| User unblocked. Sandstein 16:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Posted per the user's request, via the unblock template. SQL Query me! 04:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by Drmies
Result concerning 68.132.68.52
|
| Withdrawn. Sandstein 19:52, 27 December 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 MickPhil
None
User engaged in large amounts of content removal, apparently attempting to whitewash the BLP. This article is under active remedies. The user continued even after these active remedies were pointed out to them. Note that this user has engaged in other disruptive behavior, including REVDELed edits. @ DHeyward and Sandstein: arb case we mentioned a minute later in this diff. The last edit by the user occurred after the warnings. Further, since the warning is on the talk page, I'm under the impression a formal warning is not required for active remedies. Has this practice changed? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I see this issue is being discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Discretionary_Sanctions. This is very clearly a 1RR violation though so I'm not sure how why Sandstein there's been no conduct violations. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC) @
Sandstein: I mentioned "
Discussion concerning MickPhilStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MickPhilStatement by DHeywardAll the diffs for evidence appear to be before the AE DS warning notice. The warning diff provided doesn't seem to mention the arbitration case, either. -- DHeyward ( talk) 08:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning MickPhil
|
| No action. GoldenRing ( talk) 10:58, 4 January 2018 (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 Nishidani
Nishidani has a rich history of blocks in the WP:ARBPIA area, as well as voluntarily refraining from editing when caught redhanded but before being sanctiond
Discussion concerning NishidaniStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by NishidaniStatement by Malik ShabazzI invite administrators to toss a boomerang to Debresser. For the relevant context, please see the past few days' history at B'Tselem and Talk:B'Tselem. Debresser doesn't like the way Nishidani spoke about his edit on that article, so he pursued this frivolous complaint about a trivial matter at another article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 03:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Nishidani
|
| No action. ScratchMarshall is warned that his views on how much detail is appropriate in an article are out of step with community expectations. Continuing to push excessive detail over a long period becomes disruptive and may lead to sanctions in the future. GoldenRing ( talk) 10:59, 4 January 2018 (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 ScratchMarshall
Discussion concerning ScratchMarshallStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ScratchMarshall
First I'll explain how K.e.coffman is misrepresenting the Camry issue. In Special:Diff/817496708 my larger edit was indeed reverted by ValarianB. However the summary said "This edit made proper grammar into atrocious grammar". Valarian did not actually object to my mention of the Camry in the summary, only the larger rephrasing that I did. On that basis, I was not restoring what Valarian's revert targeted (the grammar) but only the Camry identification, which Valarian did not object to. Thus my summary "minimalist restoration of details". Valarian's revert threw the baby out with the bathwater. Since only bathwater (grammar change) was objected to, and not baby (Camry ID) restoring it was not a restoration of what Valarian objected to, so this was an entirely separate edit and not a 1RR violation, because I did not "revert" Valarian's reversion, I noted his objections and made a completely different edit which did not change the grammar and only simply added the data. Second I'll explain how K.e.coffman is misrepresenting the COD issue. This is not "contentious" material at all. We already had consensus regarding that we should not state Heather Heyer's cause of death as being a heart attack based on her mother Susan Bro's comments during an NBC News interview. Our discussion was on whether or not we should mention those comments or the news coverage reactions to them generated. It was not on whether or not to list the official COD, which is blunt trauma, not heart attack. The "several editors" K.e.coffman refers to are:
The problem is that both of these were replies to special:diff/817480803 where I was discussing Noor Al-Sibai's article regarding the "heart attack" quote, which did not mention "blunt trauma" at all. K.e.coffman is inaccurate in saying that these were "previous objections to this material" because it was different material we were discussing. Re the "multiple prior discussions and warnings"
Re Sandstein, your suspicions are correct, diff 2 is not a 1RR violation, and not a revert at all. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 00:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by TheValeyardHow do we deal with an editor who brings up the same topics over and over and over and over again? I'm trying to sift thru the maze of restrictions and rules that cover political pages, is there anything along the lines of "being super-unable to stop beating a dead horse" ? Look at this, Scratchmarshall has brought up the same topic, which has garnered zero consensus among editors at the article, over several months
Here's the topics started for the "heart attack" part, a notorious alt-right meme attack
Am I crazy or is this overboard? TheValeyard ( talk) 00:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Doesn't much matter if sentiment is leaning against any finding of wrongdoing, but the silly assertions of I've had my last say so do what you will. TheValeyard ( talk) 04:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Add'l statement by K.e.coffman (filer)This has started with Scratch posting to my Talk page: "Your redaction", where he linked to this diff from the article's Talk page, which I had redacted two months ago. It looks like he's unable to let go of this fringe theory, and it's becoming disruptive and possibly BLP violating. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by MrXSandstein is correct that there is no technically sanctionable violation of an editing restriction, however GoldenRing is correct that the behavior of Scratch Marshall is disruptive pushing of detail. In fact, it violates the principle of consensus, which is plainly established for this aspect of the subject. I agree with the idea of a narrow topic ban from the article (and related articles), but since this manner of editing from ScratchMarshall has been ongoing for nearly five months, I think the topic ban should be for at least six months, if not permanent, based on the WP:POV pushing evident in their contributions to the article.- MrX 14:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Add'l statements by ScratchMarshall (target)Apparently a followup is fine so I have responses.
Statement by Ryk72On review of the diffs in the initial filing, it appears that there has been some misunderstanding. The initial diff
31 does not show
ScratchMarshall reinserting contentious material; it shows an insertion of reliably sourced information, in line with mainstream views on the subject. Neither do the next two Talkpage diffs
32
33 show discussion of the material included in that first diff. Statement by SMcCandlishOutsider view: Agreed with Ryk72 and Sandstein. There's nothing AE-actionable here, even if some of this seems to wander into WP:TE and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE territory. This should have been taken to WP:ANI, and can if the issue continues. I tend to agree with ScratchMarshall's defense, point-by-point, but that's kind of not the point. A pattern can still be unconstructive even if no particular action in it was expressly sanctionable. So: a) Those who feel he's being disruptive need to make an actual case, not some "flailing with poorly-supported fingerpointing" thing. b) Scratch should take the hint and not make them build that case, since if they do then ANI will surely act on it, probably with the requested topic ban. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 00:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning ScratchMarshall
|
| Blocked for 1 week. GoldenRing ( talk) 11:04, 4 January 2018 (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 KA$HMIR
This is a clear violation of the editing sanctions placed on this page by this WP:SPA. And I'd add that this is not the first time that this guy has violated those sanctions. [23] [24] — MBL Talk 02:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning KA$HMIRStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (KA$HMIR)Well I will make my simple case here but will abide by whatever is the board's final decision, whatever it will be, though this looks like a bad faith report. As far as I know regentspark [ removed] the 1RR restriction from all Kashmir Conflict articles, if this is indeed one of them. Besides, there is an exemption from 3RR to remove content which is copyright and or added by blocked users, as anyone can see, I consistently removed the page's content on the basis that it has clear copyright violations which other users Josephus and Danish agree with me on. There is also a talkpage discussion ongoing and I am still compiling the evidence for those users who had requested it. Also a lot, if not most, of the article's content was written by a blocked sockmaster TylerDurden, who was recently caught socking again.
" From then on, Poonch remained garrisoned by a battalion of State troops It's source said this "But from this time onwards Poonch remained garrisoned by a battalion of J&K State troops." This is very closely paraphrased. There are more examples especially in the sentences which cite Saraf's Kashmiris road to freedom Volume 2 and other obscure primary sources which are not available online. Overall the wording in the article differs little from the sources. This [36] also shows the article with a 60%+ similarity. Article needs to be rewritten from scratch. We can not trust a sockmaster TylerDurden to have written this article properly. KA$HMIR ( talk) 14:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by WBGHis being a SPA and Alex's block are not much of a problem at their respective individual merits. Functionary Yunshui knows his alt-accs and AFAIK, the use of such accounts are permitted by our legit-socks criterion.Obviously, cases of 3RR and/or violation of ArbCom decisions needs to be looked at, though! Winged Blades Godric 04:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by power~enwikiA link to the copyvio tool: [37]. The top two matches are caused by properly-cited blockquotes. I don't see anything that justifies blanking the entire article. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by Capitals00But problem remains that KA$HMIR is edit warring against consensus on multiple articles and often engaged in WP:BLUDGEONING. At least 3 articles ( Violence against women during the partition of India, 1947 Poonch Rebellion, Kashmir conflict) have been provided extended protection because of his edit warring. Capitals00 ( talk) 16:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Kautilya3The edit warring that occurred at the 1947 Poonch Rebellion is the most shocking I have seen in my three years of editing, not only for the spuriousness of the rationale but also the bombast with which it was carried out. Note the edit summaries:
Yet, when I quizzed it on the talk page, no evidence was forthcoming. KA$HMIR was certainly aware of the edit restrictions placed on Kashmir conflict articles because RegentsPark recently reminded every one of their existence. This is the apex of all the tendentiousness that the user has been displaying ever since he came on board. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Let us also note the obvious Tag teaming that has occurred in this edit war. These are the first ever edits by any of these editors on this page. Pure coincidence? But such coincidences are now occurring with increasing frequency all over the India-Pakistan space: Talk:Violence against women during the Partition of India, Talk:Annexation of Junagadh etc. At Talk:Kashmir conflict, a group of editors have repeated each other's RfC comments [45]. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 01:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Statement by User:EdJohnstonFor clarity, the current restrictions in effect for this article (from WP:DSLOG) appear to be:
Statement by Dilpa kaurLooks like a bad faith report by a user who has been obsessed with maligning this user through hook or crook. I guess this request is another frustrated attempt after previous failures to rid the encyclopedia of this constructive editor. Previously MBlaze Lightning joyously joined in a ridiculous SPI against KA$HMIR, only to be confronted with the establishment of KA$HMIR's innocence. He also brought him up in a spurious ANI case which was based on such weak evidence (such as MBlaze' Lightnings mixup of my IP address and Danish Mehraj's) that even MBlaze Lightning had to withdraw it. The encyclopedia has also been recently hit by malicious IPs [46] [47], located in different Indian cities, [48] [49] looking to malign this user as a sockpuppet (the different locations of these obvious IP socks suggest collaboration and their knowledge of old SPIs indicate that these are older users IP socking to harass without getting their accounts sanctioned). I suspect a link between these reports and the malicious IPs who are obviously not new strays but old Indian editors who have a beef with KA$HMIR and Owais Khursheed and are IP socking to harass the Kashmiri editors. Overall this request is nothing more than the latest attempt to get rid of another good user who is a headache for the POV pushers. 223.225.246.200 ( talk) 20:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by NadirAliI'll have to agree with Dilpa here. The frequency with which these reports are getting filed show desperation that some of the mud flung will stick. Mar4d previously expressed the same concern in another frivolous AE request, that time against me, about Kautilya3 desperately trying to get rid of editors with another frame of mind. Since this looks like KA$HMIR's first mistake I would advise to go easy on him. We can all rest in peace that Yunshui has confirmed that KA$HMIR was not under any sanctions on their previous account. So a warning should suffice this time. As far as copyvio is concerned I am more concerned at the speed with which this is being used as a reason by not just KA$HMIR but several editors to delete content which no one can check afterwards was really copyvio or not, especially when the users getting the diffs suppressed have themselves restored copyvio content. Instead I call for a WP:BOOMERANG. The evidence Dilpa has shown has startled me. It is just not possible that stray IPs are able to link to old SPIs. There is a case here that Indian editors have taken to harass Kashmiri editors through these frivolous reports and when they fail they start to IP sock to frame these responsible users for sockpuppetry. The messages left by these IPs are quite telling.
The case of collaboration is quite strong, not least because of the different IP locations within India of the users messaging with the same motive. I just recently expressed my concern at how some editors with no contributions to articles are suddenly arriving on the articles' talkpages as if they were requested by an invisible hand. This is part of a more extensive phenomenon of a particular set of users who participate in the same SPI, ANI and AE requests concerning editors in the India-Pakistan topic area and support each other on the talkpages on articles in the India-Pakistan project. I call for a warning to user:KA$HMIR to be more careful in future and a full investigation of the accounts frequently filing such bad faith reports and their links to these malicious IPs.-- NadirAli نادر علی ( talk) 07:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Statement by YunshuiSince I got pinged above, I'm just dropping by to confirm that KA$HMIR has indeed disclosed their original account to me and I'm satisfied that they are complying with the requirements at WP:SOCK. However, per an email conversation yesterday, they have advised me that they intend to abandon their former account entirely, in order to ensure that no accidental violations occur. I do not believe the former account is relevant to this case. Yunshui 雲 水 08:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by Mar4dI see nothing actionable here. Agree with RegentsPark that a warning, and a note to be careful in the future, is sufficient. Mar4d ( talk) 10:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by Vanamonde93In the absence of any evidence provided by KA$HMIR, I would concur that an AE block of a week would normally be in order. Given the time that has elapsed, I'm disinclined to place such a block myself, and would much rather give them an explicit warning. Copyright violations are an exception to 3RR, but for that very reason, crying wold over copyright should not be treated lightly. Vanamonde ( talk) 12:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Result concerning KA$HMIR
|
| User:DHeyward is banned for one month from all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed. User:Andrew Davidson is warned to avoid hyperbole in future arbitration enforcement filings. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:21, 4 January 2018 (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 DHeyward
DHeyward is continuing to make vexatious attempts to delete and disrupt the Erica Garner topic, for example, at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 3 For clarity, perhaps it needs stating that, by making the edits to the Erica Garner topic, DHeyward violated the topic ban placed on 2 Dec.
Discussion concerning DHeywardStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DHeywardAs of the filing, topic ban is expired. [50]. Further it was limited to articles regarding Politicians and not other articles. Erica Garner is not an article about a politicians. -- DHeyward ( talk) 03:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC) BU_Rob13 The admin imposing the retriction noted how narrow it was (a BLP DS limited to articles American Politicians). It's not an AP2 sanction and didn't broadly construe to talk pages, wiki spaces or any other articles. It came up before and was ruled narrowly with no adjustment to the sanction. It included an apology for a previous filing [51]. It was not changed and certainly I've waited the appropriate time to be restriction free and avoided al larticles on American Politicians. -- DHeyward ( talk) 04:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC) To repeat, the expired restriction was not an AP2 restriction. -- DHeyward ( talk) 04:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Zero0000 VM falsely states these are related to AP2 and my topic ban was an AP2 restriction. It was not. They are not. The reversal on Scarborough is a long standing smear and BLP violation. It's been removed numerous times. The others are unrelated to the restriction or after the restriction expired, which is not aP2. Also, they weren't significant or disrupive enough to even warrant a complaint. The restriction has expired and was extremely narrow as confirmed by the retraction of an earlier complaint. -- DHeyward ( talk) 04:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Zero0000 in turn here are VMs complaints that he didn't make when the BLP US Politiciaon articles was in place:
Cbs527 review the log and sanction. It was not an AP2 sanction. It was a restriction on "articles" about "American Politicians" filed under the BLP arbcom case. Nothing else was restricted. The narrow scope was confirmed in a previous discussion. I stayed away from bios on American Politians per the restriction and further clarification that it "only" incuded biographical articles on politicians. -- DHeyward ( talk) 04:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC) MastCell Really, how can I operate when this was the "clarification." [57]. I am not in violation s I've avoided all articles in the clarification. -- DHeyward ( talk) 05:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Zero0000 MastCell see self reversion above that VM failed to mention [58]. -- DHeyward ( talk) 05:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Zero0000 And per this WP article, the Scarborough removal[ [59]] complied with BLP by refusing to link him to a conspiracy that he murdered an employee. BLP exenption is obvious per the Washington Post. [60]. We don't permit smears. Are you stil arguing I should be sanctioned for this edit? -- DHeyward ( talk) 05:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC) TonyBallioni TonyBallioni Joe Scarborough was BLP edit over a longstanding consensus. If you like, review the Article for Deletion. The deceased person had her article deleted in 2006. Even Jimbo weighed it. We don't allow baseless conspiracy theory smears on living people. Even smears by Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton didn't have Vince Foster killed either and you can try to insert that conspiracy theory to her article but it will be reverted by a number of editors (and by me regardless of your ban as it's a blatant BLP violation just like Scarborough) . -- DHeyward ( talk) 08:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC) My edit to Scarborough was not a vio. It seems the majority of commenters are piping up after the ban expired over stale edits. -- DHeyward ( talk) 09:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Masem, TonyBallioni, Sandstein GoldenRing In closing, you can review mt last 30 days of edits. I've avoided politicians articles. I did it in good faith. I have not tried to evade the topic ban in any way and I'm sorry if the handful of edits look like I was skirting the edges. That was not my intent. No one alerted me to anything they thought was a violation at the time and it seems clear that it's the pile on comments, not the original filer that are being discussed. Also since the pile on charges failed to note the self-revert, it was clear they searched my history to exact punishment. None of my edits appear to be disruptive nor were they edit warring and it seems odd to file for a sanction after its expired with no disputes or disruption to solve. I am not currently under sanction and it seems a bit off to put me under sanction again for edits that are not contested or controversial. We're here to build the encyclopedia and that has been my motivation even after I shifted away from political bios. -- DHeyward ( talk) 16:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Masem You're statement about the Dec 19 edit is false. I self-reverted that edit. If you meant the Scarborough BLP violation I removed, it was December 31. Has anyone even read the talk page or the history of Scarborough to know that it was a long-standing BLP issue. It wasn't a new allegation and it's just as baseless today as it has been for years. Other editors remove the account while lots of IP editors keep trying to sneak it in (even in the last month). Go read it. Certainly with less than a day in the topic ban, I didn't edit an article that I thought would be covered. -- DHeyward ( talk) 18:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC) -- DHeyward ( talk) 18:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Masem Do really lack the good faith necessary to believe I intentionally violated a 1 month topic ban on the 30th day? That seems to be what you are saying even after acknowledging the BLP consensus? Come on. That was a good faith BLP removal. -- DHeyward ( talk) 19:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Masem Again, your statement is incorrect. I added paragraphs to Robert A. Mandell which were sourced. I removed EVERYTHING [61], not just sources as your statement implies. Another editor restored my edits because they were truthful and sourced. I have no control over that. You also are not clear that this had NOTHING to do with Scarborough. And yes, it was out of an abundance of caution that I reverted the Dec 19 edit to Mandell. -- DHeyward ( talk) 19:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by Sir JosephI suggest an immediate close to this, and a super-duper trout to the complainant. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Statement by WinkelviReally, Andrew Davidson? I second Sir Joseph re: trouting. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Volunteer Marek
There's a few more topic ban violations (ex. [62]) but the four right above pretty clearly show that DHayward apparently figured that no one was paying attention over the holidays and decided he could violate his topic ban with impunity. @ Zero0000: - the topic ban is "broadly construed" and applies to "related topics". But even that doesn't matter since DHayward's violations of the topic ban are pretty blatant. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Based on past reports, the appropriate action here is a short (day or two) block and a resetting of the topic ban. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC) @ DHeyward: says "Zero0000 VM falsely states these are related to AP2 and my topic ban was an AP2 restriction. It was not" - this is an outright lie. I never said such thing. His topic is from articles on American politicians and related topics (such as de Blasio, Trump, Obama and Michael Flynn, all of whom he made edits about BEFORE his topic ban expired). The fact that DHeyward is trying to pull a fast one here should be an acerbating factor in any sanctions being considered. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 07:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC) @ NeilN: - speaking of "inflammatory hyperbole", how about those comments here from Sir Joseph ("...just to suit your leftist agenda") and particularly MONGO, who's been going around making these kinds of attacks throughout Wikipedia as of late, (" None of these persons wishes this encyclopedia to be a neutral treatise on these articles...they want a slanted, biased left wing view on them, always" and "disgusting left wing bias"). That's WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:SOAPBOX right there. And people wonder why this topic area is such a battleground? (Note nobody is going around flinging accusations at DHeyward, MONGO or Sir Joseph about their supposed or imagined "agendas" and these outbursts by these two were prompted merely by someone pointing out that a topic ban has been violated). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by Malik ShabazzI recommend administrative action. Please see this edit, in which DHeyward restored shitty material (poorly written and misspelled) to the lead section of Blue Lives Matter, an article covered by WP:ARBAP2, with a personal attack in the edit summary. To be honest, a revert like that makes me wonder whether DHeyward is competent to be editing. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 03:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by Cbs527Nominating an article for a merge and commenting on an image is "hostile" or "disruptive"? Nonsense. None of the examples the the complainant/article creator has given seem to violate the topic ban. However, the examples Volunteer Marek provided above clearly do violate the topic ban and occurred during the topic ban time frame. Since the topic ban has expired I'm not sure what actions can/should be taken at this point. CBS527 Talk 04:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by D.CreishMastCell: your last visit included several edits and a partisan comment on Carter Page. You shouldn't be commenting in the "uninvolved administrators" section. D.Creish ( talk) 05:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by KingindianI suggest that the problem lies with the phrasing of the topic ban more than any action by DHeyward. In an earlier
AE request by
TonyBallioni, who instituted the topic ban,
Sandstein clarified: Therefore, all the edits mentioned by VM are not really violation of topic bans. I suppose Joe Scarborough could tenuously qualify (since he's a past politician), but he's a TV anchor now, so I don't think one can reasonably call it a violation. The other one which could qualify is on the talk page of Michael Flynn. As far as I know, talk pages are generally covered under topic bans, but DHeyward seems uncertain, and the talk page comment wasn't disruptive. I suggest:
Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Ryk72In the 20/20 vision of hindsight, the topic ban really should have been the standard AP2 topic ban, or nothing at all. The wording, which bans the editor from mainspace only, and only then pages relating to American politicians, explicitly not American politics, is neither clearly topic ban nor clearly page ban. It leaves a wide corridor of uncertainty at its edges. The clarification in the previous, withdrawn, AE filing makes things no clearer. There was opportunity for explicit clarification of the logged sanction at the time; it is a pity that it was not taken. As it was not, it left open the possibility of edits like those complained about here; with a reasonable expectation that they were not within the scope of the ban. There are rare times when I disagree with Kingsindian. This is not one of them. Endorse their recommendations in full. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by MONGO
Statement by power~enwikiI wouldn't interpret Erica Garner as falling under the TBAN as phrased, and don't see any violations of the TBAN in the diffs presented by Andrew Davidson. I don't want to get into the details of whether there were any other violations, and I feel Erica Garner falls under AP2 discretionary sanctions. If the TBAN is extended I would recommend using a simpler wording (all BLPs in the AP2 area, or even all of AP2) for the new TBAN due to the confusion the current warning has presented. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by SkyWarriorI haven't really looked into details concerning this request, but it should be noted that DHeyward edited another user's comment in direct violation of WP:TPO and then proceeded to readd it when rightfully reverted. He also redirected his talk page to AE, something I would argue is very disruptive, almost to the point of vandalism. Sky Warrior 19:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning DHeyward
|
| MONGO is topic-banned from everything related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people for three months. Sandstein 09:26, 5 January 2018 (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 MONGO
See block log, Findings of Fact: ((4) MONGO ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in incivility ( [63] [64] [65]) and contributed to the hostility in the topic area ( [66] [67] [68]). ), and evidence presented in the Arbcom case in which he exhibited the same overt hostility and politicizing of content disputes.- MrX 19:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
To those complaining that I linked to MONGO's block log—how is that not appropriate for a section called "Diffs of previous relevant sanctions"? MONGO has a history of making policy-violating personal attacks and spewing random incivility directed at those he considers political foes. The fact that he was blocked for incivility in 2008 and is still doing it in 2018 indicates that he's either not getting the message, or is unwilling or unable to control himself. On a more personal note, I'm really tired of being accused of various wrongs by MONGO every time our paths cross and consistently without any evidence. He claims to avoid AE because he would rather make strong arguments, but in my experience, instead of making strong arguments, he consistently attacks the motives of editors and admins that he disagrees with, accusing them of being leftists or progressives and making veiled threats. His behavior prior to the American Politics Arbcom case in defense of Collect was especially ugly [69] [70] [71]. It's time to do something more than just admonish him.- MrX 22:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning MONGOStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MONGOWhen did I last make an edit to article on American politics(ians) on a page or a talkpage that was a violation of the arbcom remedies. My comments are here at AE where I will gladly impose a self exile. I'd like to see diffs showing I have been disruptive in article space please. I may have been but would like to see them.-- MONGO 19:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC) I originally posted this comment to Sandstein's page-- MONGO 19:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC) In addition, Sandstein below states I have a long block log. I have not been blocked since 2008...nearly a decade ago. This is precisely the kind of unjust insinuation and unfair aspiration he claims I have made that he says is at least partly grounds to topic ban me from articles I have not even been active on! You want to tell me to avoid noticeboard cause I can't keep my cool that's fine of course. But I am sick and tired of seeing he same names popping up all the time where they are seeking penalties applied to their political opponents based on even the tiniest piece of evidence. I will however confess that my comments made regarding DHeyward now closed AE case were made in anger and disgust and I retract them and apologize. I retire from this noticeboard voluntarily and indefinitely.-- MONGO 20:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement Volunteer MarekI was just looking up the details of the AP2 case after seeing MONGO's attacks above and was planning on commenting on it above myself. MONGO was specifically admonished for EXACTLY these kinds of statements (the ones in MrX's diffs) and barely escaped a topic ban. Seeing as how the admonishment has done squat to change their behavior, I think it's time for an explicit topic ban. (Note: I commented in the AP2 case where I actually opposed MrX, but that was three years ago and enough is enough - a topic ban for MONGO is long overdue) Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by Sir JosephI find this action very troubling. I am also very excited that the admins are now going to enforce civility. I look forward to bringing items to their attention and seeing swift action. To the rest of you, please note that if you think this doesn't look like political grandstanding, you do need to check yourself. There's a reason why people stop editing Wikipedia and it's because of things like this. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Serial Number 54129Well, Sir Joseph, these are egregious violations, rather than the usual small potatoes curried at AN/I. And I think aspersions are in any case far more troubling, just on principle; incivility is rude, and then over. Aspersions, on the other hand, leave a footprint behind for someone to step into later, intentionally or otherwise. >SerialNumber 54129 ...speculates 20:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Incidentally, more as an FYI for procedure, Alex Shih is half wrong ;) a statement has been made. >SerialNumber 54129 ...speculates 20:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by SPECIFICOAdmins appear to acknowledge that MONGO's disruptive behavior has not stopped. So why are Admin's bending over backwards to find a gentle but possibly ineffective remedy? There's a huge problem with survivorship bias in the application of these Discretionary Sanctions. Admins here have no easy way to observe the many good editors who give up on these article sin distaste or disgust at the personalization of content discussions and paralyzing tail-chasing on the talk pages. The editors who've given up don't bother to monitor this page and recite why it's a waste of their time to engage with editors who ignore the letter and spirit of the Arbcom remedies and DS. Admins here should not be unduly concerned with threading the needle to find the most minimal effective remedy, when the great damage of editor attrition goes undocumented and unaddressed. SPECIFICO talk 23:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by My very best wishesContent editing by Mongo does not seem to be problematic. His comments are directed against other contributors. A logical solution would be a ban to comment about any other contributors in the project on any pages, including article talk pages. This is basically an enforcement of WP:NPA, but including also WP:AE and other administrative pages. Comment on content, not on other contributors. My very best wishes ( talk) 03:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by KingsindianI notice that the train-wreck sanction is creating even more drama. All of the non-stale diffs mentioned by MrX relate to the AE case mentioned above. They arose when MrX edited MONGO's comments. MrX shouldn't be clerking at AE. However, the comments were not good at all. If a sanction is to be considered, banning MONGO from commenting at drama boards (AE, AN and ANI) should be considered first. There is ample precedent for this sort of sanction. Besides, watching the drama boards is enough to instill a lasting cynicism in most editors: a break would be good for all. A topic ban from ARBAP2 does not make any sense. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning MONGO
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Rod ( User:Dailey78)
| The appeal is declined. Rod ( User:Dailey78) is advised to demonstrate that they can edit productively, by editing other topics, before appealing again. Simply trying to wait out an indefinite topic ban is not a productive strategy. Vanamonde ( talk) 11:57, 5 January 2018 (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 User:Dailey78It's been several years since the ban was implemented in July 2014. It's time for a fresh start and a lift to this ban, as it's now 2018. Statement by User:EdJohnston
Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by User:Dailey78Result of the appeal by User:Dailey78
|
| Vanamonde has called it - "Come on, folks, there's better things to do on Wikipedia." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:07, 5 January 2018 (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 The Rambling Man
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The_Rambling_Man#September_2017
This is pretty straight-forward. TRM is banned from "reflections on [the] general competence" of fellow editors or " posting speculation about the motivations of editors", as he has a history of belittling comments. He made a comment questioning the general competence of all editors who patrol AN while also claiming their motive for doing so was to get rid of people. TRM has a history of pushing the bounds of his restrictions, as evidenced by the many past AE blocks. ~ Rob13 Talk 06:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning The Rambling ManStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by The Rambling ManStandard behaviour, throw the kitchen sink at it. There is so often these days a proclivity to get rid of editors rather than discuss with them better ways of doing things. If what I said offended BU Rob so, he could have talked to me about it. But no. If someone uninvolved wishes me to remove that comment, fine. Otherwise I guess Rob gets what he’s wanted for a while. The Rambling Man ( talk) 06:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Francis
Statement by KingsindianThis is beyond petty. Grow a thicker skin if you intend to work in admin areas. Besides, I endorse TRM's comments completely. This was a horrible sanction. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by WBGWhilst, this looks like a violation, I would not recommend any action on the merits of this alone, since TRM has since-struck it and it's not something that has the gravitas to start the one-month-long-drama at multiple venues that will necessarily accompany any block/so.
Winged Blades
Godric 09:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Whoever is saying the sanction was worse:--It doesn't matter.What matters is whether TRM violated it and whether a resultant sanction is deserved.The venue to alleviate the sanction is that-way. Winged Blades Godric 10:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Dweller
Statement by Darkfrog24This particular gag order itself seems to be a separate issue, but how long were these statements up before he removed them? Did he remove all of them? If Rambling Man made some impulsive posts but then very shortly took them down, well, good. (Checks) Okay, so the one in the first link provided it went up at 17:45 on Jan 4 and went down at 3:20 Jan 5. So not immediately but not three weeks either. Did anyone see them and ask him to take it down or did he do it without being asked? Darkfrog24 ( talk) 14:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning The Rambling Man
|
| No action. Volunteer Marek is reminded not to make personal attacks. GoldenRing ( talk) 09:19, 10 January 2018 (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
After I gave VM a warning, User:El_C defended VM; at my user talk, El_C basically argued that, "sticking an edit in the middle of his series does not magically turn his remaining series into an extra revert. If the changes could have been made in a single edit, they count as a single revert." In reply to El_C, I said that I should not have to wait for VM to revert my intervening edit, and that El_C was making it sound like I deliberately stuck in that intervening edit. I didn't, you can see that it's an extensive edit that took me a while to study and put together, and I would have made more edits but when I realized VM was editing the article in this way I withdrew from editing the article to avoid further conflict. Plus El_C is inventing a new rule that is contrary to the simple 1RR rule: "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." Incidentally, I didn't have to discuss this with VM at his user talk after giving an initial warning, but did because I wanted to avoid AE, and all I got from VM was personal attacks like this.
@ User:GoldenRing, you don't think VM was reverting my edits? And doing so nonconsecutively? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 09:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Note: I left this message for User:El_C. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 10:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC) @
User:PeterTheFourth, Volunteer Marek reverted me so many times today that it would take me too long to list all of the individual reverts unless I really have to. So I’ll just give you two very specific examples: This edit by VM at 06:42 on 9 January deleted new material that I previously added at 07:48 on 7 January. Following that revert by VM, I made this edit at 6:44 on 9 January unaware VM had made any edits. Then, VM reverted me again many more times, including this edit at 06:54 on 9 January which reverted edits I had made at 05:39 on 9 January and 06:02 on 9 January and 06:35 on 9 January. All of these reverts by VM were total nonsense, by the way, but that’s another story. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 10:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@ User:Black Kite, all of my article edits at every article I’ve ever edited have been consecutive with respect to each other. Every editor at Wikipedia can say the exact same thing. But apparently VM is the only one who can actually get away with it. The specific reverts that I described above for PeterTheFourth edited entirely different paragraphs of the BLP. I grow weary. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 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 MarekUser:GoldenRing - what is my response you're referring to? The stuff on my talk page? Sorry buddy, if somebody comes to my talk with this kind of bad faithed nonsense, I am free to respond to it appropriately. And there was no personal attacks there (and no, saying "bullshit" is not a personal attack). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 09:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Sigh. It has already been explained to Anythingyouwant by an uninvolved administrator, User:El C, that this was NOT a 1RR violation. Repeatedly: [78], [79] (also points out that Anythingyouwant's action could be seen as a bad faith attempt to WP:GAME 1RR), [80] (also a warning about Anythingyouwant trying to reinstate his edits in violation of DS), [81]. Anythingyouwant has chosen not to heed this advice and decided to file this AE report anyway - which is direct evidence of their cynical, bad faithed, WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing in this topic area. WP:BOOMERANG please. You can read the discussion on my and Anything's talk page. Here is the jist again. From Jan 5, 16:345, until Jan 9, 6:35 Anythingyouwant made a series of unilateral and undiscussed edits to the Jeff Sessions article (despite being fully aware of the contentious nature of the topic and the fact the article was under DS - he didn't bring anything up on talk). A little while later I looked over these edits and many of them appeared to be the standard POV stuff. At this point I could've just reverted back to the original version by User:MelanieN [82], since there was a lot of problematic stuff in there. But rather, following the suggestions at [83] I decided to do Anythingyouwant the courtesy of going through each of their edits one by one, undo the bad, but keep the good. Well, shit, this is what I get for trying to do the right thing. As I was making these edits, at some point, Anythingyouwant managed to jump in and make an edit - which I did not notice until he showed up on my talk page - in between two of mine. Specifically: I made an edit at 6:43 and a follow up edit, less than a second later, at 6:44. Anythingyouwant managed to make his edit split seconds before mine, at 6:44 [84]. I did not get an edit-conflict notice (it was a different part of the text). Like I said, I didn't even notice this and kept going. All of my edits spanned the time 6:40 to 7:15. Let me also stress that I did NOT subsequently revert that particular edit of his. Then Anythingyouwant showed up on my talk page claiming I violated 1RR and demanding I self revert. Hey! This reminds me. User:GoldenRing, didn't you JUST call something like this a "threat", quite recently? Do I need to dig the diff up where you accuse me of making "threats" because I notified somebody on their talk about a DS violation? Anyway, Anythingyouwant claimed that I made, quote, " two distinct groups of reverts". Apparently the edits made between 6:40-6:43 where "one distinct group" and the edits made "6:44-6:52" were a "second distinct group". Now, at this point, it's pretty obvious that this is just some cynical WP:GAMEing and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Anyone who tries to argue that two edits made SECONDS APART, which were part of one continuous whole are "two distinct groups" is not playing it kosher. So yeah, I said that to Anythingyouwant. And as El_C pointed out, this very much looks like Anythingyouwant PURPOSEFULLY jumped into the middle of my editing (and again, I was doing him a courtesy) to try and turn a series of continous edits into "two reverts". Which itself is bad faithed and disruptive. Couple other things. Above, Anythingyouwant uses the language "before VM jumped in". This is rhetorically dishonest. I waited till he was done with his edits to make mine. He jumped in the middle of mine. He adopted this "jumped in" terminology only after I used the phrase in regard to his action. He's trying to turn the tables and pretend that I did what he was actually guilty of. Anythingyouwant claims he didn't even know I was editing the article when he made his edit at 6:44. Seeing as how there were three intervening edits in between, that at least five minutes had passed, and how quickly he came running to my talk page, this is quite unlikely. One last thing. Here is the irony. If you go by Anythingyouwant's logic then this edit and this edit constitute a 1RR violation. This has also been pointed out to him [85]. Strangely, he insists that that wasn't a 1RR violation even though it's two reverts made in a non-continous fashion. This illustrates the bad faith behind this report. (The difference of course is that my edits were made seconds apart and were part of a continous whole with only Anythingyouwant's single sneaky edit in between, whereas in between Anything's two reverts there were three intervening edits and 9 minutes had passed. Also, I'm not actually reporting him for 1RR). Like I said, this is a pretty clear illustration of the bad faith and battleground mentality that Anythingyouwant has brought to this topic area for some time now, and it is the same reason he was banned from the topic area previously. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 09:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by PeterTheFourthWould you please link to the individual edits that were reverts? It's hard to see which by looking at these large series of edits. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 09:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Statement by El_CRegarding the 1RR, I already
closed this as Statement by Sir JosephSo striking comments is enough to not get a block or sanction? You guys should look up to the MONGO close, where if my memory serves, MONGO got a block for a personal attack, even though he struck it out. But regardless, VM should be sanctioned. As someone who is often the complainant in AE actions, he is readily aware of the rules and should know that his edits are actionable. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by GPRamirez5There is a clear pattern with User:Volunteer Marek going on edit blitzkriegs, which he claims are anti-POV-pushing, without actually checking the sources. Here he deletes on the basis that the source doesn't say "confirmed", but The Hill source, for one, says the FBI "backed up" the Justice Department's claim.- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 17:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Marek is particularly shameless to evoke WP:GAMING. His MO is to claim a source is "misrepresented" unless it uses exactly the same language as the text. In fact Editing Policy states: You should read the source, understand it, and then express what it says in your own words. --which is exactly what User:Anythingyouwant did in the example above, and other edits I saw. And note that in most cases Marek didn't simply reword information, he deleted it. That is disruptive, POV editing pure and simple.- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 19:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by SPECIFICOThis is messed up. Anything went to Marek with what looked like a simple 1RR concern. That's what we all do in these DS articles. In almost all cases there's a swift resolution without an AE report -- yes AE Admins, you see only a small sample of the problems that arise on these articles. So in this case, Marek walks Anything through the issue -- which nobody claims did any damage to anything -- and then uninvolved Admin @ El C: helps out with an impartial review that should have settled the issue for anyone who cared about it. Then Anything immediately comes here to get what result? I can't see any purpose other than to punish Marek and just maybe to disable or intimidate a prolific editor so that Anything can take a break from his 24/7 tweaking of these politics articles. The only explanation I can see is that Anything is looking for punishment. Editors who are going against the mainstream narrative on article content end being overruled by consensus time and again. That's why they file a disportionate number of the AE complaints we see here. Some of them feel compelled to use every tool at their disposal, including gaming the volunteer Admins at AE, to push minority or fringe POVs into articles. I've said repeatedly in the past that in my opinion Anything's TBAN on topics related to Abortion should be extended to cover American Politics as well. It's well documented that many people who support the Trump Administration, among the American public and the US Congress, are doing so as a strategy to promote judicial appointments that will enable a Pro-life agenda on women's health. It is entirely within the spirit of an abortion-related TBAN broadly construed to extend that TBAN to American Politics after months of disruptive editing by Anythingyouwant in the related area. I don't think you AE Admins should just be relieved to close this and let it go. I ask you to consider a TBAN for Anythingyouwant. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Result concerning Volunteer Marek
|
| User unblocked. Sandstein 16:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Posted per the user's request, via the unblock template. SQL Query me! 04:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by Drmies
Result concerning 68.132.68.52
|
| Withdrawn. Sandstein 19:52, 27 December 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 MickPhil
None
User engaged in large amounts of content removal, apparently attempting to whitewash the BLP. This article is under active remedies. The user continued even after these active remedies were pointed out to them. Note that this user has engaged in other disruptive behavior, including REVDELed edits. @ DHeyward and Sandstein: arb case we mentioned a minute later in this diff. The last edit by the user occurred after the warnings. Further, since the warning is on the talk page, I'm under the impression a formal warning is not required for active remedies. Has this practice changed? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I see this issue is being discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Discretionary_Sanctions. This is very clearly a 1RR violation though so I'm not sure how why Sandstein there's been no conduct violations. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC) @
Sandstein: I mentioned "
Discussion concerning MickPhilStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MickPhilStatement by DHeywardAll the diffs for evidence appear to be before the AE DS warning notice. The warning diff provided doesn't seem to mention the arbitration case, either. -- DHeyward ( talk) 08:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning MickPhil
|
| No action. GoldenRing ( talk) 10:58, 4 January 2018 (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 Nishidani
Nishidani has a rich history of blocks in the WP:ARBPIA area, as well as voluntarily refraining from editing when caught redhanded but before being sanctiond
Discussion concerning NishidaniStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by NishidaniStatement by Malik ShabazzI invite administrators to toss a boomerang to Debresser. For the relevant context, please see the past few days' history at B'Tselem and Talk:B'Tselem. Debresser doesn't like the way Nishidani spoke about his edit on that article, so he pursued this frivolous complaint about a trivial matter at another article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 03:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Nishidani
|
| No action. ScratchMarshall is warned that his views on how much detail is appropriate in an article are out of step with community expectations. Continuing to push excessive detail over a long period becomes disruptive and may lead to sanctions in the future. GoldenRing ( talk) 10:59, 4 January 2018 (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 ScratchMarshall
Discussion concerning ScratchMarshallStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ScratchMarshall
First I'll explain how K.e.coffman is misrepresenting the Camry issue. In Special:Diff/817496708 my larger edit was indeed reverted by ValarianB. However the summary said "This edit made proper grammar into atrocious grammar". Valarian did not actually object to my mention of the Camry in the summary, only the larger rephrasing that I did. On that basis, I was not restoring what Valarian's revert targeted (the grammar) but only the Camry identification, which Valarian did not object to. Thus my summary "minimalist restoration of details". Valarian's revert threw the baby out with the bathwater. Since only bathwater (grammar change) was objected to, and not baby (Camry ID) restoring it was not a restoration of what Valarian objected to, so this was an entirely separate edit and not a 1RR violation, because I did not "revert" Valarian's reversion, I noted his objections and made a completely different edit which did not change the grammar and only simply added the data. Second I'll explain how K.e.coffman is misrepresenting the COD issue. This is not "contentious" material at all. We already had consensus regarding that we should not state Heather Heyer's cause of death as being a heart attack based on her mother Susan Bro's comments during an NBC News interview. Our discussion was on whether or not we should mention those comments or the news coverage reactions to them generated. It was not on whether or not to list the official COD, which is blunt trauma, not heart attack. The "several editors" K.e.coffman refers to are:
The problem is that both of these were replies to special:diff/817480803 where I was discussing Noor Al-Sibai's article regarding the "heart attack" quote, which did not mention "blunt trauma" at all. K.e.coffman is inaccurate in saying that these were "previous objections to this material" because it was different material we were discussing. Re the "multiple prior discussions and warnings"
Re Sandstein, your suspicions are correct, diff 2 is not a 1RR violation, and not a revert at all. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 00:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by TheValeyardHow do we deal with an editor who brings up the same topics over and over and over and over again? I'm trying to sift thru the maze of restrictions and rules that cover political pages, is there anything along the lines of "being super-unable to stop beating a dead horse" ? Look at this, Scratchmarshall has brought up the same topic, which has garnered zero consensus among editors at the article, over several months
Here's the topics started for the "heart attack" part, a notorious alt-right meme attack
Am I crazy or is this overboard? TheValeyard ( talk) 00:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Doesn't much matter if sentiment is leaning against any finding of wrongdoing, but the silly assertions of I've had my last say so do what you will. TheValeyard ( talk) 04:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Add'l statement by K.e.coffman (filer)This has started with Scratch posting to my Talk page: "Your redaction", where he linked to this diff from the article's Talk page, which I had redacted two months ago. It looks like he's unable to let go of this fringe theory, and it's becoming disruptive and possibly BLP violating. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by MrXSandstein is correct that there is no technically sanctionable violation of an editing restriction, however GoldenRing is correct that the behavior of Scratch Marshall is disruptive pushing of detail. In fact, it violates the principle of consensus, which is plainly established for this aspect of the subject. I agree with the idea of a narrow topic ban from the article (and related articles), but since this manner of editing from ScratchMarshall has been ongoing for nearly five months, I think the topic ban should be for at least six months, if not permanent, based on the WP:POV pushing evident in their contributions to the article.- MrX 14:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Add'l statements by ScratchMarshall (target)Apparently a followup is fine so I have responses.
Statement by Ryk72On review of the diffs in the initial filing, it appears that there has been some misunderstanding. The initial diff
31 does not show
ScratchMarshall reinserting contentious material; it shows an insertion of reliably sourced information, in line with mainstream views on the subject. Neither do the next two Talkpage diffs
32
33 show discussion of the material included in that first diff. Statement by SMcCandlishOutsider view: Agreed with Ryk72 and Sandstein. There's nothing AE-actionable here, even if some of this seems to wander into WP:TE and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE territory. This should have been taken to WP:ANI, and can if the issue continues. I tend to agree with ScratchMarshall's defense, point-by-point, but that's kind of not the point. A pattern can still be unconstructive even if no particular action in it was expressly sanctionable. So: a) Those who feel he's being disruptive need to make an actual case, not some "flailing with poorly-supported fingerpointing" thing. b) Scratch should take the hint and not make them build that case, since if they do then ANI will surely act on it, probably with the requested topic ban. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 00:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning ScratchMarshall
|
| Blocked for 1 week. GoldenRing ( talk) 11:04, 4 January 2018 (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 KA$HMIR
This is a clear violation of the editing sanctions placed on this page by this WP:SPA. And I'd add that this is not the first time that this guy has violated those sanctions. [23] [24] — MBL Talk 02:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning KA$HMIRStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (KA$HMIR)Well I will make my simple case here but will abide by whatever is the board's final decision, whatever it will be, though this looks like a bad faith report. As far as I know regentspark [ removed] the 1RR restriction from all Kashmir Conflict articles, if this is indeed one of them. Besides, there is an exemption from 3RR to remove content which is copyright and or added by blocked users, as anyone can see, I consistently removed the page's content on the basis that it has clear copyright violations which other users Josephus and Danish agree with me on. There is also a talkpage discussion ongoing and I am still compiling the evidence for those users who had requested it. Also a lot, if not most, of the article's content was written by a blocked sockmaster TylerDurden, who was recently caught socking again.
" From then on, Poonch remained garrisoned by a battalion of State troops It's source said this "But from this time onwards Poonch remained garrisoned by a battalion of J&K State troops." This is very closely paraphrased. There are more examples especially in the sentences which cite Saraf's Kashmiris road to freedom Volume 2 and other obscure primary sources which are not available online. Overall the wording in the article differs little from the sources. This [36] also shows the article with a 60%+ similarity. Article needs to be rewritten from scratch. We can not trust a sockmaster TylerDurden to have written this article properly. KA$HMIR ( talk) 14:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by WBGHis being a SPA and Alex's block are not much of a problem at their respective individual merits. Functionary Yunshui knows his alt-accs and AFAIK, the use of such accounts are permitted by our legit-socks criterion.Obviously, cases of 3RR and/or violation of ArbCom decisions needs to be looked at, though! Winged Blades Godric 04:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by power~enwikiA link to the copyvio tool: [37]. The top two matches are caused by properly-cited blockquotes. I don't see anything that justifies blanking the entire article. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by Capitals00But problem remains that KA$HMIR is edit warring against consensus on multiple articles and often engaged in WP:BLUDGEONING. At least 3 articles ( Violence against women during the partition of India, 1947 Poonch Rebellion, Kashmir conflict) have been provided extended protection because of his edit warring. Capitals00 ( talk) 16:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Kautilya3The edit warring that occurred at the 1947 Poonch Rebellion is the most shocking I have seen in my three years of editing, not only for the spuriousness of the rationale but also the bombast with which it was carried out. Note the edit summaries:
Yet, when I quizzed it on the talk page, no evidence was forthcoming. KA$HMIR was certainly aware of the edit restrictions placed on Kashmir conflict articles because RegentsPark recently reminded every one of their existence. This is the apex of all the tendentiousness that the user has been displaying ever since he came on board. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Let us also note the obvious Tag teaming that has occurred in this edit war. These are the first ever edits by any of these editors on this page. Pure coincidence? But such coincidences are now occurring with increasing frequency all over the India-Pakistan space: Talk:Violence against women during the Partition of India, Talk:Annexation of Junagadh etc. At Talk:Kashmir conflict, a group of editors have repeated each other's RfC comments [45]. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 01:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Statement by User:EdJohnstonFor clarity, the current restrictions in effect for this article (from WP:DSLOG) appear to be:
Statement by Dilpa kaurLooks like a bad faith report by a user who has been obsessed with maligning this user through hook or crook. I guess this request is another frustrated attempt after previous failures to rid the encyclopedia of this constructive editor. Previously MBlaze Lightning joyously joined in a ridiculous SPI against KA$HMIR, only to be confronted with the establishment of KA$HMIR's innocence. He also brought him up in a spurious ANI case which was based on such weak evidence (such as MBlaze' Lightnings mixup of my IP address and Danish Mehraj's) that even MBlaze Lightning had to withdraw it. The encyclopedia has also been recently hit by malicious IPs [46] [47], located in different Indian cities, [48] [49] looking to malign this user as a sockpuppet (the different locations of these obvious IP socks suggest collaboration and their knowledge of old SPIs indicate that these are older users IP socking to harass without getting their accounts sanctioned). I suspect a link between these reports and the malicious IPs who are obviously not new strays but old Indian editors who have a beef with KA$HMIR and Owais Khursheed and are IP socking to harass the Kashmiri editors. Overall this request is nothing more than the latest attempt to get rid of another good user who is a headache for the POV pushers. 223.225.246.200 ( talk) 20:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by NadirAliI'll have to agree with Dilpa here. The frequency with which these reports are getting filed show desperation that some of the mud flung will stick. Mar4d previously expressed the same concern in another frivolous AE request, that time against me, about Kautilya3 desperately trying to get rid of editors with another frame of mind. Since this looks like KA$HMIR's first mistake I would advise to go easy on him. We can all rest in peace that Yunshui has confirmed that KA$HMIR was not under any sanctions on their previous account. So a warning should suffice this time. As far as copyvio is concerned I am more concerned at the speed with which this is being used as a reason by not just KA$HMIR but several editors to delete content which no one can check afterwards was really copyvio or not, especially when the users getting the diffs suppressed have themselves restored copyvio content. Instead I call for a WP:BOOMERANG. The evidence Dilpa has shown has startled me. It is just not possible that stray IPs are able to link to old SPIs. There is a case here that Indian editors have taken to harass Kashmiri editors through these frivolous reports and when they fail they start to IP sock to frame these responsible users for sockpuppetry. The messages left by these IPs are quite telling.
The case of collaboration is quite strong, not least because of the different IP locations within India of the users messaging with the same motive. I just recently expressed my concern at how some editors with no contributions to articles are suddenly arriving on the articles' talkpages as if they were requested by an invisible hand. This is part of a more extensive phenomenon of a particular set of users who participate in the same SPI, ANI and AE requests concerning editors in the India-Pakistan topic area and support each other on the talkpages on articles in the India-Pakistan project. I call for a warning to user:KA$HMIR to be more careful in future and a full investigation of the accounts frequently filing such bad faith reports and their links to these malicious IPs.-- NadirAli نادر علی ( talk) 07:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Statement by YunshuiSince I got pinged above, I'm just dropping by to confirm that KA$HMIR has indeed disclosed their original account to me and I'm satisfied that they are complying with the requirements at WP:SOCK. However, per an email conversation yesterday, they have advised me that they intend to abandon their former account entirely, in order to ensure that no accidental violations occur. I do not believe the former account is relevant to this case. Yunshui 雲 水 08:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by Mar4dI see nothing actionable here. Agree with RegentsPark that a warning, and a note to be careful in the future, is sufficient. Mar4d ( talk) 10:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Statement by Vanamonde93In the absence of any evidence provided by KA$HMIR, I would concur that an AE block of a week would normally be in order. Given the time that has elapsed, I'm disinclined to place such a block myself, and would much rather give them an explicit warning. Copyright violations are an exception to 3RR, but for that very reason, crying wold over copyright should not be treated lightly. Vanamonde ( talk) 12:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Result concerning KA$HMIR
|
| User:DHeyward is banned for one month from all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed. User:Andrew Davidson is warned to avoid hyperbole in future arbitration enforcement filings. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:21, 4 January 2018 (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 DHeyward
DHeyward is continuing to make vexatious attempts to delete and disrupt the Erica Garner topic, for example, at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 January 3 For clarity, perhaps it needs stating that, by making the edits to the Erica Garner topic, DHeyward violated the topic ban placed on 2 Dec.
Discussion concerning DHeywardStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DHeywardAs of the filing, topic ban is expired. [50]. Further it was limited to articles regarding Politicians and not other articles. Erica Garner is not an article about a politicians. -- DHeyward ( talk) 03:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC) BU_Rob13 The admin imposing the retriction noted how narrow it was (a BLP DS limited to articles American Politicians). It's not an AP2 sanction and didn't broadly construe to talk pages, wiki spaces or any other articles. It came up before and was ruled narrowly with no adjustment to the sanction. It included an apology for a previous filing [51]. It was not changed and certainly I've waited the appropriate time to be restriction free and avoided al larticles on American Politicians. -- DHeyward ( talk) 04:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC) To repeat, the expired restriction was not an AP2 restriction. -- DHeyward ( talk) 04:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Zero0000 VM falsely states these are related to AP2 and my topic ban was an AP2 restriction. It was not. They are not. The reversal on Scarborough is a long standing smear and BLP violation. It's been removed numerous times. The others are unrelated to the restriction or after the restriction expired, which is not aP2. Also, they weren't significant or disrupive enough to even warrant a complaint. The restriction has expired and was extremely narrow as confirmed by the retraction of an earlier complaint. -- DHeyward ( talk) 04:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Zero0000 in turn here are VMs complaints that he didn't make when the BLP US Politiciaon articles was in place:
Cbs527 review the log and sanction. It was not an AP2 sanction. It was a restriction on "articles" about "American Politicians" filed under the BLP arbcom case. Nothing else was restricted. The narrow scope was confirmed in a previous discussion. I stayed away from bios on American Politians per the restriction and further clarification that it "only" incuded biographical articles on politicians. -- DHeyward ( talk) 04:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC) MastCell Really, how can I operate when this was the "clarification." [57]. I am not in violation s I've avoided all articles in the clarification. -- DHeyward ( talk) 05:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Zero0000 MastCell see self reversion above that VM failed to mention [58]. -- DHeyward ( talk) 05:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Zero0000 And per this WP article, the Scarborough removal[ [59]] complied with BLP by refusing to link him to a conspiracy that he murdered an employee. BLP exenption is obvious per the Washington Post. [60]. We don't permit smears. Are you stil arguing I should be sanctioned for this edit? -- DHeyward ( talk) 05:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC) TonyBallioni TonyBallioni Joe Scarborough was BLP edit over a longstanding consensus. If you like, review the Article for Deletion. The deceased person had her article deleted in 2006. Even Jimbo weighed it. We don't allow baseless conspiracy theory smears on living people. Even smears by Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton didn't have Vince Foster killed either and you can try to insert that conspiracy theory to her article but it will be reverted by a number of editors (and by me regardless of your ban as it's a blatant BLP violation just like Scarborough) . -- DHeyward ( talk) 08:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC) My edit to Scarborough was not a vio. It seems the majority of commenters are piping up after the ban expired over stale edits. -- DHeyward ( talk) 09:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Masem, TonyBallioni, Sandstein GoldenRing In closing, you can review mt last 30 days of edits. I've avoided politicians articles. I did it in good faith. I have not tried to evade the topic ban in any way and I'm sorry if the handful of edits look like I was skirting the edges. That was not my intent. No one alerted me to anything they thought was a violation at the time and it seems clear that it's the pile on comments, not the original filer that are being discussed. Also since the pile on charges failed to note the self-revert, it was clear they searched my history to exact punishment. None of my edits appear to be disruptive nor were they edit warring and it seems odd to file for a sanction after its expired with no disputes or disruption to solve. I am not currently under sanction and it seems a bit off to put me under sanction again for edits that are not contested or controversial. We're here to build the encyclopedia and that has been my motivation even after I shifted away from political bios. -- DHeyward ( talk) 16:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Masem You're statement about the Dec 19 edit is false. I self-reverted that edit. If you meant the Scarborough BLP violation I removed, it was December 31. Has anyone even read the talk page or the history of Scarborough to know that it was a long-standing BLP issue. It wasn't a new allegation and it's just as baseless today as it has been for years. Other editors remove the account while lots of IP editors keep trying to sneak it in (even in the last month). Go read it. Certainly with less than a day in the topic ban, I didn't edit an article that I thought would be covered. -- DHeyward ( talk) 18:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC) -- DHeyward ( talk) 18:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Masem Do really lack the good faith necessary to believe I intentionally violated a 1 month topic ban on the 30th day? That seems to be what you are saying even after acknowledging the BLP consensus? Come on. That was a good faith BLP removal. -- DHeyward ( talk) 19:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Masem Again, your statement is incorrect. I added paragraphs to Robert A. Mandell which were sourced. I removed EVERYTHING [61], not just sources as your statement implies. Another editor restored my edits because they were truthful and sourced. I have no control over that. You also are not clear that this had NOTHING to do with Scarborough. And yes, it was out of an abundance of caution that I reverted the Dec 19 edit to Mandell. -- DHeyward ( talk) 19:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by Sir JosephI suggest an immediate close to this, and a super-duper trout to the complainant. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Statement by WinkelviReally, Andrew Davidson? I second Sir Joseph re: trouting. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Volunteer Marek
There's a few more topic ban violations (ex. [62]) but the four right above pretty clearly show that DHayward apparently figured that no one was paying attention over the holidays and decided he could violate his topic ban with impunity. @ Zero0000: - the topic ban is "broadly construed" and applies to "related topics". But even that doesn't matter since DHayward's violations of the topic ban are pretty blatant. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Based on past reports, the appropriate action here is a short (day or two) block and a resetting of the topic ban. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 02:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC) @ DHeyward: says "Zero0000 VM falsely states these are related to AP2 and my topic ban was an AP2 restriction. It was not" - this is an outright lie. I never said such thing. His topic is from articles on American politicians and related topics (such as de Blasio, Trump, Obama and Michael Flynn, all of whom he made edits about BEFORE his topic ban expired). The fact that DHeyward is trying to pull a fast one here should be an acerbating factor in any sanctions being considered. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 07:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC) @ NeilN: - speaking of "inflammatory hyperbole", how about those comments here from Sir Joseph ("...just to suit your leftist agenda") and particularly MONGO, who's been going around making these kinds of attacks throughout Wikipedia as of late, (" None of these persons wishes this encyclopedia to be a neutral treatise on these articles...they want a slanted, biased left wing view on them, always" and "disgusting left wing bias"). That's WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:SOAPBOX right there. And people wonder why this topic area is such a battleground? (Note nobody is going around flinging accusations at DHeyward, MONGO or Sir Joseph about their supposed or imagined "agendas" and these outbursts by these two were prompted merely by someone pointing out that a topic ban has been violated). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by Malik ShabazzI recommend administrative action. Please see this edit, in which DHeyward restored shitty material (poorly written and misspelled) to the lead section of Blue Lives Matter, an article covered by WP:ARBAP2, with a personal attack in the edit summary. To be honest, a revert like that makes me wonder whether DHeyward is competent to be editing. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 03:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by Cbs527Nominating an article for a merge and commenting on an image is "hostile" or "disruptive"? Nonsense. None of the examples the the complainant/article creator has given seem to violate the topic ban. However, the examples Volunteer Marek provided above clearly do violate the topic ban and occurred during the topic ban time frame. Since the topic ban has expired I'm not sure what actions can/should be taken at this point. CBS527 Talk 04:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by D.CreishMastCell: your last visit included several edits and a partisan comment on Carter Page. You shouldn't be commenting in the "uninvolved administrators" section. D.Creish ( talk) 05:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by KingindianI suggest that the problem lies with the phrasing of the topic ban more than any action by DHeyward. In an earlier
AE request by
TonyBallioni, who instituted the topic ban,
Sandstein clarified: Therefore, all the edits mentioned by VM are not really violation of topic bans. I suppose Joe Scarborough could tenuously qualify (since he's a past politician), but he's a TV anchor now, so I don't think one can reasonably call it a violation. The other one which could qualify is on the talk page of Michael Flynn. As far as I know, talk pages are generally covered under topic bans, but DHeyward seems uncertain, and the talk page comment wasn't disruptive. I suggest:
Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Ryk72In the 20/20 vision of hindsight, the topic ban really should have been the standard AP2 topic ban, or nothing at all. The wording, which bans the editor from mainspace only, and only then pages relating to American politicians, explicitly not American politics, is neither clearly topic ban nor clearly page ban. It leaves a wide corridor of uncertainty at its edges. The clarification in the previous, withdrawn, AE filing makes things no clearer. There was opportunity for explicit clarification of the logged sanction at the time; it is a pity that it was not taken. As it was not, it left open the possibility of edits like those complained about here; with a reasonable expectation that they were not within the scope of the ban. There are rare times when I disagree with Kingsindian. This is not one of them. Endorse their recommendations in full. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by MONGO
Statement by power~enwikiI wouldn't interpret Erica Garner as falling under the TBAN as phrased, and don't see any violations of the TBAN in the diffs presented by Andrew Davidson. I don't want to get into the details of whether there were any other violations, and I feel Erica Garner falls under AP2 discretionary sanctions. If the TBAN is extended I would recommend using a simpler wording (all BLPs in the AP2 area, or even all of AP2) for the new TBAN due to the confusion the current warning has presented. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by SkyWarriorI haven't really looked into details concerning this request, but it should be noted that DHeyward edited another user's comment in direct violation of WP:TPO and then proceeded to readd it when rightfully reverted. He also redirected his talk page to AE, something I would argue is very disruptive, almost to the point of vandalism. Sky Warrior 19:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning DHeyward
|
| MONGO is topic-banned from everything related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people for three months. Sandstein 09:26, 5 January 2018 (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 MONGO
See block log, Findings of Fact: ((4) MONGO ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in incivility ( [63] [64] [65]) and contributed to the hostility in the topic area ( [66] [67] [68]). ), and evidence presented in the Arbcom case in which he exhibited the same overt hostility and politicizing of content disputes.- MrX 19:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
To those complaining that I linked to MONGO's block log—how is that not appropriate for a section called "Diffs of previous relevant sanctions"? MONGO has a history of making policy-violating personal attacks and spewing random incivility directed at those he considers political foes. The fact that he was blocked for incivility in 2008 and is still doing it in 2018 indicates that he's either not getting the message, or is unwilling or unable to control himself. On a more personal note, I'm really tired of being accused of various wrongs by MONGO every time our paths cross and consistently without any evidence. He claims to avoid AE because he would rather make strong arguments, but in my experience, instead of making strong arguments, he consistently attacks the motives of editors and admins that he disagrees with, accusing them of being leftists or progressives and making veiled threats. His behavior prior to the American Politics Arbcom case in defense of Collect was especially ugly [69] [70] [71]. It's time to do something more than just admonish him.- MrX 22:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning MONGOStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MONGOWhen did I last make an edit to article on American politics(ians) on a page or a talkpage that was a violation of the arbcom remedies. My comments are here at AE where I will gladly impose a self exile. I'd like to see diffs showing I have been disruptive in article space please. I may have been but would like to see them.-- MONGO 19:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC) I originally posted this comment to Sandstein's page-- MONGO 19:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC) In addition, Sandstein below states I have a long block log. I have not been blocked since 2008...nearly a decade ago. This is precisely the kind of unjust insinuation and unfair aspiration he claims I have made that he says is at least partly grounds to topic ban me from articles I have not even been active on! You want to tell me to avoid noticeboard cause I can't keep my cool that's fine of course. But I am sick and tired of seeing he same names popping up all the time where they are seeking penalties applied to their political opponents based on even the tiniest piece of evidence. I will however confess that my comments made regarding DHeyward now closed AE case were made in anger and disgust and I retract them and apologize. I retire from this noticeboard voluntarily and indefinitely.-- MONGO 20:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement Volunteer MarekI was just looking up the details of the AP2 case after seeing MONGO's attacks above and was planning on commenting on it above myself. MONGO was specifically admonished for EXACTLY these kinds of statements (the ones in MrX's diffs) and barely escaped a topic ban. Seeing as how the admonishment has done squat to change their behavior, I think it's time for an explicit topic ban. (Note: I commented in the AP2 case where I actually opposed MrX, but that was three years ago and enough is enough - a topic ban for MONGO is long overdue) Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by Sir JosephI find this action very troubling. I am also very excited that the admins are now going to enforce civility. I look forward to bringing items to their attention and seeing swift action. To the rest of you, please note that if you think this doesn't look like political grandstanding, you do need to check yourself. There's a reason why people stop editing Wikipedia and it's because of things like this. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Serial Number 54129Well, Sir Joseph, these are egregious violations, rather than the usual small potatoes curried at AN/I. And I think aspersions are in any case far more troubling, just on principle; incivility is rude, and then over. Aspersions, on the other hand, leave a footprint behind for someone to step into later, intentionally or otherwise. >SerialNumber 54129 ...speculates 20:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Incidentally, more as an FYI for procedure, Alex Shih is half wrong ;) a statement has been made. >SerialNumber 54129 ...speculates 20:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by SPECIFICOAdmins appear to acknowledge that MONGO's disruptive behavior has not stopped. So why are Admin's bending over backwards to find a gentle but possibly ineffective remedy? There's a huge problem with survivorship bias in the application of these Discretionary Sanctions. Admins here have no easy way to observe the many good editors who give up on these article sin distaste or disgust at the personalization of content discussions and paralyzing tail-chasing on the talk pages. The editors who've given up don't bother to monitor this page and recite why it's a waste of their time to engage with editors who ignore the letter and spirit of the Arbcom remedies and DS. Admins here should not be unduly concerned with threading the needle to find the most minimal effective remedy, when the great damage of editor attrition goes undocumented and unaddressed. SPECIFICO talk 23:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by My very best wishesContent editing by Mongo does not seem to be problematic. His comments are directed against other contributors. A logical solution would be a ban to comment about any other contributors in the project on any pages, including article talk pages. This is basically an enforcement of WP:NPA, but including also WP:AE and other administrative pages. Comment on content, not on other contributors. My very best wishes ( talk) 03:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by KingsindianI notice that the train-wreck sanction is creating even more drama. All of the non-stale diffs mentioned by MrX relate to the AE case mentioned above. They arose when MrX edited MONGO's comments. MrX shouldn't be clerking at AE. However, the comments were not good at all. If a sanction is to be considered, banning MONGO from commenting at drama boards (AE, AN and ANI) should be considered first. There is ample precedent for this sort of sanction. Besides, watching the drama boards is enough to instill a lasting cynicism in most editors: a break would be good for all. A topic ban from ARBAP2 does not make any sense. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning MONGO
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Rod ( User:Dailey78)
| The appeal is declined. Rod ( User:Dailey78) is advised to demonstrate that they can edit productively, by editing other topics, before appealing again. Simply trying to wait out an indefinite topic ban is not a productive strategy. Vanamonde ( talk) 11:57, 5 January 2018 (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 User:Dailey78It's been several years since the ban was implemented in July 2014. It's time for a fresh start and a lift to this ban, as it's now 2018. Statement by User:EdJohnston
Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by User:Dailey78Result of the appeal by User:Dailey78
|
| Vanamonde has called it - "Come on, folks, there's better things to do on Wikipedia." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:07, 5 January 2018 (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 The Rambling Man
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The_Rambling_Man#September_2017
This is pretty straight-forward. TRM is banned from "reflections on [the] general competence" of fellow editors or " posting speculation about the motivations of editors", as he has a history of belittling comments. He made a comment questioning the general competence of all editors who patrol AN while also claiming their motive for doing so was to get rid of people. TRM has a history of pushing the bounds of his restrictions, as evidenced by the many past AE blocks. ~ Rob13 Talk 06:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning The Rambling ManStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by The Rambling ManStandard behaviour, throw the kitchen sink at it. There is so often these days a proclivity to get rid of editors rather than discuss with them better ways of doing things. If what I said offended BU Rob so, he could have talked to me about it. But no. If someone uninvolved wishes me to remove that comment, fine. Otherwise I guess Rob gets what he’s wanted for a while. The Rambling Man ( talk) 06:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Francis
Statement by KingsindianThis is beyond petty. Grow a thicker skin if you intend to work in admin areas. Besides, I endorse TRM's comments completely. This was a horrible sanction. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by WBGWhilst, this looks like a violation, I would not recommend any action on the merits of this alone, since TRM has since-struck it and it's not something that has the gravitas to start the one-month-long-drama at multiple venues that will necessarily accompany any block/so.
Winged Blades
Godric 09:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Whoever is saying the sanction was worse:--It doesn't matter.What matters is whether TRM violated it and whether a resultant sanction is deserved.The venue to alleviate the sanction is that-way. Winged Blades Godric 10:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Dweller
Statement by Darkfrog24This particular gag order itself seems to be a separate issue, but how long were these statements up before he removed them? Did he remove all of them? If Rambling Man made some impulsive posts but then very shortly took them down, well, good. (Checks) Okay, so the one in the first link provided it went up at 17:45 on Jan 4 and went down at 3:20 Jan 5. So not immediately but not three weeks either. Did anyone see them and ask him to take it down or did he do it without being asked? Darkfrog24 ( talk) 14:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning The Rambling Man
|
| No action. Volunteer Marek is reminded not to make personal attacks. GoldenRing ( talk) 09:19, 10 January 2018 (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
After I gave VM a warning, User:El_C defended VM; at my user talk, El_C basically argued that, "sticking an edit in the middle of his series does not magically turn his remaining series into an extra revert. If the changes could have been made in a single edit, they count as a single revert." In reply to El_C, I said that I should not have to wait for VM to revert my intervening edit, and that El_C was making it sound like I deliberately stuck in that intervening edit. I didn't, you can see that it's an extensive edit that took me a while to study and put together, and I would have made more edits but when I realized VM was editing the article in this way I withdrew from editing the article to avoid further conflict. Plus El_C is inventing a new rule that is contrary to the simple 1RR rule: "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." Incidentally, I didn't have to discuss this with VM at his user talk after giving an initial warning, but did because I wanted to avoid AE, and all I got from VM was personal attacks like this.
@ User:GoldenRing, you don't think VM was reverting my edits? And doing so nonconsecutively? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 09:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Note: I left this message for User:El_C. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 10:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC) @
User:PeterTheFourth, Volunteer Marek reverted me so many times today that it would take me too long to list all of the individual reverts unless I really have to. So I’ll just give you two very specific examples: This edit by VM at 06:42 on 9 January deleted new material that I previously added at 07:48 on 7 January. Following that revert by VM, I made this edit at 6:44 on 9 January unaware VM had made any edits. Then, VM reverted me again many more times, including this edit at 06:54 on 9 January which reverted edits I had made at 05:39 on 9 January and 06:02 on 9 January and 06:35 on 9 January. All of these reverts by VM were total nonsense, by the way, but that’s another story. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 10:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@ User:Black Kite, all of my article edits at every article I’ve ever edited have been consecutive with respect to each other. Every editor at Wikipedia can say the exact same thing. But apparently VM is the only one who can actually get away with it. The specific reverts that I described above for PeterTheFourth edited entirely different paragraphs of the BLP. I grow weary. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 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 MarekUser:GoldenRing - what is my response you're referring to? The stuff on my talk page? Sorry buddy, if somebody comes to my talk with this kind of bad faithed nonsense, I am free to respond to it appropriately. And there was no personal attacks there (and no, saying "bullshit" is not a personal attack). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 09:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Sigh. It has already been explained to Anythingyouwant by an uninvolved administrator, User:El C, that this was NOT a 1RR violation. Repeatedly: [78], [79] (also points out that Anythingyouwant's action could be seen as a bad faith attempt to WP:GAME 1RR), [80] (also a warning about Anythingyouwant trying to reinstate his edits in violation of DS), [81]. Anythingyouwant has chosen not to heed this advice and decided to file this AE report anyway - which is direct evidence of their cynical, bad faithed, WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing in this topic area. WP:BOOMERANG please. You can read the discussion on my and Anything's talk page. Here is the jist again. From Jan 5, 16:345, until Jan 9, 6:35 Anythingyouwant made a series of unilateral and undiscussed edits to the Jeff Sessions article (despite being fully aware of the contentious nature of the topic and the fact the article was under DS - he didn't bring anything up on talk). A little while later I looked over these edits and many of them appeared to be the standard POV stuff. At this point I could've just reverted back to the original version by User:MelanieN [82], since there was a lot of problematic stuff in there. But rather, following the suggestions at [83] I decided to do Anythingyouwant the courtesy of going through each of their edits one by one, undo the bad, but keep the good. Well, shit, this is what I get for trying to do the right thing. As I was making these edits, at some point, Anythingyouwant managed to jump in and make an edit - which I did not notice until he showed up on my talk page - in between two of mine. Specifically: I made an edit at 6:43 and a follow up edit, less than a second later, at 6:44. Anythingyouwant managed to make his edit split seconds before mine, at 6:44 [84]. I did not get an edit-conflict notice (it was a different part of the text). Like I said, I didn't even notice this and kept going. All of my edits spanned the time 6:40 to 7:15. Let me also stress that I did NOT subsequently revert that particular edit of his. Then Anythingyouwant showed up on my talk page claiming I violated 1RR and demanding I self revert. Hey! This reminds me. User:GoldenRing, didn't you JUST call something like this a "threat", quite recently? Do I need to dig the diff up where you accuse me of making "threats" because I notified somebody on their talk about a DS violation? Anyway, Anythingyouwant claimed that I made, quote, " two distinct groups of reverts". Apparently the edits made between 6:40-6:43 where "one distinct group" and the edits made "6:44-6:52" were a "second distinct group". Now, at this point, it's pretty obvious that this is just some cynical WP:GAMEing and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Anyone who tries to argue that two edits made SECONDS APART, which were part of one continuous whole are "two distinct groups" is not playing it kosher. So yeah, I said that to Anythingyouwant. And as El_C pointed out, this very much looks like Anythingyouwant PURPOSEFULLY jumped into the middle of my editing (and again, I was doing him a courtesy) to try and turn a series of continous edits into "two reverts". Which itself is bad faithed and disruptive. Couple other things. Above, Anythingyouwant uses the language "before VM jumped in". This is rhetorically dishonest. I waited till he was done with his edits to make mine. He jumped in the middle of mine. He adopted this "jumped in" terminology only after I used the phrase in regard to his action. He's trying to turn the tables and pretend that I did what he was actually guilty of. Anythingyouwant claims he didn't even know I was editing the article when he made his edit at 6:44. Seeing as how there were three intervening edits in between, that at least five minutes had passed, and how quickly he came running to my talk page, this is quite unlikely. One last thing. Here is the irony. If you go by Anythingyouwant's logic then this edit and this edit constitute a 1RR violation. This has also been pointed out to him [85]. Strangely, he insists that that wasn't a 1RR violation even though it's two reverts made in a non-continous fashion. This illustrates the bad faith behind this report. (The difference of course is that my edits were made seconds apart and were part of a continous whole with only Anythingyouwant's single sneaky edit in between, whereas in between Anything's two reverts there were three intervening edits and 9 minutes had passed. Also, I'm not actually reporting him for 1RR). Like I said, this is a pretty clear illustration of the bad faith and battleground mentality that Anythingyouwant has brought to this topic area for some time now, and it is the same reason he was banned from the topic area previously. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 09:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by PeterTheFourthWould you please link to the individual edits that were reverts? It's hard to see which by looking at these large series of edits. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 09:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Statement by El_CRegarding the 1RR, I already
closed this as Statement by Sir JosephSo striking comments is enough to not get a block or sanction? You guys should look up to the MONGO close, where if my memory serves, MONGO got a block for a personal attack, even though he struck it out. But regardless, VM should be sanctioned. As someone who is often the complainant in AE actions, he is readily aware of the rules and should know that his edits are actionable. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by GPRamirez5There is a clear pattern with User:Volunteer Marek going on edit blitzkriegs, which he claims are anti-POV-pushing, without actually checking the sources. Here he deletes on the basis that the source doesn't say "confirmed", but The Hill source, for one, says the FBI "backed up" the Justice Department's claim.- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 17:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Marek is particularly shameless to evoke WP:GAMING. His MO is to claim a source is "misrepresented" unless it uses exactly the same language as the text. In fact Editing Policy states: You should read the source, understand it, and then express what it says in your own words. --which is exactly what User:Anythingyouwant did in the example above, and other edits I saw. And note that in most cases Marek didn't simply reword information, he deleted it. That is disruptive, POV editing pure and simple.- GPRamirez5 ( talk) 19:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Statement by SPECIFICOThis is messed up. Anything went to Marek with what looked like a simple 1RR concern. That's what we all do in these DS articles. In almost all cases there's a swift resolution without an AE report -- yes AE Admins, you see only a small sample of the problems that arise on these articles. So in this case, Marek walks Anything through the issue -- which nobody claims did any damage to anything -- and then uninvolved Admin @ El C: helps out with an impartial review that should have settled the issue for anyone who cared about it. Then Anything immediately comes here to get what result? I can't see any purpose other than to punish Marek and just maybe to disable or intimidate a prolific editor so that Anything can take a break from his 24/7 tweaking of these politics articles. The only explanation I can see is that Anything is looking for punishment. Editors who are going against the mainstream narrative on article content end being overruled by consensus time and again. That's why they file a disportionate number of the AE complaints we see here. Some of them feel compelled to use every tool at their disposal, including gaming the volunteer Admins at AE, to push minority or fringe POVs into articles. I've said repeatedly in the past that in my opinion Anything's TBAN on topics related to Abortion should be extended to cover American Politics as well. It's well documented that many people who support the Trump Administration, among the American public and the US Congress, are doing so as a strategy to promote judicial appointments that will enable a Pro-life agenda on women's health. It is entirely within the spirit of an abortion-related TBAN broadly construed to extend that TBAN to American Politics after months of disruptive editing by Anythingyouwant in the related area. I don't think you AE Admins should just be relieved to close this and let it go. I ask you to consider a TBAN for Anythingyouwant. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Result concerning Volunteer Marek
|