Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive200
Nishidani
[edit]| All parties are cautioned that further breaches in civility occurring after this date in the PIA topic area will be be met with swift action at a lower threshold than has traditionally been the case. Parties are urged to spend some time reflecting inwardly on their own conduct, and whether it is truly appropriate for an online encyclopedia. No further action is taken at this time. The parties are advised to chill. The WordsmithTalk to me 13:52, 7 October 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 Nishidani[edit]
Specifically Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Decorum and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Standard_discretionary_sanctions.
He acted precisely in the same manner the last time we disagreed on the talkpage of an IP-conflict related article, Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#Gilbert_Achcar, with blatant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior.[1] The insults were at other pages during that same time.[2][3]
@Kingsindian Content dispute? This post is about incivility in a very specific and sensitive area, where there exist clear standards of behavior, that have been violated. This post is about tendentious editing. When an editor asks for a policy/guideline even after it has been provided again and again, and does so on various talkpages, to create the false impression as though those who disagree with him refuse to reply to his "legitimate" request, and thereby show them as though illegitimate, that is extremely disruptive behavior. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC) @Nableezy If all you see in this post is a complaint about the words "drifting", then you are either trying to deliberately mislead editors here, or you are completely unfit to edit articles in the IP-conflict area. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC) @All I find it telling that editors with a well know POV try to make it look as though this post is about some triviality. This post is about a very smart editor, who knows how to hide his blatant POV and tendentious editing behind a mask of adherence to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but is guilty of minor but systematic transgressions for years now, and it is about time he is called to answer for that. This WP:AE post is about what just a small example of that behavior, which I hope suffices to get him warned or temporarily topic banned, and my hope and expectation is that Nishidani will see it as a warning and mend his ways. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC) @Nishidani Why do you say I represent the Israeli point of view?[6] (and many more edits that prove I am a good editor, who does not let his personal opinions stand in the way of good editing) Debresser (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC) @The Wordsmith If all you saw in my report is 1 mildly standoffish comment, then I suggest you read it again. Shame on you. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC) @AnotherNewAccount Nice collection. In my post I only wrote about his insults to me, not other editors, and even there you found another good example I had already forgotten about, since this way of denigrating talk has become expected from Nishidani. The only correction I would like to make to your post is minor, that I didn't "boil over", rather calmly reached the decision to post here in an attempt to finally stop Nishidani's POV pushing. I am glad to see my take on Nishidani's editing is shared by other editors. Debresser (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC) @Ijon Tichy You are falling in Nishidani's trap too. I don't have to quote the policy page to quote policy! If I say something is not reliably sourced, do I have to provide a link to WP:RS? If I say something is not relevant, e.g., do you really need a link to a policy page, or is it evident that information should be relevant? Debresser (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC) @Nishidani 1. A suggestive question is not a reliable source, even if the person who asked it would be a reliable source if he made a clear statement. One of the two uninvolved editors who replied at WP:RS/N said so specifically. 2. With only two uninvolved editors replying at WP:RS/N and one of them saying "In short, it is not encyclopedic." and the other "The only question I see is if his comments *should* be included. Which would be an NPOV issue. Personally I favour inclusion but there might be a slight BLP issue", how did Nableezy, or anybody else for that matter, reach the conclusion that the WP:RS/N was in your favor? That is delusional! It is precisely this type of behavior - deliberately misrepresenting consensus, and other types of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior - that I think warrants that Nishidani be sanctioned. Debresser (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC) @The Wordsmith I see no reason to make this about anybody but Nishidani, whose behavior has been most polarizing and uncivil. I think the clear conclusion of all the material brought here is that Nishidani, and he alone, should be admonished to be civil and to respect the opinions of other editors. Debresser (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Nishidani[edit]This is vexatiously piddling, and coming quickly in the wake of Debresser's earlier problems here (arguing without regard to policy), doesn’t look like he has absorbed the lesson. Indeed, above in the indictment, he expressly shows that he has not accepted that verdict by directly referring to my behavior at Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#Gilbert_Achcar and citing as evidence a diffwhere I pleaded with him to drop the chat and argue from policy. He was sanctioned for refusing to listen. This is essentially a clash over whether the same interpretation of the rules should be applied to events regarding Israeli victims of terrorism, and Palestinian victims of terrorism, regardless of the ethnicity involved. I insist that editors are obliged by WP:NPOV to adopt the same criterion everywhere. Several Israeli victim pages include the names of the injured. No one objects. When I added the names of Palestinians maimed in an Israeli terrorist attack, Debresser suddenly objected. After 14 years of wikipedia, that one can still hairsplit and argue the point to exhaustive attrition on very simple policy guidelines in the I/P area is a further sign that it is totally dysfunctional. The seriousness of commitment can be generally judged by a simple glance at the edit history of each editor: who is actually constructing an article, and whose edit record consists mainly in raising objections to the addition of content, by revert and then by engaging in extenuating wikilawyering on the talk page. Since I have interests I in both areas I am never obstructed if I go and write up, say, to cite a recent example, Elio Toaff, I can triple the content in a day, undisturbed: if I touch the I/P area I am drawn into absurd melodramas over the simplest edits, which are contested, reverted or challenged at sight. Regarding the specific complaint. Debresser in opening a thread to challenge my addition made an insinuation about my motives. I made the briefest of responses to this WP:AGF violation, and asked that one focus on policy, as did the other editor. Debresser’s comments here, here, here, here, and and here, are void of policy considerations. This is exactly the substance of the complaint made at the earlier arbitration case regarding him. He keeps talking past requests for policy justifications for his position, trusting in his opinions or suspicions. Having started the thread motivating his challenge by a personal insinuation against me, he ended it by protesting I had not observed WP:NPA, and jumped at an opportunity to report me. When I asked him for the nth time to respond by policy his answer was I am applying good editing rules to this article It is this that I referred to in the diff he adduces. In my judgment, his repeatedly ignoring requests to cite a policy ground for his objection, and, when asked to focus, simply replying ‘I am applying good editing rules to the article,’ sounds to be like an argument from self-esteem. To answer a request for a policy reason with the riposte:’I am a sound editor’ is to privilege a confidence in one’s own personal judgment over logic, policy and the reasoned objections another editor might raise. I.e. self-esteem gets the better of a neutral rule-based system of collaboration.Nishidani (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Nishidani[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 Kingsindian[edit]Content dispute. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Nableezy[edit]Jesus christ, somebody says youre drifting and thats a "personal attack" that requires coming to AE? Statement by AnotherNewAccount[edit]Debresser clearly filed this in frustration after several run-ins with Nishidani of late. I haven't been here the last few days, but up until then I was observing Nishidani's conduct on Talk:Israel, which included some extremely insulting putdowns of several editors including Debresser, despite being asked several times to stop. Also stonewalling, soapboxing, and tendentious nitpicking over precise details to justify the retention of a map that clearly failed to reflect the reality of complete Israeli control of the Golan Heights - which he refused to accept for ideological reasons.
Collating the above has taken much of the evening, so I can understand if Debresser didn't have the will to do it himself. Judging by the diff submitted above, Nishidani is continuing with the problematic talk page attitude towards Debresser after he was asked to stop. I think Debresser has boiled over, and justifiably so. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by Kamel Tebaast[edit]Thank you, AnotherNewAccount, for teaching me a new policy: WP:SOAP. In case your fine examples weren't enough to move Nishidani into the semi-finals, here are a few more:
Statement by ZScarpia[edit]The curious thing about AnotherNewAccount's rather impressive-looking charge sheet is that you would have expected him to lead with the strongest part of his case, yet examination of the first diff actually tends to highlight as problematic the behaviour of Kamel Tebaast, who has commented above, rather than that of Nishidani. The comment Nishidani makes is innocuous and factual. Kamel Tebaast comes the closest to making a personal attack, which is what this incident is nominally about, with what could be called a honeyed insult. If anyone there is pushing a point-of-view it is also him. @No More Mr Nice Guy: "I can supply dozens of diffs if necessary." Exactly a month ago, on the 3rd of September 2016, a ban preventing No More Mr Nice Guy from commenting on AE discussions was removed. The ban was imposed on the the 6th of July 2013 for raising an AE incident in which he accused "an editor of serious and ethically tainting misconduct, namely antisemitism, on specious grounds." That editor was Nishidani. The incident was the final one of a series raised by No More Mr Nice Guy in which, on various pretexts, he unsuccesfully tried to have Nishidani banned. It's to be hoped that the "dozens of diffs" threatened by No More Mr Nice Guy aren't just going to reiterate his previous complaints, especially given how recent the removal of No More Mr Nice Guy's ban was. @No More Mr Nice Guy: "Perhaps IjonTichy above can explain how gratuitous Nazi analogies like the one KT shows above ... ." I doubt that the example given, this, is really what most people would understand by the term "Nazi analogy." As for being provocative, hatting another user's comment wouldn't be the least in a list of methods used to achieve that end. ← ZScarpia 21:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Innaccuracies in No More Mr Nice Guy's latest comment:
← ZScarpia 23:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Ijon Tichy[edit]In general editors should refrain from analyzing the personality or character traits of fellow editors. It was not a good idea for Nishidani to make a remark regarding Debresser's self-esteem. That remark did not help the discussion. It would have been sufficient for Nishidani to request that Debresser provide a clear policy justification when Debresser makes a controversial or a contested edit (Debresser appeared to brush-off Nishidani's repeated requests that Debresser provide policy justifications for his edits). We assume good faith in each other and we trust that Debresser (or any editor) must have a good reason when he makes a controversial or a contested edit, but we are required, by WP policy, to verify that the edit is policy-compliant. Thus, it is incumbent upon Debresser, that when an editor asks him for a policy justification, that he not answer with something to the effect of 'trust me, I know what I'm doing.' (We are all required to trust, but we are also required to verify.) In the future, if Debresser can't provide that justification, then it is better that he refrain from making the controversial or contested edit until that time when he can provide it and discuss it on the article talk page.
Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]Perhaps IjonTichy above can explain how gratuitous Nazi analogies like the one KT shows above, (which I hatted and Ijon restored [25] and is now responsible for) and stories about Nishidani's escapades in the nude are necessary for improving articles? Because Nishidani makes these analogies, which only serve to provoke, and tells little personal anecdotes, which only waste everyone's time, very often indeed. I can supply dozens of diffs if necessary. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC) @ZScarpia, hatting is one of the things WP:TPO suggests for off-topic stuff, which is a generous description for an editor stating his personal admiration for Hamas' methods, and making an analogy between those and how some Jews behaved during the Holocaust. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Rhoark[edit]I've read through the diffs from AnotherNewAccount. Only the last two seem to be anything other than ordinary content disputes, and those two seem to have been provoked by other editors straying first into aspersions. Rhoark (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]I just want to add that I agree with ANA and Debresser. Nishidani hides his actions with extreme verbosity. He is extremely condescending to others and if you dare disagree with him you can bet you will get labeled as a mere child like, not smart enough to understand his texts. Result concerning Nishidani[edit]
|
ה-זפר
[edit]| ה-זפר (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions covered under WP:ARBPIA, broadly construed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:05, 8 October 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 ה-זפר[edit]
In the edits above he puts Hebrew before Arabic in the infobox and main article text, changes the map to an Israel north east map removes "occupied" by Israel in infobox and changes it to "control", adds Israel time zone. I warned him at his talkpage and he continued to edit war and violate the 1rr after:[26] He has not made one single post at the talkpage, he is just resorting to edit warring. I asked him to please discuss at talkpage and get consensus and he just continued to edit war:[27] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning ה-זפר[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 ה-זפר[edit]Statement by Debresser[edit]This editor is damn annoying, but that isn't specific to his editing in the IP-conflict field. I think that it would be more beneficial for this project if WP:AE would explain to him the essentials of community editing one last time, and put him on probation. Debresser (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by Malik Shabazz[edit]My experience with ה-זפר has largely been limited to the article about Israel, but I find that the editor rarely uses edit summaries or the talk page, and inappropriately marks most edits minor. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning ה-זפר[edit]
|
Marteau
[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 Marteau
[edit]- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Marteau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [31] This is just a link to the history of the Alicia Machado talk page. A lot of material got rev-del because it was deeply offensive and a BLP violation. Marteau's comment at 01:03, 1 October 2016 was rev del'ed. Marteau received a BLP and DS notification soon after [32]
- October 3 Here Marteau proposes that we change "it was reported she gained too much weigh and rumors began to circulate", which was bad enough, to "it was reported that she swelled to more than 160 pound". Trying to write that someone "swelled" rather than "gained weight" is a pretty obvious attempt to attack the person in violation of BLP. Yes, the word "swelled" is used in the source but is done to CRITICIZE that kind of language. Trying to use that to back up BLP-violating language is disingenuous and dishonest.
- October 5 Here Marteau is trying to use a non-reliable trashy source to attack the subject of this BLP by insulting her intelligence (The headline of the tabloid is "Venezuela's former Miss Universe Alicia Machado has a blond moment".
The above were done while the article was under full protection, so these are violations on the talk page. BLP also applies to talk pages. The diffs also show that Marteau's primary interest in the article is to use it as a vehicle for attacking the subject.
- October 7 Here, after full protection expired Marteau puts in the BLP violating text, which gives WP:UNDUE weight to trivial information. Marteau also placed stuff about Machado shutting down twitter due to abuse in the "Personal life" section.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
Note that Marteau was given a DS/BLP sanction notice back in April by User:Cwobeel [33]. So the BLP notification received for the Machado article, from User:Callannecc was actually his second one. This means two things. First, when he was posting this stuff to the Machado page he was already aware of BLP and the relevant discretionary sanctions, but did it anyway. Second, while I understand that DS notifications are suppose to be only notifications and not actual warnings, usually they're given out when somebody's being up to no good. The fact that he was notified twice of BLP DS means that this isn't the first time someone had problems with Marteau's BLP editing.
Also, on this one, your mileage might vary, but Marteau's also received a DS notification for Gamergate issues [34]
(Note that I left a message at User:Alison's talk page, since she was the one who rev-del'ed a good chunk of the talk page, about this matter [35])
I would also like to suggest that in addition to whatever sanctions are placed on Marteau (a topic ban from this article seems like a minimum), the article itself be restored to full protection.
Note User:Paul Keller commenting below is a sock puppet of permanently banned User:Lokalkosmopolit (Lokal got perma banned for harassing myself and another user, which is also why his sock is here - for more of the same). I filed the relevant SPI.
And checkuser confirmed [36].Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- See above: [37] [38] [39]
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Marteau
[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 Marteau
[edit]Marek has been fighting with passion the inclusion of the instance where Alica Machado confused countries on Twitter, then suffered vicious attacks, leading to her quitting Twitter. Marek has called this at various times "trivial", "deeply offensive", "junk", "nonsense", undue weight, and a BLP violation. This incident is widely cited by numerous reliable sources and is certainly notable. That editors are compelled to fight Marek repeatedly on such issues in this, and other, articles related to political figures and issues wastes untold numbers of hours editors could be using to improve the encyclopedia.
Marek has been making the rounds on various pages about how I changed "gained too much weight" (which did not appear in the sources) to "swelled" (which is the exact term used by the Washington Post). Marek claims the Post used this term as criticism of such language, but such an intent is not present in the source. I dropped the matter instantly and made nothing further of its removal, however, Marek just goes on and on and ON about how egregious my using the verbiage the Post used was, attempting to use it as a cudgel of some sort.
He then complains I was "trying to use a non-reliable trashy source to attack the subject of this BLP by insulting her intelligence" in a talk page comment. All I have to say is I have never used anything but impeccable sources in the article space, and that sometimes I let my proverbial hair down in talk pages, to my detriment perhaps. I will say, however, that I immediately thought better of it and self reverted this comment eight minutes after the fact with no prompting from anyone.
That he attempts to smear me with the fact that I have received Gamergate notices and such. Such notices are given out like candy to editors who edit such articles. And coming from someone with 12 entries on his block log, directed to someone with none on his log for 10+ years here, such an attempt to cast aspersions on me in such a way is pathetic in its grasping.
A boomerang, however, might be in order. I count at least seven reverts by Marek on the Machado article within the past 24 hours. To be honest, I have no stomach for pursuing a 3RR violation, for I am sure Marek will claim BLP exceptions and such, and I am not in a fighting or vindictive mood. Combine that with a general battleground mentality on the Machado article (and other political articles) his snark, his insults, and his pattern of tendention, he's certainly well past due for line 13 to be added to the already 12 lines in his block log. Marteau (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Paul Keller
[edit]Edits by Marteau were all fully in line with policy. The Twitter controversy was widely handled in the media. What is concerning is the filing party's spree of revert warring in the article today [40], [41], [42]. It is part of VM's wider campaign of a) entering as much negative information to articles concerning Trump as possible; b) while equally removing all information disadvantagous for the Clinton side from other articles. [43]. This has been going on for quite some time. --Paul Keller (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC) - Striking comment from confirmed sockpuppet. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Statement by The Wordsmith
[edit]As a point of order, I edit election-related articles so I'm considering myself WP:INVOLVED here. As such, I'm recused from this request. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Statement by James J. Lambden
[edit]In almost every political article our editing intersects Marek's turned the article into a battleground. This is simply a continuation.
Recent examples:
- In Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy he removes a statement summarizing an article written by the former head of the IRS chief counsel’s Commodities Industry Specialization Team and published in the WSJ as "an off hand comment which violates due weight"
- In Angel Makers of Nagyrév, he describes my assumption that husbands in 1930's Hungary were men as WP:SYNTH, and edit-wars to ensure it
Both instances involved blatant misrepresentation.
Another example comes from a 3RR report against Marek only 3 days ago. I comment that previous reports against him "show a number of established, apparently non-partisan editors concerned about [his] behavior." He responds: "they show nothing of the kind", forcing me to link the actual comments:
- "Marek's behavior was sub-par" –Vanamonde93 (admin)
- "My suggestion would be for a 'topic ban for MVBW for Eastern Europe and post-1932 American Politics, and a 0RR restriction for Volunteer Marek for American Politics." –The Wordsmith (admin)
- "you've not been subject to, or privy to, the frequent drama that surrounds these two editors. I believe the community is tired of it and that it needs to stop." –Softlavender
- "The evidence I've looked through so far is damning. I hope Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes can explain why they've clearly tag-teamed articles during edit wars for years, and why they continue to do so to this day." –Coffee (admin)
- "I have also been at my wits' end with this editor, but eventually I decided to do nothing about it." –LjL
- "I'd like to hear any justification/explanation Volunteer Marek can offer for those diffs. At first look they appear to be clear personal attacks and incivility and breaches of Cannanecc's warning." –Spartaz (admin)
It's either that he's forgotten the number of cautions from administrators (in which case he shouldn't be editing sensitive articles) or he hasn't and was aware the claim "they show nothing of the kind" was untrue when he made it (in which case again he shouldn't be editing sensitive articles.)
As I said in that same request: How many different editors have to complain and how many reports showing the same behavior across multiple articles have to be submitted before an admin takes action? This disruption is long-term and ongoing. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Statement by NPalgan2
[edit]Agree with James J Lambden. Some highlights of my recent interactions with Volunteer Marek: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alicia_Machado#.22Trump.27s_racism.22 "La Reforma is not a reliable source” (if Marek had done any research at all he’d have seen that it is a major and respectable Mexican newspaper, he had not made a good faith attempt to determine reliability) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alicia_Machado&diff=743065729&oldid=743065372 Here Marek claims without any evidence that El Nuevo Herald and Publimetro Colombia are not RSs just because he doesn’t want the quotes included. Any research would have shown the opposite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy#blatant_synthesis Here Marek notes correctly that the article abstract does not directly name Clinton (presumably for legal reasons). I admit, until we found a second source (vox.com) directly tying the article to Clinton there was a synth issue. But once again it’s difficult to see how Marek could have read the abstract and not seen that it was about clinton (it very obviously mentions the precise period October 11, 1978, through July 31, 1979), but he still makes loud and insulting accusations of bad faith towards the editors who had been discussing whether to include article further up the talk page. He continues claiming SYNTH on the talk page and on the BLPN for days after the vox article has been brought to his attention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alicia_Machado#Uh.2C_what.3F Here I added two sources noting Trump’s non-denial, then found a third NYTimes source noting Trump’s spokeswoman issued a denial. Dr. Fleischmann condensed this. Then Marek shows up, and has another ‘accidental’ failure to notice the NYTimes denial and becomes abusive towards me . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alicia_Machado#New_BLP_violations more insults. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy#using_NR_as_RS Marek plays dumb when his inconsistent standards for RS in BLPs are noted. lower down he again becomes insulting.
Statement by (Username)
[edit]Result concerning Marteau
[edit]- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
MShabazz
[edit]| No action taken at this time. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:12, 11 October 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 MShabazz[edit]
Unaware
Additional comments by editor filing complaint[edit]MShabazz made three reverts in the BDS article under WP:1RR. His first edit alluded to two COPYVIOs. Those edits were questionable, at best, not "clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy". Regardless, this is not whether or not those edits were WP:COPYVIOs, but whether MShabazz's subsequent reverts violated the 1RR. Does MShabazz, or any editor, have carte blanche to revert at will in a 1RR-protected article while using WP:COPYVIO as a safety net? For the sake of argument, let's assume that both edits were in fact COPYVIOs. MShabazz gamed the system by creating an umbrella with WP:COPYVIO, thus enabling him to delete properly sourced text while violating the WP:1RR in order to push his anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian nationalism POV. MShabazz's reverts were clear, and once he was reverted twice, it was he who should have tried to gain consensus in Talk, not those who reverted him. MShabazz used buzzwords like "cleaning fluff", but his cleaning was obviously and pointedly removing only from the Opposition to BDS section. There were many quotes and quantifiers that MShabazz passed over in his zeal to cut fluff from everything pro-Israel. A few examples:
Even assuming that both edits were WP:COPYVIO, MShabazz still made many POV-pushing reverts, specifically deleting RS quotes from Bon Jovi, Howard Stern, Gov. Cuomo, the Tennessee anti-BDS legislation, and all of Alan Dershowitz's 10 reasons that BDS is immoral. If MShabazz was truly concerned about COPYVIOs, then he could have reverted only those edits and not violated the 1RR. He didn't. He added his cut and paste objections with all of his other controversial edits that two editors reverted, then he arrogantly reverted a THIRD time, just four hours following his second revert. Following is input by two uninvolved editors who knew nothing about the background or participants, but only based on a hypothetical question regarding WP:1RR and WP:COPYVIO:
MShabazz should be sanctioned for gaming the system, two reverts just after the 24-hour period, and a third revert just four hours later, totaling three reverts in about 30 hours. KamelTebaast 15:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
@Nishidani: @Zero0000: @Kingsindian: @IjonTichyIjonTichy: Thank you for joining the chorus of obfuscators. That each of you made this a POV issue rather than writing one word regarding Malik Shabazz's policy violation strengthens the complaint.
Discussion concerning MShabazz[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 MShabazz[edit]I will prepare a more complete response later, when I have access to my computer (I'm currently editing on my phone). For all his bluster, Kemal Tebaast is belly-aching because (1) he copied and pasted two paragraphs from his sources and got caught (no, I'm not referring to the excessive quotation of the sources, but copying and pasting unattributed text) and (2) I pay closer attention to new additions to an article than material that's already there. Diffs and links to follow. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I recommend that this nonsense be closed quickly with a WP:BOOMERANG against the filer, who has been harassing me. I removed nothing of any substance from Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, and he cannot claim I did. He is casting aspersions, making baseless (and untrue) accusations about my political views, and this is the second time in two months he has made an unfounded complaint against me on this page. Enough is enough. He is a cancer on Wikipedia, and the sooner he is removed the better. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]I don't have any evidence in this case so I can't comment on this specific case, but Malik Shabazz and his alternate account is one of the reasons why I am starting to stay away from the IP area. He needs to be warned to be less aggressive and less of a WP:OWN. His usual first line of conversation is to threaten AE or AN/I action. He is extremely uncivil and it does need to stop. Statement by Masem[edit]Only commenting on the COPYVIO aspect: I don't see the removal as being within COPYVIO - text is quoted and attributed to a proper inline source. There may be issues with the amount of text used which falls under other policy considerations, as well as editoral consensus if the quoted material adds that much to the article, but none of those reasons would fall under a 1RR exemption. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Nableezy[edit]
I collapsed the rest of the section because Kamel Tebaast's last statement should really be examined. There have been a number of accounts that have recently made clear their objective to make articles here "pro-Israel". Not "NPOV", but "pro-Israel". Anything that does not adhere to a fairly right-wing Israeli viewpoint is "anti-Israel". And to be completely blunt, there are nearly no "pro-Palestinian" editors in the way that there are "pro-Israel" ones. There very much are editors that do not edit with a "pro-Israel" POV, and I count myself as one of them, but if we are being fair here those editors' POV is an international one if anything. One that reflects an international consensus, among states and reliable sources, on certain topics, eg that the West Bank is occupied Palestinian territory, that the Golan Heights is in Syria, that an Israeli settlement is an Israeli settlement and not simply an Israeli town. Editors such as Kamel will take including these super-majority views in articles as evidence of "supporting Palestinian nationalism and attack anything pro-Israel". No, Im sorry, but thats bs. The opposing POV to Kamel's quite clear one is one that would edit that Tel Aviv is in occupied Palestine. We have editors that will in the narrative voice of Wikipedia include things cited to the views of extremist settler groups. We have nothing like that on the opposing side. Nobody will take a statement from some Hamas official and include it as anything other than a Hamas official, but to the editors like Kamel that itself is "attacking anything pro-Israel". These editors are not here to create an encyclopedia. They are here to turn these pages in to propaganda. They make their intention as clear as day to anybody willing to pay even the littlest bit of attention. And yall should really do something about it. Kamel Tebaast has repeatedly announced his intention to propagandize on these pages, loudly and clearly. If ever there were a more blatant example of somebody waving a WP:NOTHERE sign I surely have not seen it. He or she is here to antagonize editors he or she identifies as "anti-Israel" and to slant articles to a "pro-Israel" POV. nableezy - 23:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Debresser[edit]I just want to raise the possibility that the removal of additional material, exceeding the revert of material that violated WP:COPYVIO, was unintended. Sometimes a revert catches too much. No need to slam him with (another) WP:AE for such minor things, which can easily be seen as good faith mistakes. Debresser (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Kablammo[edit]Attribution does not correct a copyright violation. Where material is quoted verbatim, it must be clear from the text that the words are those of another. Without quote marks or similar indicia that the text is the words of another, verbatim or near-verbatim text is a copyright violation, and should be removed. And the editor who inserted the text should be the one to separate the copyrighted material from the rest of the edit. Kablammo (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Nishidani[edit]The recent surge in reports here is troublesome. We are supposed to be constructing articles, not bickering. Shabazz recently gave us a neat page on Attallah Shabazz; Nableezy brought the Al-Azhar Mosque up to GA quality etc. It's about time, I think, that one begin to look into the contribs of plaintiffs, while assessing these complaints, to see whether they have a constructive interest in building Wikipedia, or are just here on a mission, or for entertainment, or drama, whatever. No one can work quietly on if every edit is contested by swarming, and everything one does is parsed for a fatal whiff of sanctionable error, ending up in arbitration every other day. Nishidani (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000[edit]Unfortunately, Nableezy's description of the state of editing in the I/P area is quite correct. Zerotalk 00:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Kingsindian[edit]I concur with Nableezy's statement. And I am not totally happy with TheWordsmith's comment in the last case about "civility". The problem is not "incivility", the problem is (some) people trying to push POV in an unreasonable manner. Everyone has a POV, but some are willing to be fair about the actual facts of the matter, while others are simply there to push propaganda. In my view, a lot of what goes on in this area is unavoidable. Long, interminable political discussion inevitably leads to (some) bad faith and incivility. I get angry at even my friends and relatives during discussions involving religion and politics; internet discussion with strangers are even worse. People who are committed to improving the encyclopedia manage to find a way in spite of this. The way to handle it from the outside is to look at the totality of the discussion and see whether the parties are making a good faith and knowledgeable effort at a solution which remains close to the facts. Incivility is a red herring. I think Wikipedia's civility policy is broken in general. Nobody is opposed to civility in general, the issue is how it is used to take out opponents. But that's a rant for another time and venue. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Ijon Tichy[edit]Regretfully, Nableezy's statement is very accurate. Ijon Tichy (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]I'm really enjoying the group of like minded editors congratulating themselves on their neutrality while lamenting the POV pushing of the people they disagree with. The lack of introspection could be amusing, if I didn't think they were serious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC) @Nishidani, unfortunately everything I said in that diff you posted is true, and I'd be happy to document it if the need arises. On that very page you deliberately misquoted policy as you were wikilawyering to keep UNDUE material in the article. I know you are very proud of the fact you write content, and think that should give you special status. Unfortunately you are very much emotionally invested in the topics you write about, and regularly violate NPOV. For this encyclopedia to be neutral, it needs editors to find where neutrality is violated. That's what I like to do. It's allowed. Get over it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC) @Nishidani, thanks for reminding me that you think that "editors like [you] tend to be opposed as goyim beyond the pale". [49] I completely forgot about that little gem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning MShabazz[edit]
|
Kamel Tebaast
[edit]| Editor indefinitely blocked and indefinitely topic banned from PIA. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:47, 11 October 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 Kamel Tebaast[edit]
30 day topic ban on 13 August 2016
I wrote above in the enforcement request that Kamel Tebaast opened about how this user has been waving a WP:NOTHERE flag since they got here. This example should make that crystal clear. In a dispute about a comparison between the Hamas charter and the Likud part platform (Hamas being a Palestinian group and Likud an Israeli political party), Kamel Tebaast has flagrantly disrupted Wikipedia in an attempt to prove a point (I say attempt because the two things are so dissimilar in terms of sourcing). He or she has vandalized the article on Bill Clinton to include his or her own view that a law signed by Clinton is similar to what the Nazis did and then bragged about it on the Hamas talk page. Maybe that will get yalls attention here. This is a violation of the standard discretionary sanctions included in WP:ARBPIA, specifically the requirements that editors adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia and comply with all applicable policies and guidelines. I have been here a long time, and I have never seen a more blatant example of bad faith editing among anything other than an IP or throw-away account. NMMNG, you should read those sources. The ACLU paper mentions the words Nazi and Germany once, no where does it come anywhere close to saying a US president signed a Nazi like law. Im trying to find where the second source supposedly supports that and am not seeing it. And, oh by the way, neither of those were in the edit he made. Kamel Tebaast wrote in an encyclopedia article that a US president signed a law that was similar to what the Nazis did. He did it out of spite. He violated two arbitration cases doing so. How surprising that like minded editors in one of those topics are defending that. nableezy - 20:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Kamel Tebaast[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 Kamel Tebaast[edit]No vandalism. No bragging. Simply a well-sourced legitimate edit. KamelTebaast 16:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC) One of my sources is a think that connects between the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and post WWI (and modern-day) Germany. Here is an ACLU post that explicitly connects the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and Nazi Germany. Here is a Boston University paper that connects between some points in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and "Germany and other Nazi-occupied territories prior to WWII". I am truly baffled that (1) someone wants to ban me for a legitimately sourced edit that, at most, should have been discussed in Talk; and (2) topic ban me in a topic area that doesn't even include the article in question. This seems rather punitive. KamelTebaast 19:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC) @Nableezy, your characterization that my edit implied that Clinton "signed a Nazi like law" is inflammatory, misleading, and disingenuous--similar to your complaint that it was vandalism. One point in that bill was similar to one of the points of the 1932 Nazi platform. I'll respond to the others after Yom Kippur. KamelTebaast 22:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Kingsindian[edit]I think Kamel Tebaast is not long for this world. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Debresser[edit]I think this should be closed summarily. Enough reporting each other back and forth! As to the two edits that were reported here: the article edit is sourced, and the talkpage post is worded neutrally (no bragging, which is the subjective way Nishidani prefers to read that talkpage post). Debresser (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC) No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]The ACLU and an academic paper made the same point KT should be topic banned for putting (sourced) in an article? How remarkable. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC) @Nableezy, I don't necessarily think it was a great edit (mostly because I think it should have been attributed rather than stated as fact), but if KI needs 4-5 paragraphs just to explain why the edit is wrong, that would seem like a content dispute. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Shrike[edit]Kingsindian of course right but that edit is not in WP:ARBPIA area--Shrike (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Kamel Tebaast[edit]
|
Simert Ove
[edit]| Two editors blocked for 1RR violation; EC protection applied to Israel Shahak by another admin. No other action. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Simert Ove[edit]
Despite a notification about the discretionary sanctions, this editor persists in edit-warring to make a POV addition to an article on a controversial person. Edit summaries and knowledge of Wikipedia suggest very strongly that this is not actually a new account but a sock (possibly of a blocked user).
Discussion concerning Simert Ove[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 Simert Ove[edit]Despite your selective bias, Chas. Caltrop (talk) is not allowed to edit those articles either, let alone violating NPOV policy every time.--Simert Ove (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Malik Shabazz[edit]On 9 October, Simert Ove reverted three times at Israel Shahak — an article she/he is not permitted to edit at all. Request a block or protection of the article to prevent ongoing and future disruption. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Ryk72[edit]Overall, this request is better handled by requesting page protection at WP:RFPP than by reporting users editing in good faith to this noticeboard. On initial inspection, it is not immediately obvious that the biographical article Israel Shahak is covered by the WP:ARBPIA ruling. It is immediately obvious that there has been no Talk page discussion of the significant changes made to that article by Chas. Caltrop, and that their edits appear troubling. See: Example 1 which re-reverts to include changes that fail WP:NPOV@WP:YESPOV & WP:LABEL at even a cursory inspection. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Debresser[edit]I completely agree with Ryk72. This can be handled in a simpler way. WP:AE should be a last resort. Debresser (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Simert Ove[edit]
|
Volunteer Marek
[edit]| Request withdrawn--Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 18 October 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 Volunteer Marek[edit]
Prior notification of discretionary sanctions at article
I don't like filing complaints and such at Wikipedia, and rarely do so. I think the system is all fucked up, and that Wikipedia should use a rules-based jury-like system instead of a centralized hierarchical system. I'm sticking my neck out when I file a complaint here, and have little confidence in a reasonable or fair outcome. 'Nuf said?
ANNOUNCEMENT: A mostly uninvolved administrator, User:AWilley, has now re-closed the RFC that I started. I emphatically disagree that the RFC was unhelpful, and I believe people who were complaining about it were mostly trying to undermine any effort to put a cap on how much sex stuff goes into the lead of this very high-profile BLP. But since AWilley disagrees with me, the RFC is done with, and the present request for enforcement is now moot. I therefore hereby withdraw it. I did not foresee such a thing happening, and I apologize to any bystanders who have spent time trying to sort this out. The behavior at the Trump article and talk page regarding sex allegations in the lead has been disgraceful, and I hope we can at least share consensus about that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC) @User:James J. Lambden, if any admin would like to take action sua sponte (i.e. of his, her, its or their own accord), that is allowed: "Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning." My complaint above was perfectly valid, but it is moot, and I do not want to devote the rest of October having my soul crushed by the asymmetry principle.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek[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 Volunteer Marek[edit]Huh? I restored the consensus version. I didn't edit war or revert or anything. This is ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC) That RfC you started makes no sense, as several commentators have noted. It's not clear what the point is. The relevant discussion [55] (which you started in addition to the RfC for some reason) does indicate a consensus for inclusion. Furthermore it's clear from the discussion, particularly your proposal for removal, that the text was there initially, having consensus, and then it was removed without consensus. The removal was here. You didn't go running to WP:AE all out raged and self righteous when that was done. No, instead you even POV-ed that already POV sentence even more. And I didn't go running to WP:AE when that was done either. Please stop treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC) James Lambden, my comment (so far) is succinct so I have no idea what you're going on about. You, on the other hand, are bringing up the same ol' crap that you've brought up several times already, so long that you have to hat it, that didn't work the first three or four times you dragged it out. Might as well point out that you are in fact the editor who removed the consensus text here without discussion that Anythingyouwant DIDN'T file an AE report about. If I was following your and Anything's script I would've filed an AE report right there. But I didn't because, unlike you and Anything, I don't treat Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Anythingyouwant, please don't change your comments after I've replied to them as that makes it seem like I'm replying to something I'm not, as you did here. Make a separate comment please. Anyway, when you state "I have not analyzed whether [this edit] that you mention was done with consensus or not" you are very clearly stating that at the very least you DO NOT KNOW whether my edit, which restored the text, was done with or without consensus. I mean, if editor 1 makes revert X and then editor 2 undoes that revert, and you have no idea whether editor 1's edit had consensus then you clearly have no idea whether undoing of that edit had consensus. So you are admitting that this report you filed is spurious and just opportunistic "let me file another report against VM as soon as he makes an edit on a Donald Trump article". It's meritless and just shows that you are playing games, trying to abuse the DS/AE process (as Specifico above mentions) and treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. And that's giving your statement a generous interpretation - that you had no idea whether my edit had consensus or not but chose to file this spurious AE report anyway - and assuming good faith. A less generous, though more common sense, interpretation would be that you knew damn well that James Lambden's edit had NO consensus but supported him (by tweaking it to POV it even further) because it accorded with your POV then ran over here the minute someone tried to restore consensus (also in the meantime filed a nonsensical RfC that nobody can understand as a way of "protecting" the non-consensus version - sorry, filing an RfC isn't some magic pixie dust that you can sprinkle on an article talk page to protect POV non-consensus edits).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Uh, Anythingyouwant - "None of the former are mentioned in the article body" - that is clearly false if you are referring to the version at the time I made the edit [56]. Now since then you have made edits to the article, so that later it was changed. Seriously, this is blatantly dishonest: "the text Marek restored to the lede did not summarize article text... because I changed it later so that it wouldn't, even though at the time he made the edit, it did". What the hell???? But please, keep on digging.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Hell, in fact, you JUST NOW (as in a few minutes ago) ran to the article to alter the text [57] and then ran straight over here to claim "oh look! That text doesn't summarize the article!". No shit. You. Just. Changed. It.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Lol. My comment at 7:51 [58]. Anythingyouwant's comment at 7:54 [59]. I do like that "Incidentally". As in "oh this has nothing to do with the fact that it was just pointed out I edited the article just now and pretended that my edits had been there for a long time".Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Note - please consider this an AE report concerning Anythingyouwant and James J Lambden as well Anythingyouwant, after making a show of making multiple edits to the article, the purpose of which appears to be solely so that he could come here and claim "the lede restored by Volunteer Marek doesn't summarize the article" (with those edits made AFTER the fact) has now completely erased all of these edits (I guess they didn't serve the purpose well enough, the attempt being fairly transparent) and has simply restored the earlier non-consensus version [60]. Just to be clear, here is the timeline
Likewise, with his latest edit, Anythingyouwant here is edit warring to restore his preferred version and is making changes to the article which do not have consensus. At the very least, he could've waited for this AE report to get some traction or something, but rather they decided to go ahead and try to get their way. The above 1RR violation by James J Lambden is way more serious than any single edit by any single user restoring or undoing what they thought was consensus (and I just have to point out that at least three other users made the same edit as I did, yet, Anythingyouwant did not file WP:AE reports on them, so yes, there is an element of a grudge stemming from previous disputes here). I could file a separate WP:AE reports against Anythingyouwant and James J Lambden based on these edits but it could get taken as being "pointy" or simply retributive. It's not. But it'd probably be best if this report here also involved looking over these users edits (recent and not so recent). Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC) I would also like to point out that the edit I made which is the subject of this report, was also made by my count by SIX other editors. Exactly same edit or same substance. THREE of these other-editor-same-edit edits were made BEFORE my edit. I don't see Anythingyouwant filing WP:AE reports against them as well. I guess if he filed an AE report against six editors simultaneously that'd sort of give the game up - the text has consensus. So he picked me. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by SPECIFICO[edit]Yet again a battleground Trumpside POV editor files a specious AE against Volunteer Marek. Anythingyouwant is almost laughably tendentious in her contortions to contrive what she can plausibly pitch as content- and policy-based rationalizations of her POV edits across the range of American Politics related articles. I have stated previously that much of this appears to be an extension of her rabid pro-life editing for which she was TBANned. In my opinion the TBAN should be extended to American Politics because the two subjects are inseparable given the current Supreme Court vacancy with more expected to come. Anythingyouwant has repeatedly violated 1RR on American Politics related articles. There are many such warnings on her talk page. In the present case, the Trump article has been hog-tied with convoluted confused and counterproductive hair-splitting that has come down to a minority theory that word count must be used to resolve content disputes. Within the last several hours, Marek sought to clear this colossal roadblock by reinstating the widely supported, succinct and innocuous version of some lede text that had been in the article. This enforcement request is an escalation of Anythingyouwant's tendentious refusal to accept reasoned, policy-based arguments and move on to other areas of this article that we all could work on improving. \ TBAN for Anythingyouwant and thanks to Marek for being the calm steady grown-up in the room on this occasion. SPECIFICO talk 02:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Now that Anythingyouwant has withdrawn her complaint against Volunteer Marek, I urge Admins to consider TBANs for Anythingyouwant and James Lambden, as proposed elsewhere on this thread. Kudos to my friend Anythingyouwant for trying to get this thread closed before her behavior can be fully scrutinized here. SPECIFICO talk 00:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC) @Awilley: A speedy close will just prolong and enable more of this tendentious POV warring by Anythingyouwant. Remember how solicitously Anythingyouwant seemed to be receiving your advice to back off and cease this kind of nonsense over a month ago[68]? She's very good at pushing it to the edge and then playing dead. Fool you once, etc... How many times do we want to sit through this movie? SPECIFICO talk 01:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by James J. Lambden[edit]Once again we see Marek's successful strategy: throw enough words with enough denial and misdirection into a paragraph and outside observers won't have the energy to sift through it; or if they do, the waters will be muddied enough they're reluctant to sanction. The final act is an appearance by My Very Best Wishes to defend his frequent accomplice. The meat of this enforcement request is this, and don't let misdirection and equivocation obscure it:
At the last AE Marek was involved in just over a week ago I made this statement:
That request was archived without comment. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC) @Volunteer Marek:'s well aware consensus is not required to remove text on BLP grounds. I immediately offered to remove the text added in my removal, but left it as a good-faith compromise between those who wanted no mention in the lede and those who wanted the paragraph Marek restored. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC) @Anythingyouwant: WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE requires consensus to restore removed material. The restored material in this case included the phrase " @EdJohnston: I don't know whether your question was directed to editors or admins but if this request is withdrawn I intend to submit another with the same diff against the same editor. When an editor restores " Statement by Malerooster[edit]Just for a point of order, doesn't there need to be consensus for INCLUSION of RECENTLY added material, NOT removal of such? The Trump sexual bru ha ha was added to the LEAD section of the BIO 3? days ago against any clear consensus, despite what others may say, see talk page. If clear consensus forms that this material belongs in the the LEAD, then fine, add it, otherwise don't.--Malerooster (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Tataral[edit]Volunteer Marek is one of a long list of editors who have simply reinstated the version that was agreed on by most editors in the relevant discussion, a version that is a neutrally worded, concise summary of the text in the body of the article. The RFC referred to by Anythingyouwant was widely dismissed as a nonsensical attempt to derail the issue on the talk page and is currently closed with the summary "There seems to be consensus that this RfC is seriously malformed and based on the false premise that a 15 word lead represents a status quo consensus, which it does not." --Tataral (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by MrX[edit]Hey Anythingyouwant, thanks for throwing me under the bus and not notifying me! What you neglected to mention was my documented reasoning for omitting Trump's trite denial from the lead. Anythingyouwant continues to try to WP:GAME the system to gain an advantage in content disputes on Donald Trump-related articles:
I'm a little surprised that he would think coming to AE was a good idea, but since he's here, his conduct should be reviewed as well.- MrX 17:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Buster7[edit]User J.J. Lambden is right about not having the energy to sift through the dozens of daily diffs displaying changes to the article. I try to keep abreast of what is happening at the Trump article as an observer with very few edits to the article or comments on the talk page. The inconstancy of the article is not a magnet to participate. But the strategy to confuse with multiple RfC's is not Volunteer Marek's. Some editors are very adroit at obfuscation. Volunteer Marek is not one of them. Buster Seven Talk 20:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by D.Creish[edit]The banner at the top of the edit page for Donald Trump says in big bold letters:
Unless VM can prove consensus he should be topic-banned from BLPs. My last edit a month ago expressed concern over the apparent inability to sanction VM despite repeated requests and convincing evidence. When one editor is allowed to flout the rules others are held to the consensus model can't work. I have stopped editing as a result. D.Creish (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Volunteer Marek[edit]
|
Shy Twinkling
[edit]| Shy Twinkling blocked 72 hours for blatant violation of the 500/30 restriction after multiple warnings and is indefinitely topic banned from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:35, 22 October 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 Shy Twinkling[edit]
Not only is Shy Twinkling flouting the ARBPIA3 prohibition against her/him editing the articles listed above, she/he is letting us know she/he knows that—witness the fact that she/he reverted an IP editor for violating ARBPIA3! My apologies if the dates shown above aren't all correct; my system is set up to show me dates in local time, not UTC. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Shy Twinkling[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 Shy Twinkling[edit]Statement by Ryk72[edit]I reiterate my earlier statement, that these issues are better handled by requesting page protection for the articles in question at WP:RFPP than by reporting users editing in good faith to this noticeboard; Page protection resolves not only any issues with editors reported here, but also any potential issues with all other editors who do not meet the criteria. I also note that Hamas & Intifada, for example, are both now ECP protected; it is somewhat bewildering that they were not previously so. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Shy Twinkling[edit]
|
Anythingyouwant
[edit]| The originally reported edits were good faith reverts as potential BLP problems and so were exempt from revert restrictions. Therefore, no violation of 1RR occurred from these edits. Any other issues should be brought up as separate issues rather than being rolled into this one. All editors are reminded that a clear consensus is required to revert an edit which notes it corrects a BLP problem. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:42, 20 October 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 Anythingyouwant[edit]
After seeing two reverts, I went to the user talk page of Anythingyouwant to give them a friendly reminder of the discretionary sanctions active on Donald Trump. Instead, I found that they've been repeatedly reminded of these discretionary sanctions and have apparently chosen to ignore them. Here's a list of their talk page sections where other editors mentioned the WP:1RR restriction or discretionary sanctions in general.
Despite an active RfC, a lot of discussion on this issue, and a good deal of support for including this information, Anythingyouwant's most recent edit summary stated "See previous edit summary. This edit and my last one are pursuant to WP:BLP and I will keep reverting for the stated reasons", indicating that he plans to continue edit warring over this issue. I'm hoping a warning in a more formal venue will be all that's needed here. (Note: I just noticed the kind-of-but-not-really related AE request above before hitting Save Changes. If anyone wants to somehow merge this, go nuts, but it's probably less messy to handle it separately.)
Discussion concerning Anythingyouwant[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 Anythingyouwant[edit]@User:BU Rob13, there is a well-established exception to 1RR, and I quoted it at the article talk page without hearing any objection. Do you dispute that there is an exception to 1RR?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]I think on this - the narrow edit in question - Anythingyouwant should get a pass on BLP grounds. If he had made this exact edit earlier - rather than removing a whole paragraph that contained this part - I would not have had any problem with it and that whole AE thing above would've been unnecessary.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Ok, while the edits listed above can be excused on BLP grounds and do not constitute a 1RR violation, the same thing cannot be said for the following two reverts: Here is the relevant discussion on talk [77] where it's clear that there is absolutely no consensus for Anythingyouwant's changes and he clearly knows this, but chooses to start another edit war regardless. Likewise there is a ton of sources using the language that ATW is reverting. So while I don't think ATW deserves to be sanction for the reverts that were originally made and are subject of this report, these edits are a clear attempt to WP:GAME the rules, they do constitute a 1RR violation, and should be considered sanction able. Unfortunately it seems that with ATW "you give'em an inch and they try to take a mile". Which means that a block would be preventive not punitive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Let me know if this should be filed as a separate report.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Uhhh, note two other things. In this comment Anythingyouwant clearly indicates that they are aware that "sexual assault" is a potentially valid and sourced way to describe what happened - forcible groping and kissing is "sexual assault" (and ATW agrees). So EVEN IF Anythingyouwant prefers a different description they cannot invoke BLP to make the change. The fact that they did so indicates they are acting in bad faith and making attempts at WP:GAMEing policy. Second, on this page, at 5:09, Anythingyouwant [78] says "I am done for now reverting the lead ". Uh, yeah, after violating 1RR and "getting his way". This statement shows that Anythingyouwant appears to be "testing the waters" and seeing how much they can get away with. Again, this means that a preventive block is justified.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Okay. Now Anythingyouwant is editing my comments and moving them around on the talk page [79]. The way he moved my comment (without my permission) detached my comment from the sources I presented to back it up, making it seem like something it was not. Preventive block... come on.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Oh wait, I'm sorry, this wasn't just two reverts but an all out "I'm gonna edit war to get my way" spree So that's not just a 1RR violation but even a 3RR violation. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by The Four Deuces[edit]BLP says, "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." Mentioning alleged rape and child rape in the lead is undue, since they have not received substantial coverage. Note that there is currently wide coverage about allegations of sexual assualt against Trump, but none of them mention the rape or child rape allegations. Wikiepdia articles should not draw attention to matters that we believe the mainstream has overlooked or portray subjects in a more or less favorable light than one would find in mainstream sources. The edit made Trump appear even worse than he has been portrayed by his political opponents, which is a BLP violation. TFD (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield[edit]I have noticed quite a few cases of what I think is misuse of the American Politics 2 discretionary sanctions in order to enforce the removal of, or the inclusion of, content that editors want out or in for pov reasons. Alleging a connection to BLP policies when doing it also seems common, and is used a way of locking down any discussion of the matter. In reality the two things are completely separate, BLP policies always take precedence and they cover every article; short term sanctions covering a select subject area do not. The content deleted by Anythingyouwant clearly violated BLP policies and required immediate removal. I doubt the competence of any editor who could genuinely support the retention of such content, and to invoke American Politics 2 sanctions as a way of avoiding our obligations to follow BLP policies is very ill-judged. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Dervorguilla[edit]Some background material about the child-rape allegation that Anythingyouwant courteously deleted: "A publicist calling himself 'Al Taylor' attempted to sell the videotape of 'Jane Doe' relating her allegations for $1m... When the Guardian quizzed 'Al Taylor' about his true identity, the publicist replied: 'Just be warned, we'll sue you if we don't like what you write. We'll sue your ass, own your ass and own your newspaper's ass as well, punk.'" I suspect that the editor who contributed that allegation to the article would benefit greatly from further discipline. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by The Wordsmith[edit]I am recused from acting as an administrator in election-related articles, as usual. However, as an editor I do believe that the BLP exemption was valid grounds for going over 1RR. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Anythingyouwant[edit]
|