Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive285
Buidhe
[edit]| There was substantial and reasonable confusion over whether 1RR did or did not apply to the article at the time of the reverts. Due to this, no individual sanctions will be levied against any editor, though for clarity, 1RR will be in effect on the article from this point forward and editors breaching it will be subject to sanctions. All editors involved are warned that edit warring and ownership are disruptive and undesirable even if an nRR restriction is not technically breached, and can be subject to sanction. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:48, 25 April 2021 (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 Buidhe[edit]
Discussion concerning Buidhe[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 Buidhe[edit]
Statement by Jeppiz[edit]Buidhe does a tremendous amount of good work at Wikipedia and is an asset for the project. Whatever problems there may be, Buidhe's net contribution is overwhelmingly positive. I hope that this positive net contribution is taken into account in any decision. Unfortunately there is a recent problem, coming close to WP:OWN as Buidhe has taken to decide for themself how the article should look. Numerous reverts within 24h on a 1RR article is always a problem. Buidhe overruling governments of countries is downright bizarre. I don't dispute good faith, but still odd. We currently have a situation where the Swedish government emphatically explains that Sweden does not recognise the Armenian genocide (and numerous good reliable sources for that) yet Wikipedia claims the exact opposite because Buidhe (who, I believe, does not speak any Swedish) is so sure of their own interpretation they happily revert me when trying to add the official Swedish position. The situation is problematic. Once again, I very much appreciate Buidhe's net contribution. At the same time, I'm concerned about their recent behaviour in this ArbCom-protected area. We cannot have individual WP users overriding national governments on those governments' positions. In the best case, Buidhe takes this on board and no further action is needed. Anyone can have a bad day and Buidhe is a great editor here. Jeppiz (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by RandomCanadian[edit]So Buidhe was operating under the assumption that this was not under 1RR. Whether that was a misunderstanding or a correct understanding, WP:NOTBURO and WP:WIKILAWYERING would lead me to say that if that was the case, and I see no reason not to AGF here, then we shouldn't punish for a supposed 1RR violation (and OP here is funny, because they inserted their material in the article, got it reverted, and then re-inserted (diff) into that article after it was clear there was opposition to it; and supposedly being well aware of the presumed 1RR requirement they seek to enforce here - in addition to the fact their edit violated WP:V and got correctly reverted by somebody else). I have always understood 3RR to be about edits which are substantially similar or which affect the same material (because 3RR is supposed to prevent edit warring, and edits which affect different parts or which are substantially different are not edit warring). I don't think there's a reason to go with any heavy-handed enforcement here; except maybe clarifying whether the page is under 3RR or 1RR, and warning the OP about WP:BRD - if their edits get reverted, they must follow WP:BRD and start discussing it, not revert again... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Nsk92[edit]As it happens User:Barkeep49 was incorrect and gave Buidhe really bad advice here. In fact the 1RR restriction for the Armenian Genocide article remains in effect, even though the original arbitration remedy authorizing 1RR has been amended away. The reason is that the amending motions explicitly specified that all earlier imposed DS sanctions for this arbitration case remain in effect. The 1RR restriction was placed on the article by Moreschi on January 27, 2008. That was done under the early version of Discretionary Sanctions, authorized by the January 19, 2008 motion in Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case. The next motion amending that remedy was passed on October 27, 2011. The motion placed AA2 articles under the first version of standard Discretionary Sanctions but also said that "Any extant sanctions or warnings made according to the older wording found in those decisions (as applicable) remain unaffected." The next modifying motion was passed on March 8, 2013 It similarly said: "Previous or existing sanctions, warnings, and enforcement actions are not affected by this motion." Thus the original 1RR restriction placed by Moreschi on January 27, 2008 still stands. Having said that, the history of all of these superseding motions is pretty complicated and even a sitting arbitrator was confused and arrived at an incorrect conclusion. I think that Buidhe's actions here should be AGF-ed, and Buidhe should not be sanctioned for following incorrect advice from basically the highest authority. However, the closing statement should indicate that the DS sanctions imposed under the January 19, 2008 motion in the AA2 case remain in effect unless they have been formally withdrawn. Nsk92 (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by (user)[edit]Result concerning Buidhe[edit]
|
CutePeach
[edit]| I hate to shut this down, but it isn't a simple case that a drive by admin can clear up, and it isn't an AE issue, it is a General Sanctions case. AE is a rather fenced off area for a reason, but this is a case the entire community should be able to participate in. WP:AN is ok, but really it is an WP:ANI issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:11, 25 April 2021 (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 CutePeach[edit]
So, CutePeach has been here for about 1 month, supposedly here after they saw a post on Twitter, saying saw: "[a] conversation on Twitter and I am not impressed with your [Wikipedia's] brinkmanship on this topic". 08:19, 18 March 2021. Per their own admission, this kind of thing is still being off-wiki canvassed(16:22, 24 April 2021; Due to the fact the articles are ECP'ed (after previous socking and disruptive editing in the area, and under the GS allowed for COVID), most of their contributions which show evidence of a problem are concentrated on two talk pages: Talk:COVID-19 pandemic; and Talk:COVID-19 misinformation. So far, about a quarter of their total edits have been to these two pages. These have been solely to advocate for the plausibility of the "lab leak" hypothesis; and, apparently, attempts at discrediting the WHO and the whole of the scientific community (because they, unsurprisingly, show the same skepticism about unfounded and unsubstantiated hypotheses, despite their popularity in the popular press...) - going as far as adding a tendentious header about "disregarding the WHO" when the post below it makes exactly the point that we shouldn't disregard it and that even if we did, it would change strictly nothing about the MEDRS consensus. They have, unsurprisingly, been repeatedly appraised of our policies, including WP:UNDUE; WP:NOR; and, most importantly, WP:MEDRS. And yet, despite all of this, they have yet to cite a single such source, preferring the company of the popular press and of twitter posts... Given the repeated, persistent requests and warnings made to them about our content policies, and their failure to abide by them, their behaviour is nothing short of "perpetuating disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive". I'm heavily involved in this, but at some point editors which keep arguing the same FRINGE points are just disruptive time sinks, and they need to either accept the point and move on to something else (for ex., they've been repeatedly suggesting things which could go into Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 or COVID-19 misinformation by the United States, and yet their involvement in both of those pages is nearly non-existent), or be more formally topic banned from the area. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning CutePeach[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 CutePeach[edit]Statement by PaleoNeonate[edit]Statement/Question by Jtbobwaysf[edit]Does WP:GS/COVID19 mean that Trump's notable claims (maybe incorrect and with proper attribution) cannot be added since he isn't a scientist? What about the opinions of other scientists/public health officials (CDC, WHO, etc), that also put forth the lab theory, are they to be excluded with the claim that they meet WP:GS/COVID19's defintion of "medical aspects of the disease"? I dont see how the origin claims (something that is probably political, and certainly location-based) has anything related to do with medicine. Certainly, we are not discussing a cause, let's not conflate the issue here. This seems to be the subject of the editor's edits, so let's look at it more generally (take a step back). Wikipedia:General sanctions/COVID-19 says: Sources for any content related to medical aspects of the disease are expected to adhere to the standards laid down at WP:MEDRS. Since this is a rapidly evolving area with instances already documented of poor or fraudulent research, preprints and other non-peer-reviewed sources should not be used. Generally speaking: Has there been a discussion to determine if/how MEDRS applies to the COVID-19 pandemic article (the subject of these alleged ANI violations)? Is it appropriate to apply this indiscriminately to COVID-19 pandemic (a societal event article) that that describes the impact on society and not really the disease itself? We clearly would apply MEDRS to Polio and poliovirus, but @DocJames: do we also apply it to History of polio and 1916 New York City polio epidemic? Would we have an RFC on such a matter, or is it solely up the DS closing editor who says broadly (often we use this term broadly)? Assuming arguendo we do apply it to the COVID-19 pandemic article, how is it applied, and how are we currently applying it? When I do a quick look at the sources of COVID-19 pandemic I see CBS News, Business Insider, Financial Times, The Guardian, etc. Clearly, these are not MEDRS, is this MEDRS policy being applied selectively? If yes, how and what is the logic? Essay WP:NOLABLEAK is not a policy on how it is applied, merely an opinion of an editor that puts forth the opinion on whether or not the location of the virus origin (lab, city, market, etc) is subject to MEDRS. Note however the essay notably fails to address how the location could be considered a "medical aspect(s) of the disease." Do we use MEDRS to determine the Spanish flu originated in Spain? Clearly not, as it is now widely held that it didnt originate in Spain, rather we use the common name. Assuming there has been a discussion & consensus that says the NOLABLEAK essay is to be enforced as a policy and requires MEDRS to introduce content on a pandemic article, specifically the location of the possible start of the pandemic (or the party responsible if that is being asserted?), then does that same policy also mean that it is prohibited to discuss the GS policy on the respective talk page? If yes, then I may have unknowingly violated this policy and I apologize for that (if I have in fact violated at policy on it). Other DS/GS I have seen in the past normally prohibit reverts or other abusive activity, but I haven't seen it prohibit a discussion on the talk page (unless the talk page activity is clearly abusive). I would think any such policy that would ban non-abusive discussion on the talk page to fundamentally violate WP:CENSOR. After all isnt DS/GS meant to identify a known issue and move the discussion to the talk page to prevent WP:TE on subjects that have known issues with it. It is not the intent of DS/GS to censor, nor is it the intent to let GS/DS be a weapon to enable censorship. I ask all these questions here as I think before we can decide if the editor has violated the policy, we need to determine if/what/how the policy applies to the article, and then to his edits. Maybe all my questions are answered by other prior discussions, if that is the case please show me (I am not a regular editor of this article or medical articles in general). Relating to the canvassing claim, I havent looked at that so I dont have a comment. Regarding the bludgeon probably a boomerang to the nominator on that. I viewed the long posts by cutepeach, as on topic and useful, often containing extensive sources and context (exactly what I was requesting when I created the talk page section) but I am only commenting on what I have seen this week in the talk page section I created as I dont follow this article regularly. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Statement by JzG (CutePeach)[edit]CutePeach has been here for just over a month and has 275 edits, but displays at the same time a familiarity with Wikipedia ([5]) and a strong preference for a content outcome that has been the subject of assiduous advocacy by consumers of conservative media for a year, and which has been repeatedly rejected. Put bluntly, I smell a rat. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by Nsk92[edit]As noted by PaleoNeonate, this filing concerns General Sanctions rather than WP:ACDS. Therefore WP:AE is the wrong venue for this request and it needs to be re-filed at WP:AN (unless somebody cares to take some kind of of a quick regular admin action here.) Currently WP:AE has no jurisdiction over imposing sanctions under GS. That's probably unfortunate, especially for an important topic like COVID-19, but that is the current situation. I vaguely recall seeing a discussion somewhere about creating an AE-style venue for considering GS related requests but I don't think anything resulted from it. Short of that, perhaps a more narrow proposal could be made to the community authorizing WP:AE to handle COVID-19 related GS requests. (Arbcom would probably also have to approve such an arrangement since AE is ultimately answerable to them.) Nsk92 (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning CutePeach[edit]
|
Plebian-scribe
[edit]| Plebian-scribe is indefinitely topic-banned from American politics, Project Veritas is indelinitely extended confirmed protected. I do not see any consensus to protect the talk page--Ymblanter (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2021 (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 Plebian-scribe[edit]
Discussion concerning Plebian-scribe[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 Plebian-scribe[edit]Statement by GorillaWarfare (Plebian-scribe)[edit]It's worth pointing out that all three requests on this page at the moment (Vojtaruzek, Pkeets, and Plebian-scribe) involve disruption at Project Veritas and its talk page. Please consider some kind of page-level restrictions for the talk page, which has been the location of most of it. See my comment above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Four requests now, with the addition of the Airpeka request below... Also worth noting here for posterity that El C semiprotected Talk:Project Veritas for two weeks, I think as an unrelated action from any specific request here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by RandomCanadian[edit]
Statement by PaleoNeonate[edit]There indeed appears to be an ongoing campaign there and I also think temporary talk page protection would be a good idea. As for Plebian-scribe their edit history is not very encouraging but their last post followed by a pause seems to somewhat offset it. It may be a little early for an American Politics topic ban but I predict it'll soon be necessary if they're not careful... —PaleoNeonate – 02:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC) Result concerning Plebian-scribe[edit]
|
@Ymblanter: Just a quick clarifying question on your close: the talk page is currently semiprotected until May 5, as the result of an RfPP request. Do you just mean there's no consensus to change or extend that existing protection? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- @GorillaWarfare: This is indeed what I mean. After May 5, if disruption continues, a new RFPP request can be filed.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Terjen
[edit]| Two week AE block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:45, 29 April 2021 (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 Terjen[edit]
None
This is a case of delayed one against many - in this case, Terjen rejects an overwhelming and formally-expressed community consensus, and refuses to understand that their options are limited to opening a new RfC, or accepting the status quo. Terjen apparently disagrees with the inclusion of
Discussion concerning Terjen[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 Terjen[edit]Coming soon, please give me time to prepare a response. Terjen (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by Bacondrum[edit]Even a cursory glance at sourcing for this claim shows it is very well cited. The far-right descriptor is not only well cited, it is used in the vast majority of sources. This has been discussed before at length on the talk page. Terjen is blatantly POV pushing and tagging well sourced claims in a pointy manner, editing against consensus, edit warring. A firm warning to stop is warranted at this point, IMO. Bacondrum 07:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Statement by GorillaWarfare (Terjen)[edit]This should have been resolved the first time Terjen was told that a new formal RfC would be needed to override the previous one. Terjen could have just opened a new RfC, preferably with a good explanation of what has changed since the June/July 2020 RfC to warrant revisiting the topic, and that would have been that. Refusing to do this simple thing, and continuing to edit war the tag into the article despite clear explanations that there was a formal decision to include the wording, is tendentious. Evidently these multiple explanations have not gotten through to them, maybe AE intervention will. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Statement by NWeil[edit]A previous statement says the claim of "far-right" is very well cited but I would disagree. For example, CSIS, an accepted group of experts on the subject, does not classify the boogaloo movement as far-right. CSIS data was most recently used as the basis for a Washington Post interactive article on extremism. And holding a June/July 2020 RfC as the be-all-end-all for such a fast evolving situation seems unhelpful. It's worrying to me that the desire to keep "far-right" as a tag in the article seems to be overriding common sense. Nweil (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Statement by JzG (Terjen)[edit]I commend NBSB for a calm and patient exposition, assuming good faith. That assumption is, I venture to suggest, somewhere close to the Mary Poppins end of the scale. Terjen appears to have returned from a years-long absence to "correct" our "bias" against neo-Nazis. No thanks. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]NWeil's statement that because CSIS doesn't label the Boogaloo movement as "far-right", that label isn't "very well-cited" is both absurd and irrelevant. There are many other expert organizations and news sources which do label them as "far-right", and that was sufficient for a consensus of editors at an RfC to accept the label as appropriate. And that is the point here, an RfC-generated consensus exists, so Tergen's option was to start a new RfC, but they have refused to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by InedibleHulk[edit]A lot of the slurs associated with "far-right politics" really don't seem associated individually with this group by RS, even if the "far-right" blanket as a whole is. Absurd and troubling, RfC aside. Not a fight we're likely to win, but I'd like the label removed, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC) Dennis Brown, I consider a one-year AP topic ban to be excessive, punitive and detrimental to the topic area's prospects of ever steering back toward a neutral point of view (even at "minimum"). Terjen (and others) may seem more right than left from a generally left-leaning perspective, but that doesn't indicate he's not centred. As a right-winger in hockey, I still swear my center took the puck drops to my left, too, it's inevitable. But in the wider picture, he was just doing his job, same as the left-winger across from him. Allegorical, sure, but compelling and appropriate, at least from where I now lay supine in the editorial field. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by starship.paint[edit]@Nweil: - "fairly controversial" content is exactly what RfCs are for. There is no obligation for the nominator to revisit RfCs in less than a year just because content is "fairly controversial". RfCs are community processes and we wouldn't want to waste the time of the community of editors. That said, any editor is free to start a new RfC at this point if they feel strongly about the subject. starship.paint (exalt) 10:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC) Result concerning Terjen[edit]
I've waited 24 hours, and this started days ago. We're moving on, as there is plenty of evidence presented. There is a clear disconnect between what he thinks is acceptable and what the greater community expects. Looking at his history, it is clear he is fascinated by American Politics in general, but so far, I've only seen problems in the one article, so a topic ban seems too broad. I've actually dedicated a lot of time debating the "solution", more than Terjen has in explaining it, to be sure. A sanction should accomplish two things: 1. stop disruption and 2. discourage future disruption. With that in mind, I've decided to keep it simple and block Terjen for two weeks as a logged WP:AE action, as they have not been blocked before. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC) |
Maudslay II
[edit]| Maudslay II is indefinitely topic banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area, broadly construed. — Newslinger talk 12:12, 1 May 2021 (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 Maudslay II[edit]
The user was asked to self revert[12],[13], but refused and calling other user edits as vandalism. Judging from the user contributions he seems here to WP:RGW and so its not suitable to edit such a topic --Shrike (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC) @Maudslay II: Why do you call WP:AGF edits as vandalism? You were already warned about this? --Shrike (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC) @Maudslay II: Why after you self revert you continued to edit war [14]? --Shrike (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC) @Newslinger: Are you going to investigate futher?I think its pretty straightforward case edit warring and canvassing violations there of course WP:TE diffs brought by Geshem but I think even without them the case is pretty clear. --Shrike (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Maudslay II[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 (username)[edit]Statement by Huldra[edit]Re diff 5: A lot of (fake) photos of the Deir Yassin massacre are circulating on the net. Off course, all "oldtimers" (I have been editing the Deir Yassin massacre-article since 2006) knows this. But I think it is unfair to punish a newbie for thinking any of these pictures actually are from the Deir Yassin massacre. (Just an example of how Maudslay II is a newbie: they refer to me as "Him", heh. Maudslay II: I'm female!), Ms. Huldra (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Maudslay II[edit]I actually reverted myself, [[16]]. I'm not looking for edit wars or anything else. -- Maudslay II (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]More importantly he plays very loose and fast with RS to further an agenda. In one RS that said "Shiite Muslim bombed..." He created the article and wrote it as "Israel bombed...." Sir Joseph (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by Selfstudier[edit]Somewhat enthusiastic editing by a newish editor might be forgiven this once. With a reminder to exercise caution in future in this difficult area.Selfstudier (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by Geshem Bracha[edit]This isn't "enthusiastic editing", it is fabrication and prevarication:
The talk page discussion with him is full with problems. He pushes unreliable sources. The good sources he presents, do not support what he is trying to say. He keeps on saying it "is obvious" it is Israel, but it isn't obvious enough for the sources he cites. What is going on in Deir Yassin massacre is much worse. He placed a fake photograph on Wikipedia, and uploaded five other fakes:
Maudslay II actually uploaded a picture of a Nazi concentration camp and said this took place in Israel. This is bad.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 06:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC) Result concerning Maudslay II[edit]
The "Summary" sections of these pages indicate that all six images were taken from the same Google Images search (for Deir Yassin massacre – "مجزرة دير ياسين"), as the source URLs of these images are identical. The uploads did not attribute the actual websites that hosted the images. While I don't think the uploads were made in bad faith (considering the content of the news outlets that published them), the images were not uploaded with the care that is expected in this contentious topic area: for example, the fifth image was claimed by Al Mayadeen to be of the al-Dawayima massacre, rather than the Deir Yassin massacre. These images should be removed from Wikipedia and deleted from Commons if they are hoaxes or copyright violations, as Geshem Bracha's source links appear to indicate. I have not yet had a chance to examine the other behavioral aspects of this report. — Newslinger talk 12:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
|
![[18]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Deir_Yassin_massacre_3.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Deir_Yassin_massacre_5.jpg){kind=link}
![[20]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Deir_Yassin_massacre_01.jpg){kind=link}
![[21]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Deir_Yassin_massacre_6.jpg){kind=link}
![[23]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Deir_Yassin_massacre_4.png){kind=link}
Race and Intelligence
[edit]| The article and talk page Race and Intelligence will be put under Extended Confirmation Protection for 6 months. At the end of 6 months, the effectiveness can be reviewed and possibly extended. My personal opinion is that WP:AE is the best place to review it, although I can't require it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:24, 1 May 2021 (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 Race and Intelligence[edit]
Sockpuppets and single purpose accounts including:
There has been a long history of sockpuppeting and trolling on Talk:Race and intelligence. It is long since time that a page restriction was applied to deal with this. I am here asking that indefinite extended-confirmed protection be applied to both the article and the talk page. I believe the level of disruption more than warrants this, and I find it highly unlikely that we would ever want a genuine new user to be cutting their teeth on such a contentious article.
Discussion concerning Race and Intelligence[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 MjolnirPants[edit]I wholeheartedly concur with this request, though I'm not sure this is the right place for it. This is an article that sits at the intersection of politics, pseudoscience, science, extremism and conspiracy theories. There is no legitimate reason for any new editor to even be involved in discussions on the talk page, let along permitted to actually edit the article itself. It takes a nuanced understanding of WP policy and significant experience implementing it to be able to do this article justice, and any new editor that has those is a sock, by definition (though to be fair: I've yet to meet a sock with a nuanced understanding of WP policy, for what should be obvious reasons). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Generalrelative[edit]I agree that extended-confirmed protection for this article and talk page is long overdue, though like MPants I'm unsure if AE is the right venue. A similar idea was floated recently on FTN by Hemiauchenia and endorsed by several others (including me) before RandomCanadian pointed out that WP:ARCA would be the proper forum for that. In any case, I would be happy to do some of the leg work of compiling diffs if that is helpful. An exhaustive list of disruption, even over the course of the past year, would be long indeed. Generalrelative (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment by JzG[edit]It's long past time to apply ECP to the article and its talk page. The game of whack-a-racist has gone on for way too long. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC) Comment by Stonkaments[edit]I agree that extended-confirmed protection would be warranted due to the frequent disruptive editing on this article. That said, I think it's more complicated than that. It seems to me that a lot of the disruptive editing is coming in response to editors undertaking WP:OWNERSHIP of the article with a POV in the other direction. For example, most editors strongly opposed removing or modifying the following claim: "The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups", despite this being a clear misrepresentation of the cited sources, as discussed here[27]. In recent discussions, editors have misrepresented one of the sources as an editorial[28], falsely equated a partial hereditarian hypothesis to pseudoscience like Bigfoot and creationism[29], and cast aspersions of racism[30]. The admin who closed the noticeboard discussion failed to address any of the substantive arguments[31], has been uncivil[32], and has shown that they have a strong POV on this topic[33]. See more recent criticism here[34][35]. Thus, it seems to me that a lot of disruptive editing is coming as a backlash against POV-pushing in the article, so that needs to be addressed as well. Stonkaments (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment by Aquillion[edit]For other socks and sockpuppeters that have plagued the page, see [36][37][38][39][40][41][42] This is long-past needed. The article is infamous even off-wiki for its acerbic discussions and edit-wars; and it has seen an extremely persistent, long-term level of sockpuppetry which has compounded that problem. Many of the recurring issues on the page are recurring precisely because sockpuppets of banned SPA accounts frequently return and raise them again, often wasting huge amounts of time and effort before people realize they're talking to a banned sock. The persistent long-term sockpuppetry, in turn, poisons the atmosphere on talk, because when a new user appears and starts making the same arguments as one of the sockpuppets they are immediately treated with suspicion. --Aquillion (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment by NightHeron[edit]This is in response to Stonkaments' comment above. Per WP:FRINGE, it is false to claim that those of us who work to implement the consensus on the fringe nature of racial hereditarianism are POV-pushing. In addition to the problem of SPAs and socks, another time sink at the R&I talk-page has been civil POV-pushing by editors who have refused to accept the consensus of last year's RfC on Race and Intelligence (see [43]; the closure was endorsed in the closure review [44]). The outcome of the RfC was that the belief in genetic superiority in intelligence of one race over another one is a fringe viewpoint. Stonkaments is one of the editors who has tried in various forums to weaken the language that says this. The time sink is caused by SPAs, socks, IPs, and POV-pushing editors who refuse to accept consensus. The proposal to prevent SPAs and IPs from editing the talk-page would help a lot, although it would not eliminate bludgeoning by a few disgruntled editors such as Stonkaments. 23:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)NightHeron (talk)
Comment by Ferahgo the Assassin[edit]I agree it would be useful to do something to reduce the amount of sockpuppetry on this article, but it's an excessively extreme solution to restrict the article and its talk page to users who have 500 edits or more. Over the years there have been a lot of good-faith, non-SPA editors on the article who have fewer than 500 edits, Gardenofaleph being the most recent example. Any restriction should be specific to addressing the problem of sockpuppetry, and not one that will also exclude good-faith editors. Something that hasn't been tried yet is semi-protecting the race and intelligence article's talk page. That would have stopped the two most recent sockpuppets, which only edited the talk page (not the article), and were indef blocked before they had been registered for long enough to become able to edit semi-protected pages. Shouldn't semi-protecting the talk page be tried before resorting to EC protection? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by (uninvolved) Politrukki[edit]This request should be dismissed. The sanction or remedy to be enforced cited in the request does not specifically authorise imposing page sanctions. The remedy authorises using standard DS only for editors who fail to adhere to principles outlined in remedy 5.2:
AE obviously cannot impose sanctions out of process. Politrukki (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by OID[edit]DGG: "What this topic needs is new editors". You will not get new editors while the topic is under sustained attack from proponents of scientific racism bullshit and their socks/meatpuppets. Why would you as a new editor (even an existing experienced wikipedian) step into that quagmire? ECP will go a long way towards mitigating that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by PaleoNeonate[edit]Although I couldn't be very active in the RI area, it's something I've been following for years on WP. I agree that a higher protection level would help and agree with NightHeron's observation. While Mike's socks are perennial, there also were efforts by people with a conflict of interest to bias relevant articles and promote their claims, that are disputed by the rest of the scientific community. Not helping is the recent rise of xenophobia, so disparate disruption is also to be expected. —PaleoNeonate – 19:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by Hemiauchenia[edit]DGG has indicated at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Discussion_(race_and_intelligence) that he is sympathetic to the fringe hereditarian view, and voted as such in the 2020 FTN discussion. I therefore think that DGG should recuse himself from this amendment request. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by Dlthewave[edit]I haven't been active in R&I lately, but I agree that it would benefit from EC protection. In my experience new accounts in this area have been overwhelmingly disruptive and seldom helpful. We should be bringing in editors who are new to this topic, not new to Wikipedia. EC is not a high bar to pass and would not be a barrier to good-faith editors who truly want to help improve the encyclopedia. –dlthewave ☎ 14:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Race and Intelligence[edit]
|
Bayramoviç
[edit]| User indef blocked by 331 dot as an ordinary action, and eventually talk page access and e-mail have been disabled.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2021 (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 Bayramoviç[edit]
n/a
The editor has also emailed me stating the following (if anyone wishes the full email forwarding or posting here, please say so) Also, I copy-paste the message that I sent to another editor regarding the Turkish War of Independence, which is actually my field of interest: "Ahmm are you aware that there is a clear misinformation/lie regarding the Turkish War of Independence in Wikipedia? This appears to be a clear violation of WP:CANVAS, and is likely responsible for the current edit war orchestrated by various editors who edit in Turkey related areas. See also comments at Talk:Turkish War of Independence#Vandalism by Buidhe, appears to be an orchestrated campaign by genocide deniers.
Discussion concerning Bayramoviç[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 Bayramoviç[edit]I`ll for sure make a complaint about the (Personal attack removed) user FDW777, who claims that there was a `genocide` without solid proof. He is probably from Armenian lobby that uses the pain of the people (from both sides) for his political purposes. If you would ask him whether ASALA was a terrorist organization, who killed many Turkish ambassadors and their families, he would say no. So, I don`t see a common point to discuss here and I`ll make everything to stop this (Personal attack removed) misinformative user. I have already e-mailed the Wikipedia contact e-mail address and waiting for a response. Also, the same user FDW777 also pops up here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkish_War_of_Independence#Vandalism_by_Buidhe on the 4th of May discussion of the 12th article with the topic: Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2021 and he also attacks other Turkish users there, and also claims that they are deniers of non-existing `genocide`. So, obviously, this is a (Personal attack removed) user who is against the freedom of speech and has political agenda supporting Armenian lobby and ASALA terror organization. Let`s say that I am wrong and I have bad intentions regarding the Independence War of my own history (?); so, are the users `Jelican9`, `Basak` and all the other users have bad intentions? That is non-sense. This same user FDW777 also complained about another user TrottieTrue just because he used a source that he didn`t like. I quote from him: "OK, I think User:FDW777 is taking all this a bit far in targeting me for enforcement action. It seems a bit disproportionate to want to sanction me merely because I'm trying to use certain sources as citations for MPs' dates of birth. There seems to be a small band of users who are obsessively concerned with following their interpretation of BLP policy to the letter. The MPs' articles which are being watched in this manner are basically the 2019 intake and the few from 2017 who don't already have DOBs. There are hundreds of previously elected current UK MPs who, as far as I can tell, have no inline citation for their DOB. It doesn't mean that the information isn't common knowledge. No-one is objecting to those DOBs being unreferenced. It's these newer MPs' articles which users like FDW777 and the unregistered IP editor will leap upon as soon as a DOB is added with a source they don't like, I suppose because the long-standing MPs have had those uncited DOBs there for a long time." As you can see, this is not even about the truth, there is just an obsessed user and he basically doesn`t accept anything besides his own thoughts. Statement by (Visnelma)[edit]This is probably the user who initiated everything in Ekşi Sözlük as he put my name on the first entry after I reverted his edits. This user must be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. I don't even think it is needed to mention his vandalist and disrupting behaviour.[46]--Visnelma (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by PR[edit]DS is not required. Simply indef with any of: personal attacks, harassment, legal threats, POV pushing, or NOTHERE. Just please stop with the discussion forks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Result concerning Bayramoviç[edit]
|
TrottieTrue
[edit]| TrottieTrue is given a logged warning to use only high-quality references for information related to biographies of living persons, and not to edit war when other editors object on BLP grounds. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:37, 4 May 2021 (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 TrottieTrue[edit]
n/a
The reply below is misleading. As @Cullen328: points out WP:BLPPRIMARY says
Discussion concerning TrottieTrue[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 TrottieTrue[edit]
--TrottieTrue (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC) References
Statement by Cullen328[edit]"Ignore all rules" is an idealistic notion that can certainly be invoked in highly unusual circumstances, but it is not a license to violate firmly established policies like WP:BLP which have legal implications and which the Wikimedia Foundation and its legal staff insist that Wikipedia editors must follow. And that policy, which cannot be ignored, says: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." So, this is my question for TrottieTrue: Are you going to comply with the clear wording of BLP policy, or are you going to continue to defy that policy? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning TrottieTrue[edit]
|