| Closed with no action taken. Editors are reminded to be careful about 1RR restrictions. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 03:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Mar4d
Interesting thing is that this all comes under 2 days, and remains continuous for many years. Above diffs show how he misrepresents sources, engages WP:BATTLE, violates WP:BLP, pushes WP:POV, censors content, etc. Given his block log and this amount of disruption in such a small period, it would be best to have him banned from entire South Asia. D4iNa4 ( talk) 02:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
So we have already seen, he would remove {{citation needed}} tag when it favors his POV [11], and he would restore the unsourced sentence with the tag when it favors his POV. [12] Ultimately, since he has been blocked so many times and socked (2009-2015) on this subject, I guess sanctions like topic ban are long overdue. D4iNa4 ( talk) 09:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Mar4dStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Mar4dThis is a frivolous report filed in bad faith, compiling its and bits with no substance. The tone in which it is written seems reminiscent of WP:HOUNDING. I do hope that the user takes note of WP:BOOMERANG, being well aware of their one-sided editing in the past 48 hours. In my defence, I'd like to point out:
Lastly, the user seems to have enough time for filing SPIs and arbitrations but not enough for talk pages. Please focus on the latter. Adios, Mar4d ( talk) 06:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Capitals00Mar4d is misrepresenting my edits here. this is an edit not a revert, this is not a revert since it ended up with self-revert, is not a revert either since it ended up with self-revert. Mar4d is evidently a heavily disruptive editor. Just what he wrote here is enough of an explanation. He believes that he can maintain non-notable articles contrary to guidelines and commonsense? Mar4d has been taking up fights with other editors [20] for no reason. Mar4d had also violated 1RR [21] on Gilgit-Baltistan [22] [23] on 6 April while the discussion was on going [24] yet he edit warred before joining the discussion. @ El C: I mentioned this because Mar4d has gamed 1RR before as well. He had been blocked in November 2015, for abusing socks in order to evade WP:3RR and WP:1RR for over 7 years, [25] and since he was unblocked after heavy conversation, it becomes necessary to put him under strict sanctions or just indef block. Capitals00 ( talk) 06:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Mar4d
|
| Closed with no action taken. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 21:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Tyler Durden
Diffs show that he is already edit warring, censoring, POV pushing, violating copyrights across South Asian subjects. It seems he doesn't understand consensus building, he would rather edit war, page move war in order to WP:OWN the article per his wishes. His problematic attitude has been pointed out in lengths before [60](then known as Vamsee614) as well, but all he does is repeat himself, in this diff he went further to claim that " I'm very much shocked that you, of all the people, are meaninglessly accusing me of 'POV pushing' and 'endorsing Pakistani deeds', when all I did was merely add relevant and reliable facts. This is outrageous!". D4iNa4 ( talk) 06:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning USERNAMEStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Tyler Durden
Statement by Capitals00Apart from above and WP:CIR issues. I should note that I find this account to be suspicious. It was created on November 25, 2016 as Vamsee614. Made no edits in December, January, and started making few edits on daily basis since February this year. Capitals00 ( talk) 07:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Tyler Durden
|
| Blocked for 48-hours for 1RR violation & topic-banned for 6 months. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 06:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Ryanfoster99
Discussion concerning Ryanfoster99Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Ryanfoster99Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. I have tried to reason with others as to my section, but my edits were reversed without a fair discussion. This page states that they believe in diverse ideas and contributions, yet you block me because I'm posting nonbiased, factually correct information that others don't like? Others never tried to reason with me. This block is unjustified and I request that it be removed immediately and that the reach for consensus continues. Statement by Murph9000We appear to have an ongoing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem and WP:BLOCK EVASION from an IP which is evidently the same person. That is the same IPv6 range which was alternating with Ryanfoster99 in trying to force the edit against DS restrictions. The IP hopping may not be deliberate, as it's an automatic feature with some IPv6 connections, but 2601:483:200:8e1::/64 appears to be evading the block.( diff) Murph9000 ( talk) 02:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Ryanfoster99
|
| Not actionable: outside of discretionary sanctions topic area. Sandstein 14:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Volunteer_Marek
Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) warned for making a personal attack and that further personal attacks or incivility will likely result in a block or other sanction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC) } Warned about making personal attacks.
Volunteer_Marek continues being incivil and he engages in personal attacks against others. He was asked by several users [90] [ [91] to stop his behavior however it seems to have no results.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 10:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Sandstein: do you believe it would be better if I transfer this report to ANI if you believe AE is not the suitable venue for this due to different topic area under sanctions ?@ Sandstein:-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 10:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Notified: [92] Discussion concerning Volunteer_MarekStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Volunteer_MarekStatement by jd2718For this to come under EE the filer would have to show a long pattern of the editor developing interests in many areas to promote an anti-Russian viewpoint. Otherwise, as Sandstein remarks, this is Syria, not EE. It may well be possible to do show that pattern, but the filer hasn't done so. And, frankly, whether or not the editor's work falls under this arbitration, it would make no sense to invest that sort of time unless the filer were looking to do more than correct coarse language. Jd2718 ( talk) 14:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Volunteer_Marek
|
| Proximity1 is topic banned for six months from Shakespeare Authorship Question and related pages, broadly construed. Bishonen | talk 19:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC). |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Proximity1
Open and shut, really. Ian.thomson ( talk) 13:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Proximity1Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Proximity1RE: these allegations What you have here is a member attempting to shut down ordinary WP policy and procedure by appeal to this panel in bringing before it completely false claims in each of the items below:
[110] Asking for us to create artificial balance and give undue prominence to the authorship conspiracy theories I deny the accuracy of this claim. "Undue prominence" to alternatives to Shakespeare's authorship cannot be fairly alleged in a page devoted to "The Shakespeare Authorship Question" itself as titled-topic. If anything, "undue prominence" amounting to hostile and outright bias in support of the partisan view favoring Shakespeare is the case at this page.
[111] Pretty much claiming that because Argumentum ad populum is a thing, the "Stratfordian" view must be wrong I deny the accuracy of this claim. I claim, assert no such thing. [112] Mucking up an essay to promote the idea that believers of fringe positions should be the ones to write about fringe ideas. "Mucking up"? I answer: The WP policies require that, in the first instance, a member finding bias and lack of required neutrality first raise the issue in the relevant Talk-page of the article concerned.
I deny the accuracy of this claim. Indeed, this is a patently hostile mischaracterization of my view-- which is that, indeed, in a partisan controverrsy, no partisan adherant should be allowed to stand in for, to represent for his or her adversaries, their points of view --whether those points of view be of the minority or of the majority. Every camp, every arguant's position should be reserved for explanation, presentation and clarification by partisans, and only by partisans, of each point of view concerned.
I further propose to the Arbitration panel that it examine for good-faith grounds of the complaints being urged by the member bringing the complaint and review them for their possible hostile and suppressive intent and, if the panel finds thes complaints ill or un-founded, that it sanction the member having brought this complaint. Proximity1 ( talk) 13:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by MjolnirPantsI just want to point out that disruption is disruption; whether it occurs at talk or in an article. If this user is being disruptive, then there's no reason why DS shouldn't apply, unless there's a disclaimer somewhere specifying that it only applies to article-space edits. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by XoverCurrent Arbs and mop wielders that were not directly involved with the case may wish to refresh their memory of WP:ARBSAQ. WP:BATTLEGROUND, polite POV pushing (the non-polite version is much easier to deal with), and WP:NOTHERE (righting great wrongs, fighting the "conspiracy of the mainstream Shakespeare establishment", etc.) were central themes of the case. I also encourage you try to trawl through Talk:Shakespeare authorship question archives; at the point you give up you'll realise what the problem was (its manifestation was on Talk pages more than in articles). This current AE request is slightly premature IMO (insufficient length of WP:ROPE), but it bears all the hallmarks of previous rounds. @ Sandstein: I absolutely guarantee that DS is what's preventing ARBSAQ2 from being needed in relatively short order. It's not an issue that will fade away on its own. Case in point: the current AE (premature though it is, it would have ended up here pretty soon anyway). -- Xover ( talk) 17:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by RolandRNo-one seems to have responded to Proximity's argument that "in a partisan controverrsy, no partisan adherant should be allowed to stand in for, to represent for his or her adversaries, their points of view --whether those points of view be of the minority or of the majority. Every camp, every arguant's position should be reserved for explanation, presentation and clarification by partisans, and only by partisans, of each point of view concerned." This is so clearly against Wikipedia's norms and guidelines that it cannot be ignored. Wikipedia is based on a neutral point of view. This does not mean that editors may not hold particular points of view, but does mean that we must edit neutrally. We should not ignore and dismiss the point of view of those we disagree with, and nor may we present our own point of view as unquestioned fact. Wikipedia is not a debating chamber, and articles should not be a place where rival points of view are presented and voted on. If Proximity cannot accept this basic rule, then they have no business editing anywhere on Wikipedia, and least of all in such a highly contentious article. RolandR ( talk) 22:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by JohnuniqEdits by Proximity1 to Shakespeare authorship question, each reverted:
The talk page section showing that consensus is against the external link was on 24 April 2017. The discussion leading to a major cleanup of external links was in February 2011. The above shows that a minimum of a final warning is required regarding edit waring and advocacy from WP:ARBSAQ single purpose accounts (Proximity1 has 76 edits since 16 March 2017, each of which focus on a particular SAQ theory, and 12 edits prior to that). Johnuniq ( talk) 23:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Proximity1
|
| Both pages indef semi-protected. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 21:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning 81.104.12.193
All edits revolve around the removal of the Irish name for the Northern Irish settlements of Lisburn and Hillsborough. These names are included per agreement at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles#Other_names with the names themselves verified to the official body for this topic at [100] and supplementary at [101]. These removals qualify as Troubles related as the Irish language is a strong bone of contention between loyalists and republicans, something recently in the press quite a lot.
The following three other IP's appear to be the same user but possibly from a different machine they don't have regular access too: Special:Contributions/86.153.244.5, Special:Contributions/82.7.125.216 and Special:Contributions/82.132.225.167, which combine for another 6 removals of the Irish name from the two articles. Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, 14 Mar 2017 by @ Nfitz:.
@ Daithidebarra: did their utmost to get the IP to engage in discussion as evident from their requests on the IP's talk page and the discussion initiated at Talk:Hillsborough,_County_Down#Irish_Language_name_for_area_known_in_English_as_.22Hillsborough.22_and_Request_for_Discussion, where the IP was explained in detail why their removal was wrong and why the Irish form of the places are included. Semi page protection would be pointless unless it was for a prolonged period of time as the editor is willing wait weeks or months before returning to redo their removal of the information. The same for an initial block as the editor may not return for a while in which time the block will have elapsed before it could even attempt to encourage them to rethink their behaviour. Also considering the IP has been editing since their appearance with a POV slant, and that over the past few months their edits only appear to be do with the unreasonable removal of the Irish names for Lisburn and Hillsborough and they are completely unwilling to partake in discussion over it I would say they are not contributing to Wikipedia in a meaningful way and a long-term block of the IP(s) should be considered.
User_talk:81.104.12.193#Arbitration_Committee_referral
Discussion concerning 81.104.12.193Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 81.104.12.193Statement by Mabuska@ Black Kite:, what is PC1? I'm happy with whatever works best to stop the disruptive edits. Mabuska (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning 81.104.12.193
|
| User:Ihardlythinkso is indefinitely topic-banned from post-1932 American Politics, broadly construed. This sanction may be brought here for reconsideration after six months. GoldenRing ( talk) 01:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Ihardlythinkso
"Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited."
The diffs speak for themselves. This editor has once again ramped up the personal attacks and general battleground behaviour. The latest attacks directed at me include a ridiculous accusation of stalking after I reverted his reversion of what I considered a good edit. Of course, before accusing me of stalking, he reverted again.- Mr X 21:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
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 IhardlythinksoWhat do you want a response on? The Donald Trump page is left open to disparaging remarks about the bio subject's character; that page needs to be patrolled better by admins. It's hypocrisy or bias to stomp down on "equal time" remarks about his rival. (And nothing I posted was any worse than available RSs about the character of that person, proof is Jeanine Pirro's opening statement here.) The WP is already liberally biased and I'm seldom on the Donald Trump article Talk especially because of it. Notice editors like Anythingyouwant are ostracized there and nitpicked unendingly until chased away. MrX is part of that effort. He takes a front seat to bias that article, including elimination of me through lecture, reversion, stalking, and insult. (The hypocrisy of recently informing me that as editor I'm "insignificant" and "Good day!" followed by opening this case.) There is no doubt in my mind WP is overrun w/ liberal bias, even the Remembrance Project is laced with coloring the founder with ties and motivations connected somehow to Hitler. As far as battlegrounding with any of this bias, that is absurd, there is too much of it and it has gone on for too long and is too pervasive. No one rational would spend their time in attempt to NPOV it back to respectability for an encyclopedia. And I have no interest at that article except to peek once in awhile, and if I make a post about something it is becauase the absurdity & bias is so rampant, a comment saying the King has No Clothes was called for. So pick on me, go ahead. I do not really give a damn. It isn't about me, it is about the blatant bias that is and has been already there. Be proud. I am not. And would never recommend any friends of family to read WP political articles. I've already seen enough and discussed enough w/ people offline about this to know everything I've said is true. So I don't give a damn about your power to ban me from that article or even political articles. The editor with agenda are those that bias it. Look at my edit history to see if I have improved political articles and if so how. I do not add bias but I might revert it. At the Pruitt lede I reverted a new claim that Pruitt "intends to dismantle the EPA", even though it was not a summary of anything near that in the article, and the refs posted to support the contention lead with an opinion piece. The statement is equivalent to putting mind-reading in Wikipedia's voice, supported by op-ed. Blatant bias. When I specified that I reverted on those bases, MrX reverted me with only "it was a good edit". Wow. Do not blame me for the absurd bias of articles and the majority of liberal NPOV warriors out to denegrate Trump and anything associated with him. I know the hatred is there in MSM, and Wikipedia is a sort of MSM, also dominated by liberal POV. Now one of those warriors is out for blood. And I don't give a care if you give it too him, because as mentioned the status of things is already too-far gone, and I've never ever been a part of any generealized effort to reverse it, I have more realistic things to do w/ my time. But obviously this is very important to MrX and others who support the liberal bias, they outnumber any of the opposers like Anythingyouwant. (Who along with me was accused of "disruption" and "this must be stopped" simply from taking the position in discussion that if it is mentioned Trump did not win a majority of the popular vote, that his implied or stated main opponent didn't either. Somehow, the logic of that is impossible to see, or takes excruciating effort to see, as per comments at that Talk. Give me a break.) BTW, what was it I was supposed to respond to specifically? Another thing, the previous ban of me on the Donald Trump article was bogus and unfair (par for the course, good job Bish, I went to your Talk to complain about something else besides the ban you supported, and another user follows me to your Talk to harass me, a user whose biggest objection is that I added a blockquote to a quote greater than 40 words per MoS, and that I changed a piped link from an article specifically about history of women's rights in U.S., to an article about feminism in the U.S., which was more what the relevant article topic was about, and somehow I get blocked at her Talk when objecting to the user harassing me there). The article stated that Trump in the Hollywood tape referred to his assults against women, synonymous to admission of having committed crimes against them, when he never made any such admission, so why is WP stating so if MSM biased RSs exist that like/want to say so? (The answer is, because the editors dominating the article are just as biased and smear-enthusiastic as the MSM.) I did the right thing to protect a living BLP subject from such trashy statements, and what did I get? Banned. Good one. (And now use that ban as further evidence that I need another ban? Oh good one. That's so impressive! Not.) -- IHTS ( talk) 00:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Ihardlythinkso
|
| No action taken. Editors cautioned to be careful about reverting edits in this topic area. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 18:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning SPECIFICO
WP:ARBAPDS / 1RR violation
The editor is currently subject to other sanctions but they are not relevant to this case.
Warned in May 2016 by Coffee, December 2016 by Sagecandor and January 2017 by Octoberwoodland. Participated in numerous WP:AE threads. Routinely threatens other editors of sanctions (which recently resulted in a custom sanction to prevent disruption).
Discussion concerning SPECIFICOStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SPECIFICOEntirely my error, however I believe that @ MrX: subsequently made the same edit as my second one after JFG reinstated his preferred version thereby making it unnecessary for me to self-revert. I will be more careful to check the edit history hereafter. I noticed my error when I saw JFG's own second revert here, after this one here less than an hour earlier. However, unlike JFG I chose not to open a complaint since, like my mistake, his second revert is now moot. SPECIFICO talk 23:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by DarouetI routinely disagree with SPECIFICO on content issues at this article, and have been upset by their many warnings / threats of sanctions against editors, myself included, which are typically made without evidence. However, this is a single simple infraction. I don't think it's worthwhile to "catch" someone on a one-off like this: it will just worsen the editing atmosphere. I'd recommend that the issue be resolved on the talk page. - Darouet ( talk) 23:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Statement by MrXI agree with Darouet. Best practice is to give an editor an opportunity to self-revert before reporting them, unless of course there is a pattern of edit warring.- Mr X 23:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning SPECIFICO
|
| Closed with no action as editor was separately indef blocked as a confirmed sock puppet. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 03:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Problematics
Continuously blanking the section and content about Pakistan despite consensus on talk page as well as the recent page move discussion, [104] in which he opposed the present article name.
This is violation of WP:1RR, even if he is waiting at least 24 hours 1 minute to make another revert. He is only editor to revert to his preferred version. What's more suspicious is, that he is an WP:SPA, who registered the account on Apr 21, 2017 to edit these articles, however he has are clear WP:CIR issues. It has been impossible to make him agree and other editors are in favor of the version he continues to revert. [106] [107] He has misrepresented the admin Amakuru's comments [108], despite he told him "for now it does appear to me that the consensus view is against you". [109] But he is not getting it, no matter how much others tell him. [110] Capitals00 ( talk) 12:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning ProblematicsStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ProblematicsThe above statements are misrepresentative of the actual events. Firstly, the article's scope is disputed, the Admin had confirmed that. It was in that background that I reverted this. And I was justified to do so by WP:NOCON. I explained myself on the talkpage before reverting. After that me and other users were having a discussion and this discussion is still ongoing. Not just me but User:Mar4d and User:Nadirali also lodged opinions on the talkpage in favour of retaining the article's old scope. [ [115]] 2. User:Capitals00 then proceeded to falsely claim consensus (which he did not have as I explained here) and revert me. Nevertheless I did not revert User:Capitals00 because of 1RR on the page and even he has accepted I did not violate 1RR (by reverting WP:NOCON within 24 hours)). I feel this claim was filed in bad faith. It should also be known that this user was engaged in an edit war on the page in question, violated 3RR and was accused by another user on the article's talkpage of POV-editing. Problematics ( talk) 12:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by Kautilya3This is a content dispute, albeit a pretty complicated one. It doesn't belong here. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Statement by D4iNa4Problematics doesn't seem to be dropping the issue and he is still making WP:POINT to disrupt wikipedia. He has been reverted by another editor after this report. [117] I also agree he wasn't born yesterday, and I am not sure about his motive but since he joined wikipedia he engaged himself in disruptive conduct. D4iNa4 ( talk) 17:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Tyler DurdenThis is a content dispute. No point in bringing these issues here. The filer(s) are unnecessarily and meaninglessly doing this for the third time in the same dispute. — Tyler Durden ( talk) 18:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by Mar4d
Statement by Marvellous Spider-ManThis is a content dispute, however Problematics is editing like WP:SPA. -- Marvellous Spider-Man 15:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by MBlazeProblematics had already violated WP:1RR [118] [119], before he made this [120] yet another revert. This is a conduct issue, not a content issue. — MBlaze Lightning T 17:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Problematics
|
| FreeatlastChitchat ( talk · contribs) is warned regarding their TBAN. No block at this time as request is stale. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 17:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning FreeatlastChitchat
Has made only 19 edits since May 14 2016 and most of them were made in violation of topic ban. D4iNa4 ( talk) 17:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning FreeatlastChitchatStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by FreeatlastChitchatI think I violated the Tban on Muhammad Ali Jinnah. I was just going through my watchlist and reverted the change. I apologize for that, it will not happen again, you can put a warning on my TP and log it if you want to go through the motions. As far as Ahmadiyya is concerned, it is an international religion and does not come under the Tban. Religions do not come under geographical Tbans, but articles about religions in a particular country come under Tbans. So I can freely edit Ahmadiyya, but I am not allowed to edit Ahmadiyya in Pakistan and Ahmadiyyat in India. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 06:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning FreeatlastChitchat
|
| No More Mr Nice Guy is blocked for 72 hours. Sandstein 21:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning No More Mr Nice Guy
Per notice at top of Talk:Balfour Declaration:
The comments below have been taken off course by other topics merged into the discussion. What appears to have been missed is that No More Mr Nice Guy's edits 3 and 4 above were a clear violation of 1RR. So in aggregate these edits contravened ARBPIA rules past, present and future: the old ARBPIA 1RR bright line, the current consensus requirement, and the soon-to-be-implemented new 1RR wording being discussed at WP:ARCA. Have said that, what I find much more troublesome is No More Mr Nice Guy's comment at [134], where the editor stated that he felt no need to enter into discussion to support his continuing reverts. Oncenawhile ( talk) 20:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning No More Mr Nice GuyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by No More Mr Nice GuyThe material has been there since at least September 2016. My edits are the "reverted edit" one needs consensus to "restore" in the requirement Oncenawhile quoed above. If anything, Rjensen is the one who violated the requirement when he redid his edit which I reverted (edit [136], revert [137], restore edit without consensus [138]), but the issue seems to have been resolved (except insofar as Oncenawhile thinks he can weaponise it, apparently). No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 15:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC) @KI, you're correct. The text was written by me as a compromise between texts Nishidani and Epsom Salts put in the article. Nishidani did not complain about it at the time or since, but apparently couldn't give up the opportunity to try to get rid of an opponent with a ridiculously illogical guilt by association argument. Talk about disingenuous. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 23:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC) Since Nishidani brought it up, opening himself to BOOMERANG, could someone have a look at the behavior I complained about here, which he mentioned below? "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." like he did here (among many other places) fits part of the definition of antisemitism recently adopted by, among others, the UK government [139] to "ensure that culprits will not be able to get away with being antisemitic because the term is ill-defined, or because different organisations or bodies have different interpretations of it"? Why is he allowed to harass other editors like this? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 16:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC) Nishidani, thanks for admitting you made an analogy to the Nazis, and tailored your response to your interlocutors being Jewish - "I asked the two editors how they would respond to reading of something similar in their own cultural tradition". Why you think that makes it better rather than worse is anyone's guess. It doesn't even matter that your analogy is ridiculous or that your retrospective rationalization attempts fall flat to a simple reading of your post. What really happened here is that a couple of Jews did something you didn't like, so you said something hurtful, as is your wont. This sort of thing supposedly goes against everything Wikipedia editing stands for, but is allowed for some reason when you do it. Over and over. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 18:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC) The treatment of Jews in Poland by the Nazis in the 1940s is part of whose "cultural tradition"? Jews or Israelis? Do you really think everyone here is stupid? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 20:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC) Ah yes, the good old "Black people call each other the N-word, so why can't I?" defense. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 14:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC) Nishidani, speaking of animus, if you hadn't showed up here and tried to smear me with your disingenuous guilt by association argument, we wouldn't be having this discussion. All you had to do is stay out of it. And I was obviously referring to your last post in my previous one. "Serious reading problems", indeed. Kudos for writing twice as much as everyone else combined, by the way. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 17:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by KingsindianI think this request is a bit premature. The article has been changed significantly since the lead was written: the lead would need to be rewritten anyway, and this point can then be addressed. It's not worth fighting over this matter now, per WP:DEADLINE. Since I think that the ARBPIA rule (currently at ARCA) is idiotic and counterproductive, I would definitely not want any "prosecution" under the rule. The dispute is still manageable. That said, I would prefer that NMMNG self-revert and (a) either propose an acceptable wording, or at least reply to my comments here or (b) simply wait till a new lead is written. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Statement by ShrikeThe second edit by NNMG is exempt from revert count as it reverted the violation of consensus clause so 1RR and no violation of consensus clause.-- Shrike ( talk) 13:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC) Still I don't understand why only NNMG is reported other people broke the rule too-- Shrike ( talk) 14:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000To editor Shrike: You are citing the rules incorrectly. The arbcom ruling allows reverts to enforce the General Prohibition, not reverts to enforce the consensus clause. Zero talk 13:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by Malik ShabazzWhile it's true that I didn't use the magic phrase "consensus clause -- which is so magical that the requirement that it be invoked has never been announced -- anybody but an absolute moron (or a blind pro-Israeli POV pusher) would recognize that I invoked the clause in my edit summary: "removing material that is still under discussion on the talk page -- please read WP:ARBPIA -- a five-hour 'I agree' among four like-minded editors is not consensus". I will note for future reference, however, that at least one administrator is unable to see the reference to ARBPIA and consensus in the edit summary and put 2+2 together and get 4; in the future, I will assume the stupidity of all administrators and use the magic phrase "consensus clause". — MShabazz Talk/ Stalk 03:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by NishidaniIf the first revert restored in January of this year edits made by Epson Salts, then NMMGG was knowingly restoring text that had been introduced by a sockpuppet of one of the most deleterious sockmasters in the I/P area, NoCal100, some months, ( October_2016 October 2016) i.e. within fresh memory of Epsom Salts' indefinite ban as a sock. If so, then this is particularly disingenuous, indeed . . . Nishidani ( talk) 19:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Ijon TichyRegarding some of the issues discussed by Nishidani, see also: Criticism_of_the_Israeli_government#Comparisons_with_Nazi_Germany. ---- Ijon Tichy ( talk) 13:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Result concerning No More Mr Nice Guy
|
| Action doesn't require a consensus or action by an admin who hasn't opined, so I just unblocked him myself. Probably more symbolic than anything, but still. The block was absolutely valid, the block time was absolutely valid, even if others might have handled it differently. The unblock for "time served" was just because the usefulness of the block had worn off. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
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).
Statement by No More Mr Nice GuyI did not realize 1RR was the issue, as the complaint focused on the consensus clause and I thought, based on previous precedent (in another complaint Oncenawhile lodged against me, so he was aware of this) that providing a source as a response to a revert would not be frowned upon. Oncenawhile did not warn me, as is common practice, about the 1RR. Nobody participating in the discussion mentioned 1RR, everyone focused on the consensus clause. I would have self-reverted if I had realized there was an issue, like any experienced editor would have. There's no preventative purpose in blocking me and 72 hours for a first offence for an editor who's been around for years and has never been blocked seems unduly harsh. This sanction seems punitive and I would like my record clear, as I have been able to maintain it for years.
Statement by SandsteinI recommend declining the appeal. No More Mr Nice Guy has conceded violating the 1RR. The rest is wikilawyering. No More Mr Nice Guy has had ample time to undo their edits after the AE request was made. It was apparent from the complaint that 1RR was the issue, or part of the issue; and in any case the remedy provides for blocks without warning even on the first offense - let alone an AE thread open for days. Sandstein 21:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Statement by involved KingsindianCopy pasting my comments from NMMNG's talkpage (minor condensation): Hi. First, a correction of a minor factual error in your closing statement: NMMNG's prohibition on AE discussions was lifted a few months ago. Second, at the time this request was made ARBPIA did have the consensus clause operative, but recently, after an ARCA request, it has been dropped because it leads to more trouble than it is worth. Keeping this development in mind, perhaps you might want to re-evaluate the block. In my opinion, it is not necessary and people fighting over silly rules only leads to bad blood; discussion about how to phrase the lead is proceeding (as well as can be expected) on the talkpage. Oncenawhile mostly focused on the consensus clause, because that was the main issue. I am, in general, in favour of giving people a chance to self-revert before reporting them to AE. And NMMNG has earlier shown willingness to self-revert when asked. This is very common practice in ARBPIA because 1RR can be so easily broken, even by mistake (I have done it many times). While blocking for 1RR is within admin discretion, I think it's not necessary here to prevent disruption. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Statement by OncenawhileKingsindian is correct that I would not have reported this if it was just a 1RR breach or just a consensus breach. What I consider unacceptable is that an experienced editor chose to repeatedly remove the same text while making an explicit statement on the talk page that he does not intend to engage in discussion. I objected to the text on the talk page after each revert in January and March, and other editors objected to the same in May, but we were unable to make any progress as a result of this conscious lack of engagement. Oncenawhile ( talk) 06:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)Ok, I’m a 100% involved editor ....from "the other side of the divide" as to NMMNG. And I think NMMNG can be a complete pain in the neck, at times. I totally understand Oncenawhile frustration with NMMNG, not engaging in discussion. Having said that (and having read the whole thing) ...I’m actually in no doubt that this was an honest misunderstanding of the rules by NMMNG. As such, I think he should be unblocked, Huldra ( talk) 23:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by No More Mr Nice GuyResult of the appeal by No More Mr Nice Guy
|
| No action taken. Anyone who wants to nominate Robert Young (endurance runner) for deletion should go ahead with that. A number of admins gave advice, with one suggesting that User:Kevin McE should avoid this article. EdJohnston ( talk) 02:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Kevin McE
User was notified of AC/DS for BLPs with this edit. This is right after I warned the editor for BLP violations (for basically calling the subject of the BLP a liar in their edit summary), and I left an extensive explanation on the talk page, here.
I am neither involved with the subject or this particular editor, but I would rather have someone else confirm that this behavior is unacceptable. I want this editor topic-banned from this article: they clearly cannot edit objectively, and have no desire (or competence) to remain within policy. While we're on the topic, you can see that Woodywing's edits are even more problematic, and they need to be banned from this article as well, but it's Kevin McE's edit warring that brings us here.
Discussion concerning Kevin McEStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Kevin McEIn view of the comments made by others, I really don't see that I have any need to defend myself here. The only accusation against me is that I removed information that does not seem trustworthy. I object strongly to Drmies's attempt to categorise me; "Kevin McE's disruption is obviously based on either a crusader mentality or a personal animosity toward the subject, or both." I have no knowledge of Young other than having been involved in challenging several articles that have been started about him over the course of many years by a whole series of sockpuppets, which many admins have assumed to be incarnations of Young himself or someone very close to him. If trying to keep false claims out of Wikipedia makes me a crusader, then strap a breastplate with a picture of a lion on me. Otherwise do not make ad hominem attacks. I believe that the conduct of Drmies in this situation is thoroughly reprehensible. Apart from the above, he has made false accusations about my posts; he has refused to state whether he has made himself aware of the history of deleted articles about Young; he deleted an article without any reference to those who had worked on it; he has acted arrogantly and rudely, and unbecoming of an admin. Kevin McE ( talk) 16:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC) My reply to Bbb23 below was deleted, apparently I am not allowed to reply to comments about my edits in the place where such comments are made, which seems odd, but hey ho... So I replicate it here: His self-authored attempts at articles about himself here were full of palpably false claims (that he was on top level road race cycling team Milram, that he was a Triathlon champion, etc); he denied accusations, subsequently proven, that he had cheated in the run across America. I fail to see how, in the light of this, my description is flawed. Kevin McE ( talk) 19:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by No such userMay I suggest that everyone takes a deep breath and dials back some? Kevin is apparently aggravated now, but Drmies did not help de-eascalate, on the contrary. In particular, I don't find diffs provided by Drmies as BLP violations per se, but a rather plain editing dispute. And I find it odd that removal' of material may constitute a BLP violation, particularly as it is not used to counterbalance anything. – There, Kevin has a point that an interview with the subject is not a first-class reliable source, as it gives ample opportunity for self-serving statements. At a minimum, if veracity of information provided by the subject is challenged, we avoid stating it in Wikipedia voice but use disclaimers such as "claims". And we always have an editorial option to exclude information brought by supposedly reliable sources if there are serious reasons to distrust it – see e.g. Talk:Bijeljina_massacre#RfC: Plavsic "stepping over a dead body"?. During the dispute, Kevin lost his cool and he probably did violate BLP in edit summaries or talk page comments, but I'd suggest closing this AE with no action, taking a deep breath, and starting a serious discussion what to do with the article, preferably with a clean slate (=minimal stub). No such user ( talk) 08:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by Bbb23I simply want to highlight this edit made by Kevin at WP:BLPN ("the only source of any biographical information (the subject himself) is entirely unreliable and a serial liar in the media"), which I subsequently reverted as a BLP violation. If this diff has already been posted, my apologies.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by TParis
Statement by NeilNWhile this request concerns Kevin McE, I can understand his subsequent frustration as admin behavior surrounding the full protection of this article hasn't been the best. While I understand why TParis restored the material before fully protecting, I don't agree the restoration met the level of being treated as an admin action. And Black Kite's removal, while made in good faith, was based on an incorrect assumption as I explained on the talk page. [145] Kevin McE's main argument I believe is that newspaper reports should not be taken at face value. Drmies article edits and talk page posts seem a bit inconsistent on this matter. He says that "newspapers that are considered reliable have editorial oversight" but this edit seems to be at odds with that statement as the source reports the abuse as a fact, and not simply a claim by Young. -- NeilN talk to me 16:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Statement by CollectThe Telegraph "article" is by a "Formula One Correspondent", and the New Statesman article is by a "Features Editor". Both appear connected with release of a book by the person, and refer to claims made therein. The problem, alas, is that the "problem editor" here is likely correct, noting that The Guardian in [146] states "“[His] tracker and GPS data are cans of worms,” Robert Lopez wrote to Ultra List subscribers. “There is a day that Rob’s RV got stuck in the desert. The location is known. [...] Whether he legged out the 40-plus road miles or somehow orienteered his way through the brush without navigational aids, [his] time is incredible. And I mean that in the literal sense.”" and so on. [147] states that his sponsor found that Young had received "unauthorized assistance" in his record-=setting trek. Sports Illustrated in [148] has "So Delmott decided to accompany Young as he ran through Lebo (just east of Emporia) about 1 a.m. on Sunday, June 5. The problem, said Delmott, was that he found Young's RV, but never saw the Brit running. " and ""The part where I disagree with their account is simply whether Rob was running with the RV," says Delmott. "In total that night, I saw the RV at four separate occasions, and never saw a runner. I also got videos, which do not show a runner, or the flashlight they claim he uses to signal a stop. In summary, they might have been scared, but Rob wasn't running down the road." ". Thus we ought to recognize that an autobiography and press releases for such a book may not be allowed under WP:BLP as being essentially an SPS with no actual fact-checking. And that reputable reliable sources do, indeed, raise substantive doubts about the veracity of the record-holder who was not seen running. Runners World has [149] that Young's "TomTom account" indicates that he did not run large portions of the route. I urgently suggest that no punishment ensue for a person who has accurately reported what the fact-checking publications say, and not rely on press release material. Collect ( talk) 17:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC) The report made to the runner's sponsor is at skins.net. The bad part is a chart (figure 3) showing a stride rate of under 10 per minute for long distances (slow walk). "A. Before observation, a high number of sessions had impossible step length implications. This has been shown in various ways previously (Figures 4-7 and Table 1). B. Before observation, there was a significant difference between day-time and night-time sessions, with the majority of impossible stride parameters coming from night-time sessions (see also Table 1 for details)" This is a strong factual assertion by people skilled in making such determinations. I am inclined to give credence to the expert report, noting that Skins ceased supporting Young, and that many European journals have printed this material at this point. Collect ( talk) 18:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by DHeywardI never heard of the subject until this AE request. I read an uncritical article and based on that, this article came up [150]. We aren't in the business of truth but we are in the business of attribution. Claiming that someone is not a reliable source for Wikipedia is not the same as calling them liars. That leap is very disconcerting. We make sourcing and attribution decisions all the time based on how reliable a source is for facts. When we remove statements in BLPs sourced to "unreliable sources" we are not calling the author of those articles liars. The BLP violation is making that leap, not removing that material. Every time someone removes, say, a Breitbart cited statement, we aren't calling the Breitbart author a liar. That's a ridiculous leap and kind of scary that we would be here accusing an editor of calling the author a liar and seeking sanctions. For the editor that made such a leap, what are we to think when they weigh in on the Reliable Sources noticeboard and say a source is unreliable? Close the request and send it back to the talk page to work out attribution. If the only thing left is a negative coatrack, stub it or delete it. -- DHeyward ( talk) 17:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Kevin McE
|
| Closed with no action taken. Editors are reminded to be careful about 1RR restrictions. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 03:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Mar4d
Interesting thing is that this all comes under 2 days, and remains continuous for many years. Above diffs show how he misrepresents sources, engages WP:BATTLE, violates WP:BLP, pushes WP:POV, censors content, etc. Given his block log and this amount of disruption in such a small period, it would be best to have him banned from entire South Asia. D4iNa4 ( talk) 02:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
So we have already seen, he would remove {{citation needed}} tag when it favors his POV [11], and he would restore the unsourced sentence with the tag when it favors his POV. [12] Ultimately, since he has been blocked so many times and socked (2009-2015) on this subject, I guess sanctions like topic ban are long overdue. D4iNa4 ( talk) 09:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Mar4dStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Mar4dThis is a frivolous report filed in bad faith, compiling its and bits with no substance. The tone in which it is written seems reminiscent of WP:HOUNDING. I do hope that the user takes note of WP:BOOMERANG, being well aware of their one-sided editing in the past 48 hours. In my defence, I'd like to point out:
Lastly, the user seems to have enough time for filing SPIs and arbitrations but not enough for talk pages. Please focus on the latter. Adios, Mar4d ( talk) 06:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Capitals00Mar4d is misrepresenting my edits here. this is an edit not a revert, this is not a revert since it ended up with self-revert, is not a revert either since it ended up with self-revert. Mar4d is evidently a heavily disruptive editor. Just what he wrote here is enough of an explanation. He believes that he can maintain non-notable articles contrary to guidelines and commonsense? Mar4d has been taking up fights with other editors [20] for no reason. Mar4d had also violated 1RR [21] on Gilgit-Baltistan [22] [23] on 6 April while the discussion was on going [24] yet he edit warred before joining the discussion. @ El C: I mentioned this because Mar4d has gamed 1RR before as well. He had been blocked in November 2015, for abusing socks in order to evade WP:3RR and WP:1RR for over 7 years, [25] and since he was unblocked after heavy conversation, it becomes necessary to put him under strict sanctions or just indef block. Capitals00 ( talk) 06:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Mar4d
|
| Closed with no action taken. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 21:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Tyler Durden
Diffs show that he is already edit warring, censoring, POV pushing, violating copyrights across South Asian subjects. It seems he doesn't understand consensus building, he would rather edit war, page move war in order to WP:OWN the article per his wishes. His problematic attitude has been pointed out in lengths before [60](then known as Vamsee614) as well, but all he does is repeat himself, in this diff he went further to claim that " I'm very much shocked that you, of all the people, are meaninglessly accusing me of 'POV pushing' and 'endorsing Pakistani deeds', when all I did was merely add relevant and reliable facts. This is outrageous!". D4iNa4 ( talk) 06:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning USERNAMEStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Tyler Durden
Statement by Capitals00Apart from above and WP:CIR issues. I should note that I find this account to be suspicious. It was created on November 25, 2016 as Vamsee614. Made no edits in December, January, and started making few edits on daily basis since February this year. Capitals00 ( talk) 07:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Tyler Durden
|
| Blocked for 48-hours for 1RR violation & topic-banned for 6 months. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 06:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Ryanfoster99
Discussion concerning Ryanfoster99Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Ryanfoster99Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. I have tried to reason with others as to my section, but my edits were reversed without a fair discussion. This page states that they believe in diverse ideas and contributions, yet you block me because I'm posting nonbiased, factually correct information that others don't like? Others never tried to reason with me. This block is unjustified and I request that it be removed immediately and that the reach for consensus continues. Statement by Murph9000We appear to have an ongoing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem and WP:BLOCK EVASION from an IP which is evidently the same person. That is the same IPv6 range which was alternating with Ryanfoster99 in trying to force the edit against DS restrictions. The IP hopping may not be deliberate, as it's an automatic feature with some IPv6 connections, but 2601:483:200:8e1::/64 appears to be evading the block.( diff) Murph9000 ( talk) 02:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Ryanfoster99
|
| Not actionable: outside of discretionary sanctions topic area. Sandstein 14:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Volunteer_Marek
Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) warned for making a personal attack and that further personal attacks or incivility will likely result in a block or other sanction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC) } Warned about making personal attacks.
Volunteer_Marek continues being incivil and he engages in personal attacks against others. He was asked by several users [90] [ [91] to stop his behavior however it seems to have no results.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 10:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Sandstein: do you believe it would be better if I transfer this report to ANI if you believe AE is not the suitable venue for this due to different topic area under sanctions ?@ Sandstein:-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 10:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Notified: [92] Discussion concerning Volunteer_MarekStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Volunteer_MarekStatement by jd2718For this to come under EE the filer would have to show a long pattern of the editor developing interests in many areas to promote an anti-Russian viewpoint. Otherwise, as Sandstein remarks, this is Syria, not EE. It may well be possible to do show that pattern, but the filer hasn't done so. And, frankly, whether or not the editor's work falls under this arbitration, it would make no sense to invest that sort of time unless the filer were looking to do more than correct coarse language. Jd2718 ( talk) 14:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Volunteer_Marek
|
| Proximity1 is topic banned for six months from Shakespeare Authorship Question and related pages, broadly construed. Bishonen | talk 19:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC). |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Proximity1
Open and shut, really. Ian.thomson ( talk) 13:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Proximity1Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Proximity1RE: these allegations What you have here is a member attempting to shut down ordinary WP policy and procedure by appeal to this panel in bringing before it completely false claims in each of the items below:
[110] Asking for us to create artificial balance and give undue prominence to the authorship conspiracy theories I deny the accuracy of this claim. "Undue prominence" to alternatives to Shakespeare's authorship cannot be fairly alleged in a page devoted to "The Shakespeare Authorship Question" itself as titled-topic. If anything, "undue prominence" amounting to hostile and outright bias in support of the partisan view favoring Shakespeare is the case at this page.
[111] Pretty much claiming that because Argumentum ad populum is a thing, the "Stratfordian" view must be wrong I deny the accuracy of this claim. I claim, assert no such thing. [112] Mucking up an essay to promote the idea that believers of fringe positions should be the ones to write about fringe ideas. "Mucking up"? I answer: The WP policies require that, in the first instance, a member finding bias and lack of required neutrality first raise the issue in the relevant Talk-page of the article concerned.
I deny the accuracy of this claim. Indeed, this is a patently hostile mischaracterization of my view-- which is that, indeed, in a partisan controverrsy, no partisan adherant should be allowed to stand in for, to represent for his or her adversaries, their points of view --whether those points of view be of the minority or of the majority. Every camp, every arguant's position should be reserved for explanation, presentation and clarification by partisans, and only by partisans, of each point of view concerned.
I further propose to the Arbitration panel that it examine for good-faith grounds of the complaints being urged by the member bringing the complaint and review them for their possible hostile and suppressive intent and, if the panel finds thes complaints ill or un-founded, that it sanction the member having brought this complaint. Proximity1 ( talk) 13:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by MjolnirPantsI just want to point out that disruption is disruption; whether it occurs at talk or in an article. If this user is being disruptive, then there's no reason why DS shouldn't apply, unless there's a disclaimer somewhere specifying that it only applies to article-space edits. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by XoverCurrent Arbs and mop wielders that were not directly involved with the case may wish to refresh their memory of WP:ARBSAQ. WP:BATTLEGROUND, polite POV pushing (the non-polite version is much easier to deal with), and WP:NOTHERE (righting great wrongs, fighting the "conspiracy of the mainstream Shakespeare establishment", etc.) were central themes of the case. I also encourage you try to trawl through Talk:Shakespeare authorship question archives; at the point you give up you'll realise what the problem was (its manifestation was on Talk pages more than in articles). This current AE request is slightly premature IMO (insufficient length of WP:ROPE), but it bears all the hallmarks of previous rounds. @ Sandstein: I absolutely guarantee that DS is what's preventing ARBSAQ2 from being needed in relatively short order. It's not an issue that will fade away on its own. Case in point: the current AE (premature though it is, it would have ended up here pretty soon anyway). -- Xover ( talk) 17:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by RolandRNo-one seems to have responded to Proximity's argument that "in a partisan controverrsy, no partisan adherant should be allowed to stand in for, to represent for his or her adversaries, their points of view --whether those points of view be of the minority or of the majority. Every camp, every arguant's position should be reserved for explanation, presentation and clarification by partisans, and only by partisans, of each point of view concerned." This is so clearly against Wikipedia's norms and guidelines that it cannot be ignored. Wikipedia is based on a neutral point of view. This does not mean that editors may not hold particular points of view, but does mean that we must edit neutrally. We should not ignore and dismiss the point of view of those we disagree with, and nor may we present our own point of view as unquestioned fact. Wikipedia is not a debating chamber, and articles should not be a place where rival points of view are presented and voted on. If Proximity cannot accept this basic rule, then they have no business editing anywhere on Wikipedia, and least of all in such a highly contentious article. RolandR ( talk) 22:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by JohnuniqEdits by Proximity1 to Shakespeare authorship question, each reverted:
The talk page section showing that consensus is against the external link was on 24 April 2017. The discussion leading to a major cleanup of external links was in February 2011. The above shows that a minimum of a final warning is required regarding edit waring and advocacy from WP:ARBSAQ single purpose accounts (Proximity1 has 76 edits since 16 March 2017, each of which focus on a particular SAQ theory, and 12 edits prior to that). Johnuniq ( talk) 23:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Proximity1
|
| Both pages indef semi-protected. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 21:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning 81.104.12.193
All edits revolve around the removal of the Irish name for the Northern Irish settlements of Lisburn and Hillsborough. These names are included per agreement at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles#Other_names with the names themselves verified to the official body for this topic at [100] and supplementary at [101]. These removals qualify as Troubles related as the Irish language is a strong bone of contention between loyalists and republicans, something recently in the press quite a lot.
The following three other IP's appear to be the same user but possibly from a different machine they don't have regular access too: Special:Contributions/86.153.244.5, Special:Contributions/82.7.125.216 and Special:Contributions/82.132.225.167, which combine for another 6 removals of the Irish name from the two articles. Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, 14 Mar 2017 by @ Nfitz:.
@ Daithidebarra: did their utmost to get the IP to engage in discussion as evident from their requests on the IP's talk page and the discussion initiated at Talk:Hillsborough,_County_Down#Irish_Language_name_for_area_known_in_English_as_.22Hillsborough.22_and_Request_for_Discussion, where the IP was explained in detail why their removal was wrong and why the Irish form of the places are included. Semi page protection would be pointless unless it was for a prolonged period of time as the editor is willing wait weeks or months before returning to redo their removal of the information. The same for an initial block as the editor may not return for a while in which time the block will have elapsed before it could even attempt to encourage them to rethink their behaviour. Also considering the IP has been editing since their appearance with a POV slant, and that over the past few months their edits only appear to be do with the unreasonable removal of the Irish names for Lisburn and Hillsborough and they are completely unwilling to partake in discussion over it I would say they are not contributing to Wikipedia in a meaningful way and a long-term block of the IP(s) should be considered.
User_talk:81.104.12.193#Arbitration_Committee_referral
Discussion concerning 81.104.12.193Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 81.104.12.193Statement by Mabuska@ Black Kite:, what is PC1? I'm happy with whatever works best to stop the disruptive edits. Mabuska (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning 81.104.12.193
|
| User:Ihardlythinkso is indefinitely topic-banned from post-1932 American Politics, broadly construed. This sanction may be brought here for reconsideration after six months. GoldenRing ( talk) 01:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Ihardlythinkso
"Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited."
The diffs speak for themselves. This editor has once again ramped up the personal attacks and general battleground behaviour. The latest attacks directed at me include a ridiculous accusation of stalking after I reverted his reversion of what I considered a good edit. Of course, before accusing me of stalking, he reverted again.- Mr X 21:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
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 IhardlythinksoWhat do you want a response on? The Donald Trump page is left open to disparaging remarks about the bio subject's character; that page needs to be patrolled better by admins. It's hypocrisy or bias to stomp down on "equal time" remarks about his rival. (And nothing I posted was any worse than available RSs about the character of that person, proof is Jeanine Pirro's opening statement here.) The WP is already liberally biased and I'm seldom on the Donald Trump article Talk especially because of it. Notice editors like Anythingyouwant are ostracized there and nitpicked unendingly until chased away. MrX is part of that effort. He takes a front seat to bias that article, including elimination of me through lecture, reversion, stalking, and insult. (The hypocrisy of recently informing me that as editor I'm "insignificant" and "Good day!" followed by opening this case.) There is no doubt in my mind WP is overrun w/ liberal bias, even the Remembrance Project is laced with coloring the founder with ties and motivations connected somehow to Hitler. As far as battlegrounding with any of this bias, that is absurd, there is too much of it and it has gone on for too long and is too pervasive. No one rational would spend their time in attempt to NPOV it back to respectability for an encyclopedia. And I have no interest at that article except to peek once in awhile, and if I make a post about something it is becauase the absurdity & bias is so rampant, a comment saying the King has No Clothes was called for. So pick on me, go ahead. I do not really give a damn. It isn't about me, it is about the blatant bias that is and has been already there. Be proud. I am not. And would never recommend any friends of family to read WP political articles. I've already seen enough and discussed enough w/ people offline about this to know everything I've said is true. So I don't give a damn about your power to ban me from that article or even political articles. The editor with agenda are those that bias it. Look at my edit history to see if I have improved political articles and if so how. I do not add bias but I might revert it. At the Pruitt lede I reverted a new claim that Pruitt "intends to dismantle the EPA", even though it was not a summary of anything near that in the article, and the refs posted to support the contention lead with an opinion piece. The statement is equivalent to putting mind-reading in Wikipedia's voice, supported by op-ed. Blatant bias. When I specified that I reverted on those bases, MrX reverted me with only "it was a good edit". Wow. Do not blame me for the absurd bias of articles and the majority of liberal NPOV warriors out to denegrate Trump and anything associated with him. I know the hatred is there in MSM, and Wikipedia is a sort of MSM, also dominated by liberal POV. Now one of those warriors is out for blood. And I don't give a care if you give it too him, because as mentioned the status of things is already too-far gone, and I've never ever been a part of any generealized effort to reverse it, I have more realistic things to do w/ my time. But obviously this is very important to MrX and others who support the liberal bias, they outnumber any of the opposers like Anythingyouwant. (Who along with me was accused of "disruption" and "this must be stopped" simply from taking the position in discussion that if it is mentioned Trump did not win a majority of the popular vote, that his implied or stated main opponent didn't either. Somehow, the logic of that is impossible to see, or takes excruciating effort to see, as per comments at that Talk. Give me a break.) BTW, what was it I was supposed to respond to specifically? Another thing, the previous ban of me on the Donald Trump article was bogus and unfair (par for the course, good job Bish, I went to your Talk to complain about something else besides the ban you supported, and another user follows me to your Talk to harass me, a user whose biggest objection is that I added a blockquote to a quote greater than 40 words per MoS, and that I changed a piped link from an article specifically about history of women's rights in U.S., to an article about feminism in the U.S., which was more what the relevant article topic was about, and somehow I get blocked at her Talk when objecting to the user harassing me there). The article stated that Trump in the Hollywood tape referred to his assults against women, synonymous to admission of having committed crimes against them, when he never made any such admission, so why is WP stating so if MSM biased RSs exist that like/want to say so? (The answer is, because the editors dominating the article are just as biased and smear-enthusiastic as the MSM.) I did the right thing to protect a living BLP subject from such trashy statements, and what did I get? Banned. Good one. (And now use that ban as further evidence that I need another ban? Oh good one. That's so impressive! Not.) -- IHTS ( talk) 00:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Ihardlythinkso
|
| No action taken. Editors cautioned to be careful about reverting edits in this topic area. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 18:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning SPECIFICO
WP:ARBAPDS / 1RR violation
The editor is currently subject to other sanctions but they are not relevant to this case.
Warned in May 2016 by Coffee, December 2016 by Sagecandor and January 2017 by Octoberwoodland. Participated in numerous WP:AE threads. Routinely threatens other editors of sanctions (which recently resulted in a custom sanction to prevent disruption).
Discussion concerning SPECIFICOStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SPECIFICOEntirely my error, however I believe that @ MrX: subsequently made the same edit as my second one after JFG reinstated his preferred version thereby making it unnecessary for me to self-revert. I will be more careful to check the edit history hereafter. I noticed my error when I saw JFG's own second revert here, after this one here less than an hour earlier. However, unlike JFG I chose not to open a complaint since, like my mistake, his second revert is now moot. SPECIFICO talk 23:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by DarouetI routinely disagree with SPECIFICO on content issues at this article, and have been upset by their many warnings / threats of sanctions against editors, myself included, which are typically made without evidence. However, this is a single simple infraction. I don't think it's worthwhile to "catch" someone on a one-off like this: it will just worsen the editing atmosphere. I'd recommend that the issue be resolved on the talk page. - Darouet ( talk) 23:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Statement by MrXI agree with Darouet. Best practice is to give an editor an opportunity to self-revert before reporting them, unless of course there is a pattern of edit warring.- Mr X 23:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning SPECIFICO
|
| Closed with no action as editor was separately indef blocked as a confirmed sock puppet. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 03:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Problematics
Continuously blanking the section and content about Pakistan despite consensus on talk page as well as the recent page move discussion, [104] in which he opposed the present article name.
This is violation of WP:1RR, even if he is waiting at least 24 hours 1 minute to make another revert. He is only editor to revert to his preferred version. What's more suspicious is, that he is an WP:SPA, who registered the account on Apr 21, 2017 to edit these articles, however he has are clear WP:CIR issues. It has been impossible to make him agree and other editors are in favor of the version he continues to revert. [106] [107] He has misrepresented the admin Amakuru's comments [108], despite he told him "for now it does appear to me that the consensus view is against you". [109] But he is not getting it, no matter how much others tell him. [110] Capitals00 ( talk) 12:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning ProblematicsStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ProblematicsThe above statements are misrepresentative of the actual events. Firstly, the article's scope is disputed, the Admin had confirmed that. It was in that background that I reverted this. And I was justified to do so by WP:NOCON. I explained myself on the talkpage before reverting. After that me and other users were having a discussion and this discussion is still ongoing. Not just me but User:Mar4d and User:Nadirali also lodged opinions on the talkpage in favour of retaining the article's old scope. [ [115]] 2. User:Capitals00 then proceeded to falsely claim consensus (which he did not have as I explained here) and revert me. Nevertheless I did not revert User:Capitals00 because of 1RR on the page and even he has accepted I did not violate 1RR (by reverting WP:NOCON within 24 hours)). I feel this claim was filed in bad faith. It should also be known that this user was engaged in an edit war on the page in question, violated 3RR and was accused by another user on the article's talkpage of POV-editing. Problematics ( talk) 12:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by Kautilya3This is a content dispute, albeit a pretty complicated one. It doesn't belong here. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Statement by D4iNa4Problematics doesn't seem to be dropping the issue and he is still making WP:POINT to disrupt wikipedia. He has been reverted by another editor after this report. [117] I also agree he wasn't born yesterday, and I am not sure about his motive but since he joined wikipedia he engaged himself in disruptive conduct. D4iNa4 ( talk) 17:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Tyler DurdenThis is a content dispute. No point in bringing these issues here. The filer(s) are unnecessarily and meaninglessly doing this for the third time in the same dispute. — Tyler Durden ( talk) 18:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by Mar4d
Statement by Marvellous Spider-ManThis is a content dispute, however Problematics is editing like WP:SPA. -- Marvellous Spider-Man 15:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by MBlazeProblematics had already violated WP:1RR [118] [119], before he made this [120] yet another revert. This is a conduct issue, not a content issue. — MBlaze Lightning T 17:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Problematics
|
| FreeatlastChitchat ( talk · contribs) is warned regarding their TBAN. No block at this time as request is stale. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 17:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning FreeatlastChitchat
Has made only 19 edits since May 14 2016 and most of them were made in violation of topic ban. D4iNa4 ( talk) 17:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning FreeatlastChitchatStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by FreeatlastChitchatI think I violated the Tban on Muhammad Ali Jinnah. I was just going through my watchlist and reverted the change. I apologize for that, it will not happen again, you can put a warning on my TP and log it if you want to go through the motions. As far as Ahmadiyya is concerned, it is an international religion and does not come under the Tban. Religions do not come under geographical Tbans, but articles about religions in a particular country come under Tbans. So I can freely edit Ahmadiyya, but I am not allowed to edit Ahmadiyya in Pakistan and Ahmadiyyat in India. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 06:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning FreeatlastChitchat
|
| No More Mr Nice Guy is blocked for 72 hours. Sandstein 21:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning No More Mr Nice Guy
Per notice at top of Talk:Balfour Declaration:
The comments below have been taken off course by other topics merged into the discussion. What appears to have been missed is that No More Mr Nice Guy's edits 3 and 4 above were a clear violation of 1RR. So in aggregate these edits contravened ARBPIA rules past, present and future: the old ARBPIA 1RR bright line, the current consensus requirement, and the soon-to-be-implemented new 1RR wording being discussed at WP:ARCA. Have said that, what I find much more troublesome is No More Mr Nice Guy's comment at [134], where the editor stated that he felt no need to enter into discussion to support his continuing reverts. Oncenawhile ( talk) 20:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning No More Mr Nice GuyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by No More Mr Nice GuyThe material has been there since at least September 2016. My edits are the "reverted edit" one needs consensus to "restore" in the requirement Oncenawhile quoed above. If anything, Rjensen is the one who violated the requirement when he redid his edit which I reverted (edit [136], revert [137], restore edit without consensus [138]), but the issue seems to have been resolved (except insofar as Oncenawhile thinks he can weaponise it, apparently). No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 15:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC) @KI, you're correct. The text was written by me as a compromise between texts Nishidani and Epsom Salts put in the article. Nishidani did not complain about it at the time or since, but apparently couldn't give up the opportunity to try to get rid of an opponent with a ridiculously illogical guilt by association argument. Talk about disingenuous. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 23:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC) Since Nishidani brought it up, opening himself to BOOMERANG, could someone have a look at the behavior I complained about here, which he mentioned below? "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." like he did here (among many other places) fits part of the definition of antisemitism recently adopted by, among others, the UK government [139] to "ensure that culprits will not be able to get away with being antisemitic because the term is ill-defined, or because different organisations or bodies have different interpretations of it"? Why is he allowed to harass other editors like this? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 16:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC) Nishidani, thanks for admitting you made an analogy to the Nazis, and tailored your response to your interlocutors being Jewish - "I asked the two editors how they would respond to reading of something similar in their own cultural tradition". Why you think that makes it better rather than worse is anyone's guess. It doesn't even matter that your analogy is ridiculous or that your retrospective rationalization attempts fall flat to a simple reading of your post. What really happened here is that a couple of Jews did something you didn't like, so you said something hurtful, as is your wont. This sort of thing supposedly goes against everything Wikipedia editing stands for, but is allowed for some reason when you do it. Over and over. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 18:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC) The treatment of Jews in Poland by the Nazis in the 1940s is part of whose "cultural tradition"? Jews or Israelis? Do you really think everyone here is stupid? No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 20:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC) Ah yes, the good old "Black people call each other the N-word, so why can't I?" defense. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 14:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC) Nishidani, speaking of animus, if you hadn't showed up here and tried to smear me with your disingenuous guilt by association argument, we wouldn't be having this discussion. All you had to do is stay out of it. And I was obviously referring to your last post in my previous one. "Serious reading problems", indeed. Kudos for writing twice as much as everyone else combined, by the way. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 17:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by KingsindianI think this request is a bit premature. The article has been changed significantly since the lead was written: the lead would need to be rewritten anyway, and this point can then be addressed. It's not worth fighting over this matter now, per WP:DEADLINE. Since I think that the ARBPIA rule (currently at ARCA) is idiotic and counterproductive, I would definitely not want any "prosecution" under the rule. The dispute is still manageable. That said, I would prefer that NMMNG self-revert and (a) either propose an acceptable wording, or at least reply to my comments here or (b) simply wait till a new lead is written. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Statement by ShrikeThe second edit by NNMG is exempt from revert count as it reverted the violation of consensus clause so 1RR and no violation of consensus clause.-- Shrike ( talk) 13:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC) Still I don't understand why only NNMG is reported other people broke the rule too-- Shrike ( talk) 14:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000To editor Shrike: You are citing the rules incorrectly. The arbcom ruling allows reverts to enforce the General Prohibition, not reverts to enforce the consensus clause. Zero talk 13:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by Malik ShabazzWhile it's true that I didn't use the magic phrase "consensus clause -- which is so magical that the requirement that it be invoked has never been announced -- anybody but an absolute moron (or a blind pro-Israeli POV pusher) would recognize that I invoked the clause in my edit summary: "removing material that is still under discussion on the talk page -- please read WP:ARBPIA -- a five-hour 'I agree' among four like-minded editors is not consensus". I will note for future reference, however, that at least one administrator is unable to see the reference to ARBPIA and consensus in the edit summary and put 2+2 together and get 4; in the future, I will assume the stupidity of all administrators and use the magic phrase "consensus clause". — MShabazz Talk/ Stalk 03:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by NishidaniIf the first revert restored in January of this year edits made by Epson Salts, then NMMGG was knowingly restoring text that had been introduced by a sockpuppet of one of the most deleterious sockmasters in the I/P area, NoCal100, some months, ( October_2016 October 2016) i.e. within fresh memory of Epsom Salts' indefinite ban as a sock. If so, then this is particularly disingenuous, indeed . . . Nishidani ( talk) 19:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Ijon TichyRegarding some of the issues discussed by Nishidani, see also: Criticism_of_the_Israeli_government#Comparisons_with_Nazi_Germany. ---- Ijon Tichy ( talk) 13:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Result concerning No More Mr Nice Guy
|
| Action doesn't require a consensus or action by an admin who hasn't opined, so I just unblocked him myself. Probably more symbolic than anything, but still. The block was absolutely valid, the block time was absolutely valid, even if others might have handled it differently. The unblock for "time served" was just because the usefulness of the block had worn off. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
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).
Statement by No More Mr Nice GuyI did not realize 1RR was the issue, as the complaint focused on the consensus clause and I thought, based on previous precedent (in another complaint Oncenawhile lodged against me, so he was aware of this) that providing a source as a response to a revert would not be frowned upon. Oncenawhile did not warn me, as is common practice, about the 1RR. Nobody participating in the discussion mentioned 1RR, everyone focused on the consensus clause. I would have self-reverted if I had realized there was an issue, like any experienced editor would have. There's no preventative purpose in blocking me and 72 hours for a first offence for an editor who's been around for years and has never been blocked seems unduly harsh. This sanction seems punitive and I would like my record clear, as I have been able to maintain it for years.
Statement by SandsteinI recommend declining the appeal. No More Mr Nice Guy has conceded violating the 1RR. The rest is wikilawyering. No More Mr Nice Guy has had ample time to undo their edits after the AE request was made. It was apparent from the complaint that 1RR was the issue, or part of the issue; and in any case the remedy provides for blocks without warning even on the first offense - let alone an AE thread open for days. Sandstein 21:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Statement by involved KingsindianCopy pasting my comments from NMMNG's talkpage (minor condensation): Hi. First, a correction of a minor factual error in your closing statement: NMMNG's prohibition on AE discussions was lifted a few months ago. Second, at the time this request was made ARBPIA did have the consensus clause operative, but recently, after an ARCA request, it has been dropped because it leads to more trouble than it is worth. Keeping this development in mind, perhaps you might want to re-evaluate the block. In my opinion, it is not necessary and people fighting over silly rules only leads to bad blood; discussion about how to phrase the lead is proceeding (as well as can be expected) on the talkpage. Oncenawhile mostly focused on the consensus clause, because that was the main issue. I am, in general, in favour of giving people a chance to self-revert before reporting them to AE. And NMMNG has earlier shown willingness to self-revert when asked. This is very common practice in ARBPIA because 1RR can be so easily broken, even by mistake (I have done it many times). While blocking for 1RR is within admin discretion, I think it's not necessary here to prevent disruption. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Statement by OncenawhileKingsindian is correct that I would not have reported this if it was just a 1RR breach or just a consensus breach. What I consider unacceptable is that an experienced editor chose to repeatedly remove the same text while making an explicit statement on the talk page that he does not intend to engage in discussion. I objected to the text on the talk page after each revert in January and March, and other editors objected to the same in May, but we were unable to make any progress as a result of this conscious lack of engagement. Oncenawhile ( talk) 06:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)Ok, I’m a 100% involved editor ....from "the other side of the divide" as to NMMNG. And I think NMMNG can be a complete pain in the neck, at times. I totally understand Oncenawhile frustration with NMMNG, not engaging in discussion. Having said that (and having read the whole thing) ...I’m actually in no doubt that this was an honest misunderstanding of the rules by NMMNG. As such, I think he should be unblocked, Huldra ( talk) 23:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by No More Mr Nice GuyResult of the appeal by No More Mr Nice Guy
|
| No action taken. Anyone who wants to nominate Robert Young (endurance runner) for deletion should go ahead with that. A number of admins gave advice, with one suggesting that User:Kevin McE should avoid this article. EdJohnston ( talk) 02:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Kevin McE
User was notified of AC/DS for BLPs with this edit. This is right after I warned the editor for BLP violations (for basically calling the subject of the BLP a liar in their edit summary), and I left an extensive explanation on the talk page, here.
I am neither involved with the subject or this particular editor, but I would rather have someone else confirm that this behavior is unacceptable. I want this editor topic-banned from this article: they clearly cannot edit objectively, and have no desire (or competence) to remain within policy. While we're on the topic, you can see that Woodywing's edits are even more problematic, and they need to be banned from this article as well, but it's Kevin McE's edit warring that brings us here.
Discussion concerning Kevin McEStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Kevin McEIn view of the comments made by others, I really don't see that I have any need to defend myself here. The only accusation against me is that I removed information that does not seem trustworthy. I object strongly to Drmies's attempt to categorise me; "Kevin McE's disruption is obviously based on either a crusader mentality or a personal animosity toward the subject, or both." I have no knowledge of Young other than having been involved in challenging several articles that have been started about him over the course of many years by a whole series of sockpuppets, which many admins have assumed to be incarnations of Young himself or someone very close to him. If trying to keep false claims out of Wikipedia makes me a crusader, then strap a breastplate with a picture of a lion on me. Otherwise do not make ad hominem attacks. I believe that the conduct of Drmies in this situation is thoroughly reprehensible. Apart from the above, he has made false accusations about my posts; he has refused to state whether he has made himself aware of the history of deleted articles about Young; he deleted an article without any reference to those who had worked on it; he has acted arrogantly and rudely, and unbecoming of an admin. Kevin McE ( talk) 16:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC) My reply to Bbb23 below was deleted, apparently I am not allowed to reply to comments about my edits in the place where such comments are made, which seems odd, but hey ho... So I replicate it here: His self-authored attempts at articles about himself here were full of palpably false claims (that he was on top level road race cycling team Milram, that he was a Triathlon champion, etc); he denied accusations, subsequently proven, that he had cheated in the run across America. I fail to see how, in the light of this, my description is flawed. Kevin McE ( talk) 19:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by No such userMay I suggest that everyone takes a deep breath and dials back some? Kevin is apparently aggravated now, but Drmies did not help de-eascalate, on the contrary. In particular, I don't find diffs provided by Drmies as BLP violations per se, but a rather plain editing dispute. And I find it odd that removal' of material may constitute a BLP violation, particularly as it is not used to counterbalance anything. – There, Kevin has a point that an interview with the subject is not a first-class reliable source, as it gives ample opportunity for self-serving statements. At a minimum, if veracity of information provided by the subject is challenged, we avoid stating it in Wikipedia voice but use disclaimers such as "claims". And we always have an editorial option to exclude information brought by supposedly reliable sources if there are serious reasons to distrust it – see e.g. Talk:Bijeljina_massacre#RfC: Plavsic "stepping over a dead body"?. During the dispute, Kevin lost his cool and he probably did violate BLP in edit summaries or talk page comments, but I'd suggest closing this AE with no action, taking a deep breath, and starting a serious discussion what to do with the article, preferably with a clean slate (=minimal stub). No such user ( talk) 08:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by Bbb23I simply want to highlight this edit made by Kevin at WP:BLPN ("the only source of any biographical information (the subject himself) is entirely unreliable and a serial liar in the media"), which I subsequently reverted as a BLP violation. If this diff has already been posted, my apologies.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by TParis
Statement by NeilNWhile this request concerns Kevin McE, I can understand his subsequent frustration as admin behavior surrounding the full protection of this article hasn't been the best. While I understand why TParis restored the material before fully protecting, I don't agree the restoration met the level of being treated as an admin action. And Black Kite's removal, while made in good faith, was based on an incorrect assumption as I explained on the talk page. [145] Kevin McE's main argument I believe is that newspaper reports should not be taken at face value. Drmies article edits and talk page posts seem a bit inconsistent on this matter. He says that "newspapers that are considered reliable have editorial oversight" but this edit seems to be at odds with that statement as the source reports the abuse as a fact, and not simply a claim by Young. -- NeilN talk to me 16:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Statement by CollectThe Telegraph "article" is by a "Formula One Correspondent", and the New Statesman article is by a "Features Editor". Both appear connected with release of a book by the person, and refer to claims made therein. The problem, alas, is that the "problem editor" here is likely correct, noting that The Guardian in [146] states "“[His] tracker and GPS data are cans of worms,” Robert Lopez wrote to Ultra List subscribers. “There is a day that Rob’s RV got stuck in the desert. The location is known. [...] Whether he legged out the 40-plus road miles or somehow orienteered his way through the brush without navigational aids, [his] time is incredible. And I mean that in the literal sense.”" and so on. [147] states that his sponsor found that Young had received "unauthorized assistance" in his record-=setting trek. Sports Illustrated in [148] has "So Delmott decided to accompany Young as he ran through Lebo (just east of Emporia) about 1 a.m. on Sunday, June 5. The problem, said Delmott, was that he found Young's RV, but never saw the Brit running. " and ""The part where I disagree with their account is simply whether Rob was running with the RV," says Delmott. "In total that night, I saw the RV at four separate occasions, and never saw a runner. I also got videos, which do not show a runner, or the flashlight they claim he uses to signal a stop. In summary, they might have been scared, but Rob wasn't running down the road." ". Thus we ought to recognize that an autobiography and press releases for such a book may not be allowed under WP:BLP as being essentially an SPS with no actual fact-checking. And that reputable reliable sources do, indeed, raise substantive doubts about the veracity of the record-holder who was not seen running. Runners World has [149] that Young's "TomTom account" indicates that he did not run large portions of the route. I urgently suggest that no punishment ensue for a person who has accurately reported what the fact-checking publications say, and not rely on press release material. Collect ( talk) 17:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC) The report made to the runner's sponsor is at skins.net. The bad part is a chart (figure 3) showing a stride rate of under 10 per minute for long distances (slow walk). "A. Before observation, a high number of sessions had impossible step length implications. This has been shown in various ways previously (Figures 4-7 and Table 1). B. Before observation, there was a significant difference between day-time and night-time sessions, with the majority of impossible stride parameters coming from night-time sessions (see also Table 1 for details)" This is a strong factual assertion by people skilled in making such determinations. I am inclined to give credence to the expert report, noting that Skins ceased supporting Young, and that many European journals have printed this material at this point. Collect ( talk) 18:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC) Statement by DHeywardI never heard of the subject until this AE request. I read an uncritical article and based on that, this article came up [150]. We aren't in the business of truth but we are in the business of attribution. Claiming that someone is not a reliable source for Wikipedia is not the same as calling them liars. That leap is very disconcerting. We make sourcing and attribution decisions all the time based on how reliable a source is for facts. When we remove statements in BLPs sourced to "unreliable sources" we are not calling the author of those articles liars. The BLP violation is making that leap, not removing that material. Every time someone removes, say, a Breitbart cited statement, we aren't calling the Breitbart author a liar. That's a ridiculous leap and kind of scary that we would be here accusing an editor of calling the author a liar and seeking sanctions. For the editor that made such a leap, what are we to think when they weigh in on the Reliable Sources noticeboard and say a source is unreliable? Close the request and send it back to the talk page to work out attribution. If the only thing left is a negative coatrack, stub it or delete it. -- DHeyward ( talk) 17:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Kevin McE
|