Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive190
GHcool
[edit]This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning GHcool
[edit]- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Sepsis II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- GHcool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION : WP:ARBPIA3
Specifically "Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited"
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- March 10 adds the line "in an area of Israel that is not within the West Bank" which falsely implies parts of the West Bank are in Israel (rather than occupied by Israel).
- Feb 20 Removes the word Nakba, I see this edit like others would see someone replacing the Holocaust with WWII when talking about Jewish immigration post-Holocaust.
- Feb 20 sentence was neutral until he unnecessarily unbalanced it by adding that one, and only one party, attacks civilians without stating that both sides do this.
- Feb 18 Deletes notable text of a pension divesting from Israel rather than fix the deadlink.
- March 13 joins an edit war despite ongoing discussion on talk page
- March 14 breaks 1RR to keep edit war going
- Jan 4 adds a paragraph on BDS being violent and adds a quote from As'ad AbuKhalil who himself has said that this added quote is misused by opponents of BDS to attack BDS (although GHCool doesn't add that part).
- March 13 Removes Palestine's President's home as being in Palestine to being in the West Bank, he makes this edit again multiple times after being reverted, this edit is akin to removing Netanyahu from Israel
- March 13 he makes this edit three times in the last month, he deletes Palestine from a list of nations and replaces it with the region of the West Bank.
- March 16 again removes the word Palestine, even though, as another editor commented, his replacement wording made no sense.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
He's been blocked a number of times
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
He's been blocked and topic banned a few times for this behaviour.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This is not a content dispute but an editor with a clear agenda to remove reference to Palestine whenever possible as well as further edits to delegitimatize Palestine and demonize BDS while he reverts without listening to what others have to say at the talk page.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning GHcool
[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by GHcool
[edit]I stand by almost all of the edits not as legitimate editing in the spirit of Wikipedia:Be bold. I encouraged and participated in debates in these sections before making edits that I felt might shake up the community unduly: Talk:Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Mandate_era_boycott, Talk:Jordan_Rift_Valley#Consistency.3F, Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#West_Bank. Sometimes Sepsis II participated in these debates, but often he/she did not and simply engaged in censorship of facts that were cited to such reliable sources as the Encyclopedia Britannica. I'd like to respond to the ten edits I am accused are improper:
- March 10 - I admit that I worded this edit improperly, though this was not by design, but by a simple accidental error. I was glad to see this edit not long after mine and have not reverted it as I believe the current edit is clearer and more accurate.
- Feb 20 - I don't understand why this edit was controversial. I'm happy to discuss if necessary.
- Feb 20 - This was an honest account of Israel's and Hamas's actual positions on the issue. See the sources cited.
- Feb 18 - As I wrote in the edit summary, I felt that the sentence wasn't notable. If others think it was notable and could cite it to an "live" link, I have no problem with restoring it.
- March 13 - I felt it was discussed and agreed upon.
- March 14 - This edit was regrettable. I do not stand by it and haven't repeated the error.
- Jan 4 - I don't understand why this edit was controversial. I'm happy to discuss if necessary.
- March 13 - Britannica says that Ramallah is in the West Bank (and I cited Britannica here). The Associated Press states that Ramallah is in the West Bank on every Ramallah byline.
- March 13 - I decided not to pursue this matter further since I could not find sources saying that the Jordan Rift Valley was in the "West Bank" but found plenty of sources saying it was in "Palestine."
- March 16 - I don't understand why this edit was controversial. I'm happy to discuss if necessary. --GHcool (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Malik Shabazz
[edit]Above, GHcool writes that she/he made this deletion because "As I wrote in the edit summary, I felt that the sentence wasn't notable." What a crock! The Luxembourg national pension fund divests from the biggest banks and businesses in Israel (and a major US firm), accusing them of human rights violations, and it's not notable?!? That says much more about the agenda of this perennial pro-Israel POV-pusher than it does about the notability of the pension fund's action. It took me all of five minutes to find a "live" link and news stories with which to undo GHcool's vandalistic deletion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Gaijin42
[edit]- #2 It is difficult to say for sure as the diff in question has been deleted, however use of the word "Nakba" in an article about Israel is a gross NPOV failure, unless being used in a direct quote, or as an attributed opinion. In the context used, the neutral meaning is "creation of Israel" or "1948 Arab–Israeli War". Using the word "disaster" or as the OP equates "holocaust" in wiki-voice in that context is not neutral. Beyond that, the entire sentence that the term is used in is unsourced. In the parent article Arab_citizens_of_Israel use of Nakba is attributed appropriately, and is generally balanced by the neutral wording Gaijin42 (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by AnotherNewAccount
[edit]We may actually be looking at some tendentious editing from Sepsis II here. Sepsis II has edited pretty non-neutrally ever since returning recently after a long absence following a topic ban for, I think, tendentious editing.
The diffs from the Israelis article above starts with Sepsis II's edit here. That edit did two things:
- Replaced the word "Many" with "A fraction of" - minimizing, in the consciousness of the reader, the number of Palestinian Arabs who remained within the borders of the State of Israel against those that fled - a subtle POV-push.
- Replaced "state's establishment" with the term "Nakba" or "catastrophe" - the term favored by Palestinians and a much less subtle POV-push.
Sepsis II seems very insistent on drawing attention to the "Nakba", restoring it twice so far in opposition to GHcool and Gaijin42: [2][3] - who tried to offer neutral alternatives: [4][5][6].
Sepsis II's edits to Israeli–Palestinian peace process
[edit]As for the diffs from the Israeli–Palestinian peace process article, I see Sepsis II doing the following:
- Remove apparently sourced material
- Remove "Israeli" from the concerns about security - I don't doubt for an instant that the Palestinian people want security as any man would - but for the purpose of negotations, these are primarily Israeli concerns. The resulting prose misleadingly suggests that both Israelis and Palestinians engage in "terrorism" and "incitement" in equal measure - and the list now omits Israel entirely, subtly implying that it's only the Palestinian side that has reasonable demands.
- Highlight Palestinian "rights" - I don't know if the source provided says anything about rights (I don't have access to the book), but I suspect not.
The GHcool edit complained about above, shows him restoring the removed material with a genuine attempt at more neutral and succinct wording.
Sepsis II's edits to Mahmoud Abbas
[edit]- No comment on whether the disputed content should be "State of Palestine" or "West Bank", but here Sepsis II reverted the addition of sourced material by GHcool as "vandalism".
Sepsis II's edits to Jordan Rift Valley
[edit]Another "State of Palestine"/"West Bank" dispute.
- Reverted an edit as "vandalism" - the material in question was changed by an IP some time earlier. It may or may not have been mistaken, but it was not vandalism.
- Reverted GHcool's edit as "vandalism"
AnotherNewAccount (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
[edit]Result concerning GHcool
[edit]- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israelis&type=revision&diff=706020767&oldid=706012335 This is the diff for 20 Feb. Possibly incorrectly linked? Spartaz Humbug! 19:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Both User:GHcool and User:Sepsis II have previous been placed under topic bans from ARBPIA. Though not all the diffs given in this report are persuasive, I have found some from each side that look to be conventional nationalist POV-pushing. For example, suggesting that a location in the West Bank is deemed to be in Israel. Or adding the word 'Palestinian' to an article where it previously didn't occur without a clear consensus that the term was appropriate. These changes were all predictable given the POV of the respective participants, and they fall short of our expectation of neutral editing.
I would ban both GHcool and Sepsis II indefinitely from the domain of ARBPIA, with the right of appeal in six months.EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Here is an update since my above comment. In a post at my user talk, GHcool says that his error about Ahava moving to ‘an area of Israel that is not within the West Bank’ was just a mistake. (He had already responded about this in the AE. It was item #1 in his own reply to the request). That error in the Ahava article was corrected by another editor and GHcool left the correction in place. Since this was a diff that I had called out as especially egregious, I need to restudy the whole complaint, and have struck out my recommendation until then. I hope to post a further update when I have finished. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Conzar
[edit]| Banned from the topic of vaccination, broadly construed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Conzar[edit]
Pseudoscience and fringe science are considered together. The article in question ticks both boxes: it promotes pseudoscientific work (more specifically pathological science) within the fringe fields of anti-vaccine activism and alternative views on the causes of autism.
DS alert 09:58, March 31 2016
In response to a warning re WP:NPOV, Conzar states: "You are the one writing an article that is not forom a nuetural point of view. The article is clearly 1 sided and pro-vax. Its funny that you post this information about neutral editing as you are the one doing such things." (diff). Pro-vaccine is the neutral point of view, there is no significant informed dissent from the view that vaccines are one of the most important health interventions ever devised, saving millions of lives annually. The subject of the film, the purported link between the MMR vaccine and autism, is refuted (see MMR vaccine controversy). Conzar also states that we are "denying information from the film makers side" (diff). The film maker in this case has had his medical license revoked after conducting unapproved invasive tests on vulnerable children, and his most prominent published work has been retracted due to evidence of research fraud. He was also found to have accepted substantial payments from lawyers promoting a link between vaccines and autism, and not to have declared this conflict. Per WP:UNDUE we cover is views only in the context of what reliable independent sources say about them. The film maker has, for example, stated that the withdrawal of the film from the Tribeca film festival is a freedom of speech issue. He is English, so this profound ignorance of the First Amendment can be excused, but that doesn't oblige Wikipedia to repeat it. Overall I think Conzar should be topic banned from this article for a minimum of six months, by which time there should be a wider discussion in the media resulting in contextualised discussion of crank views like those of Mike Adams and less risk of bias from cherry-picking of sources. Guy (Help!) 07:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Conzar[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Conzar[edit]Pseudoscience Claim The claim that "Pseudoscience and fringe science are considered together" is fallacious. The edits that I have made do not express my opinion nor promotes pseuodoscience and fringe science. My edits are only to provide an objective view of the movie which is the topic of the page. Diffs
Neutral View The statement by Guy "Pro-vaccine is the neutral point of view" is also incorrect and illogical. Its essentially double speak. There are obviously two view points to the issue of vaccination. Those that oppose it and those that support it. A neutral point of view would take no stance on the issue of vaccination, neither opposing it nor supporting it. This is basic logic and reasoning. Debating Vaccination Guy believes this article is about vaccination. However, this article is about a documentary about vaccination. The content of this movie has net yet been shown and therefore, debate on the content of the topic is uninformed at best. Statements such as: "there is no significant informed dissent from the view that vaccines are one of the most important health interventions ever devised, saving millions of lives annually." are irrelevant to the topic of the wikipage. Refusing to allow Film Maker's comments Guy also censors the information that is allowed on the page regarding statements and comments made by the film maker. He does this in order to support his view on vaccination. Again, he shows his bias towards vaccination so much that he is unable to allow the film directors comments on a wiki page about the film he made! He justifies this by saying the film maker is 'not credible'. Censoring someone's speech in relation to their own work is a classic free speech issue and is being perpetrated on wikipedia by Guy who also is clearly English so this profound ignorance of the First Amendment cannot be excused. Banned Overall, I think I should not be topic banned from this article because I have NOT broken any wiki rules. I have NOT added my opinion at all to the wiki page. I have only tried to make the article unbiased. If anyone should be banned, I would recommend Guy to be banned. The topic of course is the film NOT vaccinations. There is a completely separate wikipage for vaccinations. Guy is trying to impose his views about vaccination on a wiki page that should only contain information about the topic which is the VAXXED movie. Mistakes I have made two mistakes which he calls fiction. There is a difference between factual and mistakes. I mistyped the author's name and auto-correct must have choosen national instead of natural. As the link clearly points to the natural news web site. Lets not be disingenuous here. What do you mean by, 'not a recognized organization'? Recognized by who? What authority? Why is the person not a reliable source? Please substantiate those claims. Competency User Capeo has accused me of being incompetent. I have a Masters of Science and a Batchelors of Science in Computer Engineering from the Clemson University, South Carolina, USA. Clemson University is ABET accredited. This means that I have met the world wide standard for being an engineer which includes taking the necessary courses in science. Now that I have shown my educational background, lets discuss the false claim. User Capeo stated that I use Natural News as an authoritative source on vaccinations. I have NOT made this claim anywhere. This is called a strawman attack. In his statement, he is unable to support this claim. Red Flag The idea that my edits of a wikipage can be compared to edits on the talk page are fallacious. My unfamiliarity with Wikipedia does NOT demonstrate my ability to research which is the claim laid by MjolnirPants. Again, I am well educated. It seemed to me that Guy's signature indicated a new user without any edits. It also seemed to me that his account had been deleted after reverting my changes. This is why I made the association of a sock puppet account. If this assessment is incorrect, than I fully accept that I am wrong and apologize. Conspiracy Guy often uses the term conspiracy as evidence against me. He uses the main stream media's approach of silencing criticism by associating 'conspiracy theory' with the idea of craziness or insanity. Its very disingenuous to use conspiracy theory in this contest. Conspiracies happen every day. The FBI, CIA, NSA, etc's JOB is to commit conspiracies. IE, secret organizations conspire on a daily basis. So the question is, are there conspiracies that happen outside of government organizations? Well, did big tobacco commit conspiracies when trying to deny the link to cancer? What tactics did big tobacco use? What tactics are big tobacco still employing today? Is Big Tobacco conspiring to keep their products on the shelves despite the scientific evidence of the negative health effects? I think I have shown why this idea of conspiracy theory and linking it to 'crazy' people is NOT a valid justification as Guy continuously uses. Guy might have bought into the mass media's interpretation of conspiracy theory. Or perhaps, he is well aware of this concept and uses it as an attacking point. Statement by Krelnik[edit]I've edited on the article a small amount, but haven't reverted anything so far. I just wanted to point out that in diffs #6 and #8 not only is the source not reliable, but the text being inserted isn't even factually correct! The editor repeatedly referred to "Mike Adam" (it's Mike Adams) and "National News Forensic Food Lab" (it's "Natural News Forensic Food Lab"). In any case, this lab is not a recognized organization and the person is not a reliable source. --Krelnik (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by Capeo[edit]Anyone who uses Natural News as an authoritative source on vaccinations, or anything medical at all, does not have the competence to edit articles that have even a cursory connection to medical science. Capeo (talk) 13:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by MjolnirPants[edit]A big red flag I've seen is this edit, in which this user demonstrates the approach he takes towards editing. Without doing any research beyond clicking on Guy's signature, he came to the conclusion that a longstanding editor and admin of this site with a nigh-sterling reputation among those of us who prefer an objective, accurate encyclopedia is somehow just some fly-by-night sockpuppet account. Another red flag is this edit. I'm not going to summarize it because there's no need. Anyone who's read WP:THETRUTH already knows what it says. A topic ban seems perfectly reasonable to me. With enough time an experience editing areas which this user might be less ideologically invested it, they may very well be able to request a lifting of the ban and be able to edit constructively in this area. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by Geogene[edit]This diff [7] and this one [8], in particular, are strong evidence of a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS mentality. The remarks about Wikipedia being influenced by Big Pharma to suppress Conzar's POV are particularly troubling. A topic ban is probably necessary. Geogene (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Conzar[edit]
|
ԱշոտՏՆՂ
[edit]| User blocked 3 days for 3RR violation and alerted to the ARBAA2 discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning ԱշոտՏՆՂ[edit]
The user has been engaged in heavy edit-warring on a semi-protected page dealing with a current issue, in clear violation of WP:3RR and well as of WP:Redflag (given the controversial nature of the edit):
...and resorting to incivility when asked to remain NPOV:
Discussion concerning ԱշոտՏՆՂ[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ԱշոտՏՆՂ[edit]Hi, sorry for the violation of WP:3RR
EdJohnston, yes, I have to blocked per 3RR, but what about the natural point of this article? I only added the official point of Armenia. ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning ԱշոտՏՆՂ[edit]
|
FreeatlastChitchat
[edit]| Blocked for a week. Consideration of a 0RR suspending during block. Imposition will depend on behaviour after return from block. Patience levels noticeably low so recommend keeping nose clean. Spartaz Humbug! 22:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning FreeatlastChitchat[edit]
The nominated user is ignorant enough to know that we should revert only when necessary. Just look at his contributions to see how many reverts he does per day. That's why he is nominated in noticeboards on a weekly basis.
This is the notification diff. Discussion concerning FreeatlastChitchat[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by FreeatlastChitchat[edit]I am quite aware of AE and its enforcement therefore I undid my reverts myself when I realized I had gone past 1PR. I did this about three days before this humongously bad faith AE was filed and before anyone else edited the said article, I did not even engage in a TP argument as the person who was reverting my edits said that he meant to continue reverting me on a daily basis, therefore I just left the article in the hands of others, there are no edits on TP or the article from my account after my self revert. The nom should look at the article history before wasting my time. nom has been told at least seven times that he should stop reporting me without proof but he continues his hounding. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by D4iNa4[edit]I can see that he has been blocked for a week, but I think that more sanctions are needed. He loves to wikihound and removed by abusing rollback just anything that he WP:DONTLIKE. He has massively violated his 1-rr restriction on many articles, and wasn't blocked. I would just name these few:-
List of converts to Hinduism from Islam
All the time, he is either removing the sourced content,[34][35] abusing WP:ROLLBACK,[36][37] and gaming the system. What's more disturbing, that he went to these articles by wikihounding my edit history. I don't see any improvement in him, despite many recent complaints on ANI.[38][39][40][41] D4iNa4 (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning FreeatlastChitchat[edit]
|
Askahrc
[edit]| User:Askahrc is banned from the topic of Deepak Chopra on all pages of Wikipedia including talk and noticeboards. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Askahrc[edit]
[Arbcom has extended the word count limit to 1000 for this case.] Askahrc has orchestrated a number of deceptions on Wikipedia. I once asked at WP:AN about the loophole in the "disruption must be current" rule: Can one conduct an unlimited number of abuses on Wikipedia without repercussions, provided there is a sufficient time lag between the disruption and its discovery? The consensus was clearly "no", so I present the following evidence. Askahrc was sanctioned for the first item below; the second has not been addressed before, and only the third is recent.
Much of the motivation behind Askahrc's deceptions may be found in his off-wiki harassment activities. Askahrc identified himself when he brought attention to his contributions to an off-wiki harassment site containing his name,[55] and an Arbcom member had recorded the page.[56] Arbcom is aware of this request. Out of courtesy I will not mention the name in clear text here.
From these writings we learn that Askahrc holds the view that Wikipedia is overrun by "skeptics" and that it's dreadfully important to right this great wrong. I suspect this is the impetus behind his deceptions. Now that Askahrc has a financial conflict of interest, I find it doubly reprehensible that he would continue the pattern of falsely defaming me. I do consider it harassment, and I am citing Askahrc's current sanction, "Askahrc is warned that any attempt to harass other users..." A final note: when confronted with his behavior, Askahrc tends to respond by making a slew of false claims. This puts me in a Catch-22: if I debunk each point, the result is a wall of text that repels anyone who might evaluate the matter. If I leave the points unanswered, it gives a sense of false balance. It is a phenomenally successful method of trolling Wikipedia editors, and I discussed this with Callanecc.[60] I would just implore admins to follow the evidence while not taking what Askahrc says at face value. Manul ~ talk 05:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Askahrc&diff=708535683&oldid=696033693
Discussion concerning Askahrc[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Askahrc[edit]There's quite a bit to respond to, though it appears all but two diffs (1, 2) are years old, and those two were me asking an admin for clarification. For the sake of brevity I'm going to ignore issues from years ago that have already been discussed in front of admins several times.
EdJohnston, it's perfectly reasonable to question whether I can and will conform with NPOV matters relating to Chopra, though I feel my current conduct answers that. While I do feel there are some WP:BLP concerns that could be addressed on that page, I have always emphasized upholding policy and have not used the kind of battleground language found in the Huffpo article. I try to focus on building consensus, participating in RFC discussions, offering sources, and explaining how I see policy/guidelines applying to the page. While some of my conclusions differ from editors on that page, I have backed off of topics when it seemed to skirt my COI, as well as supported positions that would make it harder to upload positive content about Chopra if it helps NPOV. I value NPOV, and strongly feel that editors with an opinion (as many on that page do) can still meaningfully contribute if they focus on policies and sound sourcing rather than their own POV's. the Cap'n Hail me! 00:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by olive[edit]This is very strange. Almost all of these diffs are years old; the filer seems to be attempting to use stale information and diffs to implicate an editor. When I first looked at this case I thought I had somehow stumbled onto an old case. Might be expedient to withdraw this complaint before more time is well.... wasted?(Littleolive oil (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)) Statement by JzG[edit]Askahrc is indeed waging a one man battle against reality-based criticisms of Chopra, but he is open about his COI, polite and in general a decent person. There is a worrying tendency to stonewall and endlessly make the same or very similar requests, but I don't see this as actionable at this point - perhaps an admonition to accept consensus and not spin things out forever might be justified, but no more that that IMO. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Looie496[edit]The enforcement request comes to well over 2500 words. Looie496 (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Jytdog[edit]No Askahrc you did not "drop" your appeal. Per your contribs to Callanecc's Talk page, the last thing you wrote there was continuing your argument to have the "conviction" overturned. That is not "dropped". If you had written there, "Hey Callenecc I am dropping this, but thanks for your time" -- that would be dropping it. I was hoping Askahrc would just walk away from the past or come clean, but instead they are dug in and have doubled down above and at their Talk page. I do not believe that this editor is WP:HERE to benefit the project, and has not been for a while. This is a first batch of stuff and there is more. This is enough for now. A timeline.
There is some stuff I want to say that i am pretty confident is OK per OUTING, but to be safe I am checking first. Will be back afterwards. My bottom line here is that Askahrc has dug up the past, in the present. That past appears to me, to be very sordid. It appears to me that Askahrc has lied to the community about his relationship with SAS81. I believe that Askahrc probably knew that SAS81 was a sock from the beginning in April 2014, but there is no way they could not have known this beginning in August 2014, when they joined ISHAR. Yet they did nothing. This to me belies any claim that Askarhc or ISHAR actually respects Wikipedia's policies. If they did, Askarhc or ISHAR would have identified SAS81 as a sock (with on-wiki evidence or emailing off-wiki evidence to an arb or clerk), and the editing community would not have had to dig that up itself and only in December 2014. And yes, with the Huffpo pieces and the indiegogo campaign, it is obvious that ISHAR is deeply opposed to WP's NPOV policy when it comes to altmed. I believe that Askahrc should be be topic-banned from the Chopra article and from altmed topics as well. If I am able to get the other things I want introduced, that will support that even more strongly, but I think the evidence is clear already. Jytdog (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
The reason I am introducing this, is that Ryan Castle is the one who wrote those two articles at HuffPo that Ed cited below, here (which says "Wikipedia is free for all to edit and get involved in, so the power to fix it lies with everyone." - please note that the second link there is to instructions at ISHAR for how to use their refs in Wikipedia) and here (which ends with the clarion call: "Anyone reading this article is capable of contributing to Wikipedia, all that is necessary is patience and the will to act. If there is misinformation occurring, it is the responsibility of all who know better to do something about it. Go here to learn how to edit Wikipedia and, if the above behavior seems unethical, remedy it. There’s a common saying on Wikipedia: if someone notices a problem and asks why it has not been fixed, the traditional answer is “Because you haven’t fixed it yet.” Let’s fix it."), that made Ed wonder if someone affiliated with ISHAR could be neutral. I am taking that a step further, and saying that those two pieces are obvious violations of WP:MEAT, in that they are clear efforts to recruit people to change the Chopra article. Per MEAT: "recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited." Please TBAN Askahrc from all alt-med topics under the CAM DS. I would even more like to see Askahrc banned from Wikipedia since he obviously colluded with SAS81's socking, but that may be asking too much. Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Askahrc: Clerk notes[edit]
Result concerning Askahrc[edit]
|
Cirt
[edit]Withdrawing per request. This is my first time posting at WP:AE, I apologize for any mistakes. Thanks, SSTflyer 12:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Cirt[edit]
Discussion concerning Cirt[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Cirt[edit]
My sole reasoning of how I came to the article was I noticed it at WP:AFD and wanted to try to improve it as part of a Quality improvement project. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Andy Dingley[edit]Jenna Fife is a Scottish woman footballer. There is nothing about her or this article that falls anywhere near the scope of this arbitration. Accordingly this enforcement request is groundless. The only issue around Jenna Fife is a somewhat controversial AfD. WP:NFOOTY is written to prioritise professional leagues over amateur leagues, at any level. As Scottish women's football is not a professional league, NFOOTY has thus been seen as inadequately defining notability around women's football. Cirt's contributions in this area and to this article have been constructive and appreciated, with no challenges other than this enforcement request. I see no value at all to this request and believe it should be withdrawn or closed. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by The Rambling Man[edit]Only a brief interjection from me. I cannot possibly see how editing this biography of a female association football player can be considered to be editing a biography with "social controversy". If there is any kind of controversy, it relates to the interpretation of Wikipedia notability guidelines around female footballers, and in no way relates to actual content of the article. Looks like a poor request, suggest it is quickly dismissed and we are allowed to go back helping improve the quality of articles, as Cirt was doing in this instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Cirt[edit]
|
No More Mr Nice Guy
[edit]| Closing no action as there has been no admin input for almost two weeks, which means any violation is not obviously clear. Spartaz Humbug! 06:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]
BDS article
Exodus from Lydda and Ramle article:
In the BDS set of edits, NMMNG self-reverts a revert he made earlier so that he can make a larger revert. That same thing happened here and it was found to be disruptive behavior that merited a 4 month topic ban. At the Exodus page, through the time of those last 3 reverts, NMMNG was arguing by himself against 5 different users on either the talk page or through reverts. I realize he never actually broke the 1RR, but like the 3RR nobody is entitled to 3 reverts every 24 hours, and when you're alone reverting against 3 different users with more arguing against you on the talk page I think that qualifies as edit-warring.
Discussion concerning No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]
Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]A 1RR violation usually requires one to violate 1RR. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Statement by Nishidani[edit]It is not policy, but the essay Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling explains much of what is going on here (and at the (talk page). A majority of 5 were in favour of a change to the lead, there was only one objection. The objector NMMGG reverted to keep his preferred version in, and immediately opened an RfC so that change could be blocked. The editor then repeated insinuations that the 5 opposing him were editing in bad faith, acting as a concerted gang.
NMMGG threatened to take me to this page if I didn't revert to his preferred version. When Nableezy reported him for edit-warring he repeated this accusation Almost immediately User:Brewcrewer made a counter-report against Nableezy using stale edits, which had all the appearance of ‘retaliating’ to ‘balance the equation’, giving the impression of a kind of ‘If you report one of my buddies, I’ll report one of your buddies’ mentality. The report was summarily dismissed. The RfC so far gives the same picture. NMMGG won’t address the evidence with any sound policy objection while pettifogging to challenge the overwhelming source evidence for a change. The only way NMMGG can make head or tail of the fact his position, both on the talk page and the RfC is minoritarian, is to insinuate that those who oppose him are tagteamers using a numbers game. There's one sure way of discerning who is tagteaming in these circumstances: examine the talk page to see those who 'vote' with just a vague opinion or waving some spurious policy and those who address the concrete issues by a reasoned argument accompanying their vote. Those who support the minority view are clearly ‘voting’, without any comprehensible policy rationale or response to the meat of the sourcing issue. I don’t expect this case to go one way or another. But I would challenge any disinterested reader to make sense of the extremely obscure, subjective set of arguments NMMGG alone has kept raising to sustain a pointless objection. Persistently approaching editing here in terms of some hypothesis that those who disagree with you have ulterior motives, and act as a gang, is one reason why NMMGG's recent work is problematical. He appears to have a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality and automatically assumes this is what those who disagree with him have. I haven't examined the BDS material and can't judge the merits of the general complaint. I do think NMMGG requires, as in an earlier case, a strong reminder to keep his personal animosity and theories about conspiracy off the talk pages, and focus on source evidence strictly in terms of policy requirements.Nishidani (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Kingsindian[edit]On the Lydda and Ramle page, there seems to be an RfC addressing this. There is no need to hurry, let the RfC play out. On the BDS page, it is unclear what is going on. I don't really see what NMMNG did wrong there. I suggest closing this report with no action. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by Ryk72[edit]Concur with KingsIndian; close as no action or caution only. The Lydda and Ramle RfC should be allowed to play out - there is no WP:DEADLINE. I also note that at that page, editors pushed through changes to the article while an active Talk page discussion was in progress. Such behaviour is to be discouraged as much as any technical breach of xRR rules. There is nothing to see in the diffs of the BDS article. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]
|
HughD
[edit]| Closing as no violation --Laser brain (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning HughD[edit]
Editor banned from edits related to conservative politics post 2009 [79] and the political activities of the Koch family in particular [80] (" I am imposing a one-year topic ban on you from all articles related to the Tea Party movement broadly, including but not limited to anything at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers."). The Fraser Institute is described as a conservative think tank in the article lead. The editor has previously added Koch related content to the article (example [81]) which makes the general article a violation of "broadly". The violating edit was related to a 2014 article about the institute which would violate the 2009 and later conservative topic's portion of the ban.
Previous issues with topic ban violations.
Notification: [[85]] Discussion concerning HughD[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by HughD[edit] No topic ban violation. Complainant cites a superseded topic ban; the sanction currently in effect on the reported editor as of 11 December 2015 is a topic ban from conservative US politics post 2009 under WP:ARBAP2; please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#2015. The Fraser Institute is Canadian, conspicuously omitted from the complainant's filing. In any case, the edit reported above as an arbitration enforcement issue by the complainant was a good faith effort to restore content deleted, by an IP, with no edit summary, while improving sourcing, clearly an improvement to our encyclopedia, and not directly or indirectly related to conservative American politics, or to the Kochs or the Tea party movement for that matter. Given the complainant's obsession with the reported editor, it is highly unlikely the complainant was unaware of the scope of the applicable sanction, or the nationality of the Fraser Institute; this filing therefore appears to be deliberate misrepresentations in an AE filing. Important context for understanding this filing is that complainant is the current subject of a proposed 2-way interaction ban at WP:ANI proposed by uninvolved editors to address copiously documented obsessive following and other harassment behavior issues. Colleagues are respectfully requested to please support the 2-way interaction ban proposed at WP:ANI#Springee campaigning; respectfully request snow close of this filing. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Statement by Fyddlestix[edit]Please note this ongoing ANI thread, in which an Iban between Springee and HughD has received some support and both editors have alleged harassment by the other. It seems to me exceedingly poor judgment in Springee's part to file a new AE report against HughD right now. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Springee[edit]The admin, Ricky81682, made it clear that this is a broadly construed topic ban that applies to all Koch related articles. " I am imposing a one-year topic ban on you from all articles related to the Tea Party movement broadly, including but not limited to anything at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers." [86] HughD previously tried to push the limits of the topic ban by adding links to Koch related material (but not a specific Koch statement in his edit). When HughD was blocked a second time for violating his ban he was told, "Second, your comments at my talk page that it's not a part of the topic ban because it "makes no mention of the Kochs" is ridiculously disingenuous if you are going to be adding content related to Donors Trust which is directly related to Tea party politics and to the Kochs in general." This article is clearly one that HughD feels is Koch related given that he added Koch related content last year. "Broadly" is certainly means cases where the Koch's are considered funders of the group. Certainly Ricky81682 should be given a chance to weigh in before this is closed. Springee (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC) Request close per Ricky81682's comments: Because the article is Koch related (based on HughD's own edits) I had assumed it would fall under the topic ban. It appears that outside of the US Koch related activities are allowed for HughD. HughD, please accept my apologies for this error. Laser brain, please close as a mistaken ARE request on my part. Springee (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by Ricky81682[edit]I'm no fan of HughD but HughD is correct on all accounts. As noted, the relevant topic ban is for all conservative US politics post-2009 which is a permitted subdivision of the larger US politics arbcom case. There is no case about Canadian politics and thus no basis for Fraser Institute to be in any such topic ban as it would not be included in the original Arbcom case and so on. While the US-based Koch foundation donated to the institute, it remains related to Canadian politics to me and I don't see a basis to claim a topic ban violation. A separate issue of disruptive editing about that page can be argued but it seems like the concurrent ANI report is the appropriate place for that argument. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC) Result concerning HughD[edit]
|
MarkBernstein
[edit]| User has been issued a topic ban. The WordsmithTalk to me 01:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning MarkBernstein[edit]
MarkBernstein is by now an inveterate Wiki-warrior in the Gamergate topic area. He has demonstrated time and again his apparent inability to refrain from lengthy WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX diatribes about Gamergate, full of both sesquipedalian wordplay and naked aspersions against other editors, despite being asked numerous times, at numerous venues, to stop. For this he has been topic-banned, un-topic-banned, blocked, unblocked, blocked again, unblocked under conditions, given four final warnings for violating those conditions, and ultimately had the admins enforcing those conditions apparently throw up their hands in exasperation. His involvement anywhere in the Gamergate topic area invariably brings with it more heat than light. He has recently also begun interrogating journalists on twitter about their (unflattering) coverage of persons associated with the topic (Note: MarkBernstein's twitter handle is prominently listed on his personal webpage, which he links on his Wikipedia userpage). This has to stop. The following diffs are just the most recent of his grandstanding and generally disruptive behavior.
MarkBernstein seems to believe that the righteousness of his cause overrides any concerns about civility, collaboration with others, and building the encyclopedia generally. He's been given plenty of chances to bring his behavior in line with expectations, and has declined to do so. Enough really is enough.
By my count, MarkBernstein's combined statements below come to more than 1500 words, well over the 500 he is allotted. I am not suggesting that any of his comments be removed but I do think he should be encouraged to use less Milton and more simple declarative language. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning MarkBernstein[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MarkBernstein[edit]Good grief! Gamergate has repeatedly sought to use Wikipedia to harass its targets and to exculpate its actions. You may recall that the first murder threat sent to the first Gamergate target was delivered through Wikipedia. The Gamergate Controversy page, and the pages of Gamergate’s victims, continue to be used to threaten women in the software industry and to rehash their sex lives in order to demonstrate the fate that will befall women who accept employment in this field -- or indeed anyone with whom Gamergate becomes displeased. Gamergate’s long-planned operation against "the five horsemen of wiki-bias", again thoroughly documented in newspapers, magazines, and academic journals, was rewarded last year by ArbCom’s infamous decision. In recent months, the fora used to coordinate that campaign (and some new ones) have planned a fresh assault on their new Wiki targets. An ArbCom case was brought against Gamaliel yesterday over a supposed BLP violation in the Signpost involving Donald Trump’s small hands, and (surprise!) here we are today. Civility to other editors does not preclude condemnation of campaigns of misogynist harassment coordinated with ruthless energy on shadowy web sites and chat boards. I have worked to write firmly and honestly but -- especially since my block -- with scrupulous civility. I have done my best to find humor where I can, and have worked on-wiki and off to find a path to ending this protracted and unproductive dispute. Those overtures have been rebuffed by many, including some of those whose names appear here. I have many calls on my time, and may occasionally and unintentionally have written ambiguously or unclearly. I apologize. I am hardly alone. I sometimes write allusively; I am accustomed to writing for an educated audience. I am sometimes sloppy; I am, after all, a volunteer. I do not apologize for writing forcefully in defense of The Wiki Way and, in point of fact, in defense of common decency. I note in passing that scarcely a day passes in which Gamergate boards and media accounts fail to question my sanity, cast aspersions on my professional credentials, insinuate that I am a pedophile, caricature what they believe to be my religion, call for new editors to hound me on wiki and off, or speculate that I am engaged in a homosexual relationship with Gamaliel. When I have spoken at universities, Gamergaters have sent letters to their chancellors or presidents demanding that my host be fired. When I reluctantly agreed to speak at a Gamergate event (since cancelled), they openly planned my downfall in the most vivid terms. All this is childish and vexatious, but it is also fatiguing, and since Gamergate's rhetoric is prone to violence, it would be imprudent completely to ignore it all. Though a few Wikipedians have been helpful and sometimes sympathetic, Wikipedia has seldom lifted a finger to help or offered any expression of thanks for arduous work defending Wikipedia's own principles against this pernicious menace.
And.... we’ve just seen what, if I can read the illiterate scrawl correctly, what appears to be a death threat arising from this charming discussion. I have notified Oversight. You folks sure expect a lot from volunteers, and we receive very scanty thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by Masem[edit]I had brought Mark Bernstein to AE before, which resulted in the Sept 5 2015 diff linked by Starke above; I voluntarily took a break from the page for a minimum of 3 months but only returned in March 2016, when I saw a WashPost article I felt was interesting in its neutral take ([89]). That was met with ad hominem comments from Mark Bernstein (among others) that had nothing to do with the policy issues I raised. [90], [91]. Further discussion brings more of these ad hominem comments [92], [93]. In particular, this ad hominem statement is based on the original personal attack he made against me ("rape apologist") that got him blocked in November 2014 (linked by Starke above) simply because I explained the factual nature of a certain image and colors used by GG (which by no means implies that I support that, but that's how this is being taken). I want to stress again that this block occurred simultaneously to the GG Arbcom case, so his behavior was not the subject of any review there. Several of Starke's diffs are statements that continue this type of ad hominem attack against other editors as a means of discrediting them instead of talking about policy issues on what is a very difficult subject to cover by a neutral encyclopedia. I have purposely, pursuant to the previous AE I raised and its conclusion by ArbCom, avoided any direct response to any of Mark Bernstein's comments and otherwise potentially engaging with him on any topic, simply letting them go and focusing on policy aspects with other editors. (The GG page is actually still off my watchlist to avoid any urge to engage routinely). I did this purposely to avoid recreating the situation that led to the first AE, at least from my own end. I would hope that evidence here shows that while normally it takes two to tango in heated discussions, that Mark Bernstein appears to rather snipe at editors that don't take up his very specific POV, instead of discussing the nuances with covering the topic neutrally. He is creating more discourse than needed, and he should not be participating in this topic area. --MASEM (t) 17:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Brustopher[edit]@Gamaliel: I went AWOL for 4 months so I might have missed something but when did DHeyward violate the iban and not get sanctioned? I can only recall one case of him violating the IBAN (in the signpost comment) and he got blocked for that. Brustopher (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Ryk72[edit]MarkBernstein's original statement is, to quote an old friend, While I join that editor in deploring harassment, and threats to any person anywhere (including threats to women in the software and journalism industries), none of these are exculpatory of:
I am not a member of the Gamergate movement; Masem, DHeyward and other editors are not a members of the Gamergate movement. It is utterly inappropriate for MarkBernstein, or any other editor, to treat us as if we are; or as if we are responsible for or apologists for any of the actions of the Gamergate movement. We are Wikipedians and should be treated with the same respect as any other editors. Multiple editors have requested many times that MarkBernstein's disruptive behaviours cease. (My own most recent requests:[128][129][130]) . It is time that they did, preferably voluntarily, but if not, then by administrative action. I began with a quote, and should finish with a quote, from a respected editor: If MarkBernstein sees Gamergaters in every shadow and beneath each rock, then it's time for a Wikibreak. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC) @Gamaliel:, With respect, and regret, it is clear that you no longer have the required level of objectivity with regards to either the Gamergate controversy or User:MarkBernstein.[132][133][134][135] I respectfully request that you either strike your statements or move them from the Uninvolved Admins section to a new Statement by section. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC) @The Wordsmith:, With regards to question of involvement, I would consider that a Wikipedia administrator:
@Drmies and Dennis Brown: As two respected administrators who have previously been involved in AE discussions on MarkBernstein's behaviours, your input may be valuable.[142] - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by MONGO[edit]There is such a thing as fighting the right fight in the wrong way or with excessive zeal in which we see boogeyman in places where there aren't any. A six month vacation from GG topics is long overdue for Bernstein. Its not like the topic will implode with his temporary hiatus...they may just get better.--MONGO 22:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by Carrite[edit]I've got no idea whatsoever, none, why Mark Bernstein has been allowed to once again edit on the Gamergate topic. The Gamergate crew may well be the biggest band of jackwagons on the planet, but NPOV is NPOV. If one can't set aside their biases, but rather continues again and again and again to engage in polemics and to make one-sided claims, it is time for that editor to be removed from that topic. We're at least a year past that juncture here. Carrite (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by ColorOfSuffering[edit]This has gone on long enough. The fact that MarkBernstein is allowed anywhere near Gamergate-related articles continues to confound me. I don't have much more to add beyond the evidence that has already been provided in this and previous AE requests. MarkBernstein's behavior has not changed, and it will not change. His edits are not productive. He is frequently attacking other editors and questioning their motivations. Given the diffs provided, I don't know how anyone could expect this editor to hold even a shred of neutrality in this space. He has demonstrated time and time again that his contributions to any Gamergate-related article will never be productive due to his oft-admitted bias. WP:NPOV is a core content policy. We have to be better than this. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by GamerPro64[edit]I don't think I've ever seen a comment made by MarkBernstein where he doesn't bring up GamerGate into a discussion. I think he has reached the point of obsession and should find a different topic to take part of here. I echo ColorOfSuffering's comment on his contributions on anything GamerGate being productive. I suggest topic-banning him. This has gone on far too long. GamerPro64 01:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC) @The Wordsmith: I want to point out how rather problematic it is to have MarkBernstein be part of GamerGate topics when he has a section in his user page dedicated to GamerGate. The last paragraph alone where he imagines a meeting with Zoe Quinn scolding him doesn't show a person unbiased. GamerPro64 20:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by CoffeeCrumbs[edit]The editor in question already has *7* hits on his block log on this topic and Starke Hathaway could have put three times as many diffs in his statement if he wanted to -- it would actually save a good deal of space to post the diffs in which Bernstein *wasn't* soapboxing or casting aspersions on others. These are among the reasons he received those previous blocks, this isn't new behavior. If you find an uncivil Gamergate discussion, Bernstein's usually at the heart of it. Let Bernstein and his Gamergate rivals go have their feud elsewhere. And per Ryk72, Gamaliel should not be pretending he's not personally involved in this topic and this editor. Even now, he's using Gamergate as his bogeyman in an unrelated arbitration case request against himself and requesting another administrator take concerns about his level of involvement behind closed doors rather than out in public. Gamaliel is certainly entitled to express his opinion, but not presenting it under the guise of an impartial, uninvolved administrator. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Some diffs that haven't yet popped up:
And it keeps going. And more than just Gamergate page itself, it's a problem with any related page. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by Kingsindian[edit]It is virtually impossible to find a thread on the Gamergate talk page in which Mark Bernstein does not engage in soapboxing or unfounded accusations about Gamergate collusion off-site. Maybe Mark Bernstein has reasons to be paranoid or careful, but when every thread is like this, it gets tiring. To give a few months old example of some rather egregious behaviour by MB, here is one where he implies another editor (Sitush), is anti-Semitic, without actually saying it explicitly. This kind of passive-aggressive behaviour is par for the course and is long-standing. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by Sitush[edit]What Kingsindian says above and Spartaz below. I've no idea why MB is still allowed anywhere near any of his pet topics. He's clever with his words, insinuations, passive-aggressiveness, suggestions of something similar to martyrdom etc but ultimately highly toxic. Things are never going to stand a chance of improving while he is permitted to operate in areas such as Gamergate. It has gone on for long enough. I also think Gamaliel is far too involved to act as an admin in this area. - Sitush (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC) @MarkBernstein:, you say above "In recent months, the fora used to coordinate that campaign (and some new ones) have planned a fresh assault on their new Wiki targets." Prove it. - Sitush (talk) 06:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Only in death[edit]Its openly acknowledged that Bernstein enjoys the protection of Gamaliel (except of course, by them) due to their shared POV and idealistic crusade against all things gamergate. If at this point his previous blocks and the diffs supplied above (let alone his off-wiki actions where he bullies his opponents through social media) are not enough to get someone a topic ban from an area under discretionary sanctions, then there really is no point in AE as a noticeboard, as it is failing in its purpose to enforce sanctions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by AnonNep[edit]The statement by Sitush caught my eye. Let's change the username. To wit: " I've no idea why (Eric Corbett) is still allowed anywhere near any of his pet topics. He's clever with his words, insinuations, passive-aggressiveness, suggestions of something similar to martyrdom etc but ultimately highly toxic." Just saying. AnonNep (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by Mr Ernie[edit]It's time to take action or close this request. There has been ample evidence presented. The longer this goes on, the more off topic it will become. Topic Ban or close with no action, but be ready for the next one in a few weeks. My recommendation is a 6 month topic ban or so, with a continued plea to experienced editors that help is clearly needed at the Gamergate article. The reference to Eric Corbett is entirely unnecessary and is only intended to derail this report. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by Torchiest[edit]@The Wordsmith: I wasn't going to comment here, but the diff Drmies provided after "Mark Bernstein uses GG advocacy accusations rather haphazardly", the diff you quoted in your most recent reply, is the very first diff listed in the original request by Starke Hathaway. That is, in fact, the comment that I found unacceptable enough that I collapsed it (the second diff in the original request) and warned MB that further such comments would force me to bring him here. That's the comment that he repeated almost word for word (minus the most personal attack), the third diff in the original request. That is in fact that straw that broke the camel's back and finds us here. —Torchiest talkedits 20:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by (Username)[edit]Result concerning MarkBernstein[edit]
|
TripWire
[edit]| Closing as no violation. --Laser brain (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning TripWire[edit]
Once he would realize that his topic ban is no more in force, he would go back to making those same kinds of edits that led to the topic ban, he would make three objectionable edits to Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965 at first,[162][163][164][165] then he disrupted the article Bangladesh Liberation War by edit warring and making hostile comments on talk page, after that he would falsely accuse @Volunteer Marek: of harassment.[166][167] And now he seems to be missing no chance to attack editors like @Ghatus and Kautilya3: and others. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning TripWire[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (TripWire)[edit]A highly bad-faithed report. D4iNa4 was:
One cannot but wonder what prompted him to file this report? Please note that edits referred by D4iNa4 were made as 3 others and myself were in conflict with MBlaze Lightning - a blocked sock. His master KnightWarrior25 was blocked for POV/edit-warring, NOT for socking. So, these edits were challenges to a blocked POV-pusher/habitual edit-warrer and were mainly done to fight a sock while following WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS. If left uncheck, MBL threatened Wikipedia as project. All this was done while talking it out with involved editors. At no place did I edit-war as being claimed or else I must have been reported to ANI. MBL being a sock & his master being blocked for POV-pushing/edit-warring is altogether a confirmation that I was correct in my approach. The policy for filing a report here says that "diffs older than one week may be declined as stale" but D4iNa4 has quoted weeks old diffs. Reply: Accusation-1: Reply-1:
Accusation-2:
Reply-2:
Accusation-3:
Reply-3
Accusation-4:
Reply-4:
Accusation-5:
Reply-5:
Point scoring by D4iNa4 in Bad-Faith:
Reply:
Accusation-6:
Reply-6:
To Admins: I'll ask for boomerang as this report is vindictive and D4iNa4 implied that just because I was topic banned before, he can hound me on that basis even after the ban ended. Reply to Capitals00[edit]First, hey there, havent seen you much, thankyou for waking up. How did you know about this report by the way? Coming over to your accusations:
Reply to Kautilya3[edit]Out of the 1,381 edits I have made, 286 are on unique pages, but that makes me an SPA?
Statement by Kautilya3[edit]Some general remarks concerning TripWire. As far as I can see, they are an SPA, whose contributions are limited to Indo-Pakistan conflicts. Secondly, the majority of their contribution are to edit-war over the content that the others have contributed, very little of their own content. How much of that the project can tolerate is a big question. TripWire has barely come off a 6-moth topic ban. Whether their behaviour has improved as a result is another question. I think it has. There is less edit-warring and more participation on the talk pages, even though I would say it is still far from ideal. The over-aggressive behaviour in discussions continues. One factor that is currently playing out at the moment is that MBlaze Lightning has been indeffed, rightly, and the pro-Pakistan editors favour reverting all of his edits wholesale. I have objected to that approach and said that we need to discuss specific objections in an issue-based way. That has not gone down well with the pro-Pakistan editors, and they have taken to calling me a supporter, even a "meatpuppet," of MBlaze. However, ironically, TripWire has been forced to point out on this page how often I have opposed MBlaze and supported their stance instead. That is poetic justice, it seems. Given that TripWire's behaviour shows improvement, I don't believe any serious sanction is warranted at this stage. However some cautionary remarks to TripWire to tone down their rhetoric and be more collaborative in their approach would be welcome. A recognition that editors like me are willing to listen to all sides would also be useful. Statement by Freeatlast[edit]We can see from the get go that the entire "evidence" here is fabricated.
My advice is that the nom should spend time actually improving the encyclopedia instead of filling this kind of bad faith requests. I was going to suggest boomerang but then I though why ask for a block? he only comes online once or twice a week to revert etc. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by Capitals00[edit]While I have nothing to say about the long and non-convincing explanations of TripWire other than that he is trying to reject any fault with his editing, he is also denying that he recently came off from a topic ban. TripWire's discussions on talk page has been WP:BATTLEGROUND, he even prefers opening the sections with disparaging titles.[169] His edit warring is too widespread that he removes what he doesn't like,[170] not to forget that he made four reverts only for removing an infobox image that he didn't liked,[171][172][173][174], despite he had no consensus to do that[175] and infobox image still exists on the main article. WP:ASPERSION is being violated on this page alone.
And also false accusations of meat puppetry and sock puppetry.
I don't see how one can deal with such user after they create such a toxic environment. Blocks and topic bans are the only way. Capitals00 (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by SheriffIsInTown[edit]By looking at WP:ARBIPA, there were five decisions made in it. The number 2 decision was specifically about sock-puppetry which reads as below: "2) Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability–and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize–is strictly forbidden." By reverting the edits of the sock, TripWire was actually upholding WP:ARBIPA's decision number 2 and i don't think he should be held accountable for that and when we look at this the other way around, people who are reinstating the sock's edits are actually violating WP:ARBIPA and instead they should be t-banned for doing that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC) Result concerning TripWire[edit]
|
Monochrome Monitor
[edit]| Closing as no violation. --Laser brain (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Monochrome Monitor[edit]
(1) WP:1RR at Modern Hebrew:
(2) Deletion of a TfD template, just 10 days after being warned against the same behaviour by User:Fayenatic london in a similar situation
Previous blocks and warnings:
Reading this editor's previous block and AE history, the editor has historically responded to criticisms by claiming inexperience and ignorance of our rules. The editor has received the support of a more level-headed "mentor", User:Irondome, who has similar editing interests, but who by now has a similar level of editing experience with 4 years' experience and 10,000 edits, versus Monochrome's 3 years and >9,000 edits. In the past, I, like many others, have cut this editor significant slack, e.g. [177]. However, four blocks and many warnings later, we are still dealing with the same lack of respect for Wikipedia norms, time and time again. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Monochrome Monitor[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Monochrome Monitor[edit]I know the rules, I wont make any excuses because I don't need any. Firstly, Modern Hebrew isn't under Palestine/Israel discretionary sanctions. It has as much to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict as Gaelic has to do with the Troubles. Secondly, yes I was warned of reverting your edits adding deletion templates, but you shouldn't have made them in the first place, since they fit none of the Deletion criterion (it's also a long-standing template used on many articles that many users have contributed to). That fact that you believe (falsely) that the ethnolinguistic grouping of Semitic peoples is a psuedo-scientific racist construct comparable to "Aryans", does not entitle you delete every mention of Semites from wikipedia, especially if your "source" is the article Semitic people. (I can't fully explain the ridiculousness, see here). As for modern Hebrew, you're a rogue editor on that page too, zealously promoting the minority view that Modern Hebrew isn't Semitic because it fits your view of Jews as European interlopers.
It goes on and on, others call the page a "dumping grounds for minority views", a "mess", and a "soapbox". You consistently refused to acknowledge the argument of the majority, and edits which went against your status quo were reverted because of a lack of the very consensus that you sabotaged. You staved off discussion with empty promises of diplomacy and showed no flexibility in making compromises. You follow the letter of the law but not its spirit, exploiting the inherent inertia of a lawful wikipedia, meant to protect it from radical views, not to protect the radical views themselves. You're an agenda editor, nearly all of your edits are Israel-Palestine. I have my own position on I/P but I am always willing to compromise, and I edit other topics. The way you edit on one agenda alone is more contrary to the spirit of wikipedia than my edit warring. You turn articles like Modern Hebrew into proxy wars for the Arab-Israeli conflict. I said the page had BECOME an arab-israeli battleground because YOU ARE MAKING IT ONE by politicizing it. I am not going to treat it with kid gloves as if it were an A/I article simply because you've corrupted it. I wanted to remove the source of the politicization alltogether, as others did in the excerpt I provided from the talk page. TL;DR The template Semitic Topics met none of the criterion for deletion, and the page Modern Hebrew does not fall under Israel/Palestine sanctions. Have I edit warred in the past and violated rules? Yes, usually because I was ignorant of the rules, but also because I was simply foolish and impulsive (which I take full responsibility for). But those were my past sins and I did my time then to atone for them. This time I did not violate any rules, and I stand behind the principle of my edits, which I made for a more informative, less politicized encyclopedia. About Irondome:
Statement by Kautilya3[edit]
Statement by Nishidani[edit]In loco parentis.
Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]The section of 1RR on Modern Hebrew should be struck-out. Modern Hebrew is not under 1RR or ARBPIA sanction. The use of this just seems to be a way to sanction an editor. Decisions should be based on articles under AE jurisdiction. Just being Hebrew or Jewish doesn't make it applicable to the ARBPIA arena. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Monochrome Monitor[edit]
|
HughD
[edit]Topic-ban scope expanded as per Georgewilliamherbert and extended to 1-Jan-2017. Zad68 14:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
| ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
Your topic ban is expanded to include a ban on editing everything related to conservative US politics from 2009 to the present, broadly construed, on any article.
Your topic ban is extended to Jan 1, 2017.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning HughD[edit]
"You are now banned from editing everything related to conservative US politics from 2009 to the present, broadly construed until August 28, 2016" [180]
HughD currently has a broad topic ban in place that is supposed to prevent him from editing about conservative U.S. politics, 2009-present. The topic ban started out as a tea party/Koch brothers ban, but was broadened. HughD has been blocked multiple times for failure to comply with the ban. Today, he edited Institute for Energy Research, even though in a previous AE filing in October 2015, he apologized for editing that article in violation of his topic ban and got off with a warning. The diffs of complaints against and violations against HughD are too numerous to assemble. Suffice it to say, previous sanctions have clearly not worked. I think I speak for a large part of the community when I say we've lost our patience. I don't know what should be done, but I do know that the current topic ban is not working, and HughD is wasting a lot of peoples' time, and none of this is improving the encyclopedia. I even gave him a chance to self-revert today's violations, but he didn't take it. Instead, he attempted to badger me into explaining why I thought it was a topic ban violation. He'd already been warned by an admin for editing the very same article, for crying out loud. Maybe I should be posting this to ANI, I don't know, but something needs to be done. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning HughD[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by HughD[edit]No topic ban violation, no edit warring, no disruptive editing. The topic ban scope is "conservative US politics from 2009 to the present" under WP:ARBAP2. I understand the scope and respect it. Since the topic ban I have refocused my volunteer work on the environment and global warming. I am proud of my contributions in this area including, among others, a recent good article review of Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand, a pending WP:GA nomination at Global Climate Coalition, and a WP:GA drive at ExxonMobil climate change controversy, one of the most significant environmental stories of 2015 and 2016. The above reported diffs have to do with environmentalism, and have nothing to do with conservative American politics, or the Kochs for that matter. The topic of the environment is not subsumed by the topic of American conservative politics. The Institute for Energy Research and the American Petroleum Institute are not in scope of the topic ban. In no sense are the above reported edits in scope, unless perhaps you agree with Thomas Mann that "Everything is politics." Neither article is tagged by WP:WikiProject Conservatism. Institute for Energy Research[edit]The Institute for Energy Research (IER) is an explicitly non-political, non-partisan, non-profit, 501(c)(3) charity that conduct research into energy issues, as stated by the lede paragraph:
At no point in the lede, nor at any point in our article, is IER described as conservative. In fact, given its legal status, it would be illegal for IER to operate in any manner as an instrument of American conservative politics. No political parties or ideologies are mentioned in the article, and the only politician mentioned is John Kerry, not generally considered conservative. The specific edit of 15 April 2016 which complainant deems worthy of sanction, with changes bolded for emphasis:
...with edit summary "WP:SAY, more accurate, neutral paraphrase of source." The edit as well as the article are unrelated to conservative American politics. Complainant argues "none of this is improving the encyclopedia." This edit is a clearly an improvement in compliance with policy and guideline in neutrality, accuracy, and completeness. The consensus at Talk:Institute for Energy Research is that our article has serious neutrality issues. Complainant reverted, without talk page discussion or alternative proposed. There was no edit war. There was no disruption to our project. Complainant argues "he attempted to badger me." This is false. Ownership issues may have contributed to motivating this filing WP:OWN. Complainant is the leading editor of IER, but is third in terms of adding content; most of complainant's edits are deletes. Important context for this AE filing is that complainant is our project's leading patroller and sanitizer of articles on conservative American organizations (please see for example Club for Growth, State Policy Network, her top two articles, and about a hundred articles affiliated with the State Policy Network), and seems to consider IER as part of her beat (please see for example 28 October 2014, 09:42 4 December 2015, 09:50 4 December 2015). In this noticeboard filing, complainant reports on the results of taking to the Googles with "Institute for Energy Research" and "conservative" in defense of her area of ownership, and suggesting new content and new sources for our article she believes support a fundamental characterization of the subject as a subtopic of American conservative politics, yet somehow to date this characterization and those sources are missing from our article. Ironically, bringing new content to our article which speaks to the fundamental characterization of the subject is what she is attempting to block a colleague from doing, via a noticeboard filing rather than through good faith talk page discussion of neutrality and sourcing. October 2015[edit]After reading the talk page consensus on WP:NPOV concerns at Talk:Institute for Energy Research, on 8 October 2015 I tagged 3 promotional statements in the lede sourced only to the organization's website, requesting improved sourcing from 3rd-party sources, 3 statements unrelated to the Tea Party or the Kochs. The edit was an improvement in verifiability and neutrality. Complainant reverted without discussion within minutes. At the time, I was topic banned from "Koch-related" topics under WP:ARBTPM, and the ban was new. Complainant noticed that the body mentioned that Politico said that the IER was partly funding by the Kochs, the owners of the world's largest privately-held fossil-fuel company, and filed at WP:AE. I apologized for the tagging. Complainant here attempts to portray the above reported diff as some kind of continuation of disruption, which it is not. American Petroleum Institute[edit]The American Petroleum Institute (API) is a similarly an explicitly non-political, non-partisan, non-profit, 501(c)(6) trade association, as stated in the lede paragraph:
API employs lobbyists who advocate on behalf of its members in opposition to environmental regulation. Although the API is permitted limited legislative activism, it would be illegal for political activity to be its focus, and it may not endorse any politicians or engage in partisan politics. API is clearly not an agent of conservative American politics. Complainant argues that our project's article API "contains information about conservative U.S. politics/advocacy/lobbying." No connection between the API and conservative American politics is made. Congress is mentioned, but no politicians, political parties or ideologies. No funding of the API by conservative American politics or vice versa is mentioned. Disruption including disruption of dispute resolution[edit]Involved commenter below urges uninvolved administrators to thoroughly review recent editor behavior at API. Above, "If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it." Before taking at face value the noticeboard claims of involved commenters of disruptive editing at API, kindly perform due diligence, and please review the edit history; see who is who is engaging at talk versus who is reverting on sight, who is laying out proposed edits supported by reliable sources and policy and guideline, who is talking about content versus editors, who is editing other's talk page comments, who is edit warring versus pursuing dispute resolution, and who is disrupting dispute resolution. Highly characteristic of involved commenter's editing is disruption of dispute resolution.
Conclusion[edit]Missed the notice, sorry, no one is thumbing their nose at anyone, thanks. No topic ban violation, boundary testing, or other disruptive editing is reported here. The above reported edits are clearly good faith efforts at improving our project's coverage of environmental issues and wholly respect the topic ban. Sincerely, I have no intention of boundary testing, and I respectfully requested that my edits be viewed in good faith in the context of a demonstrated, months-long productive editorial involvement with environmental topics. Refining arguments is not disruptive, it is the editorial process; requests for comment are not disruptive, they are dispute resolution. Attempts to broaden community discussion beyond a local consensus of one or two should not be feared or reported to noticeboards as disruptive. I should not be sanctioned for disagreeing with a local consensus by civilly pursuing legitimate dispute resolution steps. I have respected the community, I have been civil, I have pursued dispute resolution where necessary, I have justified every edit with policy and guideline and sourcing; I am part of the solution. Complainant claims "I speak for a large part of the community"; I think this is false, she speaks for herself and a very few, who view noticeboards as a backstop for content disputes; I would respectfully recommend we move this to a case to assess this claim and to more thoroughly examine the behavior of involved commenters. Responding uninvolved administrators are respectfully requested to comment on any potentially actionable editor behavior of commenters to this filing they may or may not have encountered during the investigation phase of their due diligence in their evaluation of this filing. I would prefer that sanctions not be expanded or extended. Respectfully request clarification of the boundary if any between WP:ARBAP2 and WP:ARBCC and a warning; I respectfully offer to self-revert the above reported edits if a consensus of colleagues agree they are in scope. Hugh (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by Springee[edit]Because of my long and disagreeable history with HughD I'm not going to offer an opinion but I will note that HughD continues to edit American Petroleum Institute and the associated talk page including 4 reverts in 27 hours and continued abuse of the RfC postings by revising old arguments which didn't go his way. [183][184][185][186]. Springee (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by William M. Connolley[edit]HD claims The above reported diffs have to do with environmentalism, and have nothing to do with conservative American politics. That is not true. HD's edits, such as [187], are to do with climate change denial and promulgating climate disinformation. These are solidly political concepts that are strongly associated with conservative American politics. They are also connected to environmentalism, and to global warming, but they cannot escape being political, let alone the implausible nothing to do with conservative American politics. As a more minor matter, I think HD's The American Petroleum Institute is a similarly an explicitly non-political, non-partisan is also false. Certainly, our article makes no such explicit claims. Nor do I find the API explicitly making such claims William M. Connolley (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning HughD[edit]
|