As a result of his actions, as I wrote on the talk page, we can only read now in the lead: "that the percentage of how many were civilians is disputed, though the health ministry, UN and NGO's back it up. We are not even given an estimate anymore in the lead but just the total of Palestinian dead and that the number of civilians is disputed. The Israeli side's fatalities is given as a fact." This is a serious NPOV problem. I wrote to him to warn him of his 1RR violation and said he should self-revert but he responded by saying: "Feel free to report, along with your own edit warring." Besides getting blocked, he was also warned for edit warring in the same article on 22:32, 4 August 2014 by admin Ronhjones. There is also an Editnotice on the article which gives info about the rules. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 22:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC) As said, the number is backed up by UN and NGO's, and reported much in media, and you can therefore not say that the numbers only come from Hamas. As you know and mention, the numbers is visible in the infobox and a table in the rest of the article. Removing it from the lead is unacceptable. By making it "clearer" that it's not "unversally agreed", you first change it from being a fact to being something only according to Hamas. Then you say you wan't to remove "unbased information", when you in fact you removed the whole part of the numbers of civilians. The number about the total of Palestinians killed is not disputed as everyone put nearly the same number but it's a serious POV violation diminishing the civilian casualties of Palestinians, which in the end meant removing it totally, and that while keeping the info in the same place about the Israeli casualties! -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 15:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC) I still think it was and is wrong to force your view, which included violating 1RR, on the issue of Palestinian civilians deaths (perhaps the biggest issue in this Gaza conflict) but I agree with what Nishidani and Kingsindian wrote on this issue. So I reported it because forcing your view on an issue and breaking 1RR is unacceptable and keep in mind WarKosign didn't want to revert himself though I told him to do so or get reported, which he welcomed. I think it is totally wrong to edit like that. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 00:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC) -sche, as you know, there was an active discussion on the talk page but WarKosign kept forcing his view on the article, which also lead to a a violation of the 1RR. If he had accepted to contribute on this issue in a better manner, by discussing more and self-reverting his violation, this vouldn't have escalated to here. It was after he ignored my advice to revert it, that I went here to protest against his 1RR. Keep also in mind that the problem with the first edit was not only the name of the ministry but also that he made the claim to look being something that was only according to Hamas, which actually was the worst part. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 03:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC) We have pretty much reach a solution (a tag is there and should be removed) but it isn't saying that the claim is only according to Hamas. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 22:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning WarKosignStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by WarKosignNeither of the edits in question is a revert, so technically 1RR is not applicable. Some background: Me and several other editors made a big effort to shorten and simplify the lead paragraph while keeping it NPOV. Here are two of the most recent talk page sections dedicated to the effort [38] [39]. An IP user noted that there is an arguably incorrect statement in the lead saying that "most of the casualties were Palestinian civilians". I argued in the talk page that while it is obvious that most of the casualties are Palestinians, it is far less obvious that most of them are civilians, and thus it is incorrect and POV pushing to make this blanket statement. The infobox and the casualties sections represent this claim far better with 5 different counts. User:GGranddad was making an argument for inclusion of the statement and even provided a single source that actually says that most of the casualties overall were Palestinian civilians. User:GGranddad was soon after blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppet of User:Dalai lama ding dong and his edit adding the statement was reverted, while User:AcidSnow restored his version and User:IRISZOOM suddenly began contributing to the talk page - something he/she never did before - and continued arguing the point from that very point where GGranddad stopped, making me suspect it is another sockpuppet. To the edits in question: I did not remove the problematic statement since it had one source, and the sources that usually contradict it (ITIC and IDF) did not provide a new number of dead militants while the number of Palestinian casualties increased, technically making Palestinian civilians a majority among casualties. Other users gradually added more and more information into the lead. As Methodology section says, "there has been little discrepancy between Gaza Health Ministry count and the counts of human rights groups and the UN, which use the former figure as preliminary and conduct their own investigations." so saying that Hamas-controlled ministery of Health is the source is correct. The first edit was to make clear in the lead that the information is not universally agreed upon in a short and clean manner. The alternative as I wrote repeatedly in the talk page was to copy the casualties table into the lead. The second edit was to remove unbased information (where did these percent come from?). I even increased the number of Palestinian casualties - hardly POV pushing to diminish it. WarKosign ( talk) 05:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC) @ Penwhale: All the sources but ITIC give numbers above 2000, and ITIC's total number hasn't been updated in a while - the date in the casualties table refers to the civilians vs militant count, the total number is not given in the cited source at all. All the sources that are up to day are relatively close and 2100 was lowest estimate of palestinians, not including israeli casualties, so "at least 2100" is less of misrepresentations than "at least 2000". After a long discussion there is an agreement on a version very similar to my edits. "Hamas Health Ministry" was supposed to be short for "Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry" which was in the article at some point. WarKosign ( talk) 06:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by Shrike@ Penwhale:This clearly content dispute there is no source misrepresentation all NGOs base their data on their Health Ministry also most of the sources say so.That the data coming from Palestinians. For example the first source [40] "The national" quite clearly says -- Shrike ( talk) 04:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC) @ Zero0000: What include and how to include this clear nature of content dispute.He correctly stated what was written in the source.-- Shrike ( talk) 06:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by KingsindianThough I and WarKosign often disagree, I have generally found him amenable to reasonable argument on the talk page (where he participates a lot). Sometimes the argument takes a while to get through, but I have not found him to edit war much. He does have a clear bias, but that is the norm rather than the exception in this area (I also have bias). A couple of comments on the content part of the dispute. Regarding the methodology for counting civilian and militant deaths, it is complicated. In a nutshell, Gaza health ministry gives figures, UN and other human rights orgs take figures from there and conduct their own investigations, finally giving a preliminary figure. These sources give ~2100 killed (70-75% civilian). On the other side, Israel says about 50% are combatants, based on intelligence reports. There are various other issues involved. As to what the Gaza Health Ministry should be called, it was decided that "Gaza Health Ministry" or "Palestinian Health Ministry" should be used. See here and here. Kingsindian ( talk) 05:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000The first edit is clearly a misrepresentation of the source. Contra Shrike, although the article attributes one set of figures to "Palestinian health officials", it says "mostly Palestinian civilians" on its own judgement and "The United Nations says about three quarters of the Palestinians killed have been civilians". (The UN has a very large presence in Gaza and doesn't need the Palestinian authorities to roughly estimate the fraction of casualties that are civilian.) Omitting this key assertion of the source is an obvious misrepresentation. Zero talk 06:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC) @ Shrike:: NPOV requires more than just reporting something that a source supports. It also means conveying the context provided by the source. In this case the most notable issue about the casualties, as determined by hundreds of reliable sources, was elided. Zero talk 07:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by NishidaniThough I think WarKoSign edits to ensure the priority of the official Israeli viewpoint on the page, his style of working is, generally, infinitely better than the numerous disruptive or blatant POV-pushers active on that and sister pages recently, few of whom share his readiness to discuss collegially. I agree with Kingsindian's summation. The evidence is too thin to warrant the kind of sanction proposed. Nishidani ( talk) 15:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by -scheAlthough he has discernible sympathies for one side of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, WarKosign is a reasonable editor and regularly participates in discussions on Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict in which consensus wordings of various sections of the article are hashed out. The same discussions ( 1, 2) which concluded that Gaza's health ministry should be called the Gazan Health Ministry showed that there were a number of other names people might plausibly find in references or think to use, for which reason diff 1 is something I would have simply amended, with links in my edit summary to the aforementioned discussions, no further action necessary. Diff 2 was a reasonable attempt at replacing disputed information (disputed in that different sources give different numbers, and in that editors disputed the numbers' inclusion), which was already present in detail in both the infobox and the article body, with just the facts that sources from all 'sides' agreed on; discussion on the talk page seems to show consensus for just such a 'just-the-agreed-upon-facts' approach. I agree with Kingsindian's analysis. This should not have escalated to AE, and the evidence is too weak to merit the sanction that is proposed. I echo HJ Mitchell's concern that this may be "tactical use of discretionary sanctions to eliminate an opponent". -sche ( talk) 03:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning WarKosignThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
| Wickey-nl is indefinitely banned from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Sandstein 16:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Wickey-nl
Its clear that user violations of WP:NPA, bad edits like restoration of WP:COPYVIO, false edit summaries and not properly attributing advocacy organisations clearly shows that user came here not to edit in neutral way. Kingsindian It really doesn't matter who put it in the first place every one is responsible for their own edit and it doesn't matter if it revert or something else.There was more problems with this edit that its cherry-picking the source to present only one piece of information though it discuss the issue at large.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 03:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC) @@ Bbb23 and Sandstein: Even in this AE thread the user continue his violation of WP:NPA [2] by calling other users "hasbara activists" and their "mates". I must agree with Robert McClenon on this regard some admin action is need to stop the disruption.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 15:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Wickey-nlStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Wickey-nl
-- Wickey-nl ( talk) 09:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
@Bbb23
-- Wickey-nl ( talk) 14:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC) @Bbb23: Wrong conclusion. While this is not the place to evaluate the system, I do not say that I will not take into account the reality of the existing dominant interpretations. I will do, I only say these interpretations are not obvious. Some are trapped by the use of a single word, not even present in the request of the submitter. I do not have evidence, so I should not have used the c-word, and I striked it out. Having said that, I view the threatening with a topic ban inconsistent with the conclusion that the very submission of this complaint is poorly substantiated. You cannot simply say: the arguments filed by the submitter do not justify a sanction, but Wickey-nl is a problem, or even Wickey-nl [have not] "the competence required to edit productively and collaboratively in this topic area".
Statement by (Kingsindian)As an editor involved in 2 of the 6 diffs above (number 3 and 4) directly, and one indirectly (number 1), perhaps I should say something. The good part: About diff 4, the copyvio was
inserted by another editor, in the beginning,
User:Shrike
reverted it, and as a sort of compromise, I
moved the essence of the edit to another section while keeping out the copyvio.
User:Wickey-nl reverted me, I
explained the edit and he did not revert it again. The bad part: Seems that User:Wickey-nl has a habit of accusing others as sock-puppets and other personal attacks, and has a very strong bias in his edits in the I/P area. I do also have my own bias (and rather in his direction), but I try to keep it under control (I hope with some success). With the recent events in I/P, tempers are inflamed everywhere. I do not know what WP policy is regarding these things (this is my first post to Noticeboard), but perhaps these are things to keep in mind. Kingsindian ( talk) 18:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Statement by BrewcrewerPlease review these additional diffs:
In summation, besides for the 1rr violations and personal attacks (mentioned in other reports), more importantly, Wickey-nl has exhibited a pattern of pov-pushing disguised as proper editing while not holding himself to the same standard he demands of others. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by ZeroThis report is unusually weak. Sandstein identifies this edit as "problematic" and indeed it is. But it is just a commonplace mild copyvio that is easily fixed by some paraphrasing. This should have been done by Shrike instead of removing it wholesale, since it is obviously relevant and well sourced. Identifying this edit alone as sufficient cause for a topic ban seems extraordinary. (Problematic content suppressed instead of struck, Sandstein 03:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)) Zero talk 00:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC) @Sandstein: You wrote that I made "personal attacks" but in fact I made comments on editing behavior. Your words are a clear violation of WP:ASPERSIONS and I invite you to remove them. Zero talk 04:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Robert McClenon : As an administrator who sometimes blocks people, I expect that some of them will give me lip for it. But I think it is a right to be able to criticise an administrator's actions (within some generous limits) and administrators should be able to take it. Once we start blocking people for being angry when they are blocked, we will look like a bunch of power-freaks and community respect for administrators will plummet. Zero talk 14:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by IRISZOOMI can't see what makes this a case for sanctions as it looks like to be normal disagreements, except for the copyright issue which easily could have been fixed - even by Shrike instead of making a case of it. Regarding Wickey-nl's response here, I think one word or so is unacceptable but he seems upset over the 48h block mentioned in the same sentence. That wording shouldn't be used but I certainly don't agree that he can't collaborate with others, as I think he has proven it, like being very active in talk pages, and doing many improvements on articles. A topic ban would be very hard to understand. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 06:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by NishidaniI've disagreed with Wickey-nl in the past (I thought he could not spot an evident POV for example), but generally find that he is a very good wikipedian. Unlike most editors, he actually goes through pages diligently from top to bottom, expanding them significantly (see Beit HaShalom. Edit warriors can be identified easily. They don’t build pages (too much work) they tend to intervene to revert, or to add some succulent piece of information that tells against one side. They are morbidly interested in AE report: they appear to spend a lot of time watching selected editors’ contribs, and reporting people. I can't see anything, rather than the trivial BBC diff in Shrike's original report. This fits some profiles here: it does not strike me as appropriate to Wickey-nl. Brewcrewer's report is wrong from the outset (dragging up stale diffs, never reported at the time if they were believed to be serous, rather than content disputes):
Brewcrewer is much taken by content disputes with wickey-nl at Palestinian land laws, where he had edited however only once recently, and over the years never, except recently, used the talk page as against 27 edits by the editor he is reporting. His edit was an egregious piece of POV slanting of the lead, ignoring the historical background in order to prioritize an ethnic sense of those laws, which are mirrored in Israeli law, being offensive. As a glance at the talk page will show, the whole article is a misnomer, the earlier drafts preferred by Brewcrewer showcased the article as evidence that Palestinian land laws are anti-Jewish/Israeli. I think that was one of the purposes of the article. The article gets great attention because of its I/P polemical value: compare the ignored, but parallel article Israeli land and property laws (Background . 93% of the land in Israel is state-owned land originally confiscated from Arabs and held in trust for the Jewish people: of the remaining 7% most is Arab-owned, but even there some is encumbered in a way that only allows the Arab vendor to sell it to Jews). Editors who jump at the Palestinian article to raise a spectre of offensive laws, quietly ignore the other article. NPOV requires we be serenely descriptive of the facts, and not focus on one article of a pair to push a POV. Third point. Yes, Wickey-nl is distressed at this report, you can see that by the unusual intensity of his grammar and spelling errors, which suggests to me he thought, the way things go in here, he's another goner. I don't think fishy reports should function to provoke upset language so that the evidence of being upset substitutes for the original evidence as grounds for conviction. Wickey-nl might well be told to exercise more care, but the original report was both frivolous and instrumental (attempting to remove an editor out of dislike, as is, sadly, often the case recently). Nishidani ( talk) 10:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Robert McClenonWickey-nl was already advised to strike the reference to a "corrupt admin" and has not done so. Maybe Wickey-nl thinks that the Wikipedia admin system is inherently "corrupt" or otherwise abusive; that does not excuse a very strong personal attack on the integrity of an administrator. If there really is evidence of abuse of the admin privilege, let alone "corruption" in the use of the admin privilege, it should be taken to the ArbCom, rather than being used idly to poison discussion of disruptive editing in WP:ARBPIA. Recommend a block for the personal attack, without prejudice to whether a topic-ban is also in order. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Statement by EdJohnstonAt 18:27 on 16 June I left a message for Wickey-nl, pointing out a 3RR complaint about editing at Civilian casualty ratio. He was one of the people who had edited, he had seemingly made two reverts, and it would be in his interest to respond: At that time I hoped that he would make a conciliatory response and there would be no need for any follow-up on my part. Instead, at 11:24 on 17 June Wickey-nl added his own comment at the 3RR board, accusing User:Yarron and User:Brewcrewer of various things, but without mentioning the fact he'd been warned about 1RR himself. I considered this an inadequate response by someone who seemed to have made a 1RR violation. After this exchange (or non-exchange with Wickey-nl, since he didn't really respond) a different editor noticed I had warned Wickey-nl and filed a new 3RR complaint naming him for a 1RR violation, and linking to my warning: WP:AN3#User:Wickey-nl reported by User:JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (Result: 48 hours). I blocked Wickey-nl for the 1RR violation per this message on his talk page, at 01:30 on 18 June, i.e. giving him plenty of time for him to respond to the June 16 warning if he wanted to. Wickey-nl made an unblock request, stating It was hard for me to reconcile this claim with my having notified him that he seemed to have broken 1RR at 18:27 on 16 June. Is it possible that he simply overlooked the warning? Certainly I didn't deprive him of 'the opportunity to defend himself.' Does his mention of 'hasbara' (a kind of propaganda effort by the Israeli government) intended to imply that admins are in league with that government? His unblock request timed out without an admin deciding on it because nobody accepted or declined it within 48 hours. After his block expired, Wickey-nl opened a a complaint about my actions at ANI on 20 June.
This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It is not unheard of for the blocking admin to leave a comment if someone makes an unblock request. This helps any reviewing admins come to their own conclusion as to whether the block was sound. Anyone may comment on an open unblock request. Wickey-nl has claimed that 'the system is inherently corrupt', in part due to my failure to comment on the ANI. I was out of town when he filed the ANI and it was inconvenient for me to get to a proper computer to make a response. User:Bbb23 wound up closing the ANI with no action on 21 June. He stated "This was a baseless report from the get-go and has not improved since...". In terms of the earlier background: Wickey-nl should be somewhat familiar with how the 3RR board works. A complaint was filed against him back in August 2013 by User:Number 57 for edit warring on Template:Palestinian elections. According to the submitter, he made four reverts. He was warring to keep some West Bank elections of 1972 and 1976 out of the list, asserting in his edit summary that they were 'fake elections.' At that time no block was issued; the article was protected instead by a different admin. EdJohnston ( talk) 15:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Before making further comments, I see I have to correct a false attribution to me of the statement that 'the system is inherently corrupt'. Please keep the discussion honest. I did not say that. -- Wickey-nl ( talk) 09:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Result concerning Wickey-nlThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The NPA and NOTFORUM concerns are, in my view, too slight, on their own, to warrant a sanction at this point. Diff no. 5 seems to be mainly a content issue. I have not evaluated Brewcrewer's diffs because they are undated and many seem to be relatively old. But the BBC copyright issue, Shrike's diff 4, is problematic. And Wickey-nl's response is so incoherent and confrontative that I doubt that they have the temperament and the competence required to edit productively and collaboratively in this topic area. I advise a topic ban. Sandstein 18:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Of the six points mde by Shrike, only two bother me much, #1 and #2. It's not that he violated NOTAFORUM with #2 so much as it evinces bias. As to #1, I'm very tired of editors accusing other editors of being socks in the PIA area, in all fairness, Wiki-nl is not alone in this failing. It's not that they are wrong all the time. But if they have the evidence to prove it, then they should take it to SPI; otherwise, they should not make the accusation. The NPA allegations are close to worthless, and the copyvio is not a big enough deal to merit any sanction. As for the edit-warring claim, he was blocked (and very rightfully) for that, but he should not have to double-pay for his error. At the same time, it does disturb me that many editors who edit in this area don't understand - or at least say they don't understand - policy. It also bothers me that apparently as of June 19, he finally realized that 1RR may be violated if there are two reverts of different material, yet he went ahead and filed a report at ANI on June 20. That's pretty over-the-top. As for no one responding to his unblock request, this was a block per ARBPIA and can only be accepted by the blocking admin or by an appeal by the user, so it's not surprising that no one responded. The majority of the diffs by Brewcrewer are stale. I can't say this editor isn't a problem. He is, and his attitude here doesn't help him, but I would favor a stern warning to be followed by a topic ban if this kind of behavior continues. That said, it's a close call, and I'm interested in what other admins have to say.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
|
| No further action Waggers TALK 10:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Wickey-nl
In my opinion this phrase even without any AE of the topic ban require some administrative action. I would care less about his editing if he would not edit I/P conflict I really don't care about this user I have in past little interaction with him.-- Shrike ( talk)/ WP:RX 15:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Wickey-nlStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Wickey-nlStatement by KingsindianThis whole discussion might be moot since Wickey-nl said that he is done with WP (though of course he could change his mind). However, it would be good to know if this kind of stuff on one's own user talk page, in response to another editor (in this case, me) constitutes a violation of topic ban. I don't plan on getting topic-banned anytime soon, but just in case. Kingsindian ( talk) 12:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Statement by AlanSIt seems extreme to me to say that a topic ban means more than not being able to edit on articles and talk pages within that topic area, that it also means you can't mention the topic on your own talk page. As for the proposer of further sanctions I find it a bit unsettling that they were monitoring Wickey-nl's behaviour looking for infractions. AlanS ( talk) 13:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000I think that a topic ban does apply to user talk pages (with some exceptions listed at WP:BANEX), though I wish the rules were clearer. At WP:TBAN it says "all pages" but then makes a fairly extensive list of page types without mentioning user pages at all. Casual readers could easily get the wrong impression. I don't see a very clear-cut consensus on the talk page of that policy about this issue either. It is reasonable to ask Wickey-nl if s/he knowingly broke the ban or thought s/he wasn't breaking it. Independently of that, WP:TBAN should have user pages either explicitly included or explicitly excluded so that nobody (least of all admins like me) will have any doubt about it. Zero talk 14:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Another unclear point is that WP:BANEX gives the exception "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum." The word "appropriate" is a WEASEL word, and "forum" I don't think is a Wikipedia technical term (does it necessarily mean "administrative noticeboard?"). Since blocks and bans are usually argued on user talk pages, why isn't that an "appropriate forum" for arguing the correctness of the ban? (Probably this does not apply to everything Wickey-nl wrote there, though.) Zero talk 14:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Wickey-nlThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. WP:TBAN says "a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic" including discussions and suggestions about the topic. On that basis, yes, Wickey-nl is technically breaching the topic ban in the diff provided. However with an indefinite topic ban already in place I see no justification for further formal sanctions based on such a minor infringement. Wickey-nl should, though, take this as a warning and a reminder that a topic ban does include discussion of the topic, including on user talk pages. AlanS raises some valid concerns and I would advise User:Shrike to read and heed WP:HOUND and to refrain from wasting administrators' time with pedantic reports. While there is a technical infringement of the topic ban here a modicum of common sense is required; this is this is not a game and administrators will not look kindly on pettiness or pedantry. I'll wait and see if any other administrators wish to comment rather than closing this right now. Waggers TALK 14:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
|
| No action taken. Zero talk 09:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
Discussion concerning Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )I have created over 150 new articles without incident on my user page here: User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and accidentally started one in Wikipedia space by clicking a red link, and for that I am sorry. You can treat it like Javert would in Les Misérables as a "gotcha" moment and block me from editing, but what good would that serve Wikipedia? Last time I was blocked I stopped creating new articles for over a year. Use this opportunity to look over my article creation list and remove the restrictions if you think the new additions are of Wikipedia quality. Look at the 150 + articles I have started on my user page and ask if Wikipedia is better without them. Ask what purpose the restriction serves other than stopping me from adding new content that improves Wikipedia. At some point we are punishing for the sake of punishment and lose sight of the "why". I love a good "gotcha" moment as much as anyone else, but in a time when we are losing editors, and the addition of new content has slowed, why are we still punishing someone that is adding quality biographies? Show mercy and we can work together on creating the most amazing reference work ever. Twice in 150 article creations, I hit a redlink instead of creating an article in my user space. I think in the next 75 to 100 article creations the same thing will happen. Why would I create 75 articles in user space and then create one in Wikipedia space just to try and slip one past everyone? I was blocked last year for making the very same typo, and was banned before I could even appeal. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 14:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Statement by CarriteRichard Norton is now, and always has been, a very productive content writer. A significant number (albeit a minor fraction) of his 2005 to 2007 era edits proved to be problematic in terms of 2014 Wikipedia copyright standards and practices, and a CCI case was started against him. CCI is backlogged, understaffed, and their investigative methodology does not scale and the ensuing case ended up being a massive clusterhug, if you will. Draconian and ill-conceived sanctions were imposed and the effectiveness of a highly productive contributor was severely attenuated. These sanctions don't need to be enforced, they need to be removed, but we are now in the realm of Franz Kafka. There have been ZERO problems with Richard Norton's created articles moved to mainspace by others, there is no reason to believe there will EVER be a problem with one of his current articles in terms of copyright... Yet instead of amending the ill-conceived restriction, here we are with another exercise which he must certainly feel is little more than bullying. Stop this nonsense! Carrite ( talk) 14:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite ( talk) 14:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved John CarterMistakes happen. Richard is saying this was a mistake and I think it very well could have been one. If that is the case here I cannot see any good sense in blocking someone for a lengthy period for what may well have been basically a big typo. There is the possibility I suppose that this article could conceivably have been a good faith effort by Richard to fix a problem from earlier. If that were the case he should have nominated it for speedy deletion and moved the content to user space to go through standard review, and I would very strongly suggest that if it ever happen again he do exactly that. But I do think a lengthy block based on the evidence presented to date would be a dramatic overreaction to this development. John Carter ( talk) 15:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by uninvolved editor KingsindianI have to say that I am very inexperienced in these matters, so my statement should be treated with almost zero weight. But, perhaps an outside member can bring some perspective? 3-6 months block for a prolific content creator who by his own account made a simple mistake in 1 out of 150 cases? This seems way over the top. I should add that I consider the "sentences" handed out here in general really harsh, but perhaps that is just my temperament. Kingsindian ( talk) 16:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved AndyTheGrumpI can't see any evidence that this was anything but a genuine mistake by Richard Arthur Norton, and nor can I see any evidence that the error caused any harm to Wikipedia. Accordingly I have to suggest that a block would seem undue - I think that it is safe to assume that having this dragged up here is sufficient in itself to ensure that RAN is more careful in future. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Comment by Wnt@ Sandstein: WP:BMB begins by saying "Editors are only site-banned as a last resort..." in explanation. This editor was not site-banned at the time. Provided that he was in fact trying to improve the encyclopedia (and indeed, adding copyvios would not be improving it) WP:IAR applies. If this is not the policy ArbCom is going to enforce, you need to mark IAR historical and remove the confusing preamble from BMB. Wnt ( talk) 19:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC) @ Fram: I think that providing explanatory quotes of this length in the references is a pleasant style, and clearly not a copyright violation. Sites like PubMed routinely claim the right to quote 300 words from larger copyrighted texts. I don't think Wikipedia has a specific standard, and ArbCom could have imposed a restriction on quote length on this one editor, but I wouldn't think it would be useful to have special, super-restrictive standards of 'copyright violation' targeted to particular editors. Either these articles are now violations, and need to be changed, or they aren't; I would say the latter from your examples. Wnt ( talk) 21:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by Fram (filer of this section)
Statement by AlansohnRAN and I have overlapped on our edits for nearly a decade, editing and enhancing many of the same articles related to the New York City / New Jersey metropolitan area. His material is well-done and thoroughly researched. I had moved some of his content from his user area into mainspace earlier on in this process and he has been rather careful to create content under the terms of enforcement. The incident described here is someone using Wikipedia the way it's designed to work and a review of RAN's past few thousand edits makes this clear; The error was inadvertent. If anything needs to be done here, it's to end what comes across to me as a vengeful effort to get the goods on one of Wikipedia's most productive editors so that needless blocks can be imposed. Let's end this game and put an end to this enforcement process once and for all. The point was made and there is no evidence that it serves any further purpose. Alansohn ( talk) 23:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by Rich FarmbroughRichard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has been subject to ongoing prosecution, some of it successful, even though based on shaky foundations. In this case there is really nothing to get excited about. An article was created, in the "wrong" namespace. It can simply be moved back into his user-space, the work of a moment. Manifestly this error is unlikely to be repeated, and even if it were, two clicks of the mouse and a few keystrokes fix it. To deprive the project of yet another productive contributor, even for a short time, would be unfortunate. And I think a more fitting sanction would be to work RAN harder, rather than give him a holiday. A block might cause a frisson of excitement (and let us hope that's all it is) to some, but it would be a shame, and would disappoint the vast majority of those who commented here. I would remind anyone considering this to remember the virtues outlined in this years State of the Wiki address, as I remember, patience and forgiveness were in there somewhere. Though with such a minor slip as this, I would hardly think they need to be invoked. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 01:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC). Statement by (username)Result concerning Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
| Request withdrawn. Sandstein 12:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Darkness Shines
None that I can see which is directly related and recent.
Mentioned by name here.
I do not want any harsh sanctions. I simply want DS to be made aware of WP:PRESERVE and WP:NPOV policy, WP:LEAD and the "citation needed" template. Per WP:LEAD - most people only read the lead. Not all statements in the lead require a citation, since they are summaries of the whole article. It is illegitimate to tamper with a stable lead like this, reading sources pedantically and one-sided addition and removal together with any refusal to compromise. As an aside, while I did self-revert, can someone tell me whether I broke 1RR or not? As far as I can see I followed WP:BRD but it is a bit unclear to me. (copying statements from below) Most of Darkness Shines' statements deserve no response. However the last one is a perfect illustration of WP:ROPE. I quote from the source he himself cites (which is the UN report at issue in diffs 1-7). Page 34 "Events aboard the Eleftheri Mesogios" Quote is: "A number of passengers were injured, including one passenger whose leg was fractured". Kingsindian ( talk) 17:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I withdraw the complaint unconditionally. After still more time and cooling down, whether or not DS was notified or not, I don't want to continue. Of course people are still welcome to examine my conduct per WP:BOOMERANG. Kingsindian ( talk) 23:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Darkness_Shines&diff=622487882&oldid=621604526 Discussion concerning Darkness ShinesStatement by Darkness ShinesSweet jesus in heaven, on the first diff, I was correct, neither of the cited sources say "execution style", so the question here is why KI restored it saying, It is indeed in the source. Page 29 Furkan Dogan On the second were KI self reverts, no idea as to why that is mentioned here? On being shot in the back, what I actually said was The source does not state they were shot from behind deliberately, and we should not infer that they were. On broken bones, the source did not say bones had been broken, and so I amended the sentence to reflect the source, which also included the fact that the passengers on some vessels, not all, claimed they had been beaten. On the last, again why is that even here? There was no humanitarian aid on the Mavi Marmara, KI even says that in his enforcement request. I have been accused of POV pushing and adding "blatant lies" by GGranddad, perhaps KI ought to be commenting on those PA`s rather than dragging a dispute over wording here. Darkness Shines ( talk) 17:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC) One other thing, and what seems a second example of source falsification, KI claims here that this report states that passengers had bones broken, the only mention of a broken bone, a leg in fact was after the incident, when IDF forces are reported to have broken a guys leg, after they got back to land. Pages 41-42 Darkness Shines ( talk) 17:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Re KI post at 17:40, 23 August 2014 Wow, my bad, I searched the document for "broken", tell me, how does one fracture translate to "some ending up with broken bones" Darkness Shines ( talk) 17:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by ShrikeThis case against Darkness Shines should be dismissed he was not warned about WP:AC/DS in the last 12 month. But I suggest that admin will check if there was indeed a source falsification by KI as I couldn't find in the source ""execution style". Source falsification is very grave problem in the past people were sanctioned for it.-- Shrike ( talk) 19:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC) @GG -- He was not blocked as part of WP:ARBPIA enforcment.-- Shrike ( talk) 20:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeavesThis is a ridiculous filing, and a waste of ArbEnforcement time. ANYONE can warn anyone else about sanctions - this board is for issues required ENFORCEMENT action by admins. To top it off, the filer cannot even do it right - they now have multiple sections where they've commented. Beware the boomerang the panda ₯’ 19:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by GGranddadI believe that Darkness Shines is pushing a POV in his edit about there being no aid on the Mavi Marmara while ignoring it was a passenger ship and that there was aid on the other ships that were cargo ships. I think his editing is just trying to delete things that might put Israel in a bad light,like removing the shot in back statement and broken bones, these things did actually happen and are well documented.As to my claims of lies being posted, after further research those remarks have been removed. @ Shrike: Darness was banned and blocked for 2 months in May 2014 I believe. GGranddad ( talk) 20:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Result concerning Darkness ShinesThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
| Not actionable because this is not an arbitration enforcement request. Sandstein 03:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Supreme Deliciousness
User:Supreme Deliciousness is a veteran editor at Syria-related articles. In the past, he was involved in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine related incidents and was sanctioned in May 2010
[24],
December 2011 (by arbitration committee on ARBPIA) and finally 2 week block for disruptive editing in August 2011. It should be pointed out that since 2011
User:Supreme Deliciousness indeed turned more careful for the next couple of years, but his dedication to Syrian related topics, unfortunately brought him to engage on Syrian Civil War related topics. It is important to note that ARBPIA sanctions in regard to Syrian Civil War had initially been applied in March 2013, and were superceded by
WP:SCWGS in August 2013, as a community sanction.
Notified [25]. GreyShark ( dibra) 22:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC) Discussion concerning Supreme DeliciousnessStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Supreme DeliciousnessStatement by Zero0000I'm an "uninvolved admin" in Syrian matters, but since this case involves Israel I will be conservative and comment only in this section. This is a content dispute and doesn't belong here. In fact I think Greyshark does not provide any evidence of a behavioral problem. Greyshark claims that SD is trying to portray Israel as a combatant in the Syrian civil war, but none of the diffs indicate that. There is a map of Syria showing who is in control of different regions, and SD wants the map legend to indicate the state of the Golan region rather than leaving the map with a region of unique color whose nature is not given in the legend. One can argue for or against it; it is certainly not a behavior issue. At Talk:Syrian_Kurdistan#Military_map_issues you can see that some other editors have the same opinion as SD and that SD agreed to visually separate Israel from the Syrian War combatants using a dotted line. The question should be solved by consensus on a talk page or content noticeboard. Zero talk 00:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Supreme DeliciousnessThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
| No action because it is not clear that the topic ban was violated. Both parties are advised to stop following each others' edits to minimize the likelihood of problems. Sandstein 05:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Ignocrates
I have been tolerant in the past of Ignocrates' attempts to cast himself in a dubiously defensible light. At this point I believe it more reasonable to adopt a strictly zero tolerance attitude toward further such contact from him. John Carter ( talk) 15:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@ Sandstein: I have expanded the descriptions in the hope that the context clarifies the nature of the problematic behavior. Ignocrates has been rather careful to avoid naming me in particular in his edits but I believe the edits taken in context and with a review of the broader history of his own edits would clearly demonstrate that the only way he could have come to those discussions would be if as Worm had implied on his talk page or if he had actively been reviewing my edits for some reason. I regret to say that having had no prior experience trying to raise such cases and the roundabout nature of Ignocrates' use of language it can be less than apparent. @ EdJohnston: and @ Worm That Turned: may be able to provide some better indication as to how they came to their conclusions that the behavior of Ignocrates did constitute an interaction ban better than me given their greater degree of familiarity with them and I am pinging them for their input. John Carter ( talk) 18:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning IgnocratesStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by IgnocratesThe following additional links are relevant: User talk:Worm That Turned#Gentle reminder?, User talk:EdJohnston#Please advise. Most of the rest of this complaint is nonsense; or trolling. The issue comes down to deciding when it is ok or not ok to post at ANI. Dave raised the one legitimate issue (imo): Is it ok to post at ANI when John Carter is the subject of the ANI? Dave thinks it isn't; I think it's a judgement call, and I explained my reasoning on his talk page. And lest we forget, John Carter has a diff of his own to explain. It's curious that he failed to mention it. I believe a WP:Boomerang is in order, and should at least be considered. That's it. I'll respond to specific questions from AE. Ignocrates ( talk) 17:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I suppose as long as we are here anyway, we might as well discuss John Carter's violation of his T-ban from the same arbitration case. Ignocrates ( talk) 18:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC) @ EdJohnston, I already explained the reason for the first diff. I returned to editing and decided to check ANI for the hell of it. This case was at the top so I read it. Unfortunately, the editor missed my point completely: don't feed the beast at ANI. Frankly, I felt a measure of pity for the guy; it was like watching a train wreck in slow motion. How this has anything to do with John Carter is beyond me. JC wanted him sanctioned, and I agreed diff; a sanction was necessary to stay consistent with the precedent established by ArbCom. It's true that I don't edit in this topic area; so what. Comments from uninvolved editors should receive more weight than those who are invested in the outcome. Ignocrates ( talk) 02:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by Hullaballoo WolfowitzUnder WP:IBAN, "editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other". John Carter has not provided any evidence clearly indicating that Ignocrates has breached this limit. When two editors are under a mutual interaction ban, the first to comment on a particular issue cannot preclude the second from commenting on the same issue, especially regarding a general subject where both have actively edited. More needs to be shown than simply labeling an edit "stalking". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 18:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by OccultZoneIt is easy to establish that some of these threads are relevant. I would start with the link to ANI thread, it depicts Ignocrates following John Carter's edits. It is also obvious that he was pointing to his feud with John Carter. Per IBAN he was not allowed to refer to John Carter. Fearofreprisal has been a member for over 6 years and Ignocrates never posted on his talk page, he posted only when he got to know that this person has issues with John Carter. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning IgnocratesThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. It is not clear from the request, and I can't readily imagine, how exactly these edits by Ignocrates are supposed to constitute an interaction with John Carter, who is not named in any of these edits. I would take no action except a warning to John Carter not to make any more meritless interaction ban complaints, because such complaints are contrary to the purpose of an interaction ban of separating the parties from each other. Sandstein 18:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
|
| Baseball Bugs is blocked for two weeks. Sandstein 22:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Baseball Bugs
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#Baseball_Bugs_topic-banned
[28] warning for previous violation
Corrected link to remedy. Regarding the diff: the submission template (in the hidden text) clearly states "You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs" NE Ent 10:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Baseball BugsStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement.1 by Baseball BugsOn that same ANI page, I am asking for either my ban to be rescinded, or the user in question [Int21h - see below] to have the ban extended to him, as he has made the same statements that I allegedly made that got me banned a year ago. I ask for fairness and consistency. If it was BLP-violating hate speech a year ago, then it still is, and a random handful of users don't have the right to decide otherwise. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC) To Sandstein: The original topic ban was based on a lie, a gross personal attack alleging bigotry on my part, which I stated at the time and no one cared. How likely are they to care a year later? And the current threat to block is based on a lie as well: My complaint at ANI and here is not about "transgender issues or persons", it's about double-standard treatment of me vs. the other user. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC) To TParis: I am not sufficiently interested in either subject to ever want to work on them again. My topic ban can stay as-is. My complaint here and now is about unequal treatment, double standard, whatever the term would be. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC) To Tparis: I involved myself on this occasion because I was angry at the double standard, and am still angry from a year ago of being accused of being a bigot, which is a total lie, yet it's what they hung me on. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by YworoI have to say that if BB is restricted from participating in discussions about transgender interpreted over-broadly, it seems he would not be able to appeal related decisions. I am sure WP policies don't allow an interpretation so broad that he can't ask for his ban to be rescinded or edit his own appeal! Yworo ( talk) 03:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by PenwhaleI am sympathetic to this, although I think that ANI should not have been the place for Bugs to make that statement, as the community (currently) cannot unilaterally overturn an ArbCom sanction and as such his request is meaningless at ANI. I would suggest Bugs to make an amendment request at RFAR, because to appeal his own TBAN that's the only place he could go. (He's asking for 1 of two choices, and 1 of the choices cannot be done there, and thus the whole request was placed at the wrong spot.) - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 08:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by TParisI go through a love-hate relationship with Bugs. Sometimes I think he's spot on and at other times I think he's on a rampage. In this case, Bugs didn't make the simple "Bradley is a man" comment. The Arbcom evidence lists these diffs supporting the topic ban to include casting aspersions of advocacy ( [29] [30] [31]), soapboxing against gender identity ( [32] [33] [34] [35]), and then calling all "supporters" abusers of Wikipedia ( [36]). That's quite a bit more than what has been described here by Bugs. Bugs described Manning as "wanting to be female" only as a plea deal and that it would make Wikipedia look stupid. That's quite a claim. Not only that, but Bugs is also topic banned from any case of leaks of classified information. Would this appeal affect both topic bans?--v/r - T P 17:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment by A Quest for KnowledgeBaseball Bugs topic ban may very well have been unjustified, but regardless, they must abide by the terms of the ban. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by Hullaballoo WolfowitzI do not think that Baseball Bugs' participation in the ANI thread was particularly constructive. However, I think we should be careful about limiting a topic-banned editor's ability to participate in policy/guideline-related discussions merely because an aspect of the discussion involves the application of the policy to that topic area. Bugs skated perilously close to the line here, at best, but did not display animus or an attempt to disrupt. I therefore would suggest that, if the consensus is that they breached their topic ban, the outcome in this case should be a strict warning. No one has yet cited a parallel case where sanctions were imposed; if we have an established practice on the general issue, I would take a different position. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 20:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Baseball BugsThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I am sympathetic to Baseball Bugs' argument and the Committee should consider it in the appropriate forum. ANI threads unrelated to Baseball Bugs are not the appropriate forum, and this argument should not be allowed to derail them. The language of the topic ban would seem to cover ANI, but I think a clarification and warning should be sufficient in this case. Gamaliel ( talk) 05:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
|
| Not actionable for lack of prior notification. Sandstein 11:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Int21h
At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#Disruptive_participation_by_Tarc, ArbCom ruled that the statement "Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't make a heifer become Marilyn Monroe" was "inflammatory and offensive" (added 00:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)) when applied to Chelsea Manning, a living transgender person (end addition). This ruling was also applied to insisting that Chelsea Manning is male: "Bradley Manning simply doesn't become a woman just because he says so". Int21h engaged in exactly parallel behavior, even to the extent of using animal analogies in an attack against a transgender subject, stating that "Painting a horse does not make a zebra" and further stating, "Chelsea is a male, not a female, therefore the proper pronoun is 'they' with accompanying cases. From wikt:she: 'A female person or animal.'". I request that given the exact parallel, Int21h should be subject to the same remedy that Tarc was for such inflammatory and offensive attacks against a transgender subject: a topic ban.
Not aware of any except Tarc's, but they may exist.
ArbCom established a precedent that contradicting the gender-identification of a transgender person was "inflamatory and offensive" in the instance of Tarc's comments. Beside applying similar discretionary sanctions in the case of User:Int21h, I ask that ArbCom confirm that in general contradicting the gender-identification of a transgender person is "inflamatory and offensive", whether in an article, on a talk page, or anywhere else, and affirm that such comments may be removed from talk pages under the provisions of our Biographies of living persons, specifically under the sections titled Non-article space, which allows removal of personal attacks against a living subject from talk pages and also under the heading Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced.
Discussion concerning Int21hStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Int21hThis so-called English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) has never been "established by the community" per the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use. As discussed on its talk page, ArbCom was established by Jimmy Wales. Neither has it been established by consensus. It has only retained its status by desysopping and threatening to desysop admins. Nor is it proper for a body that asserts and exercises authority as an arbitration committee, without first being established by the community, to purport to establish itself as an arbitration committee by submitting and adopting its own proposal in less than two weeks with a "simple yes or no vote". Only WP:ANI can be classified as one of the "dispute resolution bodies that are established by the community for the specific Project editions", so this discussion should be continued or merged with the current discussion there. I should also note I resubmitted my proposal here, and although deficiencies in MediaWiki's diff logic could not discern much of it, I attempted to make as much clear in this edit. Given as much, and my intention to continue to say the same, forcing another discussion here on substantially similar facts would be overly burdensome and contravene WP:NOTBUREAU. Any guideline or application thereof which contradicts WP:NPOV, including WP:MOS, are void ab initio, the proper procedure being modification of WP:NPOV. The application of MOS:IDENTITY to the article at hand contravenes WP:NPOV because instead of using gender-neutral terminology the article's tone assumes that Chelsea should be referred to as a "she", despite documentation of significant contradictory viewpoints, e.g., the Government of the United States. So the proposal in question and its forum are appropriate. I obviously disagree that my comments were in any way other than in support of, and supported by, WMF and Wikipedia policies. Int21h ( talk) 03:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by Knowledgekid87This was brought up at ANI where a majority of editors agreed that it was not hate speech. Tarc made a total of three comments that were intended to be offensive, all that was seen here was one that was from an opposing point of view. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the user was aware of sanctions on the article as Penwhale gave the notice after the comment was placed. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC) I also want to add that Tarc has denied [37] that the reason given above is why he was topic banned. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC) @Yworo::The problem with that is who are the ones that are going to go through each comment to make sure it is ok to post? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC) @Yworo::There is also WP:CHERRYPICKING you are taking the "Bring it on" comment out of a larger discussion. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC) @ EdJohnston: I think a consensus has been established here, I mean I haven't seen any indication that AE can do anything in this case given the facts presented. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 02:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by PenwhaleUnfortunately, most of the issues brought up at ANI happened before the alert was given, and as such I do not think anything is currently enforceable. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 00:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Statement.2 by Baseball BugsTo Penwhale [above]: Whether actionable at this time or not, do you agree then, that the editor's words would have qualified for sanctions a year ago? ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC) To Valeron [below]: I was topic-banned for just such an "absurd" accusation. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Statement by ProtossPylonI feel that we've been creating a battleground out of a non-issue. The unnecessary zebra remark notwithstanding, Int's original comment, regardless of its correctness, makes it perfectly clear that he intended to start a meaningful discussion in an attempt to neutralize the article; not that he was deliberately attacking the subject - an allegation that Yworo was making in the ANI thread. This is at odds with Tarc's comments, which were vitriol-filled argument bait. Int has also not repeated this kind of discussion at all, so I fail to see the point or effectiveness of a topic ban. Protoss Pylon 01:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Statement by JohnValeronThis discussion, which has spilled thousands of words on Wikipedia today, has nothing to do with proving that the accused is guilty. It's a case of the accuser trying to save face after lodging an absurd accusation. JohnValeron ( talk) 01:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by TParisMisgendering is bad. Casting aspersions is bad too. Saying "Chelsea is male" is an opinion and we do not punish thought-crimes. Comparing Chelsea to a pig is hate speech. Throwing around words like transphobia because people don't believe the same way you do is casting aspersions. I say topic ban both Int21h for disruptive editing and Yworo for casting aspersions and let's call it a day.--v/r - T P 02:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment by WntThat article has gone back and forth between extremes a few times, and the present version is unsatisfactory: "Manning became the target of bullying at the school because she was the only American and was viewed as effeminate (she was living as a boy at that time). Manning had identified to two friends in Oklahoma as gay..." We should recognize there is a genuine need for further discussion to nudge it back into line; specifically, I think that the gendered pronoun appropriate for the subject's stated gender at the time is appropriate for sentences about past events. I think Int21h was a little off in raising the gender issue as a whole, in relying only on an original logical argument, and in looking at ArbCom authority as a whole; nonetheless, he was much more right than wrong, and his contribution here is (or should be) appreciated. ArbCom should not set up an environment where it is dangerous to begin good faith discussion of something you see in an article that looks off, nor one where people look to it to decide content issues -- and that is well established precedent. Wnt ( talk) 13:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by Hullaballoo WolfowitzIf you read the proposed decision page for the original Manning decision, it is evident that ArbCom rejected the idea that use of "animal analogies" alone was insufficient to justify sanctions. The Committee considered, and rejected, the position that "offensively comparing the life choices of transgender people to pretending to be an animal" was enough to justify sanctions. At no point did it suggest that the mere use of time worn proverbs which are routinely applied to many varieties of human behavior (eg, "a leopard can't change its spots") was seriously disruptive. (Tarc was sanctioned after admitting he chose a particular animal metaphor in order to offend/disrupt). Int21h's comments here were of the timeworn proverb variety, and therefore do not justify sanctions under the ArbComm ruling. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 20:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by Rich Farmbrough
Statement by Two kinds of porkYworo's complaint is about Int21h's using an animal analogy. Had Int21h used a "negative" animal analogy (lipstick/pig, snake/grass, vulture, mad dog, etc) then it would be easier to make the case that Int21h was being intentionally offensive. But he didn't. As Wolfowitz states, Int21h used an expression that has been used since time immemorial. Arbcom did not establish these analogies were actionable via sanctions, but encouraged the community to choose their words with care. Comparing women with livestock is inexcusable, for example. Arbcom did sanction editors whose comments they deemed was inflammatory, either by intent or willful ignorance. Int21h's chosen metaphor does not fall in either of these categories. IMO, this request to block/ban Int21h is just a vehicle to have Arbcom establish stare decisis between gender and sex. Now as Tparis puts it above, misgendering someone isn't very nice, and doing so can cause offense. Some people think abortion isn't very nice, and calling it a choice is offensive to them. You don't have to agree with someone's opinion, but you should be respectful in your disagreement. IMO Arbcom ruling on gender vs sex is a very bad idea; it will stifle debate. Only once society firmly comes down on the side of gender would such an edict be palatable. But by then it would be (hopefully) useless. A little off topic, because this is about Int21h, but Arbcom did establish that calling someone transphobic without clear evidence could be sanctionable. Maybe Tarc didn't use that exact word, but calling someone a bigot amounts to the same thing. As a participant in the Manning case, @ Tarc: knew full well that accusations of transphobia was a major component of the case. Since he apparently chose to "call out" Int21h for his stance on gender vs sex with a personal attack, he should live by the consequences. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 05:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC) @ TParis: perhaps you are correct. The case did deal with some accusing everyone who took a certain position as being transphobic, even if they were doing it out of ignorance. Tarc's accusation does not match those parameters. Regardless, Tarc's comment was out of line and I'm disappointed no one took him to task. Including myself. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 06:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by <Your user name here>Result concerning Int21hThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
According to his or her user page, Int21h has been an editor for 8 years and 3 months. This is ample time to bring before the community objections or concerns regarding the jurisdiction of the Committee. To raise this issue of the Committee's jurisdiction only now as a defense for his or her behavior is disingenuous; to expect it to be effective before the Committee itself is an issue of WP:COMPETENCE. While Int21h's behavior does not seem to fall within the scope of the Committee's decision as per Penwhale's comment, TParis' suggestion should be considered if Int21h's behavior continues. Gamaliel ( talk) 05:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
|
| Editor blocked one year as an enforcement for declining to observe his topic ban. EdJohnston ( talk) 01:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning DXRD
I warned DXRD that she/he was violating the topic ban on 20 August 2014.
Discussion concerning DXRDStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DXRD
Statement by (username)Result concerning DXRDThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
| Warned. EdJohnston ( talk) 15:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning WarKosign
WarKosign is trying to diminish the fatalities of the Palestinians civilians, while he keeps the one about Israeli ones. As a result of his actions, as I wrote on the talk page, we can only read now in the lead: "that the percentage of how many were civilians is disputed, though the health ministry, UN and NGO's back it up. We are not even given an estimate anymore in the lead but just the total of Palestinian dead and that the number of civilians is disputed. The Israeli side's fatalities is given as a fact." This is a serious NPOV problem. I wrote to him to warn him of his 1RR violation and said he should self-revert but he responded by saying: "Feel free to report, along with your own edit warring." Besides getting blocked, he was also warned for edit warring in the same article on 22:32, 4 August 2014 by admin Ronhjones. There is also an Editnotice on the article which gives info about the rules. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 22:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC) As said, the number is backed up by UN and NGO's, and reported much in media, and you can therefore not say that the numbers only come from Hamas. As you know and mention, the numbers is visible in the infobox and a table in the rest of the article. Removing it from the lead is unacceptable. By making it "clearer" that it's not "unversally agreed", you first change it from being a fact to being something only according to Hamas. Then you say you wan't to remove "unbased information", when you in fact you removed the whole part of the numbers of civilians. The number about the total of Palestinians killed is not disputed as everyone put nearly the same number but it's a serious POV violation diminishing the civilian casualties of Palestinians, which in the end meant removing it totally, and that while keeping the info in the same place about the Israeli casualties! -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 15:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC) I still think it was and is wrong to force your view, which included violating 1RR, on the issue of Palestinian civilians deaths (perhaps the biggest issue in this Gaza conflict) but I agree with what Nishidani and Kingsindian wrote on this issue. So I reported it because forcing your view on an issue and breaking 1RR is unacceptable and keep in mind WarKosign didn't want to revert himself though I told him to do so or get reported, which he welcomed. I think it is totally wrong to edit like that. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 00:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC) -sche, as you know, there was an active discussion on the talk page but WarKosign kept forcing his view on the article, which also lead to a a violation of the 1RR. If he had accepted to contribute on this issue in a better manner, by discussing more and self-reverting his violation, this vouldn't have escalated to here. It was after he ignored my advice to revert it, that I went here to protest against his 1RR. Keep also in mind that the problem with the first edit was not only the name of the ministry but also that he made the claim to look being something that was only according to Hamas, which actually was the worst part. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 03:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC) We have pretty much reach a solution (a tag is there and should be removed) but it isn't saying that the claim is only according to Hamas. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 22:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning WarKosignStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by WarKosignNeither of the edits in question is a revert, so technically 1RR is not applicable. Some background: Me and several other editors made a big effort to shorten and simplify the lead paragraph while keeping it NPOV. Here are two of the most recent talk page sections dedicated to the effort [38] [39]. An IP user noted that there is an arguably incorrect statement in the lead saying that "most of the casualties were Palestinian civilians". I argued in the talk page that while it is obvious that most of the casualties are Palestinians, it is far less obvious that most of them are civilians, and thus it is incorrect and POV pushing to make this blanket statement. The infobox and the casualties sections represent this claim far better with 5 different counts. User:GGranddad was making an argument for inclusion of the statement and even provided a single source that actually says that most of the casualties overall were Palestinian civilians. User:GGranddad was soon after blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppet of User:Dalai lama ding dong and his edit adding the statement was reverted, while User:AcidSnow restored his version and User:IRISZOOM suddenly began contributing to the talk page - something he/she never did before - and continued arguing the point from that very point where GGranddad stopped, making me suspect it is another sockpuppet. To the edits in question: I did not remove the problematic statement since it had one source, and the sources that usually contradict it (ITIC and IDF) did not provide a new number of dead militants while the number of Palestinian casualties increased, technically making Palestinian civilians a majority among casualties. Other users gradually added more and more information into the lead. As Methodology section says, "there has been little discrepancy between Gaza Health Ministry count and the counts of human rights groups and the UN, which use the former figure as preliminary and conduct their own investigations." so saying that Hamas-controlled ministery of Health is the source is correct. The first edit was to make clear in the lead that the information is not universally agreed upon in a short and clean manner. The alternative as I wrote repeatedly in the talk page was to copy the casualties table into the lead. The second edit was to remove unbased information (where did these percent come from?). I even increased the number of Palestinian casualties - hardly POV pushing to diminish it. WarKosign ( talk) 05:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC) @ Penwhale: All the sources but ITIC give numbers above 2000, and ITIC's total number hasn't been updated in a while - the date in the casualties table refers to the civilians vs militant count, the total number is not given in the cited source at all. All the sources that are up to day are relatively close and 2100 was lowest estimate of palestinians, not including israeli casualties, so "at least 2100" is less of misrepresentations than "at least 2000". After a long discussion there is an agreement on a version very similar to my edits. "Hamas Health Ministry" was supposed to be short for "Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry" which was in the article at some point. WarKosign ( talk) 06:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by Shrike@ Penwhale:This clearly content dispute there is no source misrepresentation all NGOs base their data on their Health Ministry also most of the sources say so.That the data coming from Palestinians. For example the first source [40] "The national" quite clearly says -- Shrike ( talk) 04:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC) @ Zero0000: What include and how to include this clear nature of content dispute.He correctly stated what was written in the source.-- Shrike ( talk) 06:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by KingsindianThough I and WarKosign often disagree, I have generally found him amenable to reasonable argument on the talk page (where he participates a lot). Sometimes the argument takes a while to get through, but I have not found him to edit war much. He does have a clear bias, but that is the norm rather than the exception in this area (I also have bias). A couple of comments on the content part of the dispute. Regarding the methodology for counting civilian and militant deaths, it is complicated. In a nutshell, Gaza health ministry gives figures, UN and other human rights orgs take figures from there and conduct their own investigations, finally giving a preliminary figure. These sources give ~2100 killed (70-75% civilian). On the other side, Israel says about 50% are combatants, based on intelligence reports. There are various other issues involved. As to what the Gaza Health Ministry should be called, it was decided that "Gaza Health Ministry" or "Palestinian Health Ministry" should be used. See here and here. Kingsindian ( talk) 05:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000The first edit is clearly a misrepresentation of the source. Contra Shrike, although the article attributes one set of figures to "Palestinian health officials", it says "mostly Palestinian civilians" on its own judgement and "The United Nations says about three quarters of the Palestinians killed have been civilians". (The UN has a very large presence in Gaza and doesn't need the Palestinian authorities to roughly estimate the fraction of casualties that are civilian.) Omitting this key assertion of the source is an obvious misrepresentation. Zero talk 06:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC) @ Shrike:: NPOV requires more than just reporting something that a source supports. It also means conveying the context provided by the source. In this case the most notable issue about the casualties, as determined by hundreds of reliable sources, was elided. Zero talk 07:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by NishidaniThough I think WarKoSign edits to ensure the priority of the official Israeli viewpoint on the page, his style of working is, generally, infinitely better than the numerous disruptive or blatant POV-pushers active on that and sister pages recently, few of whom share his readiness to discuss collegially. I agree with Kingsindian's summation. The evidence is too thin to warrant the kind of sanction proposed. Nishidani ( talk) 15:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by -scheAlthough he has discernible sympathies for one side of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, WarKosign is a reasonable editor and regularly participates in discussions on Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict in which consensus wordings of various sections of the article are hashed out. The same discussions ( 1, 2) which concluded that Gaza's health ministry should be called the Gazan Health Ministry showed that there were a number of other names people might plausibly find in references or think to use, for which reason diff 1 is something I would have simply amended, with links in my edit summary to the aforementioned discussions, no further action necessary. Diff 2 was a reasonable attempt at replacing disputed information (disputed in that different sources give different numbers, and in that editors disputed the numbers' inclusion), which was already present in detail in both the infobox and the article body, with just the facts that sources from all 'sides' agreed on; discussion on the talk page seems to show consensus for just such a 'just-the-agreed-upon-facts' approach. I agree with Kingsindian's analysis. This should not have escalated to AE, and the evidence is too weak to merit the sanction that is proposed. I echo HJ Mitchell's concern that this may be "tactical use of discretionary sanctions to eliminate an opponent". -sche ( talk) 03:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning WarKosignThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|