| No action taken Spartaz Humbug! 19:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Volunteer_Marek
VM has been warned several times about being incivility he engages in with other editors and personal attacks. He was warned by admin twice to stop being incivil and abusive towards others. In the past I have requested this as well several times [1], [2]. The above examples are only recent. If required I can provide examples going back a month or more.This is an ongoing and persistent issue. While there will be always disagreements about wording of article, sources or content, such disputes should be done in civil way worthy of encyclopedia. Shouting at other editors, using swear words, naming their edits as crap goes against this principle. VM was warned to stop being incivil and attacking others and in my view he violated his warning in the examples I have provided.
Response to BishonenLike MastCell, I might have used different words than VM, but I'm against sanctioning editors for speaking impatiently to those who try to degrade content, or for using swear words. Volunteer_Marek was already sanctioned and warned due to his incivil behaviour by an administrator earlier. Hence I am calling for enforcement. This is not a single slip or incident.It is an ongoing issue that VM has been asked time and time again to correct( I believe I asked him to stop this three times at least).He constantly acts incivil and offensive towards others,and this is a behavior that has been going on since years(links can be provided if requested). As I mentioned earlier-due to this he was warned earlier to act in civil way way by an administrator-twice and warned that incivility and personal attacks should stop least he be blocked. If he or you want to appeal his warning and removed from sanctions lists-be my guest, that's fine. But here I am asking for enforcing an already existing sanction, not making a new one.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Update: To prove that this is not a new thing and result of ongoing incivility, please see my edits over the years where I have asked VM time and time again to stop personal attacks and incivility. I am also posting my comment from last November where I have pleaded for him to stop, and that I will be forced to ask for official intervention if he continues the attacks. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Response to KingsindianThis is a transparent attempt to win a content dispute using this board Please see my links above. VM has been engaging in such behavior for years. I have asked him to stop already last year in November and stated that I will have to ask for official intervention if he doesn't cease.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 23:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Response to Drmies and EdJohnstonThe phrase "internal security" is used commonly used in political writings on the subject. This was debated here already and pointed out by Kingsindian here Also, the term "internal security" often refers to the security of the regime, rather than security of the population. This is the way in which internal security is used routinely in political literature. See [https://books.google.com/books?id=oXysBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA504&lpg=PA504&dq=internal+security+eastern+europe+warsaw+pact&source=bl&ots=4aiPUPavPu&sig=S4f32gsNzDNJCWRVBeyt5JUfG8I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiO1p-ZqfrJAhWQBo4KHdThDVQQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&q=internal%20security%20eastern%20europe%20warsaw%20pact&f=false this, this and this for examples.] If you want other examples
I studied politology and history in Polish university after 1989 and we used these terms as well in analysis of the subject. In political works definitions like "internal security" are commonly used to describe situation without judging the nature of the political regime.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 20:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Here is a western source directly saying that Warsaw Pact served internal security in connection to Czechoslovakia THE WARSAW PACT'S CAMPAIGN FOR "EUROPEAN SECURITY" A. Ross Johnson United States Air Force under Project Rand. "greater importance placed on the internal security function of the Soviet military presence in Eastern Europe, as of Warsaw Pact as a whole, "after Czechoslovakia." [7] Just like I stated this is a common expression in political analysis, and certainly not a "Stalinist propaganda". It's just a term scholarly works on the subject use in neutral way.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 23:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Response to My very best wishesKnowing Molobo and his role in EEML case, I am sure that's the latter. My very best wishes I quite surprised by this statement since I was never sanctioned for anything in EEML case, and as far as I remember VM was. Aren't you also one of the former EEML members who changed his user name(IIRC Biophys?) who was very active there? If you want to re-open this case, it's your choice. In any case I left your EEML group long time ago, is is still active? -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 20:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Edits by VM since this request has been filledSince this request has been filled Volunteer_Marek has engaged in edits that were incivil and personal attacks
Again a personal attack.If the user is indeed a sockpuppet, then a proper procedure should have been requested to confirm this, instead of resolving to personal attack. I believe both examples to be in violation of his sanctions. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Discussion concerning Volunteer_MarekStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Volunteer_Marek1. The edit describes the article, i.e. content. One might disagree with the assessment (I do wish there was a template which said "Unfortunately, currently this article is crap" that could be slapped on appropriate articles but alas!) but feigning offense and trying to use that to win a dispute is far more disruptive than the use of the word "crap". And yes, the article was bad to begin with. MyMoloboaccount, who has never edited this article before (AFAIK) jumped in the middle of my attempts to fix it, because of the dispute we had at another article, Economy of Poland. I believe this pretty much defines the concept of "revenge reverting" 2. Well, for this one you just need to actually see the comment itself. Here is the diff again [9]. MyMoloboaccount changed text ""The Warsaw Pact's largest military engagements were aimed against its own members—in 1956 against Hungary and in 1968 against Czechoslovakia" to the obviously non-neutral "The Warsaw Pact's largest military engagements were aimed at internal security of member states during 1956 against Hungary and in 1968 against Czechoslovakia" (describing the bloody repression of the Hungarian uprising in which thousands of people were murdered and tens of thousands repressed and tortured as "a matter of internal security" is not only tasteless, but obviously POV). The edit also made a grammatical mess of the sentence and resulted in a statement which contradicted itself. I'm sorry but this is pretty much the definition of over-the-top POV pushing and calling it what it is is perfectly warranted. 3. MyMoloboaccount did in fact use the edit summary "minor changes" [10] (and [11] here again) to ... "label", edits which were non-minor, and in fact were a pretty blatant attempt to POV the article. Here is the relevant exchange on talk (which for some reason MyMoloboaccount failed to link to - wonder why) in which he tries to evade the question and continues to pretend that his edits were "minor". The conversation clearly indicates lack of good faith on the part of the user. In my time on Wikipedia, this kind of behavior has been generally regarded as extremely disruptive and dishonest and has quickly led to a block, especially when done by an editor who's been around for a long time and should know better. To make highly POV changes and hide them behind false edit summaries, and then complain when someone points out that your edit summaries aren't exactly 100% kosher, really takes some chutzpah. MyMoloboaccount repeatedly edit warred to reinsert text which misrepresented sources - even after I've asked him about it several times on talk. And even after I've explicitly pointed out to him that the text misrepresented the sources. And even when I asked him point blank about which part of a particular source was suppose to support the text. The relevant talk page discussions (or actually, lack thereof, on the part of my MyMoloboaccount) are here (note lack of response), here (basically evading the question) and here (same as the diff above - but note that here I am forced to ask the same question for the third time without a response). The above discussions clearly indicate WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior on the part of the user. For the record, this kind of pattern has been noted before by others, for example by User:Iryna Harpy (for example here and here, there's more though it might take a bit of time to find it). Likewise, this isn't the first time that MyMoloboaccount has tried to misrepresent sources on Wikipedia (see here and here for detailed explanations). Dealing with such a user, although they pretend at "civility", is extremely frustrating and it is a textbook example of someone who is not engaged with the project in good faith and is in fact... well, driving people crazy, with WP:CRUSH. Also, for the record, it should be noted that while the user MyMoloboaccount may appear to have a fairly clean block log [12], the actual block log, in all its full page glory is here. The lack of blocks between the new and the old account has to do with the indefinite block that was in place in between (the indefinite block which was lifted after, I'm sorry to say, to a significant extent because I personally argued for its lifting because I believed that MyMoloboaccount/Molobo deserved a second chance. No good deed... like they say) (or maybe that was a bad deed, I didn't realize it at the time, and now I'm just getting my comeuppance?) Anyway, Happy Holidays and Wesolych Swiat. Volunteer Marek 09:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC) @Spartaz. Ok, look, Spartaz, do what you think is appropriate and whatever it is I'm not going to hold it against you. I've been on Wikipedia a long time and I've donated a lot of my free time, which I value highly, to the project. The way I see it, I'm doing Wikipedia a favor by editing here, not vice versa. Of course Wikipedia drives one crazy. The backstabbing, the gratuitous lynch mobs, the lying-with-the-straight face and most of all the thick thick hypocrisy, all more than present in this request and its comments. I realized long time ago that the only way I could continue participating here is by approaching in a way which did not implicitly accept, perpetuate and enable all of those things, in as straight forward manner as possible. Not bullshiting people but not tolerate all the bullshit that falls in one's lap either. So yes, my comments are always direct and to the point, I state my objections explicitly, I express my frustration when someone's obviously not acting in good faith, and I speak the way that grown ups in the real world speak (yes, even in professional settings). Of course this being Wikipedia people will try to use that against you to win disputes and as a way of furthering their agenda. Shrug. So no, I don't think I made any "personal attacks". I used words which some people will try and pretend they find offensive. I was critical of another editor's editing behavior. But neither of these are personal attacks. Saying to someone "you POV'ed the article" is NOT a personal attack and you won't be able to find a Wikipedia policy that says so. Maybe I didn't put it in the most diplomatic way possible but so what? If I had said "you're a bad person because you POV'ed the article" or some version of that THAT would've been a personal attack. But calling people out on their atrocious behavior and disruptive editing (and I'm sorry but MyMoloboaccount WAS blatantly misrepresenting sources, using false edit summaries and then playing coy about it and pretending they didn't know what the issue was) is not a personal attack and in fact, given how Wikipedia works, it is sometimes necessary to actually improve article content. Volunteer Marek 17:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
@Flashout1999 - It's ridiculous to say that I am "harassing" MyMoloboaccount when in fact they were the one who followed me to the article in the first place, because of a disagreement we had on another article. If anything, it's the opposite. Likewise, your claim that the section heading "Can the POV get more ridicoulos?" (sic) is a "personal attack" but a section heading "POV in the lead" is not doesn't hold water. They both say the same thing, one is just in the form of a question and the other one is not, and neither "attacks" anyone. It specifically points to problems with content. You are mistaking strongly worded criticism of article content and user behavior with "personal attacks". These are not the same thing. One more time - saying "you POV'd the article" is not not not not not a personal attack. Never has been, isn't now and probably (it's Wikipedia, so who knows?!) never will be. Disagreement are likewise not "personal attacks". Volunteer Marek 20:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC) And actually let me add a little bit here to my response to Flashout1999. MyMoloboaccount repeatedly restored text which misrepresented sources and also made obviously highly POV changes with misleading edit summaries ("minor changes"). The proper response to my objections, which I made on talk, would have been to correct the misrepresentation of sources and if they felt something was missing, or if they felt that a particular piece of text was actually true (just not in that particular source) would have been to go out there and find new sources and faithfully paraphrase them. This is not MyMoloboaccount did. They just kept restoring the existing problems via blanket reverts. Yes, they did add some new sources but these were generally misrepresented just like the previous ones (the Crumb one in particular). On the other hand, and to your credit, your response was more or less what I outlined above. You did go out and get new sources (the state department etc., although the History Channel one was a dud) and you appear to be open to discussing how to reword the text to make it NPOV. This difference actually illustrates both the problem with MyMoloboaccount's approach and the proper approach. MMA, instead of doing the work necessary to find compromise and improve the article decided upon a wording which suited their POV first and then tried to pretend that sources supported it. Didn't really discuss the issues. When they didn't get their way, they came running here, to WP:AE, as a strategy of "winning" a dispute with allegations of "incivility" and lack of good faith (to quote User:Collect "The person who most frequently speaks about assuming good faith is least likely to assume (or act in) good faith.") That's often a very good sign that the person who's complaining about "incivility" is on the wrong end of the actual underlying *content* dispute. Because that's the only "argument" (and not a good one) they got. See also WP:CRUSH. So, anyway, whatever the outcome of this report, and whatever else you say about me down in your section below, I do want to thank you in particular for taking the right approach to improving the article and if I was overly harsh in my criticism of you I apologize. Volunteer Marek 21:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Response to MyMoloboaccount's newest allegations This is just diff padding and more of the same. At best these diffs just show that MyMoloboaccount has tried to use this tactic before, when confronted about the POV nature of their edits. Let's go through'em, shall we? Ok, let's go through the diffs provided by MyMoloboaccount in the para beginning with "To prove that this is not a new thing and result of ongoing incivility..." This diff provided by MMA is just a message he left on my talk page. What edit of mine is he responding to when he accuses me of "incivility"? This one. What I said is, quote: "crap source - the guy says that increases in poverty CAUSE increases in GDP". I called a ... crappy source, crap. If you think THAT is incivility, I really got nothing to say to you. It was a crap source and pointing that out is perfectly fine. Then there is this diff, which is also MMA coming to my talk page and accusing me of, this time, "following him around". Ok, let me try to figure out what the hey he's talking about........ July 17....... Here at least is the full conversation (at bottom) which basically shows that this was MMA being passive-aggressive. Let's see, I said something (on my talk page) about that being an absurd accusation [13]. Hmmmmm. In July of 2014, the only article that both myself and MMA edited was Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Now, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 actually crashed on July 17 of 2014, it was of course all over the media and the article had been just created. There was a lot of activity on it. I made edits to it - and over the next several months I did a lot more work on the article than MMA who's only contribution was throw in some POV text right at the beginning. I can't remember who edited it first but who cares. Previously MMA had been following my edits around to the articles on:
This is why my response to MMA's comment about me supposedly "following him around" was... well, let me quote it in full, because it applies to the Warsaw Pact article now as much as it did to these other ones then: "I do sincerely hope that you have enough self awareness to realize how absurd you sound above." MMA had spent a few months following me around - EXACTLY the same as with Warsaw Pact article - and then had the chutzpah to come to my talk page and accuse me of doing that. If that doesn't convince you that MMA is a tendentious editor who tries to WP:GAME policies and win disputes which they cannot win based on sources by threatening, falsely accusing, and spuriously reporting people I don't know what will. And yes, just like he misrepresents sources in terms of content, he misrepresent editors he disagrees with in noticeboards such as this one. Volunteer Marek 23:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Caballero's Comments
Statement by ErlbaekoNote that the same pattern of personal attacks and incivility can be seen in other articles/topics. See e.g. Talk:Ghouta_chemical_attack/Archive_6#same_ol.27_POV_pushing_which_just_won.27t_stop. Also note that I notified him about Syrian Civil War sanctions on 27 August 2015, ref. diff. Here Volunteer Marek attacks an editor saying "Will you please stop lying so blatantly?" I would not have had a problem with that if it was a lie, but it is not. I checked the statement and it's only slightly inaccurate. I replied here. I see no justification for that attack, and no apology was ever given. Erlbaeko ( talk) 11:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Arthur Rubin: Do we want to continue? I don't know, but I do. I don't see no justification for your 1 week block for "actions on Warsaw Pact, commented on at WP:AE". Ref. Block log. Here you said it was due to "discretionary sanctions for Eastern Europe". What excatly did you block him for? Erlbaeko ( talk) 16:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC) @ Drmies: That section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Drinking buddies should use the sections above. Erlbaeko ( talk) 19:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by LjLI have also been at my wits' end with this editor, but eventually I decided to do nothing about it. But given that finally I'm not the only one wanting to complain, I'll add diffs for things that had seemed to show WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF issues, with my emphasis on them (but honestly, other behaviors from this editor were more of a burden to me, yet it's trickier to put them together to clarify the situation):
Note that the "consensus" the editor challenges in the above quotations was repeatedly established, and summarized here, and he was virtually the only editor disrupting it. LjL ( talk) 14:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Flushout1999
Statement by KingsindianThis is a transparent attempt to win a content dispute using this board. All three descriptions by MyMoloboaccount are seriously misleading. VM's conduct on the talk page is not ideal, but MyMoloboaccount's conduct is as bad or worse, which directly led to VM's conduct. The major diff is here. By no stretch of imagination can this be called "minor changes", as stated in the edit summary. This alone should raise doubts about MyMoloboaccount's conduct. Let me first point out the kernel of the matter. The Warsaw Pact was in part a reaction to NATO. That is not all that it was: historical events rarely have a single cause or motivation. There were plenty of nefarious motives as well. The writing on this issue needs to be nuanced. The Laurien Crump source is accepted by all sides as a good source, and it needs to be presented carefully. Let's now go through the diffs:
In such topics, people have their own POV. It is unavoidable. People have to work together in spite of this. By the way, why is MyMoloboaccount blocked? The block log says something about AE, which I can't fathom. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Arthur RubinI cannot see this edit by MyMoloboaccount as being in good faith; the claim that the Warsaw Pact was intended to support internal security of the nations involved is contrary to fact and to the wording of the Pact. The pact was written as to protect external security of the nations, and reliable sources suggest the secondary reason was to protect the Soviet Union against threats from the other signatories. (I'm not sure the references to West Germany are sourced. I don't want to get involved in editing the article.) The statement must be considered Soviet propaganda, and propaganda (except as opinion) is not permitted on Wikipedia. I am not commenting on Volunteer Marek's alleged incivility. However, if addition of propaganda is considered WP:vandalism, VM should not be cited for edit warring, as removal of vandalism is a permitted exception. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by MastCell@ Spartaz: For what it's worth, Marek is right. Now, I would probably use different language: I would say that Flushout1999 (and Mymoloboaccount) are tendentious editors who are systematically and somewhat dishonestly degrading the quality of our article on the Warsaw Pact in service of their political agendas. Marek would say that they're turning the article into an even bigger pile of POV crap than it already was. Both of those are true statements.I suppose the proper response to this complaint comes down to a philosophical question: which is the bigger threat to Wikipedia as a serious, reputable reference work? Dishonest, agenda-driven obsessives, or people who lose patience with them? My personal view is probably evident from my framing of the question. MastCell Talk 06:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by Maunus)Editors should assume good faith - untill that becomes impossible. Likewise, editors should use civil and courteous language - but should not be excessively punished when their patience is put to the test by long-term blatant, tendentious editing. (Note that I don't know Mymoloboaccounts editing patterns, but refer to the POV pushing that VolunteerMarek reverted at R&I) ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by Iryna HarpyI wish to apologise to VM for not having added my 2¢ as soon as Mymoloboaccount embarked on this underhanded fiasco for fear of exploding myself. Should the admins and volunteers evaluating this AE wish to wade through years of diffs demonstrating Mymoloboaccount's bad faith editing practices, I'm willing to present them... but please be prepared for at least a day of reading through diffs. This is by no means the only article surrounding Eastern European history and current affairs Mymoloboaccount crops up on on a regular basis in order to undermine consensus decisions made across multiple articles. Presenting single incidents provides no overview of the years of gaming engaged in by the user. Naturally, if Wikipedia were Utopia and editors could all be understood to be honest about whether they're truly HERE, we wouldn't need AGF or CIVIL as part of our guidelines and policy. The reality is that it's not a perfect Wikipedia world. As 'nice' as it would be to not have editors like VM be pushed to the point of a meltdown, bad faith editors (who quickly disappear into the woodwork as soon as they know that the heat is on, only to return months later to the same articles in order to start the same arguments again when consensus has clearly not changed) who refuse to back down after years of the same antagonistic, dishonest behaviour have forfeited all rights to cry "attack". Calling SPADE may not be desirable but, in this instance, it's imperative. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 02:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by My very best wishesThis edit by Molobo (just noted by EdJohnston) is indeed very strange. It is so ridiculous that one must ask the question: does Molobo really believes that such edit improves content or he made this edit on purpose: to engage VM in discussion and report him to WP:AE? Knowing Molobo and his role in EEML case, I am sure that's the latter. My very best wishes ( talk) 14:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Volunteer_Marek
|
| Clear consensus for a topic ban from Longevity, broadly construed Spartaz Humbug! 19:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning 930310
Canvassing: I was "sent" here, as Legacypac states, only because I requested to be informed. Attempting to build a case against the user in question for canvassing under these circumstances seems to be a misrepresentation of the actual events. Of course, misrepresentation seems to be the norm in this case. Jacona ( talk) 01:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning 930310Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 930310
Statement by EEngThe user's contribution history practically defines "SPA". [42] [43]. Not visible via those links is fact that his/her userpage and sandbox were for years two of the many WP:FAKEARTICLE/ WP:NOTWEBHOST longevity lists that have finally purged: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:930310 Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:930310/sandbox. EEng ( talk) 13:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC) It's worth remembering this Arbcom finding from February 2011:
That didn't happen, which is why the mess continues. SPAs' lack of experience in the wider project continues to plague discussions. EEng ( talk) 02:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by AlansohnThese allegations regarding 930310 -- together with the more disturbing result above regarding User:Ollie231213 -- are clear examples of what comes off as a rather clear tag team mentality by both User:EEng and User:Legacypac. The instances cited here of "edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it" are examples of Orwellian thought crimes. Just take the first two examples:
Both of these are examples of situations where 930310 challenged one of the mass of repeated AfD nominations by EEng / Legacypac, cited relevant Wikipedia policy and now have this used as "evidence" against them. I can't even figure out how either of these can be viewed as violations of policy under even the most strained view of Longevity-related policy violations. These are quintessentially appropriate votes in each case. The repeated SPA allegations from EEng appear to be intended as a provocation, in the same manner as what was done to Ollie231213. Any objection to boomerang nominations for EEng and Legacypac? Alansohn ( talk) 19:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC) @JzG - In describing this as "a clear case of SPA vs. Wikipedia" you have prejudged the matter without justification. The diffs offered are run-of-the-mill examples of rather ordinary back and forth discussions, at worst. In no example is any of the required policy violation offered, nor is any consideration given to the rather belligerent harassment and provocation by both EEng and Legacypac. If you're proposing a topic ban of any length, offer the community some specific example of what the basis is for this use of administrative authority. On the contrary, a look at the history stats for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian supercentenarians shows the tag team of EEng and Legacypac with 42 of the 97 edits -- more than 43% of all edits to the AfD -- where edits by EEng and Legacypac include:
And this is just a taste of what's to come. The problem here is the tag team. A permanent topic ban on LegacyPac and EEng will solve 99% of the battleground mentality, baiting and provocations taking place at Longevity-related articles. Alansohn ( talk) 21:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by 7&6=thirteenI concur entirely with Alansohn and his reasoning. Eeng and Legacypac have incessantly waged a war of attrition on longevity-related articles. It is the WP:PROD of the day. And Legacypac at least got nasty when others try to derail their express train. So much so that even Eeng told him to cool his jets. Topic banning ought to be last resort. I for one have basically avoided the topic, not for lack of interest, as I am afraid of affronting The Red Queen, as we have "discretionary sanctions" with little or no warning or guidance as to what is expected. You can shut off all dissent. Or if you are applying sanctions you should do it even-handedly, whatever standard it is that you are applying 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 17:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by JaconaFrereLegacypac has been on a tear at AfD, belittling other editors who vote keep on any longevity or pageant articles while removing other editors fairly passive statements as personal attacks, and accusing experienced editors such as 7&6=thirteen single-purpose editors because they opposed their position on an afd. A boomerang for Legacypac is in my opinion long overdue. Jacona ( talk) 02:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by David in DC930310 offers this thread for the proposition that there's something wrong with efforts to prune the longevity walled garden. But the thread proves something quite different. I started the thread on the WOP wikiproject page in an effort to get the logjam resolved by cooperation and consensus. Please review the thread carefully. The chirping of crickets after my initial posting and subsequent plea for dialogue is telling. David in DC ( talk) 19:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by Ricky81682One has to ignore the greater dispute here and focus on the actual editors involved. I don't particularly find Legacypac and EEng's prods and AFD campaign entirely perfect but I think the overall consensus following each one of their listings is at least some level of support for their policies. I suggest someone filing separate AE requests on them if they find it prudent. As to 930310, we tend to disagree, but I think his/her conduct here is sufficient for a limited topic ban to see if the editor can work outside of this area at the moment. 930310's comment at the SPI, note that the SPI was originally titled Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/930310 and only later moved when 930310 was found unrelated to the other editors, a proposal that I supported. While not perfectly civil, the comment would be something I would expect from anyone tagged with an SPI report basically naming everyone who voted keep on a single AFD discussion. 930310's comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen Snavely (2nd nomination) was in part a procedural speedy keep based on the month-prior closure of the same AFD. That isn't necessarily objectionable to me, as I can imagine a number of other editors with the same mindset just based on the timing of the AFDs. However, the ANI complaint (which admittedly names me as well) is about the same issues that permeate this entire AE request, namely the proposals to prod and take pages repeatedly to AFD. The fact that 930310 is so emotionally tied to these articles that listing their biographies for deletion (or discussing the concept) is considered "disrespectful" makes it difficult if not impossible to have any objective discussions about them. I suspect we'll have more AE disputes as the topic ban discussions can go here rather than at ANI which is probably a bit better. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC) @ Alansohn: I don't think AE works for boomerang nominations as JzG notes below. If you want to propose sanctions requests against the nominator and others, new sections should be started. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Result concerning 930310
|
| Blocked one week for violation of topic ban. EdJohnston ( talk) 19:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning HughD
[ [47]] Discussion concerning HughDStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by HughDThank you to my good colleagues Guy and Ed for your comments. Of course I would welcome an opportunity to apologize for and strike any edit which a consensus of my colleagues agree is a topic ban violation.
Thank you to my good colleague Fyddlestix for their prodigious accounting below, it means a lot to me, thank you for your time. At this time I would add just one diff: an administrator of our project asking the complainant to cease his harassment 18 October 2015; my preference would be a separate filing focused on complainant's harassment. Thanks again. Hugh ( talk) 06:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Again, I am grateful for an opportunity to apologize and would be more than happy to strike any comment that I made in good faith that a consensus of uninvolved administrators believe I should. May I respectfully suggest that requesting unarchiving of an archived thread at WP:ANRFC for the purposes of striking a good faith helpful non-disruptive comment may not be the best use of our volunteer time. Respectfully request clarification from uninvolved administrators regarding how our project's policy WP:TBAN specifically bullet 4 does not apply to a good faith non-disruptive talk page comment on the style issue of the usefulness to our readers of an acronym in the title of an article, as I seem to have a misunderstanding of WP:TBAN bullet 4. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 14:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by JzGThere's no love lost between me and HughD, but I fail to see anything actionable in the diffs provided. Guy ( Help!) 01:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Ricky81682While the request to close the RFC on a violating page is a violation to me, I'll agree with EdJohnston that striking the comment is sufficient. Citizens United is one of the key decisions that relate to Tea party politics and to conservative politics 2009 onward, so I agree that it's also a significant violation and hopefully striking the comment will be sufficient too. As to point 5 under the previous sanctions, those types of antics are typical for HughD in response to sanctions and while annoying personally and while I would just prefer HughD bringing his/her concerns here, the refusal to do so is not a violation of any sanctions. Absent that, I think more aggressive blocks are necessary. HughD did not discuss or specifically dispute the sanctions directly and instead badgered me enacting them without a direct request that they be re-considered. This kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior has not lessened as time as passed. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Fyddlestix I agree that Springee's actions are sub-optimal to put it mildly. HughD at least seems to be trying to calm that down by making a fair request that Springee's comments on HughD's talk page will not be responded (which is his right) and Springee seems more intent on antagonizing him. I was just alerted to possible canvassing concerns by Springee by User:Scoobydunk who has in the past been against Springee's conduct and say pro-the side of HughD (not directly in favor but you get my point). The problem is being used by either side to get the other side banned for political reasons (or let's say to allow for or to stop editing that would either improve or worsen how these articles look if one was a partisan actor, not that anyone is). It's pure WP:BATTLEGROUND antics all around. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 08:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Springee As I stated on my talk page, this and this does not help this ARE discussion. I'd suggest you immediately stop anything further about it and drop it. As to anything further, a separate AE request could be made about Springee but that's best for another day. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 08:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC) William M. Connolley That conduct is standard behavior for HughD whenever he is engaged in an RFC, namely removal and reorganization of the comments of others, and repeated responses with passive-aggressive statements hounding some, thanking others and requesting that they depersonalize or deescalate or whatever the situation. I was first involved with HughD and enacted the first sanctions due to his conduct and chaos at two dual simultaneous RFCs at Talk:Americans for Prosperity for the same request which involved not just one extensive ANI discussion but two of them at the same time. The same issues persist since August. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by SpringeeHughD has clearly been testing limits for a while. On Dec 22nd-23rd this editor violated the 3RR rule [ [48]]. HughD is particularly bad about engaging in topic page discussions vs acting on the article page. I have had a number of disagreements with HughD. They boil down to both a bludgeoning attitude and a refusal to engage on the talk page and gain consensus vs just acting. Even when he is posting on the talk page his comments are often not meant to discuss. Since I'm far from an uninvolved editor my views should be seen as such. I would suggest Ricky's POV be given a lot of weight in this discussion. HughD is an editor who will certainly push the rules again and badger admins again if he is unhappy with rulings against him. Springee ( talk) 04:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Reply to Fyddlestix: Please note that since the unsuccessful ANI was brought against me regarding HughD I have largely not interacted with him on any work. The only direct editorial interactions I've had are related to his attempt to improperly include a Mother Jones article into a large number of WP articles ("The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change" which HughD has inserted into about a dozen articles") which dates to before the failed ANI in question. Hence you are seeing a large number of interacting WP pages though they are all related to a single topic. Looking thought my edit history since October (ie about the last two months) I see only three editorial interactions for all of November and all were related HughD attempting to reinsert a MJ reference against the limited consensus of a NPOVN and RSN discussion in three of the previous articles [49], [50], [51]. All edits done without talk page discussions on HughD's part. The talk page interactions here [52] are again related to the attempted insertion of the same MJ article. You will find the same thing with the December interactions. My posts on his talk page recently (other than the two notices which are required) was short and simply asked him to self revert a 4RR posting. If there were a large number of interactions on new subjects I would agree with Fyddlestix views (I think Fyddlestix is a very level headed editor) however, in this case the interactions have been limited to a single, previous topic which HughD has inserted into many WP articles. Springee ( talk) 08:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Jan 7th Update: In the time since EdJohnston noted that HughD has not moved to strike his comments which violated his TBAN HughD has not taken action to correct his violations. During the time that this complaint has been active, two editors, NewsAndEventsGuy and William M. Connolley have noted disruptive behavior on the ExxonMobil article and related talk page. This includes deleting and moving other editor's comments against their wishes as well as WP:tendentious behavior with respect to his recent RfC (not notifying editors of previous noticeboard discussions on the same source article, adding new notices when it appears the existing discussion is not going as he would wish). The above is the exact sort of behavior that resulted in the current topic ban. Springee ( talk) 19:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by FyddlestixI've been watching these two users interact for a while, and am getting increasingly uncomfortable with the extent to which Springee seems to be out to get HughD. Springee has reported HughD to various noticeboards multiple times [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] and has himself been previously reported at ANI for hounding HughD [58]. There's also the issue of Springee having followed HughD to a large number of pages [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] very often to either revert or tag one of HughD's edits within a few hours of it being made. There would be even more examples there if I were to include talk pages, such as this review of one of Hugh's GA's, which I can't fathom how Springee would have come across other than by stalking HughD's contributions. Note also that HughD recently banned Springee from his talk page [76], and that Springee has since made three posts to Hugh's talk [77] [78] [79] (2 of these were a notice of Springee creating a noticeboard report against HughD). I have no comment on Hugh's recent edits/actions (I've tried pretty hard to tune the squabbling of these two users out), but it's clear to me at this point that Springee is just not going to be satisfied until they succeed in getting HughD blocked. Personally I believe an IBAN is way past due here, but that's up to the admins - I'm posting now just to make sure that commenting admins are aware of the long-running animosity between these two users, as I believe it's relevant context here. Fyddlestix ( talk) 05:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by Arthur RubinThis is not the first (or, second, or, third) time Hugh has pushed the edge of his topic ban(s). If he had struck the comments among his first actions after (or, preferably, before) commenting here, I would recommend against further enforcement action on this complaint, in spite of the fact that I feel his edits are harmful to Wikipedia's neutrality. However, he only offered to strike; he hasn't yet done so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by William M. ConnolleyI don't have an opinion on this request, but I draw any interested admin's attention to recent edits at Talk:ExxonMobil; here seems as good a place as any William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC) I also offer [80] as an example of HD's bad faith, and how difficult he is to get on with William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by NewsAndEventsGuyHaving noticed HughD's combative attitude at Talk:ExxonMobil, on 20:13, January 1, 2016 I added a query on that page, whether edits of those sort would be barred by a TBan on conservative US politics? I didn't name Hugh, but of course I was trying to inspire a collaborative approach. Regrettably, the comment Hugh left two days later on WMC's page (which william linked above) shows Hugh being unwilling play nice in the area of climate disinformation/denial, of which abundant RSs link to conservative side of contemporary US politics. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Climate change denial = subset of conservative politics. After all that has been said here in last week or so, I see today's wonderful vitriol from Hugh's editsum in watchlist
When this is closed, could the closure scold Hugh for that tone anywhere anytime, and say that a continuation in the climate change denial pages will be viewed as a Tban vio? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)HUGHD HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG. As stated below, he's been open minded about his topic ban. Frankly, everyone else here should be banned from ExxonMobil. William Connolley has too much of a climate change denial bias to effectively edit the topic. Result concerning HughD
|
| Topic ban from electronic cigarettes. May appeal in six months. EdJohnston ( talk) 01:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Mystery Wolff
Mystery wolf is a disruptive SPA. Over their editing history, only 1 edit is not on the topic of e-cigarettes. The insertion of primary sources was discussed here. [81] Mystery Wolff did not have consensus to insert the material. Kingsindian even offered to help Mystery Wolff gain consensus. He also is removing long standing material from the page that is sourced to a MERDS source, a review. I have tried to discuss this. [82]. Rather than discuss Mystery Wolff reverted again today. The claim can be found in the source here [83] Page 5 in the middle column starting with "Recent studies have demonstrated that nicotine from electronic cigarettes also deposits on indoor surfaces" and going into the next column. The removal of sourced material without consensus is disruptive.
ResponsesKingsindian, I dont think you did anything wrong, in fact I applaud you for trying to help. The sad thing is, he didnt listen or take you up on your offer to help. Instead he just kept being disruptive. AlbinoFerret 07:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Mystery Wolff here are the facts.
If you disagree with a policy or guideline, you cant ignore it. You cant just edit contrary to it. PAG (policies and guidelines) have broad community consensus. You can try and have them changed, but you cant ignore them. I also think that you are trying to bring WP:TRUTH to the articles. AlbinoFerret 13:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC) EdJohnston, Thryduulf, and Spartaz With the latest response here by Mystery Wolff [88] we see 2 quotes taken out of context to try and justify his behaviour, after the fact. But what really is impressive is cherry picking two quotes to make it look like other editors agree with him. The SPACKlick quote about Mystery Wolff calling the review a primary source, but pubmed lists it as a review. The johnbod quote is from where johnbod is the only one suggesting its undue. Not that it was OR as Mystery Wolff says. Trying to make it look like I am off on my own opposing everyone. Then he tries to make me look like some over attached editor. These days I consider myself primarily a NAC on WP:ANRFC and while the topic of e-cigs is interesting to me there is a wide difference between myself and Mystery Wolff who is fixated on the topic and edits nothing else really. A classic SPA with only 2 edits to unrelated articles. AlbinoFerret 02:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Mystery WolffStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Mystery Wolff
After the outcome AlbinoFerret went to immediately threaten another AE against me, on Spartaz TALK page. Sparta took no involvement in that at all. A sockpuppet came out of cloak reverted me, the same sock was active during my previous AE critical of me, DeltaQuad banned them and reverted their REVERT of my edit that AlbinoFerret was complaining about.
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Spartaz#Do_I_need_to_open_a_new_AE_section.3F
Regarding this case now, I took the step of Edit Warring Warning AlbinoFerret here:
/info/en/?search=User_talk:AlbinoFerret AlbinoFerret did not accept the warning as valid. Threaten an AE, INSTEAD OF ANY OTHER DISPUTE RESOLUTION I believe this AE request by AF to be an abuse of process, predicated on wanting to control the pages in question, and edit with editors that share the ideas on what the pages should be. I believe the goal is to remove me from editorship, and to reinvigorate S Marshal to do editing with him again. I wonder out loud why AF is involved with all these ARBs and AEs, and the premise is the entire problem with the articles is being attributed to QuackGuru.
Next AF refers to the previous AE. Additional section remarks: I am not a disruptive SPA. When he says I have only edited 1 other article, that number is wrong. AF is asserting I need to have approval to put in any content, that is NOT true. I agree my edits need to be done properly in all respects. I am saying the sourced cite does not make the claims as written into Wikipedia, and I stand behind that and it needs to be resolved in TALK and not inserted into the AE option of AF's first resort. I have NOT edit warred, and I am working the processes to resolve it before I get sucked in. Removal of a sentence that I am asserting is not sourced correctly....and then taking it to TALK....his last line in his comments....IS NOT "disruptive" it is an editor simply trying to improve the article. Geeez. I have to show this edit was important enough now in the TALK page, an step where I have been accused of being a liar in that TALK page. So I have an interest in presenting why I did that the edit. But that should be in TALK and not this AE. Lastly: I took Kingsindian up on his offer to put the questions of MEDRS being only and always from Primary....to find a forum or board to take that too. I am having a dialogue with him on the TALK page. I expect both of us are not doing this full time or anything. So when AlbinoFerret says I did not listen, that its sad, and uses my interaction with another editor to make his claim here, its insult to injury. TLDR: Consider the negative effects that come from this AE board being misused by AlbinoFerret. Consider how much an editor like me has to jump through hoops to just edits these pages. Please understand that I want to edit the pages I am editing, but I have not intention of doing that improperly or violation the rules. Being Bold should not be gamed by myself or others. It is not helpful to threaten the AE on people. If all other DS methods fail then sure take it to AE. The case in point never made it out of the TALK pages. Why are sockpuppets and editors who are unrelated to the articles coming in and reverting my edits????? Why is AlbinoFerret telling me about boomerangs when I keep my stance in the TALK pages.
@
AlbinoFerret: Yes I did remove the sentence because of its source, its undue weight, and when I did that, I replaced an in-vitro study, with the followup study that was done with as a controlled study, looking at no source, compared sources 1 and 2. You reverted that citation. Instead of joining your edit war, I warned you, and will bring it back when I have the link for the FDA review of it. A Sockpuppet got banned because of their reverts of me, and now another editor has reverted me, who is calling me a liar. I have not created an AE, I spoke to them on their TALK page. The follow-up to the in-vitro study which I want included, refutes the very same author's own in-vitro study and it was presented at a FDA conference, as review. I am confident it is a proper cite.
 When you say "People who are still coming up the learning curve on Wikipedia should stay away from troubled areas. Up till now E-cig has been the only area he works in. So I'd make the topic ban from electronic cigarettes indefinite" That is over the top. If you believe that, then you can just have AlbinoFerret or whomever else make a topic so contentious that all editors are shunned away. You will see less and less new editors. And POVwarriors will have won. I choose to start with a topic that interests me. The standard I should be held to is the content of my characters, the ones I edit with. I have made many edits in these pages that remain, and are useful. I have been threatened with boomerangs enough to know that I am not throwing them, they are not returning to me.
Statement by KingsindianMy involvement in this issue is simply to try to help out a new editor with WP bureaucracy. A serious charge of source misrepresentation has been made against MW. I have no knowledge about the topic, so I will simply wait for MW to respond specifically to this point. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Cullen328
Statement by uninvolved SoftlavenderDisruptive, edit-warring SPA who conveniently came on board after the E-cig ArbCom decisions. Definitely needs a topic ban (of at least six months), as they have ignored policy, advice, warnings, etc., and have instead continued to repeatedly and voluminously waste the time of numerous good-faith editors and admins. Softlavender ( talk) 08:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC); edited Softlavender ( talk) 10:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Mystery Wolff
|
| No action taken. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning SageRad
SageRad is under restriction from GMO's and Agricultural chemicals. The above is an obvious link to AgroChemicals, however this seems to be either too narrow a ban, or one that is ineffective given SageRads POV-based editing. Comments like 04/01/2016 on a critic of (anti-industry/bad science/fringe views) BLP talkpage, are indicative of SageRads agenda on Wikipedia. There is also stuff like 02/01/2016 on Love Canal, adding POV tags alledging a pro-industy bias. I will leave the editing history involving PCB's here. Essentially SageRage appears to only be on wikipedia for one purpose, and that purpose is to push an anti-chemical corporation viewpoint. There is a common theme, Monsanto appears on both the Yvette Entremont and Polychlorinated Biphenyl pages. Even if you agree as a large chemical company there is legit material that doesnt infringe on SageRad's topic ban, when it comes to chemicals and pollution..... I am requesting an extension of SageRad's ban to include anything Monsanto related, broadly construed. There is also further reading if needed which can reflect on SageRads insufficient grasp of fringe material etc. I have only looked at the last couple of days, Christmas/New Year being a busy time. Given the above pattern I am sure there is more material available if closer scrutiny is requested. It is however midnight now, and given I have a full-time job, I will likely be unable to respond in detail for about 18 hours.
So EdJohnston, just to be clear on this, its your opinion that posting external links to material that you could not post on-wiki is not a violation of a topic ban?
Notified here Discussion concerning SageRadStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SageRadWow, when i posted those two articles to DrChrissy's talk page, i was referring to the comments by Jimbo in the one article and by Wikimedia Foundation employees in the other one, about the existence of paid editing in Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales vowing to 'not let Wikipedia become a PR platform'... those are the comments to which i was referring. I didn't say "look at the comments section" -- i said "Some very good comments" by which i meant the main thrust of the articles that i passed those on. I didn't see those other comments after the articles. I'd like to get back to work now. smh. SageRad ( talk) 10:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC) @ Kingofaces43: would you please knock it off -- I also posted the same damn message to the talk page of the Criticism of Wikipedia article, as well, and it was nothing but a note on meta-level issues about Wikipedia editing, mainly the comments by Jimbo on not letting this place get dominated by bias from various sources. It's completely fair to post that kind of thing and has nothing to do with GMOs or agricultural chemicals at all and i'm getting really tired of the onerous way that people continue to flip me off and bother me. I'm editing in areas other than the topic ban, even though i think the topic ban is a bad result in itself. I'm being honest to my word about it, and i would appreciate it if you could just leave me alone and stay the hell away from me. If you ever see me actually violate my topic ban, bring it up at that time, ok? SageRad ( talk) 19:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by TryptofishMaybe I'm missing something here, but I am just not seeing anything in the two links within the diff provided, that has anything to do with the GMO case or with the existing topic ban. It is simply stuff about paid editing issues on Wikipedia, but not about paid editing on behalf of any GMO companies. Any proposals for changing the scope of the topic ban belong at ARCA, not here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by AlbinoFerretI echo Tryptofish's words that this the links on DrChrissy's talk page do not even come close to a topic ban violation. There is no mention of GMO's or the companies that produce them. AlbinoFerret 00:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Per Looie496's comment below, I think a WP:BOOMERANG is appropriate for filing this as a way to remove an editor they disagree with on other articles. AlbinoFerret 14:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by David TornheimI agree with the above two editors (AlbinoFerret and Tryptofish) that there is nothing in the two diffs related to GMO's and the topic ban and that this case should be dismissed. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 01:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by CapeoI see what's being pointed out but I'm not sure how stuff like this is normally handled. Sage linked to two articles and specifically said check out the comments, which are clearly Sage's comments, which if said on-wiki would definitely be a TB violation. Capeo ( talk) 02:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Kingofaces43Tryptofish mentioned browser issues; you may not be able to view the comments without turning off adblockers, java-script blocking software, etc. This looks like a very direct violation of the topic ban now that I looked for myself. SageRad specifically told DrChrissy and others to look at the comments of two articles. The first doesn't have problems in terms of SageRad's topic ban per se, but the second has only one comment by SageThinker:
Considering SageRad specifically linked to this second article and told people to look at the comments section where the only comment is about GMOs, etc. this is a direct violation of the topic ban. That violation comes without getting into that the commenter in both links named SageThinker is very likely SageRad based on comment patterns, etc. I'm not sure how/if off-wiki activities being linked here should be evaluated in this context, but we already have on-wiki evidence of the topic ban violation. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 03:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment by JzGKvetching between users, on their talk pages. This is IMO not actually specific to the topics under restriction, it's just a generic argumentum ad conspiratorium. Wikipedia is a vast conspiracy Man against The Truth™ - and if we want to ban everybody who makes these silly claims then we'd have no editors left. We already know that some of the GMO partisans assert that all pro-science editors are funded by the GMO industry, just as homeopathy fans assert that the reality-based community are funded by Big Pharma and climate change deniers assert that we're in the vice-like grip of climate scientists feathering their nests on the endless bounty of the IPCC. It's bollocks, but it ain't going to change. Guy ( Help!) 11:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Comment by Looie496I don't like this request at all. The filing party has never edited in the GMO domain as far as I know. Instead they have been in a dispute with SageRad regarding the Paleolithic diet article -- which has nothing to do with the topic ban -- and are searching for weapons to use against SageRad. I suggest dismissing this request and warning the filing party not to abuse the enforcement process. Looie496 ( talk) 13:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Comment by uninvolved KingsindianThis is the kind of request which makes me wonder what on Earth is the purpose of this board. How has this resulted in any disruption? Why should one care that one editor is talking about something with another editor, neither of whom can edit in the area? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Result concerning SageRad
|
| No action taken. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Athenean
The above are some examples as to how this user several times doesn’t show respect for neither the sources used in wiki, nor for wiki users. Athenean is active in the Balkans-related topics, and I think he needs some cooling off from the Balkans area for some time and reflect about his behavior. He has been a wikipedian for a long time and may know that a cool head is way more productive. He is in clear breach of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL. His battleground behavior puts him in breach of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Some sanctioning may be useful in decreasing the harassment that other users are feeling because of Athenean's recent activity in wiki.
Athenean is not new to feuds with Albanian editors. The above two warnings/bans were a reflection of similar activities that Athenean had committed in a delicate area such as the Balkans. Even though a long time has passed from these bans, it seems like Athenean is back to his older self, where his activity in wiki led to the bans.
Discussion concerning AtheneanStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AtheneanThis is a rather desperate and frivolous attempt by Mondiad to have me banned simply because he doesn't like me. He deliberately misconstrues and exaggerates for effect.
I am a very experienced contributor in Balkan articles, with thousands of edits and several GAs under my belt. This is a very difficult area to edit in, plagued by nationalist WP:POVWARRIORs, trolls, sockpuppets, and the like. As you can imagine, discussions do get heated some times, but in general I do me best to keep a cool head. None of the above diffs are what Mondiad claims them to be. I have a pretty clean record, (spotless as of the last 4-5 years, in fact). This is in contrast to Mondiad, who is quite rude and incivil himself ( Yes, this is what they taught you in school Greek racism and xenophobia are well-known) and was recently blocked for edit-warring [110]. To sum up, this is a frivolous request and an attempt to game the system by someone who opposes me. The fact that Mondiad went digging as far back as 2010 is indicative of the desperation level of this request. If anything, Mondiad should be admonished for filing a frivolous request and attempting to game the system. Athenean ( talk) 20:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Athenean
|
| Filing party blocked for POV editing and likely sock Spartaz Humbug! 19:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Scjessey
WP:ARBAPDS on articles related to Hillary Clinton
The diffs that I have displayed show repeated personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, Wikihounding and other unwanted behavior by the editor. Repeated warnings and requests have been given towards him which he has willfully disregarded. As a newcomer I have been treated very poorly. He seems to continuously refer to me as a "SPA" (this is seen in the diffs above) as part of attempts to discredit me based on attacks to my character. I have tried to maintain civility by ignoring the attacks and in some cases bringing the editor's behavior to his attention. He has been asked many times to stop the attacks but has consistently shown an unwillingness to take notice of them. I believe that the editor's aggressive editing style on topics related to Hillary Clinton is not constructive and may inhibit his ability to edit in a neutral manner. -- Mouse001 ( talk) 02:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning ScjesseyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ScjesseyI went through all the diffs provided above. There are indeed a few edit summaries and responses that on their own appear rude or dismissive, but put in the proper context are obviously the result of frustration in trying to deal with what I consider to be a textbook POV warrior. I make no apologies for drawing attention to an obvious single-purpose editor determined to cause harm to the project. I'm delighted he/she decided to seek assistance from ArbCom, thus saving anyone else the tedious effort of compiling diffs to shine a light on Mouse001's behavior. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by NorthBySouthBaranofTaking a quick look at the filing editor's 140 contributions, fully 83 of them are to article and article talkpages related to Hillary Clinton, and this includes a number of instances of revert-warring negative material into such articles. Their remaining contributions are largely positive edits to biographies of two conservative politicians. When a user's contributions are so clearly politically polarized, it cannot possibly be considered a "personal attack" to describe such an editor as a single-purpose account and raise concerns that they are editing not in an effort to write neutral, dispassionate encyclopedia articles but rather to push a particular partisan POV, to make candidates they support look good and candidates they oppose look bad. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 03:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Scjessey
|
| DrChrissy blocked for 1 week by Floquenbeam for a vexatious request in violation of an interaction ban. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Jytdog
Jytdog has a long history of being uncivil towards me and received a warning about his behaviour here. [111] Admins below do not seem to understand my motivation for filing this. Imagine if you have had a finding against you. Nobody is proud of that - whatsoever. Why then is it considered acceptable that someone posts reference to that finding against you, when that person themselves is not allowed to make a reference to you. I don't really understand Jytdog's motivation to post about his loss of privileges, but, if he wanted to do this he could easily have edited out those findings relating to me and thereby avoiding any possibility of violating the interaction ban. But he chose to include references to me, and the motivation for this surely must be questioned. In my eyes, it is Jytdog who refuses to drop the stick and get on with editing without his clever gaming of the system to taunt and goad me. A 2-way interaction ban is supposed to protect each of the participants, not to end up with suggestions of a week long ban simply for asking a question about an Arbcom finding.DrChrissy (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning JytdogStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by JytdogStatement by TryptofishI thank Floq for pinging me and for what he said, and his description is accurate. I guess that for the sake of completeness, I should point out that I left a message at Jytdog's talk yesterday, cautioning him that he has been getting close to the edge of his own restrictions. However, I do not believe that he has crossed the edge, and he has replied very clearly that he understands my advice. On the other hand, I have indeed tried everything that I can think of, to help DrChrissy, but I cannot save editors from themselves. I think that the three administrators who have commented here are reading the situation correctly, and I think that a boomerang block is sadly necessary. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by JzGThis is not the first time DrChrissy has tried to abuse Wikipedia processes to remove opponents. I fully support a boomerang block for this obviously vexatious complaint. Guy ( Help!) 09:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Jytdog
|
| No action taken Spartaz Humbug! 19:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Volunteer_Marek
VM has been warned several times about being incivility he engages in with other editors and personal attacks. He was warned by admin twice to stop being incivil and abusive towards others. In the past I have requested this as well several times [1], [2]. The above examples are only recent. If required I can provide examples going back a month or more.This is an ongoing and persistent issue. While there will be always disagreements about wording of article, sources or content, such disputes should be done in civil way worthy of encyclopedia. Shouting at other editors, using swear words, naming their edits as crap goes against this principle. VM was warned to stop being incivil and attacking others and in my view he violated his warning in the examples I have provided.
Response to BishonenLike MastCell, I might have used different words than VM, but I'm against sanctioning editors for speaking impatiently to those who try to degrade content, or for using swear words. Volunteer_Marek was already sanctioned and warned due to his incivil behaviour by an administrator earlier. Hence I am calling for enforcement. This is not a single slip or incident.It is an ongoing issue that VM has been asked time and time again to correct( I believe I asked him to stop this three times at least).He constantly acts incivil and offensive towards others,and this is a behavior that has been going on since years(links can be provided if requested). As I mentioned earlier-due to this he was warned earlier to act in civil way way by an administrator-twice and warned that incivility and personal attacks should stop least he be blocked. If he or you want to appeal his warning and removed from sanctions lists-be my guest, that's fine. But here I am asking for enforcing an already existing sanction, not making a new one.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Update: To prove that this is not a new thing and result of ongoing incivility, please see my edits over the years where I have asked VM time and time again to stop personal attacks and incivility. I am also posting my comment from last November where I have pleaded for him to stop, and that I will be forced to ask for official intervention if he continues the attacks. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Response to KingsindianThis is a transparent attempt to win a content dispute using this board Please see my links above. VM has been engaging in such behavior for years. I have asked him to stop already last year in November and stated that I will have to ask for official intervention if he doesn't cease.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 23:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Response to Drmies and EdJohnstonThe phrase "internal security" is used commonly used in political writings on the subject. This was debated here already and pointed out by Kingsindian here Also, the term "internal security" often refers to the security of the regime, rather than security of the population. This is the way in which internal security is used routinely in political literature. See [https://books.google.com/books?id=oXysBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA504&lpg=PA504&dq=internal+security+eastern+europe+warsaw+pact&source=bl&ots=4aiPUPavPu&sig=S4f32gsNzDNJCWRVBeyt5JUfG8I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiO1p-ZqfrJAhWQBo4KHdThDVQQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&q=internal%20security%20eastern%20europe%20warsaw%20pact&f=false this, this and this for examples.] If you want other examples
I studied politology and history in Polish university after 1989 and we used these terms as well in analysis of the subject. In political works definitions like "internal security" are commonly used to describe situation without judging the nature of the political regime.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 20:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Here is a western source directly saying that Warsaw Pact served internal security in connection to Czechoslovakia THE WARSAW PACT'S CAMPAIGN FOR "EUROPEAN SECURITY" A. Ross Johnson United States Air Force under Project Rand. "greater importance placed on the internal security function of the Soviet military presence in Eastern Europe, as of Warsaw Pact as a whole, "after Czechoslovakia." [7] Just like I stated this is a common expression in political analysis, and certainly not a "Stalinist propaganda". It's just a term scholarly works on the subject use in neutral way.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 23:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Response to My very best wishesKnowing Molobo and his role in EEML case, I am sure that's the latter. My very best wishes I quite surprised by this statement since I was never sanctioned for anything in EEML case, and as far as I remember VM was. Aren't you also one of the former EEML members who changed his user name(IIRC Biophys?) who was very active there? If you want to re-open this case, it's your choice. In any case I left your EEML group long time ago, is is still active? -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 20:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Edits by VM since this request has been filledSince this request has been filled Volunteer_Marek has engaged in edits that were incivil and personal attacks
Again a personal attack.If the user is indeed a sockpuppet, then a proper procedure should have been requested to confirm this, instead of resolving to personal attack. I believe both examples to be in violation of his sanctions. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 22:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Discussion concerning Volunteer_MarekStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Volunteer_Marek1. The edit describes the article, i.e. content. One might disagree with the assessment (I do wish there was a template which said "Unfortunately, currently this article is crap" that could be slapped on appropriate articles but alas!) but feigning offense and trying to use that to win a dispute is far more disruptive than the use of the word "crap". And yes, the article was bad to begin with. MyMoloboaccount, who has never edited this article before (AFAIK) jumped in the middle of my attempts to fix it, because of the dispute we had at another article, Economy of Poland. I believe this pretty much defines the concept of "revenge reverting" 2. Well, for this one you just need to actually see the comment itself. Here is the diff again [9]. MyMoloboaccount changed text ""The Warsaw Pact's largest military engagements were aimed against its own members—in 1956 against Hungary and in 1968 against Czechoslovakia" to the obviously non-neutral "The Warsaw Pact's largest military engagements were aimed at internal security of member states during 1956 against Hungary and in 1968 against Czechoslovakia" (describing the bloody repression of the Hungarian uprising in which thousands of people were murdered and tens of thousands repressed and tortured as "a matter of internal security" is not only tasteless, but obviously POV). The edit also made a grammatical mess of the sentence and resulted in a statement which contradicted itself. I'm sorry but this is pretty much the definition of over-the-top POV pushing and calling it what it is is perfectly warranted. 3. MyMoloboaccount did in fact use the edit summary "minor changes" [10] (and [11] here again) to ... "label", edits which were non-minor, and in fact were a pretty blatant attempt to POV the article. Here is the relevant exchange on talk (which for some reason MyMoloboaccount failed to link to - wonder why) in which he tries to evade the question and continues to pretend that his edits were "minor". The conversation clearly indicates lack of good faith on the part of the user. In my time on Wikipedia, this kind of behavior has been generally regarded as extremely disruptive and dishonest and has quickly led to a block, especially when done by an editor who's been around for a long time and should know better. To make highly POV changes and hide them behind false edit summaries, and then complain when someone points out that your edit summaries aren't exactly 100% kosher, really takes some chutzpah. MyMoloboaccount repeatedly edit warred to reinsert text which misrepresented sources - even after I've asked him about it several times on talk. And even after I've explicitly pointed out to him that the text misrepresented the sources. And even when I asked him point blank about which part of a particular source was suppose to support the text. The relevant talk page discussions (or actually, lack thereof, on the part of my MyMoloboaccount) are here (note lack of response), here (basically evading the question) and here (same as the diff above - but note that here I am forced to ask the same question for the third time without a response). The above discussions clearly indicate WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior on the part of the user. For the record, this kind of pattern has been noted before by others, for example by User:Iryna Harpy (for example here and here, there's more though it might take a bit of time to find it). Likewise, this isn't the first time that MyMoloboaccount has tried to misrepresent sources on Wikipedia (see here and here for detailed explanations). Dealing with such a user, although they pretend at "civility", is extremely frustrating and it is a textbook example of someone who is not engaged with the project in good faith and is in fact... well, driving people crazy, with WP:CRUSH. Also, for the record, it should be noted that while the user MyMoloboaccount may appear to have a fairly clean block log [12], the actual block log, in all its full page glory is here. The lack of blocks between the new and the old account has to do with the indefinite block that was in place in between (the indefinite block which was lifted after, I'm sorry to say, to a significant extent because I personally argued for its lifting because I believed that MyMoloboaccount/Molobo deserved a second chance. No good deed... like they say) (or maybe that was a bad deed, I didn't realize it at the time, and now I'm just getting my comeuppance?) Anyway, Happy Holidays and Wesolych Swiat. Volunteer Marek 09:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC) @Spartaz. Ok, look, Spartaz, do what you think is appropriate and whatever it is I'm not going to hold it against you. I've been on Wikipedia a long time and I've donated a lot of my free time, which I value highly, to the project. The way I see it, I'm doing Wikipedia a favor by editing here, not vice versa. Of course Wikipedia drives one crazy. The backstabbing, the gratuitous lynch mobs, the lying-with-the-straight face and most of all the thick thick hypocrisy, all more than present in this request and its comments. I realized long time ago that the only way I could continue participating here is by approaching in a way which did not implicitly accept, perpetuate and enable all of those things, in as straight forward manner as possible. Not bullshiting people but not tolerate all the bullshit that falls in one's lap either. So yes, my comments are always direct and to the point, I state my objections explicitly, I express my frustration when someone's obviously not acting in good faith, and I speak the way that grown ups in the real world speak (yes, even in professional settings). Of course this being Wikipedia people will try to use that against you to win disputes and as a way of furthering their agenda. Shrug. So no, I don't think I made any "personal attacks". I used words which some people will try and pretend they find offensive. I was critical of another editor's editing behavior. But neither of these are personal attacks. Saying to someone "you POV'ed the article" is NOT a personal attack and you won't be able to find a Wikipedia policy that says so. Maybe I didn't put it in the most diplomatic way possible but so what? If I had said "you're a bad person because you POV'ed the article" or some version of that THAT would've been a personal attack. But calling people out on their atrocious behavior and disruptive editing (and I'm sorry but MyMoloboaccount WAS blatantly misrepresenting sources, using false edit summaries and then playing coy about it and pretending they didn't know what the issue was) is not a personal attack and in fact, given how Wikipedia works, it is sometimes necessary to actually improve article content. Volunteer Marek 17:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
@Flashout1999 - It's ridiculous to say that I am "harassing" MyMoloboaccount when in fact they were the one who followed me to the article in the first place, because of a disagreement we had on another article. If anything, it's the opposite. Likewise, your claim that the section heading "Can the POV get more ridicoulos?" (sic) is a "personal attack" but a section heading "POV in the lead" is not doesn't hold water. They both say the same thing, one is just in the form of a question and the other one is not, and neither "attacks" anyone. It specifically points to problems with content. You are mistaking strongly worded criticism of article content and user behavior with "personal attacks". These are not the same thing. One more time - saying "you POV'd the article" is not not not not not a personal attack. Never has been, isn't now and probably (it's Wikipedia, so who knows?!) never will be. Disagreement are likewise not "personal attacks". Volunteer Marek 20:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC) And actually let me add a little bit here to my response to Flashout1999. MyMoloboaccount repeatedly restored text which misrepresented sources and also made obviously highly POV changes with misleading edit summaries ("minor changes"). The proper response to my objections, which I made on talk, would have been to correct the misrepresentation of sources and if they felt something was missing, or if they felt that a particular piece of text was actually true (just not in that particular source) would have been to go out there and find new sources and faithfully paraphrase them. This is not MyMoloboaccount did. They just kept restoring the existing problems via blanket reverts. Yes, they did add some new sources but these were generally misrepresented just like the previous ones (the Crumb one in particular). On the other hand, and to your credit, your response was more or less what I outlined above. You did go out and get new sources (the state department etc., although the History Channel one was a dud) and you appear to be open to discussing how to reword the text to make it NPOV. This difference actually illustrates both the problem with MyMoloboaccount's approach and the proper approach. MMA, instead of doing the work necessary to find compromise and improve the article decided upon a wording which suited their POV first and then tried to pretend that sources supported it. Didn't really discuss the issues. When they didn't get their way, they came running here, to WP:AE, as a strategy of "winning" a dispute with allegations of "incivility" and lack of good faith (to quote User:Collect "The person who most frequently speaks about assuming good faith is least likely to assume (or act in) good faith.") That's often a very good sign that the person who's complaining about "incivility" is on the wrong end of the actual underlying *content* dispute. Because that's the only "argument" (and not a good one) they got. See also WP:CRUSH. So, anyway, whatever the outcome of this report, and whatever else you say about me down in your section below, I do want to thank you in particular for taking the right approach to improving the article and if I was overly harsh in my criticism of you I apologize. Volunteer Marek 21:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Response to MyMoloboaccount's newest allegations This is just diff padding and more of the same. At best these diffs just show that MyMoloboaccount has tried to use this tactic before, when confronted about the POV nature of their edits. Let's go through'em, shall we? Ok, let's go through the diffs provided by MyMoloboaccount in the para beginning with "To prove that this is not a new thing and result of ongoing incivility..." This diff provided by MMA is just a message he left on my talk page. What edit of mine is he responding to when he accuses me of "incivility"? This one. What I said is, quote: "crap source - the guy says that increases in poverty CAUSE increases in GDP". I called a ... crappy source, crap. If you think THAT is incivility, I really got nothing to say to you. It was a crap source and pointing that out is perfectly fine. Then there is this diff, which is also MMA coming to my talk page and accusing me of, this time, "following him around". Ok, let me try to figure out what the hey he's talking about........ July 17....... Here at least is the full conversation (at bottom) which basically shows that this was MMA being passive-aggressive. Let's see, I said something (on my talk page) about that being an absurd accusation [13]. Hmmmmm. In July of 2014, the only article that both myself and MMA edited was Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Now, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 actually crashed on July 17 of 2014, it was of course all over the media and the article had been just created. There was a lot of activity on it. I made edits to it - and over the next several months I did a lot more work on the article than MMA who's only contribution was throw in some POV text right at the beginning. I can't remember who edited it first but who cares. Previously MMA had been following my edits around to the articles on:
This is why my response to MMA's comment about me supposedly "following him around" was... well, let me quote it in full, because it applies to the Warsaw Pact article now as much as it did to these other ones then: "I do sincerely hope that you have enough self awareness to realize how absurd you sound above." MMA had spent a few months following me around - EXACTLY the same as with Warsaw Pact article - and then had the chutzpah to come to my talk page and accuse me of doing that. If that doesn't convince you that MMA is a tendentious editor who tries to WP:GAME policies and win disputes which they cannot win based on sources by threatening, falsely accusing, and spuriously reporting people I don't know what will. And yes, just like he misrepresents sources in terms of content, he misrepresent editors he disagrees with in noticeboards such as this one. Volunteer Marek 23:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Caballero's Comments
Statement by ErlbaekoNote that the same pattern of personal attacks and incivility can be seen in other articles/topics. See e.g. Talk:Ghouta_chemical_attack/Archive_6#same_ol.27_POV_pushing_which_just_won.27t_stop. Also note that I notified him about Syrian Civil War sanctions on 27 August 2015, ref. diff. Here Volunteer Marek attacks an editor saying "Will you please stop lying so blatantly?" I would not have had a problem with that if it was a lie, but it is not. I checked the statement and it's only slightly inaccurate. I replied here. I see no justification for that attack, and no apology was ever given. Erlbaeko ( talk) 11:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Arthur Rubin: Do we want to continue? I don't know, but I do. I don't see no justification for your 1 week block for "actions on Warsaw Pact, commented on at WP:AE". Ref. Block log. Here you said it was due to "discretionary sanctions for Eastern Europe". What excatly did you block him for? Erlbaeko ( talk) 16:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC) @ Drmies: That section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Drinking buddies should use the sections above. Erlbaeko ( talk) 19:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by LjLI have also been at my wits' end with this editor, but eventually I decided to do nothing about it. But given that finally I'm not the only one wanting to complain, I'll add diffs for things that had seemed to show WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF issues, with my emphasis on them (but honestly, other behaviors from this editor were more of a burden to me, yet it's trickier to put them together to clarify the situation):
Note that the "consensus" the editor challenges in the above quotations was repeatedly established, and summarized here, and he was virtually the only editor disrupting it. LjL ( talk) 14:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Flushout1999
Statement by KingsindianThis is a transparent attempt to win a content dispute using this board. All three descriptions by MyMoloboaccount are seriously misleading. VM's conduct on the talk page is not ideal, but MyMoloboaccount's conduct is as bad or worse, which directly led to VM's conduct. The major diff is here. By no stretch of imagination can this be called "minor changes", as stated in the edit summary. This alone should raise doubts about MyMoloboaccount's conduct. Let me first point out the kernel of the matter. The Warsaw Pact was in part a reaction to NATO. That is not all that it was: historical events rarely have a single cause or motivation. There were plenty of nefarious motives as well. The writing on this issue needs to be nuanced. The Laurien Crump source is accepted by all sides as a good source, and it needs to be presented carefully. Let's now go through the diffs:
In such topics, people have their own POV. It is unavoidable. People have to work together in spite of this. By the way, why is MyMoloboaccount blocked? The block log says something about AE, which I can't fathom. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Arthur RubinI cannot see this edit by MyMoloboaccount as being in good faith; the claim that the Warsaw Pact was intended to support internal security of the nations involved is contrary to fact and to the wording of the Pact. The pact was written as to protect external security of the nations, and reliable sources suggest the secondary reason was to protect the Soviet Union against threats from the other signatories. (I'm not sure the references to West Germany are sourced. I don't want to get involved in editing the article.) The statement must be considered Soviet propaganda, and propaganda (except as opinion) is not permitted on Wikipedia. I am not commenting on Volunteer Marek's alleged incivility. However, if addition of propaganda is considered WP:vandalism, VM should not be cited for edit warring, as removal of vandalism is a permitted exception. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by MastCell@ Spartaz: For what it's worth, Marek is right. Now, I would probably use different language: I would say that Flushout1999 (and Mymoloboaccount) are tendentious editors who are systematically and somewhat dishonestly degrading the quality of our article on the Warsaw Pact in service of their political agendas. Marek would say that they're turning the article into an even bigger pile of POV crap than it already was. Both of those are true statements.I suppose the proper response to this complaint comes down to a philosophical question: which is the bigger threat to Wikipedia as a serious, reputable reference work? Dishonest, agenda-driven obsessives, or people who lose patience with them? My personal view is probably evident from my framing of the question. MastCell Talk 06:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by Maunus)Editors should assume good faith - untill that becomes impossible. Likewise, editors should use civil and courteous language - but should not be excessively punished when their patience is put to the test by long-term blatant, tendentious editing. (Note that I don't know Mymoloboaccounts editing patterns, but refer to the POV pushing that VolunteerMarek reverted at R&I) ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by Iryna HarpyI wish to apologise to VM for not having added my 2¢ as soon as Mymoloboaccount embarked on this underhanded fiasco for fear of exploding myself. Should the admins and volunteers evaluating this AE wish to wade through years of diffs demonstrating Mymoloboaccount's bad faith editing practices, I'm willing to present them... but please be prepared for at least a day of reading through diffs. This is by no means the only article surrounding Eastern European history and current affairs Mymoloboaccount crops up on on a regular basis in order to undermine consensus decisions made across multiple articles. Presenting single incidents provides no overview of the years of gaming engaged in by the user. Naturally, if Wikipedia were Utopia and editors could all be understood to be honest about whether they're truly HERE, we wouldn't need AGF or CIVIL as part of our guidelines and policy. The reality is that it's not a perfect Wikipedia world. As 'nice' as it would be to not have editors like VM be pushed to the point of a meltdown, bad faith editors (who quickly disappear into the woodwork as soon as they know that the heat is on, only to return months later to the same articles in order to start the same arguments again when consensus has clearly not changed) who refuse to back down after years of the same antagonistic, dishonest behaviour have forfeited all rights to cry "attack". Calling SPADE may not be desirable but, in this instance, it's imperative. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 02:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by My very best wishesThis edit by Molobo (just noted by EdJohnston) is indeed very strange. It is so ridiculous that one must ask the question: does Molobo really believes that such edit improves content or he made this edit on purpose: to engage VM in discussion and report him to WP:AE? Knowing Molobo and his role in EEML case, I am sure that's the latter. My very best wishes ( talk) 14:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Volunteer_Marek
|
| Clear consensus for a topic ban from Longevity, broadly construed Spartaz Humbug! 19:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning 930310
Canvassing: I was "sent" here, as Legacypac states, only because I requested to be informed. Attempting to build a case against the user in question for canvassing under these circumstances seems to be a misrepresentation of the actual events. Of course, misrepresentation seems to be the norm in this case. Jacona ( talk) 01:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning 930310Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 930310
Statement by EEngThe user's contribution history practically defines "SPA". [42] [43]. Not visible via those links is fact that his/her userpage and sandbox were for years two of the many WP:FAKEARTICLE/ WP:NOTWEBHOST longevity lists that have finally purged: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:930310 Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:930310/sandbox. EEng ( talk) 13:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC) It's worth remembering this Arbcom finding from February 2011:
That didn't happen, which is why the mess continues. SPAs' lack of experience in the wider project continues to plague discussions. EEng ( talk) 02:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by AlansohnThese allegations regarding 930310 -- together with the more disturbing result above regarding User:Ollie231213 -- are clear examples of what comes off as a rather clear tag team mentality by both User:EEng and User:Legacypac. The instances cited here of "edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it" are examples of Orwellian thought crimes. Just take the first two examples:
Both of these are examples of situations where 930310 challenged one of the mass of repeated AfD nominations by EEng / Legacypac, cited relevant Wikipedia policy and now have this used as "evidence" against them. I can't even figure out how either of these can be viewed as violations of policy under even the most strained view of Longevity-related policy violations. These are quintessentially appropriate votes in each case. The repeated SPA allegations from EEng appear to be intended as a provocation, in the same manner as what was done to Ollie231213. Any objection to boomerang nominations for EEng and Legacypac? Alansohn ( talk) 19:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC) @JzG - In describing this as "a clear case of SPA vs. Wikipedia" you have prejudged the matter without justification. The diffs offered are run-of-the-mill examples of rather ordinary back and forth discussions, at worst. In no example is any of the required policy violation offered, nor is any consideration given to the rather belligerent harassment and provocation by both EEng and Legacypac. If you're proposing a topic ban of any length, offer the community some specific example of what the basis is for this use of administrative authority. On the contrary, a look at the history stats for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian supercentenarians shows the tag team of EEng and Legacypac with 42 of the 97 edits -- more than 43% of all edits to the AfD -- where edits by EEng and Legacypac include:
And this is just a taste of what's to come. The problem here is the tag team. A permanent topic ban on LegacyPac and EEng will solve 99% of the battleground mentality, baiting and provocations taking place at Longevity-related articles. Alansohn ( talk) 21:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by 7&6=thirteenI concur entirely with Alansohn and his reasoning. Eeng and Legacypac have incessantly waged a war of attrition on longevity-related articles. It is the WP:PROD of the day. And Legacypac at least got nasty when others try to derail their express train. So much so that even Eeng told him to cool his jets. Topic banning ought to be last resort. I for one have basically avoided the topic, not for lack of interest, as I am afraid of affronting The Red Queen, as we have "discretionary sanctions" with little or no warning or guidance as to what is expected. You can shut off all dissent. Or if you are applying sanctions you should do it even-handedly, whatever standard it is that you are applying 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 17:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by JaconaFrereLegacypac has been on a tear at AfD, belittling other editors who vote keep on any longevity or pageant articles while removing other editors fairly passive statements as personal attacks, and accusing experienced editors such as 7&6=thirteen single-purpose editors because they opposed their position on an afd. A boomerang for Legacypac is in my opinion long overdue. Jacona ( talk) 02:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by David in DC930310 offers this thread for the proposition that there's something wrong with efforts to prune the longevity walled garden. But the thread proves something quite different. I started the thread on the WOP wikiproject page in an effort to get the logjam resolved by cooperation and consensus. Please review the thread carefully. The chirping of crickets after my initial posting and subsequent plea for dialogue is telling. David in DC ( talk) 19:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by Ricky81682One has to ignore the greater dispute here and focus on the actual editors involved. I don't particularly find Legacypac and EEng's prods and AFD campaign entirely perfect but I think the overall consensus following each one of their listings is at least some level of support for their policies. I suggest someone filing separate AE requests on them if they find it prudent. As to 930310, we tend to disagree, but I think his/her conduct here is sufficient for a limited topic ban to see if the editor can work outside of this area at the moment. 930310's comment at the SPI, note that the SPI was originally titled Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/930310 and only later moved when 930310 was found unrelated to the other editors, a proposal that I supported. While not perfectly civil, the comment would be something I would expect from anyone tagged with an SPI report basically naming everyone who voted keep on a single AFD discussion. 930310's comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen Snavely (2nd nomination) was in part a procedural speedy keep based on the month-prior closure of the same AFD. That isn't necessarily objectionable to me, as I can imagine a number of other editors with the same mindset just based on the timing of the AFDs. However, the ANI complaint (which admittedly names me as well) is about the same issues that permeate this entire AE request, namely the proposals to prod and take pages repeatedly to AFD. The fact that 930310 is so emotionally tied to these articles that listing their biographies for deletion (or discussing the concept) is considered "disrespectful" makes it difficult if not impossible to have any objective discussions about them. I suspect we'll have more AE disputes as the topic ban discussions can go here rather than at ANI which is probably a bit better. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC) @ Alansohn: I don't think AE works for boomerang nominations as JzG notes below. If you want to propose sanctions requests against the nominator and others, new sections should be started. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Result concerning 930310
|
| Blocked one week for violation of topic ban. EdJohnston ( talk) 19:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning HughD
[ [47]] Discussion concerning HughDStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by HughDThank you to my good colleagues Guy and Ed for your comments. Of course I would welcome an opportunity to apologize for and strike any edit which a consensus of my colleagues agree is a topic ban violation.
Thank you to my good colleague Fyddlestix for their prodigious accounting below, it means a lot to me, thank you for your time. At this time I would add just one diff: an administrator of our project asking the complainant to cease his harassment 18 October 2015; my preference would be a separate filing focused on complainant's harassment. Thanks again. Hugh ( talk) 06:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Again, I am grateful for an opportunity to apologize and would be more than happy to strike any comment that I made in good faith that a consensus of uninvolved administrators believe I should. May I respectfully suggest that requesting unarchiving of an archived thread at WP:ANRFC for the purposes of striking a good faith helpful non-disruptive comment may not be the best use of our volunteer time. Respectfully request clarification from uninvolved administrators regarding how our project's policy WP:TBAN specifically bullet 4 does not apply to a good faith non-disruptive talk page comment on the style issue of the usefulness to our readers of an acronym in the title of an article, as I seem to have a misunderstanding of WP:TBAN bullet 4. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 14:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by JzGThere's no love lost between me and HughD, but I fail to see anything actionable in the diffs provided. Guy ( Help!) 01:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Ricky81682While the request to close the RFC on a violating page is a violation to me, I'll agree with EdJohnston that striking the comment is sufficient. Citizens United is one of the key decisions that relate to Tea party politics and to conservative politics 2009 onward, so I agree that it's also a significant violation and hopefully striking the comment will be sufficient too. As to point 5 under the previous sanctions, those types of antics are typical for HughD in response to sanctions and while annoying personally and while I would just prefer HughD bringing his/her concerns here, the refusal to do so is not a violation of any sanctions. Absent that, I think more aggressive blocks are necessary. HughD did not discuss or specifically dispute the sanctions directly and instead badgered me enacting them without a direct request that they be re-considered. This kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior has not lessened as time as passed. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Fyddlestix I agree that Springee's actions are sub-optimal to put it mildly. HughD at least seems to be trying to calm that down by making a fair request that Springee's comments on HughD's talk page will not be responded (which is his right) and Springee seems more intent on antagonizing him. I was just alerted to possible canvassing concerns by Springee by User:Scoobydunk who has in the past been against Springee's conduct and say pro-the side of HughD (not directly in favor but you get my point). The problem is being used by either side to get the other side banned for political reasons (or let's say to allow for or to stop editing that would either improve or worsen how these articles look if one was a partisan actor, not that anyone is). It's pure WP:BATTLEGROUND antics all around. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 08:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Springee As I stated on my talk page, this and this does not help this ARE discussion. I'd suggest you immediately stop anything further about it and drop it. As to anything further, a separate AE request could be made about Springee but that's best for another day. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 08:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC) William M. Connolley That conduct is standard behavior for HughD whenever he is engaged in an RFC, namely removal and reorganization of the comments of others, and repeated responses with passive-aggressive statements hounding some, thanking others and requesting that they depersonalize or deescalate or whatever the situation. I was first involved with HughD and enacted the first sanctions due to his conduct and chaos at two dual simultaneous RFCs at Talk:Americans for Prosperity for the same request which involved not just one extensive ANI discussion but two of them at the same time. The same issues persist since August. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by SpringeeHughD has clearly been testing limits for a while. On Dec 22nd-23rd this editor violated the 3RR rule [ [48]]. HughD is particularly bad about engaging in topic page discussions vs acting on the article page. I have had a number of disagreements with HughD. They boil down to both a bludgeoning attitude and a refusal to engage on the talk page and gain consensus vs just acting. Even when he is posting on the talk page his comments are often not meant to discuss. Since I'm far from an uninvolved editor my views should be seen as such. I would suggest Ricky's POV be given a lot of weight in this discussion. HughD is an editor who will certainly push the rules again and badger admins again if he is unhappy with rulings against him. Springee ( talk) 04:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Reply to Fyddlestix: Please note that since the unsuccessful ANI was brought against me regarding HughD I have largely not interacted with him on any work. The only direct editorial interactions I've had are related to his attempt to improperly include a Mother Jones article into a large number of WP articles ("The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change" which HughD has inserted into about a dozen articles") which dates to before the failed ANI in question. Hence you are seeing a large number of interacting WP pages though they are all related to a single topic. Looking thought my edit history since October (ie about the last two months) I see only three editorial interactions for all of November and all were related HughD attempting to reinsert a MJ reference against the limited consensus of a NPOVN and RSN discussion in three of the previous articles [49], [50], [51]. All edits done without talk page discussions on HughD's part. The talk page interactions here [52] are again related to the attempted insertion of the same MJ article. You will find the same thing with the December interactions. My posts on his talk page recently (other than the two notices which are required) was short and simply asked him to self revert a 4RR posting. If there were a large number of interactions on new subjects I would agree with Fyddlestix views (I think Fyddlestix is a very level headed editor) however, in this case the interactions have been limited to a single, previous topic which HughD has inserted into many WP articles. Springee ( talk) 08:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Jan 7th Update: In the time since EdJohnston noted that HughD has not moved to strike his comments which violated his TBAN HughD has not taken action to correct his violations. During the time that this complaint has been active, two editors, NewsAndEventsGuy and William M. Connolley have noted disruptive behavior on the ExxonMobil article and related talk page. This includes deleting and moving other editor's comments against their wishes as well as WP:tendentious behavior with respect to his recent RfC (not notifying editors of previous noticeboard discussions on the same source article, adding new notices when it appears the existing discussion is not going as he would wish). The above is the exact sort of behavior that resulted in the current topic ban. Springee ( talk) 19:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by FyddlestixI've been watching these two users interact for a while, and am getting increasingly uncomfortable with the extent to which Springee seems to be out to get HughD. Springee has reported HughD to various noticeboards multiple times [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] and has himself been previously reported at ANI for hounding HughD [58]. There's also the issue of Springee having followed HughD to a large number of pages [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] very often to either revert or tag one of HughD's edits within a few hours of it being made. There would be even more examples there if I were to include talk pages, such as this review of one of Hugh's GA's, which I can't fathom how Springee would have come across other than by stalking HughD's contributions. Note also that HughD recently banned Springee from his talk page [76], and that Springee has since made three posts to Hugh's talk [77] [78] [79] (2 of these were a notice of Springee creating a noticeboard report against HughD). I have no comment on Hugh's recent edits/actions (I've tried pretty hard to tune the squabbling of these two users out), but it's clear to me at this point that Springee is just not going to be satisfied until they succeed in getting HughD blocked. Personally I believe an IBAN is way past due here, but that's up to the admins - I'm posting now just to make sure that commenting admins are aware of the long-running animosity between these two users, as I believe it's relevant context here. Fyddlestix ( talk) 05:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by Arthur RubinThis is not the first (or, second, or, third) time Hugh has pushed the edge of his topic ban(s). If he had struck the comments among his first actions after (or, preferably, before) commenting here, I would recommend against further enforcement action on this complaint, in spite of the fact that I feel his edits are harmful to Wikipedia's neutrality. However, he only offered to strike; he hasn't yet done so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Statement by William M. ConnolleyI don't have an opinion on this request, but I draw any interested admin's attention to recent edits at Talk:ExxonMobil; here seems as good a place as any William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC) I also offer [80] as an example of HD's bad faith, and how difficult he is to get on with William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by NewsAndEventsGuyHaving noticed HughD's combative attitude at Talk:ExxonMobil, on 20:13, January 1, 2016 I added a query on that page, whether edits of those sort would be barred by a TBan on conservative US politics? I didn't name Hugh, but of course I was trying to inspire a collaborative approach. Regrettably, the comment Hugh left two days later on WMC's page (which william linked above) shows Hugh being unwilling play nice in the area of climate disinformation/denial, of which abundant RSs link to conservative side of contemporary US politics. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Climate change denial = subset of conservative politics. After all that has been said here in last week or so, I see today's wonderful vitriol from Hugh's editsum in watchlist
When this is closed, could the closure scold Hugh for that tone anywhere anytime, and say that a continuation in the climate change denial pages will be viewed as a Tban vio? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)HUGHD HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG. As stated below, he's been open minded about his topic ban. Frankly, everyone else here should be banned from ExxonMobil. William Connolley has too much of a climate change denial bias to effectively edit the topic. Result concerning HughD
|
| Topic ban from electronic cigarettes. May appeal in six months. EdJohnston ( talk) 01:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Mystery Wolff
Mystery wolf is a disruptive SPA. Over their editing history, only 1 edit is not on the topic of e-cigarettes. The insertion of primary sources was discussed here. [81] Mystery Wolff did not have consensus to insert the material. Kingsindian even offered to help Mystery Wolff gain consensus. He also is removing long standing material from the page that is sourced to a MERDS source, a review. I have tried to discuss this. [82]. Rather than discuss Mystery Wolff reverted again today. The claim can be found in the source here [83] Page 5 in the middle column starting with "Recent studies have demonstrated that nicotine from electronic cigarettes also deposits on indoor surfaces" and going into the next column. The removal of sourced material without consensus is disruptive.
ResponsesKingsindian, I dont think you did anything wrong, in fact I applaud you for trying to help. The sad thing is, he didnt listen or take you up on your offer to help. Instead he just kept being disruptive. AlbinoFerret 07:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Mystery Wolff here are the facts.
If you disagree with a policy or guideline, you cant ignore it. You cant just edit contrary to it. PAG (policies and guidelines) have broad community consensus. You can try and have them changed, but you cant ignore them. I also think that you are trying to bring WP:TRUTH to the articles. AlbinoFerret 13:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC) EdJohnston, Thryduulf, and Spartaz With the latest response here by Mystery Wolff [88] we see 2 quotes taken out of context to try and justify his behaviour, after the fact. But what really is impressive is cherry picking two quotes to make it look like other editors agree with him. The SPACKlick quote about Mystery Wolff calling the review a primary source, but pubmed lists it as a review. The johnbod quote is from where johnbod is the only one suggesting its undue. Not that it was OR as Mystery Wolff says. Trying to make it look like I am off on my own opposing everyone. Then he tries to make me look like some over attached editor. These days I consider myself primarily a NAC on WP:ANRFC and while the topic of e-cigs is interesting to me there is a wide difference between myself and Mystery Wolff who is fixated on the topic and edits nothing else really. A classic SPA with only 2 edits to unrelated articles. AlbinoFerret 02:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Mystery WolffStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Mystery Wolff
After the outcome AlbinoFerret went to immediately threaten another AE against me, on Spartaz TALK page. Sparta took no involvement in that at all. A sockpuppet came out of cloak reverted me, the same sock was active during my previous AE critical of me, DeltaQuad banned them and reverted their REVERT of my edit that AlbinoFerret was complaining about.
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Spartaz#Do_I_need_to_open_a_new_AE_section.3F
Regarding this case now, I took the step of Edit Warring Warning AlbinoFerret here:
/info/en/?search=User_talk:AlbinoFerret AlbinoFerret did not accept the warning as valid. Threaten an AE, INSTEAD OF ANY OTHER DISPUTE RESOLUTION I believe this AE request by AF to be an abuse of process, predicated on wanting to control the pages in question, and edit with editors that share the ideas on what the pages should be. I believe the goal is to remove me from editorship, and to reinvigorate S Marshal to do editing with him again. I wonder out loud why AF is involved with all these ARBs and AEs, and the premise is the entire problem with the articles is being attributed to QuackGuru.
Next AF refers to the previous AE. Additional section remarks: I am not a disruptive SPA. When he says I have only edited 1 other article, that number is wrong. AF is asserting I need to have approval to put in any content, that is NOT true. I agree my edits need to be done properly in all respects. I am saying the sourced cite does not make the claims as written into Wikipedia, and I stand behind that and it needs to be resolved in TALK and not inserted into the AE option of AF's first resort. I have NOT edit warred, and I am working the processes to resolve it before I get sucked in. Removal of a sentence that I am asserting is not sourced correctly....and then taking it to TALK....his last line in his comments....IS NOT "disruptive" it is an editor simply trying to improve the article. Geeez. I have to show this edit was important enough now in the TALK page, an step where I have been accused of being a liar in that TALK page. So I have an interest in presenting why I did that the edit. But that should be in TALK and not this AE. Lastly: I took Kingsindian up on his offer to put the questions of MEDRS being only and always from Primary....to find a forum or board to take that too. I am having a dialogue with him on the TALK page. I expect both of us are not doing this full time or anything. So when AlbinoFerret says I did not listen, that its sad, and uses my interaction with another editor to make his claim here, its insult to injury. TLDR: Consider the negative effects that come from this AE board being misused by AlbinoFerret. Consider how much an editor like me has to jump through hoops to just edits these pages. Please understand that I want to edit the pages I am editing, but I have not intention of doing that improperly or violation the rules. Being Bold should not be gamed by myself or others. It is not helpful to threaten the AE on people. If all other DS methods fail then sure take it to AE. The case in point never made it out of the TALK pages. Why are sockpuppets and editors who are unrelated to the articles coming in and reverting my edits????? Why is AlbinoFerret telling me about boomerangs when I keep my stance in the TALK pages.
@
AlbinoFerret: Yes I did remove the sentence because of its source, its undue weight, and when I did that, I replaced an in-vitro study, with the followup study that was done with as a controlled study, looking at no source, compared sources 1 and 2. You reverted that citation. Instead of joining your edit war, I warned you, and will bring it back when I have the link for the FDA review of it. A Sockpuppet got banned because of their reverts of me, and now another editor has reverted me, who is calling me a liar. I have not created an AE, I spoke to them on their TALK page. The follow-up to the in-vitro study which I want included, refutes the very same author's own in-vitro study and it was presented at a FDA conference, as review. I am confident it is a proper cite.
When you say "People who are still coming up the learning curve on Wikipedia should stay away from troubled areas. Up till now E-cig has been the only area he works in. So I'd make the topic ban from electronic cigarettes indefinite" That is over the top. If you believe that, then you can just have AlbinoFerret or whomever else make a topic so contentious that all editors are shunned away. You will see less and less new editors. And POVwarriors will have won. I choose to start with a topic that interests me. The standard I should be held to is the content of my characters, the ones I edit with. I have made many edits in these pages that remain, and are useful. I have been threatened with boomerangs enough to know that I am not throwing them, they are not returning to me.
Statement by KingsindianMy involvement in this issue is simply to try to help out a new editor with WP bureaucracy. A serious charge of source misrepresentation has been made against MW. I have no knowledge about the topic, so I will simply wait for MW to respond specifically to this point. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Cullen328
Statement by uninvolved SoftlavenderDisruptive, edit-warring SPA who conveniently came on board after the E-cig ArbCom decisions. Definitely needs a topic ban (of at least six months), as they have ignored policy, advice, warnings, etc., and have instead continued to repeatedly and voluminously waste the time of numerous good-faith editors and admins. Softlavender ( talk) 08:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC); edited Softlavender ( talk) 10:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Mystery Wolff
|
| No action taken. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning SageRad
SageRad is under restriction from GMO's and Agricultural chemicals. The above is an obvious link to AgroChemicals, however this seems to be either too narrow a ban, or one that is ineffective given SageRads POV-based editing. Comments like 04/01/2016 on a critic of (anti-industry/bad science/fringe views) BLP talkpage, are indicative of SageRads agenda on Wikipedia. There is also stuff like 02/01/2016 on Love Canal, adding POV tags alledging a pro-industy bias. I will leave the editing history involving PCB's here. Essentially SageRage appears to only be on wikipedia for one purpose, and that purpose is to push an anti-chemical corporation viewpoint. There is a common theme, Monsanto appears on both the Yvette Entremont and Polychlorinated Biphenyl pages. Even if you agree as a large chemical company there is legit material that doesnt infringe on SageRad's topic ban, when it comes to chemicals and pollution..... I am requesting an extension of SageRad's ban to include anything Monsanto related, broadly construed. There is also further reading if needed which can reflect on SageRads insufficient grasp of fringe material etc. I have only looked at the last couple of days, Christmas/New Year being a busy time. Given the above pattern I am sure there is more material available if closer scrutiny is requested. It is however midnight now, and given I have a full-time job, I will likely be unable to respond in detail for about 18 hours.
So EdJohnston, just to be clear on this, its your opinion that posting external links to material that you could not post on-wiki is not a violation of a topic ban?
Notified here Discussion concerning SageRadStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SageRadWow, when i posted those two articles to DrChrissy's talk page, i was referring to the comments by Jimbo in the one article and by Wikimedia Foundation employees in the other one, about the existence of paid editing in Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales vowing to 'not let Wikipedia become a PR platform'... those are the comments to which i was referring. I didn't say "look at the comments section" -- i said "Some very good comments" by which i meant the main thrust of the articles that i passed those on. I didn't see those other comments after the articles. I'd like to get back to work now. smh. SageRad ( talk) 10:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC) @ Kingofaces43: would you please knock it off -- I also posted the same damn message to the talk page of the Criticism of Wikipedia article, as well, and it was nothing but a note on meta-level issues about Wikipedia editing, mainly the comments by Jimbo on not letting this place get dominated by bias from various sources. It's completely fair to post that kind of thing and has nothing to do with GMOs or agricultural chemicals at all and i'm getting really tired of the onerous way that people continue to flip me off and bother me. I'm editing in areas other than the topic ban, even though i think the topic ban is a bad result in itself. I'm being honest to my word about it, and i would appreciate it if you could just leave me alone and stay the hell away from me. If you ever see me actually violate my topic ban, bring it up at that time, ok? SageRad ( talk) 19:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by TryptofishMaybe I'm missing something here, but I am just not seeing anything in the two links within the diff provided, that has anything to do with the GMO case or with the existing topic ban. It is simply stuff about paid editing issues on Wikipedia, but not about paid editing on behalf of any GMO companies. Any proposals for changing the scope of the topic ban belong at ARCA, not here. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by AlbinoFerretI echo Tryptofish's words that this the links on DrChrissy's talk page do not even come close to a topic ban violation. There is no mention of GMO's or the companies that produce them. AlbinoFerret 00:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Per Looie496's comment below, I think a WP:BOOMERANG is appropriate for filing this as a way to remove an editor they disagree with on other articles. AlbinoFerret 14:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by David TornheimI agree with the above two editors (AlbinoFerret and Tryptofish) that there is nothing in the two diffs related to GMO's and the topic ban and that this case should be dismissed. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 01:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by CapeoI see what's being pointed out but I'm not sure how stuff like this is normally handled. Sage linked to two articles and specifically said check out the comments, which are clearly Sage's comments, which if said on-wiki would definitely be a TB violation. Capeo ( talk) 02:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Kingofaces43Tryptofish mentioned browser issues; you may not be able to view the comments without turning off adblockers, java-script blocking software, etc. This looks like a very direct violation of the topic ban now that I looked for myself. SageRad specifically told DrChrissy and others to look at the comments of two articles. The first doesn't have problems in terms of SageRad's topic ban per se, but the second has only one comment by SageThinker:
Considering SageRad specifically linked to this second article and told people to look at the comments section where the only comment is about GMOs, etc. this is a direct violation of the topic ban. That violation comes without getting into that the commenter in both links named SageThinker is very likely SageRad based on comment patterns, etc. I'm not sure how/if off-wiki activities being linked here should be evaluated in this context, but we already have on-wiki evidence of the topic ban violation. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 03:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment by JzGKvetching between users, on their talk pages. This is IMO not actually specific to the topics under restriction, it's just a generic argumentum ad conspiratorium. Wikipedia is a vast conspiracy Man against The Truth™ - and if we want to ban everybody who makes these silly claims then we'd have no editors left. We already know that some of the GMO partisans assert that all pro-science editors are funded by the GMO industry, just as homeopathy fans assert that the reality-based community are funded by Big Pharma and climate change deniers assert that we're in the vice-like grip of climate scientists feathering their nests on the endless bounty of the IPCC. It's bollocks, but it ain't going to change. Guy ( Help!) 11:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Comment by Looie496I don't like this request at all. The filing party has never edited in the GMO domain as far as I know. Instead they have been in a dispute with SageRad regarding the Paleolithic diet article -- which has nothing to do with the topic ban -- and are searching for weapons to use against SageRad. I suggest dismissing this request and warning the filing party not to abuse the enforcement process. Looie496 ( talk) 13:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Comment by uninvolved KingsindianThis is the kind of request which makes me wonder what on Earth is the purpose of this board. How has this resulted in any disruption? Why should one care that one editor is talking about something with another editor, neither of whom can edit in the area? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Result concerning SageRad
|
| No action taken. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Athenean
The above are some examples as to how this user several times doesn’t show respect for neither the sources used in wiki, nor for wiki users. Athenean is active in the Balkans-related topics, and I think he needs some cooling off from the Balkans area for some time and reflect about his behavior. He has been a wikipedian for a long time and may know that a cool head is way more productive. He is in clear breach of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL. His battleground behavior puts him in breach of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Some sanctioning may be useful in decreasing the harassment that other users are feeling because of Athenean's recent activity in wiki.
Athenean is not new to feuds with Albanian editors. The above two warnings/bans were a reflection of similar activities that Athenean had committed in a delicate area such as the Balkans. Even though a long time has passed from these bans, it seems like Athenean is back to his older self, where his activity in wiki led to the bans.
Discussion concerning AtheneanStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AtheneanThis is a rather desperate and frivolous attempt by Mondiad to have me banned simply because he doesn't like me. He deliberately misconstrues and exaggerates for effect.
I am a very experienced contributor in Balkan articles, with thousands of edits and several GAs under my belt. This is a very difficult area to edit in, plagued by nationalist WP:POVWARRIORs, trolls, sockpuppets, and the like. As you can imagine, discussions do get heated some times, but in general I do me best to keep a cool head. None of the above diffs are what Mondiad claims them to be. I have a pretty clean record, (spotless as of the last 4-5 years, in fact). This is in contrast to Mondiad, who is quite rude and incivil himself ( Yes, this is what they taught you in school Greek racism and xenophobia are well-known) and was recently blocked for edit-warring [110]. To sum up, this is a frivolous request and an attempt to game the system by someone who opposes me. The fact that Mondiad went digging as far back as 2010 is indicative of the desperation level of this request. If anything, Mondiad should be admonished for filing a frivolous request and attempting to game the system. Athenean ( talk) 20:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Athenean
|
| Filing party blocked for POV editing and likely sock Spartaz Humbug! 19:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Scjessey
WP:ARBAPDS on articles related to Hillary Clinton
The diffs that I have displayed show repeated personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, Wikihounding and other unwanted behavior by the editor. Repeated warnings and requests have been given towards him which he has willfully disregarded. As a newcomer I have been treated very poorly. He seems to continuously refer to me as a "SPA" (this is seen in the diffs above) as part of attempts to discredit me based on attacks to my character. I have tried to maintain civility by ignoring the attacks and in some cases bringing the editor's behavior to his attention. He has been asked many times to stop the attacks but has consistently shown an unwillingness to take notice of them. I believe that the editor's aggressive editing style on topics related to Hillary Clinton is not constructive and may inhibit his ability to edit in a neutral manner. -- Mouse001 ( talk) 02:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning ScjesseyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ScjesseyI went through all the diffs provided above. There are indeed a few edit summaries and responses that on their own appear rude or dismissive, but put in the proper context are obviously the result of frustration in trying to deal with what I consider to be a textbook POV warrior. I make no apologies for drawing attention to an obvious single-purpose editor determined to cause harm to the project. I'm delighted he/she decided to seek assistance from ArbCom, thus saving anyone else the tedious effort of compiling diffs to shine a light on Mouse001's behavior. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by NorthBySouthBaranofTaking a quick look at the filing editor's 140 contributions, fully 83 of them are to article and article talkpages related to Hillary Clinton, and this includes a number of instances of revert-warring negative material into such articles. Their remaining contributions are largely positive edits to biographies of two conservative politicians. When a user's contributions are so clearly politically polarized, it cannot possibly be considered a "personal attack" to describe such an editor as a single-purpose account and raise concerns that they are editing not in an effort to write neutral, dispassionate encyclopedia articles but rather to push a particular partisan POV, to make candidates they support look good and candidates they oppose look bad. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 03:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Scjessey
|
| DrChrissy blocked for 1 week by Floquenbeam for a vexatious request in violation of an interaction ban. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Jytdog
Jytdog has a long history of being uncivil towards me and received a warning about his behaviour here. [111] Admins below do not seem to understand my motivation for filing this. Imagine if you have had a finding against you. Nobody is proud of that - whatsoever. Why then is it considered acceptable that someone posts reference to that finding against you, when that person themselves is not allowed to make a reference to you. I don't really understand Jytdog's motivation to post about his loss of privileges, but, if he wanted to do this he could easily have edited out those findings relating to me and thereby avoiding any possibility of violating the interaction ban. But he chose to include references to me, and the motivation for this surely must be questioned. In my eyes, it is Jytdog who refuses to drop the stick and get on with editing without his clever gaming of the system to taunt and goad me. A 2-way interaction ban is supposed to protect each of the participants, not to end up with suggestions of a week long ban simply for asking a question about an Arbcom finding.DrChrissy (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning JytdogStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by JytdogStatement by TryptofishI thank Floq for pinging me and for what he said, and his description is accurate. I guess that for the sake of completeness, I should point out that I left a message at Jytdog's talk yesterday, cautioning him that he has been getting close to the edge of his own restrictions. However, I do not believe that he has crossed the edge, and he has replied very clearly that he understands my advice. On the other hand, I have indeed tried everything that I can think of, to help DrChrissy, but I cannot save editors from themselves. I think that the three administrators who have commented here are reading the situation correctly, and I think that a boomerang block is sadly necessary. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by JzGThis is not the first time DrChrissy has tried to abuse Wikipedia processes to remove opponents. I fully support a boomerang block for this obviously vexatious complaint. Guy ( Help!) 09:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Jytdog
|