Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive96
Cerejota
[edit]| Cerejota is warned that large changes to 9/11 related articles require consensus. No other action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Cerejota[edit]
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Remedies
Cerejotas recent edits are disruptive and exhibit a battleground mentality. As the editor has quickly removed notifications and warnings from his talk page, without changing his editing behaviour, a change in his current approach to editing appears to be unlikely. 1. Cerejota boldly adds multiple tags to the article. [1] 2. After Cerejota's edits have been reverted [2] by another editor, Cerejota again inserts the tags. [3] 3. Cerejota boldly removes large parts of the article. [4] 4. After a sysop removes the tags added by Cerejota, as an administrative action [5], and after I have reverted Cerejota's bold changes to the article [6], Cerejota re-reverts to his preferred version [7], without having achieved consensus for his change, and contrary to the WP:BRD guideline. 5. After I reverted again to the status quo ante [8], and explained to Cerejota why he needs to obtain consensus for his bold changes (see the somewhat unfriendly discussion on my talk page [9]) and my warning to Cerejota [10] on his talk page, Cerejota again reverts to his preferred version [11]. 6. After another editor advised Cerejota not to re-make his changes [12], Cerejota claims that he does not need to obtain consensus for his changes. In particular, he asserts that restoring the previous version, which leaves open to him to add a reasonable amount of tags, would grant him the right to make bold changes without consensus, instead of adding appropriate tags. [13] [14] Additional evidence: 7. Another editor reverted Cerejota's bold edit. [15] Cerejota commented on the talk page, stating "This is just delaying the inevitable," [16] which constitutes another indication of Cerejota's battleground mentality with regard to his intention to change the content of the article.
(Cerejota has removed both the notification and the warning from his talk page.)
Cerejota has stated some more detailed reasons for his edits on Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth some minutes ago. I will take part in the discussion there. However, per WP:BRD, this discussion should proceed with the status quo ante restored (possibly with tags added to the article, of course.) Despite the fact that there now appears to be an opportunity to discuss the merits of Cerejotas changes (a content issue), his behaviour should not be allowed to stand, and the status quo ante of the article should be restored pending the discussion on the talk page. Additional note: Cerejota has now adopted a somewhat different approach at the article. This may or may not be a reaction to the additional scrutiny that his editing is now receiving. While he still maintains that his previous actions would have been fully appropriate and justified, he does not act on this premise as of this moment. To avoid further similar problems in the future, it would be helpful if this AE discussion could clarify that WP:BRD does advise editors making bold changes to discuss the proposed changes immediately, if their bold edit has been reverted, instead of first re-reverting and then discussing the proposal. Cs32en Talk to me 14:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Comment on Cerejota's statement: Cerejota says "I missed this until someone else asked me to comment and I realized there was an actual enforcement complaint [...]" However, I have notified Cerejota about this request immediately after filing it, with a link to the section of this request. Cerejota has removed the notification some minutes after I posted it to his talk page, which is generally being interpreted as indicating that Cerejota was aware of this AE request at the time that he removed the notification. Cs32en Talk to me 14:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Comment on the statements by Biosketch and by ZScarpia: In my view, this AE request is about the current editing of Cerejota, not about a judgment of his overall editing habits. Currently, there is - as I see it - a real risk that Cerejota may return to a very confrontational editing style, based on an incorrect understanding of relevant policies and guidelines, unless this AE request either results in a finding that admonishes Cerejota to follow the relevant policies and guidelines (in particular, WP:BRD) in the future, or actually results in a block placed on Cerejota that prevents such behaviour for a reasonable amount of time. Given the fact that Cerejota seems to be able to change his approach based on the circumstance, I would prefer the first option, i.e. issuing a formal warning to Cerejota instead of blocking his account at this time. Cs32en Talk to me 14:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Cerejota[edit]Statement by Cerejota[edit]I missed this until someone else asked me to comment and I realized there was an actual enforcement complaint - I just felt it was more attempts at intimidation on the part of Cs32en - and misread the item as a threat to open enforcement, rather than an actual opening. Oh well. First of all, Cs32en is misrepresenting the edits, and even misrepresenting what I said when providing a diff. I never, in any diff, say (as he misrepresents) that I didn't need consensus. In fact, as soon as others showed up in the talk page, I stopped reversions. One person is not consensus. Two, well, there is enough for a claim. Secondly, he claims some admins did editing actions as admins. That is news to me. They neither indicated this in my talk page, nor in edit summary, nor in the talk page of the article. It is long established that unless they say so, non-tool actions of admins are the same as any other editor. His claim these were admin actions is hence a misrepresentation of what happened. This is a WP:BOOMERANG issue of WP:OWN: he refuses, after several requests to do so, to provide any substantive debate on the section, other than say "This is the consensus" - without so much as addressing the substance of the debate. I was not part or privy of that consensus, nor is "its just consensus" an acceptable answer - and he only, for example, provided links to previous discussions when prodded further. My point is that the issues are tagged should at the very least be addressed in substance in the talk page, before the tags are removed. And that the edits, if reverted, deserve more attention in the talk page than a simple revert. This is breaking the "D" in BRD. The talk page diffs clearly show my willingness to engage, and my frustration at the lack of constructive engagement on the part of Cs32en - and in fact, his request for AE is viewed as problematic by other users [20] There might be good faith in this report, but Cs32en hasn't made any good faith effort to discuss the issues raised by me in the talk page of the article, so going straight to AE without trying to resolve or at the very least explore the content issue shows an unhealthy focus on the user, rather than the content. I also started an RfC on the question, hoping to get community attention to the issue.[21] I have made a good faith effort to discuss and achieve a change in consensus, based on clearly explained issues - which have not been addressed by any editor. Cs32en is simply refusing to discuss issues of substance, and seeking to advance his editing preferences by bureaucratic means. The community should not endorse such behavior, and should close this as a frivolous enforcement action, and encourage Cs32en to engage in constructive, productive discussion, rather than WP:IDHT and WP:OWN arguments that ignore that WP:BRD exists, and that there is no final version with a privilege that precludes further discussion and change.--Cerejota (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Cerejota[edit]Comment by Biosketch[edit]In the past few days I've had occasion to cross paths with User:Cerejota at a couple of places relating to the I/P topic area. My experience in each of those cases has been that Cerejota consistently fails to approach Wikipedia with the seriousness the Project demands of its editors. This is likely the result of his either not understanding the policies and guidelines of the Project or of habitually flouting them. At Keffiyeh, for example, he deleted an entire section of the article (twice), even though the claim put forth is sourced to Der Spiegel. His argument that the source doesn't satisfy WP:V is dumbfounding. At WP:NPOVN he describes an objection of mine as "lame" as if that's a meaningful criticism. I'm not trying to piggyback on this AE to get Cerejota in trouble – just offering some of my own personal experience.—Biosketch (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Comment by ZScarpia[edit]@Biosketch, 11:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC): Cerejota, citing the Exceptional claims require exceptional sources require exceptional sources section of the WP:V policy, quite rightly removed a statement of Biosketch's which misrepresented the provided source, a Spiegel Online, article. Biosketch wrote that the brochure by Michael Weiss said that the keffiyah has been adopted by some neo-Nazi groups "as a symbol of struggle against Israel". However, what the Spiegel article says the brochure says, is that neo-Nazis, giving old symbols including the Keffiyeh new meanings, ignore the broader meaning of the garment (which is popularly used elsewhere as a symbol of struggle against Israel) when they co-opt it as a symbol. As far as Cerejota calling an objection of Biosketch's lame on a noticeboard is concerned, I'd say that is a fairly unexceptional noticeboard behaviour. I'd hazard a guess that Biosketch has even indulged in that kind of thing himself. ← ZScarpia 13:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Cerejota[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Miradre
[edit]| No consensus to overturn or modify the block. NW (Talk) 22:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
Statement by Miradre[edit]
Reply to Atama[edit]Atama claims that the sociobiology article mentions the race and intelligence debate when it never does. There is a hidden link to the race and intelligence article which I was not aware of since the link was hidden. Yes, there is a single mention of "ethnic nepotism" but does that mean that the whole article is under the sanctions? Another example would be the Paleoconservatism article which also has such a mention. Does this mean that everything in the Paleoconservatism article is under the sanctions? Regarding the "Criticism of evolutionary psychology" articles I repeat what I stated previously. Atama states that there is a section regarding ethnocentrism in the article. But that section states that evolutionary psychology does NOT look at ethnic differences but rather about universal human behavior. As such the article is explicitly NOT about either racial or ethnical differences. So to me it seemed that the article was safe to edit just because of this section... Now Atama is turning just this against me. Furthermore, Atama is again, as he did previously, bringing up a new accusation. He certainly did not warn me, much less allowed me to defend myself with any counter-argument, before banning me. In effect he bypassed the whole AE process and banned me due to a new accusation without allowing me (or anyone else) to present any arguments regarding his new accusation. Miradre (Talk E-mail) 22:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC) copied from Miradre's talk by 91.85.210.144 (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Statement by Atama[edit]I was asked to close the AE request here, by Captain Occam. I was only asked to make a decision because the request had been open so long, I wasn't asked to do anything in particular. I commented in a COI noticeboard thread that Miradre's COI accusation against Mathsci and another editor were unfounded, and later warned Miradre that continuing to make allegations could be considered harassment, but that I had no intention of imposing any sanctions at the time. I don't see how that could in any way make me involved. Miradre withdrew the accusations, and the issue ended peacefully (or I thought so at least). The block is no longer than what the arbitration discussion suggested as an initial block length. I also don't see that arbitration enforcement requires asking for a consensus from other administrators before making a decision. -- Atama頭 20:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Statement by EdJohnston about the appeal by Miradre[edit]Atama's closure of this AE request was well within admin discretion. Single admins are allowed to take this kind of action. Only an appeal needs to have a consensus of uninvolved editors. The topic area covered by WP:ARBR&I is characterized by extremely tenacious spokesmen for the various points of view. What Miradre called the 'long period without agreement regarding AE' could be due to the fact that admins tend to avoid areas where they expect any decisions they make to be questioned very intensively by the parties. Also the length of the thread showed that great stamina would be required by anyone try to close it. Anyone studying this appeal who is not yet familiar with Miradre's style of editing should take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive163#User:Miradre reported by User:Aprock (Result: 3 month topic ban). Atama chose to impose a sanction on the ground that the material that Miradre worked on in Criticism of evolutionary psychology fell under his topic ban from race and intelligence. Regardless of how one analyzes the topic of evolutionary psychology, Miradre's general approach to collaboration on Wikipedia is so poor that a lengthy block for disruptive editing would have been equally well justified. There is doubt in my mind whether Miradre's brand of zealous advocacy has any prospect of improving the encyclopedia. (The 3RR thread I cited above shows what happens when his edits encounter opposition). If Miradre's attitude remains unchanged when his block expires, which seems likely, the community will face the question of whether there is any value in letting him return to editing. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Reply to EdJohnston[edit]
Another Reply to EdJohnston[edit]
Statement by Captain Occam[edit]Since it was at my request that Atama closed the AE thread, I guess I should probably offer a comment here. I don’t have a strong opinion one way or another about Miradre’s block. I’m mostly just glad that someone finally closed the AE thread, because it had gone for around three weeks without any attention from an uninvolved admin. AE threads aren’t supposed to stay open for that long, and it’s always annoyed me how incredibly difficult it can be to get admin attention for R&I-related issues, both at AE and elsewhere. The reason I contacted Atama in particular is because he’d recently warned Mathsci for outing someone at the COI noticeboard, and one of the issues that the AE thread involved was a pair of earlier examples of outing from Mathsci: this on July 7th (indirectly revealing what he thinks is Miradre’s real name, which is listed on the main page of the DA account that Mathsci claimed belongs to Miradre), and his edit summary here on August 11th (posted in the AE thread itself, although it’s now been oversighted). Since Mathsci was the person who submitted the request about Miradre, his own behavior was subject to review there also, and I wondered whether admins’ reluctance to examine Mathsci’s behavior was part of why the AE thread wasn’t getting any attention. But since Atama had recently warned Mathsci about a more recent example of outing, I hoped Atama might not have that limitation. I admit I’m kind of disappointed that he chose to not address the issue of Mathsci’s outing when he closed the AE thread, but this is still preferable over the thread being archived while still open, which is probably what would’ve happened if I hadn’t contacted him. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment on my conflict with Mathsci[edit]I need to make it clear that, whatever Mathsci says about this, I am the one who’s trapped in this dispute when I don’t want to be. Mathsci’s comment below gave me the impression that he might genuinely want this conflict to end, so I made a proposal in his user talk promising to leave him alone from now on if he could promise to do the same to me. Mathsci did not reply; he simply removed the comment from his user page three minutes later with an edit summary telling me not to comment there again, along with the same accusation of meatpuppetry that he’s been making for more than eight months. This is the result I get when I try to seek a peaceful end to our conflict. If there were a way to make it so that Mathsci and I don’t have to interact with each other anymore, I would really appreciate that, but I don’t believe he’ll ever agree to it. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Response to T. Canens[edit]As I pointed out in response to Beyond My Ken, if it weren’t for my effort to find an admin who was willing to close the first AE thread about Miradre, it probably would not have been closed at all. I don’t understand why it’s so difficult to explain how my causing that thread to finally receive a proper closure was beneficial. I had actually been hoping that some of the other editors who were frustrated by the lack of action in that thread, such as Aprock, would express some appreciation towards me for having caused a decision to finally be made in it. Does the community have so little appreciation for me that after I’ve caused an AE thread to finally be closed after it’s sat there for three weeks, the only way this action is acknowledged is with a challenge to explain why it was beneficial if I don’t want to be sanctioned? I will agree about one thing, though, which is that this year-and-a-half-old interpersonal conflict between me and Mathsci is not doing the community any good. I feel completely trapped in this conflict, because I had to endure it from January through July even when I was making a conscious effort to avoid Mathsci, and from his reaction to me in his user talk I don’t believe he has any interest in ending it. However, as I explained in NW’s user talk here, this conflict has involved far more than just AE, so an AE ban is not going to resolve it. A mutual interaction ban between him and me would resolve it, and I would appreciate that solution. I would like you or NW to please let me know whether AE can provide that: if not, I’m probably going to request it from ArbCom. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]@Captain Occam: So, you went to Atama, instead of one of the hundreds of uninvolved admins, because you hoped his recent warning of Mathsci would predispose him to close the thread in a way Mathsci would not want. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Statement by Mathsci[edit]Captain Occam's comments here: Since Captain Occam has twice misused this page in matters unrelated to the subject and unrelated to any active ArbCom sanctions, I suggest that this opportunity is used to extend the indefinite topic ban on him and his girlfriend Ferahgo-the-Assassin to include an indefinite ban on participating in any requests at WP:AE related to WP:ARBR&I. Matters on WP:COIN were discussed very amicably on that noticeboard and also in private through emails with Atama at a very early stage. There are no unresolved issues. All other matters raised by Captain Occam seem to be stale and completely unrelated to this project page. There is a pattern here: Captain Occam has recently gone out of his way to press for sanctions to be imposed on me (or to place my editing record in doubt) for spurious reasons
Captain Occam has also lobbied two ex-arbitrators by email (Fred Bauder and Charles Matthews, a real life friend). Fred Bauder has informed me that he forwarded Captain Occam's email to ArbCom. I have no idea what happened with Charles, but I informed ArbCom of Captain Occam's activities. None of this looks very good to me. In particular, as has systematically been the case for the past year or so, Captain Occam's interpretation of what is happening on wikipedia seems completely divorced from reality. Mathsci (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC) extra material added. Mathsci (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Miradre's violation of the topic ban: "Reification of intelligence" in the two cited references, books by Lewontin and Gould, refers specifically to the debate on "Jensenism". This is precisely the topic of Race and intelligence and History of the race and intelligence controversy. Miradre discussed moving the section on Reification fallacy out of Criticism of evolutionary psychology. Miradre was repeatedly advised by me by to stop editing or discussing that section of the article,[33][34][35][36][37] following Miradre's original announcement that they were going to move that section.[38] Miradre gave evasive and defensive responses [39][40][41][42][43] and persisted in editing the article and its talk page for two further weeks. In those circumstances, and from Miradre's unwillingness to accept the advice of almost all other editors (most recently SandyGeorgia on Causes of autism), it is unlikely that the very reasonable strategy proposed by NuclearWarfare would have had any effect whatsoever. Of course faced with the choice between a one month block and a much more minor restriction applying to one article, Mirade might well opt for the latter. However, topic bans are not imposed with that kind of after-the-event negotiation in mind. (Note that dicussion/move proposals/deletion of "reification of intelligence" in Criticism of evolutionary psychology was just the first of three topic ban violations that I gave. Note also that the 70s subject of sociobiology morphed into the modern subject of evolutionary psychology (EP), something Miradre has chosen to ignore. Since all his hundreds of edits recently have been related to EP, Miradre cannot be unaware of that change in terminology.) Mathsci (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Edits by an ipsock: The recent edits to this page by 94.116.82.8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)} and 91.85.210.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are socking by Mikemikev; now blocked for one month and one week respectively. Mathsci (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Memills' misuse of the word "tag team": Last time he applied it to the three administrators Dougweller, Sandstein and Materialscientist.[44] Mathsci (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Statement by memills[edit]I strongly support Miradre's appeal. This appears to me to be a case of a group of editors, in this case led by Mathsci, tag-teaming and wikilawyering against an editor who does not share their strong anti-biological POV in the social sciences. Secondly, I am stunned by some of the comments of the administrators Atama and EdJohnson. Their comments above suggest to me a far over-reaching interpretation of the issue at hand, and they have swallowed Mathsci's setup. In his comment just above, Mathsci is again mis-stating the issue at hand. The so called "reification fallacy" (which is actually not a fallacy if constructs are properly understood) has NOT been put forward as a criticism of evolutionary psychology, and thus its inclusion on the page in question is unjustified. Mathsci has been asked to provide a reference that links evolutionary psychology to the "reification fallacy" and he has failed to do so. Again, as I noted earlier, in my opinion, the "reification fallacy" issue is just a red herring. It is being used to attempt to harass and silence an editor. WP should not tolerate this type of malicious wikilawyering and willful mischaracterizations. What Miradre noted above is correct: there is no mention of race or intelligence on the page in question, let alone their intersection. Thus there can be no violation on the part of Miradre. Also, I think that admistrator's NW comment (below) about warning, rather than sanctioning, Miradre, is far more appropriate if by (quite a long stretch of the imagination) his edits could even possibly be seen to be in violation. Again, clearly I think they are not. Miradre is a hard working editor who adds relevant, notable, and well referenced material, and is a valuable asset to WP. If WP is to be more than just a collection of information that WP editors like and deem personally palatable, editors like Miradre should be particularly encouraged and supported. I hope some truly uninvolved administrators will take the necessary time to review this appeal, which I strongly support. Memills (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Reply to Memills[edit]I agree completely with the above statement by memills. There are several subject experts who have commended my contributions to Wikipedia:
On the other hand, many of my critics are anthropologists or more generally opponents of biological explanations in social sciences. While there is certainly no necessary incompatibility between anthropology (or social sciences) and evolutionary theory, some important theories within anthropology (and social sciences more generally) are incompatible with evolutionary psychology theories. Such as the incest taboo and the definition of kinship being arbitrary social constructs and more generally social behavior being arbitrary social constructs on a blank slate mind with little influence from genetics. Thus, I feel this is part of a larger, ongoing conflict within the social sciences where a group of editors with a specifc anti-biololgical POV are trying to push their own POV by using wikilawyering and ultimately banning those wanting to include biological views in Wikipedia. I expect that the next step after this AE is closed will be to try to ban me indefinitely from Wikipedia while I am unable to defend myself properly. In preparation for this I am therefore pointing that I have used scholarly sources in order to add much new and interesting material and that subject experts find my contributions to Wikipedia valuable. Also since I expect an attempt to ban me indefinitely while being blocked, when I have difficulty defending myself, I will state that I will avoid any editing conflicts regarding race and intelligence as long as those pages are controlled by a dedicated group of editors with the same strong POV. The ArbCom explicitly does not judge content disputes. The subject matter and statistical arguments take a long time to grasp and in the end there are no clear answers and will likely not be such answers until we have better genetic testing. On the other hand, there is an extremely strong public opinion and prejudice against biologic explanations in this area. When the Nobel Prize winner and discoverer of DNA James D. Watson was essentially fired and forced to make a public apology for suggesting biological causes in this areas there is currently no hope for lesser persons. As such I will not just avoid editing conflicts in this area, I will actively warn other editors who attempt to introduce biological views to be extremely careful when editing this area and that they can expect wikilawyering with the goal of an indefinite ban by the group controlling these pages. Instead I will strongly suggest that they concentrate on more productive editing in other, less dangerous areas, as I intend to do. Miradre (Talk E-mail) 23:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC) copied from Miradres talk per request by 94.116.82.8 (talk) 07:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Statement by Maunus[edit]Evolutionary Psychology is not directly related to R&I - it is however very clearly tangentially related - for example Kevin MacDonald, a self described evolutionary psychologists have argued that Jews are characterized by specific "adaptations" including high IQ. Other Evolutionary psychologists have argued that humans have evolved specific psychological mechanisms for classifying others according to racial and ethnic principles. Miradre has shown a very clear pattern of editing articles that do not directly concern R&I, but which he uses to support arguments in the R&I arena. Memills is probably not fully aware of Miradre's editing history and his involvement with R&I topics.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Reply to Maunus[edit]This is a reply to this edit [48] by Maunus in case he changes it. Maunus here more or less confirms what I stated above in my reply to memills. This is part of a wider conflict regarding EP. Manus states that he thinks evolutionary psychology is a fringe science: "making it look as if EP is a mainstream approach to psychology and cognition" and more generally that his own POV regarding various things is correct and other POVs are fringe. Maunus also makes various unsourced and factually incorrect statements. Regarding sourced views, please again see User:Miradre/sandbox2. Miradre (Talk E-mail) 21:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC) copied from Miradres talk per request by 94.116.82.8 (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Miradre[edit]Result of the appeal by Miradre[edit]
|
Vecrumba
[edit]| Stale. T. Canens (talk) 08:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Vecrumba[edit]
As per Wikipedia:EEML#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions Vecrumba has been blocked 3 times for breaching this interaction ban.
Given that you are now suggesting a one-week block for myself due to my taking heed of advice given by an arb at an Arbcom case, I will be heading you off at the pass on this block by seeking clarification from the committee itself as to what is and isn't allowed under these interaction bans, and you are more than welcome to make known your opinion there. If it is the opinion of the committee that my nominating an article which doesn't comply with many WP policies for AfD that this is disruptive, then I will take issue with the committee directly due to the interaction bans not being intended to stop editors from editing articles in good faith (as per the committee members own words). --Russavia Let's dialogue 17:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Vecrumba[edit]Statement by Vecrumba[edit]My words have nothing to do with TFD or Russavia individually, but who are symptomatic in this case. If civility and good faith are ever going to reign on Wikipedia in the Baltic and Eastern European article space, we can't have editors who misrepresent sources making out Baltic individuals to be Nazis or editors who fulminate over propagandic foreign ministries being the first ones who line up to nominate content for deletion which refers to the Soviet Union occupying the Baltic states. In my view, that is outright WP:HARASSMENT of the editor(s) who created that content. It's not an article deletion nomination in good faith when we all know that it's going to provoke another fist-fight. PЄTЄRS
To the point in question, this subsequent request to delete content regarding a reputable source ("The Case For Latvia") which punctures myths regarding Latvia—including fiction which the Russian government continues to maintain is fact—rather proves my point, as:
Russavia's conduct prompting my original comment and, in particular, Russavia's continuing disruptive and combative conduct with regard to eliminating content not speaking highly of the Soviet legacy and Russia's defense thereof, conclusively and undeniably demonstrates that my alleged "personal attack" upon Russavia is nothing more than the factual observation it was intended as regarding the appearance of editors (plural) advocating along prior party lines. Now that how the interaction ban works is clear, I will address the next such deletion request to eliminate content Russavia personally disapproves of via enforcement request, not factual and benign commentary. That said, I still
As I am confident in my use of sources and fair representation thereof, I feel no need to ban my editorial opposition. The question is, why is it so critical to Russavia and Nanobear to single me out to be banned? PЄTЄRS Comments by others about the request concerning Vecrumba[edit]Vecrumba implies that Russavia initiated an AfD for partisan reasons. The comments are unhelpful and disruptive to the AfD. TFD (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Comment by Nanobear[edit]Starting an AfD about an article falls into the article space, not interaction space. Neither Russavia nor Tammsalu are subjects of the AfD. It is no personalization in itself and not covered by an interaction ban. Please see Wikipedia:Interaction_ban#Interaction_ban. Nanobear (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
So talking about content previously edited by Tammsalu is a violation of interaction ban? This seems to be a completely different opinion that what we currently have in our policy. The policy specifically allows content edits. Russavia was only discussing content - which is allowed - until Vecrumba launched an extremely offensive personal attack against him (not the first time Vecrumba has made such attacks). The only correct thing to do is to then report the attacker on this noticeboard, which is what Russavia did. It seems that you wish to ban Russavia for doing everything correctly. This seems to be completely at odds with current policy. Nanobear (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC) History of Vecrumba's incivility and personal attacks against editors After Vecrumba's last personal attack on Russavia (for which he was blocked for 3 weeks), and because Vecrumba is now continuing such attacks, it seems clear that a longer block is now in order for him. This is especially the case since Vecrumba's defence of his attack (see his section above) is an attempt to deflect from the fact that the personal attacks were clearly directed against Russavia. If the personal attack really wasn't directed against Russavia, but against TFD (which seems unlikely), like Vecrumba claims, then this only demonstrates that Vecrumba has a major problem staying civil in the EE topic area. It looks like Vecrumba deems it necessary to attack all editors instead of commenting on content only, as Russavia notes above. In this case, discretionary sanctions of WP:DIGWUREN apply, and given Vecrumba's battlefield mentality a complete block from the EE area seems now warranted. I too have been the target of Vecrumba's attacks on many occasions. Two recent examples are: [50][51]. In [52] Vecrumba launches an attack against a respected admin (Future Perfect at Sunrise), because the admin dared to block an EEML member. Nanobear (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Comment by Tammsalu[edit]On the general issue of what constitutes a personal attack, a review of WP:NPA#WHATIS may be helpful, particularly the fourth bullet point "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". On an abstract level, if a party subject to such an accusation is also under an interaction ban or banned in the past, then such evidence must demonstrably exist. For example if someone said to me something like "I regret you have chosen to revert to your former belligerent conduct." given my block log I really can't claim it was a personal attack, can I. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Sander Säde[edit]This is getting ridiculous. It is painfully obvious that the interaction bans do not work and are often used to game the system. There is not much to say for Vecrumba. Whether his comment was targeted at Russavia or TFD, whether he was right or not, it doesn't matter. The comment was out of line and should be treated as such. After he was reported to Arbitration Enforcement last time, Russavia's behavior became excessively pointy - one could even say he set out intentionally to see how far he can stretch the iban. And now he is about to receive yet another addition to his extremely lengthy block log. What is the point in that, it is painfully obvious Russavia sees nothing wrong with his current or past behavior and refuses to change it. I would recommend an indefinite full ban from any topic related to Eastern Europe, Baltics, Soviet Union and Russia, with the exception of aviation industry and Russia's international relations (but not in case of relations with aforementioned Baltic States and Eastern European countries) - and make it very clear in the wording that it is Russavia's very last chance before getting an indefinite ban from Wikipedia. That would allow Russavia editing noncontroversial topics where he is a valued contributor - and would keep him out of trouble with editors and topics he has issues with. If some editor follows him to aviation topics and starts to cause trouble for Russavia - banhammer should come down heavily there. Remove all interaction bans related to Russavia, as they are no longer (hopefully) needed. Wikipeace is restored and everybody are happily contributing, instead of wasting time bickering at ArbCom pages. --Sander Säde 05:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning Vecrumba[edit]
Closing this as stale. For better or worse, the practice is not to block for stale ban violations, and this two-and-a-half-week-old thread is no exception. Anything other than a block is best dealt with at the ongoing amendment request by the Committee directly. T. Canens (talk) 08:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC) |
Vecrumba 2
[edit]| Stale, though not quite as stale as the one above. T. Canens (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Vecrumba 2[edit]
Discussion concerning Vecrumba 2[edit]Statement by Vecrumba[edit]This filing is nothing but a personal attack by Nanobear, who has been absent from the topic area or proceedings other than to attack me or to make out my complaints about his attacks as being attacks originated by myself. If you want to stop the madness, ban everyone who has participated in any of these from ever filing arbitration enforcement requests against each other. What, I undo a POV delete of content, and that is editorial interaction which is banned, yet the same editor can attack me at will at arbitration enforcement? Am I the only one who sees how ludicrous this is? Don't make me out to be the villain when I undo the deletion of reputable content by an editor inimical to the Baltics—a deletion which was accompanied a edit justification which was a personal characterization of a reputable source as unsubstantiated allegations. As requested, I undid my revert of that deletion, although that does set the precedent that in any set of editors who are banned from interacting, whoever gets there first automatically gets to have their content win with no recourse for the other editor(s). Given that Baltic topics are down to two or three editors who haven't been run off, this filing by Nanobear to get me blocked is, effectively, a cynical and overt bid for topic control. And as long as Nanobear and Russavia engage in provocative behavior gaming the system to eliminate editors, the atmosphere will remain poisoned. PЄTЄRS Comments by others about the request concerning Vecrumba 2[edit]Comment by Volunteer Marek[edit]So much for the idea that AE reconciles warring parties or actually manages to solve problems. As this retaliatory AE request clearly demonstrates, AE makes battlegrounds WORSE, by providing dedicated warriors a venue to pursue their grudges. And yes, you AE admins are to blame for this - discussing some esoteric nuances of what an interaction ban is or arguing over whether a series of reverts/AfD nominations/drive-by-tagging by a user under an interaction ban actually constitutes a violation of an interaction ban or are content edits not included (seriously? The whole freakin' point of these bans is to get users separated from content they perennial fight over! How hard is it to see that?) is exactly the kind of thing that pours gasoline on these fires (where the hell is Sandstein? I miss him - he got things wrong sometimes but at least he didn't make things worse). Enjoy: You want to end this, it's simple:
If you're feeling nice then include some kind of provision to the effect that any of the above can be appealed after three years or so (note that this latest round is a rehash of two year old edit wars! Apparently people here have a long memory in this topic area. That needs to be taken into consideration). And if you're feeling wary of potential gaming then make scary faces and wag your fingers and say in a deep baritone that any potential gaming of these sanctions will be severely punished (I'm being a bit facetious, but I'm serious at the same time - this whole thing started because of gaming of interaction bans). Otherwise prepare to loose more good contributors, deal with a whole bunch of nonsense and look forward to playing a role in escalating the conflict further. But hey, at least then that will give WP:AE a justification for its existence. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Comment by Tammsalu[edit]Arbcom is now be examining the issue of interaction bans at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Russavia-Biophys, therefore this case, in which the revert at issue has been un-reverted, can be closed with no further action. I am sure that those certain people who profess to focus on content rather than on editors, would also agree that this case be closed. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Comment by Russavia[edit]The article in question is clearly within my scope of interest, so for anyone to claim that I am removing information based upon some warped sense of what my POV is, which then sees an editor needing to breach their interaction ban like they did - they were not involved. I also have good mine to ask for check user on a particular editor who only edits when there are disputes ongoing, and they have been around for some time by the looks it, given that they have a knack for pulling info out of article from 3-4 years ago. As to this being discussed at Amendment, I have made it clear that under no circumstances do I want the interaction ban with certain editors looked at---for they are engaged in combative, personal attacks which are reminiscent of the EE battleground of 2 years ago---2 editors in particular. Therefore, given my comments on EdJohnstons, about the particular editor in question, this is still an open case, given that after undoing the revert, they continued to engage in personal attacks upon myself, and other editors. That's all I have to say, I'm back off to work on content. --Russavia Let's dialogue 08:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning Vecrumba 2[edit]
Closing as stale. Not quite as stale as the one above, but this is still quite old. Any enforcement action will have to be delayed until the pending amendment request closes anyway, and I don't think it's a good idea to keep this open indefinitely. T. Canens (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC) |
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Someone35 (2)
[edit]| Ban modified on appeal. Someone35 is topic banned for three months from the Arab-Israeli conflict anywhere on the project. EdJohnston (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Someone35
Statement by Someone35[edit]I got banned less than half a day after my first ban ended. I haven't edited anything that is not a talk page or my userpage since then. The admin who banned me said I'm banned for breaking these rules, but they explicitly state that " impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia". And I wasn't warned (which is also required, "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision". I wasn't given any warning before he banned me.) and I didn't edit any page since before my first ban. This ban is really unnecessary. I removed the sentence that I was banned for in the moment I saw that other users complained about it because I understood it was wrong and as an apologize to Nableezy (and I removed the userboxes on my talk page too). I have only made about 3 edits that count as "disruptive" (2 at Qula and one at Palestinian rabbis), all in the same day and I already got banned for it and won't do this kind of edits again. So if you can either narrow or remove the topic ban I'll be thankful and won't attack other editors or edit war again. I agree to mentorship, if T. Canens approves it as well.-- Someone35 (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Statement by Timotheus Canens[edit]Even now, I see nothing in Someone35's writings that he understood the reasons for the topic ban. My reasons for imposing the ban has been explained in the thread above, which I will not duplicate here. My views stay unchanged. If Someone35's misconduct is due to simple inexperience, then it is best for them to acquire that experience in a topic that is not rife with interpersonal disputes. If you discover that someone is struggling with math, putting him in a calculus class would be a spectacularly bad way to solve the problem. Broader comments:
Statement by Zero0000 (somewhat involved)[edit]As far as I know, Someone35 is yet to acknowledge that he did anything wrong at all. On the contrary, he thinks the 1RR rule is "stupid". Is that attitude conducive to a reprieve? Where can we see a clear statement that he respects the rules and undertakes to abide by them? Zerotalk 11:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Statement by Demiurge1000 (uninvolved)[edit]I'm going to use this section to note the deep and presumably unintentional irony of what Russavia said in the now-closed Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Someone35 (i.e. his first appeal, above). "Any editor who attacks another editor using either nationality, race, religion, etc as the underlying basis of the attack should be shown the door immediately." Does etc include age? If so, it seems odd to follow that sentence immediately with a disrespectful comment based on Someone35's age. (I'll assume that the threat to contact someone in a position of authority over Someone35 was made entirely in jest; people have received lengthy bans from Wikipedia, never mind the topic area, for that sort of thing.) I think Someone35 should immediately retract any suggestion (anywhere) that Nableezy or others are "stalking" him, and apologise for the "anti-Semite" remark (I note he removed it some time ago anyway, but I think he needs to accept that his reasons for thinking it was justifiable were incorrect). Then I think some consideration should be given to shortening or otherwise ameliorating this topic ban. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Statement by Russavia (totally uninvolved)[edit]The editor chose to engage in personal attacks against another editor, and then when caught out they say that the editor has no right to complain because it was written in Hebrew. This, in my opinion, is more egregious, as he has not only chosen to engage in personal attacks (which is already enough to be shown the door), but has done so in another language in an attempt to avoid being caught, and then when challenged on it he doesn't see any problem with it. And he only got a topic ban? I'd say he got off light, as if I were the subject of a personal attack, I'd be pushing for a complete block for at least that period of time, given that the editor in question sees nothing wrong with making personal attacks on other editors. --Russavia Let's dialogue 20:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC}
Statement by Wikifan12345 (involved in topic area)[edit]
Someone35 meets this definition. The topic ban imposed on Someone is punitive in nature and will not alter his behavior. How else will he learn the rules if he can't experience the environment? If admins wish to alter Someone's behavior, a whole-sale topic ban is futile. Throwing out users like Someone only deters potential editors from joining the very saturated and almost clan-like pool of I/P users. Someone's original 72 hour block was justified, but the 3 month ban is - ultimately - very hard to support when looking at the evidence independent of commentary from involved users. A personal attack, one edit-war (and barely one), and obvious civility problems. These can be rectified through mentorship, and punished with short blocks. It might be hard for educated admins to understand the brain chemistry of a young editor. Perhaps a user who is closer to his age (openly of course) could weigh in? WikifanBe nice 06:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Statement by Cptnono (involved and biased)[edit]The original block was longer than precedent would point to being acceptable. The ban was without any admin actually attempting to counsel the guy. The disruption of edit warring was handled with the block. The incivility was much less than many in the community have gotten away with or received shorter bans for (name calling, legal threats, and so on). Although I would not blame it on him being a kid (if he wants to hang out on the internet he will learn to not divulge information others can use against him) I would blame it on inexperience. I do think he needs to grovel a bit. That is what the admins are looking for. It is wrong of them but that is what they want. His offenses are worthy of a strong warning and a good mentoring. Not a long block based off of one editor running into trouble with several others on an opposing side. But if he refuses to admit wrong I don't care what happens to him. You are involved and biased Zero. Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Comment by Malik Shabazz (involved)[edit]Having spoken with Someone35 earlier today, I believe he is a very young editor who needs to learn quite a bit about how Wikipedia operates. I don't know whether a complete overturn of his topic ban is appropriate, but if it stands I think it should be narrowed to the Arab–Israeli conflict (and not the whole Middle East) so Someone35 can contribute constructively to articles on non-controversial subjects related to Israel (nature, geography, etc.). I think he would benefit tremendously from mentorship; if nobody else steps forward to mentor him, I will do it myself. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Someone35[edit]Following the suggestions made by Malik Shabazz and Ctpnono above, I have suggested to Someone35 that mentoring is something he should consider accepting. He has offers of that from both myself and Malik. I have also made some suggestions about ways forward (in addition to my comments under my statement, above.) While I think the topic ban was reasonable, I do feel that it would be useful if Someone35, being a young teenager, were able to edit articles about the country that he lives in. (My understanding is that the present topic ban does not allow that.) He's already been editing constructively about weather and geography and such, and he takes quite a few useful panoramas of landscapes in Israel and Palestine (one of his panorama images is already a featured image). Encouragement to continue contributing positively, would be really useful. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
(Just a note that Someone35 has changed his statement to indicate a better understanding of why the topic ban was necessary - convenience diff. I'll explain elsewhere how strikeout would usually be a better way of doing things like this for the future.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Someone35[edit]
|
Jingiby
[edit]| No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Jingiby[edit]
Dscretionary sanctions
The current conduct is a return to an old and very constant pattern of stubborn agenda editing; see block log. Jingiby's current opponent, Lunch for Two (talk · contribs), is not much better in terms of edit-warring and is certainly just as opinionatetd and tendentious, but appears to be slightly more sensible in discussion. He would also be in for a sanction, but it seems he hasn't had an ARBMAC warning yet.
Discussion concerning Jingiby[edit]Statement by Jingiby[edit]My position is as follows: without to boast, I am one of the most informed editors on the Macedonian issue on English Wikipedia. With one too long, formal block, the accuracy of the most of the articles connected with the Macedonian question will deteriorate, due to the persistent nationalism implemented there by numerous socks from a blocked users, as well as by different IP-vandals. They never will be blocked really or banned formally unlike me. My last block for a year was without serious reason and done more spontaneous then reasonable. The supercilious bureaucracy looks sometimes quaint and should be restricted as ineffective instrument. Jingby (talk) 08:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC) As per EdJohnston's commen "I guess the 8 different admins who issued those blocks must all have been mistaken". No, of course, but the time is inside of us, and we are inside the time. It turns us and we turn it Jingby (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC) By the way, as per Nipsonanomhmata's comment, only recently, in June 2011, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion which lifted the restriction that was placed on the administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise. The restriction had prohibited Future Perfect at Sunrise from using administrative tools in the Greek and Macedonian topics. Future Perfect at Sunrise was reminded to abide by the policies guiding administrative acts in areas where one is involved, and to apply particular care to avoid conflict in areas related to Greece and Macedonia. Jingby (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC) To sum up: I must change my edit-behavior. I need to discuss more, to search longer consensus, to be more patient and careful. I must avoid my spontaneous reactions to revert or to edit the text, provoked by vandals, IP-s or socks, even if I believe I am right. More, even if I am really right. OK! I promise. Jingby (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Jingiby[edit]As the editor clearly does not get it, a one-year block is clearly justified, and I would be somewhat inclined to WP:CBAN the editor as having exhausted the community's patience. --Russavia Let's dialogue 20:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC) I have no account but I would like to share my opinion here. I don't know where the user exhausted the community's parience, but if you see his contribs you will see that if he wasn't in this site, the most Balkan pages would have become blatant POVs and propaganda, and the activity of manipulative POV-pushing in some of these pages is still extremely high and in some of them no one reverts it except him. Soon POV-pushing there was in Bulgarians in Albania, Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia and Gorani for example, where some editors were removing mass of reliable sources and information, separetely placing POV manipulation, which free editors with disruptive character who only delete information should be blocked much more than a user who only broke the 3rr, in the case surely provoked by POV-pushing. These editors are surely trying to make him nationalistic edit-warrior when he broke the 3rr, but if you check his contribs you will see that the user has not disruptive character neither tendencous editing, one of the best examples for neutrality. I don't know what are the standarts for four reverts, but if he is blocked for a year some editors are going to have fun with some pages in the site, seriously. 213.226.17.10 (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Lunch for Two reminds me very much of PMK1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who recently had his account deleted and even went around removing signatures because he felt his user name revealed too much personal information. The accounts are virtually identical in terms of interest (essentially single-purpose "Aegean Macedonian" publicity), level of English, and general behavior. It is no coincidence that Lunch for Two appeared soon after PMK1 disappeared. From the very beginning it was clear that Lunch for Two was not a new user by any stretch. Athenean (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
As Fut Perf noted, it had also occurred to me, that Lunch for Two has very much in common with Mactruth because they have frequented the same articles. I note that there is a conflict of interest since Fut Perf supports the same POV as Lunch for Two and they both oppose Jingiby's POV. Jingiby deserves nothing more than a mild 3RR block as a reminder not to exceed 3RR. I also note that Fut Perf is responsible for 5 of the previous Result concerning Jingiby[edit]
|
Request concerning Volunteer Marek
[edit]| Submitter blocked indefinitely. T. Canens (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The edits and their result clearly demonstrate advancement of single-sided POV and absense of desire to reach consent over the content of the article. Without any attempts to read the linked sources, Volunteer Marek proceeds to total elimination of the whole sections from the article. Even my former colleague Hallibut recognized the sources although qualified them as dubious. ADD: Oh, my dear. It appears that Volunteer Marek is a new nickname for already sanctioned editor per WP:EEML Vlad fedorov (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC) I don't believe that this kind of editing adheres to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Please, stop this whitewashing of the articles. How many arbitrations we should held, until these hot guys would understand this simple idea?
DIGWUREN log !!! Already warned by Sandstein "not to continue nationalist edit wars by others and not to engage in a pattern of apparently nationalistically motivated name-changing".
Re Heimstern Läufer: So, you openly admit that WP:EEML was impotent arbitration ab initio? Could you then relay on the puposes of sanctions laid? And what then was the purpose of all this show? So much words were spoken about good faith and the rest editing style, cooperation, probation term, bla-bla-bla? Oh, common... I look at Boris Stomakhin - the article for which I was one year banned. Now it contains everything I wanted to include then (and it is included by other people) and no one gives any **** about it. No one thanked me for the contribution. Oh no, I got a ban in return. Just to discover 3 years later - that everything I wrote was true. There was no BLP violation. Irony... The guys who owned WP consensus policy rule. And Mr. Heimstern Läufer says everything is fine. Welcome to USSR! Vlad fedorov (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I have not read something on limitation period before filing this. The sole reason for this filing is Polonization article which is again owned by Polish nationalists just like it was before, and is completely whitewashed back to Polish POV. And EEML member returned this article to the version which was before. If POV removal of complete sections of sourced text is ok, by the guy who previously was fond of it and who was sanctioned for it, even despite limitation period lapsed - ok, maybe this report is stale for procedural reasons. (good reason for someone to remember what "merit" means). As to my block - what purpose would proposed block serve? I won't file again report on AE (anyway useless), I would read what I missed to read on these arbs. What would it prevent? I think, you just rush to punitive blocks to shut your eyes on what's still going on with article in EEML area. One more childish admin would test block button. Vlad fedorov (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC) By the request of EdJohnston which is on my talk page. I could have contributed more to WP, in the areas which are of interest for me, but most of them are subject to topic ban. I could have added more material to Belarus related articles, since English WP includes almost zero information on modern history of Belarus, or includes historical views of other states, but not these of Belarus. Vlad fedorov (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek[edit]Statement by Shrike(uninvolved)[edit]Tim how its reasonable to indef block just for frivolous AE request? If there are really problem with that he should be banned from AE.--Shrike (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]Huh? Not only are those more than Strange timing, this report, has. Vlad has not made any edits on Wikipedia since December 2010 [71] and now all of sudden he pops out, after 9 months, with this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Note also that User:Vlad fedorov is currently topic banned from articles relating to former Soviet Republics. The Polonization article - and these edits in particular - deals with Belarus, Lithuania and Ukraine; all former Soviet Republics.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Volunteer Marek[edit]I just wanted to link to an essay that reflects this situation, which I am surprised is missing here: WP:BOOMERANG. Other than that I see no need to say anything else here in addition to what was said (above bu VM and below by the reviewing admins). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
For the record, personally, I actually agree with Alex, and I don't think Vlad deserves a permanent or an indefinite block here. I would save those for the worst-of-the-worst of editors out there and however bad faithed this request by Vlad is, it doesn't rise to that level.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning Volunteer Marek[edit]
|
| Closed without action. Thank you everybody for participation. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I am raising this discussion re this. My intention is *not* to appeal sanctions agains me, but to raise questions about Purpose of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.
So bottom line, discussing naming might appear as red herring, yet there is a wide consensus, that Wikipedia should be neutral.
Discussions[edit]I was asked by Aganda to comment here:
I hope this is helpful. AGK [•] 20:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC) I too have been asked to comment.
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Results[edit]
|
Glkanter
[edit]| Editor is already banned by Arbcom. Nothing more to do here. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Glkanter[edit]User Glkanter is editing under various IP addresses in violation of arbcom ban.
Also see:
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty_Hall_problem#Glkanter_banned
The content, writing style, and attack targets of of all of these IP edits closely match those of Glkanter, and comments implying that the poster is Glkanter are ignored as if we all know who it is.
Discussion concerning Glkanter[edit]Statement by Glkanter[edit]Comments by others about the request concerning Glkanter[edit]I think this should go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations first though AE admins may take additional action here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
They are definitely all him - I had blocked one previously as an obvious sock. I've blocked them all and asked for technical advice at the SPI. He's currently banned for one year and blocked indefinitely - there is no restriction on just reverting/blocking. It's not even as if he's making useful contributions - he's just still ranting about the outcome of the RFAR. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Glkanter[edit]
|
Volunteer Marek 2
[edit]| No action taken regarding the dispute about the German collective guilt AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Volunteer Marek 2[edit]
Short version:
Detailed version:
Not only is it against all wikipedia principles to restore an ideological rant AfD'ed for POV and OR as "last neutral version." It is also alarming that the author of the restored version was no other than Molobo, with whom Volunteer Marek has a long history of tag teaming (see WP:EEML and previous EE cases, VM was active and sanctioned there under his former username Radeksz). I think the incident detailed above is severe enough to require administrative action. I also think that it is a detriment to wikipedia's quality to allow this tiny tag team to push their POV ad nauseum, given the long history of arbcom cases, AEs etc devoted to them. I just came back from a long break and it seems that nothing has changed around here. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
VM's claim that he was not aware
It doesn't matter whether he was aware
Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek 2[edit]Statement by Volunteer Marek on this request[edit]Apparently I'm not paranoid ENOUGH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Honestly, what happened with the AfD (ugh) was that I got confused because there were 3 versions of the article running around; the original version of the article, the dab version of the article and a new version of the article. I think some of the other people were confused as to which version they were voting in the course of the AfD as well. Anyway - there used to be an old version. It was AfDed, which I was NOT aware of. Then apparently a user upset that the old version was still present on Wikipedia mirrors purposefully created a new content-free version in order to get the Wikipedia mirrors to switch (this intent is stated right at the talk of the article's talk page [84]). I didn't notice this either (not sure it was there at the time). Now, creating a content-free version just to influence what happens on off-wiki sites is not a very good reason to create an article. I restored the old version because I thought it was more neutral than a newly created version, which, yes, I regard as POV. Then I started being accused of off-wiki collaboration and being asked how I acquired the "old version" since it had been deleted. Bad faith and all that. Of course by that time user DGG had restored the page's history and that is in fact where I got the old verion. The old version I restored was not Molobo's - I did not even look at who created the article - but Darwinek's. Then Exit2DOS restored yet another version. AfD got super confusing. I was confused by it too. At least one or two other users (whom I don't know) seems to have preferred the old version as well. Then the original nominator PamD said her intent was to AfD the content-free dab page, not any of the other versions: [85] and she corrected Exit2DOS in his action [86]. I said to PamD, "oh ok that makes sense", agreed with her, and suggested that remaining differences about which version, the old or the new, was more neutral can be hashed out at the talk page [87]. Controversy pretty much over at that point. So much for this disruption of AfD process that Skapperod accuses me off - the article was changed several times in the course of the AfD. Or you so you'd think. But then we get this AE report by Skapperod. What is it, the "odd days" that I'm to be the subject of these frivolous things? Ok, now these other accusations:
Additionally
Anyway, while I might have made a mistake somewhere, the AfD was confusing. None of the non-involved editors, including those who restored the new version of the article had a problem here. The situation is now resolved. This is just baseless block shopping by someone who I've had a long history of disagreement with and who's been warned previously not to engage in this sort of behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Additionally I would like to point out that: 1. Skapperod did not participate in the original AfD 2. Skapperod did not participate in this AfD 3. Skapperod has never edited the article in question, or even anything associated with it [96]. So how did he come to file this report? Either somebody contacted him off-wiki and asked him to do so, or this very report itself is prima facie evidence that he's wikistalking my edits just waiting for something to report. Scraping the bottom of my AFG well, I'm going to assume it wasn't the former. But then it had to be the latter. This is unhealthy. For him. And it's quite tiresome for me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Response to DGG + I have also clarified my position on the article in general on DGG's talk page here [97]. I guess it's relevant, but at the same time it's exactly the kind of discussion that should be taking place, without any need for AE requests.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC) In regard to [98] - sure, if that's what it takes to put this nonsense to rest (and the situation has already been resolved at the AfD, which is why this request is so monumentally pointless and bad faithed). Like I said, I really don't have a particularly strong interest in that article and my edits and comments were made simply because I noticed the AfD (which is pretty standard practice on Wikipedia, when you notice something). I'm sure there are plenty of capable editors out there who can handle it. Now, can we do something about these frivolous AE requests being filed for no reason? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Response to Ed Ed, I share your concern about potential edit warring on the article, but so far it hasn't happened. Like I've already said, my interest in the article is very peripheral so, sure, I can "commit" myself to not editing it in the near future, no skin off my back. However, I am concerned that this "commitment" will seem like - or be later portrayed by some editors as - some kind of admission of guilt over ... well, something. I do want to make it clear that I have not done anything wrong here - there was a confusing disagreement in a confusing situation and that's all that happened here, and in fact the disagreement got resolved even before this AE report got brought here. So I want to very much emphasize that my not editing the article is entirely voluntary and not any kind of a sanction or admission of guilt. I'm doing it out of AGF and in order to facilitate the collaborative nature of the Wikipedia editing process. At the same time, this is the second frivolous AE report brought against me in the past few days, and though a bit more complicated, it is of the same essence as Vlad Federov's request above. I do think that a stern general warning not to use AE as a battleground - and waste you guys' time - or a ban on filing AE request for the editor involved (Skapperod) is also warranted. Otherwise this disruptive pattern will just continue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Volunteer Marek 2[edit]Are the summer nights particularly warm in Europe at the moment, that we have a spate of meritless AE complaints? Reviewing the diffs, I note VM did not participate in the AfD where the article was deleted. The article was recreated later, but oddly enough it appeared to have been re-created with the full article history. How is that possible? It is no evidence that VM was aware that the article was deleted, and he probably believed he was restoring the article to the last stable version based upon his view of the article history. It is ironic that the complainant has issues with the article German collective guilt, yet expects us to believe in Polish collective guilt through membership of the EEML two years ago. This is a content issue. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
It was I who restored the whole article history at the request of Col. Warden, who promised to work on the article making use of it. Nothing mysterious about that. I suspect VM did indeed know the circumstances, and I do not think it was a good idea for him to work on revising it further. Much better Col. Worden, an expert at dealing with problematic articles and as far as I can tell , totally neutral on the subject. the col. made a start at it, and the first it or two of V.Marke did improve the wording slightly, as did Boson ( a very good new ed.at the enWP with no prior involvement) giving us this version. I regard at least some of the further edits by V.M., suchas this one very ill advised, and I'd suggest very strongly that he stay away from the article. Very possibly I did wrong by restoring those versions to mainspace; the Col.'s user space would have been better, and I invite any other admin to move them. I know it's not our practice to appoint a select committee, but I would invite the Col. and Boson to work together to try to get a decent article out of this. DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
In April 2010 I created what i thought was a disambiguation page. [99] I did this because the earlier verion of the article was still visible across many wikimirrors. The earlier version had been deleted after and AfD since it was an unsalvageable extreme POV piece. My creation of the "disambiguation page" is the only edit I've ever done in the article itself. This "disambig" page was recently listed for deletion, which led to a group of editors to start to create a proper article there instead of my "disambig". This is what this new article looked like before Volunteer Marek started editing it. After a few edits Volunteer Marek swiched it back to the version that had been deleted by the first AfD. I was not aware that the history of the deleted article had been restored, to me it seemed that the fact that Volunteer Marek had access to the source code of the original and deleted article meant that Volunteer Marek was proxying for Molobo, the creator of the original version of the article, as Volunteer Marek had been found to have been doing at least twice before on other articles. I therefore commented on this connection that I though was relevant. Volunteer Marek responded with amongst other things [100]:
First he directly tries to associate me with the far-right, and with holocaust denial. Then he builds on this chain of thought by linking to a question I once made in the holocaust article. There can be no other reason for linking to that question other than to use it in support of the "holocaust denier" allegation. And third he builds on this by adding more innuendo, i.e. that what he says is supported by my edit history. It is a very intelligently written attack, phrased in a way that can pass under the radar, but nevertheless a very serious personal attack if you actually stop to think about it. No-one will bother trying to check what the contents of "My version" are, they will just take his words at face value, and associate me with the far right and holocaust deniers. In addition, since "'Your' version" can mean either my disambig edit or the new article created by a group of editors, he is attacking also the new editors as far-right. Please don't let him get away with it.--Stor stark7 Speak 20:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Dearest Piotr, your writing skills are significant. To first write one thing, and then when challenged about it later claim you did not write it, does not change the original text, although it might confuse some. I am reminded of the tactics revealed in the EE mailing list. Fill arbitrations with walls of text, until the admins loose intrest. And also possibly the often retold story of an outreached hand of peace that the other "bad person" refuses to accept. I wonder if e-mails are being sent out.--Stor stark7 Speak 07:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning Volunteer Marek 2[edit]
|