Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive260
BullRangifer
[edit]
|
|---|
| 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 BullRangifer[edit]
I am not sure if this is even the right venue for this complaint since the personal attack occurred on my user talk page. However, filing this since my ANI complaint was closed by El C, who instructed me to bring it here. The issue began when I nominated FBI secret society for deletion, believing in did not meet our guidelines for inclusion. That article happened to have been created by user:MrX, who then came to my talk page to make a bad faith accusation against me [1] based on the fact we had a disagreement on another article talk page. He then doubled down on his assumption of bad faith and threatened me "My accusation of bad faith is exactly what was called for. Watch yourself". BullRangifer came to my user page to attack me completely unprovoked (I have not had any direct contact with him in months) to back up Mr. X. [2] The attack of my competence was the same WP:PERSONALATTACK that he made here which resulted in the March 13 warning issued by user:GoldenRing. Both Mr. X's and BullRangifer's behavior is unacceptable and I should not have to tolerate WP:HARASSMENT. BullRangifer's behavior is especially troubling though since I have made a voluntary effort to avoid interaction with him and the personal attack he made was exactly the same as what he was previously warned about.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC) @BullRangifer:To clear up any confusion about any sanction that I am under, here is confirmation from User:Awilley himself. Your comment was a clear personal attack as per WP:CIRNOT which appears on the page you linked to. To make matters worse, you had no business getting involved here since the discussion on my talk page had absolutely nothing to do with you. Also, I'd like to ask what you meant by "especially if one has a COI of the negative kind" [3] Are you saying I have a WP:COI, not sure? And now you just questioned my competency yet again in your response below.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC) @MrX:Can you provide any diffs to support my alleged WP:Hounding of you? The other very old issue you brought up has nothing to do with AP2 and has already been resolved (despite the objection of the other person involved), making it irrelevant here.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC) @BullRangifer:So after attacking me, now you want to make peace and be my friend? Why? because you're under scrutiny? I'm not holding a grudge, you're the one who came to attack me. I just want to be treated fairly, not have my competence called into question every time I say or do something you disagree with.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC) @Aquillion:Here we go again, you love to take my comments out of context and I have never even once called another editor incompetent (so I suggest you strike that allegation):
A few final thoughts. To all the admins (and particularity user:Awilley) calling my filing against BullRangifer vexatious, my question, is how do you reconcile that with the fact that every single one of those complaints it was recognized that BullRangifer's behavior was inappropriate? Maybe I wouldn't file complaints if someone took some action. How many warnings does one person get? Maybe BullRaniger's behavior would actually change if someone followed through with the warnings for a change. I can't see why BR would ever take a warning from any of you seriously after all this. All of you are enabling him. And you just want to silence me. That doesn't solve the problem, BullRangifer treats other editors the same way he treats me, but I guess you don't want to hear from them eithier. As long as he keeps editing from the left, he's golden. @DGG:Thank you for looking at this objectively. There clearly is bias exhibited by some of the admins. I've asked user:MrX to provide diffs of me WP:HOUNDING him and he has not done so. Can anyone explain to me how nominating a single article for deletion is hounding? I'd also like to note, I've nominated hundreds of articles for deletion in the past, so this is nothing out of the ordinary for me. Finally, @MastCell:Every interaction, I've ever had with you has been exclusively negative. Let's look at your contributions. You haven't done anything for nearly a month and your sole contribution for today was to pile on here. So what does that say about you? It's been very clear to me for sometime that you are not only one of the most biased admins on wikipedia, but you're also on a mission to get me banned. I have a very difficult time assuming any good faith about you since a review of you other sporadic contributions to wikipedia lead me to believe you a just here to administratively enforce bias.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC) @Bishonen and Doug Weller:Where is the evidence of hounding? I've even asked Mr. X to provided diffs of me hounding him and he failed to do so. Despite Mr. X's allegation, I did not nominate FBI secret society just because he created the article. If I am hounding him as he claims, surely he must have other diffs that prove this. There is no way a single action could possibly constitute hounding. As per WP:HOUND, "Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. " (emphasis mine)--Rusf10 (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning BullRangifer[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 BullRangifer[edit]
Unless Awilley's one year sanction from April 13, 2019, on Rusf10 for their vexatious dramaboard filings against me has expired or has been lifted, this is a SECOND violation of the sanction in two days. This will be the FIFTH such frivolous filing, and the sanction was issued after the THIRD. Even if it's expired, this obsessive behavior should resurrect it, and with a vengeance. MrX provided this link as evidence the sanction is still in effect, so this is indeed a SECOND violation within two days. This is a repeat of this closed filing at AN/I two days ago, closed by El C as not a personal attack. That should have been enough for Rusf10 to cease and desist. Why Rusf10 is so fixated on me is puzzling. I have a talk page. Why don't they just talk to me? Why is their first reflex a battleground one? Why escalate differences, when defusion is better? "Blessed are the peacemakers" because they do not take perceived offenses to dramaboards. Lest there be any confusion, the sanction on me only applies to article talk pages. My criticism of Rusf10 was rare; it was very specific; it was explained; it was on their personal talk page and not an article talk page; and it was not gratuitous or uncivil. Lack of competency is an accusation that should not be made lightly. I will let others decide whether my judgment of Rusf10's starting of that AfD was wrong, especially since it seemed to be a revenge AfD directed at MrX. I see this as a thin-skinned response by labeling my justified criticism as a personal attack. The appropriate response is a ban hammer, multiple flying slimy-trout boomerangs, and other sanctions for holding a grudge and now trotting it out as a continuation of Rusf10's previous battleground behaviors. There are a number of behavioral violations here. A couple days ago SPECIFICO wrote this: "In my opinion this report is boomerang-worthy on its own 2 feet. This is the kind of documented behavior that led to Rusf10's sanction and it would have been better to dispense a TBAN at the outset." At the very least, this is an abuse of the Arbitration Committee, and at worst a question of a double sanction violation, competency issues, and obsessive harassment behavior. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, Rusf10, so AFTER this started, Awilley let you know the sanction was deprecated. That's nice to know now. Did you fail to notice his continued "warning about filling vexatious requests"?
I suggest you take that to heart and drop this renewal of your obsessive abuse of drama boards to settle minor slights which can be dealt with on talk pages. I have one. You're welcome to discuss things with me. I'd rather make friends than see someone gathering and saving small scraps of worthless paper for years so they can later make a huge bonfire. Don't hold grudges. Be a peacemaker. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
MONGO, thanks for the nice list of my participation on private talk pages and drama boards. The ONLY link which would, in the past, have any relevance here is the one to Spygate, and that one earned me a sanction which I have heeded. The context of my comment to User:Phmoreno was ignored, but so be it. They are now blocked. My comment was precise and accurate, but it was too sharp for an article talk page. Lesson learned. I don't do that anymore. My sanction applies solely to article talk pages. I am not forbidden from expressing my opinions on private talk pages or participating in drama board discussions, and my comments are no worse than what is allowed for everyone else. What has been described falsely as "personal attacks" are criticisms. Drama boards are specifically designed for exactly that type of comment. I do not make them on article talk pages...anymore.
Aquillion, this is actually Rusf10's FIFTH filing against me, and the last two were after Awilley had sanctioned and warned them for doing this type of thing. Even the clarification today contained a warning. The filings usually come without any warning. We have a whole dispute resolution process which is skipped right over. I have a talk page which can be used. Instead, the nuclear option is used immediately. There is warlike behavior and there is peacekeeping behavior. The latter is not chosen, and that's what I consider battleground behavior. It's disruptive. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
MrX, the "accusation of having autism (Asperger syndrome)" is a false statement. Yes, seen with hindsight, my wondering/inquisitive comment was awkward, and I regret it and have apologized for it. As I have already explained to Onetwothreeip, I was seeking, in good faith, to see if there was some extenuating circumstance which could somehow excuse their uncollaborative editing patterns. That's how I am. Too much compassion. Others have since explained to me that I should not allow extenuating circumstances to affect my judgments about whether editing is according to our policies or not. Just look at the behavior. I will not repeat the attempt to seek information from Onetwothreeip, or any other editor, about such matters in the future. It's far too easy for misunderstandings to occur and feelings get hurt. I don't want that. I clearly erred. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Awilley, when you suggest I could retract my comment, are you referring to this one on a private talk page, the comment deemed by El C to not be a personal attack? I want to be sure I understand you correctly. I could do that, but are you sure you want to set such a precedent for censorship of uncomfortable, yet civil, private talk page discussion? The alternative would be for Rusf10 to civilly discuss the matter with me, rather than immediately activating this AE nuclear option. I'm certainly open to discussing this with you and/or Rusf10. I always have been. They are already aware that more than one editor considers some of their AfDs to be personal revenge, rather than policy-based. I was referring to non-policy based AfDs, not proper ones. There can be disagreement on that matter, and proper discussion should be used to come to an understanding. Regardless, I appreciate outside viewpoints and constructive criticism, because I certainly can't "see myself as others see me." Those who know me here also know that I'm easily amenable to third-party opinions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
RaiderAspect, you write: "Speculating that another user has Asperger syndrome and thus their opinions can be dismissed..." I totally admit my speculation was improper, I have apologized for it, and stricken it. The reason for my speculation was anything but for the reason you give. It was to seek the existence of an extenuating circumstance that would help me understand, and partially excuse, an ongoing pattern of disruptive behavior, totally unrelated to content or opinions, that is not amenable to the explanations and appeals from myriad editors and admins. Because my son is an Aspie, and several members of my wife's family are as well, I know the symptoms and some of the behavioral patterns well. It's been our life for decades. Unlike the word "autism", which has a universally negative connotation, we consider Aspies to be a special class of often very gifted people with special abilities and talents. The negative side relates to social interactions, communication difficulties, and frequent misunderstandings. Regardless of all that, I should not have speculated about that matter and will not do it again. (You may not have read what I have written about that.) After I had written the offensive comment, it was explained to me by several involved editors that I should not seek to find extenuating circumstances to excuse that editor's disruptive behavior. I should just look at the behavior and judge accordingly. I expect they will be brought before this or another drama board soon by someone who will bother to gather a few diffs. A few days worth would be enough, but I'm not the person to do it. I do not like these places. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Awilley, thanks for that link to the last two bullet points of WP:CIRNOT. I absolutely agree, and that's why I will not be using that again, as I have previously explained. It's a counterproductive means of communication. Thanks again. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Thucydides411, context matters. The problem with Rusf10's actions is related to their misuse of drama boards, obsessive behavior toward me, and battlefield modus operandi. These boards are supposed to be used as a last resort. Disagreements, criticisms, and even personal attacks (which mine was not), should not be brought here unless other means have been exhausted. Rusf10's pattern is to take ONE criticism from me (and it may not be about them at all), and then, immediately and without any warning or attempt to seek a more peaceful resolution, drag me to a drama board and claim it was a personal attack, often with urging from MONGO. It's a battlefield, dispute-escalation, mentality. This place needs peacemakers, not warriors. I don't know about you. Maybe you're perfect. Maybe your every word and comment is always unambiguous, perfectly worded, and never viewed as offensive. I'm not perfect. I'd rather get a response, be given an opportunity to see things from the other person's perspective, and given an opportunity to apologize and refactor my comment. That is usually my reaction. None of that happens with Rusf10. It's a knee jerk reaction. I get dragged here immediately for one seeming offense, usually judged by others to not be a personal attack. Whether it was or not is of secondary importance. It's Rusf10's warlike way of dealing with the situation, and then abusing drama boards, that's the problem. In my young days, a very wise man told me: "The 'problem' is not the 'situation', it's how you deal with it." Rusf10 turns a "situation" into a "problem". They need other tools in their toolbox than the red nuclear button of drama boards. Many here realize it must be removed from them, because they have proved they cannot be trusted with it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by MrX[edit]Rusf10 is incorrect in stating that I came to their talk page to make a bad faith accusation against them. In fact, I made a good faith accusation about their bad faith deletion nomination of an article that I wrote, because the nomination occurred 76 minutes after I reverted their edit on another article. Given the suspicious circumstances and my previous observations of Rusf10's conduct, my assertion that their AfD nomination was done for revenge was perfectly reasonable. - MrX 🖋 23:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC) It looks like I'm not the first victim of Rusf10's revenge AfDs. See User talk:Rusf10#AfD ←This was less than three months ago. These can't all be coincidences. I request that an admin review this repeated WP:HOUNDING by Rusf10 and consider appropriate sanctions. - MrX 🖋 00:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Statement by MONGO[edit]
Statement by Onetwothreeip[edit]I did not want to engage in this discussion but since I have been mentioned, and comments targeting me have been mentioned, I feel that I have to address this. I want to make it clear that I did not ask anybody to use me in this, but I have no objections to them doing so. I also want to state that I cannot see what this has to do with MrX, and the underlying dispute between them and Rusf10 seems too minor to need enforcement. I can't recall any negative encounters with MrX. I also do not want to be involved in back-and-forth where editors try to refute what I'm saying, so I will not bring up any new claims. I have also been subject to incessant and ridiculous accusations of incompetency and confusion by BullRangifer, and now also an accusation of having autism (Asperger syndrome), as MONGO has shown. This chauvinistic attitude to others surely discourages new editors who do not agree that the best content is made by a process of two or more parties combating each other, and I worry for them. It's quite astounding that they now want to claim they support peacemaking. I don't want to get involved in this particular dispute, but I feel that given I have been mentioned, I should attest that these have been certainly the most significant cases of a personal dispute that has been directed towards me on Wikipedia, and is really only a small amount that has been directed towards me by BullRangifer which has been going on for months. I wasn't aware that this sort of conduct was happening to other editors since I don't want to involve myself in other people's disputes. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC) @MrX: How can accusing someone of having autism be in good faith? It's completely inappropriate, plain and simple. I was not personally offended at all by those remarks, I just think it shows rancorous immaturity unbecoming of this encyclopaedia. Disliking an editor is absolutely no excuse for that behaviour. The discussion in question only had two participants, them and myself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2019 (UTC) @Doug Weller: An insult of that nature simply cannot be made acceptable by declaring that it isn't an insult, and then comparing the insulted editor to their own child. If anything, these make it worse. It's obvious that these were attempts to mitigate the anticipatable fallout from such a remark. We have no way of confirming that they are telling the truth here, and nor should we, but I would be more horrified if they did indeed have a close relative with autism and they still decided to use it as an insult against an editor. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
@Objective3000: How can accusing someone of having autism be in good faith? While I wasn't personally offended, I found the comment to be completely inappropriate and quite disgusting to people who do have Asperger syndrome. There has simply been no apology for these remarks either. They explicitly apologised for offence that they caused, rather than for actually saying what they said, but even this is no apology since I wasn't offended. They clearly didn't believe the remarks were wrong. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Statement by SPECIFICO[edit]Rusf10's three diffs under "Diffs of previous relevant sanctions" provide ample evidence to support a TBAN or Indef for Rusf10. BR can have another warning for his collection, only because Rusf10's response was so predictable. SPECIFICO talk 03:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC) Also this link and associated diffs, helpfully added just now by Thucydides411. The reason there's no equivalency between Rusf10 and BullRangifer is that the latter, despite occasional volatility and user space soapboxing, is a prolific, collaborative, and policy-based editor, whereas I have yet to see any solid contribution by Rusf10, and a lot of personalization of disputes, OR, ignoring sourcing guidelines, etc. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC) Admins, you are focusing too narrowly in my opinion. It's like ticketing a motorist for speeding while wearing Lululemon, rather than for speeding. The threads and links I've cited above show a pattern of hostile battleground behavior by Rusf10 that's not limited to noticeboard filings. It's a fundamental behavioral pattern of his. SPECIFICO talk 20:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC) @Doug Weller: It appears to me that @DGG:'s participation here was reluctant but that his comments were repeatedly requested and he was being called unresponsive before he first appeared. Without disagreeing with your principle, it's not clear what DGG might have done better here. SPECIFICO talk 15:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by Aquillion (BullRangifer)[edit]As with their previous AE requests against BullRangifer, Rusf10 continues to have unclean hands in the topic area - see my previous comment here. Rusf10 disagreed with my assessment, obviously, as I'm sure they will here, but I am simply not seeing how these recent diffs are substantially better than the conduct they're trying to get BullRangifer and MrX sanctioned for. First, on Donald Trump, they've repeatedly implied that other established editors with extensive history editing US politics are ignorant of basic facts about Wikipedia and the impeachment process:
In another circumstance these might be minor, but I feel they're clearly comparable to the comments they're asking for sanctions over in this request - and note specifically that two of the implications of incompetence they level in these diffs are directed at MrX. It seems silly that he'd address established editors in a tone that is clearly questioning their WP:COMPETENCE, then mere days later be shocked when someone takes a similar tone with him. Likewise, he continues to take a general WP:BATTLEGROUND tone when discussing American politics:
Finally, the context for the last one brings up another point: Rusf10 has repeatedly filed requests for sanctions against people who he has a history of disputes with on pages related to US politics - eg. [10], [11], and of course this is, as mentioned, something like his fourth filing against BullRangifer in particular. No one else, that I can see, has filed WP:AE requests against BullRangifier at all. --Aquillion (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC) Statement by RaiderAspect[edit]Speculating that another user has Asperger syndrome and thus their opinions can be dismissed should not be acceptable behaviour under any circumstances. That's seriously vicious. --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC) Statement by Thucydides411[edit]A couple of points of order: @Awilley: By suggesting possible sanctions against BullRangifer, you're implicitly stating that there is some merit to Rusf10's complaint. How can you then turn around and propose sanctions against Rusf10 for bringing a valid complaint?
@Bishonen: Are you saying that Rusf10 brings complaints against ideological opponents than people on the other side of the ideological divide do? That doesn't accord at all with what I've seen (particularly as someone who was personally the target of a number of ideologically motivated enforcement complaints on this very board). From my standpoint, it just looks like you're proposing a ban on Rusf10 bringing complaints against your ideological allies. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Prefacing an obvious insult with, "This isn't meant as an insult, but ..." doesn't make it any less of an insult. If musing about whether another editor has a mental disability is not sanctionable behavior, I don't know what is. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
@Objective3000: Thanks, I'll keep in mind that it's now apparently okay to speculate on Wikipedia that other people's misbehavior might be due to medical conditions. In fact, objecting to such insinuations is itself insulting to people with those medical conditions! The logical conclusion is that speculating about people's motives based on their ethnicity or religion will now be allowed, and criticizing such speculation will of course be viewed as an insult to those ethnic and religious groups. Good to know that this is the rule that Wikipedia editors and admins are now apparently promoting. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2019 (UTC) @DGG, Awilley, Bishonen, Doug Weller, and MastCell: It is widely acknowledged here that BullRangifer's comments (particularly about Asperger syndrome) were out of line, and BR has been warned in the past about this behavior. Yet Bishonen has argued that since Rusf10 is an "ideological opponent" of BullRangifer, it is Rusf10 who should be sanctioned. Let me make a prediction: this principle will not be uniformly applied in the future. Nearly 100% of compaints here at WP:AE are lodged by editors against their ideological opponents. People don't tend to lodge complaints against people they agree with. In the many times that MrX has lodged complaints against their "ideological opponents" here at AE, has Bishonen ever complained that MrX was just targeting opponents? It's widely acknowledged here that BR's behavior was inappropriate, so it can't be claimed that this case is different because it lacks merit. What's being claimed is that Rusf10 has made a valid complaint, but with the bad intention of getting an opponent sanctioned. This describes approximately every single valid AE case ever filed. So I predict that this new principle (thou shalt not attempt to get sanctions applied against your ideological opponents at AE) will not be applied uniformly. It will be used - as here - opportunistically by admins to boomerang complaints lodged by editors they ideologically do not align with. I'd really like any of the admins here to actually attempt to explain why this new principle is not prima facie absurd: if editor A complains about editor B, who has been speculating about other editors misbehaving because of Asperger syndrome, but editor A is an "ideological opponent" of editor B, then editor A should be boomeranged. I'd also like to see any admin to try to claim, with a straight face, that this principle will actually be applied in the same way if editor B is someone whose politics doesn't align with the prevailing views of the admin corps around here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC) @MastCell: BullRangifer has now been repeatedly warned (in July 2018, March 2019 and April 2019, as Rusf10 linked) about the very same behavior that Rusf10 is complaining about here. You accuse Rusf10 of making "vexatious" complaints, but the fact is that administrators have repeatedly agreed with the *substance* of Rusf10's complaints about BR's behavior, and have repeatedly issued official warnings to BR as a result. BR has been told that he is skating on "thin ice", and has repeatedly avoided sanction by apologizing and promising not to repeat the behavior that Rusf10 is complaining about here. In this very complaint, the following admins have admitted that BR's comments were out of line: Bishonen, Awilley, Doug Weller, Johnuniq, DGG. A number of admins have suggested that no action is needed because they trust BR will not continue this misbehavior. In other words, the *substance* of Rusf10's complaint is valid. If you find Rusf10's repeated, valid (because they have led to warnings against BR) complaints about BR "vexatious", then the simple answer is for BR to stop misbehaving. Maybe instead of repeatedly stepping in to defend BR and call for sanctions against Rusf10, as you have done several times now, you should sanction the person whose misbehavior has led to these complaints. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC) @Bishonen, Doug Weller, Awilley, Johnuniq, and DGG:: Rusf10 makes a good point. One alleged incident does not constitute WP:HOUNDING. Surely, if you're going to topic ban someone for hounding, you'll have to demonstrate a pattern of behavior, not one questionable AfD nomination. This points to a deeper problem here: a few admins appear to be searching for a justification to punish Rusf10 - somehow, someway. You have before you what you've all admitted is a valid complaint by Rusf10 about BullRangifer's behavior - behavior that BR has been repeatedly warned about at AE (see links in Rusf10's above complaint). Yet instead of doing the obvious and sanctioning BR, a number of admins have been searching for various justifications for boomeranging the complaint. What you've managed to come up with is deeply unimpressive and thin though, I must say. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by Objective3000[edit]@Thucydides411: You might consider the possibility that your labeling of a suggestion that someone has Asperger’s an insult, might be an insult to anyone with Asperger’s, particularly if multiple members of the suggester's extended family have such. It was in bad form for BR to bring this up; but not sanctionable as it appeared in good faith and followed by an apology. OTOH, repeatedly bringing folk to AE and failing to have them sanctioned sounds like something sanctionworthy, if for no other reason than to save, that precious commodity, time. O3000 (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Atsme[edit]Awilley, how about including something like after a specific number of warnings have been issued in a given year, (based on this case, let's say 10 – 20), the editor can be t-banned. It removes some of the ambiguity. Atsme Talk 📧 21:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by PackMecEng[edit]So are we just pretending that speculating an editor has Asperger is okay now? Just curious, because that looks like exactly what is going on here. I mean the overwhelimingly obvious answer to that question is no, of course that is not okay... Ever, full stop. With that being the case I fail to understand how this request could be inappropriate. That is even before considering they were directed to file here from ANI. Now BullRangifer to their credit seems to recognize the issue with what they did and vowed never to do that again. Which I think solves that particular issue. PackMecEng (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC) I kind of have to ask, what is the purpose of the topic ban here? It seems largely unrelated to anything in this request and comes off as punitive rather than preventive. PackMecEng (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning BullRangifer[edit]
@Thucydides411: indeed, that aspersion is out of line. El_C 17:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Messy[edit]Sorry, folks, I am having trouble working out the consensus position from the above. I see two concrete proposals:
What other options are there, and what level of support exists for each? Guy (help!) 23:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
|
Here come the Suns
[edit]| Here come the Suns is topic banned from the ARBPIA pages, broadly construed, for six months. I also blocked the user for one month for edit warring and harassment. El_C 21:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Update: Here come the Suns has been blocked indefinitely by the Arbitration Committee. El_C 23:35, 7 January 2020 (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 Here come the Suns[edit]
Alerted, 13 September 2019.
At Auja al-Hafir, Here come the Suns (=HctS) removes some stuff, I revert it, discussion then ensues on the talk page. HctS says stuff is unsourced, I quote the source in the article (Morris, Benny (1993) Israel's Border Wars, 1949 - 1956. Arab Infiltration, Israeli Retaliation, and the Countdown to the Suez War. Oxford University Press,p. 356). (NB: I do not have the book in front of me, but I have read it earlier). When I said that I don't have the book in front of me, HctS called me the above diffs, even after I said that I consider this a WP:PA (link) Huldra (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Here come the Suns[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 Here come the Suns[edit]As Huldra notes, I challenged some of the statements in the article as unsourced. She reinstated them, still w/o a source, initially claiming (in an edit summary) that they were supported by a source (UNSCR 108). In the subsequent discussion on the talk page, I pointed out that 108 does not actually support the statement in question, and asked for a source. Huldra pointed me to a book by Morris. I responded that we need a specific source (e.g a page number). At that point she claimed the statement is supported by Morris, page 356 ([20]). Subsequently, she admitted she did not check the book to see if that is true, and in fact is not in possession of that book so could not have possibly checked it before claiming the statement is supported by that page. She basically just made it up. I don't know what to call those actions except a lie. Response to Sharab Salam : She did not quote anything from a source, and I have not misquoted her. That source was in the article in support of a different sentence, and she claimed, without reading it, that it also supports the claim I removed. Here come the Suns (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
@Huldra: "I never claimed I had read the source in this instance"- After you said the material is in Morris's book, I asked for a specific source, to which you replied "The source is in the article: Morris: Israel's Border Wars, p. 356. "[21]- what is that, if not a claim that you read page 356 of Morris and found the claim is sourced to it? Here come the Suns (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC) @El C: - What is a "one way interaction ban"? I can't comment on her editing, but she can comment on mine? With pearls like "Stop making up things" [22]? Here come the Suns (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
To elaborate on my "comparable actions" statement , above. I've been accused of following these editors around and undoing their edits, and this appears to be the basis of the suggestion for a 1-way interaction ban. Well, let's look a the following:
These are just from the last 2 weeks. There are many more. Here come the Suns (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC) Statement by SharabSalam[edit]Huldra said "but I read it when I was working on the Al-Hamma Incident and Al-Hamma, Tiberias" why did Here come the Suns misquote that?. Keep in mind that she quoted the source. Here come the Suns didn't see the source and yet removed it and repeatedly called Huldra a liar. There is no lying here. There is apparent POV-pushing and incompetence by Here come the Suns.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000[edit]There was a paragraph in the article which had a citation only in the middle of the paragraph, so one could only guess whether the source supported all of the paragraph or only the part before the citation. Nothing to get excited about. First HctS changed some of the paragraph both before and after the citation, giving only a nationalistic assertion as an edit summary. Then HctS changed "village" into "junction" without explanation or source. (Actually it had a Town Planning Scheme awarded in 1947, so it wasn't just a road junction.) Finally, HctS removed a sentence. Since it followed the citation it can be called unsourced, but it is true and easy to source and the rest of HctS's edit summary is false. Huldra proposed on the talk page that the source given in the middle of the article might support all of it. Neither Huldra nor HctS had the source available, so it came down to "Have you checked the source?" backwards and forwards. As a content dispute it is trivial, and tomorrow I will edit on the basis of the same source (which does in fact support most of the paragraph). The problem here is that HctS crossed the line by repeatedly calling Huldra a liar. This is an unacceptable way of conducting a dispute. Zerotalk 13:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC) El_C, now HctS has written "you are misrepresenting what it says" to me, which is another accusation of dishonesty. One would think that in the midst of a case against HctS for casting aspersions, s/he would at least be more careful. Clearly s/he just doesn't get it. Zerotalk 23:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC) I have 6912 pages on my watchlist, including all ARBPIA articles that I'm aware of. I can make mistakes, but I am happy with all the partial reverts that HctS lists, all of which were good edits that I carefully explained. Zerotalk 06:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC) Result concerning Here come the Suns[edit]
|
Xenagoras
[edit]| There was no consensus that the block was invalid. The appeal is moot as the block has already expired. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:11, 19 January 2020 (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.
Block log.
Statement by Xenagoras[edit]This block by @Doug Weller is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption because I did not violate the WP:1RR editing restriction on Tulsi Gabbard with any of my today's 5 edits [31][32][33][34][35] there. These 5 edits are part of one series of consecutive edits that undid MrX actions in part and count as one revert. WP:3RR states, "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert". The user MrX that I reverted, confirmed to me that my 5 edit-sequence did not violate the WP:1RR restriction [36]. MrX [37] and myself [38] agreed to continue to discuss disputed content on the article talk page. The block also violates the blocking policy WP:EXPLAINBLOCK because the blocking admin did not give reviewable evidence or explain which of my edits violated any policy. Xenagoras (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Doug Weller[edit]It was clearly a 1RR block which I didn't think needed an explanation. Xenagoras made three edits, then MrX made one. Xenagoras made 2 edits after that with the last one being another revert. I have no idea why they still fail to acknowledge that. The issue isn't one of reverting the same edit twice, it's simply that it wasn't a string of five reverts, with a break of 14 minutes between MrX's edit and Xenagoras's fifth edit. That's plenty of time for someone who is editing an article that they clearly know is under 1RR and who has had a previous warning - see User talk:Xenagoras#1RR. Maybe if it had been just a minute or two a free pass with another reminder might have been ok, but that's just too long a gap. Doug Weller talk 10:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by MrX[edit]Xenagoras, you misrpesented what I said. I did not "confirm" that your 5 edit-sequence did not violate the. I wrote that I "did not say" that you violated 1RR. In other words, I was silent on the issue. However, it appear that you did in fact make a second revert [40]. While your 18:44 edit appears to be part of a series of edits, your 18:57 edit raises some doubts. - MrX 🖋 22:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Xenagoras[edit]
Result of the appeal by Xenagoras[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Arthur Rubin
[edit]| The topic ban on Arthur Rubin from the area of gun control is replaced by a 1RR restriction on edits within that same topic area. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Arthur Rubin[edit]I realize that Wikipedia's (possibly consensus) POV on gun control differs from mine, and I have no intention of arguing the point. I would like to be able to discuss factual errors in gun control articles (although I don't intend to seek them out), and whether events (loosely) related to gun control should be in year and decade articles. My previous topic ban on the Tea Party movement has been reduced to a 1RR/week restriction. I'm not appealing for further revision of that because I believe that to be reasonable for most articles, if reversion of vandalism and spam are exempted. I wouldn't mind if this restriction was removed entirely, but I would settle for reduction to a 1RR restriction. This is, I believe, my first appeal of the January 2015 sanction. Link to sanctions now fixed. As to factual errors, I'm afraid there are no correct answers. As I don't intend to seek out the articles, I will only make changes if the "facts" are changed by one of the many vandals who randomly change numbers, dates, and locations. Otherwise, I'll discuss the matter. Statement by HJ Mitchell[edit]Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Arthur Rubin[edit]
Result of the appeal by Arthur Rubin[edit]
|
Notagainst
[edit]| Notagainst is topic banned from all pages related to climate change, broadly construed, for six months. Johnuniq (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2020 (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 Notagainst[edit]
WP:ARBCC: Climate change
Examples of not trying to find consensus
Examples of failing Wikipedia:Verifiability by misrepresenting sources
Examples of personal attacks
Notagainst is a prolific editor of some of the most widely-read pages about climate change. I regret that I feel obliged to ask enforcement instead of working together on improving this important topic. The disruptive editing consists of a persistent refusal to engage seriously in consensus building and objecting to community input. Furthermore, they are editing so much that other editors don't have time to verify, often with a high rate of mistakes. When other editors comment on mistakes or on other content disputes, the editor often continues editing the article in the direction other editors objected to. The editor also frequenty uses personal attacks, even after being called out on them. Frequent editor concerns are about POV pushing. That this type of editing occurs on widely-read pages makes it more urgent in my view.
1. This reflects my concerns that NA isn't able yet to distinguish reliable sources from semi-reliable sources. Take the last source in the list, an article in the Foresight magazine. This article makes claims about what the UN forecasts about migration. The magazine doesn't quote the report they take this information from, but the numbers correspond to the 2009 IOM report. This UN report contains contains a literature assessment, in which they discuss these numbers. They make it clear that they have serious doubts about those numbers, so saying that the UN forecasts them is a clear mis-characterisation by the Foresight magazine, making this article, and possibly this source, unsuitable for Wikipedia. 4. Incorrect, I started formulating a request on 22 December. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Notagainst[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 Notagainst[edit]The simple answer as to whether "wikivoice is not a principle" is that WP has a pillar called Neutrality. WP:wikivoice redirects to WP:NPOV. That page does not mention wikivoice in the list of contents. There is a section among the contents called Policies and guidelines. It contains dozens of related policies - but wikivoice is not among them. WP does not have a principle, a guideline or a pillar called wikivoice. This is not my belief. It is a fact. Notagainst (talk) 05:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 1) On her user Page, Femkemilene says she is “a PhD researcher on climate variability and change”. As such, she is required to employ academic standards of accuracy and verifiability to include material in her research. WP does not require the same level of accuracy as academic research and she and I have butted heads because she tries to impose her academic standards on Wikipedia. Other editors follow her lead. In the pursuit of accuracy, they ignore the WP principle requiring neutrality and balance. For instance, in this discussion on the level of migration attributable to climate change, she says she “deleted two of (my) four sources because they did not support the statement…(which read: ‘Global warming is already driving mass migration in different parts of the world.’) That’s not to say they are wrong, but just that we can’t trust them at face value… Estimates of migration called primarily by environmental factors and specifically by climate change are highly controversial.” There were four citations for the statement in the article.
These are all reliable sources making somewhat different claims about how many migrants there will be. What they all agree on is that there will be millions and that these are largely attributable to climate change. But Femkemilene refuses to trust them because they don't meet her academic standards. 2) In this discussion, Femkemilene demonstrates that she deletes material she doesn't agree with or which doesn't reach her academic standards, instead of adding other material that would provide balance. 3) In this discussion on Sense of Crisis, she splits academic hairs over the difference between the effects and responses to global warming. 4) As an authority on the subject, Femkemilene seems to take personal offence at being challenged. In this discussion, I pointed out the inconsistency in her claim that she believes there is a climate crisis but that she failed to support this view in discussions on the climate crisis talk page ("what kind of person does that?"). She was clearly offended and initiated this arbitration. Notagainst (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC) 5) RCraig claims climate crisis is just a value-laden term. And yet 11,000 scientists were happy to do so in a RS which means it meets the criteria for inclusion - but he and his 'half dozen' colleagues deleted it. They use the mythical wikivoice to ignore the principle of balance and neutrality. Notagainst (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 6) In regard to seeking consensus with these editors, that's almost impossible when they consistently ignore basic WP rules about using reliable sources to achieve neutrality and balance - and kid themselves that wikivoice is a real WP principle which justifies their collective deletions.Notagainst (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by RCraig09[edit]I encountered substantial and repeated violations by Notagainst in Talk:Climate crisis, ignoring repeated civil explanations by multiple experienced editors of how Wikipedia must be WP:NEUTRAL in describing climate change and not characterize it in WP:WIKIVOICE as a "crisis". (The Climate crisis article is about the term "climate crisis".)
I concur with Femkemilene. Notagainst is a prolific, methodologically careless, and stubborn author who plays loose with facts in service of an outside agenda, and engages in incivility in the face of constructive reasoned comments by experienced editors. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC) Supplemental (21 Jan): Notagainst's comments, including fresh ones on this very AE page, demonstrate an ongoing inability to distinguish between an encyclopedia that describes a topic neutrally (global warming and climate change) versus a personal opinion characterizing the topic using a value-laden term (climate crisis). He even criticizes subject matter expert Femkemilene for taking a properly different approach with respect to that encyclopedia article versus at her university. And to this day (21 Jan 2020), Notagainst continues to dismiss the important distinction between (objective) effects of GW/CC and humans' (subjective chosen) responses to GW/CC. An editor seeing that "half a dozen or so editors" deleted his content, might step back to reassess his own actions in light of the fact that this is an encyclopedia. — 23:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC) and RCraig09 (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by (Springee)[edit]I had only limited interaction with Notagainst when editing the Climate Crisis page. Like RCraig09 I found they failed to listed to the concerns of others and didn't follow CIVIL in the face of pushback. I'm not surprised they ended up here. I do think they have good intent but they should learn the ropes on less political topics. Ideally I would suggest they get some mentoring as to the best ways to handle topics like those related to climate change. Absent something like that, perhaps a self imposed 1RR restriction? If this comes down to a topic ban I would suggest something like 6 months or a demonstration that they understand the issue and it won't happen again (edit: by or I mean a 6 month tban but the ability to appeal any time so it could be lifted right away). As I think they are essentially acting in good, if misguided, faith, I would suggest any editing restrictions be lifted with minimal effort if/when they can articulate an understanding of the problem. Springee (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by Clayoquot[edit]@Notagainst:, I am concerned about your statements regarding the WP:Wikivoice policy. Can you acknowledge that this policy exists, and commit to following it? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC) @Clayoquot, Please provide a link to the policy section on WP where it describes wikivoice. There is a redirect to WP:NPOV. I cannot find anything anywhere which describes wikivoice as a policy. Notagainst (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Result concerning Notagainst[edit]
|
Kmoksha
[edit]| Kmoksha is topic banned from any and all Indian-related topics, broadly construed. This sanction may be appealed no less than six months from now. El_C 13:27, 1 February 2020 (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 Kmoksha[edit]
None
(426 words, 2584 characters, 19 diffs of the user conduct) This conduct is occurring at the page on Citizenship Amendment Act, a controversial piece of legislation enacted by the Indian government last month, which gave rise to country-wide protests that are still ongoing. The Press has been pretty critical of the Act, and it is hard to find any views sympathetic to the Government. Kmoksha's first edit was on 25 December, which made multiple changes with a contentious edit summary. The edit was reverted and he was told that the Government's own published material (FAQs, in this case) are not acceptable sources. He has created multiple talk page threads to discuss the issue: 27 Dec, 29 Dec, 6 Jan, none of which succeeded. He still continues to push for the government point of view through other means. One example of this is the issue of the beneficiaries of the Act, which he raised first on 12 January using some out-of-date information from Intelligence Bureau. I asked him to look for sources by a sample google search, the very first of which explained the subtleties of the issue pretty clearly. However, there are five more mentions of "beneficiaries" on the talk page as of today, including this proposal on 23 January. Kmoksha's second action on the mainspace was to revert my edit where I expanded a one-sentence summary of an important topic ("Relationship to NRC") to a fuller discussion. After considerable prodding, Kmoksha produced an explanation for his revert, whose long and tedious discussion manifested the majority of the problems listed above. Other than those surface issues, the discussion has been essentially one of stonewalling, diverting the attention from the content by bringing in extraneous issues, and refusal to get the point. The most blatant example of this is from yesterday. After I conceded, " Kmoksha's long rambling posts have blocked the consensus-building process by discouraging other editors from participating. He has been told by El_C to condense his posts. He has also been told by RegentsPark that he is coming across as being tendentious. None of these had any effect. His refusal to even participate in a DRN discussion is mystifying. So at this point I have no option but to ask for him to be sanctioned from this topic.
Discussion concerning Kmoksha[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 Kmoksha[edit]Constant flip-flops of Kautilya3 are visible even in his submission here - complaining of "long posts" but where concise and proper answer was possible and given, he still complains instead of responding to it. From day1, Kautilya3, editors toeing similar lines with him are putting vague, false accusations on me while themselves violating several Wiki Policies like WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTHESIS. Real issue is content disagreement between various editors at Talk page regarding relationship of CAA law to NRC, after which false allegations increased. All this can be seen here. False Allegations previously successfully refuted by me - with no response to my refutations by El_C etc. -
Improvements in article due to my efforts* -
While there was ongoing discussion on improving NPOV in section "Relationship to NRC", Kautilya3 removed present text of section having word "concerns" and made it more definitive although all his referenced sources were having words not definitive like "not clear", "worries" etc. and own POV pushed for that. Other editors - YN Desai mentioned haphazard manner in which content was edited and holding addition of proposed content. Abhishekaryavart also agreed. Leaving discussion at Talk page, Kautilya3 went to DRN. I requested to continue discussion at Talk page to which DRN volunteer agreed saying other involved editors should have been invited. Coming back to Talk page discussion, Kautilya3 again moved my posts to start new discussion subthread. I wanted to have discussion in one thread since other editors had already commented in previous thread. Despite consensus against him, Kautilya3 has not responded to concerns of removing word "concerns" from previous content and making section definitive, with contradiction by his own given references. To stop POV pushing, I request uninvolved editors to ban Kautilya3, Vanamode93 from this topic.
@El_C, After introspection, anyone can see that most of my talk page threads have resulted in consensus and helping other editors and my suggestions have resulted in wiki article improvement as parts of my previous edits are now part of the wiki article. Links and diffs regarding that already provided by me above. Would you like to give details and explain that when my talk page threads clearly lead to improvements in article, consensus and helping other editors, how it is disruptive, "Tendentious Editing" etc. ? -- Kmoksha (talk) 09:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by WBG[edit]Sanction a PartialBlock from the article, as an AE action. One of the reasons, as to why I took the article off my watchlist. ∯WBGconverse 12:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by Abhishekaryavart[edit]As I was pinged, I am writing here my views. Dismiss the AE request on Kmoksha. I found his posts perfectly readable and without any issues. This AE request on Kmoksha has no substance whatsover and is clearly a harassment tactic. And put a topic ban on the persons harassing. -- Abhishekaryavart (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Vanamonde[edit]I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to understand Kmoksha's talk page posts, and I've generally been unsuccessful. I think this is less a case of egregious POV-pushing, and more an inability (or unwillingness) to understand how we use sources of different kinds to construct a neutral and coherent article; for instance, an inability to see that a paragraph in a reliable secondary source that the source attributes to the government is the equivalent of a government press release, and not the same as a statement of fact made by the same source. I'm not going to recommend specific actions here, because I've gotten a little deep into this, and Kmoksha hasn't been engaging in edit-warring or similar; but their ramblings on the talk page are a genuine pain in the neck. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC) Result concerning Kmoksha[edit]
|
Volunteer Marek
[edit]| Closing with no action. Recommend to checkuser the filer. Recommend a motion request to the Committee regarding the systemic application of 500-30 to the ARBEE topic area El_C 19:37, 31 January 2020 (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]
Dear sysops, I am sorry if I formatted this wrong or am acting wrongly. I met Marek at Polish INR article, that was in the news because of the Polish boycott of the Auschwitz liberation ceremony. Polish president boycotted as speaking slots were only given to world powers that liberated Europe. Marek was hostile at me, and started accusing me of being here back in 2005 because I changed in one article a Gdańsk to Danzig. I told this to my family, and they had big chuckle as me being on Wikipedia in 2005 is impossible in so many ways. When I made this first change, I did not know Gdańsk vote. I did this change based on my intimate knowledge of the Bay of Gdańsk (Danzig) and its history, and since the sentence of "the Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk)... Gdańsk" was inconsistent with itself. While posting on Polish INR, Marek linked [51] to Gdansk vote. I then read the vote carefully and acted according to it in some articles. After that, he accused me on my talk page of being here back in 2005 because of the vote, when he told me about the vote!
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]If anyone here believes even for a second that this is genuinely a brand new account who just “happens to know” about an obscure vote from 2005 (which is no longer in force anyway having been superseded by WP:MOS) and who knows to go running to WP:AE when they get in a dispute, then I got a bridge to sell you. This is a sock puppet of indef banned User:Icewhiz (who was very active at the IPN article) or one of his friends (also indefinitely banned users Jacob Peter or Kaiser von Europa - the three have been talking on off-wiki sites like Wikipediocracy and previously Reddit’s WikiInAction) For the past three months, ever since Icewhiz got indef banned, Poland related articles have been inundated with literally more than a few dozen (more than 30 by my last count) of brand new, transparently sock puppet accounts, which have basically picked up right where Icewhiz left off when he was banned. The situation is freakin’ ridiculous. It’s too many for SPI, many of them have been editing from behind proxies and as soon as one gets banned, two more pop up. The whole thing feels like a sick joke or at least a complete abdication of responsibility by people who created this mess. I think it’s time to go to ArbCom (again!) and ask them to address this situation. The diffs here don’t violate any DS. Volunteer Marek 14:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Leonid was making edits based on the Gdansk vote before I said anything (for example [53]). In fact, that's why I said something. On top of that he files a perfectly formatted AE report only after a week of being on Wikipedia. There's several phrasings in his report that are typical Icewhiz-ism (believe me, I had to deal with the guy for almost three years, and then he went on a campaign of harassment against me and my family - I know). It's a freakin' sock. Just like the other 30 or 40 socks that have appeared on Poland related articles in the past two months. Volunteer Marek 14:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Anyone still have doubts? Ok. Here is 007Leonid making his first edit at IPN [54], barely a week into his new found Wikipedia career. It's to restore an edit by another sock [55]. At this point ShoooBeeDoo was called out for being a sock, and User:Reaper Eternal blocked him on a check user check, so I figure this is when Icewhiz figured "it's time for another sock to jump in since ShoooBeeDoo is burned". This is how ridiculous the situation is. The sock puppets have sock puppets who have little sock puppet grandchildren. Volunteer Marek 14:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC) User:El_C - yes!!! In 15 years here I've never seen so many socks and SPAs flood a topic area but checking the history of other contentious topics it looks like the exact same phenomenon occurred in India-Pakistan topics after that case was settled and in Palestine-Israel topics when that case was closed (interestingly, Icewhiz was involved in that topic area too though I don't know enough about it to know if there's a connection). Same thing is needed here. Volunteer Marek 15:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Also a quick note to User:Piotrus - while Icewhiz, User:Jacob Peters and User:Kaiser von Europa (all three indef banned) were indeed all discussing this stuff on Wikipediocracy (and reddit going back to March of last year) I do want to note that most other people on Wikipediocracy ridiculed or criticized them. Volunteer Marek 15:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Regarding Francois Robere. I've asked them previously NOT to post to my talk page. The reason for this is very simple and straight forward: Francois Robere's main buddy and Wikifriend has doxxed me, made threats against me, contacted my employer and threatened to hurt my children. He has subjected me (and also several other editors) to really nasty harassment off wiki (on wiki too but that's why he's indef banned). This harassment was ongoing since at least March of 2019 although it wasn't possible to tie it directly to Icewhiz until November. All along, Francois Robere ... "collaborated" with Icewhiz on several dozen articles [56] always supporting Icewhiz and reverting on his behalf. In addition to ... "cooperating" on articles, as far as discussions go, during the ArbCom case evidence was presented [57] which showed that Francois Robere and Icewhiz had together participated in over a hundred discussions on Wikipedia and in all but one instance they strongly agreed with and supported each other. Francois Robere was also very active in the Icewhiz ArbCom case [58], supporting Icewhiz 100% and agitating on his behalf. Ever since the end of the case, as mentioned above, several dozen brand new suspicious SPA sock puppets accounts have popped up in this topic area. Francois Robere was there along with them every step of the way:
This is just off the top of my head and on short notice. There's at least half a dozen more instances where suspicious looking accounts have showed up, made pretty much the same edits as Icewhiz, then after they were challanged, Francois Robere showed up to defend them and facilitate them. I should note explicitly at this point that my interaction ban with Icewhiz was specifically rescinded so I could address the issue of Icewhiz sock puppeting given the harassment that he was engaged in. That's what I'm doing here. So to anyone with half a brain it's obvious what's going on. Before Icewhiz and Francois Robere closely "cooperated" on several dozen articles, always agreed with each other in discussions and unquestionably supported one another. Then ArbCom happened and Icewhiz got banned, while Francois Robere managed not to get sanctioned. Consequently Icewhiz began socking on mass scale and this socking was/is being enabled, protected, facilitated and coddled by his old Wiki friend, Francois Robere. Before FR tag teamed with Icewhiz. Now FR tag teams with Icewhiz socks. Now. If somebody threatened to harm YOUR children (and I'll spare you the disgusting details) would you want to have their close buddy post little passive aggressive taunts on your talk? Hell no. How would you feel if that person followed you to several articles just to mess with you by reverting you and encouraging the socks that come for you? It's odious shameless behavior. FR needs to stay as far away from me as possible. You are who you hang out with. You are who you support. Maybe FR didn't make the threats himself but to this very moment he cheerfully supports the guy who did. I am 100% happy to revisit this with ArbCom since it's their failure to include Francois Robere in their decisions that has led to this situation and why the topic area of Poland is STILL the freakin' mess as before - the ArbCom case didn't actually solve the problem. Volunteer Marek 19:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Add: " if the content is good, then I don't care whether it came from a sock, a shirt or a codpiece" <--- The problem is that what FR regards as "good content" for some strange reason correlates very closely with "it came from a (Icewhiz) sock" (rather than a shirt or a codpiece) which is the actual problem here. And no, this content is not "good" since it's *exactly* the kind of content that led to Icewhiz's topic ban (WP:BLP violations, one sided and WP:TENDentious POV pushing, cherry picked and manipulated sources, using Wikipedia articles as attack pages). I mean, if you think this is "good content" then that's pretty much saying "I should be topic banned for same reason as Icewhiz". And that's in addition to the "I am reverting on behalf of and in support of Icewhiz sock puppets" reason for the same. (and seriously if you have to go back TWO YEARS to find a weak-ass example of supposed "incivility" (it's not incivility it's simply disagreement and criticism) such as this [73] on my part, it kind of illustrates that you got nothing here and are just trying to deflect). Volunteer Marek 23:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
(as for the t-ban violation - yes I accidentally violated it here. But how did that happen? Well.... that's actually interesting in itself. The original text about this Kurtyka guy had no mention of ANYTHING to do with WW2. In no version of the article prior to Jan 28th did the text concerning Kurtyka mentioned the Warsaw Uprising Museum [74]. The Kurtyka text was indeed under dispute (it was originally added by the other sockpuppet User:ShoooBeeDoo) but it concerned ONLY modern day Polish politics. Here is me removing that text previously - note again, nothing about Museum or WW2. So... how did the part about the Museum get in there??? Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh! That's right, in his edit warring, [75] 007Леони́д snuck it in. Basically 007Леони́д added a completely irrelevant tidbit ("such as the Warsaw Uprising Museum") to a sentence which otherwise had nothing to do with WW2. Why? Well, gee, maybe it's because he's not a new user and he knew damn well about the topic ban??? I mean, if you weren't convinced before that this was a sock puppet, his awareness of the topic bans pretty much gives the game away. So he added just some irrelevant text about WW2 to a piece of text under discussion so that I couldn't remove it without violating the tban or wouldn't notice (which true, I didn't, my bad, I should expect this kind of sleazy tactics by now). And then.... Francois Robere comes running to AE to bring it up. Did I mention how FR facilitates and supports Icewhiz's sock puppets? Volunteer Marek 19:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC) (btw, I have already self reverted that edit awhile ago once I realized what 007Леони́д and Francois were up to) Volunteer Marek 19:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Piotrus[edit]All things considered, it's a good opportunity to get rid of another obvious sock (WP:BOOMERANG). While I don't think this is a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz (I think all of his socks got hit by a wide range VPN block a few weeks ago), I concur with VM that this is a very likely a sock of some old warrior from ye old days, probably one with neo-Nazi leanings (something for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacob Peters or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaiser von Europa, good bet). What I find shocking is that such account wouldn't realize how obvious what they are doing is - but on the second thought, given the recent multitude of socks in the given topic area (post-Icewhiz ban few months ago), I guess they are just trying to bait/block shop some other editors. It's not like when this account is banned anything will change, a new one will join the fray. But if they could convince some admin to block VM, finally, what a payoff, all those years of trying, all those socks burned, would finally have a meaning. Ugh. I do not participate in the off wiki forums about wiki, but on several occasions I was sent links that do strongly confirm what VM is saying, i.e. that some banned editors are using them to exchange tips/discuss targets in their war on 'normal' editors. I wonder if this is part of such coordinated strategy? Disgusting/scary. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Statement by François Robere[edit]A couple of days ago VM left this vaguely threatening comment in an edit summary,[76] in response to me reminding him of WP:CIVILITY after he made some baseless accusations against me[77] (and didn't WP:DROPTHESTICK later [78]). I considered filing an ANI, but I realized admins will be completely fine with this, even if VM has a long record of this sort of abusive comments[79][80][81][82][83][84] (and don't even mind that this subject is under DS). As for the T-ban violation[85] - he's banned from article on the history of Poland during WWII,[86] yet he removed content mentioning a WWII museum in an article that's all about WWII and Communist-era historiography. It's a clear vio of his T-ban, and not the first one[87][88][89] (nor is it the first time he violated any ban [90][91][92]). Oh, and the TA is crawling with "socks", as evident by this comment by Reaper Eternal. In case you're wondering, the thread was opened by VM after I got the page protected to stop him and several others from "edit warring". François Robere (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC) @Piotrus: Piotrus, you misunderstand two things: I don't support editors ("socks" or otherwise), but content. If the content isn't good, then no amount of "nice" will make me support it. Conversely, if the content is good, then I don't care whether it came from a sock, a shirt or a codpiece. Tell me, in our recent engagement at Institute of National Remembrance (and its Talk), how many of the "socked" sources did I support? How many did I restore? Half? Less than half? So what's this nonsense about? And what's this nonsense about "affiliation"? Are you affiliated with Poeticbent? Tatzref? Any other blocked editor? Any of the "socks"? No? Me neither. And I'll never hold it against you either, because AFAIC we're all responsible for our own behavior, and not an inch more. If anyone wants to play politics, that's their prerogative; I don't. François Robere (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC) @MyMoloboaccount: The problem isn't with anyone "hounding" you, it's with you making mistakes like somehow messing up my comment and sticking a TOC in the middle of the page.[93] Earlier this month you plagiarized a source.[94] Last month you got into an argument with Ermenrich for the n-th time on Walter Kuhn, and tried to drag K.e.coffman into it.[95] At about the same time you asked Ealdgyth, who only has 100,000 edits or so, to cite the rule that says refs come after punctuation.[96] So please, instead of lamenting your "withdrawal" (from which you already returned a couple of times [97][98]), enjoy it. François Robere (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC) In response to Volunteer Marek's deplorable comments above: This did not start today, nor because of anyone's "doxxing" - VM has been attacking my integrity for almost two years,[99][100] from our very first interactions, gradually adding more and more accusations over time.[101] None of them was ever accepted at ANI, AE, ArbCom or anywhere else, yet he continues to make them with zero evidence. That's harassment par excellence. And here, knowing that "interaction analysis" is practically useless in heavily trafficked pages, he adds these rancid insinuations that I had anything to do with his alleged "real life" harassment - insinuations that he can barely prove for the banned editor, let alone this one. The truth underlying this complaint is that VM is one of the rudest, brashest editors around; he has berated, swore at, insulted, or otherwise antagonized (or even harassed) dozens of editors. He is of ill temper, perennially assumed of bad faith, and no matter how many times he's urged to change his ways,[102][103][104][105] he never will. But he shouldn't be allowed to besmirch others; if nothing else, take a stand on this. François Robere (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by MyMoloboaccount[edit]The ongoing obvious sockupuppeting in EE area needs to be dealt with, not only in regards to sockuppets but also in regards to sockpuppeting on behalf of infamous Icewhiz, who openly bragged about falsfying sources and his ethnic prejudices; nothing good comes from such a hateful editor being allowed to hurt Wikipedia by manipulating some many pages and sources in the name of ethnic hatred. Since I have been trying to protect some content with varied success I have too been subject to harassment and attacks to such degree that I have largely withdrawn from editing Wikipedia, despite knowing that several articles edited by Icewhiz contain false information or manipulate sources. What's the point when the crusade by another sock is being allowed to continue? In regards to FR I concur that the editor has been engaging in questionable behaviour towards these who disagreed with Icewhiz and his ongoing snipes at my personal contributed to my withdrawal, this led me to even openly ask him to stop posting on my page[106] and requested him to stop harassing me on Wikipedia[107]. FR needs to finally stop waging this this battle on behalf of Icewhiz and let other editors edit in atmosphere of cooperation and scholarly friendship, and not in battleground one.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC) FR: Your aggressive behaviour above is exactly what I am talking about. Your interpret any discussion or request for sources as a conflict-instead of treating it as an exchange of information to improve quality of the article. There is nothing wrong in asking another editor what he thinks about reliability of sources by Nazi followers about history of Poland, nor is a simple request for clarification of rules on edits anything wrong. Your comments telling me to "enjoy my withdrawal from Wikipedia" as reaction to my remark about ongoing disruptive socks damaging articles being distracting to editors is quite disappointing. We are here to create encyclopedia, and should behave like scholars, not as aggressive posters on internet forum. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Result concerning Volunteer Marek[edit]
|