| No administrator appears interested in taking action at this time. Feel free to unclose this thread if you are. Sandstein 08:27, 2 May 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 יניב הורון
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, specifically
Previously blocked under Arbitration enforcement, see above
IMO, both of the above edits are quite outrageous...this editor is, IMO, not ready for the ARBPIA area. I suggest a topic ban from the IP area for ...quite a while. Huldra ( talk) 23:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC) I am rather surprised to see some editors arguing that since Jerusalem Post is WP:RS, then we must allow anything from it. Well, for me there is one thing that trumps WP:RS, and that is: is it true? Take the village Al-Attara (which I just expanded): Adam Zertal (who was a professor in archaeology) writes that Victor Guérin found 300 inhabitants here. I absolutely totally refuse to put that into the article. Why? Because Victor Guérin wrote that about 'Atara.....and Zertal has mixed up the two villages. (See User:Huldra/Guerin if you doubt me.) Yes, professors can also be wrong. Inserting an article with the headline "Until 1996, nobody called Rachel’s Tomb a mosque" (when there are sources calling it a mosque going back centuries) is just as bad. We are directly misinforming Wikipedia readers. I thought we could do better than that, Huldra ( talk) 21:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Notified Huldra ( talk) 23:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Discussion concerning יניב הורוןStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by יניב הורוןIn this case I haven't broken any rule of Wikipedia. There's no edit-warring in the first place! Here I wanted to show that Kamal Nasser was targeted as part of Israel's Operation Wrath of God, which is a fact, but making sure that his involvement in the Munich massacre is an allegation. You reverted my edit anyway, and I didn't insist. Regarding this edit, the JP source explains that Rachel's tomb wasn't called "Bilal bin Rabah mosque" before 1996. You may not like my edits, you could revert them or discuss in talk page, but you have no right to censor me because I disagree with you in an article or two. I mean, are you serious?-- יניב הורון ( talk) 23:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Seraphimblade:: Just to clarify, my previous sanctions were because I was not familiarized with ARBPIA rules. I didn't have experience in Wikipedia before. The first sanction was because I made this edit before I had an extended-confirmed user (while the article wasn't protected at the time, hence my confusion). The second one was because I didn't understand the third bullet of ARBPIA, which has nothing to do with 1RR: "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert." Nevertheless, when I understood the rule, I accepted the sanction and didn't repeat the violation again. However, in this case, Huldra and MShabazz have no reason to accuse me of violating any rule. I didn't break 1RR nor the third bullet, and I WAS NOT engaged in edit-warring (as you can see here: one single half-revert; here: one single revert; and here: two reverts, precisely because the other user broke the third bullet). How can you call this "edit-warring" or "being disruptive"? I ask you to be fair instead of considering me "problematic" just because other editors -whose political agenda I happen to disagree with- want to have less competitors in a sensitive topic. Please, check my contributions and you will see I'm not here to disrupt anything. All my contributions (mainly in Jewish and Israeli-related articles) are significant and meaningful, based on reliable sources. I understand if other editors disagree with them, and they are welcome to revert me and discuss in talk pages, but that's not a reason to ban me.-- יניב הורון ( talk) 18:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC) @ Sandstein:: I'm an Israeli Jew (and proud of it), of course I don't have any "natural loathing" against my own people. On the contrary, I was referring to a comment made by Shabazz in 2015 where he said literally (excuse my language) "the Jewboy has chased out the nigger." After that I tried to apologize because I thought Shabazz was the victim of such a disgusting insult, but later Shabazz himself admitted that HE was the author of the racist slur, apparently because he was tired of being "harrassed" by someone of Jewish extraction. In any case, it has nothing to do with our present discussion, except that it shows that those who accuse me of having a "biased" and "POV agenda" are the least suited to speak about such matters. The irony is that I've never had a previous discussion with Shabazz in any talk page. But for some reason he wants to get rid of me based on spurious accusations. In any case, I invite him to have a civilized discussion to achieve consensus instead of resorting to deplorable tactics to censor editors who don't share his views.-- יניב הורון ( talk) 21:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC) @ Huon:: Please, explain me how exactly I broke 1RR. I made the second revert 24 hours after my first revert, not within the 24 hours period.-- יניב הורון ( talk) 21:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC) @ Huon:: What is "gaming the system"? Am I allowed to make another revert after 24 hours passed? Yes or no? Tell me the rules so I'll be more careful next time. I thought 1RR only counts for more than one revert made within a 24 hours period. Thanks.-- יניב הורון ( talk) 21:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@ GoldenRing: Even though technically I didn't brake a rule, I understand that perhaps I have been over aggressive here. I'll try to make less reverts against other users and participate in talk pages more.-- יניב הורון ( talk) 14:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC) @ Zero0000: Calm down. I've made almost 1,400 edits so far, and I barely started. Sometimes I make mistakes. WP:Newbies, WP:Civility-- יניב הורון ( talk) 10:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC) @ Nishidani: As I told you before, WP:ONUS is on YOU to gain consensus and show us the encyclopedic value of that piece of propaganda. A reliable source is a necessary, but not always sufficient requirement for adding content, specially so controversial and POV. I usually don't revert well-sourced content, but in this particular case the material was an opinion piece written by a non-notable individual. You should start a discussion on the talk page of the article to gain consensus before reinserting disputed content, instead of going to AE because you don't like my way of editing. That's as frivolous as Huldra's request.-- יניב הורון ( talk) 17:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC) @ Huldra: What matters is the quality, not the quantity of the reverts (which is not a bad word). Contributing to Wikipedia also means undoing vandalism and unappropriate edits, although most of my reverts were made against IPs who are not allowed to edit in the first place, NOT legitimate users. I can justify every single revert that I made. Can you do the same? I think that, at this point, every honest user can realize this AE you started is ridiculous.-- יניב הורון ( talk) 21:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC) @ Nishidani: lol! And I'm the bad guy here with a "POV bias" that makes me supposedly unable to edit in ARBPIA. Anyway, how about using the talk page of the article instead of AE? Statement by Malik Shabazzיניב הורון is misinformed when they argue that they have done no wrong because they haven't been edit-warring. They have been engaged in POV-pushing, which is far worse. — MShabazz Talk/ Stalk 00:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Number 57, the old "But he started it" defense is meaningless when an editor breaks a bright-line rule like 1RR. As a sysop, you ought to know better. Please don't insult my intellectual or further embarrass yourself by continuing that twisted "logic". — MShabazz Talk/ Stalk 07:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh god, how I wish editors would stop @ GoldenRing: Icewhiz has provided the edits to which I was referring. I thought somebody else had cited another article where יניב הורון had done the same thing. Because I'm not able to find one, I've stricken my comment about two instances. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 01:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by MPS1992Did the user against whom enforcement is requested really just write this, or do I need new spectacles?!? MPS1992 ( talk) 01:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by TheGracefulSlickI would have settled for the one-week block, but this editor's behavior here and on the topic overall gives me no confidence that it will magically make them change their ways. Their talk page alone is a good indication of how "collaborative" this editor is in this sensitive topic area. Since יניב הורון cannot keep their biases in check, cannot adhere to editing restrictions, and cannot edit collaboratively, they are not needed or wanted in the topic area; it is a priviledge they simply have demonstrated they do not deserve. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 03:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Number 57@ MShabazz: If you go back to the start of that dispute, the first edit in this chain was by Onceinawhile to remove the source; it was then restored by Icewhiz, then removed by Huldra, then restored again by יניב הורון. If יניב הורון has broken the spirit of the rules, then so has Huldra. However neither has broken the rules as worded, so I don't see this as actionable. Number 5 7 05:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by IcewhizHuldra raises two issues. Both should not be actionable:
Statement by Pluto2012MPS1992 and Malik Shabazz's comments are full of sense. This editor arrived 2 months ago and already "investigated" on the past of another contributor. His global behaviour is agressive and suspicious. He games the system in reverting after 24 hours and... 2 minutes. He fails Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. He should be topic-banned of the articles related to the I-P conflict. Pluto2012 ( talk) 05:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by tritomexNothing shown here by Huldra, justifies sanctions against יניב הורון In fact I do not see why Huldra sees Jerusalem Post article as unreliable, nor I see any proves (sources) that the claim sourced with JP [9] is falls. In fact I found many additional WP:RSN that states that the identification of that place as Bilal ibn Rabah mosque dates from 1996. This dosent mean that the place was not considered a place of worship, by Jews, Christians and Muslims as well for centuries. As in the case of all questions that could be related to Arab-Israeli conflict, there is a lot of bias here and very little substantial from editors who could be seen as uniinvolved. Tritomex ( talk) 12:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by 73.95.138.207Clearly a WP:NOTHERE and engaging in blatant edit-warring with a battleground mindset. Look at the following edits [10] [11] [12] [13]the first four in rapid succession on random articles with no other common denominator other than to be disruptive toward the editor named Agustin6. Add to this that this editor has already been blocked TWICE and warned multiple times for edit-warring in his short time here. Then it doesn't seem SO odd to include the circumstantial evidence that this editor jumped right into the mix with a clear understanding of how wikipedia works. Then ADD to that edit summaries like these two [14] [15] which are battleground in tone and certainly WP:FORUM. Suggest ban to give editor time out to think about his actions and a topic ban. Would offer something more but at work and had to rush this as it was. Gotta go. 73.95.138.207 ( talk) 16:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by SantiLak@ Icewhiz: With all due respect, I don't think you understand 1RR. You claimed I violated 1RR and יניב הורון didn't because I made a content edit and then made 1 revert yet they just made 2 reverts. That's a textbook case of 1RR by יניב הורון. I didn't make 2 reverts and there is no such thing as the "the original authorship provision." I should have reported them for edit warrring and violating 1RR but I didn't because I felt like following BRD. Like another user said, it's a clear case of WP:NOTHERE, a topic ban is very appropriate. - SantiLak ( talk) 21:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by OtterAMAs a number of people have pointed out יניב הורון has not actually broken any rules with the two edits that have been brought to attention here. I don't think the edits stand out as being egregious either. For example, the Jerusalem Post -- an 85 year old English-language Jewish publication in Israel, and is a well known source. Thus, it's not clear that the information would be suspect for the second edit that Huldra mentioned. This topic is full of editors who, in my opinion, like to over wiki-overlitigate the smallest offense. The accusing editors here have certainly done their share of controversial edits. @ Seraphimblade: I don't think it would be fair to topic-ban this one editor as you suggested below because I don't see qualitative difference between his style of editing and the style of editing of other long-standing editors on this topical area. Regarding these statements, why can't we just return the pages to their consensus version. Then, if people really care so much about these two controversies, start appropriate request-for-comments sections to decide which version to include. OtterAM ( talk) 03:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by My very best wishesThis is a relatively new and inexperienced user who was close to violating 1RR on one of pages (it is not unusual for such contributors to follow rules very literally, although yes, that might be the "gaming"). I do not think that merits a topic ban. Editing in ARBPIA area is extremely difficult. I also agree with Sandstein. As a note of order, there is currently a thread about the same user on the ANI [16]. Not sure how you usually treat such cases. Both complaints, i.e on the ANI and that one, look to me as an attempt to exclude an "opponent" who has been involved in various content disputes. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by E.M.GregoryThis discussion is a shinning example of one of the biggest problems with Wikipedia: experienced editors with an OWN attitude and political POV who pounce on new editors who disagree with them politically - and vote them off the island, or chase them off with persistent aggression. To my sorrow, I have encountered Huldra [17] before, most memorably at the nightmarish Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis; she is WP:NOTHERE]]. I am less well acquainted with (יניב הורו) [18], but I do know that the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude taken by too many editors in the I/P area makes Wikipedia a nasty, brutish place. Promising editors become disgusted and leave, or - if we stay - shy away from the politically fraught arenas where good editors are most needed. Editors who are sufficiently aggressive can and do slant articles in highly POV ways, simply by making editing unpleasant for those they disagree with. And many good editors like Sandstein spend enormous amounts of time on discussions that, like this one, are driven by intense POV animus. I do see that legal sanctions serve a purpose. But also that they are a tool too often used merely to "win." End of rant. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000This edit made just hours ago is illustrative of how useless this editor is. With the claim of "restoring source", he reinserted a dead link. Obviously he never even clicked on it, or if he did click he didn't care that nothing was there. If he had gone to the trouble of locating an archived version, like I did before I deleted the link, he would have seen that it doesn't even mention the topic of the article. Nor does it mention any of the matters raised in the paragraph to which he attached the dead link. I shouldn't have to clean up after someone with such a blasé attitude to article integrity. Zero talk 23:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by ShrikeThe diff presented by Zero0000 had nothing to do with WP:ARBPIA.So I don't understand how its relevant.-- Shrike ( talk) 15:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by YnhockeyJust noticed this, and I have to say that while Yaniv made some mistakes, this report strikes me as particularly frivolous. Regarding any improper past actions taken by Yaniv, I am willing to mentor him if necessary. At the same time, this is a clear issue of WP:KETTLE, when one editor participating in an edit war blames the other one over a technicality (talk about gaming the system). — Ynhockey ( Talk) 15:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by NishidaniToday, as this discussion continues, in the following edit Yaniv challenges and removes a trite, commonplace judgement of the New York Times, writing in his edit-summary: I.e. He took out a description of the context sourced to the New York Times because he dislikes their choice of language, of referring with attribution to the Gazans as 'desperate' and privately thinks it is inaccurate. There is no policy ground given in the edit-summary, and when asked on his page to revert, he cites WP:ONUS in defence. This POV-warrior defence is frowned on, because thus used, WP:Onus trumps WP:RS because it becomes a form of entitlement to erase anything regardless of the quality of the source or of any other policy regarding sound practice, and then throw the burden into the other editor's court. Despite the apocalyptic descriptions of the I/P area as a death zone where the well-intentioned are driven out by hypocrites or battleground POV paladins, it works under the ARBPIA3 regime because that demands experience and a thorough knowledge of the rules that at least relieve these pages of haphazard loose cannon editing, wild card reverting of WP:RS out of distaste. Yaniv's latest edit confirms Zero's point above: it is an open invitation to make revert battles inevitable. Whatever their POVs, the great majority of IP editors respect high quality mainstream RS, a shared recognition that oner should not cavil over the obvious which reduces the conflict considerably. This editor doesn't, and allowing him to edit with this singular license to contest even what is generally accepted is unfair. It means those who side with his perspective can rely on his ignorance of good practice to remove 'stuff' they themselves do not normally challenge. My example is not a content dispute: it is an instance of the editor in question refusing to observe what is a shared agreement about sourcing out of sheer distaste. Nishidani ( talk) 15:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by TheTimesAreAChangingWithout looking too deeply into the merits of this request, as I'm hardly a fixture in the I/P area and have only previously interacted with יניב הורון once or twice, I must say that Nishidani's latest comment is quite mistaken regarding Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. An editorial, even from the editorial board of The New York Times, is never a reliable source for statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice, according to WP:RSOPINION. Of course, the content that יניב הורון removed was attributed to The New York Times, but—crucially—not identified as an editorial, and it's not clear why it would belong in a neutrally summarized "Background" section at all. When one considers that the very next sentence is also devoted to an opinion piece, this time by Peter Beinart in The Forward—initially with attribution to Beinart but then allowing Beinart to speak for the UN in wikivoice—it appears that poor quality sources have been juxtaposed in a questionable way to slant a "just the facts" "Background" into advancing a particular narrative, when—as My very best wishes has noted—commentary of this kind would be more appropriate in a subsection dedicated to "Media commentary". Note that יניב הורון only challenged the emotional language of the New York Times editorial, not the Beinart opinion piece, presumably because he knows that there are better sources than Beinart for the same factual claim. In any case, the diff presented by Nishidani as a "smoking gun" should be regarded as non-actionable and a content dispute. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 20:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by DavidbenaWhile I have only recently come to know of Yaniv Huron (Hebrew: יניב הורון), and have had some of my own edits reverted by him, I still have no qualms about the contributions of this new editor, seeing that he adds a new vitality to our encyclopedia. While it is true that he has made a few mistakes (as we all do), overall his contributions are very good. His mistakes have been pointed out here, and I think he will learn from his mistakes. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt. Davidbena ( talk) 02:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Result concerning יניב הורון
|
| Cassianto is topic-banned from infoboxes for three months. Sandstein 21:33, 2 May 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 Cassianto
Cassianto was placed on infobox probation. Infobox probation prohibits him from posting more than one comment in any discussion about infoboxes. Cassianto has posted more than one comment on Mary Shelley and Stanley Kubrick.
n/a, Cassianto just came off his self-requested block.
n/a
Discussion concerning CassiantoStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by CassiantoKnock yourself out. I've made it my policy NEVER to plead for forgiveness as this is just a website and I'm just a volunteer, so it bothers me not about being blocked, especially as I'm more tan keen to sit out self-requested blocks. FWIW, and having said that, I wasn't aware of the "no more than one comment" bullshit, but knew of my restriction NOT to touch idiotboxes, which I haven't. Unlike some people on here, I have a private life to attend to so I didn't concern myself with the intricacies of the outcome. Cassianto Talk 19:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by SchroCatRather predictable that at least one person would have so little to do with their time that they would start stalking someone who has just been through ArbCom. I guess that speaks more about the stalker than the 'stalkee', but there you go. The comments made by Cassianto are absolutely nothing to do with infoboxes, so unless a really, really anally retentive reading of the decision is wanted, common sense should just be to ignore this. Just to remind the committee, the probation was not, as the filer claims, "
Statement by CoretheappleThis is an in-your-face violation of sanctions just imposed. The fact that these are ad hominem makes them worse, not excusable. Enough already. I think that the time has come to indefinitely block this user. I disagree that a short block is warranted. Cassianto just doesn't care. We know that because he says so. His "defense" is that he didn't know about the restriction on his conduct. Next he'll say he is unaware of the outcome of this proceeding. and the next. His pals will chime in with wikilawyering. And on and on. How about we end this charade now? Coretheapple ( talk) 20:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Reply to power-enwiki: You are correct that arbcom didn't indef, which was probably due to Cassianto's very wise decision to sit out the proceeding with a self-block. We have now heard from him, and seen his contempt for the whole process by word and action. So we can go through this same charade again and again, or it can be ended now. [Reply to Good Day] This would be, in other words, a preventive not a punitive block. Coretheapple ( talk) 21:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by power~enwikiThis situation (both the provocation by extremely new users, and the hostile responses by Cassianto) is exactly what the Infobox case should have solved. Accusations of sock-puppetry should be made at SPI (or at ANI if there's no way to determine who the master is), not on article talk pages. As Cassianto agrees there is a violation, pledges to avoid violations in the future, and doesn't seem to mind a block, I think a short block (24-72 hours) is sufficient. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by GoodDayThe question is.... Would a block be a preventative measure or a punitive measure. I tend to believe the latter in this situation & so would recommend 'no blocking' on this occasion. GoodDay ( talk) 20:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Cassianto
|
| Article in question is outside the scope of ARBPIA. -- NeilN talk to me 13:21, 4 May 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 Mhhossein
Though when I filed the request for me it was clear case especially when article was protected by WP:ECP I am willing to withdraw it as I going to file WP:ARCA -- Shrike ( talk) 10:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning MhhosseinStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MhhosseinThe mentioned article is not under the remedy Shrike claims. Enforcing the WP:BLUELOCK as an attempt to have "extended confirmed protection" does not necessarily mean that the article is under ARBPIA. Regards. Nuclear program of Iran has nothing to do with the Arab world. -- Mhhossein talk 05:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by IcewhizI asked Mhhossein to self revert, as did Shrike. As might be evident on his talk page - User talk:Mhhossein#Self revert request he refused, also after it was pointed out to him the article was placed on extended confirmed protection (500/30) due to ARBPIA. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by NishidaniI would only note, Masem, that some experienced editors on both 'sides' appear to be confused on this (Syria, hence all the more Iran) as per this remark. Nishidani ( talk) 07:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000Sandstein is perfectly correct that this is not part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, because Iran is not an Arab country. It is definitely not covered by ARBPIA. The complaint should be moved to somewhere else like ANI, but a single revert is unlikely to get much traction over there. Zero talk 09:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by TheGracefulSlickIn the very same discussion Nishidani refers to, one editor says the Israel-Iran conflict does not fall under the Arab-Israeli conflict, and cites a 2013 discussion to support his assertion. Obviously, this is no clear-cut case and it would be unfair to punish anyone for something that clearly isn't understood by everyone. Had Shrike realized this, instead of piggybacking off Icewhiz's initial claim (as usual), we would not be here. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 13:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by K.e.coffmanThe filing party has a history of initiating misguided reports. I was a subject of one of them at 3RRN last month, which closed as “no violation”: permalink. Perhaps, the filer should be cautioned to better understand policies and restrictions before filing reports at various noticeboards. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My KenWhile the opinions expressed by admins below that the article in question is not covered by the discretionary sanctions are quite reasonable, I think that the fact that the subject area is specifically to be "broadly interpreted" changes things somewhat. Yes, it is certainly true that Iran is not an Arab country, but it is also true that Arabs are Semites, and yet "anti-Semitism" is the description of a bias and prejudice against Jews, and not against all Semites. Similarly, Iran is part of the cauldron of the "Middle East" in which the countries all around Israel have taken up a strong opposition to its existence. Iran is not Arabic, but it is part of the "broadly interpreted" circumstance that the sanctions were intended to control. I would urge admins to take this into account, and not be so specific in their interpretation. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Seraphim SystemEven if it was within the remedy, I think it is reasonable to assume good faith and take Mhhossein at his word that he did not believe it was within the remedy. The connection is attenuated enough that I think it would need to be discussed at ARCA and for editors to be made aware of it before it was actionable. Seraphim System ( talk) 07:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Mhhossein
|
| Salvidrim! made and caught their own mistake, so other than a massive TROUT there's nothing to do other than kicking the page back to the draft space and letting someone else review it. Primefac ( talk) 18:54, 7 May 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 Salvidrim!
D'oh! I was casually looking up this game, found a draft in Draftspace that looked fine, moved it to mainspace and wikified it a bit. Then choked on my coffee when I recalled I was currently
My face has been notified by my palm. Discussion concerning SalvidrimStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Salvidrimre Tony: I guess my first thought was that self-reverting might be seen as "yet another attempt to avoid scrutiny"? Maybe I'm just being paranoid, apologies if this is a bit of a timewaster. Another one. Plus I couldn't self-revert anyways since I left a redirect at the draftspace title per usual practice. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by TonyBallioniCan you just re: draftify and slap an AfC tag on it for someone else to review? I appreciate the self-reporting here, but this seems like a bit of a waste of time. When someone accidentally violates an AE sanction, the norm is just to self-revert. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Salvidrim
|
| E-960 will voluntarily refrain from editing the article for 72 hours. If disruptive tagging is an issue, another request should be made, with evidence that will allow admins unfamiliar with the sources to understand the issue. -- NeilN talk to me 02:27, 8 May 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 E-960
4 reverts on a 1RR article. There are also BLP and RS issues for some of the information added. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 240#Holocaust history: Polish ambassador facebook post covered by wpolityce, and op-ed by Piotr Zaremba and various discussions at Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland such as Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Should Grabowski be removed ?.
Additional comments by IcewhizRE E-960's comments below -
Discussion concerning E-960Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by E-960I'd like to respectfully object to user Icewhiz's reporting of me, as his "Reverts" were done under a false and misleading pretense. In this example [27] user Icewhiz reverted text containing two RELIABLE reference sources, and in his Edit Summary writing in that these are "FRINGE source[s]" (and here [28] the unture claim was made that the same text was ORIGINAL RESEARCH). Yet, both these reference sources are two of the biggest newspapers in Poland, and in the case of Gazeta Wyborcza, the reference was the actual INTERVIEW with historian Jan Grabowski, and the removed text was what the historian said himself. To call these sources "FRINGE" unfortunately comes across as nothing more than an excuse to arbitrarily remove the text. Also, to back up this suspicion users Icewhiz and François Robere continue to tag bomb the article (here: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]) and revert text back-up by reliable reference sources using the 'IJUSTDONTLIKEIT shame tagging' tactic, and they have been warned about it and their tags reverted by other editors such as GizzyCatBella, Nihil novi, and Volunteer Marek, as this keeps occurring. In any case, I can apologize for my knee jerk reaction to restore the text, and confirm that in the future I'll keep in mind that this article is under the tighter scrutiny of the 1RR rule. But, also I'd like to ask the Admins to remind users Icewhiz and François Robere that automatically adding un-warranted tags or removing statements containing RELIABLE reference sources by labeling them as FRINGE, can come across as disruptive. -- E-960 ( talk) 09:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by GizzyCatBella(writing in progress...will finish today) GizzyCatBella ( talk) 12:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC) I'll hold off on my comment and keep my word for future later use if necessary. NeilN's recommendation [36] is very fair in my opinion. GizzyCatBella ( talk) 23:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Result concerning E-960
|
| As pointed out, this was a community sanction which replaced an expired or expiring ArbCom sanction. I will take it to ANI. Guy ( Help!) 07:37, 9 May 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 DanaUllman
I think DanaUllman should be sitebanned for violation of sanctions under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy
DanaUllman ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account, he is, by admission, Dana Ullman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a tireless promoter of homeopathy. He has made exactly one mainspace edit since his 2008 topic ban, and that was promoting a purveyor of bogus diagnostics, an article in the alternative medicine topic area and also potentially related to his business (he uses a radionics machine). He has been allowed to make comments regarding his own biography, but that has now been deleted. His edit history speaks for itself. The only time he strays from promoting homeopathy is when he is promoting himself. That is what he does off-wiki, as is his right. He has no such right here, and his editing history has been consistently problematic. The only topic in which he is interested, is one where he may not edit, and he has consistently tested and pushed beyond the boundaries of that ban. Guy ( Help!) 20:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning DanaUllmanStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DanaUllmanStatement by (username)Statement by Spartazthis is the link for the closed discussion confirming the sanction. Curiously, the tban is a community sanction reimposing the arbcom tban. Buggered if I know whether its out of scope as a community not arbitration sanction or not. Spartaz Humbug! 22:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by EdJohnstonPer the 2012 Arbcom motion, it appears that Homeopathy sanctions were rolled into Pseudoscience. So this enforcement request should be handled as if it was asking for Pseudoscience enforcement. The 2012 motion was in effect dropping sanctions in some areas such as Gibraltar but for other topics, such as Cold Fusion and Homeopathy, it was reshuffling them under new headers. EdJohnston ( talk) 01:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Result concerning DanaUllman
|
| Editors directed to WP:RSN to discuss Chodakiewicz. GizzyCatBella directed to write Icewhiz's name properly and reminded that communications on the English-language Wikipedia need to be in English. -- NeilN talk to me 13:18, 9 May 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 Icewhiz
Misconduct in two matters subject to discretionary sanctions: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons
The editor acted in a troublesome manner by targeted removal of references to the particular historian ( Marek Chodakiewicz - a living person) on 12 different E. Europe related articles. Seldom in a threshold of 2 minutes in between edits. These appear to be thoughtless edits in a sole purpose of removing the historian as a source.
On March 8 the editor Icewhiz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started [43] to make edits to the page of the living Polish historian Marek Chodakiewicz in a profoundly critical fashion. Edits continued until today. [44] Then On May 8th, they went into a frenzy cruse removing any reference to Chodakiewcz from 12 separate Poland and the Holocaust articles under false or no valid justifications at all. GizzyCatBella ( talk) 04:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning IcewhizStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by IcewhizI have indeed been reviewing use of Chodakiewicz as a source - going over most of the uses of him on enwiki. Chodakiewicz is a highly WP:BIASED source (more below) even when writing in a peer-reviewed reviewed setting. While some of his writings have been published academically (in journals and more reputable publishers), much of what he writes is not published academically - varying from non-academic publishers, Polish newspapers of a particular bent, and his various blogs. I am willing to defend each and every one of those diffs if needed (and I'll note - GCB hasn't bothered to discuss) - in some cases I removed highly-biased statements that were made in Wikipedia's voice while representing a rather fringe view, in others I removed sourcing to blog posts, and in a few cases - I removed information that wasn't even in the cited source. It has been my impression that when editors resort to using a source such as Chodakiewicz - there are often other problems involved (both NPOV and V). As for Marek Jan Chodakiewicz -
Reviewing use of sources is what we do on Wikipedia - per WP:V, WP:NPOV. I submit that per WP:BIASED review of the use of Chodakiewicz is more than warranted, and obviously removing what doesn't pass WP:V - e.g. this diff GCB presents - in which we were ascribing to Chodakiewicz a claim he did not actually write in his political blog - is required per V policy as well and WP:BLP given we were falsely ascribing a statement to Chodakiewicz. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Boomerang proposal: GizzyCatBella repeatedly introducing information from a self-published book by a questionable author that was refutedNote that the editor using GCB as a handle has admitted to editing as an IP as well - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GizzyCatBella - admission here and elsewhere. Editing as one of the IP's in GCB's range in April, GCB introduced the following - text and source. This was discussed as a source with GCB in Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Your Life is Worth Mine: How Polish Nuns Saved Hundreds of Jewish Children in German-occupied Poland, 1939-1945 - E. Kurek (where this didn't receive support). In conjunction, we also discussed Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#"only German-occupied European country" with death penalty - in which Poland being the only country with the death penalty for helping Jews was outright refuted. Ewa Kurek is mainly covered for making stmts such as "Polish author Ewa Kurek, has claimed that Jews had fun in the ghettos during the German occupation of Poland during World War II." [53] [54] [55]. And does not hold a significant academic appointment. [56] [57]. So far - one use of a questionable source. However, GCB then added a self-published book (iUniverse) in a number different articles -
I'll also note, given the circumstances that Poeticbent Revision as of 13:19, 25 April 2018 also re-added Kurek. GCB has not discussed this at the relevant article talk page (complaining instead on the wall of text - see Talk:Irena Sendler#Use of Ewa Kurek as a source and Talk:The Holocaust in Poland/Archives/2018/April#Use of Ewa Kurek as a source) - and instead has been reverting. Use of a WP:SPS is a clear no-go, when it is a questionable author as well, making a claim that has been clearly refuted - it is even less acceptable. Repeated reversions of this without discussion are WP:IDHT. In an area with discretionary sanctions - editors are supposed to adhere to Wikipedia policy on WP:RS and WP:V - which is clearly not the case in the diffs above. Note I did open a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Holocaust in Poland: Ewa Kurek & Mark Paul after the last revert - however this shouldn't have gotten to this - an editor re-inserting a self-published book, by a questionable author, with a false claim, repeatedly - in a sanctioned area! Icewhiz ( talk) 07:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Beyond My KenThe disputing editors should open a discussion on the Reliable sources noticeboard if they cannot come to a consensus on the talk page.BTW, not to say "I told you so", but in the recent ANI scuffle about this topic area, I suggested that all the warring editors should be topic-banned from these articles under ARBEE, but no one was interested in doing so. This is not going to stop, the positions are too entrenched, and it's eventually going to end up in a full-blown Arbitration case, simply because admins wouldn't take positive action to control the subject area. This calls into question the effectiveness of discretionary sanctions if no one is willing to utilize them. I believe this situation to be a rare case of the failure of effective administration. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Statement by (username)Result concerning Icewhiz
|
Page restriction for infobox addition and infobox discussion at Stanley Kubrick
| Infobox restriction posted at Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Bishonen | talk 10:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC). |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I'm not sure whether page restrictions have ever been placed per the "Civility in infobox discussions" discretionary sanctions, so I thought I'd ask uninvolved admins here before I try it. There's been a long-running war about whether or not to have an infobox at Stanley Kubrick, with new discussions and "straw polls" erupting again and again on the talkpage, and with an infobox being repeatedly added to the article, and then promptly removed. The last explicit consensus on the matter (=no infobox) was back in 2015. I'm considering placing the following page restriction:
The template will also automatically add this text in smaller font: My rationale is that we shouldn't abandon articles and contributors to endless bickering, but put the new discretionary sanctions to use, as I assume ArbCom intended when they set them. The general infobox RfC at the Village Pump has run into the sands and nobody seems up for closing it, which I don't wonder at. God, no. There was an unsuccessful attempt within that RfC to set a limit of six months for starting yet another infobox discussion on an article talkpage. As you can see, I'm offering a restriction of four months on Talk:Stanley Kubrick, where yet another straw poll has just started and been closed, after there was one in early April... Thoughts? Pinging Laser brain, who just posted an appeal for an infobox discussion break on Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Bishonen | talk 07:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC).
Discussion concerning the page restrictionsStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by FrancisDon't know whether any of these variants would be less convoluted:
(the infobox of that particular article, mentioned in The Wall Street Journal two days ago, is way beyond a "default" option, that being the topic of the current RfC, so I wouldn't connect timing to that RfC) -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Laser brainI think this is a good idea. I've informally requested on the article talk page that it be given a break multiple times, but there is no sign of a stoppage of the series of proposals. Good-faith editors who are completely unaware of the history stumbling onto the page are one thing, but Hentheden, byteflush, and Siliconred have each opened proposals in the last two months with full awareness of the rocky road the article's been on for several months. It is becoming disruptive and I'd like to see some calm on this page. -- Laser brain (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning the page restriction
|
| Withdrawn by filer. Bishonen | talk 08:36, 10 May 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 GizzyCatBella
Revision as of 10:41, 19 February 2018
(+given sanction +filed case on 9 May on ARBEE).
WP:POINTy DS alert in violation of alert.dup, particularly that given their own AE filing today - GizzyCatBella was asserting I was aware of the sactions. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning GizzyCatBellaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GizzyCatBellaI sincerely missed the previous alert that was given to Icewhiz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and entered the template in good faith. I even wrote that I couldn't see it before inserting the alert template. [62] I wrote:
If I could find the alert and I knew that it had existed already I would refer to it yesterday -> [63] I didn't because I couldn't find it and wrote this instead:
It's evident that I honestly missed the alert when I was looking for it, and I was honestly thinking that I'm doing the proper thing. [66] User Icewhiz instead has chosen to retaliate and possibly take revenge for me filing a complaint against him yesterday. He could have just told me about the fact that he already has been informed instead of coming here. I would remove the template. His hostile attitude is very troublesome. GizzyCatBella ( talk) 17:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning GizzyCatBella
|
| Crawford88 is strongly cautioned to follow closely what sources actually state, be aware of WP:ASSERT, and not to overreach when writing article content based on reliable sources. -- NeilN talk to me 21:55, 11 May 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 Crawford88
At this point, I reverted the edits, once again describing the problems with them, and left a warning on this user's page, describing the specific problems with reinstating the edits. They essentially brushed off this warning.
No previous sanctions.
Editor was alerted to discretionary sanctions in January 2017. While this was 15 months ago, it is a bit of a stretch to suggest they are therefore unaware of the sanctions, having edited in this topic area continuously since.
There's several incorrect statements and fundamental misunderstandings in Crawford88's statement.
Discussion concerning Crawford88Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Crawford88The two separate edits for which Vanamonde93 is crying foul are:
But, as this is an AE proceeding, the things I said about, which ideally should have been part of the discussions on the specific page's talk page discussion, are not relevant. This proceeding is a gross misuse of administrative privileges of Vanamonde93 which he uses to randomly targets well meaning Wikipedia users who do not tag his line. There has been two reverts by me (on two different days) and I have been careful of not violating any Wikipedia policy. So, instead of having a meaningful dialogue about why he considers there is WP:NPOV and absence of WP:V, Vanamonde93 jumps straight into threatening me of an AE proceeding (which to his credit he did). This is what (s)he's claiming to be constructive feedback, "blatant original research, non-neutral wording, and dodgy sources." without any specific instances or reasons. Highhandedness by Wiki moderators and administrators will only reduce the already waning credibility of Wikipedia in being neutral and welcoming of new editors and users. Crawford88 ( talk) 05:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by SitushThe example given by Vanamonde93 may be part of a pattern. I come across Crawford88 from time to time and have often thought them to be at best an apologist for Hindutva and at worst an outright proponent of it. Nothing wrong with holding an opinion, of course, but when one's political etc philosophy becomes self-evident in one's edits across a range of articles then it suggests that neutral editing is unlikely to be at the forefront. Recent examples include a spat (with associated edit warring) at Talk:Koenraad_Elst#Feb,_2018 and unexplained removals of categories relating to far-right politics in India around 18 April, eg here and here. Let's not make any bones about it: Hindu nationalism is regularly described as a fascist philosophy and anyone who thinks otherwise is going to have to work hard to support their opinion. We are not censored; Crawford88 should not be censoring. - Sitush ( talk) 13:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Crawford88
|
| Rafe87 has now been notified properly of discretionary sanctions and the assumption is that they fully understand the editing restrictions and behavioral expectations involved in the area. -- NeilN talk to me 16:27, 12 May 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 Rafe87
Moreover, the section of anti-Arabism in Israel falls into ARBPIA. Therefore, per
third bullet of ARBPIA,
Discussion concerning Rafe87Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Rafe87Statement by ShrikeNeilN This is correct but now that he know.He have a chance to self revert.-- Shrike ( talk) 13:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by TheGracefulSlick
Statement by (username)Result concerning Rafe87
|
| No administrator appears interested in taking action at this time. Feel free to unclose this thread if you are. Sandstein 08:27, 2 May 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 יניב הורון
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, specifically
Previously blocked under Arbitration enforcement, see above
IMO, both of the above edits are quite outrageous...this editor is, IMO, not ready for the ARBPIA area. I suggest a topic ban from the IP area for ...quite a while. Huldra ( talk) 23:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC) I am rather surprised to see some editors arguing that since Jerusalem Post is WP:RS, then we must allow anything from it. Well, for me there is one thing that trumps WP:RS, and that is: is it true? Take the village Al-Attara (which I just expanded): Adam Zertal (who was a professor in archaeology) writes that Victor Guérin found 300 inhabitants here. I absolutely totally refuse to put that into the article. Why? Because Victor Guérin wrote that about 'Atara.....and Zertal has mixed up the two villages. (See User:Huldra/Guerin if you doubt me.) Yes, professors can also be wrong. Inserting an article with the headline "Until 1996, nobody called Rachel’s Tomb a mosque" (when there are sources calling it a mosque going back centuries) is just as bad. We are directly misinforming Wikipedia readers. I thought we could do better than that, Huldra ( talk) 21:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Notified Huldra ( talk) 23:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Discussion concerning יניב הורוןStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by יניב הורוןIn this case I haven't broken any rule of Wikipedia. There's no edit-warring in the first place! Here I wanted to show that Kamal Nasser was targeted as part of Israel's Operation Wrath of God, which is a fact, but making sure that his involvement in the Munich massacre is an allegation. You reverted my edit anyway, and I didn't insist. Regarding this edit, the JP source explains that Rachel's tomb wasn't called "Bilal bin Rabah mosque" before 1996. You may not like my edits, you could revert them or discuss in talk page, but you have no right to censor me because I disagree with you in an article or two. I mean, are you serious?-- יניב הורון ( talk) 23:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Seraphimblade:: Just to clarify, my previous sanctions were because I was not familiarized with ARBPIA rules. I didn't have experience in Wikipedia before. The first sanction was because I made this edit before I had an extended-confirmed user (while the article wasn't protected at the time, hence my confusion). The second one was because I didn't understand the third bullet of ARBPIA, which has nothing to do with 1RR: "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert." Nevertheless, when I understood the rule, I accepted the sanction and didn't repeat the violation again. However, in this case, Huldra and MShabazz have no reason to accuse me of violating any rule. I didn't break 1RR nor the third bullet, and I WAS NOT engaged in edit-warring (as you can see here: one single half-revert; here: one single revert; and here: two reverts, precisely because the other user broke the third bullet). How can you call this "edit-warring" or "being disruptive"? I ask you to be fair instead of considering me "problematic" just because other editors -whose political agenda I happen to disagree with- want to have less competitors in a sensitive topic. Please, check my contributions and you will see I'm not here to disrupt anything. All my contributions (mainly in Jewish and Israeli-related articles) are significant and meaningful, based on reliable sources. I understand if other editors disagree with them, and they are welcome to revert me and discuss in talk pages, but that's not a reason to ban me.-- יניב הורון ( talk) 18:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC) @ Sandstein:: I'm an Israeli Jew (and proud of it), of course I don't have any "natural loathing" against my own people. On the contrary, I was referring to a comment made by Shabazz in 2015 where he said literally (excuse my language) "the Jewboy has chased out the nigger." After that I tried to apologize because I thought Shabazz was the victim of such a disgusting insult, but later Shabazz himself admitted that HE was the author of the racist slur, apparently because he was tired of being "harrassed" by someone of Jewish extraction. In any case, it has nothing to do with our present discussion, except that it shows that those who accuse me of having a "biased" and "POV agenda" are the least suited to speak about such matters. The irony is that I've never had a previous discussion with Shabazz in any talk page. But for some reason he wants to get rid of me based on spurious accusations. In any case, I invite him to have a civilized discussion to achieve consensus instead of resorting to deplorable tactics to censor editors who don't share his views.-- יניב הורון ( talk) 21:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC) @ Huon:: Please, explain me how exactly I broke 1RR. I made the second revert 24 hours after my first revert, not within the 24 hours period.-- יניב הורון ( talk) 21:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC) @ Huon:: What is "gaming the system"? Am I allowed to make another revert after 24 hours passed? Yes or no? Tell me the rules so I'll be more careful next time. I thought 1RR only counts for more than one revert made within a 24 hours period. Thanks.-- יניב הורון ( talk) 21:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
@ GoldenRing: Even though technically I didn't brake a rule, I understand that perhaps I have been over aggressive here. I'll try to make less reverts against other users and participate in talk pages more.-- יניב הורון ( talk) 14:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC) @ Zero0000: Calm down. I've made almost 1,400 edits so far, and I barely started. Sometimes I make mistakes. WP:Newbies, WP:Civility-- יניב הורון ( talk) 10:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC) @ Nishidani: As I told you before, WP:ONUS is on YOU to gain consensus and show us the encyclopedic value of that piece of propaganda. A reliable source is a necessary, but not always sufficient requirement for adding content, specially so controversial and POV. I usually don't revert well-sourced content, but in this particular case the material was an opinion piece written by a non-notable individual. You should start a discussion on the talk page of the article to gain consensus before reinserting disputed content, instead of going to AE because you don't like my way of editing. That's as frivolous as Huldra's request.-- יניב הורון ( talk) 17:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC) @ Huldra: What matters is the quality, not the quantity of the reverts (which is not a bad word). Contributing to Wikipedia also means undoing vandalism and unappropriate edits, although most of my reverts were made against IPs who are not allowed to edit in the first place, NOT legitimate users. I can justify every single revert that I made. Can you do the same? I think that, at this point, every honest user can realize this AE you started is ridiculous.-- יניב הורון ( talk) 21:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC) @ Nishidani: lol! And I'm the bad guy here with a "POV bias" that makes me supposedly unable to edit in ARBPIA. Anyway, how about using the talk page of the article instead of AE? Statement by Malik Shabazzיניב הורון is misinformed when they argue that they have done no wrong because they haven't been edit-warring. They have been engaged in POV-pushing, which is far worse. — MShabazz Talk/ Stalk 00:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Number 57, the old "But he started it" defense is meaningless when an editor breaks a bright-line rule like 1RR. As a sysop, you ought to know better. Please don't insult my intellectual or further embarrass yourself by continuing that twisted "logic". — MShabazz Talk/ Stalk 07:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh god, how I wish editors would stop @ GoldenRing: Icewhiz has provided the edits to which I was referring. I thought somebody else had cited another article where יניב הורון had done the same thing. Because I'm not able to find one, I've stricken my comment about two instances. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 01:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by MPS1992Did the user against whom enforcement is requested really just write this, or do I need new spectacles?!? MPS1992 ( talk) 01:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by TheGracefulSlickI would have settled for the one-week block, but this editor's behavior here and on the topic overall gives me no confidence that it will magically make them change their ways. Their talk page alone is a good indication of how "collaborative" this editor is in this sensitive topic area. Since יניב הורון cannot keep their biases in check, cannot adhere to editing restrictions, and cannot edit collaboratively, they are not needed or wanted in the topic area; it is a priviledge they simply have demonstrated they do not deserve. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 03:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Number 57@ MShabazz: If you go back to the start of that dispute, the first edit in this chain was by Onceinawhile to remove the source; it was then restored by Icewhiz, then removed by Huldra, then restored again by יניב הורון. If יניב הורון has broken the spirit of the rules, then so has Huldra. However neither has broken the rules as worded, so I don't see this as actionable. Number 5 7 05:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by IcewhizHuldra raises two issues. Both should not be actionable:
Statement by Pluto2012MPS1992 and Malik Shabazz's comments are full of sense. This editor arrived 2 months ago and already "investigated" on the past of another contributor. His global behaviour is agressive and suspicious. He games the system in reverting after 24 hours and... 2 minutes. He fails Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. He should be topic-banned of the articles related to the I-P conflict. Pluto2012 ( talk) 05:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by tritomexNothing shown here by Huldra, justifies sanctions against יניב הורון In fact I do not see why Huldra sees Jerusalem Post article as unreliable, nor I see any proves (sources) that the claim sourced with JP [9] is falls. In fact I found many additional WP:RSN that states that the identification of that place as Bilal ibn Rabah mosque dates from 1996. This dosent mean that the place was not considered a place of worship, by Jews, Christians and Muslims as well for centuries. As in the case of all questions that could be related to Arab-Israeli conflict, there is a lot of bias here and very little substantial from editors who could be seen as uniinvolved. Tritomex ( talk) 12:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by 73.95.138.207Clearly a WP:NOTHERE and engaging in blatant edit-warring with a battleground mindset. Look at the following edits [10] [11] [12] [13]the first four in rapid succession on random articles with no other common denominator other than to be disruptive toward the editor named Agustin6. Add to this that this editor has already been blocked TWICE and warned multiple times for edit-warring in his short time here. Then it doesn't seem SO odd to include the circumstantial evidence that this editor jumped right into the mix with a clear understanding of how wikipedia works. Then ADD to that edit summaries like these two [14] [15] which are battleground in tone and certainly WP:FORUM. Suggest ban to give editor time out to think about his actions and a topic ban. Would offer something more but at work and had to rush this as it was. Gotta go. 73.95.138.207 ( talk) 16:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by SantiLak@ Icewhiz: With all due respect, I don't think you understand 1RR. You claimed I violated 1RR and יניב הורון didn't because I made a content edit and then made 1 revert yet they just made 2 reverts. That's a textbook case of 1RR by יניב הורון. I didn't make 2 reverts and there is no such thing as the "the original authorship provision." I should have reported them for edit warrring and violating 1RR but I didn't because I felt like following BRD. Like another user said, it's a clear case of WP:NOTHERE, a topic ban is very appropriate. - SantiLak ( talk) 21:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by OtterAMAs a number of people have pointed out יניב הורון has not actually broken any rules with the two edits that have been brought to attention here. I don't think the edits stand out as being egregious either. For example, the Jerusalem Post -- an 85 year old English-language Jewish publication in Israel, and is a well known source. Thus, it's not clear that the information would be suspect for the second edit that Huldra mentioned. This topic is full of editors who, in my opinion, like to over wiki-overlitigate the smallest offense. The accusing editors here have certainly done their share of controversial edits. @ Seraphimblade: I don't think it would be fair to topic-ban this one editor as you suggested below because I don't see qualitative difference between his style of editing and the style of editing of other long-standing editors on this topical area. Regarding these statements, why can't we just return the pages to their consensus version. Then, if people really care so much about these two controversies, start appropriate request-for-comments sections to decide which version to include. OtterAM ( talk) 03:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by My very best wishesThis is a relatively new and inexperienced user who was close to violating 1RR on one of pages (it is not unusual for such contributors to follow rules very literally, although yes, that might be the "gaming"). I do not think that merits a topic ban. Editing in ARBPIA area is extremely difficult. I also agree with Sandstein. As a note of order, there is currently a thread about the same user on the ANI [16]. Not sure how you usually treat such cases. Both complaints, i.e on the ANI and that one, look to me as an attempt to exclude an "opponent" who has been involved in various content disputes. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Statement by E.M.GregoryThis discussion is a shinning example of one of the biggest problems with Wikipedia: experienced editors with an OWN attitude and political POV who pounce on new editors who disagree with them politically - and vote them off the island, or chase them off with persistent aggression. To my sorrow, I have encountered Huldra [17] before, most memorably at the nightmarish Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis; she is WP:NOTHERE]]. I am less well acquainted with (יניב הורו) [18], but I do know that the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude taken by too many editors in the I/P area makes Wikipedia a nasty, brutish place. Promising editors become disgusted and leave, or - if we stay - shy away from the politically fraught arenas where good editors are most needed. Editors who are sufficiently aggressive can and do slant articles in highly POV ways, simply by making editing unpleasant for those they disagree with. And many good editors like Sandstein spend enormous amounts of time on discussions that, like this one, are driven by intense POV animus. I do see that legal sanctions serve a purpose. But also that they are a tool too often used merely to "win." End of rant. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000This edit made just hours ago is illustrative of how useless this editor is. With the claim of "restoring source", he reinserted a dead link. Obviously he never even clicked on it, or if he did click he didn't care that nothing was there. If he had gone to the trouble of locating an archived version, like I did before I deleted the link, he would have seen that it doesn't even mention the topic of the article. Nor does it mention any of the matters raised in the paragraph to which he attached the dead link. I shouldn't have to clean up after someone with such a blasé attitude to article integrity. Zero talk 23:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by ShrikeThe diff presented by Zero0000 had nothing to do with WP:ARBPIA.So I don't understand how its relevant.-- Shrike ( talk) 15:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by YnhockeyJust noticed this, and I have to say that while Yaniv made some mistakes, this report strikes me as particularly frivolous. Regarding any improper past actions taken by Yaniv, I am willing to mentor him if necessary. At the same time, this is a clear issue of WP:KETTLE, when one editor participating in an edit war blames the other one over a technicality (talk about gaming the system). — Ynhockey ( Talk) 15:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC) Statement by NishidaniToday, as this discussion continues, in the following edit Yaniv challenges and removes a trite, commonplace judgement of the New York Times, writing in his edit-summary: I.e. He took out a description of the context sourced to the New York Times because he dislikes their choice of language, of referring with attribution to the Gazans as 'desperate' and privately thinks it is inaccurate. There is no policy ground given in the edit-summary, and when asked on his page to revert, he cites WP:ONUS in defence. This POV-warrior defence is frowned on, because thus used, WP:Onus trumps WP:RS because it becomes a form of entitlement to erase anything regardless of the quality of the source or of any other policy regarding sound practice, and then throw the burden into the other editor's court. Despite the apocalyptic descriptions of the I/P area as a death zone where the well-intentioned are driven out by hypocrites or battleground POV paladins, it works under the ARBPIA3 regime because that demands experience and a thorough knowledge of the rules that at least relieve these pages of haphazard loose cannon editing, wild card reverting of WP:RS out of distaste. Yaniv's latest edit confirms Zero's point above: it is an open invitation to make revert battles inevitable. Whatever their POVs, the great majority of IP editors respect high quality mainstream RS, a shared recognition that oner should not cavil over the obvious which reduces the conflict considerably. This editor doesn't, and allowing him to edit with this singular license to contest even what is generally accepted is unfair. It means those who side with his perspective can rely on his ignorance of good practice to remove 'stuff' they themselves do not normally challenge. My example is not a content dispute: it is an instance of the editor in question refusing to observe what is a shared agreement about sourcing out of sheer distaste. Nishidani ( talk) 15:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by TheTimesAreAChangingWithout looking too deeply into the merits of this request, as I'm hardly a fixture in the I/P area and have only previously interacted with יניב הורון once or twice, I must say that Nishidani's latest comment is quite mistaken regarding Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. An editorial, even from the editorial board of The New York Times, is never a reliable source for statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice, according to WP:RSOPINION. Of course, the content that יניב הורון removed was attributed to The New York Times, but—crucially—not identified as an editorial, and it's not clear why it would belong in a neutrally summarized "Background" section at all. When one considers that the very next sentence is also devoted to an opinion piece, this time by Peter Beinart in The Forward—initially with attribution to Beinart but then allowing Beinart to speak for the UN in wikivoice—it appears that poor quality sources have been juxtaposed in a questionable way to slant a "just the facts" "Background" into advancing a particular narrative, when—as My very best wishes has noted—commentary of this kind would be more appropriate in a subsection dedicated to "Media commentary". Note that יניב הורון only challenged the emotional language of the New York Times editorial, not the Beinart opinion piece, presumably because he knows that there are better sources than Beinart for the same factual claim. In any case, the diff presented by Nishidani as a "smoking gun" should be regarded as non-actionable and a content dispute. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 20:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by DavidbenaWhile I have only recently come to know of Yaniv Huron (Hebrew: יניב הורון), and have had some of my own edits reverted by him, I still have no qualms about the contributions of this new editor, seeing that he adds a new vitality to our encyclopedia. While it is true that he has made a few mistakes (as we all do), overall his contributions are very good. His mistakes have been pointed out here, and I think he will learn from his mistakes. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt. Davidbena ( talk) 02:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Result concerning יניב הורון
|
| Cassianto is topic-banned from infoboxes for three months. Sandstein 21:33, 2 May 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 Cassianto
Cassianto was placed on infobox probation. Infobox probation prohibits him from posting more than one comment in any discussion about infoboxes. Cassianto has posted more than one comment on Mary Shelley and Stanley Kubrick.
n/a, Cassianto just came off his self-requested block.
n/a
Discussion concerning CassiantoStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by CassiantoKnock yourself out. I've made it my policy NEVER to plead for forgiveness as this is just a website and I'm just a volunteer, so it bothers me not about being blocked, especially as I'm more tan keen to sit out self-requested blocks. FWIW, and having said that, I wasn't aware of the "no more than one comment" bullshit, but knew of my restriction NOT to touch idiotboxes, which I haven't. Unlike some people on here, I have a private life to attend to so I didn't concern myself with the intricacies of the outcome. Cassianto Talk 19:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by SchroCatRather predictable that at least one person would have so little to do with their time that they would start stalking someone who has just been through ArbCom. I guess that speaks more about the stalker than the 'stalkee', but there you go. The comments made by Cassianto are absolutely nothing to do with infoboxes, so unless a really, really anally retentive reading of the decision is wanted, common sense should just be to ignore this. Just to remind the committee, the probation was not, as the filer claims, "
Statement by CoretheappleThis is an in-your-face violation of sanctions just imposed. The fact that these are ad hominem makes them worse, not excusable. Enough already. I think that the time has come to indefinitely block this user. I disagree that a short block is warranted. Cassianto just doesn't care. We know that because he says so. His "defense" is that he didn't know about the restriction on his conduct. Next he'll say he is unaware of the outcome of this proceeding. and the next. His pals will chime in with wikilawyering. And on and on. How about we end this charade now? Coretheapple ( talk) 20:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Reply to power-enwiki: You are correct that arbcom didn't indef, which was probably due to Cassianto's very wise decision to sit out the proceeding with a self-block. We have now heard from him, and seen his contempt for the whole process by word and action. So we can go through this same charade again and again, or it can be ended now. [Reply to Good Day] This would be, in other words, a preventive not a punitive block. Coretheapple ( talk) 21:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by power~enwikiThis situation (both the provocation by extremely new users, and the hostile responses by Cassianto) is exactly what the Infobox case should have solved. Accusations of sock-puppetry should be made at SPI (or at ANI if there's no way to determine who the master is), not on article talk pages. As Cassianto agrees there is a violation, pledges to avoid violations in the future, and doesn't seem to mind a block, I think a short block (24-72 hours) is sufficient. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by GoodDayThe question is.... Would a block be a preventative measure or a punitive measure. I tend to believe the latter in this situation & so would recommend 'no blocking' on this occasion. GoodDay ( talk) 20:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Cassianto
|
| Article in question is outside the scope of ARBPIA. -- NeilN talk to me 13:21, 4 May 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 Mhhossein
Though when I filed the request for me it was clear case especially when article was protected by WP:ECP I am willing to withdraw it as I going to file WP:ARCA -- Shrike ( talk) 10:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning MhhosseinStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MhhosseinThe mentioned article is not under the remedy Shrike claims. Enforcing the WP:BLUELOCK as an attempt to have "extended confirmed protection" does not necessarily mean that the article is under ARBPIA. Regards. Nuclear program of Iran has nothing to do with the Arab world. -- Mhhossein talk 05:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by IcewhizI asked Mhhossein to self revert, as did Shrike. As might be evident on his talk page - User talk:Mhhossein#Self revert request he refused, also after it was pointed out to him the article was placed on extended confirmed protection (500/30) due to ARBPIA. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by NishidaniI would only note, Masem, that some experienced editors on both 'sides' appear to be confused on this (Syria, hence all the more Iran) as per this remark. Nishidani ( talk) 07:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000Sandstein is perfectly correct that this is not part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, because Iran is not an Arab country. It is definitely not covered by ARBPIA. The complaint should be moved to somewhere else like ANI, but a single revert is unlikely to get much traction over there. Zero talk 09:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by TheGracefulSlickIn the very same discussion Nishidani refers to, one editor says the Israel-Iran conflict does not fall under the Arab-Israeli conflict, and cites a 2013 discussion to support his assertion. Obviously, this is no clear-cut case and it would be unfair to punish anyone for something that clearly isn't understood by everyone. Had Shrike realized this, instead of piggybacking off Icewhiz's initial claim (as usual), we would not be here. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 13:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by K.e.coffmanThe filing party has a history of initiating misguided reports. I was a subject of one of them at 3RRN last month, which closed as “no violation”: permalink. Perhaps, the filer should be cautioned to better understand policies and restrictions before filing reports at various noticeboards. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My KenWhile the opinions expressed by admins below that the article in question is not covered by the discretionary sanctions are quite reasonable, I think that the fact that the subject area is specifically to be "broadly interpreted" changes things somewhat. Yes, it is certainly true that Iran is not an Arab country, but it is also true that Arabs are Semites, and yet "anti-Semitism" is the description of a bias and prejudice against Jews, and not against all Semites. Similarly, Iran is part of the cauldron of the "Middle East" in which the countries all around Israel have taken up a strong opposition to its existence. Iran is not Arabic, but it is part of the "broadly interpreted" circumstance that the sanctions were intended to control. I would urge admins to take this into account, and not be so specific in their interpretation. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Seraphim SystemEven if it was within the remedy, I think it is reasonable to assume good faith and take Mhhossein at his word that he did not believe it was within the remedy. The connection is attenuated enough that I think it would need to be discussed at ARCA and for editors to be made aware of it before it was actionable. Seraphim System ( talk) 07:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Mhhossein
|
| Salvidrim! made and caught their own mistake, so other than a massive TROUT there's nothing to do other than kicking the page back to the draft space and letting someone else review it. Primefac ( talk) 18:54, 7 May 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 Salvidrim!
D'oh! I was casually looking up this game, found a draft in Draftspace that looked fine, moved it to mainspace and wikified it a bit. Then choked on my coffee when I recalled I was currently
My face has been notified by my palm. Discussion concerning SalvidrimStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Salvidrimre Tony: I guess my first thought was that self-reverting might be seen as "yet another attempt to avoid scrutiny"? Maybe I'm just being paranoid, apologies if this is a bit of a timewaster. Another one. Plus I couldn't self-revert anyways since I left a redirect at the draftspace title per usual practice. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by TonyBallioniCan you just re: draftify and slap an AfC tag on it for someone else to review? I appreciate the self-reporting here, but this seems like a bit of a waste of time. When someone accidentally violates an AE sanction, the norm is just to self-revert. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Salvidrim
|
| E-960 will voluntarily refrain from editing the article for 72 hours. If disruptive tagging is an issue, another request should be made, with evidence that will allow admins unfamiliar with the sources to understand the issue. -- NeilN talk to me 02:27, 8 May 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 E-960
4 reverts on a 1RR article. There are also BLP and RS issues for some of the information added. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 240#Holocaust history: Polish ambassador facebook post covered by wpolityce, and op-ed by Piotr Zaremba and various discussions at Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland such as Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Should Grabowski be removed ?.
Additional comments by IcewhizRE E-960's comments below -
Discussion concerning E-960Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by E-960I'd like to respectfully object to user Icewhiz's reporting of me, as his "Reverts" were done under a false and misleading pretense. In this example [27] user Icewhiz reverted text containing two RELIABLE reference sources, and in his Edit Summary writing in that these are "FRINGE source[s]" (and here [28] the unture claim was made that the same text was ORIGINAL RESEARCH). Yet, both these reference sources are two of the biggest newspapers in Poland, and in the case of Gazeta Wyborcza, the reference was the actual INTERVIEW with historian Jan Grabowski, and the removed text was what the historian said himself. To call these sources "FRINGE" unfortunately comes across as nothing more than an excuse to arbitrarily remove the text. Also, to back up this suspicion users Icewhiz and François Robere continue to tag bomb the article (here: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]) and revert text back-up by reliable reference sources using the 'IJUSTDONTLIKEIT shame tagging' tactic, and they have been warned about it and their tags reverted by other editors such as GizzyCatBella, Nihil novi, and Volunteer Marek, as this keeps occurring. In any case, I can apologize for my knee jerk reaction to restore the text, and confirm that in the future I'll keep in mind that this article is under the tighter scrutiny of the 1RR rule. But, also I'd like to ask the Admins to remind users Icewhiz and François Robere that automatically adding un-warranted tags or removing statements containing RELIABLE reference sources by labeling them as FRINGE, can come across as disruptive. -- E-960 ( talk) 09:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by GizzyCatBella(writing in progress...will finish today) GizzyCatBella ( talk) 12:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC) I'll hold off on my comment and keep my word for future later use if necessary. NeilN's recommendation [36] is very fair in my opinion. GizzyCatBella ( talk) 23:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Result concerning E-960
|
| As pointed out, this was a community sanction which replaced an expired or expiring ArbCom sanction. I will take it to ANI. Guy ( Help!) 07:37, 9 May 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 DanaUllman
I think DanaUllman should be sitebanned for violation of sanctions under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy
DanaUllman ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account, he is, by admission, Dana Ullman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a tireless promoter of homeopathy. He has made exactly one mainspace edit since his 2008 topic ban, and that was promoting a purveyor of bogus diagnostics, an article in the alternative medicine topic area and also potentially related to his business (he uses a radionics machine). He has been allowed to make comments regarding his own biography, but that has now been deleted. His edit history speaks for itself. The only time he strays from promoting homeopathy is when he is promoting himself. That is what he does off-wiki, as is his right. He has no such right here, and his editing history has been consistently problematic. The only topic in which he is interested, is one where he may not edit, and he has consistently tested and pushed beyond the boundaries of that ban. Guy ( Help!) 20:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning DanaUllmanStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DanaUllmanStatement by (username)Statement by Spartazthis is the link for the closed discussion confirming the sanction. Curiously, the tban is a community sanction reimposing the arbcom tban. Buggered if I know whether its out of scope as a community not arbitration sanction or not. Spartaz Humbug! 22:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by EdJohnstonPer the 2012 Arbcom motion, it appears that Homeopathy sanctions were rolled into Pseudoscience. So this enforcement request should be handled as if it was asking for Pseudoscience enforcement. The 2012 motion was in effect dropping sanctions in some areas such as Gibraltar but for other topics, such as Cold Fusion and Homeopathy, it was reshuffling them under new headers. EdJohnston ( talk) 01:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Result concerning DanaUllman
|
| Editors directed to WP:RSN to discuss Chodakiewicz. GizzyCatBella directed to write Icewhiz's name properly and reminded that communications on the English-language Wikipedia need to be in English. -- NeilN talk to me 13:18, 9 May 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 Icewhiz
Misconduct in two matters subject to discretionary sanctions: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons
The editor acted in a troublesome manner by targeted removal of references to the particular historian ( Marek Chodakiewicz - a living person) on 12 different E. Europe related articles. Seldom in a threshold of 2 minutes in between edits. These appear to be thoughtless edits in a sole purpose of removing the historian as a source.
On March 8 the editor Icewhiz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started [43] to make edits to the page of the living Polish historian Marek Chodakiewicz in a profoundly critical fashion. Edits continued until today. [44] Then On May 8th, they went into a frenzy cruse removing any reference to Chodakiewcz from 12 separate Poland and the Holocaust articles under false or no valid justifications at all. GizzyCatBella ( talk) 04:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning IcewhizStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by IcewhizI have indeed been reviewing use of Chodakiewicz as a source - going over most of the uses of him on enwiki. Chodakiewicz is a highly WP:BIASED source (more below) even when writing in a peer-reviewed reviewed setting. While some of his writings have been published academically (in journals and more reputable publishers), much of what he writes is not published academically - varying from non-academic publishers, Polish newspapers of a particular bent, and his various blogs. I am willing to defend each and every one of those diffs if needed (and I'll note - GCB hasn't bothered to discuss) - in some cases I removed highly-biased statements that were made in Wikipedia's voice while representing a rather fringe view, in others I removed sourcing to blog posts, and in a few cases - I removed information that wasn't even in the cited source. It has been my impression that when editors resort to using a source such as Chodakiewicz - there are often other problems involved (both NPOV and V). As for Marek Jan Chodakiewicz -
Reviewing use of sources is what we do on Wikipedia - per WP:V, WP:NPOV. I submit that per WP:BIASED review of the use of Chodakiewicz is more than warranted, and obviously removing what doesn't pass WP:V - e.g. this diff GCB presents - in which we were ascribing to Chodakiewicz a claim he did not actually write in his political blog - is required per V policy as well and WP:BLP given we were falsely ascribing a statement to Chodakiewicz. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Boomerang proposal: GizzyCatBella repeatedly introducing information from a self-published book by a questionable author that was refutedNote that the editor using GCB as a handle has admitted to editing as an IP as well - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GizzyCatBella - admission here and elsewhere. Editing as one of the IP's in GCB's range in April, GCB introduced the following - text and source. This was discussed as a source with GCB in Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Your Life is Worth Mine: How Polish Nuns Saved Hundreds of Jewish Children in German-occupied Poland, 1939-1945 - E. Kurek (where this didn't receive support). In conjunction, we also discussed Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#"only German-occupied European country" with death penalty - in which Poland being the only country with the death penalty for helping Jews was outright refuted. Ewa Kurek is mainly covered for making stmts such as "Polish author Ewa Kurek, has claimed that Jews had fun in the ghettos during the German occupation of Poland during World War II." [53] [54] [55]. And does not hold a significant academic appointment. [56] [57]. So far - one use of a questionable source. However, GCB then added a self-published book (iUniverse) in a number different articles -
I'll also note, given the circumstances that Poeticbent Revision as of 13:19, 25 April 2018 also re-added Kurek. GCB has not discussed this at the relevant article talk page (complaining instead on the wall of text - see Talk:Irena Sendler#Use of Ewa Kurek as a source and Talk:The Holocaust in Poland/Archives/2018/April#Use of Ewa Kurek as a source) - and instead has been reverting. Use of a WP:SPS is a clear no-go, when it is a questionable author as well, making a claim that has been clearly refuted - it is even less acceptable. Repeated reversions of this without discussion are WP:IDHT. In an area with discretionary sanctions - editors are supposed to adhere to Wikipedia policy on WP:RS and WP:V - which is clearly not the case in the diffs above. Note I did open a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Holocaust in Poland: Ewa Kurek & Mark Paul after the last revert - however this shouldn't have gotten to this - an editor re-inserting a self-published book, by a questionable author, with a false claim, repeatedly - in a sanctioned area! Icewhiz ( talk) 07:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Beyond My KenThe disputing editors should open a discussion on the Reliable sources noticeboard if they cannot come to a consensus on the talk page.BTW, not to say "I told you so", but in the recent ANI scuffle about this topic area, I suggested that all the warring editors should be topic-banned from these articles under ARBEE, but no one was interested in doing so. This is not going to stop, the positions are too entrenched, and it's eventually going to end up in a full-blown Arbitration case, simply because admins wouldn't take positive action to control the subject area. This calls into question the effectiveness of discretionary sanctions if no one is willing to utilize them. I believe this situation to be a rare case of the failure of effective administration. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Statement by (username)Result concerning Icewhiz
|
Page restriction for infobox addition and infobox discussion at Stanley Kubrick
| Infobox restriction posted at Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Bishonen | talk 10:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC). |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I'm not sure whether page restrictions have ever been placed per the "Civility in infobox discussions" discretionary sanctions, so I thought I'd ask uninvolved admins here before I try it. There's been a long-running war about whether or not to have an infobox at Stanley Kubrick, with new discussions and "straw polls" erupting again and again on the talkpage, and with an infobox being repeatedly added to the article, and then promptly removed. The last explicit consensus on the matter (=no infobox) was back in 2015. I'm considering placing the following page restriction:
The template will also automatically add this text in smaller font: My rationale is that we shouldn't abandon articles and contributors to endless bickering, but put the new discretionary sanctions to use, as I assume ArbCom intended when they set them. The general infobox RfC at the Village Pump has run into the sands and nobody seems up for closing it, which I don't wonder at. God, no. There was an unsuccessful attempt within that RfC to set a limit of six months for starting yet another infobox discussion on an article talkpage. As you can see, I'm offering a restriction of four months on Talk:Stanley Kubrick, where yet another straw poll has just started and been closed, after there was one in early April... Thoughts? Pinging Laser brain, who just posted an appeal for an infobox discussion break on Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Bishonen | talk 07:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC).
Discussion concerning the page restrictionsStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by FrancisDon't know whether any of these variants would be less convoluted:
(the infobox of that particular article, mentioned in The Wall Street Journal two days ago, is way beyond a "default" option, that being the topic of the current RfC, so I wouldn't connect timing to that RfC) -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Laser brainI think this is a good idea. I've informally requested on the article talk page that it be given a break multiple times, but there is no sign of a stoppage of the series of proposals. Good-faith editors who are completely unaware of the history stumbling onto the page are one thing, but Hentheden, byteflush, and Siliconred have each opened proposals in the last two months with full awareness of the rocky road the article's been on for several months. It is becoming disruptive and I'd like to see some calm on this page. -- Laser brain (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning the page restriction
|
| Withdrawn by filer. Bishonen | talk 08:36, 10 May 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 GizzyCatBella
Revision as of 10:41, 19 February 2018
(+given sanction +filed case on 9 May on ARBEE).
WP:POINTy DS alert in violation of alert.dup, particularly that given their own AE filing today - GizzyCatBella was asserting I was aware of the sactions. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning GizzyCatBellaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GizzyCatBellaI sincerely missed the previous alert that was given to Icewhiz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and entered the template in good faith. I even wrote that I couldn't see it before inserting the alert template. [62] I wrote:
If I could find the alert and I knew that it had existed already I would refer to it yesterday -> [63] I didn't because I couldn't find it and wrote this instead:
It's evident that I honestly missed the alert when I was looking for it, and I was honestly thinking that I'm doing the proper thing. [66] User Icewhiz instead has chosen to retaliate and possibly take revenge for me filing a complaint against him yesterday. He could have just told me about the fact that he already has been informed instead of coming here. I would remove the template. His hostile attitude is very troublesome. GizzyCatBella ( talk) 17:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning GizzyCatBella
|
| Crawford88 is strongly cautioned to follow closely what sources actually state, be aware of WP:ASSERT, and not to overreach when writing article content based on reliable sources. -- NeilN talk to me 21:55, 11 May 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 Crawford88
At this point, I reverted the edits, once again describing the problems with them, and left a warning on this user's page, describing the specific problems with reinstating the edits. They essentially brushed off this warning.
No previous sanctions.
Editor was alerted to discretionary sanctions in January 2017. While this was 15 months ago, it is a bit of a stretch to suggest they are therefore unaware of the sanctions, having edited in this topic area continuously since.
There's several incorrect statements and fundamental misunderstandings in Crawford88's statement.
Discussion concerning Crawford88Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Crawford88The two separate edits for which Vanamonde93 is crying foul are:
But, as this is an AE proceeding, the things I said about, which ideally should have been part of the discussions on the specific page's talk page discussion, are not relevant. This proceeding is a gross misuse of administrative privileges of Vanamonde93 which he uses to randomly targets well meaning Wikipedia users who do not tag his line. There has been two reverts by me (on two different days) and I have been careful of not violating any Wikipedia policy. So, instead of having a meaningful dialogue about why he considers there is WP:NPOV and absence of WP:V, Vanamonde93 jumps straight into threatening me of an AE proceeding (which to his credit he did). This is what (s)he's claiming to be constructive feedback, "blatant original research, non-neutral wording, and dodgy sources." without any specific instances or reasons. Highhandedness by Wiki moderators and administrators will only reduce the already waning credibility of Wikipedia in being neutral and welcoming of new editors and users. Crawford88 ( talk) 05:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by SitushThe example given by Vanamonde93 may be part of a pattern. I come across Crawford88 from time to time and have often thought them to be at best an apologist for Hindutva and at worst an outright proponent of it. Nothing wrong with holding an opinion, of course, but when one's political etc philosophy becomes self-evident in one's edits across a range of articles then it suggests that neutral editing is unlikely to be at the forefront. Recent examples include a spat (with associated edit warring) at Talk:Koenraad_Elst#Feb,_2018 and unexplained removals of categories relating to far-right politics in India around 18 April, eg here and here. Let's not make any bones about it: Hindu nationalism is regularly described as a fascist philosophy and anyone who thinks otherwise is going to have to work hard to support their opinion. We are not censored; Crawford88 should not be censoring. - Sitush ( talk) 13:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Crawford88
|
| Rafe87 has now been notified properly of discretionary sanctions and the assumption is that they fully understand the editing restrictions and behavioral expectations involved in the area. -- NeilN talk to me 16:27, 12 May 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 Rafe87
Moreover, the section of anti-Arabism in Israel falls into ARBPIA. Therefore, per
third bullet of ARBPIA,
Discussion concerning Rafe87Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Rafe87Statement by ShrikeNeilN This is correct but now that he know.He have a chance to self revert.-- Shrike ( talk) 13:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by TheGracefulSlick
Statement by (username)Result concerning Rafe87
|