This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
DWB is a user with a history of
WP:IDHT,
WP:FORUMSHOPPING,
WP:FILIBUSTER and
WP:BATTLEGROUND that causes considerable disruption in Balkan related topics. A dispute at
Expulsion of Cham Albanians that began months ago over DWB's unsubstantiated claims of
WP:OR has been dragging on because DWB cannot concede that there is no case of
WP:OR. The dispute has been ongoing since January 2016, and in August of this year DWB filed at
WP:DRN
[1]. The discussion at DRN dragged on for a long time due to filibustering by DWB, but the outcome was 100% against him. DWB then goes to the DRN talkpage, alleging that the dispute was not handled properly
[2] even though there are no grounds to support this. This also drags on for a while due to filibustering and again the result is against DWB. The dispute then moved to formal mediation
[3], where the mediator,
User:Anthony Appleyard has asked him to stay on topic and stop filibustering
[4]
[5]. All the uninvolved users that have interacted with DWB in these disputes seem to think that DWB is behaving disruptively:
User:Iazyges
[6]
[7]
[8],
User:Robert McClenon
[9],
User:Anthony Appleyard
[10]. It is quite clear from these discussions that DWB is not going to accept "no" for an answer or
WP:DROPTHESTICK. Added to that is a
WP:BATTLEGROUND type behavior of filing frivolous reports at AN/I against users that disagree with him
[11]
[12] (both reports a huge of waste of the community's time and summarily dismissed). Looking through this user's contribs, I see very little content creation and positive editing, and a whole lot of wikidrama. The disruption caused by DWB far outweighs any positive contribs.
Athenean (
talk) 05:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I would also like to draw attention to this attempt at off-wiki canvassing by DWB on Reddit [15]. DWB admitted was him [16] in this AN/I attack thread [17]. Athenean ( talk) 04:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
@T. Canens: I have e-mailed MEDCOM to ask for permission to include the mediation deliberations as evidence. Further more, per WP:MC/P#PRIV, Protecting the integrity of mediation does not extend to protecting users who deliberately subvert the mediation process. Therefore, if a party engages in disruptive or bad-faith conduct during mediation, and that conduct later becomes the subject of Wikipedia disciplinary proceedings, the Mediation Committee will decline to protect the privileged nature of that party's communications.. I firmly believe that DWB is being deliberately obstructive at the mediation proceedings. Athenean ( talk) 04:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
@T.Canens: I have struck the portion of my report involving the mediation proceedings. All diffs are from before Sep. 26 and are used to show a pattern of filibustering; the behavior at mediation was what led me to file a report. Athenean ( talk) 07:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
1) Contemptuously dismisses guidelines like
WP:IDHT and
WP:BATTLEGROUND as "essays". I have seen people banned for violating these.
2) Has to claim victory at every turn and cannot back down. For the rather strong claim that Italy invaded Greece in 1919 (a claim for which it should not be hard to find good sources if it were true), he presents with a) a purported document from the Greek delegation at the 1919 Paris conferece, b) an unreadable image of the "Literary Digest" from an unspecified (likely very old) date, and c) the testimony of a certain "cashier from Konitsa" in a 1958 English-language Greek newspaper
[18]. This goes to the heart of the behavioral issue. Because this user just cannot back down, he will scrape the bottom of the barrel and then declare victory ("Everything seems to check out").
3) A refusal to accept reliably sourced material. Here he removes a very solidly sourced claim that "large parts of the Cham Albanian community collaborated with the Axis occupiers"
[19], which is sourced to Hermann Meyer, an academic who specializes in WW2 and has written one of the definitive works on the Nazi unit that was active in the area at the time
[20]. Yet here he
arguing that " "Large part" is not necessarily the same as "to a large extent/part" and that we shouldn't use Meyer. This is sophistry of a high degree. He has no problem claiming the shoddiest sources back his claims but will use sophistry to try and dismiss one of the best sources on the topic we could hope for. It's impossible to reach any kind of agreement at the tp with this kind of behavior, and attempts at dispute resolution devolve into similar charades.
Athenean (
talk) 07:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
@ Athenean: ”The discussion at DRN dragged on for a long time due to filibustering by DWB.” It was closed within a few hours after discussion was opened, which you would have noticed if you actually looked into it and not just routinely assumed things. While Athenean likes to throw around links to various essays like WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT, I'll provide some illustrative examples of his hypocrisy in regards to this. When Athenean once tried to discredit a source, he argued that it should be avoided, and concluded "Otherwise things will get real ugly real quick." [22] In his attempts to discredit the author, Athenean claimed that there were factual errors in the book regarding the Italian takeover of Greece in 1917. [23] I provided him with additional sources that confirmed these details, i.e. contrary to what Athenean had claimed, there was in fact was an Italian takeover of Greece in 1917. [24] Athenean ignored this, only to show up later in the discussion stating in a provocative way, "careful what you wish for" while simultaneously casting doubt on several sources, because according to Athenean, Chams weren't really oppressed, regardless of what the sources claimed. [25] After I had provided Athenean with the additional sources that confirmed the events in 1917, Athenean only made one more statement related to it, he declared in another section/discussion that I had made up the "fictitious invasions of Greece by Italy in 1917." [26]
@ Iazyges: You stated that I would, ”per WP:M”, be blocked if I ”disrupt the decisions made” after you had closed the DRN. [27] First of all, while I fully understand that your opinion should not be disregarded in the consensus process, you have no authority, as a DRN volunteer, to issue decisions concerning disputes. Second, the part in WP:M, which you referred to, [28] [29] deals with user conduct during mediation. How is that, and I’m sorry if I’m being blunt, not clear to you? The part you quoted has absolutely nothing to do with enforcing content dispute decisions, because again, volunteers don't issue decisions, and it has everything to do with user conduct during mediation.
During mediation SilentResident was, in regular fashion, campaigning for sanctions against me, and Anthony_Appleyard apparently took everything she said at face value. The latter filed a report against me at AN/I, stating that ”User:DevilWearsBrioni has ignored two ARBMAC warnings already on the matter and likely would ignore a third” which essentially echoed what SilentResident had told him moments earlier, i.e. ”resorting to a mere third ARBMAC warning against the editor DevilWearsBrioni will do nothing”. [30] For clarification, I had received one ARBMAC warning by an editor I've rarely seen eye to eye with on anything. And honestly, it boggles my mind that an admin of 10 years just parrots what he’s being told and uses that as an argument for sanctions against me at AN/I. Anthony, when you claim that I have ignored two ARBMAC warnings, what do you mean and how does my behavior justify sanctions? Could you point to something specific? Did you actually bother looking into whether SilentResident's accusations were true?
@ SilentResident: How about you provide some evidence (diffs) for the things you accuse me of? You could start with diffs of 3RR breaches, an accusation you like to throw around. Recently you even told Anthony, among many things in your efforts to get me banned, that I've resumed "with new 3RR breaches". [31] Would you be so kind to provide those diffs?
Question to admins: I'd like to ask for permission to post my side of the story with regards to my interactions with SilentResident, but it's currently not possible since I will exceed the 500 word limit. I will provide diffs to show that the editor created a erroneous narrative about me that I maintain should be sanctionable. DevilWearsBrioni ( talk) 13:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
One thing that concerns me is his apparent knowledge of many WP guidelines but it seems that when it comes to WP's that disagree with or contradict him, he either has selectively avoided them or feigns ignorance. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I gave DWB a (arguably) formal
warning, by telling him that if he chose to continue disruption without community involvement, I could request that he be sanctioned by an admin, per
WP:M (Which covers informal mediation, DRN and mediation comitee mediation. While RFC was an option, I suggested formal mediation or else arbitration, (I was at the time under the misconception that the mediation committee's agreements were binding, I was informed that it wasn't later by another mediator of the DRN) due to the history of the talk page and OR arguments. He chose to
ignore these warnings.
@ Resnjari: I resent your implication of partiality. How have I been partial? I closed it in a logical manner, unless the source that agreed with it was totally disproven it isn't OR. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have to agree with the filing party that the only way to avoid disruption is to give User:DevilWearsBrioni an indefinite topic-ban from all Balkan-related editing. Informal mediation was attempted at the dispute resolution noticeboard. DWB persistently argues that any edits with which they disagree are necessarily original research, in spite of repeatedly having that argument considered and rejected. I then proposed formal mediation, which is being done by User:Anthony Appleyard, to which the parties agreed. However, DWB apparently isn't following the mediator's instructions to stay on topic (even though multiple copies have been defined) and is filibustering. I don't see any alternative to an indefinite topic-ban, because this editor is not contributing constructively to the encyclopedia in the Balkan area but is being disruptive. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
The problem with
user:DevilWearsBrioni is that although he has a decent knowledge of Wikipedia's rules, his editorial conduct so far has been extremely disruptive on ARBMAC-protected articles. His actions and stance have not contributed anything, besides disruption. He's trying to impose certain POV regarding historical events of the past, at the expense of neutrality. To achieve this, he keeps raising false WP:OR and WP:SYNTH cases, (where in NOR Board, DRN Board, ANI Board Mediation Board, and Talks, absolutely no neutral party has backed him). By insisting on his own perception of rules, broke 3RR
[37], violated ARBMAC
[38], violated NPOV, abused the Tagging
[39], acted against consensus, refused to be reasoned by others, dismissed dispute resolutions
[40], and refuses to remedy. This leaves us no other options. I suggest that DevilWearsBrioni is indefinitely banned from any Balkan topic-related articles, or at least be given a strong warning like Robert McClenon suggested. --
SILENT
RESIDENT 16:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
A request to waive the privilege of mediation has been made to the Mediation Committee and will be discussed on the Committee's mailing list. Unless and until such time as the Committee consents to waive the privilege, nothing said or done in the mediation may, by policy, be used as evidence in this proceeding. All previously-made statements made about what has happened there should be withdrawn and, whether or not withdrawn, must be disregarded by all administrators considering this case. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan ( TALK) 07:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)
I am a little concerned about some editors in here advocating for a ban on Brioni in participating on all Balkan related topics on Wikipedia. Brioni’s insistence on raising certain content issues have been in relation to one article, that of the Expulsions of the Chams. A number of editors who have participated in that discussion themselves have resorted to colourful language and made editing unpalatable at times, things of which they accuse Brioni in here. Moreover when Brioni has taken matters to DRN, the process was closed within a short period of time which he felt certain issues were not addressed adequately. I noted a similar sentiment on my part to editor Iazyges who eventually acknowledged that a concern of mine was within reason (see my comments: [43]). No editor who participated in the Chams discussion in here is clean and one can cite multiple issues on their part in the talkpage. The process is now at formal mediation where it should have gone long ago (where discussion can be had in depth, over time, instead of it being rushed and without an impartial third party watching over proceedings). All editors need to observe good faith there and stick to content instead of trivial issues. The topic of the Chams is complex and yes there are passions. Passions though should not guide the editing process such as this insistence of “traitorous actions” [44] by Silent being invoked to remove peer reviewed material thereby making good faith questionable. A final warning should be made to all participants. Resnjari ( talk) 14:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Apart from the evidence provided above, which appears quite overwhelming against DevilWearsBrioni, I believe that some additional piece of info may be helpfull: DWB displayed an aggresive pattern from his very beginning in wikipedia (forumshopping, reddit&off wiki activity as he admitted) and did not hesitate to fill two frivolous ANI reports against me (both of them summarily dismissed) [ [45]] [ [46]]. Even the heading of the last report-attack leaves no doubt that this editor is not here to built an encyclopedia in a constructive manner: he questions eight years of contribution of a co-editor as he clearly declares in the heading.
After the following DRN turned against him, it was time for the DRN vollunteer to became his new opponent: he even edit-warred [ [47]][ [48]] and warned him not to revert again: [ [49]]. Although he was again adviced by mediator not to engage in further edit-warring [ [50]], this wasn't enough: [ [51]]
The OR obsession in the case of 'Expulsion of Cham Albanians' and the way it is handled by DWB during the last months, reveals a disruption and stubborness. The fact that a number of mediators/administrators asked for a ban/restriction isn't unfounded. Although a topic ban in the entire ARBMAC may be too much a restriction in a more limited area, let's say Albania/-ns broadly constructed, will certainly be a better solution. Alexikoua ( talk) 20:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Copied from user talk page at User_talk:ה-זפר#NOT_GOOD! by Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 15:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. :I was blocked, with out a explanation, the reason stated was I did a violation of my ARBPIA articles ban, but I did follow my topic ban by not editing IL-PS topics. What I didn't know is that Tel Aviv, Gush Dan, and even Golan Heights are related to IL-PS conflict. I believe Golan is like IL-SY dispute, and I'm notified on topic ban of IL-PS topics. (and now it changed to Arab-IL topics?) :On Golan Heights ( this edit in particular), I tried to make the article better, but Attar-Aram syria got involved with me in a revert conflict, after I took it to talk page, I know I was topic banned. On the talk page the user said "Your edit should keep the mentioning of the occupation in the infobox", and in my edit occupation was in the head and in the infobox was the current administration IL/SY (two thirds/one thirds). The other user was not notified on revert conflict. and there was a post on my talk page saying in "you have too much of an Israeli slant in your editing style", whereas my edit was indeed neutral. I was just revering to get the fact of Purple line on the head of Golan Heights, the other user finally agreed, but continued revert conflict on the infobox on current administration IL/SY (two thirds/one thirds) = to just, occupied by Israel. :After a recent report at AN, I got blocked? why? My topic ban was not explained to me and also I got blocked now? This is very unfair! David Aaron talk 04:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Please note I originally copied the above message incorrectly and lost the links. I have now replaced it with the source and it now contains the links - nothing else is changed. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 07:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Copied from user talk page, Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 11:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC) ...
It is unfortunate that the editor's responses show he doesn't understand the ban. If we could be sure he would follow Wikipedia policy in the future the block could be lifted. The ban itself is negotiable, though it can't be lifted by me since the ban was imposed by The Blade of the Northern Lights. The ban is in place due to a concern that he can't neutrally. When a new editor jumps into the hot-button articles right away (such as Golan Heights) and seems unaware that he is acting like a bull in a china shop it causes concern. EdJohnston ( talk) 19:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I find it astonishing that anyone would not realise that the Golan Heights are related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. I consider that ה-זפר was given a lot of support and guidance in how to avoid falling foul of the restriction, and failed to use it to material advantage. The length of his current block seems harsh, as he comes across as Tigger-ish not a WP:RGW warrior, but the restriction appears valid and the violation of the restriction, leading to blocking, unarguable, especially given the thoughtful help offered on his talk page. Guy ( Help!) 17:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I will stay on this side of the line since I participated in the ANI. David seemed to have a great difficulty understanding the previous topic ban, even though it was explained many times. If someone is capable of stringing together coherent ideas into prose, you would expect they are capable of understanding the concept of a topic ban once it is explained more than a few times. As I said there, AGF is not a suicide pact and I find it difficult to believe that David is so thick as to not have understood all along. In short, I don't believe the feigning of ignorance. So was a block and ban justified? Absolutely.
As for the duration, we admin use our best judgement to determine what a consensus of editors would choose, and sometimes we fall short and sometimes overshoot the mark. One year is on the high side, but is within acceptable limits. It is impossible to gauge with any accuracy how long is "long enough", after all. If a consensus here believes a different duration of block is more appropriate, I'm sure EdJohnston would accept that consensus without issue. I support his block, but I'm willing to support anything for at least one month, which I think is grossly insufficient. I strongly prefer at least 90 days for the block, but I'm more concerned with finding consensus and moving on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Golan Heights are not Palestine. If administrators are taking/interpreting the Israel-Palestine case/remedy's to apply to Israel and all Arabs regardless of location under 'broadly construed' then there should probably be a request to amend the case to make this explicit. Thanks Roland for the correction.
Only in death does duty end (
talk) 07:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
For the benefit of OID above, and in order to clarify any possible misunderstanding, it is worth repeating the outcome of the original arbitration case. By eleven votes to none, the arbitrators found that "The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted", and by fourteen votes to none they ruled that "All Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions". There is no possible ambiguity here. RolandR ( talk) 10:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
My view as stated at the ANI has not changed:
[52] 'You don't understand how
Gush Dan (fought over as part of the
1948 Arab–Israeli War),
Golan Heights (occupied by Israel after the
Six-Day War), and
Tel Aviv (
one of the most bombed cities in the region) don't fall under the
Arab-Isreali conflict?'. Indeed, it was reinforced less than 12 hours later by a follow-up comment:
[53] 'I did follow my topic ban by not editing Golan Heights... What I didn't know is that... Golan Heights are related to IL-PS conflict.' Now there is an unexplainable level of confusion in these statements, particularly the latter. Now, clearly
WP:CIR is not an issue, as his article creation shows, so I think there must literally be a blind-spot to this specific idea (the TBan). The question then, is how long it will feasibly take him to comprehend the restriction- and that is the length of time the block should run for. How long is a piece of string? But
User:The Blade of the Northern Lights' agreement to clarify its parameters will surely help reduce this from a year. Personally I think three months should suffice. If it doesn't, then what will?
If my opinion be know, it is that 1. The initial indefinite topic ban was overkill. Banning all interested editors, or even all POV editors from the IP topic is a bad "solution". The one-year block was also excessive, and clearly punitive. It is not in the interest of this project to ban or block an editor who has shown he can be productive in this area for such an overly long period. WP:AE should be more understanding and use sanctions as a last resort. 2. It is easy to make an edit that is not related to the IP-conflict on a page that is related. We should show some understanding, and not slam people on the wrist for a mistake. Debresser ( talk) 19:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Ihardlythinkso ( talk · contribs) is banned from the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed, until the 2016 US presidential election is complete and the losing candidate has conceded, or until December 1, whichever is earlier. |
---|
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 Ihardlythinkso
The article in question is subject to 1RR. log. diff.
IHTS routinely ignores consensus, makes false appeals to policy, and attacks those who disagree with him. As evidenced by the particular edit that he is pushing and the relevant talk page section: talk:Donald Trump#Capacity for groping and forcibly kissing women, it appears that he is carrying on where a recently-topic-banned user left off. He is not above insulting other users who disagree with him. In this case, MelanieN: [54] [55] [56]
Discussion concerning IhardlythinksoStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by IhardlythinksoI removed misleading & erroneous text indicating Trump said he *did grope* [a woman/women], when he merely asserted on the tape that he could get away with doing so if he wanted to by virtue of his star status. (An enormous difference. The former is tantamount to putting in the BLP subject's mouth that he confessed to committing potential criminal act[s], something only imagined or contrived/fictionalized by presumably hateful political detractors. A little objectivity for what he said, please. As thoughtful, conscientious WP editor it was/is my duty to immediately remove.) Thank u. IHTS ( talk) 22:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Dr. Fleischman
Statement by Mr ErnieI'll make a similar comment to the one I made regarding the Anythingyouwant case. There are a group of editors who are intensely determined to include each and every negative mention of Trump that comes up in the news. Our policies and essays (NOTNEWS, RECENTISM, BLP, etc) are clear about what we as editors should do about this. This is simply another attempt to wikilawyer an editor opposing this viewpoint out of the topic. I'd hope that our admins are clever enough to see this filing for what it is, and ignore it until the election is over. Mr Ernie ( talk) 17:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Ihardlythinkso
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
17:35, 20 October 2016 (one of many).
(My apologies if I've messed something up, as this is my first time lodging an AE complaint.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 20:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
“ | Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit. | ” |
This is what you did, three times. Your primary justification appears to be that you were following some sort of custom to preserve the material being discussed in an RfC. This custom does not "trump" (pardon the pun) active arbitration remedies, especially when you are re-inserting allegations of sexual misconduct in a BLP. I'll also note that WP:RFC states:
“ | Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RFC is resolved. | ” |
-- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 23:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
In the first diff of complaint I refer (edit summary) to this unhelpful RfC request closed by an administrator. I obviously did not mean user EvergreenFir in this edit summary. I meant other users.
An administrator who closed this request also opened another RfC that was a lot more helpful. Here is version of the page which existed at the moment of posting this RfC by admin. The content under discussion in the RfC was the last paragraph in the introduction. Strictly speaking, this paragraph should not be modified during standing RfC until it is closed. However, I do agree that the initial version of this paragraph was POVish, and it evolved to another, more neutral version, one that I have restored here (3rd diff in complaint).
I think this latest version is fine and should remain, possibly in this, even more neutral version. However, if the RfC will be properly closed with conclusion to remove, I am very much willing to agree with consensus. But the RfC is still open, and there is no consensus to remove this material from intro. I fully explained my edits here and here. Nevertheless, the filer decided to go ahead with this complaint. Why? If am wrong here, please explain, and I will try to improve. Note that I discussed this subject on article talk page.
As a note of order, the US politics is not an area of my major interest, and I did not receive a formal warning about discretionary sanctions in this area, although I know about these sanctions. My very best wishes ( talk) 22:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
@James J. Lambden. After reading comments on the RfC, it appears that most people agree with this edit by Awilley. His text is similar to that in my last edit on this page. I think this text actually reflects consensus on the page. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
@James J. Lambden.
@Lankeveil. I agree to leave this topic area voluntarily for a couple of weeks, no problem. My very best wishes ( talk) 14:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, User:DrFleischman has made at least 3 reverts during the last 24 hours in violation of 1RR. It is somewhat amusing that this user, DrFleischman, who is engaging in revert warring and battleground behaviour to such an extent, threatens to file frivolous reports over the same issue against one editor after another (who unlike him haven't edit warred and who have made only one edit during a whole week reinstating the stable and consensus-supported version) when he doesn't get it his way. When someone claims everyone else is wrong, it's usually the other way round.
When reading the talk page in its entirety, after 2 weeks of discussion, it is clear based on policy-based arguments that there is consensus to include a brief mention of the controversy, in the form of the wording that has been stable for quite some time now. Numerous editors have presented sound policy-based arguments (summed up nicely by JasperTECH under the heading "My comment copied from below") in favour of its inclusion, at least in the form of a brief mention (as is currently the case), but on the other hand there is a case to be made that consensus is against including a whole paragraph on it, as was originally the case. The current two-sentence wording is much shorter than the original paragraph, and also a lot more neutral, and is really a compromise and the result of painstaking work by many editors to find an acceptable, neutral and WP:DUE wording that complies with the BLP policy to the maximum extent possible. If User:DrFleischman disagrees with it, he should seek consensus on the talk page instead of revert-warring or trying to bully other editors. -- Tataral ( talk) 11:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Nowhere in My very best wishes's response do I see a link to any discussion showing consensus to include the text he restored. Did I miss it?
His comment above is also dubious:
He made a similar comment a few days ago on the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 talk page:
Yet, examining his recent contributions I see he's involved in the following articles:
Now I'm just a simple caveman but the Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy seems like a relatively obscure topic for someone not very interested in American politics.
It will be interesting to compare editors' responses in this request to their responses in Anythingyouwant's request above, since they involve the same bit of text in the same article. James J. Lambden ( talk) 15:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
@
My very best wishes: You say: "I think this text actually reflects consensus on the page." Let's see:
On Oct 17 the RFC asking whether the existing coverage ("Allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump were widely reported in the weeks before the election.") was sufficient stood at:
You expanded it to a paragraph shortly after, including a poorly-sourced claim of "child rape" ( diff #1)
On Oct 20 the RFC asking whether the allegations should be included in the lede and to what extent stood at:
Based on that you restored a full paragraph ( diff #2)
On Oct 26 the same RFC stood at:
Based on that you restored a 3-sentence description ( diff #3)
Comments addressing potential BLP violations are I believe misguided - the relevant policy (as DrFleischman specifies in his complaint) is WP:ARBAPDS:
In each of these instances consensus was not just absent but against the multiple-sentence description restored by My very best wishes.
My own opinion (as far as BLP) is that a single restoration of a poorly-sourced child rape claim, against consensus, in a highly visible BLP and an area covered by discretionary sanctions is grounds for a permanent ban from BLPs. James J. Lambden ( talk) 18:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I came here feeling invited via a link posted by DrFleischmann to Talk:Donald Trump#Addition of sexual misconduct content to lead section while RfC is ongoing, take 2 and am really astonished reading this (not all tl;dr;) and just wanted to leave this comment: While working on some of the current politics articles I saw the name DrFleischman really often - and often reverting other users. Then suddenly he placed a warning on my usertalk although I had strictly followed the 1RR rule prominently displayed on the Trump article, so I looked a bit more what he was doing and to me several edits look like breaching the 1RR or "avoiding" it by using just other words. Also in my eyes DrFleischman is very skillful on talkpages interpreting disagreements towards the solutions he wants to achieve, often by accusing fellow contributors of not adhering to the guidelines, also often by positive, constructive language. In the Difflinks provided I don't see [My very best wishes] acting against the rules, just editing with similar means like DrFleischman. Perhaps both could agree to both adhere more to our giudelines and look more friendly for consensus while accepting that consensus is not always "what I want" and that consensus is fluent and not only the "powerusers" here have valid arguments. My suggestion would be: Close this here and Keep calm and focus on content, folks :-) -- S I 17:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Lankiveil: and @ JzG: and to all the other admins involved in this case. There's a lot of misleading claims here that My very best wishes regularly employs in order to excuse himself when the going gets tough. Just two months ago, in this case, Mvbw was quick to say that he was actually interested in American politics to excuse himself from tag-team edit-warring charges piled against him. Here is exactly what Mvbw said at the tag-teaming accusations against him:
If it helps, I promise never look at the editing history of VM in the future, even though this is not forbidden by policy. That however, does not guarantee that I will not appear on the same pages as him, because we have a significant overlap of interest, including US politics.
To clarify matters further, he also said the following in response to Softlavender's concerns that the tag-team edit-warring was spreading to different topic areas:
@Softlavender. Even if I was not interested in these subjects (yes, they are actually interesting to me), but only wanted to improve content as a generally disinterested contributor, that still would be OK.
And indeed, there's this stark comment here:
It was only very recently that the ongoing presidential campaign in US brought my attention. This is something highly unusual and therefore interesting to me.
So it's one form of the truth when he's under fire with one accusation, but it's another form of truth under another. Apparently, it's an all too familiar pattern of playing dumb when it comes to not only editing at mainspace (as exemplified by DrFleischman), but even as he defends himself as well. All in all, it's quite deceptive towards admins that haven't known this user's history and apparent pattern of disingenuous handling of his affairs. As for Mvbw's editing pattern, I'm surprised this user is not banned for this edit alone. As I am also surprised that he wasn't banned for this. I mean, there's a pretty strong pattern here of treating the articles of people he doesn't like with a sly attempt to destroy them, either by undermining the consensus building process to make them better, or to directly add material that would undermine the article altogether. I suggest the admins look beyond this report and seriously consider the long pattern of problematic behavior this user has be accused of doing. It's the only way of truly grasping the extent of the concerning behavior this user has caused in the project. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 01:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm frankly amazed My very best wishes hasn't been topic banned from US politics articles already. At Donald Trump in particular, all he does is edit war [62]. The rape diff alone is especially disturbing and grounds for a ban just by itself. He is edit-warring to reinstate extremely defamatory, poorly sourced material to the lede of a high visibility BLP article. for crying out loud. Can anyone think of something worse? Because I can't. Drmies' special pleading that it was a "setup" is baffling. Users are fully responsible for their edits, and Mvbw is a veteran contributor. Especially in hot articles like Donald Trump, all users should be extra careful with their edits. The conspiratorial suggestion that he was somehow "set up" is simply mind boggling.
As someone else has pointed out, for someone who disingenuously claims to "not be interested in American politics articles", he sure edit wars a lot [63] [64] [65] [66]. In fact that's pretty much all he does in this topic. Content building is virtually zilch. Talk pages are mainly used for obfuscation and deception instead of trying to resolve disagreements in good faith. For example here is demanding users not edit the article until the RfC is closed [67] (but he himself has no problem re-adding controversial material on Donald Trump even though an RfC on the material is ongoing), deliberately misconstruing RfC results ( [68]), wikilawyering about when 1RR applies [69], the list goes on.
Which brings us to what is arguably the most disruptive aspect of Mvbw's editing: the active use of deception. Mvbw frequently plays dumb (e.g. pretending not to notice an RfC is ongoing) even though he knows full well what is going on. Rules and guidelines are selectively misquoted and manipulated as desired. This shows great contempt for the wikipedia community and its processes. In one edit summary he will say an Rfc is "ridiculous" and use that as an excuse to revert [70], in the next edit summary he uses the fact that the RfC is ongoing as an excuse to revert again (but this time he validates the RfC) [71]. This user just makes a mockery of the entire wikipedia community process at every turn. This is a game to him.
Finally, I would also like to disabuse everyone here of the naive notion that Mvbw's disruption in this topic area will magically cease after Nov. 8. As anyone who is familiar with him knows, Mvbw's raison d'etre on wikipedia is a deep and abiding Putinophobia. This is why he edit wars to remove any material that reflects negatively on Clinton [72] [73] and her people [74] [75] using absurd, mocking edit summaries ("not every cold deserves mention", "petty details", "RfC not closed", etc...) and edit wars to reinstate any material that reflects negatively on Trump (the more defamatory the better). Reliable sources and wikipedia process mean nothing; it's all about the mission. Regardless of who wins, I can guarantee the chance of Mvbw abandoning these articles after election day is zilch.
Considering the lack of positive contribs, and the disruption wrought, I can't think of a single reason why this topic area benefits from Mvbw's presence. Athenean ( talk) 00:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@Drmies: So the fact he re-instated the child-rape only once makes it ok? I find it impossible to believe that Mvbw didn't do this knowingly and intentionally. Then we also have this [76], which while not quite as bad as child rape, is quite close. Then there's this little gem here with the whole guilt-by-association gimmick with Mike Tyson [77]. Doesn't quite accuse Trump of rape, but comes quite close. This is deep, deep in WP:TEND and WP:BLPVIO territory. I'm just curious, what would this user have to do to get banned from this topic area? Because if the above behavior is not enough, I don't know what is. Athenean ( talk) 06:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with Athenean's "anyone who is familiar with him knows, Mvbw's raison d'etre on wikipedia is a deep and abiding Putinophobia" description of the editing aims of My very best wishes. Regarding the Mike Tyson gimmick Athenean mentioned. I also tried to remove that content [78], only to see it immediately returned by My very best wishes [79]. As explained here [80], this off-topic content about Mike Tyson's 1992 rape conviction was being added and then editorialized into being linked to his 2016 endorsement of Trump in order to blatantly imply guilt by association. That Mvbw has continue to edit war in this obviously invalid content is telling, but I think even more telling is the silent agreement of many editors to allow it and similar disgraceful content to remain and allow Mvbw to be the attack dog in reversing any attempts at deletion. This is not just "sticking to one's guns", to use Drmies' wording - it is a constant and pov consistent obstruction to the removal of content that clearly breaks numerous Wikipedia policies and guidelines on content, language usage, editorializing, and BLP issues. These policies and guidelines take precedence over article-specific sanctions, so Drmies' hand washing "there was some kind of consensus over it" shows a failing in the judgment and guidance that are expected from an administrator. It also displays some flippancy - can Drmies actually point to the talk page discussion that decided on the consensus for the Tyson content he claims exists? There was none - the "consensus" that has allowed that content to remain is nothing more than a "the party that edit wars the longest wins" - this is not how consensus should be determined, and article-specific (even if article-specific ARBAPDS sanction supported) consensus anyway cannot decide to ignore site-wide policies and guidelines. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 15:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
My very best wishes is clearly an experienced editor who knows very well how to walk a fine line on the edge of the rules, and quickly retract when caught. I wouldn't go so far as to call him "on a mission" but I concur with Athenean and Tiptoethrutheminefield about his general editing style and behaviour, which tends to discourage editors who are not as strong-willed or as passionate. Unfortunately, neutral and consensus-minded editors can get tired of fighting such people and refrain from further attempts to improve articles on sensitive topics — precisely driving away the kind of contributors we need at Wikipedia: that is the key issue to me in this case. This particular violation doesn't look like a big deal, but it is part of a tendentious pattern coupled with sometimes derogatory or lawyeresque comments. In that spirit, I would find it unfair that MBVW escape with a mere slap of the trout when just a few days ago the same kind of minor violation (although from an editor who has generally proved to be more amenable to consensus discussions) was sanctioned with a TBAN for Anythingyouwant considering his overall pattern of behaviour. Therefore I advocate the exact same " Vanamonde-standard" sanction for MBVW, with an encouragement to be less combative in his future contributions. — JFG talk 20:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Plus, I don't want to nitpick, but that RfC is not much of an RfC. I'm not big on formalizing anything, but it seems like a discussion over a few phrases more than a well-formed, clear RfC. The question, as Lankiveil says below, is reasonable, but it's hardly a clear-cut question to be answered with an unambiguous mandate to include or exclude some specific content or organize it in some specific way. I mean, the opening section ends with "Or just listen to the tape yourself." I wouldn't call this RfC ridiculous, but to have that ongoing discussion being used to get someone banned is pushing it too far. If you want RfC's to be binding, set them up better. The second part, for instance, is this: "Saying Trump "appeared to" brag is non-neutral. He bragged, and sources such as the Washington Post article verify this." OK, that's a statement by an editor (you), and editors can discuss. But that's not much of an RfC. If you want to nail an editor for reinserting "appeared to brag" after you said on the talk page you didn't like the phrase, that's your prerogative, of course, but I can't see how this is some grave violation (or any violation at all) which needs an arbitrated slap on the wrist. Drmies ( talk) 17:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Appeal declined, though the AE block has expired. EdJohnston ( talk) 01:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Statement by DaltonCastle"This was a little harsh. I received no warning. My edits were not contentious. I am curious why the accuser never contacted me at all. This seems soundly unfair. As a token of goodwill I will stay off the page if you lift this block." Copied from the user's talk page per request. Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 02:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)" Statement by Ks0stmOriginal change, revert 1, revert 2, revert 3. User had been alerted before. Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 02:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by MrXDaltonCastle re-inserted the POV tag over the objections of three other editors, twice after being warned here. That makes a total of three reverts on an article restricted to one revert. The block was appropriate and necessary. - Mr X 02:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by MelanieNI was just on my way to ask for attention to this violation by Dalton Castle, when I saw that he had already been blocked. Dalton Castle repeatedly adding a NPOV tag to the Donald Trump presidential campaign article, despite consensus against it on the talk page. He added it three times in the past 24 hours. [81] [82] [83] He did not start a talk page discussion or identify the specific NPOV violations he was alleging. When someone else started a discussion at the talk page he was dogmatic: "And we keep the tag up until we conclude it comes down." He not only violated the rules, but he still doesn't acknowledge that he did. -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by DaltonCastle
Result of the appeal by DaltonCastle
|
@
Robert McClenon: I'm equally puzzled. Not only does this request not follow the required AE template, Anthony has for some strange reason included a link to a discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with me, while also pinging involved editors and urging them to "come to a decision as what is to happen with User:DevilWearsBrion". I'm once again baffled by the actions of Anthony. This looks to me, unfortunately, like an effort at dumping on an editor who is outnumbered.
That’s an oddly accurate assessment from someone who partook in the pile on against me at AN/I and then later here at AE. What changed since then?
@ Iazyges: This was your closing statement, which contained several inaccuracies, at DRN. You then went on to remove the OR tag from the article since you apparently had decided that it wasn't OR. If you still believe you were justified in removing the OR tag because of your supposed authority as a DRN volunteer, then please say so. I'm still not clear on your position concerning this. Do you still believe that you have the authority to issue decisions? Or were you mistaken in believing so?
@ SilentResident: You will soon be given another opportunity to provide diffs as evidence for the things you've repeatedly accused me of, e.g. multiple 3RR breaches. You've failed to do so every time I've requested it. This may give credence to what I've said about you creating a false narrative about me, don't you think? DevilWearsBrioni ( talk) 23:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
First, it appears to be that the formal mediation has failed. Either the editors who disagree with DWB should withdraw from the mediation on grounds that it has failed, or User:Anthony Appleyard can (if the Mediation Committee permits) formally declare the mediation to have failed. Second, the next step is to resume discussion on the article talk page, and DWB has been formally alerted to discretionary sanctions. I don't see this Arbitration Enforcement request as serving any useful purpose. Close it somehow. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Per the statement of the mediator that the mediation has no ongoing hope of resolution, I have closed the mediation case. The privilege of mediation still applies, however, and anything heretofore said or done in the course of mediation may not be used as evidence in this or any other conduct proceeding. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan ( TALK) 23:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
DWB is a user with a history of
WP:IDHT,
WP:FORUMSHOPPING,
WP:FILIBUSTER and
WP:BATTLEGROUND that causes considerable disruption in Balkan related topics. A dispute at
Expulsion of Cham Albanians that began months ago over DWB's unsubstantiated claims of
WP:OR has been dragging on because DWB cannot concede that there is no case of
WP:OR. The dispute has been ongoing since January 2016, and in August of this year DWB filed at
WP:DRN
[1]. The discussion at DRN dragged on for a long time due to filibustering by DWB, but the outcome was 100% against him. DWB then goes to the DRN talkpage, alleging that the dispute was not handled properly
[2] even though there are no grounds to support this. This also drags on for a while due to filibustering and again the result is against DWB. The dispute then moved to formal mediation
[3], where the mediator,
User:Anthony Appleyard has asked him to stay on topic and stop filibustering
[4]
[5]. All the uninvolved users that have interacted with DWB in these disputes seem to think that DWB is behaving disruptively:
User:Iazyges
[6]
[7]
[8],
User:Robert McClenon
[9],
User:Anthony Appleyard
[10]. It is quite clear from these discussions that DWB is not going to accept "no" for an answer or
WP:DROPTHESTICK. Added to that is a
WP:BATTLEGROUND type behavior of filing frivolous reports at AN/I against users that disagree with him
[11]
[12] (both reports a huge of waste of the community's time and summarily dismissed). Looking through this user's contribs, I see very little content creation and positive editing, and a whole lot of wikidrama. The disruption caused by DWB far outweighs any positive contribs.
Athenean (
talk) 05:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I would also like to draw attention to this attempt at off-wiki canvassing by DWB on Reddit [15]. DWB admitted was him [16] in this AN/I attack thread [17]. Athenean ( talk) 04:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
@T. Canens: I have e-mailed MEDCOM to ask for permission to include the mediation deliberations as evidence. Further more, per WP:MC/P#PRIV, Protecting the integrity of mediation does not extend to protecting users who deliberately subvert the mediation process. Therefore, if a party engages in disruptive or bad-faith conduct during mediation, and that conduct later becomes the subject of Wikipedia disciplinary proceedings, the Mediation Committee will decline to protect the privileged nature of that party's communications.. I firmly believe that DWB is being deliberately obstructive at the mediation proceedings. Athenean ( talk) 04:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
@T.Canens: I have struck the portion of my report involving the mediation proceedings. All diffs are from before Sep. 26 and are used to show a pattern of filibustering; the behavior at mediation was what led me to file a report. Athenean ( talk) 07:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
1) Contemptuously dismisses guidelines like
WP:IDHT and
WP:BATTLEGROUND as "essays". I have seen people banned for violating these.
2) Has to claim victory at every turn and cannot back down. For the rather strong claim that Italy invaded Greece in 1919 (a claim for which it should not be hard to find good sources if it were true), he presents with a) a purported document from the Greek delegation at the 1919 Paris conferece, b) an unreadable image of the "Literary Digest" from an unspecified (likely very old) date, and c) the testimony of a certain "cashier from Konitsa" in a 1958 English-language Greek newspaper
[18]. This goes to the heart of the behavioral issue. Because this user just cannot back down, he will scrape the bottom of the barrel and then declare victory ("Everything seems to check out").
3) A refusal to accept reliably sourced material. Here he removes a very solidly sourced claim that "large parts of the Cham Albanian community collaborated with the Axis occupiers"
[19], which is sourced to Hermann Meyer, an academic who specializes in WW2 and has written one of the definitive works on the Nazi unit that was active in the area at the time
[20]. Yet here he
arguing that " "Large part" is not necessarily the same as "to a large extent/part" and that we shouldn't use Meyer. This is sophistry of a high degree. He has no problem claiming the shoddiest sources back his claims but will use sophistry to try and dismiss one of the best sources on the topic we could hope for. It's impossible to reach any kind of agreement at the tp with this kind of behavior, and attempts at dispute resolution devolve into similar charades.
Athenean (
talk) 07:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
@ Athenean: ”The discussion at DRN dragged on for a long time due to filibustering by DWB.” It was closed within a few hours after discussion was opened, which you would have noticed if you actually looked into it and not just routinely assumed things. While Athenean likes to throw around links to various essays like WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT, I'll provide some illustrative examples of his hypocrisy in regards to this. When Athenean once tried to discredit a source, he argued that it should be avoided, and concluded "Otherwise things will get real ugly real quick." [22] In his attempts to discredit the author, Athenean claimed that there were factual errors in the book regarding the Italian takeover of Greece in 1917. [23] I provided him with additional sources that confirmed these details, i.e. contrary to what Athenean had claimed, there was in fact was an Italian takeover of Greece in 1917. [24] Athenean ignored this, only to show up later in the discussion stating in a provocative way, "careful what you wish for" while simultaneously casting doubt on several sources, because according to Athenean, Chams weren't really oppressed, regardless of what the sources claimed. [25] After I had provided Athenean with the additional sources that confirmed the events in 1917, Athenean only made one more statement related to it, he declared in another section/discussion that I had made up the "fictitious invasions of Greece by Italy in 1917." [26]
@ Iazyges: You stated that I would, ”per WP:M”, be blocked if I ”disrupt the decisions made” after you had closed the DRN. [27] First of all, while I fully understand that your opinion should not be disregarded in the consensus process, you have no authority, as a DRN volunteer, to issue decisions concerning disputes. Second, the part in WP:M, which you referred to, [28] [29] deals with user conduct during mediation. How is that, and I’m sorry if I’m being blunt, not clear to you? The part you quoted has absolutely nothing to do with enforcing content dispute decisions, because again, volunteers don't issue decisions, and it has everything to do with user conduct during mediation.
During mediation SilentResident was, in regular fashion, campaigning for sanctions against me, and Anthony_Appleyard apparently took everything she said at face value. The latter filed a report against me at AN/I, stating that ”User:DevilWearsBrioni has ignored two ARBMAC warnings already on the matter and likely would ignore a third” which essentially echoed what SilentResident had told him moments earlier, i.e. ”resorting to a mere third ARBMAC warning against the editor DevilWearsBrioni will do nothing”. [30] For clarification, I had received one ARBMAC warning by an editor I've rarely seen eye to eye with on anything. And honestly, it boggles my mind that an admin of 10 years just parrots what he’s being told and uses that as an argument for sanctions against me at AN/I. Anthony, when you claim that I have ignored two ARBMAC warnings, what do you mean and how does my behavior justify sanctions? Could you point to something specific? Did you actually bother looking into whether SilentResident's accusations were true?
@ SilentResident: How about you provide some evidence (diffs) for the things you accuse me of? You could start with diffs of 3RR breaches, an accusation you like to throw around. Recently you even told Anthony, among many things in your efforts to get me banned, that I've resumed "with new 3RR breaches". [31] Would you be so kind to provide those diffs?
Question to admins: I'd like to ask for permission to post my side of the story with regards to my interactions with SilentResident, but it's currently not possible since I will exceed the 500 word limit. I will provide diffs to show that the editor created a erroneous narrative about me that I maintain should be sanctionable. DevilWearsBrioni ( talk) 13:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
One thing that concerns me is his apparent knowledge of many WP guidelines but it seems that when it comes to WP's that disagree with or contradict him, he either has selectively avoided them or feigns ignorance. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I gave DWB a (arguably) formal
warning, by telling him that if he chose to continue disruption without community involvement, I could request that he be sanctioned by an admin, per
WP:M (Which covers informal mediation, DRN and mediation comitee mediation. While RFC was an option, I suggested formal mediation or else arbitration, (I was at the time under the misconception that the mediation committee's agreements were binding, I was informed that it wasn't later by another mediator of the DRN) due to the history of the talk page and OR arguments. He chose to
ignore these warnings.
@ Resnjari: I resent your implication of partiality. How have I been partial? I closed it in a logical manner, unless the source that agreed with it was totally disproven it isn't OR. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have to agree with the filing party that the only way to avoid disruption is to give User:DevilWearsBrioni an indefinite topic-ban from all Balkan-related editing. Informal mediation was attempted at the dispute resolution noticeboard. DWB persistently argues that any edits with which they disagree are necessarily original research, in spite of repeatedly having that argument considered and rejected. I then proposed formal mediation, which is being done by User:Anthony Appleyard, to which the parties agreed. However, DWB apparently isn't following the mediator's instructions to stay on topic (even though multiple copies have been defined) and is filibustering. I don't see any alternative to an indefinite topic-ban, because this editor is not contributing constructively to the encyclopedia in the Balkan area but is being disruptive. Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
The problem with
user:DevilWearsBrioni is that although he has a decent knowledge of Wikipedia's rules, his editorial conduct so far has been extremely disruptive on ARBMAC-protected articles. His actions and stance have not contributed anything, besides disruption. He's trying to impose certain POV regarding historical events of the past, at the expense of neutrality. To achieve this, he keeps raising false WP:OR and WP:SYNTH cases, (where in NOR Board, DRN Board, ANI Board Mediation Board, and Talks, absolutely no neutral party has backed him). By insisting on his own perception of rules, broke 3RR
[37], violated ARBMAC
[38], violated NPOV, abused the Tagging
[39], acted against consensus, refused to be reasoned by others, dismissed dispute resolutions
[40], and refuses to remedy. This leaves us no other options. I suggest that DevilWearsBrioni is indefinitely banned from any Balkan topic-related articles, or at least be given a strong warning like Robert McClenon suggested. --
SILENT
RESIDENT 16:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
A request to waive the privilege of mediation has been made to the Mediation Committee and will be discussed on the Committee's mailing list. Unless and until such time as the Committee consents to waive the privilege, nothing said or done in the mediation may, by policy, be used as evidence in this proceeding. All previously-made statements made about what has happened there should be withdrawn and, whether or not withdrawn, must be disregarded by all administrators considering this case. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan ( TALK) 07:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)
I am a little concerned about some editors in here advocating for a ban on Brioni in participating on all Balkan related topics on Wikipedia. Brioni’s insistence on raising certain content issues have been in relation to one article, that of the Expulsions of the Chams. A number of editors who have participated in that discussion themselves have resorted to colourful language and made editing unpalatable at times, things of which they accuse Brioni in here. Moreover when Brioni has taken matters to DRN, the process was closed within a short period of time which he felt certain issues were not addressed adequately. I noted a similar sentiment on my part to editor Iazyges who eventually acknowledged that a concern of mine was within reason (see my comments: [43]). No editor who participated in the Chams discussion in here is clean and one can cite multiple issues on their part in the talkpage. The process is now at formal mediation where it should have gone long ago (where discussion can be had in depth, over time, instead of it being rushed and without an impartial third party watching over proceedings). All editors need to observe good faith there and stick to content instead of trivial issues. The topic of the Chams is complex and yes there are passions. Passions though should not guide the editing process such as this insistence of “traitorous actions” [44] by Silent being invoked to remove peer reviewed material thereby making good faith questionable. A final warning should be made to all participants. Resnjari ( talk) 14:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Apart from the evidence provided above, which appears quite overwhelming against DevilWearsBrioni, I believe that some additional piece of info may be helpfull: DWB displayed an aggresive pattern from his very beginning in wikipedia (forumshopping, reddit&off wiki activity as he admitted) and did not hesitate to fill two frivolous ANI reports against me (both of them summarily dismissed) [ [45]] [ [46]]. Even the heading of the last report-attack leaves no doubt that this editor is not here to built an encyclopedia in a constructive manner: he questions eight years of contribution of a co-editor as he clearly declares in the heading.
After the following DRN turned against him, it was time for the DRN vollunteer to became his new opponent: he even edit-warred [ [47]][ [48]] and warned him not to revert again: [ [49]]. Although he was again adviced by mediator not to engage in further edit-warring [ [50]], this wasn't enough: [ [51]]
The OR obsession in the case of 'Expulsion of Cham Albanians' and the way it is handled by DWB during the last months, reveals a disruption and stubborness. The fact that a number of mediators/administrators asked for a ban/restriction isn't unfounded. Although a topic ban in the entire ARBMAC may be too much a restriction in a more limited area, let's say Albania/-ns broadly constructed, will certainly be a better solution. Alexikoua ( talk) 20:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Copied from user talk page at User_talk:ה-זפר#NOT_GOOD! by Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 15:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. :I was blocked, with out a explanation, the reason stated was I did a violation of my ARBPIA articles ban, but I did follow my topic ban by not editing IL-PS topics. What I didn't know is that Tel Aviv, Gush Dan, and even Golan Heights are related to IL-PS conflict. I believe Golan is like IL-SY dispute, and I'm notified on topic ban of IL-PS topics. (and now it changed to Arab-IL topics?) :On Golan Heights ( this edit in particular), I tried to make the article better, but Attar-Aram syria got involved with me in a revert conflict, after I took it to talk page, I know I was topic banned. On the talk page the user said "Your edit should keep the mentioning of the occupation in the infobox", and in my edit occupation was in the head and in the infobox was the current administration IL/SY (two thirds/one thirds). The other user was not notified on revert conflict. and there was a post on my talk page saying in "you have too much of an Israeli slant in your editing style", whereas my edit was indeed neutral. I was just revering to get the fact of Purple line on the head of Golan Heights, the other user finally agreed, but continued revert conflict on the infobox on current administration IL/SY (two thirds/one thirds) = to just, occupied by Israel. :After a recent report at AN, I got blocked? why? My topic ban was not explained to me and also I got blocked now? This is very unfair! David Aaron talk 04:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Please note I originally copied the above message incorrectly and lost the links. I have now replaced it with the source and it now contains the links - nothing else is changed. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 07:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Copied from user talk page, Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 11:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC) ...
It is unfortunate that the editor's responses show he doesn't understand the ban. If we could be sure he would follow Wikipedia policy in the future the block could be lifted. The ban itself is negotiable, though it can't be lifted by me since the ban was imposed by The Blade of the Northern Lights. The ban is in place due to a concern that he can't neutrally. When a new editor jumps into the hot-button articles right away (such as Golan Heights) and seems unaware that he is acting like a bull in a china shop it causes concern. EdJohnston ( talk) 19:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I find it astonishing that anyone would not realise that the Golan Heights are related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. I consider that ה-זפר was given a lot of support and guidance in how to avoid falling foul of the restriction, and failed to use it to material advantage. The length of his current block seems harsh, as he comes across as Tigger-ish not a WP:RGW warrior, but the restriction appears valid and the violation of the restriction, leading to blocking, unarguable, especially given the thoughtful help offered on his talk page. Guy ( Help!) 17:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I will stay on this side of the line since I participated in the ANI. David seemed to have a great difficulty understanding the previous topic ban, even though it was explained many times. If someone is capable of stringing together coherent ideas into prose, you would expect they are capable of understanding the concept of a topic ban once it is explained more than a few times. As I said there, AGF is not a suicide pact and I find it difficult to believe that David is so thick as to not have understood all along. In short, I don't believe the feigning of ignorance. So was a block and ban justified? Absolutely.
As for the duration, we admin use our best judgement to determine what a consensus of editors would choose, and sometimes we fall short and sometimes overshoot the mark. One year is on the high side, but is within acceptable limits. It is impossible to gauge with any accuracy how long is "long enough", after all. If a consensus here believes a different duration of block is more appropriate, I'm sure EdJohnston would accept that consensus without issue. I support his block, but I'm willing to support anything for at least one month, which I think is grossly insufficient. I strongly prefer at least 90 days for the block, but I'm more concerned with finding consensus and moving on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Golan Heights are not Palestine. If administrators are taking/interpreting the Israel-Palestine case/remedy's to apply to Israel and all Arabs regardless of location under 'broadly construed' then there should probably be a request to amend the case to make this explicit. Thanks Roland for the correction.
Only in death does duty end (
talk) 07:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
For the benefit of OID above, and in order to clarify any possible misunderstanding, it is worth repeating the outcome of the original arbitration case. By eleven votes to none, the arbitrators found that "The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted", and by fourteen votes to none they ruled that "All Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions". There is no possible ambiguity here. RolandR ( talk) 10:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
My view as stated at the ANI has not changed:
[52] 'You don't understand how
Gush Dan (fought over as part of the
1948 Arab–Israeli War),
Golan Heights (occupied by Israel after the
Six-Day War), and
Tel Aviv (
one of the most bombed cities in the region) don't fall under the
Arab-Isreali conflict?'. Indeed, it was reinforced less than 12 hours later by a follow-up comment:
[53] 'I did follow my topic ban by not editing Golan Heights... What I didn't know is that... Golan Heights are related to IL-PS conflict.' Now there is an unexplainable level of confusion in these statements, particularly the latter. Now, clearly
WP:CIR is not an issue, as his article creation shows, so I think there must literally be a blind-spot to this specific idea (the TBan). The question then, is how long it will feasibly take him to comprehend the restriction- and that is the length of time the block should run for. How long is a piece of string? But
User:The Blade of the Northern Lights' agreement to clarify its parameters will surely help reduce this from a year. Personally I think three months should suffice. If it doesn't, then what will?
If my opinion be know, it is that 1. The initial indefinite topic ban was overkill. Banning all interested editors, or even all POV editors from the IP topic is a bad "solution". The one-year block was also excessive, and clearly punitive. It is not in the interest of this project to ban or block an editor who has shown he can be productive in this area for such an overly long period. WP:AE should be more understanding and use sanctions as a last resort. 2. It is easy to make an edit that is not related to the IP-conflict on a page that is related. We should show some understanding, and not slam people on the wrist for a mistake. Debresser ( talk) 19:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Ihardlythinkso ( talk · contribs) is banned from the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed, until the 2016 US presidential election is complete and the losing candidate has conceded, or until December 1, whichever is earlier. |
---|
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 Ihardlythinkso
The article in question is subject to 1RR. log. diff.
IHTS routinely ignores consensus, makes false appeals to policy, and attacks those who disagree with him. As evidenced by the particular edit that he is pushing and the relevant talk page section: talk:Donald Trump#Capacity for groping and forcibly kissing women, it appears that he is carrying on where a recently-topic-banned user left off. He is not above insulting other users who disagree with him. In this case, MelanieN: [54] [55] [56]
Discussion concerning IhardlythinksoStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by IhardlythinksoI removed misleading & erroneous text indicating Trump said he *did grope* [a woman/women], when he merely asserted on the tape that he could get away with doing so if he wanted to by virtue of his star status. (An enormous difference. The former is tantamount to putting in the BLP subject's mouth that he confessed to committing potential criminal act[s], something only imagined or contrived/fictionalized by presumably hateful political detractors. A little objectivity for what he said, please. As thoughtful, conscientious WP editor it was/is my duty to immediately remove.) Thank u. IHTS ( talk) 22:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Dr. Fleischman
Statement by Mr ErnieI'll make a similar comment to the one I made regarding the Anythingyouwant case. There are a group of editors who are intensely determined to include each and every negative mention of Trump that comes up in the news. Our policies and essays (NOTNEWS, RECENTISM, BLP, etc) are clear about what we as editors should do about this. This is simply another attempt to wikilawyer an editor opposing this viewpoint out of the topic. I'd hope that our admins are clever enough to see this filing for what it is, and ignore it until the election is over. Mr Ernie ( talk) 17:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Ihardlythinkso
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
17:35, 20 October 2016 (one of many).
(My apologies if I've messed something up, as this is my first time lodging an AE complaint.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 20:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
“ | Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit. | ” |
This is what you did, three times. Your primary justification appears to be that you were following some sort of custom to preserve the material being discussed in an RfC. This custom does not "trump" (pardon the pun) active arbitration remedies, especially when you are re-inserting allegations of sexual misconduct in a BLP. I'll also note that WP:RFC states:
“ | Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RFC is resolved. | ” |
-- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 23:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
In the first diff of complaint I refer (edit summary) to this unhelpful RfC request closed by an administrator. I obviously did not mean user EvergreenFir in this edit summary. I meant other users.
An administrator who closed this request also opened another RfC that was a lot more helpful. Here is version of the page which existed at the moment of posting this RfC by admin. The content under discussion in the RfC was the last paragraph in the introduction. Strictly speaking, this paragraph should not be modified during standing RfC until it is closed. However, I do agree that the initial version of this paragraph was POVish, and it evolved to another, more neutral version, one that I have restored here (3rd diff in complaint).
I think this latest version is fine and should remain, possibly in this, even more neutral version. However, if the RfC will be properly closed with conclusion to remove, I am very much willing to agree with consensus. But the RfC is still open, and there is no consensus to remove this material from intro. I fully explained my edits here and here. Nevertheless, the filer decided to go ahead with this complaint. Why? If am wrong here, please explain, and I will try to improve. Note that I discussed this subject on article talk page.
As a note of order, the US politics is not an area of my major interest, and I did not receive a formal warning about discretionary sanctions in this area, although I know about these sanctions. My very best wishes ( talk) 22:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
@James J. Lambden. After reading comments on the RfC, it appears that most people agree with this edit by Awilley. His text is similar to that in my last edit on this page. I think this text actually reflects consensus on the page. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
@James J. Lambden.
@Lankeveil. I agree to leave this topic area voluntarily for a couple of weeks, no problem. My very best wishes ( talk) 14:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, User:DrFleischman has made at least 3 reverts during the last 24 hours in violation of 1RR. It is somewhat amusing that this user, DrFleischman, who is engaging in revert warring and battleground behaviour to such an extent, threatens to file frivolous reports over the same issue against one editor after another (who unlike him haven't edit warred and who have made only one edit during a whole week reinstating the stable and consensus-supported version) when he doesn't get it his way. When someone claims everyone else is wrong, it's usually the other way round.
When reading the talk page in its entirety, after 2 weeks of discussion, it is clear based on policy-based arguments that there is consensus to include a brief mention of the controversy, in the form of the wording that has been stable for quite some time now. Numerous editors have presented sound policy-based arguments (summed up nicely by JasperTECH under the heading "My comment copied from below") in favour of its inclusion, at least in the form of a brief mention (as is currently the case), but on the other hand there is a case to be made that consensus is against including a whole paragraph on it, as was originally the case. The current two-sentence wording is much shorter than the original paragraph, and also a lot more neutral, and is really a compromise and the result of painstaking work by many editors to find an acceptable, neutral and WP:DUE wording that complies with the BLP policy to the maximum extent possible. If User:DrFleischman disagrees with it, he should seek consensus on the talk page instead of revert-warring or trying to bully other editors. -- Tataral ( talk) 11:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Nowhere in My very best wishes's response do I see a link to any discussion showing consensus to include the text he restored. Did I miss it?
His comment above is also dubious:
He made a similar comment a few days ago on the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 talk page:
Yet, examining his recent contributions I see he's involved in the following articles:
Now I'm just a simple caveman but the Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy seems like a relatively obscure topic for someone not very interested in American politics.
It will be interesting to compare editors' responses in this request to their responses in Anythingyouwant's request above, since they involve the same bit of text in the same article. James J. Lambden ( talk) 15:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
@
My very best wishes: You say: "I think this text actually reflects consensus on the page." Let's see:
On Oct 17 the RFC asking whether the existing coverage ("Allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump were widely reported in the weeks before the election.") was sufficient stood at:
You expanded it to a paragraph shortly after, including a poorly-sourced claim of "child rape" ( diff #1)
On Oct 20 the RFC asking whether the allegations should be included in the lede and to what extent stood at:
Based on that you restored a full paragraph ( diff #2)
On Oct 26 the same RFC stood at:
Based on that you restored a 3-sentence description ( diff #3)
Comments addressing potential BLP violations are I believe misguided - the relevant policy (as DrFleischman specifies in his complaint) is WP:ARBAPDS:
In each of these instances consensus was not just absent but against the multiple-sentence description restored by My very best wishes.
My own opinion (as far as BLP) is that a single restoration of a poorly-sourced child rape claim, against consensus, in a highly visible BLP and an area covered by discretionary sanctions is grounds for a permanent ban from BLPs. James J. Lambden ( talk) 18:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I came here feeling invited via a link posted by DrFleischmann to Talk:Donald Trump#Addition of sexual misconduct content to lead section while RfC is ongoing, take 2 and am really astonished reading this (not all tl;dr;) and just wanted to leave this comment: While working on some of the current politics articles I saw the name DrFleischman really often - and often reverting other users. Then suddenly he placed a warning on my usertalk although I had strictly followed the 1RR rule prominently displayed on the Trump article, so I looked a bit more what he was doing and to me several edits look like breaching the 1RR or "avoiding" it by using just other words. Also in my eyes DrFleischman is very skillful on talkpages interpreting disagreements towards the solutions he wants to achieve, often by accusing fellow contributors of not adhering to the guidelines, also often by positive, constructive language. In the Difflinks provided I don't see [My very best wishes] acting against the rules, just editing with similar means like DrFleischman. Perhaps both could agree to both adhere more to our giudelines and look more friendly for consensus while accepting that consensus is not always "what I want" and that consensus is fluent and not only the "powerusers" here have valid arguments. My suggestion would be: Close this here and Keep calm and focus on content, folks :-) -- S I 17:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Lankiveil: and @ JzG: and to all the other admins involved in this case. There's a lot of misleading claims here that My very best wishes regularly employs in order to excuse himself when the going gets tough. Just two months ago, in this case, Mvbw was quick to say that he was actually interested in American politics to excuse himself from tag-team edit-warring charges piled against him. Here is exactly what Mvbw said at the tag-teaming accusations against him:
If it helps, I promise never look at the editing history of VM in the future, even though this is not forbidden by policy. That however, does not guarantee that I will not appear on the same pages as him, because we have a significant overlap of interest, including US politics.
To clarify matters further, he also said the following in response to Softlavender's concerns that the tag-team edit-warring was spreading to different topic areas:
@Softlavender. Even if I was not interested in these subjects (yes, they are actually interesting to me), but only wanted to improve content as a generally disinterested contributor, that still would be OK.
And indeed, there's this stark comment here:
It was only very recently that the ongoing presidential campaign in US brought my attention. This is something highly unusual and therefore interesting to me.
So it's one form of the truth when he's under fire with one accusation, but it's another form of truth under another. Apparently, it's an all too familiar pattern of playing dumb when it comes to not only editing at mainspace (as exemplified by DrFleischman), but even as he defends himself as well. All in all, it's quite deceptive towards admins that haven't known this user's history and apparent pattern of disingenuous handling of his affairs. As for Mvbw's editing pattern, I'm surprised this user is not banned for this edit alone. As I am also surprised that he wasn't banned for this. I mean, there's a pretty strong pattern here of treating the articles of people he doesn't like with a sly attempt to destroy them, either by undermining the consensus building process to make them better, or to directly add material that would undermine the article altogether. I suggest the admins look beyond this report and seriously consider the long pattern of problematic behavior this user has be accused of doing. It's the only way of truly grasping the extent of the concerning behavior this user has caused in the project. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 01:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm frankly amazed My very best wishes hasn't been topic banned from US politics articles already. At Donald Trump in particular, all he does is edit war [62]. The rape diff alone is especially disturbing and grounds for a ban just by itself. He is edit-warring to reinstate extremely defamatory, poorly sourced material to the lede of a high visibility BLP article. for crying out loud. Can anyone think of something worse? Because I can't. Drmies' special pleading that it was a "setup" is baffling. Users are fully responsible for their edits, and Mvbw is a veteran contributor. Especially in hot articles like Donald Trump, all users should be extra careful with their edits. The conspiratorial suggestion that he was somehow "set up" is simply mind boggling.
As someone else has pointed out, for someone who disingenuously claims to "not be interested in American politics articles", he sure edit wars a lot [63] [64] [65] [66]. In fact that's pretty much all he does in this topic. Content building is virtually zilch. Talk pages are mainly used for obfuscation and deception instead of trying to resolve disagreements in good faith. For example here is demanding users not edit the article until the RfC is closed [67] (but he himself has no problem re-adding controversial material on Donald Trump even though an RfC on the material is ongoing), deliberately misconstruing RfC results ( [68]), wikilawyering about when 1RR applies [69], the list goes on.
Which brings us to what is arguably the most disruptive aspect of Mvbw's editing: the active use of deception. Mvbw frequently plays dumb (e.g. pretending not to notice an RfC is ongoing) even though he knows full well what is going on. Rules and guidelines are selectively misquoted and manipulated as desired. This shows great contempt for the wikipedia community and its processes. In one edit summary he will say an Rfc is "ridiculous" and use that as an excuse to revert [70], in the next edit summary he uses the fact that the RfC is ongoing as an excuse to revert again (but this time he validates the RfC) [71]. This user just makes a mockery of the entire wikipedia community process at every turn. This is a game to him.
Finally, I would also like to disabuse everyone here of the naive notion that Mvbw's disruption in this topic area will magically cease after Nov. 8. As anyone who is familiar with him knows, Mvbw's raison d'etre on wikipedia is a deep and abiding Putinophobia. This is why he edit wars to remove any material that reflects negatively on Clinton [72] [73] and her people [74] [75] using absurd, mocking edit summaries ("not every cold deserves mention", "petty details", "RfC not closed", etc...) and edit wars to reinstate any material that reflects negatively on Trump (the more defamatory the better). Reliable sources and wikipedia process mean nothing; it's all about the mission. Regardless of who wins, I can guarantee the chance of Mvbw abandoning these articles after election day is zilch.
Considering the lack of positive contribs, and the disruption wrought, I can't think of a single reason why this topic area benefits from Mvbw's presence. Athenean ( talk) 00:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@Drmies: So the fact he re-instated the child-rape only once makes it ok? I find it impossible to believe that Mvbw didn't do this knowingly and intentionally. Then we also have this [76], which while not quite as bad as child rape, is quite close. Then there's this little gem here with the whole guilt-by-association gimmick with Mike Tyson [77]. Doesn't quite accuse Trump of rape, but comes quite close. This is deep, deep in WP:TEND and WP:BLPVIO territory. I'm just curious, what would this user have to do to get banned from this topic area? Because if the above behavior is not enough, I don't know what is. Athenean ( talk) 06:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with Athenean's "anyone who is familiar with him knows, Mvbw's raison d'etre on wikipedia is a deep and abiding Putinophobia" description of the editing aims of My very best wishes. Regarding the Mike Tyson gimmick Athenean mentioned. I also tried to remove that content [78], only to see it immediately returned by My very best wishes [79]. As explained here [80], this off-topic content about Mike Tyson's 1992 rape conviction was being added and then editorialized into being linked to his 2016 endorsement of Trump in order to blatantly imply guilt by association. That Mvbw has continue to edit war in this obviously invalid content is telling, but I think even more telling is the silent agreement of many editors to allow it and similar disgraceful content to remain and allow Mvbw to be the attack dog in reversing any attempts at deletion. This is not just "sticking to one's guns", to use Drmies' wording - it is a constant and pov consistent obstruction to the removal of content that clearly breaks numerous Wikipedia policies and guidelines on content, language usage, editorializing, and BLP issues. These policies and guidelines take precedence over article-specific sanctions, so Drmies' hand washing "there was some kind of consensus over it" shows a failing in the judgment and guidance that are expected from an administrator. It also displays some flippancy - can Drmies actually point to the talk page discussion that decided on the consensus for the Tyson content he claims exists? There was none - the "consensus" that has allowed that content to remain is nothing more than a "the party that edit wars the longest wins" - this is not how consensus should be determined, and article-specific (even if article-specific ARBAPDS sanction supported) consensus anyway cannot decide to ignore site-wide policies and guidelines. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 15:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
My very best wishes is clearly an experienced editor who knows very well how to walk a fine line on the edge of the rules, and quickly retract when caught. I wouldn't go so far as to call him "on a mission" but I concur with Athenean and Tiptoethrutheminefield about his general editing style and behaviour, which tends to discourage editors who are not as strong-willed or as passionate. Unfortunately, neutral and consensus-minded editors can get tired of fighting such people and refrain from further attempts to improve articles on sensitive topics — precisely driving away the kind of contributors we need at Wikipedia: that is the key issue to me in this case. This particular violation doesn't look like a big deal, but it is part of a tendentious pattern coupled with sometimes derogatory or lawyeresque comments. In that spirit, I would find it unfair that MBVW escape with a mere slap of the trout when just a few days ago the same kind of minor violation (although from an editor who has generally proved to be more amenable to consensus discussions) was sanctioned with a TBAN for Anythingyouwant considering his overall pattern of behaviour. Therefore I advocate the exact same " Vanamonde-standard" sanction for MBVW, with an encouragement to be less combative in his future contributions. — JFG talk 20:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Plus, I don't want to nitpick, but that RfC is not much of an RfC. I'm not big on formalizing anything, but it seems like a discussion over a few phrases more than a well-formed, clear RfC. The question, as Lankiveil says below, is reasonable, but it's hardly a clear-cut question to be answered with an unambiguous mandate to include or exclude some specific content or organize it in some specific way. I mean, the opening section ends with "Or just listen to the tape yourself." I wouldn't call this RfC ridiculous, but to have that ongoing discussion being used to get someone banned is pushing it too far. If you want RfC's to be binding, set them up better. The second part, for instance, is this: "Saying Trump "appeared to" brag is non-neutral. He bragged, and sources such as the Washington Post article verify this." OK, that's a statement by an editor (you), and editors can discuss. But that's not much of an RfC. If you want to nail an editor for reinserting "appeared to brag" after you said on the talk page you didn't like the phrase, that's your prerogative, of course, but I can't see how this is some grave violation (or any violation at all) which needs an arbitrated slap on the wrist. Drmies ( talk) 17:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Appeal declined, though the AE block has expired. EdJohnston ( talk) 01:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Statement by DaltonCastle"This was a little harsh. I received no warning. My edits were not contentious. I am curious why the accuser never contacted me at all. This seems soundly unfair. As a token of goodwill I will stay off the page if you lift this block." Copied from the user's talk page per request. Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 02:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)" Statement by Ks0stmOriginal change, revert 1, revert 2, revert 3. User had been alerted before. Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 02:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by MrXDaltonCastle re-inserted the POV tag over the objections of three other editors, twice after being warned here. That makes a total of three reverts on an article restricted to one revert. The block was appropriate and necessary. - Mr X 02:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Statement by MelanieNI was just on my way to ask for attention to this violation by Dalton Castle, when I saw that he had already been blocked. Dalton Castle repeatedly adding a NPOV tag to the Donald Trump presidential campaign article, despite consensus against it on the talk page. He added it three times in the past 24 hours. [81] [82] [83] He did not start a talk page discussion or identify the specific NPOV violations he was alleging. When someone else started a discussion at the talk page he was dogmatic: "And we keep the tag up until we conclude it comes down." He not only violated the rules, but he still doesn't acknowledge that he did. -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by DaltonCastle
Result of the appeal by DaltonCastle
|
@
Robert McClenon: I'm equally puzzled. Not only does this request not follow the required AE template, Anthony has for some strange reason included a link to a discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with me, while also pinging involved editors and urging them to "come to a decision as what is to happen with User:DevilWearsBrion". I'm once again baffled by the actions of Anthony. This looks to me, unfortunately, like an effort at dumping on an editor who is outnumbered.
That’s an oddly accurate assessment from someone who partook in the pile on against me at AN/I and then later here at AE. What changed since then?
@ Iazyges: This was your closing statement, which contained several inaccuracies, at DRN. You then went on to remove the OR tag from the article since you apparently had decided that it wasn't OR. If you still believe you were justified in removing the OR tag because of your supposed authority as a DRN volunteer, then please say so. I'm still not clear on your position concerning this. Do you still believe that you have the authority to issue decisions? Or were you mistaken in believing so?
@ SilentResident: You will soon be given another opportunity to provide diffs as evidence for the things you've repeatedly accused me of, e.g. multiple 3RR breaches. You've failed to do so every time I've requested it. This may give credence to what I've said about you creating a false narrative about me, don't you think? DevilWearsBrioni ( talk) 23:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
First, it appears to be that the formal mediation has failed. Either the editors who disagree with DWB should withdraw from the mediation on grounds that it has failed, or User:Anthony Appleyard can (if the Mediation Committee permits) formally declare the mediation to have failed. Second, the next step is to resume discussion on the article talk page, and DWB has been formally alerted to discretionary sanctions. I don't see this Arbitration Enforcement request as serving any useful purpose. Close it somehow. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Per the statement of the mediator that the mediation has no ongoing hope of resolution, I have closed the mediation case. The privilege of mediation still applies, however, and anything heretofore said or done in the course of mediation may not be used as evidence in this or any other conduct proceeding. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan ( TALK) 23:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)