| Username blocked; also topic banned for six months. T. Canens ( talk) 18:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Dinner for three
Dinner for three ( talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account created with the sole aim of hounding an ideological opponent, Lunch for Two ( talk · contribs) (whose name he evidently apes) [1]. He was earlier editing as 213.226.17.10 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). Dinner for three has been permanently engaged in edit-warring across multiple articles ever since. He routinely resorts to revert-warring just below 3RR as his first and only response to a conflict. He never initiates discussion on talk pages, but likes to tell others to do so in his edit summaries while reverting. He persistently calls his opponent a vandal at every opportunity. Most recent edit-wars:
(and parallel edit-wars on about a dozen similar village articles [2] [3])
Unconstructive edit summary: [8] ("Edit war is not nice, use the talk instead.") – However, Dinner never posted on the talkpage himself. Similarly here: [9] (demands: "Discuss before removing", but never touches the talk page himself.)
Discussion concerning Dinner for threeStatement by Dinner for threeI know that Future wants to get me banned, but I have nothing against Lunch for Two and neither I was edit-warring against Future's warnings (except in Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect and I will explain for what below). I probably mistaked with this username, but if Lunch for Two feels offended I will change my name and apologize to him. I haven't spotted him offended but I have to admit that I don't know what he thinks. "Rv vandal and Undo vandal" which I used could sometimes mean "Reverting vandalism" but I will use the "." since now, to looks as "Rv vandal.". I also don't think that this was continuosly WP:GAME, I created my username on that way and that was all. Future claims "Dinner for three has been permanently engaged in edit-warring across multiple articles ever since", but after he warned me to stop edit-warring at the Greek villages here I haven't touched them. After the warning I limited myself and edited only Bulgarians, Talk:Bulgarians, Talk:Macedonian language and Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect, but his second and final warning came and the reason was because I reverted his deletion at Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect - I reverted because he deleted entire extra-sourced table with the features of the dilect, his justification was that the section has WP:SYNTH, the questonable SYNTH was only in the intro and in the camparising with two Bulgarian dialects, instead to delete only what he claims as SYNTH, he deleted the entire paragraph with all the well-sourced feutares and that was probably because they doesn't support him at Talk:Macedonian language. I am not going to edit war in this page anymore, but such deletion of information, even with third-party sources, should not happen and an admin should check the history of this page. A day-two after I wrote a user's message that I would support him here at AE, and as a result I found me reported with such messege "Since you were heading to WP:AE anyway, please see the report on yourself there". I really think that is not honest to be reported as a result of support of a user at AE or edit-war after one warning and it was even reverting Future's deletion, and I have even listening to him when he has posting me the warnings, seriously. As for his statement – "However, Dinner never posted on the talkpage himself. Similarly here: [11]" he deleted the referenced table added in 2008, he cleraly should discuss before removing it. -- Dinner for three ( talk) 21:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Dinner for threeMost of these clashes/disputes could have been avoided if Wikipedia adopted generic tags for the languages of the Slavic speakers in northern Greece (as I have suggested on the talk page at Macedonian languages) instead of allowing the continuation of the creeping irredentist POV of the "Republic of Macedonia" that Fut Perf, thus far, has strongly supported. There will likely be many more edit wars and disputes by editors interested in Balkan topics as a result. All of these disputes are unnecessary. If giving any Slavic language a name to a regional or national group of speakers in Greece is difficult or impossible all you need to do is bag it and tag it as Slavic speakers of Macedonia (Greece) or Slavic speakers of northern Greece. I promise you that Bulgarians, Greeks, and Serbians will have no reasonable reason to object. Doing anything else is WP:OR because Wikipedia articles package "Macedonian ethnicity" with "Macedonian language" and there has not yet been a formal decision on the final name for the "Republic of Macedonia". It just won't stick. I know that this is unsatisfactory to linguists. I know that "Macedonians" will continue to attempt to place their irredentist POV on articles but three out of four of the involved Balkan nations will be happy. The alternative will be to place up to three Slavic names (all of which will look almost identical) on every article with a dispute and to put up with edit wars as they shuffle for position. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 01:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Volunteer Marek Both of these accounts are very recent. I'm guessing that what happened here is that one (trouble) user got up to using a new account, then another (trouble) user realized that that was what was going on and created a new account as a comment on the previous new account. Just freaking ban'em both. They (both of them) think they're being funny but they're just being dumb and immature and embarrassing whatever POV it is they're trying to push. It's people having some fun at your (Wikipedia and specifically WP:AE) expense and you're all treating it as some kind of serious stuff. There's folks chuckling over this somewhere. Volunteer Marek 02:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning Dinner for three
What's next, Breakfast for one? T. Canens ( talk) 20:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Closing: Under the authority of WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, Dinner for three ( talk · contribs) is banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Balkans, broadly construed across all namespaces, for six months. This topic ban is to run consecutively to the username block that I will apply in a moment (i.e., the six-month clock will start to run when the account is renamed). T. Canens ( talk) 18:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC) |
| Blocked 72 hours for 1RR violation, and formally warned of ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. T. Canens ( talk) 18:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Modinyr
I sympathize with admins who are tired of seeing AE requests in this area, however I believe this is the first I ever submitted. Modinyr repeatedly removes well sourced and accurate text from this article without explanation. Talk page contribution is just empty disruptive noise, not a single source actually discussed on its contents.
Discussion concerning ModinyrStatement by ModinyrComments by others about the request concerning ModinyrHe does not appear to have been notified of the AE sanctions, save for some vague threat about 1rr on his talk page from the filing editor himself. Note also he is a newbie, his entire WP history consists of 150 edits.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Modinyr
Blocked 72 hours for the 1RR violation. T. Canens ( talk) 00:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC) |
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Soosim
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- nableezy - 14:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC) 14:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Soosim ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 13:53, 20 September 2011 Reverting without discussing making a false claim of consensus
- 13:58, 16 September 2011 Blanket revert without discussion
- 13:27, 16 September 2011 Removal of reliable source and content with a false claim of unreliability, see explanation below
- 13:27, 16 September 2011 False edit summary, claims to be removing unreliable source but is only adding unsourced content and making POV edits (AI claims to do such and such)
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
The user has not been formally notified of the case, however he or she has participated in past AE threads so is aware. See [14], [15], [16]
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This editor removed the word occupied from the article Ariel University Center of Samaria on 15 September then again on 16 September (just outside of a 1RR violation). A talk page section was opened about this issue on the 15th. Since that time, no editor has made any comment supporting the removal of the term (the talk page section at the time of this request looked is here). Soosim disregards the talk page section and once again reverts the inclusion of that word, falsely claiming a consensus for his or her edit.
Another example of the user reverting without discussion is at International law and Israeli settlements. The edit listed above is a blanket revert (as seen in this diff). The edit in question is the subject of much discussion on the talk page, yet the editor has made no effort to participate and instead has chosen to revert without so much as a comment in the edit summary.
At Amnesty International, the editor removed this source and the material it was supporting, claiming that a peer reviewed article published in an academic journal is an unreliable source. This type of disingenuous editing, where top quality sources are removed at the same time that unsourced commentary is added, and done solely because of political motivations, is not acceptable.
At the very least, the editor should be notified of the case and informed that repeatedly reverting without comment is not an acceptable editing practice.
- Soosim, nobody commented about the issue on the talk page except for me. Epeefleche commented on whether or not there should be a citation in the lead, he did not however justify his edit, or yours, removing the term from the sentence. Nobody did. To claim there is a consensus when nobody has made any comment, much less provided an actual reason, in support of said consensus is a misunderstanding, to put it mildly, of what consensus is. I am not looking for you to be banned, but I would like you to be notified of the case and for somebody to remind you that repeatedly reverting without discussion is unacceptable editing practice. nableezy - 16:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Soosim
Statement by Soosim
nableezy - i am a bit surprised at the speed with which this took place. at 14:31 you responded to my comment on the ariel u talk page. you had said on own talk page that you wanted me to revert or you would report me to this AE board. and yet, at 14:33, you already have an entire report posted about all of the edits, and links, previous AE comments of mine, etc. very impressive.
anyway, as i said on the ariel u talk page, the consensus seemed to be that we would include the west bank in the lead, but not mention 'occupied' nor the 'israeli military occupation', etc. and even though i felt strongly that the entire issue of the boycott should not be in the lead, i did agree to it, and even edited it in. and there were others who commented as well, but you kept complaining that editors were 'completely ignoring the issue' (this came up several times).
in addition, you also said that no one commented on the talk page discussion for five days, and yet, about 18 hours earlier that your comment, Epeefleche had commented (and other editors a few days before that, etc.).
i appreciate you bringing up my past AE comments - i hope that they show that despite my strong tendencies to edit carefully, i do try to be fair to all (and not only to those who agree with me). from your note above: [17], [18], [19]
the blanket revert you mention above - i did not challenge you on it. it was clearly a mistake and in fact, you can look at my 4 years of editing, i rarely do it (won't say 'never', but it is rare - and certainly for anything controversial)
and lastly, on the amnesty intl page - you can clearly see that it was some sort of malfunction on the computer. that is, i did indeed remove the academic info since the source quoted was actually quoting some other source, and hence, becomes tainted. as for the subsequent edit, i did not mean to do that, and thank you for pointing it out. i would never change 'international' to 'western', etc. puh-leeze. i seem to recall that i was reverting someone's vandalism of the page at the time.
if there is any other info you need, please ask me directly - i am always happy to comment and to cooperate (as my record shows - even when involved in potentially warring situations). Soosim ( talk) 15:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Soosim
This is a brightline violation of 1RR. At the very least notification, probably a topic ban on article space of a month (not including talk pages) to promote BRD.-- Cerejota ( talk) 16:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- where was there a violation of 1RR? (there were two separate edits - the second of which actually included the contested info, and in any case, they were about 32 hours apart (not 'just outside of a 1RR violation' as nableezy said above -- also, the rule is 24 hours for a reason!) Soosim ( talk)
Result concerning Soosim
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Cleaghyre
Discussion concerning CleaghyreStatement by CleaghyreThis is conspiracy Accusation: Skäpperöd (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Decision: Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Both people seems to Serafins's sic The historical/ scientific argument argument no important only: "No matter whether this is a Serafin/EEML/whoever's sock or not, Kotniski should be instantly relieved from having to deal with this person." THIS IS A TIME THAT THIS KIND OF CONSPIRATORS/EDITORS BE PUT OUT OF LINE. Comments by others about the request concerning CleaghyreResult concerning CleaghyreIndef-blocked as likely sock and battleground account. Should probably have been done earlier. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
|
| No action, due to assurance of improved behavior. The editor is advised to keep his name off this noticeboard as either the source or target of complaints for the next three months. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Jonchapple
The edit summary was a clear and deliberate personal attack, and while childish in my opinion an attack all the same. The edit itself was just plain disruptive and in response to an edit I made on another article. The editor has been abusive on articles [22] [23] [24] and article talk pages and has been asked to stop by other editors, 13:14, 15 September 2011 and again 13:53, 15 September 2011. They want to create disruption, 12:37, 15 September 2011. Anyone who knows the dispute over this flag will know this is disruptive. I have ignored the constant snide remarks by this group of editors, [25] [26] [27] [28] who despite being challenged and asked to stop [29] [30], this editor defends it [31] and the bad faith attacks continue [32].
Discussion concerning JonchappleI believe I made the "see also" edit that Jonchapple removed, after Domer48 removed a similar "see also" edit I had made at Volunteer (Irish republican). I've no doubt Domer48 made his reversion in good faith, as I have no doubt that Jonchapple did likewise, presumably in the interests of symmetry. I have no problem with either reversion. I suppose I just don't see the issue here that would merit this kind of report. Ivor Stoughton ( talk) 23:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Statement by JonchappleOne, I'm not responsible for anyone else's edits but my own, so quite why you've cited a number of diffs by other editors is beyond me. Two, nothing you have pointed out is abusive or disruptive, and I've broken no terms of my probation. I was short (but not abusive) with the IP, because it's clearly a disruptive single-purpose sock, and most likely one of a banned user – like Vintagekits, who showed up again recently, still up to his old tricks. And yes, that edit summary addressed to you certainly was childish, but when one is being followed around Wikipedia by someone hell-bent on disrupting their editing purely because they don't share a similar ideology and they want them out the way, patience does tend to wear a bit thin. I have asked nicely on a number of occasions to please stop constantly stalking my edits; now kindly do so. JonC Talk 22:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Ivor, it wasn't the edit itself, it's because I said "Dumbo". JonC Talk 23:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC) A three-month topic ban for saying "Dumbo48". Sheesh. On a related note, where would be the best place to take my hounding case? I assume it won't be looked at here. Thanks, JonC Talk 06:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC) One more thing – is this entirely appropriate? JonC Talk 07:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning JonchappleDomer48 is simply trying to lump me in this simply because i've reported them at AN/I for disruptive behaviour, as well as having to open a Dispute Resolution case because of their failure to collaborate. Am i guilty for calling Domer48 a disruptive editor when he being disruptive? Yes. However it is qualified according to WP:Disruptive editing as he is preventing the improvement of Wikipedia with his failure to collaborate. Domer48 says unfounded accusations? I've provided the evidence for some of my allegations of his disruptive behaviour at AN/I along with evidence of where they are canvassing and making ad hominem comments in an attempt to undermine and discredit me in a hope a descision goes their way. If Domer48's examples are looked at, you'll see there is no smoke without fire. If diffs are required they can be provided, however there is no point as Domer48 is not the editor under the microscope here so there is no point in discussing his behaviour in detail - otherwise this whole post will constitute ad hominem rather than trying to defend myself. I don't see why Domer48 has dropped me in here seeing as i haven't fallen foul of any enforcement Troubles related or otherwise. Me being dragged into this is simply a case of WP:BOOMERANG on Domer48's behalf in my opinion. Mabuska (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Jonchapple
|
| No action |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Mabuska
Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.
The editor has been editing in clearly disruptive manner. This includes personal attacks on editors, [49] [50] [ [51] [52] [53] and dispite both myself [54] and other editors asking them to stop [55] [56] and [57] [58] [59] it has continued with more examples if required.
Discussion concerning MabuskaStatement by Mabuska
The only way i can be considered guilty of breeching 1RR is in spirit because my second revert was my own edit made with the simple intention of using it as an example.
Simple fact is Domer48 is seeking revenge for the fact i had to haul them before ANI for their disruptive beahaviour. A discussion where i think every editor involved has said something negative about Domer48 and his behaviour or user and talk page. The fact Doemr48 is constantly persuing making ad hominem statements about me is very uncivil and an act of character assassination because things aren't going their way at the AN/I or Dispute Resolution. The rest of Domer48's ad hominem statements are disassembled here, here, and the second last comment of my mine on this article talk page. If anyone appears to be doing shopping for backup it would be Domer48. WP:BOOMERANG comes to mind and i have reported this at your AN/I Domer48. What Domer48 is really after i believe is to get me banned from certain articles so that their opinion can't be debated against as they are having a hard time as it is trying to currently backup their opinion on the article he claims i'm guilty of breeching 1RR. Mabuska (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning MabuskaDiffs 2 through 6 have no intervening edits, so the only diffs that should be considered are this (first one) and this (the rest). -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Mabuska
Agree with Sarek about Domer's evidenciary diffs, and in this instance although Mambuska's edits might technically be on thin ice (ie 1RR on WP:TROUBLES articles) I don't think this can be regarded as a violation. |
| No action. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Nanobear
I myself have commented on Russavia's positive contributions and echo Nanobear's statements in that regard. That said, the personal attacks and blame games and accusations of harassment—especially coming from someone who was permanently banned, as Offliner, from Wikipedia for an off-Wiki attack as a direct result of their participation as an accuser in the EEML case—must stop. Everyone decries the polarization and acrimony. If, however, we wish the acrimony to cease, we cannot tolerate this sort of grossly offensive personal attack relitigating the past. As my prior complaints to Nanobear about this sort of conduct have been met by his accusing me of personal attacks (diffs possible if needed), I have no recourse but to seek administrative action.
[68] [69] had been prompted by WikEd, creating additional header
Discussion concerning NanobearStatement by NanobearThis is just sad. We just lost one of our best and most productive editors - now I suppose Vecrumba wants me to retire too? This is exactly why I have not edited much in the last 3 months. Nanobear ( talk) 20:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC) Response(s) by Vecrumba@Nanobear, you have ignored my repeated complaints. There is an entire encyclopedia to edit, yet you choose to spend your time on personal attacks. What I want is for the acrimonious attacks fomenting your allegations regarding events to cease. It is for others to decide appropriate action, as I said, there is an entire encyclopedia to edit. I agree that coming to this point is sad, I have no joy in taking this action, I am not rubbing my hands in glee over some opportunity to "stick it to you."
PЄTЄRS @Colchicum, for a while I believed Nanobear in his desire to move on from the past, and there were glimpses of hope. So, in actuality, it is my raised expectations which have been dashed as opposed to simply arriving here to complain about something I have come to expect. (And wouldn't that normally be a problem?)
PЄTЄRS @ Greyhood, I am unaware of any "unpleasant" circumstances of Russavia's retirement, I certainly have not acted against him in any way on or off Wiki and our non-personal contacts over content in the recent past were not unwelcome. Nanobear could have chosen to be gracious without spending most of his post on a personal attack. Do you advocate I choose to doom myself to Nanobear smearing myself and others with impunity for all time?
PЄTЄRS
Being that I have not asked that Nanobear be blocked, it's very informative that even a word to Nanobear to exhibit politeness or offer a simply apology for having gotten carried away is not in order—so thank you for letting me know where I stand, meaning also, of course, that my inquiries above are merely rhetorical unless you'd like to chat on my talk page. It would appear we are done here, so please feel free to archive. Best,
PЄTЄRS Comments by others about the request concerning NanobearVecrumba, please, let them alone, Nadobear is Nanobear, what else would you expect from him? Very melodramatic, but nobody is going to believe that R. is seriously considering retirement. Just don't read his rants. Colchicum ( talk) 20:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
@Vecrumba, the situation is highly unpleasant and non-benefitial for Wikipedia, and there is no need to make it even more so. I don't see your name in Nanobear's post, and given that the situation is rather special, you might have better just ignored it. GreyHood Talk 20:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Nanobear
I'm not seeing anything here that requires a warning or a sanction. Anyone else? NW ( Talk) 06:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
|
| Filer and respondent placed under standard-terms Troubles probation for two and six months respectively. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Domer48
Whilst i know that this may be seen as a tit-for-tat in response to Domer48's recent filing of an Enforcement against me for alleged breeches of 1RR however Domer48 has unquestionably breeched it and has to be reported for it regardless of possible concerns of tit-for-tat. The section and inline tags are fully justified whilst the issue is still being discussed. Once the issue has been resolved then they can be removed without question after whatever resolutions agreed are enacted. The reverting of the rewording of the sentence in question is also problematic as it distorts the source quote to imply something that it doesn't state. Even though the DRN has now been closed, it was referred to by the closing mediator to WP:ORN, with the mediator's personal preference being a RfC, to which i have opened one at the articles talk page prior to the closure of the DRN discussion. So the issue hasn't been resolved and there is no justification for these reversions all of which have occured within 24 hours.
Notification to user: User_talk:Domer48#Arbitration_Enforcement_notification
Discussion concerning Domer48Statement by Domer48Having been made aware of a second revert, I have self reverted keeping in line with Arb Resolutions. Thanks-- Domer48 'fenian' 13:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Reply to Mkativerata: Dispute resolution was not in process. You do not open a RFC at 23:14, 25 September 2011, having just removed the information the request was for 21:37, 25 September 2011. As was pointed out above, I addressed the issue on the clarification tag the Volunteers were the "institution", and I addressed the issue on the text by moving the text the relevance of which was disputed to the appropriate article with these edits here, so the tag was removed. Now the filing editor described my actions (not in a nice way} as me backing down from their arguement and trying to compromise which is hardly the actions of an editor trying to be disruptive. SO my edits were not disruptive, and my self revert was definitely not so your suggestion is with substance.-- Domer48 'fenian' 21:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Reply to Mkativerata: Could you please say were this "editing warring" was, because it was not in these edits, [81] added sources added source added sourced text [82] added source [83] replaced sourced text added sourced text and move text per WP:DRN [84] added source plus the edits I addressed above. It is not in WP:3RR or WP:1RR. -- Domer48 'fenian' 22:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Domer48First two diffs provided can be counted as one as no other editor made a edit between and when an editor makes an edit which clarifies the text then they remove the tag. So we have one edit that was self reverted. Also funny that Mabuska wants sanctions imposed for what he considers a breach of 1RR when it can be seen above in his own report that he breached 1RR with no apparent sanctions being imposed. Mo ainm ~Talk 18:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Domer48
Why shouldn't sanctions be imposed in respect of both editors for engaging in an edit war on the article while dispute resolution was in process about the very issues to which the dispute resolution related? -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
|
| Malleus formally notified of WP:ARB911 discretionary sanctions by NuclearWarfare ( talk · contribs). No further action taken. T. Canens ( talk) 21:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Malleus Fatuorum
WP:ARB911#Discretionary sanctions
Failure to assume good faith:
Violations of civility:
I have been editing
September 11 attacks for about 2 years now. Malleus Fatuorum is a relative newcomer to the article. In that short time, he's made various complaints about the article. This, of course, is perfectly fine. Constructive criticism is welcome and encouraged. The problem is that when other editors disagree with him, he launches into attacks against those editors, accusing them of not editing in good faith, questioning their honesty, intelligence level and just making other uncivil comments. This isn't just a few isolated diffs, but an overall pattern that's promoting a toxic,
battleground-like atmosphere on the article talk page.
A Quest For Knowledge (
talk) 16:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC) @Richerman: Yes, Malleus Fatuorum said he would not have
anything else to do with the article.(08:06, September 24, 2011) But he has not stopped. Here he is again, this time making accusations against yet another editor.
"Your strategy of chasing editors away with the kind of intimidation..." (22:51, September 24, 2011)
A Quest For Knowledge (
talk) 13:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Malleus FatuorumStatement by Malleus FatuorumThis request for sanctions against me is a step on a very slippery road. I became the target of the editors of the 9/11 article when I challenged its GA listing here, after having seen it fail at FAC. This is a very clear and deliberate attempt to eliminate anyone who disagrees with the current organisation and content of the article, of which I am far from being the only one. But as one of the few non-administrators with the balls to tell it like it is I'm obviously considered to be an easy target. If any sanctions are needed, then they're needed against A Quest For Knowledge, and several others who have systematically sought to chase non-Americans away from their precious memorial to the events of 9/11. Malleus Fatuorum 03:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Malleus FatuorumThere has very recently been an ANI thread about Malleus and the 9/11 article that was closed as no administrative action needed at this time. Ladyof Shalott 16:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Agree with others here, this looks like some "ban-shopping". Volunteer Marek 17:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC) Malleus was only yesterday notified of the arbitration conditions (as is a requirement of the conditions) - this report - if I was an admin I would close it on sight and I would warn, even perhaps block the reporter, (but that's just me) ban shopping/running to mummy call it what you like but its an attacking unnecessary report. - Off2riorob ( talk) 17:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Re to AQ4K. Technically you're right. You asked for The 911AC "Sanction or remedy to be enforced" which I guess is strictly speaking different than asking for a ban. Nowhere in the request did you say you were just looking for some kind of contrition from MF (and if you know MF, good luck with that). Usually when people come here to AE they're looking to get people they don't like banned. If your only purpose was to get MF to apologize or something, then you're wasting your time, and that of others. Volunteer Marek 21:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC) @AQ4K, regarding your quotation of Malleus's comment about driving editors away, I don't find that abusive. I suspect there's at least a minority opinion he's right.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Just close this already with either no sanction or no sanction and a warning to AQ4K and quit wasting people's time. This is another one of those things that can easily become an unnecessary drama magnet for folks with a grudge, or in some cases ones with an anti-grudge. Volunteer Marek 01:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC) I've been appalled by MF's behavior since he appeared on the September 11 attacks talk page. Despite any warnings which he may have been given, he hasn't shown any interest in improving his behavior, that I've seen. I've seen the arbitration sanctions abused in the past for petty matters, but if there were ever a case where their use seems appropriate, I would think this is it. AQFK summarized everything very well in making this request, and I think he deserves credit for a job well done. I don't understand the desire by some here to ignore the problem, although perhaps there has been something going on that I haven't seen. As with AQFK, I am not requesting any particular sanctions; I just want to see the arrogant behavior by MF come to an end. Wildbear ( talk) 02:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Malleus has stated to me that he is no longer interested in the article, however he has still made a comment or two since.-- MONGO 11:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Malleus Fatuorum
I don't really see why admins at this board here would want to override what was apparently a consensus among admins over at ANI earlier today, that admin action wasn't currently appropriate. People at ANI were already fully aware that the case could potentially fall under this Arbcom rule, and if somebody had wanted to hand out a sanction under it, they could already have done so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Closing as no further action taken. I do not think any AE action here will be beneficial. T. Canens ( talk) 21:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC) |
| Sock. Blocked. T. Canens ( talk) 21:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning MarkBrowne1888
Unnecessary, the 1RR stipulates blocking may occur on the first violation.
A fairly obvious sockpuppet has appeared to reginite a number of edit-wars that had taken place in the past. We have enough problems without this never ending stream of throw-away accounts coming in to start this same crap over an over. Barring an indef block for obvious sockpuppetry, one should be placed for the 1RR violations.
Discussion concerning MarkBrowne1888Statement by MarkBrowne1888These two bullies are just upset that someone else is editing their favourite articles. MarkBrowne1888 ( talk) 18:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning MarkBrowne1888Also edit-warring at Hulda, Israel:
This is quite clearly another sock of Ledenierhomme, and should be blocked indefinitely. RolandR ( talk) 18:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Result concerning MarkBrowne1888
|
Request concerning Cptnono
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Cptnono ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:ARBPIA#Decorum
- Diffs
Cptnono is engaging in very uncivil commentary with elements of racism attached. I will not explain anything, I will just post the text:
- "Not worthy of an apology. Go fuck yourself."
- "Fuck him. Obvious troll is obvious and he can suck on my balls."
- "And topic ban me because this cunt shows what this topic area is. I am done with these assholes. Fuck the middles east,, they are too may problems."
- "Just to get one last word in, we had a GA in the topic area. This will more than likely remain at GA. Anyone who calls for its relegation is a biased jerkoff."
- "Oh I just don't have the heart (still topic ban me if you want). This is a politically biased request from a sock who has introduced a single source to forward a line (Lebanese) that was accepted while disregarding RS saying Israel and also engaging in OR. He has gone far enough that we do not need to AGF. I am commenting on the contributor and not the content but the article has multiple sources and meets GA according to editors who are not completely biased. I am biased though so I do stand behind the middle finger I give to his political beliefs. Good thing I can go work on other GAs while he is just a schmuck. Offer an apology and this is what he does? Gaming little bitch."
- Edit summary: "Fuck him and fuck this artile"
- "And I have requested an enforced break for myself. I simply am bored of this. After seeing a good game, having some drinks, or even getting some pussy I find myself coming on here and yelling at Arabs. It isn't healthy. Screw it. They don't need us. They will still be stuck and I personally get a kick out of it."
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- Blocked on 24 November 2010 by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs) for incivility
- Blocked on 18 May 2011 by AGK ( talk · contribs) for personal attacks.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This user seems to be wanted to be topic banned, if that is the case, he should be blocked as well as topic banned for the extreme and borderline racist nature of comments for an extended period of time. This is especially considering his two previous blocks for civility.
- @T Canens: I understand the first six edits are actionable by a block, and I agree. But I would ask you to reevaluate the seventh diff provided. People who are identifying their editing practices by racial terms do not seem to have a place in the topic. Frustration or not, it is unacceptable. - asad ( talk) 18:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Cptnono
Statement by Cptnono
TCs not enforcement makes no sense. I was clearly in violation of ARBPIA's final decision point 4 (Decorum). I was shocked When TC clarified on my talk page that it was not part of enforcement and said over there that "I don't think a topic ban is appropriate at this time." A civility block is supposed to only be in place to prevent disruption. An arbitration based topic ban can be used for a variety of reasons. So to make a civility block and ignore the decision of ARBPIA makes no sense at all.
I asked AGK to make a topic ban since I think it is needed. He in return asked me to instead abstain from the topic area. I am sure editors who play around on Wikipedia enough know that just not editing a certain page or area takes more willpower than some might have. A hammer over your head is a proper motivator. I have no qualms blaming other editors for my frustration (of course it is not all their fault) since the gaming is too much. It simply isn't worth the hassle to me at this point and I think a topic ban would be beneficial to everyone since I overreact to shenanigans. And I cannot stress enough that even if I find their actions terrible I cannot follow it up with some of the same.
In regards to the whole asdad v bio thing: asdad wasn't involved on the talk pages but jumped at the chance to collect diffs. He also failed to note that two of the diffs were removed within minutes. He did something that Biosketch does often: Overreach. My topic ban should have been assured with the comments that were not removed (No, they were not racist or homophobic. Just pointed and there is no reason to cry wolf over selected portions). So to you Biosketch: Stop worrying about it. You assume others are gaming and you should hold yourself to a higher standard. And to asdad: if anything a BOOMERANG applies to you as well. I would have rather you called me a jerkoff instead of calling a comment I made a "trick", especially since we were discussing a possible edit. Cptnono ( talk) 04:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
And laughed way to hard when I googled "freneminship"(no results) and then realized what was actually being said. Good stuff right there. Someone else will have to do that now! Cptnono ( talk) 05:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yo, where's my topic ban?
Cptnono (
talk) 07:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- TC, can you back up that this is not sanctionable. I assume you cannot but maybe you are thinking something that I am missing. I completely crossed the line. And I don;t plan on doing it again but am pretty sure I will again. Just the way it works. So as a favor to me and the rest of the project, it would be great to impose some sort of topic ban. I don't really care about length (if it is an indef I can come crawling back if I feel I am cooled off enough, but maybe I only need a few months) but do think that a mandated ban would work better than self control. Some admins will do this for blocks. I can go ask one of them if they will do topic bans if you are unwilling for some reason.
Cptnono (
talk) 05:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- There is no civil way to respond to you right now, TC, since you are disregarding the arbitration decision and the blocking policy so much it obviously doesn't matter. I crossed the line completely and any editor who calls another a "cunt", or says to others "fuck off", or even more (as I did) in the topic area should be topic banned. To pretend otherwise is [I can not word this in any way that is acceptable here]. There should be zero issue with topic banning me. The fact that I see it and think it is a good idea makes it clean and perfect. So instead of fucking off on pages I am asking for something that any admin and editor should know is a good thing. Do you want me to be disruptive? I was already disruptive once and you went against the blocking policy while also ignoring arbitration. You obviously are playing a game here since this is a favor that I have asked for to benefit everyone. If you do not want to ban me I can call Nableezy names. Oh oops. I just violated my interaction ban. You better block me instead of topic banning me, hotstuff. Cptnono ( talk) 05:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- And as I have already explained, I can sock back in or abstain. I simly recognize that those are both bad and think the threat of a longer ban or block over my head is beneficial to everyone. So stop playing games and do something right for the project. Anything less than a topic ban is inconsistent and you know it.
Cptnono (
talk) 06:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- So you will block me for a month but you will not topic ban me for 6 months? I have asked for a topic ban and not a block since a block is lame but I think a topic ban would be the push I need in the right direction. Why would you disregard a request that would be beneficial to the project? Instead of stopping disruption you want to risk more based on your high hopes of my self control? Or should I be an even bigger jerk so that you can ban me just to be contrary? I thought I was doing the right thing by asking for a hand but obviously you just want to be contrary. And 1 month would have a lacking precedent. You should now that but you suck as an admin. Cptnono ( talk) 06:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- TC, can you back up that this is not sanctionable. I assume you cannot but maybe you are thinking something that I am missing. I completely crossed the line. And I don;t plan on doing it again but am pretty sure I will again. Just the way it works. So as a favor to me and the rest of the project, it would be great to impose some sort of topic ban. I don't really care about length (if it is an indef I can come crawling back if I feel I am cooled off enough, but maybe I only need a few months) but do think that a mandated ban would work better than self control. Some admins will do this for blocks. I can go ask one of them if they will do topic bans if you are unwilling for some reason.
Cptnono (
talk) 05:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Cptnono
Statement by Biosketch (involved)
It should be pointed out that the hands of the editor filing this Request are far from clean. User:Asad112 is a single-purpose account who makes no meaningful contribution to the Project. His edits have an exceedingly high mortality rate on account of their POV-pushy and well-poisoning nature.
Here's a brief sample going back to August:
- 3 August – refers to Israeli settlements as colonies using Wikipedia's voice
- 6 August – reverts an edit for no valid reason, disregarding discussion and WP:BOP
- 9 August – mendaciously attributes to me a dislike for the Palestinian flag
- 19 August – rewords an article to hide that Israel was credited with a world record
- 31 August – falsely summarizes an edit as a wording correction
- 9 September and 9 September – pushes the word settlement three times into the lead paragraph of an article— Biosketch ( talk) 10:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Most of those edits are fine. The Golan Heights is not in Israel according to almost the entire world, from the UN Security Council down. The residents of Majdal Shams are mostly not even Israeli citizens. Moreover, that Ariel is a settlement is the single fact about it most noted in reliable sources, so writing that in an article seems fine to me. However, I agree that he should not have described your removal of the Palestinian flag from the WikiProject Palestine info box as being because you dislike it. Zero talk 16:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Also, contemporary Israeli settlements are often described as Israeli colonies in serious books by serious people because that is one of the things they are. They are settlements, colonies, villages, communities, sometimes suburbs, neighborhoods, sometimes cities, and all sorts of other things. They're described in all of these ways to varying extents by sources. You won't find the word "colony" in the Israeli settlement article though which I assume is either an oversight or misguided censorship.
Sean.hoyland -
talk 17:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- @ User:Sean.hoyland. See, this is when it's confusing trying to determine which Sean.hoyland is talking. The Sean.hoyland on 3 August 2011 reverted User:Asad112 with the edit summary, "population centres should be settlements, the standard NPOV term." The Sean.hoyland now, on the other hand, is insisting that it's alright to ascribe the word "colonies" to Wikipedia's voice. Well you were right the first time. And WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is clear that "Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution." I didn't write that. It's policy. Editors are expected to follow policy regardless of their biases, otherwise they risk having certain privileges suspended. @ User:Zero0000. You've missed the point. The argument isn't over whether the Golan Heights are in Israel or not; it's whether Israel had made the largest bowl of Tabbouleh or not. And that simply isn't for you or me or Asad112 or IP 12.130.50.103 to decide. Guinness credited Israel per reliable sources. That's the reality. Asad112 oughtn't to have edited Israel out of the article, regardless of his feelings toward that country or where Majdal Shams is. @ User:Timotheus Canens. Timotheus, you know that after he married Beryl Hovius in the 1920s, the young John Dillinger served almost ten years in jail for stealing $50 from a convenience store. It was that excessive prison term, they say, that hardened him into the notorious bandit he later became. You have before you a constructive editor who's tried on numerous occasions to engage you at eye level in an effort to improve his interactions with this Noticeboard, only to have his endeavors repeatedly ignored. I directed you to a query on the Discussion page regarding the scope of ARBPIA. You've not replied. I've asked you for clarification on your Talk page regarding what qualifies as a stale diff. You've not replied. Not to sound condescending but remember that the purpose of sanctions is to prevent, not to punish; and in keeping with that spirit, one would expect threats of sanction to be accompanied by earlier attempts to genuinely resolve whatever the issue is. It's been my experience here that ill-faithed coatracking by opposing editors attends nearly every case discussed at AE. I can cite plenty of times where users made serious accusations against me that had nothing to do with the AE proper and no Admin saw fit to reprove them for it. In my case, however, per the dictum Serious accusations require serious evidence, I made it a point to substantiate my argument against Asad112 with diffs, as is policy. When the diffs against User:Supreme Deliciousness were deemed irrelevant on account of their having nothing to do with I/P, that was understandable. Now the diffs are clearly within the scope of I/P and even more clearly related to the editor filing the Request, but they're still being deemed irrelevant. Not only that but you're using them to try to support a claim to the effect that I'm "attempting to derail an AE thread," which is a quintessentially bad-faithed assumption. Asad112 himself encouraged me to submit the diffs as a separate AE, but it wasn't ever their intention to shift the focus away from User:Cptnono to begin with. Lastly, regarding the claim that I have "a history of filing frivolous or otherwise inactionable AE requests," that claim doesn't stand up to an objective account of my history here. The first AE I ever brought resulted in a six-month topic ban of a user; the second resulted in a user redacting a personal attack against me; and the third resulted in a user being warned against personal attacks. The fourth and fifth were therefore the only inactionable Requests, with only the fifth being unequivocally so. This one, number six, if you wish to call it that, wasn't a Request at all. It was a comment, made in earnest, in the spirit of WP:BEBOLD, supported by actual diffs.— Biosketch ( talk) 08:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Biosketch, allow me to clarify then. There is one Sean.hoyland. I try to just treat information as information and I have no emotional response to words that describe these objects. I also try to find compromise in the midst of mini-edit wars which is what your diff shows. Context is everything as you well know. Settlement is indeed the standard term in the limited sense that it is a modal term. However, there's no policy based reason to insist that the term "settlement" is used in all cases to the exclusion of all others in an article. To do so would be inconsistent with the usage distribution that is apparent from sampling reliable sources as far as I'm concerned. For example, I have no problem with a caption like "A neighbourhood in Ariel, home to...etc" in the lead image in the Israeli settlement article. It doesn't need to say "The Israeli settlement of Ariel". It's already clear from the context that it is a settlement. I don't see any difference between the occasional use of the word community, colony, city, neighborhood, or other terms instead of settlement in an article about a settlement or settlements as long as the article makes it clear somewhere that it is referring to Israeli settlement(s) at the earliest opportunity and links to the appropriate article. It's not a big deal or it shouldn't be. I don't see someone using terms other than settlement as unambiguous evidence of "unclean hands" or POV pushing. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. In this case it's a non-issue. You've made statements about Asad, an editor in good standing, who as far as I can tell has a net positive impact on policy compliance. Your evidence doesn't appear to support your conclusions. How many times has Asad made edits like this which I assume, according to you, would be good edits ? Did you check ? It would be unfortunate if an alarm only went off for the term "colony" but not for terms like "residential neighborhood" etc. What I strongly object to is the characterization of an editor using a word like "colony" as "POV-pushy" and having a "well-poisoning nature". I've seen a lot of irrational nonsense about language in this topic area over the years, claims that words like settlement and colony, words that sensible, respectable sources use, dehumanize and delegitimize etc. When I see you complain the same way about editors who use words like "residential neighborhood", "community" or any other CAMERA-friendly word apart from settlement I will believe that you are using rational decision procedures and being fair. Right now it just looks like bias. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- re hardened him into the notorious bandit he later became. - Are you suggesting you're going to become a notorious bandit? You've already got the notoriety thing down I guess....
- re prevent, not to punish - Ever consider that Canens is trying to prevent you from clogging up WP:AE with your relentless wikilawyering?
- re fourth and fifth were therefore the only inactionable Requests - Oh please, you've launched gripes on user pages and etiquette that were pretty frivolous. NickCT ( talk) 12:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Statement by Malik Shabazz (involved)
Cptnono is extremely frustrated, as are many of us, that a new editor is exhibiting outrageous WP:IDHT behavior. User:Veritycheck started edit-warring at Falafel as an IP and opened an account to continue. Despite the view of several editors that Veritycheck's proposal is WP:SYNTH, Veritycheck has continued to edit war. Now Veritycheck has asked for a GA reassessment on the basis that the article isn't stable (I wonder why that is?) and asked for mediation.
Cptnono is one of two editors who brought Falafel to GA status, and I don't blame Cptnono for feeling frustrated. Cptnono should have used nicer language, but I don't fault Cptnono one bit for feeling as frustrated as she/he does. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 16:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- ""Fuck him. Obvious troll is obvious and he can suck on my balls." is inexcusable no matter how frustrated one is. I agree Cptnono is a productive editor in the ARBPIA area, but he has seriously un-addressed issues with civility - and has show signs of getting worse rather than better, in particular with "new" POV pushers. On the one hand, I do not edit ARBPIA that much anymore because nablezzy and cptnono (among others) freneminship keeps the place more or less clean of the most awful POV stuff, on the other hand, its really nasty to work in a topic when homophobic slurs are thrown around for fun. Frustration is a mitigating factor, but given that Wikifan12345 was recently indef topic banned from ARBPIA for a 1RR vio that s/he self-reverted in 30 minutes, ignoring Cptnono's behavior would be very unfair. At the very least a stern declaration against Cptnono's routine NPA and incivility should be given and mandated civility mentorship be entered. Of course, there are some WP:BOOMERANG issues here, but as we known, these kinds of SPAs always self-implode eventually, and always will exist, so WP:ROPE. -- Cerejota ( talk) 16:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning Cptnono
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- Cptnono is blocked for 72 hours due to incivility and personal attacks; the frustration is understandable, but the method chosen to express that frustration is quite unwise. I don't think a topic ban is appropriate at this time.
- I see nothing actionable in Biosketch's list of diffs, which is not even related in any way to the subject matter of this thread, which concerns a number of edits related to
Falafel; attempting to derail an AE thread with inactionable claims unrelated to the subject matter is disruptive. Biosketch also has a history of filing frivolous or otherwise inactionable AE requests, and their participation here is not constructive.
Biosketch (
talk ·
contribs) is requested to explain, in 400 words or less, why they should not be banned from
WP:AE, except in cases of enforcement requests filed against themselves.
T. Canens (
talk) 18:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- The difference between self-requested topic bans and self-requested blocks is that the latter is enforced by software - I can make a timed block and forget about it, but a topic ban requires active admin intervention to be actually enforced. I'm also not convinced that admins can impose topic bans under discretionary sanctions without satisfying themselves that the conduct warrants one.
I'm still unconvinced that a topic ban is warranted here, but if any other admin disagree, I will not stand in the way. T. Canens ( talk) 21:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- As AGK put it, "if you want to be topic-banned so badly, then I am sure you are capable of abstaining, without assistance from me, from all edits to the subject area." If you engage in deliberate disruption in an effort to coerce admin action, I'll deal with that by escalating blocks, starting at a month. T. Canens ( talk) 06:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- The difference between self-requested topic bans and self-requested blocks is that the latter is enforced by software - I can make a timed block and forget about it, but a topic ban requires active admin intervention to be actually enforced. I'm also not convinced that admins can impose topic bans under discretionary sanctions without satisfying themselves that the conduct warrants one.
I'll refrain from imposing a sanction on Biosketch at the moment, since this thread is rather stale. Instead, Biosketch is warned that the next time they make a nonconstructive comment or submission at AE, sanctions will be imposed without any further warning or additional opportunity for explanation. T. Canens ( talk) 06:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC) |}
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in
this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see
WP:UNINVOLVED).
- Appealing user
- AgadaUrbanit ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 23:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
- Topic ban imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92#AgadaUrbanit, logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- AGK ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Timotheus Canens ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- EdJohnston ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Notification of that administrator
- The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.
Statement by AgadaUrbanit
- Other discussions
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive96#Carrots_vs._Bananas.2C_WP:DR_and_WP:NPOV
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive97#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_AgadaUrbanit
- Statement
- I've been sanctioned for "clear failure to accept consensus based on a closed RfC". I've
strikedthe offensive comment and would like to apologize for appearance of undermining the authority of uninvolved admin. I've requested clarifications on closing admin talk page and generally my intention was to include all WP:V names in order to satisfy WP:NPOV. I did accept the specific name ratified by the RfC. - Ed mentioned also POV tag placement, but I feel that policy concerns were articulated properly and this action was a proper procedure balancing WP:DGAF and neutrality concerns.
- My first topic ban was three month long and spanned over a single article. The current topic ban is an escalation of sanction severity both in length ( from 3 to 6 months ) and topic area span ( from Gaza War to "any page that relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict" ). This might appear as overreaction and a bit harsh.
- I am a constructive contributor both to other topics of Wikipedia and also relating to I/P topic. See following examples which stick in
Jerusalem, respected by all partisan parties among article editors and assist to avoid endless POV cycles.
- I've closed a long discussion on status of Jerusalem as Israeli capital, accepting uninvolved editor compromise phrasing "capital, though not internationally recognized"
- I have removed Israel as Jerusalem infobox pushpin_map and used neutral Jerusalem map to avoid endless edit warring on Israel vs. Palestine as location.
- I am here to create a neutral encyclopedia. I am not here for advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 09:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Replies to comments
@ZScarpia Some topics in Wikipedia do look like a turf war. For the record the mentioned capital status compromise was suggested by User:BritishWatcher. Now I notice there is also a footnote, since I guess this is a subtle issue. In Troubles topic I was lucky to moderate a consensus under which the gallery of flags in Symbols section of Northern Ireland article was replaced with more aesthetic flax flower - floral symbol of NI, improving consistency with corresponding sections in other articles of Countries of the United Kingdom topic and improving style by avoiding "stack-ups", per MOS:IMAGE. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 19:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Re 22:07, 29 September 2011 Thanks you for compliment, ZScarpia. Honestly I believe that you one of neutral editors in the I/P topic area who indeed are part of the solution and not part of the problem. Another example would be User:Sean.hoyland. I divert, but as far as UK goes, clarification in the introduction section that It is a country in its own right[10][11] makes me think that something is still rotten in that kingdom. Mediation is a complex task, I'm not always proud of results. Another example of my involvement is Stepanakert Airport/ Talk:Stepanakert Airport, my involvement there stopped edit warring, thought imho that article is an example of WP:RECENTISM that still needs some work. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 15:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, as I said to User:AGK here: I've been editing unconstructivly. Considering WP:DGAF the better approach would be tag the article and move on with my life. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 16:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
@Tznkai AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 22:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Statement by AGK
- Briefly: I am happy to give this editor a second chance, and would allow the appeal. AGK [ • 10:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Statement by ZScarpia
For myself, I would have no objection to the appeal being accepted. I wish, though, that AgadaUrbanit had chosen something other than the status of Jerusalem as an example of constructive editing. If a statement which presents the Israeli view as a fact is supposed to be a compromise, I hate to think what the pre-compromise versions looked like. A look at the article talk page archives will show that the dispute about the wording rumbles on. Most recently, a poll was started, but not concluded. ← ZScarpia 17:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
@AgadaUrbanit, 19:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC): I was impressed by the way you responded to the topic ban. Hopefully that can be made to count in your favour. Does this discussion represent your mediation of a solution to the Northern Ireland symbols problem? If so, perhaps the use of the word mediation is a bit of an exaggeration? I'm not familiar with BritishWatcher, but, speaking as someone from the UK, I'd say that, unless its a joke, his or her user page isn't very promising. ← ZScarpia 22:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
@AgadaUrbanit, best of luck with the appeal. ← ZScarpia 13:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Apart from the self-deprecatory remark, I support Boris's statement of October 2. ← ZScarpia 18:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Statement by BorisG
This was an unusual case where, from memory, AU actively supported the sanction him/herself. I thought the sanction was over the top, especially in its breadth, but since AU actively supported it, it was pointless to argue otherwise. AU is a very useful contributer to Wikipedia (unlike me), and his reinstatement will benefit the topic area. Cheers. - BorisG ( talk) 13:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Statement by Nableezy
Sorry, but I dont understand what you want me to comment on. The initial sanction? This specific appeal? Whether or not AU should have his ban shortened? nableezy - 15:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- All right, here goes.
- The initial sanction: Obviously I felt, and feel, the initial sanction was warranted. After years of edit-warring over this very issue, with blocks and topic bans handed out to all sides, an RFC was held. I still feel that making us go through such a process was vexatious, as I dont think that a valid rationale was ever provided for the exclusion of the contested term from the lead. But no matter, the RFC was held and closed with a consensus to include the term. AU immediately reverted that inclusion and said there is still no consensus. When told of the RFC he made no comment. When brought here his single comment was to tell me you are welcome. He made no comment here until an admin commented, and then initially refused to self-revert the edit. He did then self-revert, but his behavior at the talk page following that revert gave little indication of an attempt to abide by either the RFC or the content policies. He made several edits to the lead, attempting to force in material based on sources that he clearly did not understand, even admitted to using google translate for sources in a language he does not understand. Following this, he attempted to repeatedly deflect from the issue of his edits, both at the AE thread and the article talk page. See his comments in the AE request about me. So, in sum, I think the sanction was wholly justified.
- This appeal: Compared to the last two "appeals" by AU, this one might merit consideration. However, those last two "appeals" cannot be simply ignored. The first attempt at an appeal, the odd "carrots, bananas, whatever" section, was very obviously, at least to somebody familiar with the user and the content, an attempt at arguing about the close of the RFC. He was banned from doing so, but the section was such a mess that I dont think many people actually understood what he was doing. This is a regular issue with AU, he thinks he is doing something the right way but is doing so in a manner that is nearly unintelligible. There are numerous times where I have literally no clue what he is going on about. The second "appeal" was more straightforward, it was an attempt at once again arguing the close of the RFC and a specific edit made following that close. He was, still, banned from doing so. Both of those "appeals" demonstrate one thing about AU. He will continue to edit in exactly the same manner that led to the current topic ban. Its his choice to do so, but it isnt to the benefit of the topic area for that to happen. This current appeal deals with his topic ban and I myself dont have a problem with how he is handling it now. I would challenge the assertion that AU is a "constructive" editor in the ARBPIA topic area, but besides that I cant say I have much to say about this specific appeal
- Should AU have his ban shortened? The biggest problem with AU is the constant I did not hear that type editing. It may not be out of bad faith that he does that, there are very obviously language issues that could lead to a failure to understand on his part. But whether disruption is due to bad faith or not, its effects remain the same. Im all for second chances (seriously, who would I be to begrudge a person an opportunity to come back), but that should require understanding the problems that led to the ban. I am not convinced that this has happened here, in fact I am convinced it has not due to the past two "appeals". Additionally, I still have concerns about the repeated reverts by AU with reasons such as "no consensus" and "per BRD", both of which are very obviously spurious attempts at wasting others time. An example can be seen here. If AU ceases making such mindless reverts then most of my concerns would be alleviated.
- Do I think the topic area would be well served by allowing AU back? Honestly, no. nableezy - 18:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Statement by ElComandanteChe
AgadaUrbanit's editing of Gaza War article was definitely too passionate, and when the editing becomes passionate, the editor's style degenerates, what can explain the enigmatic behavior mentioned by Nableezy. Other possible explanations to such behavior, besides language issues, do exist: being genius, for example, or editing while intoxicated. None of these is an excuse for disruptive editing, and disruption has to be faced with blocks and bans. I could see, as the situation around Gaza War RfC unfolded, how banning AU from that article for several months or even blocking for a short period can help, both as counter-disruption and educative measure. However, since in most cases AU manages to keep a cool head, no one benefits today from the ban imposed on him several months ago. At least, it can be limited to single article, if not to the time served. I hope AU will behave responsibly and save the editors speaking here in his favor from embarrassment. -- ElComandanteChe ( talk) 22:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by AgadaUrbanit
I'm willing to field this one if I can get some statements from the enforcing admins and a viewpoint from the original complainant. AgadaUrbanit, please ask them to comment here?-- Tznkai ( talk) 17:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- @Nableezy: Any and all of the above, especially the last.-- Tznkai ( talk) 16:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by AgadaUrbanit
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Given the lack of objection from interacting administrators, and users speaking in AgadaUrbanit's favor, balanced against Nableezy's concerns, I am inclined to give AgadaUrbanit a shot. Generally, I believe we need to err on the side of forgiveness and second (third, fourth, fifth, etc) chances, especially since its so easy to re-sanction as need be. I have also considered the time already spent sanctioned, apparently without violating the ban. I am thus going to suspend the previously imposed topic ban as of 10/8/11 00:00 UTC, which is to say that the ban is gone, but should be immediately reinstated by any administrator, if problems reoccur. AgadaUrbanit is strongly urged to be extremely careful and err on the side of extremely civil talk page discussion. Editors who feel strongly about this decision have until then to try to change my mind.-- Tznkai ( talk) 23:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
| No action in respect of the complaint. | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Cailil
1. [97] This is Cailil's log as administrator. The issue here is the 72 hour block of User:Lvivske made at 13:22, 2 October 2011. Full explanation below. 2. [98] On Lvivske's talk page.
3. [99] On Lvivske's talk page.
4. [100] On Lvivske's talk page.
5. [101] On Lvivske's talk page.
6. [102] On Lvivske's talk page
7. [103] On Lvivske's talk page
8. [105] On Lvivske's talk page.
9. [106] On Lvivske's talk page
10. [107] This is a comment by User Djsasso (I have no idea who that is) who's basically like "what the hell happened here?" 11. [108] On Lvivske's talk page
12. [109] On Lvivske's talk page.
13. Additionally it should be noted that Calil claims that Lvivske was edit warring on two articles. This is the given justification for imposing a 72 hour sanction even though 3RR has not been breached at either (the alleged crime was a total 4, yes, 4, as in four million, reverts across two articles). Here's the thing. On the first article Lvivske might have made two reverts [110] (check it yourself). BUT on the second article he supposedly edit warred on he actually made ... 0 reverts [111]. He made 2 edits. 2 consecutive edits. Even if these were reverts they would count as 1 revert. But the thing is that they weren't even reverts of any user, they were just simple, normal, edits. Nobody got reverted. So this means that either Calil really really really doesn't understand what a revert is - i.e. s/he is incompetent to judge these kinds of situations and hence has no business being an administrator, or at least administratin' in regard to potential edit warring - or, s/he is simply lying and "diff-padding" in order to make a really bad block look better. Hence the requested remedy above.
N/A
Honestly, this is exactly the kind of mindless administrator privilege abuse that cries out for a workable de-sysoping procedure on Wikipedia. I don't know what kind of personal stuff is going on in the background here but I can tell when someone is getting bullied and abused when I see it. This is like the poster child for AE sanctions run amock (incidentally, these very recent edits to their recall procedure suggest that at least on a subconscious level Calil knows they screwed up [112] [113]). If it was within the power of the AE board to desysop Calil I'd ask for that. To be clear, I've interacted with Lvivske before and mostly we've disagreed on Polish-Ukrainian stuff (which is how I saw this, I put his talk page on my watchlist to keep an eye on him ;)) though he's never been rude or obnoxious. Disagreements between editors happen though, and in most of those cases we've been able to have a civil discussion and more or less compromise or at least agree to disagree. The reversal of Lvivske's block is a related, but somewhat different issue, and I'll let him decide whether or not he wants to appeal that. Re to Mkativerata AE has no power to boot an admin out of a topic area for involvement. - why, exactly, not? If you can topic ban people from a topic area for involvement, then why can't you ban an administrator from a topic are for involvement? Seems like an excuse to apply a double standards to regular editors and to members of the admin clique. Where does it say this is outside the scope of AE? (with respect to the 24hr block, ok fine - but it's just completely unfair that whatever happens Lvivske's going to have that block on his block log for ever but Calil's gonna come out squeaky clean) Re to Calil - anyone capable of clicking their mouse four times can check for themselves that you are completely misrepresenting the situation. There was no edit warring here, nor was there any uncivil or disruptive statements. Volunteer Marek 13:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC) And in regard to this [114] - heh, I had no idea you were the same person, nor did I remember you, nor did I even remember ever making that comment (it is a single comment amidst the thousands I've made) until you brought it up. But I'm not surprised. So apparently there's some kind of a pattern here. Volunteer Marek 13:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning CaililStatement by CaililOk, hold on a second. Lvivske was not blocked for breaching WP:DIGWUREN he was blocked for disruption and edit-warring around race/ethnicity/nationality again. He was warned for that by me [115] when he claimed at David Haye that “ he's black, not english”. He then on October claimed that becuase Mila Kunis is Jewish she isnt Ukrainian [116] and edit-warred over that. That's what got Lvivske blocked. And that should be clear from my notes on Lvivske's talk page. It might have been better for me to have described the block as being for 'disrution to make a point' however I still feel that an editor with Lvivske's history of editwarring should know that rversions without discussion and spilling over of content disputes to otehr articles will get them into trouble for editwarring. Lvivske was been placed on notice of WP:DIGWUREN. But the block is not a reminder of the RFAR. And nowhere did I state this. However on a very thorough investigation I found he had previously been placed on notice by Shell Kinney in late 2009. I added an adendum to the page noting this and stating that if a reviewing sysop wanted to reduce the block but was worried that it was an AEBLOCK I would be happy to reduce it myself. I am not nor have I ever been involved in anyway whatsoever with Eastern European topics. However I did have one memorable encounter with VolunteerMarek this year where he launched into a diatribe about me apparently becuase I supported an AE block on Sarah777 [117]. I am baffled as to how I abused the tools here. If indeed I was mistaken fair enough I'm happy to reverse myself and apologize, but it has taken Lvivske 36 hours to even post an unblock request. And as I've said I am happy to reduce myself if an admin feels its dodgy for them to do so-- Cailil talk 11:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Also below is a list of diffs that show further questionable edits from Lvivske in case another sysop wants to deal with the actual issue that Lvivske is blocked for.
Comments by others about the request concerning Cailil
Result concerning Cailil
|
| Username blocked; also topic banned for six months. T. Canens ( talk) 18:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Dinner for three
Dinner for three ( talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account created with the sole aim of hounding an ideological opponent, Lunch for Two ( talk · contribs) (whose name he evidently apes) [1]. He was earlier editing as 213.226.17.10 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). Dinner for three has been permanently engaged in edit-warring across multiple articles ever since. He routinely resorts to revert-warring just below 3RR as his first and only response to a conflict. He never initiates discussion on talk pages, but likes to tell others to do so in his edit summaries while reverting. He persistently calls his opponent a vandal at every opportunity. Most recent edit-wars:
(and parallel edit-wars on about a dozen similar village articles [2] [3])
Unconstructive edit summary: [8] ("Edit war is not nice, use the talk instead.") – However, Dinner never posted on the talkpage himself. Similarly here: [9] (demands: "Discuss before removing", but never touches the talk page himself.)
Discussion concerning Dinner for threeStatement by Dinner for threeI know that Future wants to get me banned, but I have nothing against Lunch for Two and neither I was edit-warring against Future's warnings (except in Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect and I will explain for what below). I probably mistaked with this username, but if Lunch for Two feels offended I will change my name and apologize to him. I haven't spotted him offended but I have to admit that I don't know what he thinks. "Rv vandal and Undo vandal" which I used could sometimes mean "Reverting vandalism" but I will use the "." since now, to looks as "Rv vandal.". I also don't think that this was continuosly WP:GAME, I created my username on that way and that was all. Future claims "Dinner for three has been permanently engaged in edit-warring across multiple articles ever since", but after he warned me to stop edit-warring at the Greek villages here I haven't touched them. After the warning I limited myself and edited only Bulgarians, Talk:Bulgarians, Talk:Macedonian language and Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect, but his second and final warning came and the reason was because I reverted his deletion at Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect - I reverted because he deleted entire extra-sourced table with the features of the dilect, his justification was that the section has WP:SYNTH, the questonable SYNTH was only in the intro and in the camparising with two Bulgarian dialects, instead to delete only what he claims as SYNTH, he deleted the entire paragraph with all the well-sourced feutares and that was probably because they doesn't support him at Talk:Macedonian language. I am not going to edit war in this page anymore, but such deletion of information, even with third-party sources, should not happen and an admin should check the history of this page. A day-two after I wrote a user's message that I would support him here at AE, and as a result I found me reported with such messege "Since you were heading to WP:AE anyway, please see the report on yourself there". I really think that is not honest to be reported as a result of support of a user at AE or edit-war after one warning and it was even reverting Future's deletion, and I have even listening to him when he has posting me the warnings, seriously. As for his statement – "However, Dinner never posted on the talkpage himself. Similarly here: [11]" he deleted the referenced table added in 2008, he cleraly should discuss before removing it. -- Dinner for three ( talk) 21:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Dinner for threeMost of these clashes/disputes could have been avoided if Wikipedia adopted generic tags for the languages of the Slavic speakers in northern Greece (as I have suggested on the talk page at Macedonian languages) instead of allowing the continuation of the creeping irredentist POV of the "Republic of Macedonia" that Fut Perf, thus far, has strongly supported. There will likely be many more edit wars and disputes by editors interested in Balkan topics as a result. All of these disputes are unnecessary. If giving any Slavic language a name to a regional or national group of speakers in Greece is difficult or impossible all you need to do is bag it and tag it as Slavic speakers of Macedonia (Greece) or Slavic speakers of northern Greece. I promise you that Bulgarians, Greeks, and Serbians will have no reasonable reason to object. Doing anything else is WP:OR because Wikipedia articles package "Macedonian ethnicity" with "Macedonian language" and there has not yet been a formal decision on the final name for the "Republic of Macedonia". It just won't stick. I know that this is unsatisfactory to linguists. I know that "Macedonians" will continue to attempt to place their irredentist POV on articles but three out of four of the involved Balkan nations will be happy. The alternative will be to place up to three Slavic names (all of which will look almost identical) on every article with a dispute and to put up with edit wars as they shuffle for position. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 01:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Volunteer Marek Both of these accounts are very recent. I'm guessing that what happened here is that one (trouble) user got up to using a new account, then another (trouble) user realized that that was what was going on and created a new account as a comment on the previous new account. Just freaking ban'em both. They (both of them) think they're being funny but they're just being dumb and immature and embarrassing whatever POV it is they're trying to push. It's people having some fun at your (Wikipedia and specifically WP:AE) expense and you're all treating it as some kind of serious stuff. There's folks chuckling over this somewhere. Volunteer Marek 02:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning Dinner for three
What's next, Breakfast for one? T. Canens ( talk) 20:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Closing: Under the authority of WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, Dinner for three ( talk · contribs) is banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Balkans, broadly construed across all namespaces, for six months. This topic ban is to run consecutively to the username block that I will apply in a moment (i.e., the six-month clock will start to run when the account is renamed). T. Canens ( talk) 18:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC) |
| Blocked 72 hours for 1RR violation, and formally warned of ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. T. Canens ( talk) 18:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Modinyr
I sympathize with admins who are tired of seeing AE requests in this area, however I believe this is the first I ever submitted. Modinyr repeatedly removes well sourced and accurate text from this article without explanation. Talk page contribution is just empty disruptive noise, not a single source actually discussed on its contents.
Discussion concerning ModinyrStatement by ModinyrComments by others about the request concerning ModinyrHe does not appear to have been notified of the AE sanctions, save for some vague threat about 1rr on his talk page from the filing editor himself. Note also he is a newbie, his entire WP history consists of 150 edits.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Modinyr
Blocked 72 hours for the 1RR violation. T. Canens ( talk) 00:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC) |
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Soosim
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- nableezy - 14:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC) 14:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Soosim ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 13:53, 20 September 2011 Reverting without discussing making a false claim of consensus
- 13:58, 16 September 2011 Blanket revert without discussion
- 13:27, 16 September 2011 Removal of reliable source and content with a false claim of unreliability, see explanation below
- 13:27, 16 September 2011 False edit summary, claims to be removing unreliable source but is only adding unsourced content and making POV edits (AI claims to do such and such)
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
The user has not been formally notified of the case, however he or she has participated in past AE threads so is aware. See [14], [15], [16]
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This editor removed the word occupied from the article Ariel University Center of Samaria on 15 September then again on 16 September (just outside of a 1RR violation). A talk page section was opened about this issue on the 15th. Since that time, no editor has made any comment supporting the removal of the term (the talk page section at the time of this request looked is here). Soosim disregards the talk page section and once again reverts the inclusion of that word, falsely claiming a consensus for his or her edit.
Another example of the user reverting without discussion is at International law and Israeli settlements. The edit listed above is a blanket revert (as seen in this diff). The edit in question is the subject of much discussion on the talk page, yet the editor has made no effort to participate and instead has chosen to revert without so much as a comment in the edit summary.
At Amnesty International, the editor removed this source and the material it was supporting, claiming that a peer reviewed article published in an academic journal is an unreliable source. This type of disingenuous editing, where top quality sources are removed at the same time that unsourced commentary is added, and done solely because of political motivations, is not acceptable.
At the very least, the editor should be notified of the case and informed that repeatedly reverting without comment is not an acceptable editing practice.
- Soosim, nobody commented about the issue on the talk page except for me. Epeefleche commented on whether or not there should be a citation in the lead, he did not however justify his edit, or yours, removing the term from the sentence. Nobody did. To claim there is a consensus when nobody has made any comment, much less provided an actual reason, in support of said consensus is a misunderstanding, to put it mildly, of what consensus is. I am not looking for you to be banned, but I would like you to be notified of the case and for somebody to remind you that repeatedly reverting without discussion is unacceptable editing practice. nableezy - 16:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Soosim
Statement by Soosim
nableezy - i am a bit surprised at the speed with which this took place. at 14:31 you responded to my comment on the ariel u talk page. you had said on own talk page that you wanted me to revert or you would report me to this AE board. and yet, at 14:33, you already have an entire report posted about all of the edits, and links, previous AE comments of mine, etc. very impressive.
anyway, as i said on the ariel u talk page, the consensus seemed to be that we would include the west bank in the lead, but not mention 'occupied' nor the 'israeli military occupation', etc. and even though i felt strongly that the entire issue of the boycott should not be in the lead, i did agree to it, and even edited it in. and there were others who commented as well, but you kept complaining that editors were 'completely ignoring the issue' (this came up several times).
in addition, you also said that no one commented on the talk page discussion for five days, and yet, about 18 hours earlier that your comment, Epeefleche had commented (and other editors a few days before that, etc.).
i appreciate you bringing up my past AE comments - i hope that they show that despite my strong tendencies to edit carefully, i do try to be fair to all (and not only to those who agree with me). from your note above: [17], [18], [19]
the blanket revert you mention above - i did not challenge you on it. it was clearly a mistake and in fact, you can look at my 4 years of editing, i rarely do it (won't say 'never', but it is rare - and certainly for anything controversial)
and lastly, on the amnesty intl page - you can clearly see that it was some sort of malfunction on the computer. that is, i did indeed remove the academic info since the source quoted was actually quoting some other source, and hence, becomes tainted. as for the subsequent edit, i did not mean to do that, and thank you for pointing it out. i would never change 'international' to 'western', etc. puh-leeze. i seem to recall that i was reverting someone's vandalism of the page at the time.
if there is any other info you need, please ask me directly - i am always happy to comment and to cooperate (as my record shows - even when involved in potentially warring situations). Soosim ( talk) 15:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Soosim
This is a brightline violation of 1RR. At the very least notification, probably a topic ban on article space of a month (not including talk pages) to promote BRD.-- Cerejota ( talk) 16:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- where was there a violation of 1RR? (there were two separate edits - the second of which actually included the contested info, and in any case, they were about 32 hours apart (not 'just outside of a 1RR violation' as nableezy said above -- also, the rule is 24 hours for a reason!) Soosim ( talk)
Result concerning Soosim
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Cleaghyre
Discussion concerning CleaghyreStatement by CleaghyreThis is conspiracy Accusation: Skäpperöd (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Decision: Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Both people seems to Serafins's sic The historical/ scientific argument argument no important only: "No matter whether this is a Serafin/EEML/whoever's sock or not, Kotniski should be instantly relieved from having to deal with this person." THIS IS A TIME THAT THIS KIND OF CONSPIRATORS/EDITORS BE PUT OUT OF LINE. Comments by others about the request concerning CleaghyreResult concerning CleaghyreIndef-blocked as likely sock and battleground account. Should probably have been done earlier. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
|
| No action, due to assurance of improved behavior. The editor is advised to keep his name off this noticeboard as either the source or target of complaints for the next three months. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Jonchapple
The edit summary was a clear and deliberate personal attack, and while childish in my opinion an attack all the same. The edit itself was just plain disruptive and in response to an edit I made on another article. The editor has been abusive on articles [22] [23] [24] and article talk pages and has been asked to stop by other editors, 13:14, 15 September 2011 and again 13:53, 15 September 2011. They want to create disruption, 12:37, 15 September 2011. Anyone who knows the dispute over this flag will know this is disruptive. I have ignored the constant snide remarks by this group of editors, [25] [26] [27] [28] who despite being challenged and asked to stop [29] [30], this editor defends it [31] and the bad faith attacks continue [32].
Discussion concerning JonchappleI believe I made the "see also" edit that Jonchapple removed, after Domer48 removed a similar "see also" edit I had made at Volunteer (Irish republican). I've no doubt Domer48 made his reversion in good faith, as I have no doubt that Jonchapple did likewise, presumably in the interests of symmetry. I have no problem with either reversion. I suppose I just don't see the issue here that would merit this kind of report. Ivor Stoughton ( talk) 23:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Statement by JonchappleOne, I'm not responsible for anyone else's edits but my own, so quite why you've cited a number of diffs by other editors is beyond me. Two, nothing you have pointed out is abusive or disruptive, and I've broken no terms of my probation. I was short (but not abusive) with the IP, because it's clearly a disruptive single-purpose sock, and most likely one of a banned user – like Vintagekits, who showed up again recently, still up to his old tricks. And yes, that edit summary addressed to you certainly was childish, but when one is being followed around Wikipedia by someone hell-bent on disrupting their editing purely because they don't share a similar ideology and they want them out the way, patience does tend to wear a bit thin. I have asked nicely on a number of occasions to please stop constantly stalking my edits; now kindly do so. JonC Talk 22:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Ivor, it wasn't the edit itself, it's because I said "Dumbo". JonC Talk 23:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC) A three-month topic ban for saying "Dumbo48". Sheesh. On a related note, where would be the best place to take my hounding case? I assume it won't be looked at here. Thanks, JonC Talk 06:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC) One more thing – is this entirely appropriate? JonC Talk 07:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning JonchappleDomer48 is simply trying to lump me in this simply because i've reported them at AN/I for disruptive behaviour, as well as having to open a Dispute Resolution case because of their failure to collaborate. Am i guilty for calling Domer48 a disruptive editor when he being disruptive? Yes. However it is qualified according to WP:Disruptive editing as he is preventing the improvement of Wikipedia with his failure to collaborate. Domer48 says unfounded accusations? I've provided the evidence for some of my allegations of his disruptive behaviour at AN/I along with evidence of where they are canvassing and making ad hominem comments in an attempt to undermine and discredit me in a hope a descision goes their way. If Domer48's examples are looked at, you'll see there is no smoke without fire. If diffs are required they can be provided, however there is no point as Domer48 is not the editor under the microscope here so there is no point in discussing his behaviour in detail - otherwise this whole post will constitute ad hominem rather than trying to defend myself. I don't see why Domer48 has dropped me in here seeing as i haven't fallen foul of any enforcement Troubles related or otherwise. Me being dragged into this is simply a case of WP:BOOMERANG on Domer48's behalf in my opinion. Mabuska (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Jonchapple
|
| No action |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Mabuska
Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.
The editor has been editing in clearly disruptive manner. This includes personal attacks on editors, [49] [50] [ [51] [52] [53] and dispite both myself [54] and other editors asking them to stop [55] [56] and [57] [58] [59] it has continued with more examples if required.
Discussion concerning MabuskaStatement by Mabuska
The only way i can be considered guilty of breeching 1RR is in spirit because my second revert was my own edit made with the simple intention of using it as an example.
Simple fact is Domer48 is seeking revenge for the fact i had to haul them before ANI for their disruptive beahaviour. A discussion where i think every editor involved has said something negative about Domer48 and his behaviour or user and talk page. The fact Doemr48 is constantly persuing making ad hominem statements about me is very uncivil and an act of character assassination because things aren't going their way at the AN/I or Dispute Resolution. The rest of Domer48's ad hominem statements are disassembled here, here, and the second last comment of my mine on this article talk page. If anyone appears to be doing shopping for backup it would be Domer48. WP:BOOMERANG comes to mind and i have reported this at your AN/I Domer48. What Domer48 is really after i believe is to get me banned from certain articles so that their opinion can't be debated against as they are having a hard time as it is trying to currently backup their opinion on the article he claims i'm guilty of breeching 1RR. Mabuska (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning MabuskaDiffs 2 through 6 have no intervening edits, so the only diffs that should be considered are this (first one) and this (the rest). -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Mabuska
Agree with Sarek about Domer's evidenciary diffs, and in this instance although Mambuska's edits might technically be on thin ice (ie 1RR on WP:TROUBLES articles) I don't think this can be regarded as a violation. |
| No action. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Nanobear
I myself have commented on Russavia's positive contributions and echo Nanobear's statements in that regard. That said, the personal attacks and blame games and accusations of harassment—especially coming from someone who was permanently banned, as Offliner, from Wikipedia for an off-Wiki attack as a direct result of their participation as an accuser in the EEML case—must stop. Everyone decries the polarization and acrimony. If, however, we wish the acrimony to cease, we cannot tolerate this sort of grossly offensive personal attack relitigating the past. As my prior complaints to Nanobear about this sort of conduct have been met by his accusing me of personal attacks (diffs possible if needed), I have no recourse but to seek administrative action.
[68] [69] had been prompted by WikEd, creating additional header
Discussion concerning NanobearStatement by NanobearThis is just sad. We just lost one of our best and most productive editors - now I suppose Vecrumba wants me to retire too? This is exactly why I have not edited much in the last 3 months. Nanobear ( talk) 20:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC) Response(s) by Vecrumba@Nanobear, you have ignored my repeated complaints. There is an entire encyclopedia to edit, yet you choose to spend your time on personal attacks. What I want is for the acrimonious attacks fomenting your allegations regarding events to cease. It is for others to decide appropriate action, as I said, there is an entire encyclopedia to edit. I agree that coming to this point is sad, I have no joy in taking this action, I am not rubbing my hands in glee over some opportunity to "stick it to you."
PЄTЄRS @Colchicum, for a while I believed Nanobear in his desire to move on from the past, and there were glimpses of hope. So, in actuality, it is my raised expectations which have been dashed as opposed to simply arriving here to complain about something I have come to expect. (And wouldn't that normally be a problem?)
PЄTЄRS @ Greyhood, I am unaware of any "unpleasant" circumstances of Russavia's retirement, I certainly have not acted against him in any way on or off Wiki and our non-personal contacts over content in the recent past were not unwelcome. Nanobear could have chosen to be gracious without spending most of his post on a personal attack. Do you advocate I choose to doom myself to Nanobear smearing myself and others with impunity for all time?
PЄTЄRS
Being that I have not asked that Nanobear be blocked, it's very informative that even a word to Nanobear to exhibit politeness or offer a simply apology for having gotten carried away is not in order—so thank you for letting me know where I stand, meaning also, of course, that my inquiries above are merely rhetorical unless you'd like to chat on my talk page. It would appear we are done here, so please feel free to archive. Best,
PЄTЄRS Comments by others about the request concerning NanobearVecrumba, please, let them alone, Nadobear is Nanobear, what else would you expect from him? Very melodramatic, but nobody is going to believe that R. is seriously considering retirement. Just don't read his rants. Colchicum ( talk) 20:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
@Vecrumba, the situation is highly unpleasant and non-benefitial for Wikipedia, and there is no need to make it even more so. I don't see your name in Nanobear's post, and given that the situation is rather special, you might have better just ignored it. GreyHood Talk 20:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Nanobear
I'm not seeing anything here that requires a warning or a sanction. Anyone else? NW ( Talk) 06:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
|
| Filer and respondent placed under standard-terms Troubles probation for two and six months respectively. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Domer48
Whilst i know that this may be seen as a tit-for-tat in response to Domer48's recent filing of an Enforcement against me for alleged breeches of 1RR however Domer48 has unquestionably breeched it and has to be reported for it regardless of possible concerns of tit-for-tat. The section and inline tags are fully justified whilst the issue is still being discussed. Once the issue has been resolved then they can be removed without question after whatever resolutions agreed are enacted. The reverting of the rewording of the sentence in question is also problematic as it distorts the source quote to imply something that it doesn't state. Even though the DRN has now been closed, it was referred to by the closing mediator to WP:ORN, with the mediator's personal preference being a RfC, to which i have opened one at the articles talk page prior to the closure of the DRN discussion. So the issue hasn't been resolved and there is no justification for these reversions all of which have occured within 24 hours.
Notification to user: User_talk:Domer48#Arbitration_Enforcement_notification
Discussion concerning Domer48Statement by Domer48Having been made aware of a second revert, I have self reverted keeping in line with Arb Resolutions. Thanks-- Domer48 'fenian' 13:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Reply to Mkativerata: Dispute resolution was not in process. You do not open a RFC at 23:14, 25 September 2011, having just removed the information the request was for 21:37, 25 September 2011. As was pointed out above, I addressed the issue on the clarification tag the Volunteers were the "institution", and I addressed the issue on the text by moving the text the relevance of which was disputed to the appropriate article with these edits here, so the tag was removed. Now the filing editor described my actions (not in a nice way} as me backing down from their arguement and trying to compromise which is hardly the actions of an editor trying to be disruptive. SO my edits were not disruptive, and my self revert was definitely not so your suggestion is with substance.-- Domer48 'fenian' 21:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Reply to Mkativerata: Could you please say were this "editing warring" was, because it was not in these edits, [81] added sources added source added sourced text [82] added source [83] replaced sourced text added sourced text and move text per WP:DRN [84] added source plus the edits I addressed above. It is not in WP:3RR or WP:1RR. -- Domer48 'fenian' 22:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Domer48First two diffs provided can be counted as one as no other editor made a edit between and when an editor makes an edit which clarifies the text then they remove the tag. So we have one edit that was self reverted. Also funny that Mabuska wants sanctions imposed for what he considers a breach of 1RR when it can be seen above in his own report that he breached 1RR with no apparent sanctions being imposed. Mo ainm ~Talk 18:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Domer48
Why shouldn't sanctions be imposed in respect of both editors for engaging in an edit war on the article while dispute resolution was in process about the very issues to which the dispute resolution related? -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
|
| Malleus formally notified of WP:ARB911 discretionary sanctions by NuclearWarfare ( talk · contribs). No further action taken. T. Canens ( talk) 21:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Malleus Fatuorum
WP:ARB911#Discretionary sanctions
Failure to assume good faith:
Violations of civility:
I have been editing
September 11 attacks for about 2 years now. Malleus Fatuorum is a relative newcomer to the article. In that short time, he's made various complaints about the article. This, of course, is perfectly fine. Constructive criticism is welcome and encouraged. The problem is that when other editors disagree with him, he launches into attacks against those editors, accusing them of not editing in good faith, questioning their honesty, intelligence level and just making other uncivil comments. This isn't just a few isolated diffs, but an overall pattern that's promoting a toxic,
battleground-like atmosphere on the article talk page.
A Quest For Knowledge (
talk) 16:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC) @Richerman: Yes, Malleus Fatuorum said he would not have
anything else to do with the article.(08:06, September 24, 2011) But he has not stopped. Here he is again, this time making accusations against yet another editor.
"Your strategy of chasing editors away with the kind of intimidation..." (22:51, September 24, 2011)
A Quest For Knowledge (
talk) 13:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Malleus FatuorumStatement by Malleus FatuorumThis request for sanctions against me is a step on a very slippery road. I became the target of the editors of the 9/11 article when I challenged its GA listing here, after having seen it fail at FAC. This is a very clear and deliberate attempt to eliminate anyone who disagrees with the current organisation and content of the article, of which I am far from being the only one. But as one of the few non-administrators with the balls to tell it like it is I'm obviously considered to be an easy target. If any sanctions are needed, then they're needed against A Quest For Knowledge, and several others who have systematically sought to chase non-Americans away from their precious memorial to the events of 9/11. Malleus Fatuorum 03:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Malleus FatuorumThere has very recently been an ANI thread about Malleus and the 9/11 article that was closed as no administrative action needed at this time. Ladyof Shalott 16:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Agree with others here, this looks like some "ban-shopping". Volunteer Marek 17:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC) Malleus was only yesterday notified of the arbitration conditions (as is a requirement of the conditions) - this report - if I was an admin I would close it on sight and I would warn, even perhaps block the reporter, (but that's just me) ban shopping/running to mummy call it what you like but its an attacking unnecessary report. - Off2riorob ( talk) 17:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Re to AQ4K. Technically you're right. You asked for The 911AC "Sanction or remedy to be enforced" which I guess is strictly speaking different than asking for a ban. Nowhere in the request did you say you were just looking for some kind of contrition from MF (and if you know MF, good luck with that). Usually when people come here to AE they're looking to get people they don't like banned. If your only purpose was to get MF to apologize or something, then you're wasting your time, and that of others. Volunteer Marek 21:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC) @AQ4K, regarding your quotation of Malleus's comment about driving editors away, I don't find that abusive. I suspect there's at least a minority opinion he's right.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Just close this already with either no sanction or no sanction and a warning to AQ4K and quit wasting people's time. This is another one of those things that can easily become an unnecessary drama magnet for folks with a grudge, or in some cases ones with an anti-grudge. Volunteer Marek 01:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC) I've been appalled by MF's behavior since he appeared on the September 11 attacks talk page. Despite any warnings which he may have been given, he hasn't shown any interest in improving his behavior, that I've seen. I've seen the arbitration sanctions abused in the past for petty matters, but if there were ever a case where their use seems appropriate, I would think this is it. AQFK summarized everything very well in making this request, and I think he deserves credit for a job well done. I don't understand the desire by some here to ignore the problem, although perhaps there has been something going on that I haven't seen. As with AQFK, I am not requesting any particular sanctions; I just want to see the arrogant behavior by MF come to an end. Wildbear ( talk) 02:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Malleus has stated to me that he is no longer interested in the article, however he has still made a comment or two since.-- MONGO 11:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Malleus Fatuorum
I don't really see why admins at this board here would want to override what was apparently a consensus among admins over at ANI earlier today, that admin action wasn't currently appropriate. People at ANI were already fully aware that the case could potentially fall under this Arbcom rule, and if somebody had wanted to hand out a sanction under it, they could already have done so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Closing as no further action taken. I do not think any AE action here will be beneficial. T. Canens ( talk) 21:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC) |
| Sock. Blocked. T. Canens ( talk) 21:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning MarkBrowne1888
Unnecessary, the 1RR stipulates blocking may occur on the first violation.
A fairly obvious sockpuppet has appeared to reginite a number of edit-wars that had taken place in the past. We have enough problems without this never ending stream of throw-away accounts coming in to start this same crap over an over. Barring an indef block for obvious sockpuppetry, one should be placed for the 1RR violations.
Discussion concerning MarkBrowne1888Statement by MarkBrowne1888These two bullies are just upset that someone else is editing their favourite articles. MarkBrowne1888 ( talk) 18:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning MarkBrowne1888Also edit-warring at Hulda, Israel:
This is quite clearly another sock of Ledenierhomme, and should be blocked indefinitely. RolandR ( talk) 18:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Result concerning MarkBrowne1888
|
Request concerning Cptnono
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Cptnono ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:ARBPIA#Decorum
- Diffs
Cptnono is engaging in very uncivil commentary with elements of racism attached. I will not explain anything, I will just post the text:
- "Not worthy of an apology. Go fuck yourself."
- "Fuck him. Obvious troll is obvious and he can suck on my balls."
- "And topic ban me because this cunt shows what this topic area is. I am done with these assholes. Fuck the middles east,, they are too may problems."
- "Just to get one last word in, we had a GA in the topic area. This will more than likely remain at GA. Anyone who calls for its relegation is a biased jerkoff."
- "Oh I just don't have the heart (still topic ban me if you want). This is a politically biased request from a sock who has introduced a single source to forward a line (Lebanese) that was accepted while disregarding RS saying Israel and also engaging in OR. He has gone far enough that we do not need to AGF. I am commenting on the contributor and not the content but the article has multiple sources and meets GA according to editors who are not completely biased. I am biased though so I do stand behind the middle finger I give to his political beliefs. Good thing I can go work on other GAs while he is just a schmuck. Offer an apology and this is what he does? Gaming little bitch."
- Edit summary: "Fuck him and fuck this artile"
- "And I have requested an enforced break for myself. I simply am bored of this. After seeing a good game, having some drinks, or even getting some pussy I find myself coming on here and yelling at Arabs. It isn't healthy. Screw it. They don't need us. They will still be stuck and I personally get a kick out of it."
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- Blocked on 24 November 2010 by PhilKnight ( talk · contribs) for incivility
- Blocked on 18 May 2011 by AGK ( talk · contribs) for personal attacks.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This user seems to be wanted to be topic banned, if that is the case, he should be blocked as well as topic banned for the extreme and borderline racist nature of comments for an extended period of time. This is especially considering his two previous blocks for civility.
- @T Canens: I understand the first six edits are actionable by a block, and I agree. But I would ask you to reevaluate the seventh diff provided. People who are identifying their editing practices by racial terms do not seem to have a place in the topic. Frustration or not, it is unacceptable. - asad ( talk) 18:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Cptnono
Statement by Cptnono
TCs not enforcement makes no sense. I was clearly in violation of ARBPIA's final decision point 4 (Decorum). I was shocked When TC clarified on my talk page that it was not part of enforcement and said over there that "I don't think a topic ban is appropriate at this time." A civility block is supposed to only be in place to prevent disruption. An arbitration based topic ban can be used for a variety of reasons. So to make a civility block and ignore the decision of ARBPIA makes no sense at all.
I asked AGK to make a topic ban since I think it is needed. He in return asked me to instead abstain from the topic area. I am sure editors who play around on Wikipedia enough know that just not editing a certain page or area takes more willpower than some might have. A hammer over your head is a proper motivator. I have no qualms blaming other editors for my frustration (of course it is not all their fault) since the gaming is too much. It simply isn't worth the hassle to me at this point and I think a topic ban would be beneficial to everyone since I overreact to shenanigans. And I cannot stress enough that even if I find their actions terrible I cannot follow it up with some of the same.
In regards to the whole asdad v bio thing: asdad wasn't involved on the talk pages but jumped at the chance to collect diffs. He also failed to note that two of the diffs were removed within minutes. He did something that Biosketch does often: Overreach. My topic ban should have been assured with the comments that were not removed (No, they were not racist or homophobic. Just pointed and there is no reason to cry wolf over selected portions). So to you Biosketch: Stop worrying about it. You assume others are gaming and you should hold yourself to a higher standard. And to asdad: if anything a BOOMERANG applies to you as well. I would have rather you called me a jerkoff instead of calling a comment I made a "trick", especially since we were discussing a possible edit. Cptnono ( talk) 04:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
And laughed way to hard when I googled "freneminship"(no results) and then realized what was actually being said. Good stuff right there. Someone else will have to do that now! Cptnono ( talk) 05:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yo, where's my topic ban?
Cptnono (
talk) 07:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- TC, can you back up that this is not sanctionable. I assume you cannot but maybe you are thinking something that I am missing. I completely crossed the line. And I don;t plan on doing it again but am pretty sure I will again. Just the way it works. So as a favor to me and the rest of the project, it would be great to impose some sort of topic ban. I don't really care about length (if it is an indef I can come crawling back if I feel I am cooled off enough, but maybe I only need a few months) but do think that a mandated ban would work better than self control. Some admins will do this for blocks. I can go ask one of them if they will do topic bans if you are unwilling for some reason.
Cptnono (
talk) 05:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- There is no civil way to respond to you right now, TC, since you are disregarding the arbitration decision and the blocking policy so much it obviously doesn't matter. I crossed the line completely and any editor who calls another a "cunt", or says to others "fuck off", or even more (as I did) in the topic area should be topic banned. To pretend otherwise is [I can not word this in any way that is acceptable here]. There should be zero issue with topic banning me. The fact that I see it and think it is a good idea makes it clean and perfect. So instead of fucking off on pages I am asking for something that any admin and editor should know is a good thing. Do you want me to be disruptive? I was already disruptive once and you went against the blocking policy while also ignoring arbitration. You obviously are playing a game here since this is a favor that I have asked for to benefit everyone. If you do not want to ban me I can call Nableezy names. Oh oops. I just violated my interaction ban. You better block me instead of topic banning me, hotstuff. Cptnono ( talk) 05:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- And as I have already explained, I can sock back in or abstain. I simly recognize that those are both bad and think the threat of a longer ban or block over my head is beneficial to everyone. So stop playing games and do something right for the project. Anything less than a topic ban is inconsistent and you know it.
Cptnono (
talk) 06:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- So you will block me for a month but you will not topic ban me for 6 months? I have asked for a topic ban and not a block since a block is lame but I think a topic ban would be the push I need in the right direction. Why would you disregard a request that would be beneficial to the project? Instead of stopping disruption you want to risk more based on your high hopes of my self control? Or should I be an even bigger jerk so that you can ban me just to be contrary? I thought I was doing the right thing by asking for a hand but obviously you just want to be contrary. And 1 month would have a lacking precedent. You should now that but you suck as an admin. Cptnono ( talk) 06:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- TC, can you back up that this is not sanctionable. I assume you cannot but maybe you are thinking something that I am missing. I completely crossed the line. And I don;t plan on doing it again but am pretty sure I will again. Just the way it works. So as a favor to me and the rest of the project, it would be great to impose some sort of topic ban. I don't really care about length (if it is an indef I can come crawling back if I feel I am cooled off enough, but maybe I only need a few months) but do think that a mandated ban would work better than self control. Some admins will do this for blocks. I can go ask one of them if they will do topic bans if you are unwilling for some reason.
Cptnono (
talk) 05:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Cptnono
Statement by Biosketch (involved)
It should be pointed out that the hands of the editor filing this Request are far from clean. User:Asad112 is a single-purpose account who makes no meaningful contribution to the Project. His edits have an exceedingly high mortality rate on account of their POV-pushy and well-poisoning nature.
Here's a brief sample going back to August:
- 3 August – refers to Israeli settlements as colonies using Wikipedia's voice
- 6 August – reverts an edit for no valid reason, disregarding discussion and WP:BOP
- 9 August – mendaciously attributes to me a dislike for the Palestinian flag
- 19 August – rewords an article to hide that Israel was credited with a world record
- 31 August – falsely summarizes an edit as a wording correction
- 9 September and 9 September – pushes the word settlement three times into the lead paragraph of an article— Biosketch ( talk) 10:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Most of those edits are fine. The Golan Heights is not in Israel according to almost the entire world, from the UN Security Council down. The residents of Majdal Shams are mostly not even Israeli citizens. Moreover, that Ariel is a settlement is the single fact about it most noted in reliable sources, so writing that in an article seems fine to me. However, I agree that he should not have described your removal of the Palestinian flag from the WikiProject Palestine info box as being because you dislike it. Zero talk 16:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Also, contemporary Israeli settlements are often described as Israeli colonies in serious books by serious people because that is one of the things they are. They are settlements, colonies, villages, communities, sometimes suburbs, neighborhoods, sometimes cities, and all sorts of other things. They're described in all of these ways to varying extents by sources. You won't find the word "colony" in the Israeli settlement article though which I assume is either an oversight or misguided censorship.
Sean.hoyland -
talk 17:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- @ User:Sean.hoyland. See, this is when it's confusing trying to determine which Sean.hoyland is talking. The Sean.hoyland on 3 August 2011 reverted User:Asad112 with the edit summary, "population centres should be settlements, the standard NPOV term." The Sean.hoyland now, on the other hand, is insisting that it's alright to ascribe the word "colonies" to Wikipedia's voice. Well you were right the first time. And WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is clear that "Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution." I didn't write that. It's policy. Editors are expected to follow policy regardless of their biases, otherwise they risk having certain privileges suspended. @ User:Zero0000. You've missed the point. The argument isn't over whether the Golan Heights are in Israel or not; it's whether Israel had made the largest bowl of Tabbouleh or not. And that simply isn't for you or me or Asad112 or IP 12.130.50.103 to decide. Guinness credited Israel per reliable sources. That's the reality. Asad112 oughtn't to have edited Israel out of the article, regardless of his feelings toward that country or where Majdal Shams is. @ User:Timotheus Canens. Timotheus, you know that after he married Beryl Hovius in the 1920s, the young John Dillinger served almost ten years in jail for stealing $50 from a convenience store. It was that excessive prison term, they say, that hardened him into the notorious bandit he later became. You have before you a constructive editor who's tried on numerous occasions to engage you at eye level in an effort to improve his interactions with this Noticeboard, only to have his endeavors repeatedly ignored. I directed you to a query on the Discussion page regarding the scope of ARBPIA. You've not replied. I've asked you for clarification on your Talk page regarding what qualifies as a stale diff. You've not replied. Not to sound condescending but remember that the purpose of sanctions is to prevent, not to punish; and in keeping with that spirit, one would expect threats of sanction to be accompanied by earlier attempts to genuinely resolve whatever the issue is. It's been my experience here that ill-faithed coatracking by opposing editors attends nearly every case discussed at AE. I can cite plenty of times where users made serious accusations against me that had nothing to do with the AE proper and no Admin saw fit to reprove them for it. In my case, however, per the dictum Serious accusations require serious evidence, I made it a point to substantiate my argument against Asad112 with diffs, as is policy. When the diffs against User:Supreme Deliciousness were deemed irrelevant on account of their having nothing to do with I/P, that was understandable. Now the diffs are clearly within the scope of I/P and even more clearly related to the editor filing the Request, but they're still being deemed irrelevant. Not only that but you're using them to try to support a claim to the effect that I'm "attempting to derail an AE thread," which is a quintessentially bad-faithed assumption. Asad112 himself encouraged me to submit the diffs as a separate AE, but it wasn't ever their intention to shift the focus away from User:Cptnono to begin with. Lastly, regarding the claim that I have "a history of filing frivolous or otherwise inactionable AE requests," that claim doesn't stand up to an objective account of my history here. The first AE I ever brought resulted in a six-month topic ban of a user; the second resulted in a user redacting a personal attack against me; and the third resulted in a user being warned against personal attacks. The fourth and fifth were therefore the only inactionable Requests, with only the fifth being unequivocally so. This one, number six, if you wish to call it that, wasn't a Request at all. It was a comment, made in earnest, in the spirit of WP:BEBOLD, supported by actual diffs.— Biosketch ( talk) 08:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Biosketch, allow me to clarify then. There is one Sean.hoyland. I try to just treat information as information and I have no emotional response to words that describe these objects. I also try to find compromise in the midst of mini-edit wars which is what your diff shows. Context is everything as you well know. Settlement is indeed the standard term in the limited sense that it is a modal term. However, there's no policy based reason to insist that the term "settlement" is used in all cases to the exclusion of all others in an article. To do so would be inconsistent with the usage distribution that is apparent from sampling reliable sources as far as I'm concerned. For example, I have no problem with a caption like "A neighbourhood in Ariel, home to...etc" in the lead image in the Israeli settlement article. It doesn't need to say "The Israeli settlement of Ariel". It's already clear from the context that it is a settlement. I don't see any difference between the occasional use of the word community, colony, city, neighborhood, or other terms instead of settlement in an article about a settlement or settlements as long as the article makes it clear somewhere that it is referring to Israeli settlement(s) at the earliest opportunity and links to the appropriate article. It's not a big deal or it shouldn't be. I don't see someone using terms other than settlement as unambiguous evidence of "unclean hands" or POV pushing. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. In this case it's a non-issue. You've made statements about Asad, an editor in good standing, who as far as I can tell has a net positive impact on policy compliance. Your evidence doesn't appear to support your conclusions. How many times has Asad made edits like this which I assume, according to you, would be good edits ? Did you check ? It would be unfortunate if an alarm only went off for the term "colony" but not for terms like "residential neighborhood" etc. What I strongly object to is the characterization of an editor using a word like "colony" as "POV-pushy" and having a "well-poisoning nature". I've seen a lot of irrational nonsense about language in this topic area over the years, claims that words like settlement and colony, words that sensible, respectable sources use, dehumanize and delegitimize etc. When I see you complain the same way about editors who use words like "residential neighborhood", "community" or any other CAMERA-friendly word apart from settlement I will believe that you are using rational decision procedures and being fair. Right now it just looks like bias. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- re hardened him into the notorious bandit he later became. - Are you suggesting you're going to become a notorious bandit? You've already got the notoriety thing down I guess....
- re prevent, not to punish - Ever consider that Canens is trying to prevent you from clogging up WP:AE with your relentless wikilawyering?
- re fourth and fifth were therefore the only inactionable Requests - Oh please, you've launched gripes on user pages and etiquette that were pretty frivolous. NickCT ( talk) 12:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Statement by Malik Shabazz (involved)
Cptnono is extremely frustrated, as are many of us, that a new editor is exhibiting outrageous WP:IDHT behavior. User:Veritycheck started edit-warring at Falafel as an IP and opened an account to continue. Despite the view of several editors that Veritycheck's proposal is WP:SYNTH, Veritycheck has continued to edit war. Now Veritycheck has asked for a GA reassessment on the basis that the article isn't stable (I wonder why that is?) and asked for mediation.
Cptnono is one of two editors who brought Falafel to GA status, and I don't blame Cptnono for feeling frustrated. Cptnono should have used nicer language, but I don't fault Cptnono one bit for feeling as frustrated as she/he does. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 16:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- ""Fuck him. Obvious troll is obvious and he can suck on my balls." is inexcusable no matter how frustrated one is. I agree Cptnono is a productive editor in the ARBPIA area, but he has seriously un-addressed issues with civility - and has show signs of getting worse rather than better, in particular with "new" POV pushers. On the one hand, I do not edit ARBPIA that much anymore because nablezzy and cptnono (among others) freneminship keeps the place more or less clean of the most awful POV stuff, on the other hand, its really nasty to work in a topic when homophobic slurs are thrown around for fun. Frustration is a mitigating factor, but given that Wikifan12345 was recently indef topic banned from ARBPIA for a 1RR vio that s/he self-reverted in 30 minutes, ignoring Cptnono's behavior would be very unfair. At the very least a stern declaration against Cptnono's routine NPA and incivility should be given and mandated civility mentorship be entered. Of course, there are some WP:BOOMERANG issues here, but as we known, these kinds of SPAs always self-implode eventually, and always will exist, so WP:ROPE. -- Cerejota ( talk) 16:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning Cptnono
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- Cptnono is blocked for 72 hours due to incivility and personal attacks; the frustration is understandable, but the method chosen to express that frustration is quite unwise. I don't think a topic ban is appropriate at this time.
- I see nothing actionable in Biosketch's list of diffs, which is not even related in any way to the subject matter of this thread, which concerns a number of edits related to
Falafel; attempting to derail an AE thread with inactionable claims unrelated to the subject matter is disruptive. Biosketch also has a history of filing frivolous or otherwise inactionable AE requests, and their participation here is not constructive.
Biosketch (
talk ·
contribs) is requested to explain, in 400 words or less, why they should not be banned from
WP:AE, except in cases of enforcement requests filed against themselves.
T. Canens (
talk) 18:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- The difference between self-requested topic bans and self-requested blocks is that the latter is enforced by software - I can make a timed block and forget about it, but a topic ban requires active admin intervention to be actually enforced. I'm also not convinced that admins can impose topic bans under discretionary sanctions without satisfying themselves that the conduct warrants one.
I'm still unconvinced that a topic ban is warranted here, but if any other admin disagree, I will not stand in the way. T. Canens ( talk) 21:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- As AGK put it, "if you want to be topic-banned so badly, then I am sure you are capable of abstaining, without assistance from me, from all edits to the subject area." If you engage in deliberate disruption in an effort to coerce admin action, I'll deal with that by escalating blocks, starting at a month. T. Canens ( talk) 06:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- The difference between self-requested topic bans and self-requested blocks is that the latter is enforced by software - I can make a timed block and forget about it, but a topic ban requires active admin intervention to be actually enforced. I'm also not convinced that admins can impose topic bans under discretionary sanctions without satisfying themselves that the conduct warrants one.
I'll refrain from imposing a sanction on Biosketch at the moment, since this thread is rather stale. Instead, Biosketch is warned that the next time they make a nonconstructive comment or submission at AE, sanctions will be imposed without any further warning or additional opportunity for explanation. T. Canens ( talk) 06:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC) |}
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in
this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see
WP:UNINVOLVED).
- Appealing user
- AgadaUrbanit ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 23:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
- Topic ban imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92#AgadaUrbanit, logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- AGK ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Timotheus Canens ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- EdJohnston ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Notification of that administrator
- The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.
Statement by AgadaUrbanit
- Other discussions
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive96#Carrots_vs._Bananas.2C_WP:DR_and_WP:NPOV
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive97#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_AgadaUrbanit
- Statement
- I've been sanctioned for "clear failure to accept consensus based on a closed RfC". I've
strikedthe offensive comment and would like to apologize for appearance of undermining the authority of uninvolved admin. I've requested clarifications on closing admin talk page and generally my intention was to include all WP:V names in order to satisfy WP:NPOV. I did accept the specific name ratified by the RfC. - Ed mentioned also POV tag placement, but I feel that policy concerns were articulated properly and this action was a proper procedure balancing WP:DGAF and neutrality concerns.
- My first topic ban was three month long and spanned over a single article. The current topic ban is an escalation of sanction severity both in length ( from 3 to 6 months ) and topic area span ( from Gaza War to "any page that relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict" ). This might appear as overreaction and a bit harsh.
- I am a constructive contributor both to other topics of Wikipedia and also relating to I/P topic. See following examples which stick in
Jerusalem, respected by all partisan parties among article editors and assist to avoid endless POV cycles.
- I've closed a long discussion on status of Jerusalem as Israeli capital, accepting uninvolved editor compromise phrasing "capital, though not internationally recognized"
- I have removed Israel as Jerusalem infobox pushpin_map and used neutral Jerusalem map to avoid endless edit warring on Israel vs. Palestine as location.
- I am here to create a neutral encyclopedia. I am not here for advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 09:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Replies to comments
@ZScarpia Some topics in Wikipedia do look like a turf war. For the record the mentioned capital status compromise was suggested by User:BritishWatcher. Now I notice there is also a footnote, since I guess this is a subtle issue. In Troubles topic I was lucky to moderate a consensus under which the gallery of flags in Symbols section of Northern Ireland article was replaced with more aesthetic flax flower - floral symbol of NI, improving consistency with corresponding sections in other articles of Countries of the United Kingdom topic and improving style by avoiding "stack-ups", per MOS:IMAGE. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 19:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Re 22:07, 29 September 2011 Thanks you for compliment, ZScarpia. Honestly I believe that you one of neutral editors in the I/P topic area who indeed are part of the solution and not part of the problem. Another example would be User:Sean.hoyland. I divert, but as far as UK goes, clarification in the introduction section that It is a country in its own right[10][11] makes me think that something is still rotten in that kingdom. Mediation is a complex task, I'm not always proud of results. Another example of my involvement is Stepanakert Airport/ Talk:Stepanakert Airport, my involvement there stopped edit warring, thought imho that article is an example of WP:RECENTISM that still needs some work. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 15:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, as I said to User:AGK here: I've been editing unconstructivly. Considering WP:DGAF the better approach would be tag the article and move on with my life. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 16:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
@Tznkai AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 22:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Statement by AGK
- Briefly: I am happy to give this editor a second chance, and would allow the appeal. AGK [ • 10:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Statement by ZScarpia
For myself, I would have no objection to the appeal being accepted. I wish, though, that AgadaUrbanit had chosen something other than the status of Jerusalem as an example of constructive editing. If a statement which presents the Israeli view as a fact is supposed to be a compromise, I hate to think what the pre-compromise versions looked like. A look at the article talk page archives will show that the dispute about the wording rumbles on. Most recently, a poll was started, but not concluded. ← ZScarpia 17:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
@AgadaUrbanit, 19:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC): I was impressed by the way you responded to the topic ban. Hopefully that can be made to count in your favour. Does this discussion represent your mediation of a solution to the Northern Ireland symbols problem? If so, perhaps the use of the word mediation is a bit of an exaggeration? I'm not familiar with BritishWatcher, but, speaking as someone from the UK, I'd say that, unless its a joke, his or her user page isn't very promising. ← ZScarpia 22:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
@AgadaUrbanit, best of luck with the appeal. ← ZScarpia 13:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Apart from the self-deprecatory remark, I support Boris's statement of October 2. ← ZScarpia 18:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Statement by BorisG
This was an unusual case where, from memory, AU actively supported the sanction him/herself. I thought the sanction was over the top, especially in its breadth, but since AU actively supported it, it was pointless to argue otherwise. AU is a very useful contributer to Wikipedia (unlike me), and his reinstatement will benefit the topic area. Cheers. - BorisG ( talk) 13:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Statement by Nableezy
Sorry, but I dont understand what you want me to comment on. The initial sanction? This specific appeal? Whether or not AU should have his ban shortened? nableezy - 15:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- All right, here goes.
- The initial sanction: Obviously I felt, and feel, the initial sanction was warranted. After years of edit-warring over this very issue, with blocks and topic bans handed out to all sides, an RFC was held. I still feel that making us go through such a process was vexatious, as I dont think that a valid rationale was ever provided for the exclusion of the contested term from the lead. But no matter, the RFC was held and closed with a consensus to include the term. AU immediately reverted that inclusion and said there is still no consensus. When told of the RFC he made no comment. When brought here his single comment was to tell me you are welcome. He made no comment here until an admin commented, and then initially refused to self-revert the edit. He did then self-revert, but his behavior at the talk page following that revert gave little indication of an attempt to abide by either the RFC or the content policies. He made several edits to the lead, attempting to force in material based on sources that he clearly did not understand, even admitted to using google translate for sources in a language he does not understand. Following this, he attempted to repeatedly deflect from the issue of his edits, both at the AE thread and the article talk page. See his comments in the AE request about me. So, in sum, I think the sanction was wholly justified.
- This appeal: Compared to the last two "appeals" by AU, this one might merit consideration. However, those last two "appeals" cannot be simply ignored. The first attempt at an appeal, the odd "carrots, bananas, whatever" section, was very obviously, at least to somebody familiar with the user and the content, an attempt at arguing about the close of the RFC. He was banned from doing so, but the section was such a mess that I dont think many people actually understood what he was doing. This is a regular issue with AU, he thinks he is doing something the right way but is doing so in a manner that is nearly unintelligible. There are numerous times where I have literally no clue what he is going on about. The second "appeal" was more straightforward, it was an attempt at once again arguing the close of the RFC and a specific edit made following that close. He was, still, banned from doing so. Both of those "appeals" demonstrate one thing about AU. He will continue to edit in exactly the same manner that led to the current topic ban. Its his choice to do so, but it isnt to the benefit of the topic area for that to happen. This current appeal deals with his topic ban and I myself dont have a problem with how he is handling it now. I would challenge the assertion that AU is a "constructive" editor in the ARBPIA topic area, but besides that I cant say I have much to say about this specific appeal
- Should AU have his ban shortened? The biggest problem with AU is the constant I did not hear that type editing. It may not be out of bad faith that he does that, there are very obviously language issues that could lead to a failure to understand on his part. But whether disruption is due to bad faith or not, its effects remain the same. Im all for second chances (seriously, who would I be to begrudge a person an opportunity to come back), but that should require understanding the problems that led to the ban. I am not convinced that this has happened here, in fact I am convinced it has not due to the past two "appeals". Additionally, I still have concerns about the repeated reverts by AU with reasons such as "no consensus" and "per BRD", both of which are very obviously spurious attempts at wasting others time. An example can be seen here. If AU ceases making such mindless reverts then most of my concerns would be alleviated.
- Do I think the topic area would be well served by allowing AU back? Honestly, no. nableezy - 18:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Statement by ElComandanteChe
AgadaUrbanit's editing of Gaza War article was definitely too passionate, and when the editing becomes passionate, the editor's style degenerates, what can explain the enigmatic behavior mentioned by Nableezy. Other possible explanations to such behavior, besides language issues, do exist: being genius, for example, or editing while intoxicated. None of these is an excuse for disruptive editing, and disruption has to be faced with blocks and bans. I could see, as the situation around Gaza War RfC unfolded, how banning AU from that article for several months or even blocking for a short period can help, both as counter-disruption and educative measure. However, since in most cases AU manages to keep a cool head, no one benefits today from the ban imposed on him several months ago. At least, it can be limited to single article, if not to the time served. I hope AU will behave responsibly and save the editors speaking here in his favor from embarrassment. -- ElComandanteChe ( talk) 22:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by AgadaUrbanit
I'm willing to field this one if I can get some statements from the enforcing admins and a viewpoint from the original complainant. AgadaUrbanit, please ask them to comment here?-- Tznkai ( talk) 17:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- @Nableezy: Any and all of the above, especially the last.-- Tznkai ( talk) 16:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by AgadaUrbanit
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Given the lack of objection from interacting administrators, and users speaking in AgadaUrbanit's favor, balanced against Nableezy's concerns, I am inclined to give AgadaUrbanit a shot. Generally, I believe we need to err on the side of forgiveness and second (third, fourth, fifth, etc) chances, especially since its so easy to re-sanction as need be. I have also considered the time already spent sanctioned, apparently without violating the ban. I am thus going to suspend the previously imposed topic ban as of 10/8/11 00:00 UTC, which is to say that the ban is gone, but should be immediately reinstated by any administrator, if problems reoccur. AgadaUrbanit is strongly urged to be extremely careful and err on the side of extremely civil talk page discussion. Editors who feel strongly about this decision have until then to try to change my mind.-- Tznkai ( talk) 23:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
| No action in respect of the complaint. | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Cailil
1. [97] This is Cailil's log as administrator. The issue here is the 72 hour block of User:Lvivske made at 13:22, 2 October 2011. Full explanation below. 2. [98] On Lvivske's talk page.
3. [99] On Lvivske's talk page.
4. [100] On Lvivske's talk page.
5. [101] On Lvivske's talk page.
6. [102] On Lvivske's talk page
7. [103] On Lvivske's talk page
8. [105] On Lvivske's talk page.
9. [106] On Lvivske's talk page
10. [107] This is a comment by User Djsasso (I have no idea who that is) who's basically like "what the hell happened here?" 11. [108] On Lvivske's talk page
12. [109] On Lvivske's talk page.
13. Additionally it should be noted that Calil claims that Lvivske was edit warring on two articles. This is the given justification for imposing a 72 hour sanction even though 3RR has not been breached at either (the alleged crime was a total 4, yes, 4, as in four million, reverts across two articles). Here's the thing. On the first article Lvivske might have made two reverts [110] (check it yourself). BUT on the second article he supposedly edit warred on he actually made ... 0 reverts [111]. He made 2 edits. 2 consecutive edits. Even if these were reverts they would count as 1 revert. But the thing is that they weren't even reverts of any user, they were just simple, normal, edits. Nobody got reverted. So this means that either Calil really really really doesn't understand what a revert is - i.e. s/he is incompetent to judge these kinds of situations and hence has no business being an administrator, or at least administratin' in regard to potential edit warring - or, s/he is simply lying and "diff-padding" in order to make a really bad block look better. Hence the requested remedy above.
N/A
Honestly, this is exactly the kind of mindless administrator privilege abuse that cries out for a workable de-sysoping procedure on Wikipedia. I don't know what kind of personal stuff is going on in the background here but I can tell when someone is getting bullied and abused when I see it. This is like the poster child for AE sanctions run amock (incidentally, these very recent edits to their recall procedure suggest that at least on a subconscious level Calil knows they screwed up [112] [113]). If it was within the power of the AE board to desysop Calil I'd ask for that. To be clear, I've interacted with Lvivske before and mostly we've disagreed on Polish-Ukrainian stuff (which is how I saw this, I put his talk page on my watchlist to keep an eye on him ;)) though he's never been rude or obnoxious. Disagreements between editors happen though, and in most of those cases we've been able to have a civil discussion and more or less compromise or at least agree to disagree. The reversal of Lvivske's block is a related, but somewhat different issue, and I'll let him decide whether or not he wants to appeal that. Re to Mkativerata AE has no power to boot an admin out of a topic area for involvement. - why, exactly, not? If you can topic ban people from a topic area for involvement, then why can't you ban an administrator from a topic are for involvement? Seems like an excuse to apply a double standards to regular editors and to members of the admin clique. Where does it say this is outside the scope of AE? (with respect to the 24hr block, ok fine - but it's just completely unfair that whatever happens Lvivske's going to have that block on his block log for ever but Calil's gonna come out squeaky clean) Re to Calil - anyone capable of clicking their mouse four times can check for themselves that you are completely misrepresenting the situation. There was no edit warring here, nor was there any uncivil or disruptive statements. Volunteer Marek 13:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC) And in regard to this [114] - heh, I had no idea you were the same person, nor did I remember you, nor did I even remember ever making that comment (it is a single comment amidst the thousands I've made) until you brought it up. But I'm not surprised. So apparently there's some kind of a pattern here. Volunteer Marek 13:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning CaililStatement by CaililOk, hold on a second. Lvivske was not blocked for breaching WP:DIGWUREN he was blocked for disruption and edit-warring around race/ethnicity/nationality again. He was warned for that by me [115] when he claimed at David Haye that “ he's black, not english”. He then on October claimed that becuase Mila Kunis is Jewish she isnt Ukrainian [116] and edit-warred over that. That's what got Lvivske blocked. And that should be clear from my notes on Lvivske's talk page. It might have been better for me to have described the block as being for 'disrution to make a point' however I still feel that an editor with Lvivske's history of editwarring should know that rversions without discussion and spilling over of content disputes to otehr articles will get them into trouble for editwarring. Lvivske was been placed on notice of WP:DIGWUREN. But the block is not a reminder of the RFAR. And nowhere did I state this. However on a very thorough investigation I found he had previously been placed on notice by Shell Kinney in late 2009. I added an adendum to the page noting this and stating that if a reviewing sysop wanted to reduce the block but was worried that it was an AEBLOCK I would be happy to reduce it myself. I am not nor have I ever been involved in anyway whatsoever with Eastern European topics. However I did have one memorable encounter with VolunteerMarek this year where he launched into a diatribe about me apparently becuase I supported an AE block on Sarah777 [117]. I am baffled as to how I abused the tools here. If indeed I was mistaken fair enough I'm happy to reverse myself and apologize, but it has taken Lvivske 36 hours to even post an unblock request. And as I've said I am happy to reduce myself if an admin feels its dodgy for them to do so-- Cailil talk 11:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Also below is a list of diffs that show further questionable edits from Lvivske in case another sysop wants to deal with the actual issue that Lvivske is blocked for.
Comments by others about the request concerning Cailil
Result concerning Cailil
|