Revision as of 05:00, 7 January 2016 editMouse001 (talk | contribs)152 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:34, 9 January 2025 edit undoSeraphimblade (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators46,240 edits →PerspicazHistorian: Closing | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef |
<noinclude> {{pp-move-indef}} | ||
{{Redirect|WP:AE||WP:AE (disambiguation)}} | |||
<includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly> | |||
__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!-- | |||
<noinclude>{{editabuselinks|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}} | |||
--><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly> | |||
</noinclude> | |||
<noinclude>{{Noticeboard links|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}<!-- | |||
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | -->{{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K | |archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K | ||
|counter = |
|counter =347 | ||
|minthreadsleft = 0 | |minthreadsleft = 0 | ||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(14d) | ||
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d | ||
}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}} | |||
}} | |||
==PerspicazHistorian== | |||
==Minor4th== | |||
{{hat| |
{{hat|{{u|PerspicazHistorian}} is blocked indefinitely from mainspace. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC) }} | ||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
===Request concerning |
===Request concerning PerspicazHistorian=== | ||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks| |
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NXcrypto}} 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|PerspicazHistorian}}<p>{{ds/log|PerspicazHistorian}}</p> | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Minor4th}}<p>{{ds/log|Minor4th}} | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | ||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: | ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | ||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | ||
*] | |||
*] | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> | <!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> | ||
# - removed "discrimination" sidebar from the page of ] (fascist ideology) even though the sidebar was inserted inside a section, not even the lead. | |||
1RR violation: | |||
# - tag bombed the highly vetted ] article without any discussion or reason | |||
# - attributing castes to people withhout any sources | |||
# - edit warring to impose the above edits after getting | |||
# - just like above, but this time he also added unreliable sources | |||
# - still edit warring and using edit summaries instead of talk page for conversation | |||
# - filed an outrageous report on WP:ANI without notifying any editors. This report was closed by Bbb23 as "{{tq|This is nothing but a malplaced, frivolous personal attack by the OP.}}" | |||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | |||
#Yesterday: {{diff2|696035788|initial revert}} (@ 08:31, 20 December 2015) to modify lede to remove mention of "cancer", then today: | |||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> | |||
#{{diff2|696197930|revert}} @ 15:40, 21 December 2015 | |||
*Already 2 blocks in last 4 months for edit warring. | |||
#{{diff2|696201737|revert}} @ 16:14, 21 December 2015 (note also a ] in the ES) | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them. | |||
{{diff2|696201106|Minor4th writes "... based on the DS and 1RR restrictions on this article ..." just prior to the final revert in the above sequence.}} | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | ||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> | <!-- Add any further comment here --> | ||
This editor appears to want to remove the word "cancer" from the lede, and is edit-warring in pursuit of that apparent objective. | |||
I do not see any positive signs that this editor will ever improve. So far he has only regressed. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
:While going through this report, PerspicazHistorian has made another highly problematic edit by edit warring and misrepresenting the sources to label the organisation as "terrorist". This primary source only provides a list of organisations termed by the Indian government as "terrorist" contrary to ]. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 03:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
; Responses to the statements of others | |||
{{replyto|Minor4th}} Your statement makes it seem you think you have access to The Truth™ of this matter, and so can edit-war to correct what you see as an "error". I think you're wrong and your use of sources here is selective and muddled. But this is not the place for that content dispute (which continues on the article Talk page), but to address the question of your 1RR violation. ] (]) 08:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
*PerspicazHistorian is still using sources (see ]) and wishing to move ] to ] which is a blatant POV. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 04:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{replyto|AlbinoFerret}} We do not need a ] to tell us what a journal article ''claimed'', since that question is one of textual interpretation, and obviously not a ] question subject to procedures like systematic review etc. However if you want a journal article than mentions "cancer" then check out the title of PMID 23430588. Generally, the medical literature uses the more technical ''caricno-''stemmed wording, which we should translate into lay terms for our audience. ] (]) 15:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
{{replyto|Masem}} You appear to be incorrect in saying Séralini avoided cancer claims. His paper mentions it has found "serious suspicion of carcinogenicity" and our 2012 ''Nature'' news source tells us: "Séralini has promoted the cancer results as the study’s major finding, through a tightly orchestrated media offensive". ] (]) 17:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> | |||
{{replyto|Atsme}} I did not violate 1RR. I take it you know consecutive edits by an editor count as but a ''single'' edit? I would also question your self-designation as "uninvolved" given you've just been party to a case investigating problematic GMO editors. ] (]) 19:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | ||
===Discussion concerning |
===Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorian === | ||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. |
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | ||
====Statement by Minor4th==== | |||
=====General response to enforcement request===== | |||
====Statement by PerspicazHistorian ==== | |||
<u>Diff #2 provided in the OP is not a revert. It is an edit.</u> The only revert in the 24 hour period by me was the single revert shown in Diff #3, wherein I also cited the BLP violation. There is no dispute that is a revert, and whether or not you agree that it remedies a BLP violation, it's only a single revert and does not violate the ARB restriction. | |||
*By far I am also concerned how my edits were forcefully reverted without a proper reason despite providing enough references. Please check how I am getting attacked by them on ] Page. | |||
I didn't know about the three-revert-rule before ] told me about this: ]. | |||
Please grant me one more chance, I will make sure not to edit war.<br> | |||
*In the below statement by LukeEmily, As a reply I just want to say that I was just making obvious edit on ] by adding a list of notable people with proper references. And according to ] it is clearly said: "Edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism." It was a good faith edit but others reverted it. I accept my mistake of not raising it on talk page as a part of ].<br> | |||
*As a clarification to my edit on ], it can be clearly seen that I provided enough reference to prove its a terrorist organisation as seen in this . I don't know why is there a discussion to this obvious edit? Admins please correct me if I am wrong. | |||
:@], Yes I read about 1RR and 0RR revert rules in ]. I now understand the importance of raising the topic on talk page whenever a consensus is needed. Thank You ! ] (]) 07:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Yes, I will commit to that. ] (]) 13:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC) <small>Moved comment to own section. Please comment, including replies, only in this section. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 13:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC) </small> | |||
:At that time I was new to how AFD discussions worked. Later on when ] was marked for deletion, I respected the consensus by not interfering in it. The article was later deleted. ] (]) 11:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*Hi @] , I just checked your user page. You have 16 years (I am 19) of experience on wiki, you must be right about me. I agree that my start on Misplaced Pages has been horrible, but I am learning a lot from you all. I promise that I will do better, get more neutral here and contribute to the platform to my best. Please don't block me. | |||
::''<small>P.S.- I don't know If I will be blocked or what , according to this enforcement rules, I just want to personally wish good luck to you for your ongoing cancer treatments, You will surely win this battle of Life. Regards.</small>'' ] (]) 12:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)<small>Moved comment to own section. Please comment, including replies, only in this section.] (]) 15:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
*1) I just asked an user @] if the page move is possible. What's wrong with it? I still have not considered putting a move request on talk page of article. | |||
'''Clarification needed:''' If I am wrong about this, then I need someone to clearly explain how diff #2 is a revert. If that's the case then virtually every edit could be called a revert because nearly every edit changes some previous editor's work. If that's the rule then I'll abide by it, but that essentially means that editors can only make one edit (or several consecutive edits) per page per day in the topic area. I don't think that is what was intended. | |||
:2) Many of other sources are not raj era. Moreover I myself have deleted the content way before you pointing this out. Thank You ! ] (]) 06:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
=====Specific responses to comments===== | |||
::even @] is seen engaged in edit wars before on contentious Indian topics. ] (]) 06:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Alexbrn is edit warring in the word "cancer" in the lead contrary to the scientific sources - and that creates a BLP issue because he's attributing the conclusion "there's a strong link between GMO and cancer" to a scientist who did not make that conclusion. This is intentional to make the scientist look like a lunatic by falsely attributing outrageous claims to him. This is a prima facie BLP violation. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 17:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::as mentioned by @] before, <sub>Please discuss at talk, not here; we don't deal with content here</sub>. You can discuss content related topics on talk pages of articles rather than personally targeting a user here in enforcement. ] (]) 06:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::@] I once filed a to find it @] is a sock (out of a misunderstanding, as all were teamed up similarly on various pages). I think he felt it as a personal attack by me and filed this request for enforcement. Please interfere. ] (]) 06:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC) <small>moving to correct section ] (]) 13:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
{{ping|EdJohnston}} I agree to self revert, but I cannot concede that "cancer" and "tumors" mean the same thing in this context because that is false. If the closing admin or anyone making comments here does not understand the difference between "cancer" and "tumor" in this study, then you don't understand the study or the science. And if you don't understand the study, you don't understand the whole underpinning of the "Seralini affair." One must be able to properly evaluate the sources in this area to edit with competency. | |||
*Hi @] @], In my defense I just want to say that | |||
For reliable sources regarding "cancer" vs. "tumor", see the following related RS: | |||
:1)Yes I usually edit on RSS related topics, but to ensure a democratic view is maintained as many socks try to disrupt such articles. Even on ] page, I just edited on request of talk page and added a graph. I don't think its a POV push. | |||
:2) My main interest in editing is ] and ] topics. | |||
1. Retractionwatch : | |||
:3)There have been certain cases in past where I was blocked but if studied carefully they were result of me edit warring with socks(although, through guidance of various experienced editors and admins I learnt a SPI should be filed first). I have learnt a lot in my journey and there have been nearly zero case of me of edit warring this month. | |||
:Please do not block me. ] (]) 14:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*@] I beg apologies for the inconvenience caused, thanks for correcting me. I will now reply in my own statement section. @] I am a quick learner and professionally competent to edit in this encyclopedic space. Please consider reviewing this enforcement if its an counter-attack on me as mentioned in my previous replies. You all are experienced editors and I have good faith in your decision-making capability.] (]) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*@]@] I have edited content marked as "original research" and "mess" by you, I am ready to help removing any content that might be considered "poorly sourced" by the community. Please don't block me.] (]) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*@] This enforcement started for edit-warring and now I feel its more concerned to my edited content(which I agree to cooperate and change wherever needed). After learning about edit wars, there has been no instance of me edit-warring, Please consider my request.--] (]) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:@] I am not a slow learner, I understand the concerns of all admins here. I will try my best to add only reliable sources, and discuss content in all talk pages, as I already mentioned ]. ] (]) 12:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::@]@] I think admins should focus more on encouraging editors when they do good and correct when mistaken. I have made many edits, added many citations and created much articles which use fine citations. The enforcement started out of retaliation by nxcrypto, now moving towards banning me anyways. I started editing out of passion, and doing it here on wiki unlike those who come here just for pov pushes and disrupt article space(talking about socks and vandalizers on contentious Indian topics). | |||
*::The article ] doesn't only has issue on citations, but the whole article is copypasted from the citations I added. I just wanted to point that out. Remaining about ], I am currently pursuing Btech in cs from IIT delhi, idt I am a slow learner by any means. Still, happy new year to all ! ] (]) 14:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::@] You mean to say, "<sub>The ''prasada'' is to be consumed by attendees as a holy offering. The offerings may include cooked food, ] and confectionery sweets. Vegetarian food is usually offered and later distributed to the devotees who are present in the ]. Sometimes this vegetarian offering will exclude prohibited items such as garlic, onion, mushroom, etc. "</sub> is not copy pasted by website? Is this also a wiki mirror website? How would you feel if I doubt your competence now? ] (]) 14:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::::@ ] I just asked others to share their opinion in the enforcement. With all due respect, I don't think its wrong in any sense. ] (]) 15:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:::::To all the admins involved here, | |||
*:::::* I agree to keep learning and apologize if my previous edits/replies have annoyed the admins. | |||
*:::::* I have not edit warred since a month and please see it as my willingness to keep learning and getting better. | |||
*:::::*Please give me a chance, I understand concern of you all and respect your opinion in the matter. But please don't block me from editing from main article space. I promise that I will abide by all the rules and will learn from other editors. | |||
*:::::] (]) 15:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by LukeEmily==== | |||
<blockquote>Seralini and his colleagues provide a timeline in the press materials of their version of events. One element in particular caught our eye: | |||
PerspicazHistorian also violated ] by engaging in an edit war with {{u|Ratnahastin}} who reverted his edits and restored an article to a stable version by admin. Also, I want to assume good faith but it is surprising that PerspicazHistorian claims that he did not know the three revert rule given that he has more than 800 edits.] (]) | |||
====Statement by Doug Weller==== | |||
Wallace Hayes wrote an article to defend his position that raises doubts about his understanding of the study and raw data. He mentions in his defense he was unable to conclude that “there was a clear link between GMO and cancer.” '''An obvious error of W. Hayes as the term “cancer” has never been mentioned in the paper of Séralini’s research team. And it does not affect any aspect of the research on Roundup.''' | |||
I'm involved so just commenting. I don't think this editor is competent. I had to give them a community sanction caste warning as they were making a mess of castes. See this earlier version of their talk page.]https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:PerspicazHistorian&oldid=1262289249] and ]'s comment that "It was very unwise of you to keep moving ] to article space when it has not passed review. As a direct result of your actions, a deletion discussion is taking place, and when this is complete and the article is deleted, you will be prevented from recreating it. ] (]) 14:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)" There have also been copyright issues. I strongly support a topic ban. ] ] 11:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::I won't be involved in the decision. No more treatments for me, just coast until... ] ] 12:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
'''Now, “tumor” and “cancer” are not necessarily the same thing. But the original paper certainly referred to tumors repeatedly''', and Seralini, as Nature reported at the time,</blockquote> | |||
====Statement by Toddy1==== | |||
2. Republication of the retracted paper , clarifying that the study was not a cancer study:<blockquote>This study constitutes a follow-up investigation of a 90-day feeding study conducted by Monsanto in order to obtain commercial release of this GMO, employing the same rat strain and analyzing biochemical parameters on the same number of animals per group as our investigation. Our research represents the first chronic study on these substances, in which all observations including tumors are reported chronologically. Thus, '''it was not designed as a carcinogenicity study'''.</blockquote> | |||
This is another editor who appears to have pro-] (RSS) and pro-] (BJP) views. I dislike those views, but find it rather alarming that Misplaced Pages should seek to censor those views, but not the views of the political opponents. Imagine the outrage if we sought to topic-ban anyone who expressed pro-] views, but allowed ] to say whatever they liked. | |||
3. Nature . This is the EXACT quote that Alexbrn proposed on the talk page when we started discussing this a couple of days ago, and now he is complaining that I am edit warring the word "tumor" in: | |||
<blockquote>Séralini's team had found that rats fed for two years with a glyphosate-resistant type of maize (corn) made by Monsanto '''developed many more tumours''' and died earlier than did control animals. It also found that the rats developed tumours when Roundup was added to their drinking water.</blockquote> | |||
A lot of pro-RSS/BJP editors turn out to be sock-puppets, so please can we do a checkuser on this account. And to be even-handed, why not checkuser NXcrypto too. | |||
(edited) <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 21:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
If we want to talk about ] when editors make mistakes, look at the diff given by NXcrypto for "Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested" - it is the wrong diff. He/she did notify PerspicazHistorian - but the correct diff is . | |||
@EdJohntson - I was fixing a factual error, not just playing around with wording. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 06:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
A topic ban from Indian topics would be unhelpful, unless given to both parties. Misplaced Pages is meant to be a mainstream encyclopaedia, and BJP and RSS are mainstream in India. Loading the dice against BJP and RSS editors will turn Misplaced Pages into a fringe encyclopaedia on Indian topics. | |||
'''' Kingifaces43's aspersions''' - Kingofaces43 is casting aspersions by calling my edits "advocacy" and describing me as being the subject of many warnings and disputes in this topic area. That is false on its face. Please look at Kingofaces43's continued aspersions against editors he doesn't like and how it promotes battlefield editing in this controversial topic. Sanctions against KOA are appropriate per DS. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 00:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
I can see a good case for restricting PerspicazHistorian to draft articles and talk pages for a month, and suggesting that he/she seeks advice from more experienced editors. Another solution would be a one-revert rule to last six months.<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--] ]</span> 13:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{u|Tryptofish}} - I have agreed to self revert and stated that I did not intentionally violate any editing restriction - but it's improper to ask for a concession on the substantive issue of whether "cancer" = "tumor." <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 19:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Capitals00==== | |||
{{u|Masem}} has evaluated the situation exactly right. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 19:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
I find the comment from {{U|Toddy1}} to be entirely outrageous. What are you trying to tell by saying "{{tq|Misplaced Pages is meant to be a mainstream encyclopaedia, and BJP and RSS are mainstream in India}}"? If you want us to entertain those who are in power, then we could never have an article like ]. | |||
You cannot ask topic ban for both editors without having any evidence of misconduct. Same way, you cannot ask CU on either user ]. It is a high time that you should strike your comment, since you are falsely accusing others that they "{{tq|seek to censor}}" this editor due to his "{{tq| pro-Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and pro-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) views}}". You should strike your comment. If you cannot do that, then I am sure ] is coming for you. ] (]) 15:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{u|Montanabw}} has correctly described the edits and distinguished a legitimate edit from a revert. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 21:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by |
====Statement by Vanamonde93==== | ||
{{U|Toddy1}}: I, too, am baffled by your comment. We don't ban editors based on their POV; but we do ban editors who fail to follow our PAGs, and we certainly don't make excuses for editors who fail to follow our guidelines based on their POV. You seem to be suggesting we cut PH some slack because of their political position, and I find that deeply inappropriate. Among other things, I don't believe they have publicly stated anywhere that they support the BJP or the RSS, and we cannot make assumptions about them. | |||
That said, the fact that this was still open prompted me to spot-check PH's contributions, and I find a lot to be concerned about. is from 29 December, and appears to be entirely original research; I cannot access all of the sources, but snippet search does not bear out the content added, and the Raj era source for the first sentence certainly does not support the content it was used for. ], entirely authored by PH, is full of puffery ({{tq|"first to sacrifice his life for the cause of Swarajya"}}, and poor sources (like , and , whose blurb I leave you to judge), from which most of the article appears to be drawn. ], also entirely authored by PH, has original research in its very first sentence; the sources that I can access give passing mention to people whose names include the suffix "appa", and thus could perhaps be examples of usage, but the sources most certainly do not bear out the claim. | |||
Alexbrn is violating consensus. I will explain further after doing more research. --] (]) 17:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
I will note in fairness that I cannot access all the sources for the content I checked. But after spotchecking a dozen examples I have yet to find content PH wrote that was borne out by a reliable source, so I believe skepticism is justified. We are in territory where other editors may need to spend days cleaning up some of this writing. {{U|Bishonen}} If we're in CIR territory, just a normal indefinite block seems cleanest, surely? Or were you hoping that PH would help clean up their mess, perhaps by providing quotes from sources? That could be a pathway to contributing productively, but I'm not holding my breath. ] (]) 18:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
AlexBrn is just as guilty of edit warring (see list of diffs below). But worse, he has attempted to edit-war in the cancer claims both without consensus and in light of misrepresentations about the study. The discussion continues on the Seralini page and the lede, a discussion I started . Others are currently working together to try to come to a consensus decision ( and ). AlexBrn's claims of "consensus" like , and are not helping. AlexBrn's attempt to force in the language "claimed there was a strong link between ]s and cancer" is not helping. The original study does not even mention any connection to cancer. AlexBrn correctly pointed out that the revised <i>republished</i> study does speak of a "serious suspicion of carcinogenicity"; however, the Abstract clearly states that the study "was not designed as a carcinogenicity study." And in the sentence before and after the quote about a "suspicion of carcinogenicity", it is reasserted that it is a toxicity study and not a full carcinogenicity study. The texts says a full carcinogenicity study "would be a rational follow-up investigation". () In responding to the Editor who was hired to retract the original published study, Seralini said: | |||
:Thanks Bish: I agree, as my exchanges with PH today, in response to my first post here, have not inspired confidence. . ] (]) 20:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:In fact you clarified your position in a statement published in FCT: “To be very clear, it is the entire paper, with the claim that there is definitive link between GMO and cancer that is being retracted” (Hayes, 2014). Yet we made no such “claim” in our paper. We drew no inference and made no claims about “cancer” ; nowhere did we claim a “definitive link between GMO and cancer”. It should be noted that tumorigenesis is not synonymous with cancer. Tumours can be in some cases more rapidly lethal than cancers because their size can cause hemorrhages and possible impairments of vital organs, as well as secretion of toxins. | |||
====Statement by UtherSRG==== | |||
: | |||
I've mostly dealt with PH around ]. They do not seem to have the ability to read and understand our policies and processes. As such, a t-ban is too weak. The minimum I would support is a p-block as suggested below, though a full indef is also acceptable. They could then ask for the ] when they can demonstrate they no longer have ] issues. - ] ] 20:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Based on , I'm more strongly leaning towards indef. - ] ] 12:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
AlexBrn's edit-warring in cancer claims without consensus and with disregard for misrepresentations about the study is in violation of ]: | |||
::They now indicate they believe the article they edited was copied from one of the websites they used as a reference, when in reality the website is a mirror/scrape of the Misplaced Pages article. I believe we are firmly in ] territory here. - ] ] 14:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::: is a mirror of the Misplaced Pages article. - ] ] 16:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
===Result concerning PerspicazHistorian === | |||
* Revision as of 07:27, December 20, 2015 -- AlexBrn added language "claimed there was a strong link between ]s and cancer," | |||
* Revision as of 15:44, December 21, 2015 -- puts the language back in after being reverted | |||
* Revision as of 16:02, December 21, 2015 -- again puts the language back in after being reverted. | |||
--] (]) 17:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
Re {{u|Mystery Wolff}}'s post: | |||
* I agree that Minor4th's edits are GoodFaith and should not be sanctioned. | |||
* I disagree about GMO Page Protection. I do not believe I have sufficient space to explain why here. | |||
--] (]) 08:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Tryptofish==== | |||
For purposes of evaluating whether edits were reverts, I do not think that, in this context, it is useful to treat "tumors" as different than "cancer". (There are such things as benign tumors, but the source material here is about cancerous tumors.) I also think that we need to be careful about invocations of BLP. I'm no lawyer, but it is hard for me to believe that a successful defamation claim would result simply from saying that a scientific journal article made some conclusions about carcinogenicity; I suspect that the defamation was more about accusations of scientific fraud. --] (]) 21:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I agree strongly with Looie's comment about the need to start setting boundaries (in a dispute that I think is metasticising more than Seralini's rats). I also consider the special pleading that has been rife in this discussion, that maybe Seralini said that the tumors were benign tumors, and that ''that'' makes edit warring justified, to be a distraction. This isn't an AE about which sentence should use the word "cancer". It's an AE about disruptive conduct. --] (]) 19:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Looking back here, in terms of the advice from the administrator about conceding the point, it sure looks to me like no one is conceding anything, and that's all the more reason to set boundaries. --] (]) 18:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
==== Statement by JzG ==== | |||
This was not an accidental violation, IMO. For some reason that entirely escapes me, both Minor4th and David Tornheim seem to want to use technical jargon (tumour, mutagenic) in place of the plain English preferred by many of the reliable sources on which we base the article. The claim that this is a ] violation is without merit, since it is not our claim but that of the reliable independent sources (). It's worth remembering that a significant part of the criticism of this study centres on its prior release to journalists via a press briefing. It is not unreasonable to conclude that the source of the link to cancer is Séralini himself - many of the news articles are, after all, illustrated with a photo of Séralini holding up a rat with cancer. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 00:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
@Atsme: the diffs you present do not constitute more than one revert to the article. Nor are they problematic: they restore consensus versions following discussion on Talk, in each case removing POV ]ly added by one or more apparent partisans. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 16:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
@AlbinoFerret: MEDRS does not apply in this specific instance because we are not claiming that thr Séralini affair does or does not cure cancer, we are covering the Séralini affair as a drama that played out in the popular press, largely because of Séralini's media manipulation (dramas solely within the scientific press are rarely notable). We don't need a MEDRS to say how the popular press represented what they were spoon-fed by Séralini, to go back to what is defensible from the paper is fallacious precisely because Séralini's message, i.e. the Séralini affair, went far beyond what could be defended from the actual study results. Which is why the paper was retracted, and why we have the article in the first place. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
==== Statement by Looie496 ==== | |||
This is now the fourth enforcement request derived from the GMO case, none of which have produced any action. Admins should consider that each violation that slips by will only encourage further violations, increasing the magnitude of the enforcement actions that will ultimately have to taken. Worse, it is likely that the violations that are ultimately sanctioned will come from editors who don't really want to violate the remedies but feel forced to in response to violations from others. In other words, failure to set clear boundaries is only going to end up hurting the editors you are trying to be nice to, because they are going to keep testing the boundaries regardless of how far they have shifted. ] (]) 13:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
==== Statement by Capeo ==== | |||
The RS say "cancer" so cancer is what we should say. That's why we prefer secondary sources over primary ones. We need not reflect Seralini's equivocating that he never said cancer when his entire emphasis, and the impetus for the criticism and notability of this whole affair, was the cancerous tumors in the rats that he showcased more than any other thing. There's no BLP violation in following the RS characterization of the paper. ] (]) 14:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
Alexbrn already stated this but there's no MEDRS claim so there's no need for MEDRS compliant sources. This is about describing why the paper was controversial and what AlbinoFerret called a letter to the editor is actually the editor in chief of the journal describing why the article was retracted. A person more than qualified to contextualize the paper. And what AlbinoFerret calls gaming is usually called consensus. ] (]) 15:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{u|Masem}}, this isn't an article about the paper itself. It's and article about the controversy surrounding it and the main cause of the controversy is that, despite Seralini's equivocating, the paper connected GMOs to causing "cancerous" tumors, which is wording Seralini has used in interviews on his own web page. This connection was reinforced by Seralini himself as the tumors were the emphasis of his own press releases. The fact that he backed off on it after being called on it has no bearing on what caused the controversy itself. Even the republished paper is still loaded with pics of rats with tumors despite his claims and he rightly got called out about it yet again. ] (]) 16:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
And I have to laugh that people are talking about MEDRS when a retracted paper republished in a zero impact journal isn't a MEDRS in the first place. ] (]) 17:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
Masem, the paper has zero scientific notability at this point and falls firmly into WP:FRINGE. Its only notability is the reaction to it connecting GMOs to cancer. The article already mentions that Seralini claims he never said cancer. Generally speaking we need to mention why this event is even notable in the first place in the lede before anything else. That's aside from the fact that Seralini says things like " In our study, we never mentioned the word cancer, because there were tumours, which varied from more or less cancerous." That doesn't even make sense. And Seralini outright claims the very WP:FRINGE POV that his paper proves GMOs are toxic and cause tumors. This isn't a scientific topic. It's purely fringe and should be treated the same way we treat other fringe topics. ] (]) 17:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
Masem, it says nothing about it being a "cancer study" and makes no claim that is was. It says simply what the RS say, which is the only reason it is notable, which is that it connected GMOs to cancer, which is what we should say. That can then be followed up with Seralini's denial and why RS completely rejected said denial due to Seralini's own sensationalist emphasis on the tumor results over all else. Tumors he himself called cancerous. ] (]) 18:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
This is actually from the retractionwatch source Minor4th posted above. They note Nature reported that Seralini "has promoted the cancer results as the study’s major finding, through a tightly orchestrated media offensive that began last month and included the release of a book and a film about the work." ] (]) 19:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
==== Statement by AlbinoFerret ==== | |||
Looking at the sources, a letter to the editor, a news article in a journal, one in the popular press. I question if these pass ] because the sources are coming to a biomedical conclusion (cancer). Are there any MEDRS sources that use the term cancer? | |||
This is also a problem mentioned in the Workshop, multiple editors reverting. Sadly the abs didnt put a stop to multiple editors jumping in and reverting. What it ends up doing is editing by mob rule, whoever has the biggest group wins instead of discussion. That is gaming the system. ] 14:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
@{{u|Alexbrn}} As pointed out in Masem's post below, The original paper did not mention cancer. Sources coming to that conclusion should be MEDRS compliant. ] 17:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
==== Statement by Kingofaces43 ==== | |||
In addition to the reverts and gaming of BLP described here, there are also violations covered by pseudoscience/fringe discretionary sanctions. Those sanctions deal with behavior issues closely tied with content. Improper escalation (such as this BLP invocation) is also covered in this . Even in Minor4th's section above and the article, they have violated ] in the manner they have tried to argue that reliable sources are "WRONG" from personal opinion and trying to unduly validate the ] point of view of the BLP subject. The events of the controversy are already accurately described by multiple reliable sources even without ] in mind. | |||
Especially given the variety of issues here they are still digging in on (and lack of enforcement so far in other cases), we've reached the point at least with this editor that the time of warnings being useful has long passed considering they've followed drama on this topic for awhile now. We need the sanctions to be enforced to stop disruptive behavior like this or remove editors with ingrained problems. ] (]) 16:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Just a note that Atsme below is highly involved in following the drama on this topic being extensively involved in the ArbCom case, especially after many editors involved in ] and fringe topics tried to deal with their problem behaviors at fringe BLP topics (e.g., ). Not directly involved in GMOs per se, but highly involved in purusing editors that have tried to deal with their behavior problems at ANI, etc. in the past. Peripheral editors like this are a problem in this topic (as seen by the number of people that come to GMO enforcement cases), but I'm not sure if or how that can be handled. ] (]) 16:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
::{{ping|Atsme}} I'm not going to engage your behavior issues here further However, those issues are going to be mentioned when you claim yourself to be uninvolved when inserting yourself into topics at ArbCom or noticeboards related to editors you have been very involved with dealing with your behavior. ] (]) 22:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
], the key detail you missed was that Seralini did try to make the association to cancer, both in media interviews after publication and within the paper (i.e., waving around a bunch of pictures of rats with tumors with no controls or statistical tests). When a ] is criticized for their actions and they backtrack contrary to actual events that they never said something, we don't give that point of view any weight at the article or here at this board. The characterization that Seralini did not try to portray a link between glyphosate, GMOs, etc. and cancer is distinctly a fringe point of view. | |||
I'll also ping {{ping|EdJohnston}} to read the above since they've been pinged recently about Masem's summarization. Additionally, we so far have a few policy violations by Minor4th, some of this case being muddled by the fringe content aspect, and comments like Atsme's that are trying to go after Alexbrn for responding to Minor4th's advocacy in a reasonable manner. We're in a situation where some editors will push and push the line, and other editors will go after the editor who tries to respond to that in these boards. I don't have any solutions for that, but any thoughts on how to potentially handle this situation we've had in the last few requests here? ] (]) 18:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Atsme==== | |||
I am an uninvolved editor regarding this article. I don't edit articles involving GMOs, etc. but I do edit BLPs. I ask that the admins who are following this case to please make note of the following before drawing their conclusions: | |||
ALEXBRN REVERTS (uses TW to avoid individual reverts which also needs to be noted, and also uses rather evasive edit summaries to diffuse attention to the fact he is edit warring and changing the context of a statement): | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
It appears Alexbrn has also violated 1RR and has established a patterned behavior of edit warring. Just look at how the edit history plays out which is why I can't understand why Minor4th has been targeted as the sole violator: | |||
;December 21st | |||
*Minor4th (cur | prev) 16:14, December 21, 2015 | |||
*Alexbrn (cur | prev) 16:03, December 21, 2015 | |||
*Alexbrn (cur | prev) 16:02, December 21, 2015 | |||
*Alexbrn (cur | prev) 15:44, December 21, 2015 | |||
*Minor4th (cur | prev) 15:40, December 21, 2015 | |||
*Alexbrn (cur | prev) 14:53, December 21, 2015 | |||
;December 20th | |||
*Minor4th (cur | prev) 23:38, December 20, 2015 | |||
*(two in-between edits by another editor) | |||
*Minor4th (cur | prev) 13:27, December 20, 2015 | |||
*Alexbrn (cur | prev) 08:31, December 20, 2015 | |||
*Alexbrn (cur | prev) 07:34, December 20, 2015 | |||
*Alexbrn (cur | prev) 07:32, December 20, 2015 | |||
*Alexbrn (cur | prev) 07:27, December 20, 2015 | |||
*Alexbrn (cur | prev) 07:02, December 20, 2015 | |||
Thank you for attention to this matter. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 16:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
;Admins, your attention, please | |||
The diff Kingofaces included to discredit me was unwarranted and worse, based on a false allegation of me being a SPA in an old AN/I case. My edit history has long since proven my purpose on WP and that the allegation was false and unwarranted. I tried to get ArbCom to address his behavior but since it was not within the locus of the case, they dismissed it. I have not mentioned his name in this incident prior to now so why is he allowed to besmirch my reputation, and attempt to discredit my statement here as an uninvolved editor? If it's not considered bullying, it is certainly harassment and actionable behavior either way. He has been warned more than once, but because he keeps getting away with it, he keeps bringing it up. Ignoring it does nothing but embolden him all the more, and that isn't what should be happening right under the noses of multiple admins. Please stop his disruption and attempts to divert attention away from this very important case. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 21:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Kingofaces, your harassing me does not make me an involved editor but it does draw attention to your bullying. I'd offer you a backhoe but you're digging a pretty deep hole without one. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 23:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
*{{u|EdJohnston}}, since you are the admin overseeing this AE request, please take the appropriate action against Kingofaces for his unwarranted attempts to intimidate me by dredging up diffs that have no relevance to this case, and that clearly demonstrate his intention to besmirch my reputation. According to WP:Civility, such behavior is actionable, especially when it is repeated over and over again as Kingofaces has done...and he's doing it right under your nose. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 23:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
*{{u|JzG}}, with all due respect....as I've been advised by an admin in the past - ''even if you believe you are right you cannot edit war.'' As you know, the number of reverts are not a requisite for an editor to be blocked for edit warring,. It's rather obvious who made the most edits/reverts/changes and created a battleground, and it wasn't Minor4th. Also, Kingofaces violated WP:CIVILITY policy by dredging up diffs in his relentless attempts to besmirch me and diffuse my participation in important discussions. The fact that his behavior continues to be ignored is shameful, especially at this venue, and is beginning to smell a lot like the stench of bias and double standards. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 19:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
*{{u|Alexbrn}} whether you violated 1RR doesn't really matter. Admins know the rules about battleground, gaming strategies, group support, and the like. I'm simply stating facts and presenting diffs to support them. You were edit warring, and doing so is just as actionable as violating 1RR so there is no need to belabor or argue the point. Furthermore, your strawman argument that I was named in the GMO ArbCom case has nothing to do with your battleground behavior at the Seralini BLP. I never edited that article - you did. My recommendation here is a good trouting for the edit warriors, and an iBan against Kingofaces for his unconscionable behavior toward me and his aspersions against Minor4th on this noticeboard, not to mention other venues. He has a serious issue in that regard, and it will require admin intervention to correct it. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 20:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
==== Statement by uninvolved Masem ==== | |||
Reviewing the base situation from someone uninvolved with GMO articles, but otherwise able to look at the scenario from a scientific viewpoint: | |||
* A professor, whose past publications and statements have appeared to make him critical of GMO, publishes a reviewed paper that from lab studies that certain GMO products cause rats to develop more tumors and die sooner than control specimens. The paper appears to purposely avoid attaching the word "cancer" to the results. | |||
* The paper on publication is criticized by many third-parties (attracted by the established aspect of the professor's criticism of GMO), claiming that the linkage of GMO to "cancer" (their words) was not shown by appropriate scientific methods. The paper is ultimately pulled, even with the editor-in-chief commenting on the claim about timing GMO to cancer. | |||
* The professor restates that his paper was not a cancer study, and before it was pulled, has the work amended to make this clear. | |||
While "tumor" and "cancer" may be synonymous in some areas (such as everyday language one might use with friends or family), this seems like a matter of scientific precision in a hotly contested area (GMO) and the need to distinguish between the two (as the professor apparently took steps to do and had to clarify this), even if others in the scientific community felt the tumor study was really an obfuscated cancer study. So for our article to claim, factually, that the professor wrote a cancer study ''is not appropriate''. It's an edge case of BLP, as we are putting other people's words to speak for the professor's intentions when he has made it clear in verified manners of what his intent was (not a cancer study), even though we are otherwise not talking about specific claims about the professor himself that BLP normally covers. It is still is fair to include the fact that other scientists took the paper as a cancer study and thus were very critical of how the study was done that they saw the linkage of GMO to cancer, but in introducing the paper for the first time in the lede and in the body, it should not be called a cancer study if the professor has been very clear this was not the intent. Even if every other scientist in the area commented that the professor's paper was a cancer study but the professor remained insistent it wasn't, we should still be respecting the claim of the professor first followed by the claims by everyone else to stay consistent with BLP. If anything this is more a situation that falls under ], where we clearly have a controversial statement (if the paper was a tumor or a cancer study), so there's a proper way to approach this. | |||
In terms of the actions of the editors, I do think that the BLP issue is there, but it is very much an edge case which did not need immediate attention as most BLP violations typically require but instead more discussion and possibly more eyes on it. Actions by both editors should be at least trouted and warned against, particularly as at the time across these changes there was an active discussion. --] (]) 16:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
(Moved replies to Capeo and Kingofaces43 to ] due to statement length) | |||
==== Statement by uninvolved MarkBernstein ==== | |||
* Masem is correct: the distinction between "tumor" and "cancer" is indeed significant, and is not merely semantic evasion. I have not reviewed the paper or the subsequent literature, but if Masem’s review is correct, {{ping|EdJohnston}}’s preliminary conclusion cannot be. | |||
* With respect, I disagree with JzG that we should prefer “plain English” to technical terms such as “ tumor" and "mutagenic". Jargon should be avoided where possible, but precise language is sometimes necessary. Evidence has been presented that the test animals developed tumors, but not that these tumors are in fact malignant; it makes sense that the article reflect this until the question is settled. | |||
* You can’t settle this without assessing the scientific evidence; if you try, you may embarrass the project. | |||
* As other editors have said above, you can’t punt the issues indefinitely without nullifying the GMO decision. The latter might be the best course of action, though this is probably not the place to do that. | |||
* Does misstating or misrepresenting -- perhaps unintentionally -- the conclusion of a scientific paper written by a living person violate BLP? I cannot think that it does, reserving possible exceptions for malice and for unreasonable or incredible distortion. If scientific articles are to be simultaneously edited by experts and by laypersons, misunderstandings will arise. Do we want to place every scientific and engineering topic under discretionary sanctions? A considerable portion of the technical literature, after all, is written by people who are currently living. | |||
* 1RR as currently understood may prove unfeasible in contentious technical areas. As JzG demonstrates, one editor may reasonably perceive a merely semantic distinction where another editor perceives a substantive correction. This invites games of gotcha.] (]) 17:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Montanabw==== | |||
Looking at the history and the current version of this article, it appears that Minor4th made an appropriate correction and it was the other user who was edit-warring and attacking Minor4th. Minor 4th made an edit, was reverted and then restored the edit -- that was an edit 1RR, not 2. I think that a warning should suffice on this one, as it is clear that NPOV and proper phrasing of a BLP trumps other matters. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by uninvolved Mystery Wolff==== | |||
I am now familiar with GMOrganisms and related pages from this AE page due to my short time needing to check it for another article set. Reading the comments I believe I agree most with Montanabw above, except I do not believe Minor4th should be warned because its not 1RR. Also 1RR is such a tight standard good faith NPOV and really minor edits, should be allowed. The BLP points are also well taken. | |||
But what I really think is that what I will call the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly solution should be deployed. WP:?<br /> | |||
In the movie of the same name North and South are fighting over the same bridge, each day, lots of deaths, no progress, cease fires to clean up the bodies and rinse and repeat. The only solution to stop the carnage and deaths, was to blow up the Bridge. <br /> | |||
This situation is just going to keep on going for GMO and related. So I think the Admins should just agree to blow up the bridge, and '''put in Full Protection of the entire set of articles. Then on a once a week move schedule, an admin will move into the articles, the agreed upon changes out of TALK.''' Nothing is going to be earthshakingly different that article and the outside readers won't benefit from a more stable viewable article. | |||
Its just far to big of an Enclopedia to see these same topics coming back and back to AE. 3 times in 2 weeks, at least for GMO. And just like GBU, there seems to be more and more bodies that can get banned for GMO. Just blow up the bridge. Take away the thing they are fighting over. You can generated more ARBs more AE's and more methods to techically bypass the DS and warnings. Or just blow up the bridge, send to full protection. Given the science and controversy I don't think it will every come out of Full Protection, but that is OK, because of the sheer time savings to all. <br /> | |||
Summary: Send to full protection.....Blow up the bridge per WP:GBU. ] (]) 14:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
===Result concerning Minor4th=== | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | ||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
* | |||
*<s>The difference between 'cancer' and 'tumor' in the lead doesn't appear enough to justify Minor4th's claim of a BLP violation. Even if you insist that 'cancer' should be 'tumor' the first time around, the word cancer still appears multiple times elsewhere in the lead, and also appears in the title of one of the references provided (Arjo et al):"..an in depth analysis of the Séralini et al. study claiming that Roundup™ Ready corn or the herbicide Roundup™ cause cancer in rats". Since Minor4th is only tweaking the wording and not fixing a factual error, this series of edits is just a plain 1RR violation by Minor4th. A block should be discussed unless Minor4th will concede the point. ] (]) 01:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)</s> | |||
:*The 1RR rule is established to allow quick action on simple violations. Since the complaint has been open for five days there is no more chance of a quick action. Our article on the ] article doesn’t put Séralini in a good light. It passes along the published criticism to our readers. The reverts that were submitted for admin action in this complaint don't change the overall verdict much, so the intensity of the brief revert war seems out of proportion to anything that could be gained. This request should be closed with no action. All parties should be aware that continued edit warring won’t be tolerated. ] (]) 06:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
*I generally concur with EdJohnson, including his last sentence. ] (]) 00:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{hab}} | |||
{{u|PerspicazHistorian}}, can you explain your understanding of ] and the ] rule? I'd like you to read thoroughly enough to also explain wny someone may be edit warring ''even if they aren't breaking 3RR''. ] (]) 21:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Volunteer Marek-personal attacks and incivility == | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
===Request concerning Volunteer_Marek=== | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|MyMoloboaccount}} 07:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Volunteer_Marek}}<p>{{ds/log|Volunteer_Marek}} | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace Volunteer_Marek with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: | |||
* will result in a block or other sanction. This is a logged warning issues under the ] authorised by the Arbitration Committee's ] (which you are "aware" of due to alert). The procedure to appeal this sanction are ]. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 05:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)] : | |||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> | |||
# Hostile and insulting description of another users edits, that is unconstructive and incivil | |||
# Hostile attack instead of trying to discuss the issue, from start confrontational and incivil, uses swear words to attack another editor, calling his edits stupid | |||
# Accusses other editor of lying, obvious incivility | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> | |||
*Was warned about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
VM has been warned several times about being incivility he engages in with other editors and personal attacks. He was warned by admin twice to stop being incivil and abusive towards others. In the past I have requested this as well several times,. | |||
The above examples are only recent. If required I can provide examples going back a month or more.This is an ongoing and persistent issue. | |||
While there will be always disagreements about wording of article, sources or content, such disputes should be done in civil way worthy of encyclopedia. Shouting at other editors, using swear words, naming their edits as crap goes against this principle. VM was warned to stop being incivil and attacking others and in my view he violated his warning in the examples I have provided. | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> | |||
====Response to Bishonen====: | |||
''Like MastCell, I might have used different words than VM, but I'm against sanctioning editors for speaking impatiently to those who try to degrade content, or for using swear words.'' | |||
Volunteer_Marek was already sanctioned and warned due to his incivil behaviour by an administrator earlier. Hence I am calling for enforcement. This is not a single slip or incident.It is an ongoing issue that VM has been asked time and time again to correct( I believe I asked him to stop this three times at least).He constantly acts incivil and offensive towards others,and this is a behavior that has been going on since years(links can be provided if requested). | |||
As I mentioned earlier-due to this he was warned earlier to act in civil way way by an administrator-twice and warned that incivility and personal attacks should stop least he be blocked. | |||
If he or you want to appeal his warning and removed from sanctions lists-be my guest, that's fine. But here I am asking for enforcing an already existing sanction, not making a new one.--] (]) 22:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
Update: | |||
To prove that this is not a new thing and result of ongoing incivility, please see my edits over the years where I have asked VM time and time again to stop personal attacks and incivility. I am also posting my comment from last November where I have pleaded for him to stop, and that I will be forced to ask for official intervention if he continues the attacks. | |||
* | |||
* | |||
* | |||
--] (]) 22:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
====Response to Kingsindian==== | |||
''This is a transparent attempt to win a content dispute using this board'' | |||
Please see my links above. VM has been engaging in such behavior for years. I have asked him to stop already last year in November and stated that I will have to ask for official intervention if he doesn't cease.--] (]) 23:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
===Response to Drmies and EdJohnston=== | |||
The phrase "internal security" is used commonly used in political writings on the subject. This was debated here already and pointed out by Kingsindian here , and for examples.] | |||
If you want other examples | |||
*Alliance behavior in the Warsaw PactDaniel N. Nelson - 1986 ''deployment in another East European state in Soviet-led operation tor internal security'' | |||
*The Armies of the Warsaw Pact Nations: Organization, Concept Friedrich Wiener, Franz Kosar, Franz Grũber - 1981 ''Troops for Internal Security ln all the Warsaw Pact nations there are special troops, in addition to the police who take care of normal law and order, that are used for internal security purposes'' | |||
*Warsaw Pact, the Question of Cohesion Teresa Rakowska-Harmstone, Canada. Dept. of National Defence. Operational Research and Analysis Establishment - 1986 ''The author of a Soviet study of the WP writes that the alliance conducts joint activities among the internal security forces'' | |||
I studied politology and history in Polish university after 1989 and we used these terms as well in analysis of the subject. In political works definitions like "internal security" are commonly used to describe situation without judging the nature of the political regime.--] (]) 20:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
Here is a western source directly saying that Warsaw Pact served internal security in connection to Czechoslovakia | |||
THE WARSAW PACT'S CAMPAIGN FOR "EUROPEAN SECURITY" | |||
A. Ross Johnson United States Air Force under Project Rand. | |||
"greater importance placed on the internal security function of the Soviet military presence in Eastern Europe, as of Warsaw Pact as a whole, "after Czechoslovakia." | |||
Just like I stated this is a common expression in political analysis, and certainly not a "Stalinist propaganda". It's just a term scholarly works on the subject use in neutral way.--] (]) 23:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:LOL. I'm not sure how closely you read the source you're citing. In its preface, it states: | |||
:{{Quotation|In any study of Communist intentions such as this, the use of Marxist-Leninist terminology is unavoidable. Its usage for descriptive purposes does not imply uncritical acceptance of its meaning in the Marxist-Leninist lexicon. The reader will quickly see how little "European security," in the standard Warsaw Pact interpretation of the term, has to do with lasting military security and political legitimacy in Europe. ()}} | |||
:That's right: the source you're citing in fact ''explicitly explains'' that the "security" wording is Soviet propaganda. The source also warns against the uncritical acceptance of such transparent euphemisms, yet here you are trying to get us to uncritically accept them. You might want to read the whole document, rather than just the snippets you Googled to support your case. You're working very hard to hoist yourself with your own petard here. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 01:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
===Response to My very best wishes=== | |||
''Knowing Molobo and his role in EEML case, I am sure that's the latter. My very best wishes'' | |||
I quite surprised by this statement since I was never sanctioned for anything in EEML case, and as far as I remember VM was. Aren't you also one of the former EEML members who changed his user name(IIRC Biophys?) who was very active there? If you want to re-open this case, it's your choice. In any case I left your EEML group long time ago, is is still active? | |||
--] (]) 20:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Edits by VM since this request has been filled==== | |||
Since this request has been filled Volunteer_Marek has engaged in edits that were incivil and personal attacks | |||
* This is an incivil comment and personal attack against another user. | |||
* | |||
Again a personal attack.If the user is indeed a sockpuppet, then a proper procedure should have been requested to confirm this, instead of resolving to personal attack. | |||
I believe both examples to be in violation of his sanctions. | |||
--] (]) 22:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
===Discussion concerning Volunteer_Marek=== | |||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by Volunteer_Marek==== | |||
1. The edit describes the article, i.e. content. One might disagree with the assessment (I do wish there was a template which said "Unfortunately, currently this article is crap" that could be slapped on appropriate articles but alas!) but feigning offense and trying to use that to win a dispute is far more disruptive than the use of the word "crap". And yes, the article was bad to begin with. MyMoloboaccount, who has never edited this article before (AFAIK) jumped in the middle of my attempts to fix it, because of the dispute we had at another article, ]. I believe this pretty much defines the concept of "revenge reverting" | |||
2. Well, for this one you just need to actually see the comment itself. Here is the diff again . MyMoloboaccount changed text ''""The Warsaw Pact's largest military engagements were aimed against its own members—in ] and in ]"'' to the obviously non-neutral ''"The Warsaw Pact's largest military engagements were aimed at internal security of member states during ] and in ]"'' (describing the bloody repression of the Hungarian uprising in which thousands of people were murdered and tens of thousands repressed and tortured as "a matter of internal security" is not only tasteless, but obviously POV). The edit also made a grammatical mess of the sentence and resulted in a statement which contradicted itself. I'm sorry but this is pretty much the definition of over-the-top POV pushing and calling it what it is is perfectly warranted. | |||
3. MyMoloboaccount did in fact use the edit summary "minor changes" (and here again) to ... "label", edits which were non-minor, and in fact were a pretty blatant attempt to POV the article. is the relevant exchange on talk (which for some reason MyMoloboaccount failed to link to - wonder why) in which he tries to evade the question and continues to pretend that his edits were "minor". The conversation clearly indicates lack of ] on the part of the user. In my time on Misplaced Pages, this kind of behavior has been generally regarded as extremely disruptive and dishonest and has quickly led to a block, especially when done by an editor who's been around for a long time and should know better. To make highly POV changes and hide them behind false edit summaries, and then complain when someone points out that your edit summaries aren't exactly 100% kosher, really takes some chutzpah. | |||
MyMoloboaccount repeatedly edit warred to reinsert text which misrepresented sources - even after I've asked him about it several times on talk. And even after I've explicitly pointed out to him that the text misrepresented the sources. And even when I asked him point blank about which part of a particular source was suppose to support the text. The relevant talk page discussions (or actually, lack thereof, on the part of my MyMoloboaccount) are (note lack of response), (basically evading the question) and (same as the diff above - but note that here I am forced to ask the same question for the third time without a response). | |||
The above discussions clearly indicate ] behavior on the part of the user. For the record, this kind of pattern has been noted before by others, for example by ] (for example and , there's more though it might take a bit of time to find it). Likewise, this isn't the first time that MyMoloboaccount has tried to misrepresent sources on Misplaced Pages (see and for detailed explanations). Dealing with such a user, although they pretend at "civility", is extremely frustrating and it is a textbook example of someone who is not engaged with the project in good faith and is in fact... well, driving people crazy, with ]. | |||
Also, for the record, it should be noted that while the user MyMoloboaccount may appear to have a fairly clean block log , the actual block log, in all its full page glory is . The lack of blocks between the new and the old account has to do with the indefinite block that was in place in between (the indefinite block which was lifted after, I'm sorry to say, to a significant extent because I personally argued for its lifting because I believed that MyMoloboaccount/Molobo deserved a second chance. No good deed... like they say) (or maybe that was a bad deed, I didn't realize it at the time, and now I'm just getting my comeuppance?) | |||
Anyway, Happy Holidays and Wesolych Swiat.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 09:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
@Spartaz. Ok, look, Spartaz, do what you think is appropriate and whatever it is I'm not going to hold it against you. I've been on Misplaced Pages a long time and I've donated a lot of my free time, which I value highly, to the project. The way I see it, I'm doing Misplaced Pages a favor by editing here, not vice versa. Of course Misplaced Pages drives one crazy. The backstabbing, the gratuitous lynch mobs, the lying-with-the-straight face and most of all the thick thick hypocrisy, all more than present in this request and its comments. I realized long time ago that the only way I could continue participating here is by approaching in a way which did not implicitly accept, perpetuate and enable all of those things, in as straight forward manner as possible. Not bullshiting people but not tolerate all the bullshit that falls in one's lap either. So yes, my comments are always direct and to the point, I state my objections explicitly, I express my frustration when someone's obviously not acting in good faith, and I speak the way that grown ups in the real world speak (yes, even in professional settings). Of course this being Misplaced Pages people will try to use that against you to win disputes and as a way of furthering their agenda. Shrug. | |||
So no, I don't think I made any "personal attacks". I used words which some people will try and pretend they find offensive. I was critical of another editor's editing behavior. But neither of these are personal attacks. Saying to someone "you POV'ed the article" is NOT a personal attack and you won't be able to find a Misplaced Pages policy that says so. Maybe I didn't put it in the most diplomatic way possible but so what? If I had said "you're a bad person because you POV'ed the article" or some version of that THAT would've been a personal attack. But calling people out on their atrocious behavior and disruptive editing (and I'm sorry but MyMoloboaccount WAS blatantly misrepresenting sources, using false edit summaries and then playing coy about it and pretending they didn't know what the issue was) is not a personal attack and in fact, given how Misplaced Pages works, it is sometimes necessary to actually improve article content.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 17:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
::@LjL - why are you here? This has nothing to do with you. About a month ago we had a dispute on an unrelated article. You violated a 1RR restriction on it repeatedly and I pointed it out to you. You kept claiming "consensus" on the article where really the matter was still being discussed. You say I "defied consensus". Total baloney. I disagreed with *you*. And what eventually happened? I left the article alone and let you have your way because I decided it simply wasn't worth the effort. The current state of the article, AFAIK, reflects your point of view. How is that "deifying consensus"? Yet, you show up here a month later, trying to poison the well, and try to start up a little lynch mob. I cannot but conclude that you are just holding a grudge over... not sure what exactly. It's exactly this kind of petty behavior that makes Misplaced Pages a social wreck and such an extremely unpleasant place to contribute at. | |||
::Wasn't there a restriction on WP:AE reports (originated by ] or ] IIRC) which forbid uninvolved parties from showing up to pursue grudges, clutter up the discussion and form little "peanut galleries" (their words, not mine) on these reports? (basically the same thing applies to ] who's also here opportunistically to pursue grudges and as a way of getting an upper hand in an unrelated dispute (which is/was under mediation). God, I sometimes really hate Misplaced Pages.) <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 20:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
@Flashout1999 - It's ridiculous to say that I am "harassing" MyMoloboaccount when in fact they were the one who followed me to the article in the first place, because of a disagreement we had on another article. If anything, it's the opposite. | |||
Likewise, your claim that the section heading "Can the POV get more ridicoulos?" (sic) is a "personal attack" but a section heading "POV in the lead" is not doesn't hold water. They both say the same thing, one is just in the form of a question and the other one is not, and neither "attacks" anyone. It specifically points to problems with content. | |||
You are mistaking strongly worded criticism of article content and user behavior with "personal attacks". These are not the same thing. One more time - saying "you POV'd the article" is not not not not not a personal attack. Never has been, isn't now and probably (it's Misplaced Pages, so who knows?!) never will be. Disagreement are likewise not "personal attacks".<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 20:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
And actually let me add a little bit here to my response to Flashout1999. MyMoloboaccount repeatedly restored text which misrepresented sources and also made obviously highly POV changes with misleading edit summaries ("minor changes"). The proper response to my objections, which I made on talk, would have been to correct the misrepresentation of sources and if they felt something was missing, or if they felt that a particular piece of text was actually true (just not in that particular source) would have been to go out there and find new sources and faithfully paraphrase them. This is not MyMoloboaccount did. They just kept restoring the existing problems via blanket reverts. Yes, they did add some new sources but these were generally misrepresented just like the previous ones (the Crumb one in particular). | |||
On the other hand, and to your credit, your response was more or less what I outlined above. You did go out and get new sources (the state department etc., although the History Channel one was a dud) and you appear to be open to discussing how to reword the text to make it NPOV. | |||
This difference actually illustrates both the problem with MyMoloboaccount's approach and the proper approach. MMA, instead of doing the work necessary to find compromise and improve the article decided upon a wording which suited their POV first and then tried to pretend that sources supported it. Didn't really discuss the issues. When they didn't get their way, they came running here, to WP:AE, as a strategy of "winning" a dispute with allegations of "incivility" and lack of good faith (to quote ] "The person who most frequently speaks about assuming good faith is least likely to assume (or act in) good faith.") That's often a very good sign that the person who's complaining about "incivility" is on the wrong end of the actual underlying *content* dispute. Because that's the only "argument" (and not a good one) they got. See also ]. | |||
So, anyway, whatever the outcome of this report, and whatever else you say about me down in your section below, I do want to thank you in particular for taking the right approach to improving the article and if I was overly harsh in my criticism of you I apologize.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 21:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
'''Response to MyMoloboaccount's newest allegations''' | |||
This is just diff padding and more of the same. At best these diffs just show that MyMoloboaccount has tried to use this tactic before, when confronted about the POV nature of their edits. Let's go through'em, shall we? | |||
Ok, let's go through the diffs provided by MyMoloboaccount in the para beginning with "To prove that this is not a new thing and result of ongoing incivility..." | |||
provided by MMA is just a message he left on my talk page. What edit of mine is he responding to when he accuses me of "incivility"? . What I said is, quote: "crap source - the guy says that increases in poverty CAUSE increases in GDP". I called a ... crappy source, crap. If you think THAT is incivility, I really got nothing to say to you. It was a crap source and pointing that out is perfectly fine. | |||
Then there is , which is also MMA coming to my talk page and accusing me of, this time, "following him around". Ok, let me try to figure out what the hey he's talking about........ July 17....... Here at least is the full conversation which basically shows that this was MMA being passive-aggressive. Let's see, I said something (on my talk page) about that being an absurd accusation . | |||
Hmmmmm. In July of 2014, the only article that both myself and MMA edited was ]. Now, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 actually crashed on July 17 of 2014, it was of course all over the media and the article had been just created. There was a lot of activity on it. I made edits to it - and over the next several months I did a lot more work on the article than MMA who's only contribution was throw in some POV text right at the beginning. I can't remember who edited it first but who cares. Previously MMA had been following my edits around to the articles on: | |||
* (my first edits were right after the article was started on 6/3/14, MMA showed up shortly thereafter to edit war on 6/5/14), | |||
* (I made edits in August of 2013, as well as 6/5/2014 - MMA showed up shortly therafter, same day, 8 hours later, to edit war) and | |||
* (I made edits in March of 2013 - when MMA and I got into a disagreement on another article, MMA switched over to this one to undue my changes out of revenge) | |||
This is why my response to MMA's comment about me supposedly "following him around" was... well, let me quote it in full, because it applies to the Warsaw Pact article now as much as it did to these other ones then: ''"I do sincerely hope that you have enough self awareness to realize how absurd you sound above."'' | |||
MMA had spent a few months following me around - EXACTLY the same as with Warsaw Pact article - and then had the chutzpah to come to my talk page and accuse me of doing that. | |||
If that doesn't convince you that MMA is a tendentious editor who tries to ] policies and win disputes which they cannot win based on sources by threatening, falsely accusing, and spuriously reporting people I don't know what will. And yes, just like he misrepresents sources in terms of content, he misrepresent editors he disagrees with in noticeboards such as this one.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 23:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Oh, and I love that MMA is complaining about of mine. Completely different topic area. Race and Intelligence. Which as anyone who's even dipped their toe in that topic area knows is overrun with sockpuppets and meatpuppets of blocked and topic banned users, who keep trying to use these articles to push racist garbage POV. In this particular instance an essentially brand new, single purpose, red-linked account changed the text so that descriptions of 19th century racist thinkers idea read as facts. Yes, the account was basically using Misplaced Pages to write "Black people are dumber than white people" (instead of "Racists *believe* that black people..."). Of course it was dressed up, the SPA account was perfectly "civil", there was some sources tacked on to it to make it look legit and of course the response was "discuss on talk!!!". But at the end of the day it was just racist garbage. I am not going to apologize for that edit nor am I going to apologize for that edit summary (in fact, I toned it down from what I originally wrote because I had a sneaky suspicion someone would try to use it against me). Again, this just shows that MMA has a very Machavallian attitude to editing Misplaced Pages where they're willing to use ANYTHING to win a content dispute. | |||
:(Btw, since I made that revert, I've had five different users thank me for it, including ], who's probably the most veteran of the veteran editors in that topic area, as well as ] ) <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 00:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
'''Caballero's Comments''' | |||
::*My comments here are in relation to my thanks to ]'s editing work . The article is a subject intimately familiar to me since I have taught it in graduate courses for four years already, and have published about it. Before ] intervened today I had written about my concerns with the ideological changes taking place in the article's Talk Page. And ] was bold, yes, but direct and correct in his manners. When the user making the disruptive changes asked him to edit the changes rather than blank them in full, Marek's response was right and to the point: there is nothing unbaised and nothing to edit. So, it may be that Marek's is a bold editor, but his work (up to what I have seen), is not easily matched. ] (]) 00:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Erlbaeko==== | |||
Note that the same pattern of personal attacks and incivility can be seen in other articles/topics. See e.g. ]. Also note that I notified him about Syrian Civil War sanctions on 27 August 2015, ref. . | |||
Volunteer Marek attacks an editor saying "Will you please stop lying so blatantly?" I would not have had a problem with that if it was a lie, but it is not. I checked the statement and it's only slightly inaccurate. I replied . I see no justification for that attack, and no apology was ever given. ] (]) 11:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Also note that Volunteer Marek attacked the new editor on the article by calling him a "brand new throw away accounts to help out in the edit war", and by insinuating sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry (without any convincing evidence). The editor has explained that he is a Misplaced Pages veteran and documnets that he started editing 7 and a half years ago . ] (]) 11:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
::'''Update:''' To clarify a bit. I don't see the attacks itself as a big problem. We all make mistakes from time to time and I don't care to much about an attack or two or some rough language. The problem is the pattern of lesser personal attacks that continues throughout a discussion despite warnings (as in the discussion I linked to above). It is when that pattern is used to disrupt progress toward improving an article it became a problem, and that problem is called disruptive editing. It is like he is living after the Paul Krugman citation on his user page: ''"As the old lawyer’s line says, if the facts are on your side, pound the facts; if the law is on your side, pound the law; if neither are on your side, pound the table. I’d add: and demand “civility.”''. I am afraid he will continue to "pound the table and demand civility" if the behavior is allowed to continue. ] (]) 13:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{ping|Arthur Rubin}} Do ''we want'' to continue? I don't know, but I do. I don't see no justification for your 1 week block for "actions on ], commented on at ]". Ref. . you said it was due to "discretionary sanctions for Eastern Europe". What excatly did you block him for? ] (]) 16:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Arthur Rubin, I see you have unblocked MyMoloboaccount, ref. , and that you admitted that you made a mistake . Thanks. ] (]) 11:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{ping|Drmies}} That section is to be edited only by ]. ] should use the sections above. ] (]) 19:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by LjL==== | |||
I have also been at my wits' end with this editor, but eventually I decided to do nothing about it. But given that finally I'm not the only one wanting to complain, I'll add diffs for things that had seemed to show ] and ] issues, with my emphasis on them (but honestly, other behaviors from this editor were more of a burden to me, yet it's trickier to put them together to clarify the situation): | |||
* {{tq|Can you '''stop being dishonest'''? There is NO "overwhelming consensus" as you claim above. You're '''making shit up'''. There is NO "clear consensus" as you claim above. '''You're making shit up'''.}} | |||
* {{tq|'''For fuck's sake''', this is suppose to be an article about a terrorist attack IN FRANCE, which killed more than a hundred people IN FRANCE in a greatest tragedy since WWII. It is NOT about Poland's politician's hang ups about refugees from Syria. It is NOT about '''your own personal hangs up''' about refugees from Syria. How about we keep the article on topic that it's actually suppose to be about rather than go off on '''POV tangents to pursue personal political agendas'''?}} | |||
* {{tq|LjL, MyMolobboaccount, EVEN IF you guys were right about previous consensus - which you're not, '''you're making shit up''' - my last edition concerned an official statement MyMoloboaccount shows up and removes it. I undo. '''LjL jumps in to edit war just because'''. And then you claim consensus for that too. Please '''stop being ridiculous'''.}} | |||
Note that the "consensus" the editor challenges in the above quotations was repeatedly established, and summarized , and he was virtually the only editor disrupting it. ] (]) 14:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I do, like {{u|Kingsindian}}, also wonder what exactly {{u|MyMoloboaccount}}, the OP, was now blocked for (without notifying this discussion, even though he was purportedly ), since neither the block log nor seem to make it very clear what edits caused the block (I do not see obvious edit warring in the involved page's history). I think it would be appropriate at this point if the blocking admin, {{u|Arthur Rubin}}, made a statement here. ] (]) 15:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
::{{ping|Arthur Rubin}} thanks for your statement. I am concerned that you seem to be looking at the specifics of the content dispute rather than administrative issues. I don't really feel qualified to comment about ] specifics, but if I were an administrator I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable blocking on such content disputes... especially while the blocked user has an outstanding arbitration enforcement request against the other party, and ''that'' is a very administrative issue where any civility issues with {{u|Volunteer Marek}} can be gauged (but you're choosing to stay away from ''that'' administrative concern). All I really know is that Volunteer Marek has defied consensus in not-very-civil manners before, and so far, the complaining party has been blocked instead. I think {{u|Spartaz}} or any administrator looking at this ought to keep that in mind. ] (]) 16:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Flushout1999==== | |||
::I can confirm the bad behavior from Volunteer Marek. However I believe this talk page speaks by itself. He managed now to make it a total mess creating new sections not related to the content which should be present in the main article, but just creating them in order to attack the other users along his personal opinions. Also he avoids persistently to discuss reliable sources' content which are not according to his personal beliefs, starting to apply denigratory labels, being uncivil and keeping to say that there is a "misrepresentation" as an excuse to revert entire paragraphs, while never providing links nor going into details (like making at least some citation) in despise of the most common editing discussions rules, as the ones reported here . -- ] (]) 16:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Just to be clear: In my opinion that particular MyMoloboaccount's edit on the lead was not good at all, but not that bad to justify VM reaction which as been disruptive at least. This could have been solved in a very easy way as the new edit from {{u|Kingsindian}} shows. | |||
:::VM attitude in the talk page as been rather uncivil, rude and degrading the talk to a ] creating messy new sections with titles aimed only at attacking MyMoloboaccount personally. (] should have been titled something like "POV in the lead" for example). | |||
:::In my opinion his behavior could qualify also as ] aimed to target a specific person (MyMoloboaccount) with the purpose to make him feel threatened or intimidated (which however did not happen). | |||
:::Now that other users like {{u|MastCell}} are justifying these kind of personal attacks, incivility and offensive behaviors towards the other editors, only because one just don't like what he perceives as a different point of view from his, this is really disappointing to me and this is for sure the most undesiderable outcome here in wikipedia, that everyone starts to feel excused when treating the others in a belittling and insulting way only because they have different point of views, while instead is very easy to discuss civilly, achieve neutrality in the article and solve issues if one just wants to. | |||
:::Also I don't understand MyMoloboaccount block, he made a single bad edit (perhaps misunderstood), we are now going to block people only because of a single bad edit? -- ] (]) 20:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::@{{u|Volunteer Marek}} I'm sorry Marek but here I am going to disagree with you. First: disagreements are ok, to discuss them incivilly and just in order to intimidate the others is '''not'''. Second: who is the one that is really following the other? For example, my first edit in the ] is at 23:08, 29 July 2013 , yours is at 21 October 2015 and you came only to revert my old edits while in the same moment you deleted all of my old edits in ] while discussing there with me. As the two articles are totally unrelated, this means you took a look to my contribs and then you engaged in a ravaged deletion of my past edits you disliked (and you even used the excuse of "suspect copyvio" in the ] article. My source was not an english book, so I could not copy anything, in that case I had rewritten all in my words). I tell you, I perceive (and I perceived) this not only as a form of ] but also as ] made towards me. | |||
::::But I'm glad you now realized we could perfectly discuss in a civil way and understand each other, we could have it done that also in that occasion. I believe that if we all take in consideration each other thoughts and we respect each other than a solution is always available. For example see this: ], perhaps me too I am still not able to do that, but probably Misplaced Pages is all about this. -- ] (]) 22:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Sad enough, it seems many wikipedia users judge the others' actions not on what actually a specific user (in this case VM) have done towards the others but basing their comments only on the fact if they are friends of VM or if they share his POV: assuming bad faith, being uncivil, diminish the other editors, being rude and insulting is perfectly acceptable when done by a "friend" or by someone who share the same POV on certain topics. | |||
:::::Delete most of others' edits without discussing, as VM usually does, because "it is POV crap (from other users)" it means simply that wikipedia will be left only with what is good according to VM's point of view. Still "POV crap (from VM and others)" will be left and everyone can see it. | |||
:::::This is totally embarrassing because in ] (examples from Jimbo Wales) and ] is perfectly explained how facts/opinions from ] have to be reported correctly in the articles. Instead to discuss in order to achieve neutrality following the rules, VM chooses the option on being uncivil, insulting and delete everything which is not according to his POV, failing to ]. | |||
:::::Again, VM being blocked or not is not what is important here (and I personally don't care), what is important is that a great amount of users appear simply unable to understand something so easy like what is the ] and fail to communicate and collaborate with the other users in a ]. | |||
:::::PS: Just a final comment: not everyone is plenty of time to spend here on wikipedia. There is also life outside wikipedia: work (because money do not come from writing here), family, real affections, just simply '''real life'''. To make an argument about people not being present here every time, every day, every hour, is really ludicrous. Not everyone is so "fortunate" to be able to stay here in WP permanently, but yes again, let's assume bad faith because one does not have the time to stay here everyday in front of a computer. -- ] (]) 13:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Kingsindian==== | |||
This is a transparent attempt to win a content dispute using this board. All three descriptions by MyMoloboaccount are seriously misleading. VM's conduct on the talk page is not ideal, but MyMoloboaccount's conduct is as bad or worse, which directly led to VM's conduct. | |||
The major diff is . By no stretch of imagination can this be called "minor changes", as stated in the edit summary. This alone should raise doubts about MyMoloboaccount's conduct. | |||
Let me first point out the kernel of the matter. The Warsaw Pact was ''in part'' a reaction to NATO. That is not ''all'' that it was: historical events rarely have a single cause or motivation. There were plenty of nefarious motives as well. The writing on this issue needs to be nuanced. The Laurien Crump source is accepted by all sides as a good source, and it needs to be presented carefully. | |||
Let's now go through the diffs: | |||
* The first diff is a description of the article. Anyone who has worked in any contentious area on Misplaced Pages knows that many articles are POV crap. Whether or not that is correct in this instance, this is hardly an offence. | |||
* The second diff, contrary to MyMoloboaccount's account, "instead of discussing the issue...", indeed discusses the issue, with some rather minor incivility. The edit made by MyMoloboaccount was indeed atrocious. | |||
* In the third diff, the problem is that text which was disputed earlier, was reintroduced with a misleading edit summary by MyMoloboaccount. The actual issue, minus all the heat, is that a nuanced version of the text can be written which is supported by the sources. | |||
In such topics, people have their own POV. It is unavoidable. People have to work together in spite of this. | |||
By the way, why is MyMoloboaccount blocked? The block log says something about AE, which I can't fathom. ] ] ] 12:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
: I am afraid {{u|Arthur Rubin}} crucially misreads the edit made by MyMoloboaccount. The statement does not say that the purpose of the Warsaw Pact was to protect the internal security, but that the major military engagements were to protect internal security, which is a rather different thing. The stated purpose of something need not coincide with the actual use of the thing. | |||
:Also, the term "internal security" often refers to the security of the regime, rather than security of the population. This is the way in which internal security is used routinely in political literature. See , and for examples. | |||
: That said, the edit made by MyMoloboaccount was very POV and certainly not "minor" (again a misleading edit summary). There is also a larger point. Are we now blocking people based on POV pushing? I would then suggest that a large portion of the editors in Israel-Palestine or Eastern-Europe area should be blocked then. ] ] ] 20:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:: My own viewpoint is that it was not OK to block MyMoloboaccount based on one edit, which the blocker misread anyway. POV-pushers are ubiquitous in any contentious area on Misplaced Pages. If there is a pattern of misbehaviour by MMA then it should be presented before acting like this. Regarding conduct by all parties, my own viewpoint is: I see plenty of discussion of actual content on the talk page, mixed with the odd incivil comment. The latter is not ideal, but nobody behaves like a saint all the time. I don't see anything too bad. ] ] ] 21:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::{{re|Drmies}} Please see my comments above regarding "internal security". If people are going to be banned on the basis of single edits, I am willing to bet that at least half the people in the area, and IsraelPalestine would be banned. Indeed, I am not sure how long I would be able to survive in such a climate. Plenty of people insert Russian propaganda, American propaganda, Israeli propaganda, Palestinian propaganda. Propaganda often contains a germ of truth, and in this case, it did. If a pattern of editing is demonstrated, I have no problem. ] ] ] | |||
====Statement by Arthur Rubin==== | |||
I cannot see by MyMoloboaccount as being in good faith; the claim that the Warsaw Pact was intended to support ''internal'' security of the nations involved is contrary to fact and to the wording of the Pact. The pact was written as to protect ''external'' security of the nations, and reliable sources suggest the secondary reason was to protect the Soviet Union against threats from the other signatories. (I'm not sure the references to West Germany are sourced. I don't want to get involved in editing the article.) The statement must be considered Soviet ], and ] (except as opinion) is not permitted on Misplaced Pages. | |||
I am not commenting on Volunteer Marek's alleged incivility. However, if addition of propaganda is considered ], VM should not be cited for edit warring, as removal of vandalism is a permitted exception. — ] ] 19:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:If I were to investigate all of MyMoloboaccount's diffs, I would probably suggest a topic ban from (at least) ], and all actions taken by the ] under the Pact. Do we want to continue? — ] ] 19:14, 26 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by MastCell==== | |||
{{ping|Spartaz}} For what it's worth, Marek is ''right''. Now, I would probably use different language: I would say that Flushout1999 (and Mymoloboaccount) are tendentious editors who are systematically and somewhat dishonestly degrading the quality of our article on the ] in service of their political agendas. Marek would say that they're turning the article into an even bigger pile of POV crap than it already was. Both of those are ''true'' statements.<p>I suppose the proper response to this complaint comes down to a philosophical question: which is the bigger threat to Misplaced Pages as a serious, reputable reference work? Dishonest, agenda-driven obsessives, or people who lose patience with them? My personal view is probably evident from my framing of the question. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 06:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Maunus)==== | |||
Editors should assume good faith - untill that becomes impossible. Likewise, editors should use civil and courteous language - but should not be excessively punished when their patience is put to the test by long-term blatant, tendentious editing. (Note that I don't know Mymoloboaccounts editing patterns, but refer to the POV pushing that VolunteerMarek reverted at R&I)] · ] 22:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Iryna Harpy==== | |||
I wish to apologise to VM for not having added my 2¢ as soon as Mymoloboaccount embarked on this underhanded fiasco for fear of exploding myself. Should the admins and volunteers evaluating this AE wish to wade through years of diffs demonstrating Mymoloboaccount's bad faith editing practices, I'm willing to present them... but please be prepared for at least a day of reading through diffs. This is by no means the only article surrounding Eastern European history and current affairs Mymoloboaccount crops up on on a regular basis in order to undermine consensus decisions made across multiple articles. Presenting single incidents provides no overview of the years of gaming engaged in by the user. Naturally, if Misplaced Pages were Utopia and editors could all be understood to be honest about whether they're truly HERE, we wouldn't need AGF or CIVIL as part of our guidelines and policy. The reality is that it's not a perfect Misplaced Pages world. As 'nice' as it would be to not have editors like VM be ] to the point of a meltdown, bad faith editors (who quickly disappear into the woodwork as soon as they know that the heat is on, only to return months later to the same articles in order to start the same arguments again when consensus has clearly not changed) who refuse to back down after ''years'' of the same antagonistic, dishonest behaviour have forfeited all rights to cry "attack". Calling SPADE may not be desirable but, in this instance, it's imperative. --] (]) 02:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by My very best wishes==== | |||
(just noted by EdJohnston) is indeed very strange. It is so ridiculous that one must ask the question: does Molobo really believes that such edit improves content or he made this edit on purpose: to engage VM in discussion and report him to WP:AE? Knowing Molobo and his role in EEML case, I am sure that's the latter. ] (]) 14:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:I am really surprised that Molobo continue trying to justify his very strange edit on this noticeboard. None of the sources he indicated (for example, sources in ) uses term "]" in the same meaning as was used by Molobo. For example, first source ("Encyclopedia of intelligence" ) tells about ], which is something very different and indeed can be viewed as an internal "security" operation. ] (]) 22:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by (username)==== | |||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
===Result concerning Volunteer_Marek=== | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | ||
:@], that explanation of edit warring is a bit wanting. An edit war is when two or more editors revert content additions/removals repeatedly. Even a second reversion by the same editor can be considered edit warring. Best practice -- and what I highly recommend, especially for any inexperienced editor -- is ''the first time'' someone reverts an edit of yours, go to the talk page, open a section, ping the editor who reverted you, and discuss. Do you think you can commit to that? | |||
*I'd like to hear any justification/explanation {{u|Volunteer Marek}} can offer for those diffs. At first look they appear to be clear personal attacks and incivility and breaches of Cannanecc's warning. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 09:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:<small>Re: your question on why your "obvious edit" was reverted: we don't deal with content issues here, only with behavior issues, but from a very quick look, the source is 50 years old, and using a list headed "TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS LISTED IN THE FIRST SCHEDULE OF THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967" that includes a certain organization as a source that the organization should be described as a terrorist organization is ]; in their ] NXcrypto provided an edit summary of "Not a reliable source for such a contentious label. See WP:LABEL." Please discuss at talk, not here; we don't deal with content here.</small> ] (]) 11:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
**My comment appears to have crossed with the statements. | |||
::I'm seeing this as a CIR issue. I'd like input from other admins, if possible. I'm a little concerned that setting a tban from IPA is just setting a trap. Maybe a p-block from article space would be a kinder way to allow them to gain some experience? ] (]) 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
**Diff #1 - Its a more than a bit disingenuous to say you were describing the article when your edit summary is clearly aimed at MyMoloboaccount. This looks like a clear violation. | |||
:::@], have you seen how many times I or others have had to move your comments to your own section? This is an example of not having enough experience to edit productively. Please do not post in anyone else's section again. ] (]) 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
**Diff #2 - ''Gimme a fucking break. Can you at least pretend that you're trying to be neutral here?'' Clearly personalising a discussion and at the very least this skirts the civility policy - depending on how tolerant you are of swearing. To me, its too strongly worded and sweary. | |||
::::I do agree we're in CIR territory, and the concerns expressed are completely valid. I don't think this editor is ill-intentioned. They just don't seem very motivated to learn quickly. Well-intentioned-but-a-slow-learner is something that can only be fixed by actually practicing what you're bad at. I'd prefer an indef from article space which gives them one more chance to learn here before we send them off to mr.wiki or Simple English to try to learn. Not a hill I'm going to die on, though. ] (]) 11:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
**Diff #3 - Nothing actionable here IMO. | |||
:::::@], like Uther I have major concerns about the edit you made yesterday, which included replacing a citation needed tag with these sources.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Significance of Different Type of Prasad in Hinduism For God |url=https://www.ganeshaspeaks.com/predictions/astrology/prasad-food-for-god/ |access-date=2024-12-30 |website=GaneshaSpeaks |language=en-GB}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=What Is Prashad |url=https://www.swaminarayan.faith/articles/what-is-prashad |access-date=2024-12-30 |website=Shree Swaminarayan Mandir Bhuj |language=en}}</ref> The first is a company that markets astrology services. The second is the site for a religious sect. Neither is a reliable source for explaining the concept of prasada in Wikivoice. You made this edit ''yesterday'', after you'd confirmed here and on my talk that you understood sourcing policy. | |||
**The rest of VMs statement is attempting to tar MyMoloboaccount rather than addressing his own behaviour and has been ignored. My judgement is that this actionable and that a block and TB are appropriate. I'd suggest 24hours and a 1 month TB from eastern European areas. Other options are of course available.... ] <sup>'']''</sup> 09:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::The reason for an indef from article space is to allow you to learn this policy: You would go into article talk and suggest sources to fix citation needed tags. Another editor would have to agree with you that the sources are reliable before they'd add them. ] (]) 12:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*A tban from IPA for PerspicazHistorian would be a relief to many editors trying to keep this difficult area in reasonable shape. However, Valereee makes a good point about 'setting a trap': it's doubtful that PH would be able to keep to a tban even if they tried in good faith. I would therefore support a p-block from article space. ] | ] 16:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC). | |||
*My general take on this situation parallels Bishonen's, and I don't see any value to either blocking or topic-banning Volunteer Marek, although despite how strongly he feels, I do think it would be better if he toned down some of the language, in order to avoid distracting people from the merits of his positions. On the other hand, while I understand why Bishonen makes her "boomerang" suggestion, I suppose an AE report that another admin has found merit to can't be categorized as frivolous on its face. So subject to others' input, I would close with no action at this time. ] (]) 00:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
*:{{u|Vanamonde93}}, no, I don't really think PH can usefully help clean up their mess; I was following Valereee, who has been going into this in some depth, in attempting to keep some way of editing Misplaced Pages open for PH. It's a bit of a counsel of desperation, though; there is very little daylight between an indef and a p-block from article space. Yes, we ''are'' in CIR territory; just look at PH's ] for NXcrypto being "engaged in edit wars before on contentious Indian topics": one diff of an opponent complaining on NXcrypto's page, and one diff of somebody reverting NXcrypto. What do those actually prove? That NXcrypto has opponents (big surprise). So, yes, as you suggest, I'll support an indef as well. ] | ] 20:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC). | |||
*Per Bishonen, any action taken here should address more than the apparent incivility of Volunteer Marek. The comments above by ] about the neutrality (or lack thereof) of MyMoloboAccount's edits of ] are relevant. In particular, the talk discussion at ] and the rest of the page raise questions in my mind about MyMoloboAccount's ability to edit neutrally about Soviet foreign policy: | |||
*Is there a length of time proposed for the p-ban or would it be indefinite? ] (]) 17:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::. | |||
: |
*:I would say indefinite; not infinite, but I'd be wary about letting them back into articlespace without some kind of preclearance. ] (] • she/her) 18:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
*It looks to me like there is a consensus for an indefinite partial block for PerspicazHistorian from article space. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within a day or so, I will close as such. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*Does this board do boomerangs? Yes, VM uses salty language, and in this case--IMO--understandably so. MastCell and Bishonen and others are right on the money: getting it right should be first and foremost in an encyclopedia; we should really ponder boomerang options. ] (]) 18:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
*:Given PH's recent slew of requests on multiple admin talk pages, yes, please do. - ] ] 12:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*OK, I just looked at ]. {{U|Arthur Rubin}} blocked MyMoloboAccount for "violating Misplaced Pages principles", pointing specifically at the edit about "internal security" cited on this page a few times. MyMoloboAccount protested, and Rubin kindly unblocked. However, if this phrase is indeed "Soviet propaganda", then discretionary sanctions are applicable here since the edit is an obvious violation of ]. I will not be applying sanctions to MyMoloboAccount since my longstanding antagonistic relationship with Volunteer Marek may muddy the waters (it's all about the ]), but I fully support ''something'' along those lines, like, say, a three-month topic ban, which should be long enough to memorize WP:POV. ] (]) 18:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
*<!-- | |||
**{{U|Erlbaeko}}, I'm glad I am not the only one here with a sense of humor! ] (]) 22:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
--> | |||
**{{U|Kingsindian}}, I think that there is plenty of evidence here to suggest there is a ''pattern'' of inappropriate conduct. Remember, this isn't just about quality of edits and awareness of Misplaced Pages content policy, it's also about behavior. I have not done a headcount of those who think BOOMERANG applies here but I think there's enough of them to warrant a sanction based on behavior as demonstrated here alone. ] (]) 01:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
{{reflist talk}} | |||
==930310== | |||
{{hab}} | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
==LaylaCares== | |||
===Request concerning 930310=== | |||
{{hat|There is consensus to remove LaylaCares's EC flag. ] (]) 17:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Legacypac}} 11:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
===Request concerning LaylaCares=== | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|930310}}<p>{{ds/log|930310}} | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Vice regent}} 08:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|LaylaCares}}<p>{{ds/log|LaylaCares}}</p> | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] : | |||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> | |||
# Voting Keep on an effort to consolidate, arguing that it is easier to compare info on separate pages | |||
# Voting against Misplaced Pages policy on RS and for the GRG being exclusive "verified" source. | |||
# "the anti-supercentenarian crew AfD-nominated.." (us vs them mentality) | |||
# "Updated article due to repeated destruction of article by ]" | |||
# Updated article due to repeated destruction of article by Commanderlinx | |||
# Undid revision 692532327 by CommanderLinx (talk)Undid vandalism | |||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Margaret_Ann_Neve&diff=prev&oldid=692526144 (Undid revision 692422449 by CommanderLinx (talk)Undoing destruction) | |||
# (Undid revision 692337985 by Legacypac (talk)Destructive edit undone) | |||
# This is the most ridiculous crap I have ever heard. (on an SPI) | |||
# It's more like some POV-Pushers have been more actively caballing and canvassing to scare off neutral, third-party input. This particular comment by you, EEng, reflects a long-standing pattern of edit-warring and battle-grounding on this subject. 930310 (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
# starts ANi thread against a "group" of editors and gets no sympathy. Says "I propose that a topic ban regarding longevity related articles is given to both of them since they are obviously only out to destruct articles about longevity and show clear disrespect for the deceased by saying things such as the ones mentioned above." | |||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | |||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> | |||
# Explanation | |||
# Explanation | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> | |||
*Participated in the ArbComm case relevant here | |||
*Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on on talk page in Aug 2015 | |||
*Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on . | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : Editor is a long term, single purpose account only editing in the Longevity area. They disrespect other upstanding editors as seen in the diffs and edit summaries. They tried to have 2 to 5 editors topic banned at once in ANi and the idea of boomarang was raised. The off Wiki canvassing and spas continue to be a major problem in this topic, but at least we can use these discretionary sanctions to topic ban POV pushing editors like this one that pretty consistently argue against Misplaced Pages policy. Regularly specifically names and agrees with recently topic banned editor Ollie231213 and engages in the the same abuse toward policy. Thank-you for your consideration of this report. 11:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> | |||
; Response to Alansohn's allegations: As an editor that enjoys cleanup (including Neelix, pageants, and recently longevity) and editing ] (also a DS area), I've attracted more then my fair share of attacks at ANi, 3RR and even a failed effort to brand in SPi by POV pushers and edit warriors. I don't maintain a tombstone list, and am not always successful in XfD, 3RR reports etc but there have been thousands of deletes/redirect effected based on my nominations. I continue to edit with a clean record while people that see me as an opponent end up blocked, topic banned, etc. I've also never been interested in off wiki coordination. Perhaps a case against Alansohn should be prepared next for he also engages in the same agenda pushing behavior as Ollie and 930310 ] (]) 20:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
'''Canvassing''': One editor below was sent here to comment by a recently Longevity topic banned editor while another is discussing this case with the same topic banned editor in evident violation of that editor's topic ban. ] (]) 00:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
'''Canvassing''': I was "sent" here, as ] states, only because I requested to be informed. Attempting to build a case against the user in question for canvassing under these circumstances seems to be a misrepresentation of the actual events. Of course, misrepresentation seems to be the norm in this case.] (]) 01:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
===Discussion concerning 930310=== | |||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by 930310==== | |||
*'''Statement 1''' Hardly surprising that this user goes on an attack towards me as well. There are so many instances of you having done this because of users you don't like so I won't even bother with making any comments to protect myself towards this nonsense. I have been a user on Misplaced Pages for almost ten years, and if people check my history I did not register or was a SPA back then, which I am not now either. So how can I be nominated for being such? I post or edit where I feel like and currently longevity related articles are my main interest. Is there anything wrong with having interests? ] (]) 12:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Statement 2''' Regarding some of the examples used as evidence against me: | |||
:1. Disagreeing with another user is certainly not against Wikipeda policy, and in fact, if we look at a number of LegacyPac's ], he is receiving widespread opposition. | |||
:2. It's actually LegacyPac who is violating Misplaced Pages policy by not paying any attention to WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:VALID, and WP:WP:BESTSOURCES. To quote from the latter: "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements." It's quite clear from looking at other reliable sources that the GRG is considered an authority on the subject. Arguing that Misplaced Pages should reflect this is ABSOLUTELY NOT a violation of policy. Read ], it explains the situation perfectly. | |||
:3. Actually, loads of other users have openly admitted that this is a "them Vs us" situation. See ]. | |||
:4. All I did there was improve an article. | |||
:5. Ditto. | |||
:6. I apologize for this. One shouldn't call policy-based edits "vandalism". | |||
:7. Ditto. | |||
:8. In this instance my actions were justified since LegacyPac removed sourced information because he disagreed with what was written in the source. A clear violation of WP:OriginalResearch. | |||
:9. I could have been more tactful here. The argument for suggesting I was a sockpuppet was however very weak. | |||
:10. The anti-GRG editors (as mentioned above) have made a clear and concerted effort to "prune" longevity articles (see ), and in a number of cases, they have received widespread opposition from uninvolved editors (], ], ], ], ], and ]. | |||
:11. A number of uninvolved editors have expressed frustration at the actions of the anti-longevity editors. | |||
: ] (]) 13:42, 25 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
*'''Comment''' Being a SPA, which I do not consider myself to be, is not against Wiki-policy. The reason as to why I am editing longevity-related articles is because I am interested in them. I have explained clearly why I believe that I am acting in line with policy. What specifically have I done that is in violation of policy? ] (]) 19:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by EEng==== | |||
The user's contribution history practically defines "SPA". . Not visible via those links is fact that his/her userpage and sandbox were for years two of the many ]/] longevity lists that have finally purged: ] ]. ] (]) 13:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
It's worth remembering this Arbcom finding from February 2011: | |||
:]: ''] is urged to seek experienced Misplaced Pages editors who will act as mentors to the project and assist members in improving their editing and their understanding of Misplaced Pages policies and community norms.'' | |||
That didn't happen, which is why the mess continues. SPAs' lack of experience in the wider project continues to plague discussions. ] (]) 02:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Alansohn==== | |||
These allegations regarding 930310 -- together with the more disturbing result above regarding ] -- are clear examples of what comes off as a rather clear tag team mentality by both ] and ]. The instances cited here of "edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it" are examples of Orwellian thought crimes. Just take the first two examples: | |||
* | |||
* | |||
Both of these are examples of situations where 930310 challenged one of the mass of repeated AfD nominations by EEng / Legacypac, cited relevant Misplaced Pages policy and now have this used as "evidence" against them. I can't even figure out how either of these can be viewed as violations of policy under even the most strained view of Longevity-related policy violations. These are quintessentially appropriate votes in each case. | |||
The repeated SPA allegations from EEng appear to be intended as a provocation, in the same manner as what was done to Ollie231213. | |||
Any objection to boomerang nominations for EEng and Legacypac? ] (]) 19:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
@JzG - In describing this as "a clear case of SPA vs. Misplaced Pages" you have prejudged the matter without justification. The diffs offered are run-of-the-mill examples of rather ordinary back and forth discussions, at worst. In no example is any of the required policy violation offered, nor is any consideration given to the rather belligerent harassment and provocation by both EEng and Legacypac. If you're proposing a topic ban of any length, offer the community some specific example of what the basis is for this use of administrative authority. On the contrary, a look at the for ] shows the tag team of EEng and Legacypac with 42 of the 97 edits -- more than 43% of all edits to the AfD -- where edits by EEng and Legacypac include: | |||
* | |||
* | |||
And this is just a taste of what's to come. The problem here is the tag team. A permanent topic ban on LegacyPac and EEng will solve 99% of the battleground mentality, baiting and provocations taking place at Longevity-related articles. ] (]) 21:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by 7&6=thirteen==== | |||
I concur entirely with ] and his reasoning. Eeng and Legacypac have incessantly waged a war of attrition on longevity-related articles. It is the ] of the day. And Legacypac at least got nasty when others try to derail their express train. So much so that even Eeng told him to cool his jets. Topic banning ought to be last resort. I for one have basically avoided the topic, not for lack of interest, as I am afraid of affronting ], as we have "discretionary sanctions" with little or no warning or guidance as to what is expected. You can shut off all dissent. Or if you are applying sanctions you should do it even-handedly, whatever standard it is that you are applying <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 17:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by JaconaFrere==== | |||
] has been on a tear at AfD, belittling other editors who vote keep on any longevity or pageant articles while removing other editors fairly passive statements as personal attacks, and accusing experienced editors such as ] single-purpose editors because they opposed their position on an afd. A boomerang for ] is in my opinion long overdue. ] (]) 02:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by David in DC==== | |||
930310 offers ] for the proposition that there's something wrong with efforts to prune the longevity walled garden. But the thread proves something quite different. I started the thread on the WOP wikiproject page in an effort to get the logjam resolved by cooperation and consensus. Please review the thread carefully. The chirping of crickets after my initial posting and subsequent plea for dialogue is telling. ] (]) 19:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Ricky81682==== | |||
One has to ignore the greater dispute here and focus on the actual editors involved. I don't particularly find Legacypac and EEng's prods and AFD campaign entirely perfect but I think the overall consensus following each one of their listings is at least some level of support for their policies. I suggest someone filing separate AE requests on them if they find it prudent. As to 930310, we tend to disagree, but I think his/her conduct here is sufficient for a limited topic ban to see if the editor can work outside of this area at the moment. 930310's , note that the SPI was originally titled ] and only later moved when 930310 was found unrelated to the other editors, a proposal that I supported. While not perfectly civil, the comment would be something I would expect from anyone tagged with an SPI report basically naming everyone who voted keep on a single AFD discussion. 930310's comment at ] was in part a procedural speedy keep based on the month-prior closure of the same AFD. That isn't necessarily objectionable to me, as I can imagine a number of other editors with the same mindset just based on the timing of the AFDs. However, the (which admittedly names me as well) is about the same issues that permeate this entire AE request, namely the proposals to prod and take pages repeatedly to AFD. The fact that 930310 is so emotionally tied to these articles that listing their biographies for deletion (or ''discussing'' the concept) is considered "disrespectful" makes it difficult if not impossible to have any objective discussions about them. I suspect we'll have more AE disputes as the topic ban discussions can go here rather than at ANI which is probably a bit better. -- ] (]) 23:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{ping|Alansohn}} I don't think AE works for boomerang nominations as JzG notes below. If you want to propose sanctions requests against the nominator and others, new sections should be started. -- ] (]) 01:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
===Result concerning 930310=== | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
* This is a clear case of SPA vs. Misplaced Pages. Regardless of any issues with the filing party (which should be addressed via a separate request if people feel so strongly about it), the involvement of SPAs has been highlighted as a specific issue with the walled garden of articles around longevity. A topic ban for 930310 is entirely in line with policy and the arbitration finding. I propose a TB with appeal allowed after 3 months if 930310 makes significant contributions outside of the contended topic area. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Agree with ] that there should be a topic ban of ] from longevity. A reading of does not inspire confidence in 930310's judgment, when he speaks of 'ganging up' by opponents of keeping these articles. Evidence was presented in the thread that members of the '110 Club' were solicited off-wiki to participate in the recent series of AfDs of longevity-related articles, though without any claim that 930310 was personally part of that canvassing. It is unquestionable that articles in the longevity area must adhere to the same content standards as expected in all other parts of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 03:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
*I agree with Ricky, and thus with Guy and EdJohnston. I do think that EEng and Legacypac aren't very good at reaching across the aisle, but as acerbic as they come across sometimes, it is clear that they are here for the betterment of our beautiful project and not to ride their own hobby-horse all over the place. ] (]) 01:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
==HughD== | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
===Request concerning HughD=== | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Springee}} 01:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|HughD}}<p>{{ds/log|HughD}} | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | ||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] |
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | ||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | ||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> | <!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> | ||
# EC gaming | |||
# HughD was told on December 11th by {U:Ricky81682} that the ] topic was part of his topic ban. For violating that ban his Tea Party, broadly construed topic ban was expanded to all US conservative politics 2009 and later. The ] guidelines state that a topic ban covers "a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic." Asking for an RfC that HughD created on the page that resulted in his expanded topic block looks like discussing the banned topic. | |||
# Citizens United vs FEC is a topic that falls within conservative politics. The article makes mention of conservative groups on a number of occasions including the group "Citizens United". The case was brought before the USSC in 2009 and decided in 2010. Thus the date of the case is within the topic ban. The subject is conservative politics. | |||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | |||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> | |||
# HughD topic-banned from "any articles involving the Tea Party movement broadly, including but not limited to anything at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers, for one year." | |||
# After AE request, HughD warned that "further violations of the TBAN will likely result in a block (even if just minor)." | |||
# HughD blocked for one week "following editing on Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity." An appeal of this block was declined at AE . | |||
# HughD informed that the TBAN was expanded to all US conservative politics 2009 and later, broadly construed. | |||
# ] admin Ricky81682 regarding limits and justification of TBAN. | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | ||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> | |||
*Editor's sanctions were expanded less than 2 weeks back. | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | ||
Pretty obvious case of EC gaming. Account created on Nov 17, 2024, then about 500 mostly minor edits followed by the first substantial edit ever was the creation of on Dec 17 (subsequently moved to draftspace).''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 08:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | ||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> | |||
] | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | ||
===Discussion concerning HughD=== | |||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by HughD==== | |||
Thank you to my good colleagues Guy and Ed for your comments. Of course I would welcome an opportunity to apologize for and strike ''any'' edit which a consensus of my colleagues agree is a topic ban violation. | |||
===Discussion concerning LaylaCares=== | |||
*"Regarding the first diff: he is asking for someone to close an RfC about watchdog.org that he himself opened." I started an RfC at ] 8 December, before the topic ban expansion, but I did not request a close. Prior to the RfC, ''three threads of preliminary talk page discussion'' were started by colleagues informally collaborating on improving the coverage and neutrality of article ], threads representing successive refinement of the content eventually proposed by the RfC. On 7 December, ''prior'' to the RfC, involved editor Paid Editor 009o9 ]. As per ], "''Many informal discussions do not need closing''." Significantly, Paid Editor 009o9 failed to notify of the request for closure at article talk. 20 December I noticed the unusual request for closure among the backlog at ], and {{diff2|696112556|commented}} in hopes of an ] patroller archiving the request for closure and helping reducing the backlog. In summary, the record is clear that I did ''not'' request a closure of an RfC (and neither did Paid Editor 009o9). <s>I see the request for closure is still there at ], sigh, so my effort was in vain.</s> I apologize to the community I did not anticipate my good faith attempt to help clear a spurious request from our ] backlog might be considered a topic ban violation. I would be more than happy to strike my comment there, particularly if someone would be so kind as to come behind me and click archive the ill-advised request for closure. Thank you. ] (]) 00:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
::{{diff2|697184267|29 December}} the pointed, disruptive request for close was archived without action with a comment "per Hugh's comment above these weren't RFC's. There appears to be no reason to apply closes." ] (]) 17:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by LaylaCares==== | |||
* I understand well ] is in scope, but I did not edit it; not so obvious to me is that a US Supreme Court case, ] is in scope, and even less obvious to me is that a ] issue with an abbreviation in an article title is in scope. I did not edit ] article space; {{diff2|696529678|I weighed in to an ongoing article talk discussion regarding an issue of style in favor of expanding the abbreviation in the title of the article from FCC to Federal Communications Commission for the benefit of our readers}}. I believe in good faith that this comment is specifically authorized by the bullet 4 of ], which empowers conscientious topic banned editors to continue to contribute to our project, including to those ''parts'' of articles which are not within scope. The style issue of whether or not to disambiguate FCC in the title of the article cannot be considered by reasonable persons to be directly related to American conservative politics. If a consensus of my colleagues agree I am mistaken, I will gladly apologize to the community and strike through. Thank you. ] (]) 00:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Aquillion==== | |||
Thank you to my good colleague Fyddlestix for their prodigious accounting below, it means a lot to me, thank you for your time. At this time I would add just one diff: {{diff2|686290411|an administrator of our project asking the complainant to cease his harassment 18 October 2015}}; my preference would be a separate filing focused on complainant's harassment. Thanks again. ] (]) 06:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
Question: Assuming it's determined that they gamed the extended-confirmed restriction, would the page they created be ]-able? I've asked the relevant question in more detail ], since it is likely to come up again as long as we have such a broad restriction on effect, but I figured it was worth mentioning the issue here as well. --] (]) 14:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===Statement by Dan Murphy=== | |||
Again, I am grateful for an opportunity to apologize and would be more than happy to strike any comment that I made in good faith that a consensus of uninvolved administrators believe I should. May I respectfully suggest that requesting unarchiving of an archived thread at ] for the purposes of striking a good faith helpful non-disruptive comment may not be the best use of our volunteer time. Respectfully request clarification from uninvolved administrators regarding how our project's policy ] specifically bullet 4 does ''not'' apply to a good faith non-disruptive talk page comment on the style issue of the usefulness to our readers of an acronym in the title of an article, as I seem to have a misunderstanding of ] bullet 4. Thank you. ] (]) 14:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
Please look at ], written by the account under discussion. It's a hit job, originally placed in mainspace by this account. Anyone who wrote that shouldn't be allowed with 1 million miles of the topic.] (]) 23:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by |
====Statement by starship.paint==== | ||
I've edited Draft:Hamas–UNRWA relations, so Dan Murphy's link is inaccurate for the purposes of this discussion. For the version of Draft:Hamas–UNRWA relations with content only written by LaylaCares, . '''] (] / ])''' 10:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
There's no love lost between me and HughD, but I fail to see anything actionable in the diffs provided. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 01:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Ricky81682==== | |||
While the request to close the RFC on a violating page is a violation to me, I'll agree with {{u|EdJohnston}} that striking the comment is sufficient. Citizens United is one of the key decisions that relate to Tea party politics and to conservative politics 2009 onward, so I agree that it's also a significant violation and hopefully striking the comment will be sufficient too. As to point 5 under the previous sanctions, those types of antics are typical for HughD in response to sanctions and while annoying personally and while I would just prefer HughD bringing his/her concerns here, the refusal to do so is not a violation of any sanctions. Absent that, I think more aggressive blocks are necessary. HughD did not discuss or specifically dispute the sanctions directly and instead badgered me enacting them without a direct request that they be re-considered. This kind of ] behavior has not lessened as time as passed. -- ] (]) 22:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
'''{{u|Fyddlestix}}''' I agree that Springee's actions are sub-optimal to put it mildly. HughD at least seems to be trying to calm that down by making a fair request that Springee's comments on HughD's talk page will not be responded (which is his right) and Springee seems more intent on antagonizing him. I was just alerted to possible canvassing concerns by Springee by ] who has in the past been against Springee's conduct and say pro-the side of HughD (not directly in favor but you get my point). The problem is being used by either side to get the other side banned for political reasons (or let's say to allow for or to stop editing that would either improve or worsen how these articles look if one was a partisan actor, not that anyone is). It's pure ] antics all around. -- ] (]) 08:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
'''{{u|Springee}}''' As I stated on my talk page, and does not help this ARE discussion. I'd suggest you immediately stop anything further about it and drop it. As to anything further, a separate AE request could be made about Springee but that's best for another day. -- ] (]) 08:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
'''{{u|William M. Connolley}}''' That conduct is standard behavior for HughD whenever he is engaged in an RFC, namely removal and reorganization of the comments of others, and repeated responses with passive-aggressive statements hounding some, thanking others and requesting that they depersonalize or deescalate or whatever the situation. I was first involved with HughD and enacted the first sanctions due to his conduct and chaos at two ''dual simultaneous'' RFCs at ] for the same request which involved not just one ] but ]. The same issues persist since August. -- ] (]) 06:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Springee==== | |||
HughD has clearly been testing limits for a while. On Dec 22nd-23rd this editor violated the 3RR rule ]. HughD is particularly bad about engaging in topic page discussions vs acting on the article page. I have had a number of disagreements with HughD. They boil down to both a bludgeoning attitude and a refusal to engage on the talk page and gain consensus vs just acting. Even when he is posting on the talk page his comments are often not meant to discuss. Since I'm far from an uninvolved editor my views should be seen as such. I would suggest Ricky's POV be given a lot of weight in this discussion. HughD is an editor who will certainly push the rules again and badger admins again if he is unhappy with rulings against him. ] (]) 04:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
'''Reply to Fyddlestix''': Please note that since the unsuccessful ANI was brought against me regarding HughD I have largely not interacted with him on any work. The only direct editorial interactions I've had are related to his attempt to improperly include a Mother Jones article into a large number of WP articles ("The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change" which HughD has inserted into about a dozen articles") which dates to before the failed ANI in question. Hence you are seeing a large number of interacting WP pages though they are all related to a single topic. Looking thought my edit history since October (ie about the last two months) I see only three editorial interactions for all of November and all were related HughD attempting to reinsert a MJ reference against the limited consensus of a NPOVN and RSN discussion in three of the previous articles ,,. All edits done without talk page discussions on HughD's part. The talk page interactions here are again related to the attempted insertion of the same MJ article. You will find the same thing with the December interactions. My posts on his talk page recently (other than the two notices which are required) was short and simply asked him to self revert a 4RR posting. If there were a large number of interactions on new subjects I would agree with Fyddlestix views (I think Fyddlestix is a very level headed editor) however, in this case the interactions have been limited to a single, previous topic which HughD has inserted into many WP articles. ] (]) 08:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Fyddlestix==== | |||
I've been watching these two users interact for a while, and am getting increasingly uncomfortable with the extent to which Springee seems to be out to get HughD. | |||
Springee has reported HughD to various noticeboards multiple times and has himself been previously reported at ANI for hounding HughD . There's also the issue of Springee having followed HughD to a large number of pages very often to either revert or tag one of HughD's edits within a few hours of it being made. There would be even more examples there if I were to include talk pages, such as review of one of Hugh's GA's, which I can't fathom how Springee would have come across other than by stalking HughD's contributions. Note also that HughD recently banned Springee from his talk page , and that Springee has since made three posts to Hugh's talk (2 of these were a notice of Springee creating a noticeboard report against HughD). | |||
I have no comment on Hugh's recent edits/actions (I've tried pretty hard to tune the squabbling of these two users out), but it's clear to me at this point that Springee is just not going to be satisfied until they succeed in getting HughD blocked. Personally I believe an IBAN is way past due here, but that's up to the admins - I'm posting now just to make sure that commenting admins are aware of the long-running animosity between these two users, as I believe it's relevant context here. ] (]) 05:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Arthur Rubin==== | |||
This is not the first (or, second, or, third) time Hugh has pushed the edge of his topic ban(s). If he had struck the comments among his first actions after (or, preferably, ''before'') commenting here, I would recommend against further enforcement action on this complaint, in spite of the fact that I feel his edits are harmful to Misplaced Pages's neutrality. However, he only ''offered'' to strike; he hasn't yet done so. — ] ] 09:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by William M. Connolley ==== | |||
I don't have an opinion on this request, but I draw any interested admin's attention to recent edits at ; here seems as good a place as any ] (]) 19:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
I also offer as an example of HD's bad faith, and how difficult he is to get on with ] (]) 22:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy ==== | |||
Having noticed HughD's combative attitude at Talk:ExxonMobil, on I added a query on that page, whether edits of those sort would be barred by a TBan on conservative US politics? I didn't name Hugh, but of course I was trying to inspire a collaborative approach. Regrettably, the comment Hugh left two days later on WMC's page (which william linked above) shows Hugh being unwilling play nice in the area of climate disinformation/denial, of which abundant RSs link to conservative side of contemporary US politics. ] (]) 00:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::PS I just realized the HughD is the good article reviewer for ]; Meanwhile, looking at just the lead at ], we find three instances of the word "conservative", associating climate denial/skepticism with conservative politics. seems like this editor is still finding ways to violate the Tban on conservative politics. ] (]) 00:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by (username)==== | ====Statement by (username)==== | ||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
HUGHD HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG. As stated below, he's been open minded about his topic ban. Frankly, everyone else here should be banned from ExxonMobil. William Connolley has too much of a climate change denial bias to effectively edit the topic. | |||
===Result concerning HughD=== | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
* | |||
*Both of the edits listed above appear to be violations of HughD's topic ban. Terms of the ban are stated . "''...that ban has been redefined and expanded to cover everything related to conservative US politics from 2009 to the present, broadly construed until August 28, 2016..''"The widening of the ban was enacted by ] on 11 December. | |||
:*Regarding the first diff: he is about watchdog.org that . It was technically OK for him to open the RfC on 8 December, but after 11 December he should be keeping hands off the RfC per the terms of his ban. | |||
:*Regarding the second diff: ] is included in {{cat|New Right organizations (United States)}} so it is related to conservative US politics. The court case discussed was decided in 2010 so this is covered by ''conservative US politics from 2009 to the present.'' HughD's point about Bluebook citations might be OK if made elsewhere, so long as it were not . | |||
*I recommend that HughD offer to cure his ban violation by striking out both of the comments named in this request. ] (]) 17:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
*This editor seems receptive to guidance as to whether the two subject edits violated the topic-ban. I believe they did, but in view of his comments, I believe that pointing this out and cautioning against a recurrence is a sufficient response. I don't think the editor should be required to strike out the two comments, though; I understand that that would be a gesture of compliance with the topic-ban, but the net result would be to call more, not less, attention to the comments that shouldn't have been made and that I trust won't be made again. ] (]) 00:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
:*Calling HughD 'receptive to guidance' would be an optimistic conclusion given the debates he has engaged in at ]. Nonetheless HughD has suggesting that he won't continue. <s>So I'd be OK with closing this with a warning to HughD to make no more edits like the two diffs cited at top of this complaint. ] (]) 04:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)</s> Revising my opinion: I see no move by ] to strike out either of his ban-violating comments. So I'd favor going ahead with a one-week block for violating his ban from conservative US politics since 2009. ] (]) 03:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
==Kachelus== | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
===Request concerning Kachelus=== | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Ricky81682}} 19:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Kachelus}}<p>{{ds/log|Kachelus}} | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] : | |||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> | |||
This editor is a long-term ] who's involvement at Misplaced Pages since September 2009 is (almost all) editing longevity articles. Discretionary sanctions are warranted against accounts that have a "clear shared agenda" such as those who consistently edit articles, and vote in AfDs to favor the position of the ], as opposed to the goals of Misplaced Pages. This is that type of editor. | |||
# and : Example of the typical editing by Kachelus which is of typical hyper-technical listcruft for the WOP tables, revising location of an alleged supercentenarian with no source provided (one being a edit summary to a random obscure with zero evidence for its credibility). | |||
# Restoration of the nonsense that claims are "unverified" when they are classified as "unverified" under the GRG as opposed to when they are unverified as meant under ]. . | |||
# Reverting at Australian page to again assert GRG's "verified" status as opposed to what Misplaced Pages cares about. | |||
# In an AFD, demands that "'''First''' create a list on wikipedia with '''all verified''' dead supercentenarians in a sortable table, sortable to gender, to year of death, to place of death, and then all the other lists could be merged or deleted. But not the other way round, because in this way there is danger of losing information in case of being not installed of the big table. So I wait for the big table." showing a complete disassociation for what is useful and productive here. | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> | |||
* Editor has been editing in this area for many years and while there is almost no talk page comments, at that time had the ARBCOM notice on the talk page. | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
{{u|Kachelus}} As was suggested with respect to 930310 above, if you have any concerns about Legacypac, please propose a section here that explicitly explains the issues. It did no good in the section above and it will do no good here either. As to Ollie231213, I don't need to rehash the fact that a number of outside admins with no involvement in this area that agreed and supported the topic ban. If the same happens here, so be it. As to your editing, first, the issue is that the GRG has those categories and yet Misplaced Pages discussion after discussion among people who work on the ''entire'' encyclopedia and not the supercentenarian hobbyists have found the GRG unverified claims as not reliable sources. There have been numerous RFCs and debates on this policy with clear-cut support against the vast minority viewpoint that the GRG needs to be separately distinguished in any way. If you don't agree with that, fine but those views are considered disruptive and counter-productive here. It is not your opinions per se but the fact that your opinions reflect a complete disregard for the fundamentals behind Misplaced Pages's sourcing policy here with such things as before even considering deleting anything here that are problematic. -- ] (]) 06:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
===Discussion concerning Kachelus=== | |||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by Kachelus==== | |||
Ok firstly sorry I have to say you are wrong, {{userlinks|Ricky81682}}. In English wikipedia my main itenerary is longevity, yes, in other Wikipedias it is amateur soccer, politics, history and geography, but these are things you didn't know. So long-term ] is only partly true, because this topic is only dealt in English wikipedia. Over the years I tried to get the several lists in this topic to a similar content and show the correct historic names of regions about 110 years ago if they were not already written in these lists. In Misplaced Pages is not only GRG a source, several other media also reported supercentenarians I showed. Unfortunately GRG did not prove them, but that is not my fault when wikipedia lists made differences between ''verified'', ''pending'' and ''unverified'' cases — it was not me who introduced that. I just want to keep information on wikipedia before people wish to remove them for reasons we cannot really understand. Over the years no one concerned about that, just now, I don't know why. But now I understand your wish to ban everyone who is not on your opinion (e.g. Ollie231213) and I think that is not what Misplaced Pages stands for. Legacypac nominates for AfD, and you wish to ban editors who have the opposite opinion (keeping), sorry that is not the way I want to waste my free-time for arguing against, I am not paid for that. Do, what you wish to do and be lucky with that. I wish you a very Happy New Year!--] (]) 23:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by (username)==== | |||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | ||
===Result concerning |
===Result concerning LaylaCares=== | ||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | ||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | ||
*I agree that this looks like EC-gaming. Absent evidence that the edits themselves were problematic, I would either TBAN from ARBPIA or pull the EC flag until the user has made 500 edits that aren't rapidfire possibly LLM-assisted gnomish edits. ] (]) 17:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* | |||
*I agree on the gaming piece and would suggest mainspace edits+time for restoration of EC. I will throw out 3 months + 500 (substantive) main space edits. ] (]) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* does indeed appear to go against the usual Misplaced Pages content standards so I can see an argument that his continued participation on longevity articles is not a net benefit to Misplaced Pages: "''..these lists were generated by many users in lots of months, even years. Is it your wish to destroy their work?''" (See ]). If there was an entire group of defenders of a set of articles willing to deploy this kind of argument in deletion discussions, you can see that it might have a bad effect. ] (]) 04:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
*I agree with Barkeep but I'd up it to 4 months. I don't believe that a TBAN is necessary at this point. ] (]/]) 04:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*@]: I agree that the draft should be G5'd, but will wait for consensus to develop here. ] (]/]) 01:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:I don't think the wording of ] allows for deletion of a page that was created by an EC user. <small>(ECR also seems to forget that anything other than articles and talkpages exists, but I think the most reasonable reading of provision A still allows for G5ing drafts at admins' discretion if the criteria are met.)</small> That said, a consensus at AE can delete a page as a "reasonable measure that necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project". Deleting under that provision is not something to be done lightly, but I think for a case where a page's existence violates the spirit of an ArbCom restriction but not the letter, it'd be a fair time to do it. And/or this could make for a good ARCA question, probably after PIA5 wraps. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 03:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*I would just pull EC and require the editor to apply via AE appeal for its restoration. They should be very clearly aware that receiving such restoration will require both substantial time and making ''real'', substantive edits outside the area, as well as an understanding of what is expected of editors working in a CTOP area. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*I see a clear consensus here to remove the EC flag. For clarity, when I proposed a TBAN above it was because removing this flag ''is'' an ARBPIA TBAN as long as the ECR remedy remains in place; it's simply a question of whether the editor get the other privileges of EC or not. I don't see a consensus on what to do with the draft, but given that other editors have now made substantive contributions to it, I don't believe it's a good use of AE time to discuss the hypothetical further. ] (]) 17:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
{{hab}} | |||
== |
==AstroGuy0== | ||
{{hat|{{u|AstroGuy0}} has been issued a warning for source misrepresentation by {{u|Voorts}}. No other reviewers have expressed any wish for further action. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) }} | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
===Request concerning |
===Request concerning AstroGuy0=== | ||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks| |
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}} 03:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks| |
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|AstroGuy0}}<p>{{ds/log|AstroGuy0}}</p> | ||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] : | |||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> | |||
# Removal of long standing MEDRSsourced (review) material. | |||
# Placed primary source on a medical claim. | |||
# Reverts back in stray letter and leaves it in. | |||
# Reverts to remove long standing MEDRS sourced material and reinsert primary source. | |||
# Places edit warring template for single reverts in 24 hours. | |||
# Reverts to remove long standing MEDRS sourced material again. | |||
# Removal of long standing MEDRS sourced material again | |||
# Leaves another edit warring message on my talk page for one revert in 24 hours. | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> | |||
*Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on | |||
*Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on by {{admin|Spartaz}}. Removed | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
Mystery wolf is a disruptive SPA. Over their editing history, only 1 edit is not on the topic of e-cigarettes. The insertion of primary sources was discussed here. Mystery Wolff did not have consensus to insert the material. {{u|Kingsindian}} even offered to help Mystery Wolff gain consensus. He also is removing long standing material from the page that is sourced to a MERDS source, a review. I have tried to discuss this.. Rather than discuss Mystery Wolff reverted again today. The claim can be found in the source here Page 5 in the middle column starting with "Recent studies have demonstrated that nicotine from electronic cigarettes also deposits on indoor surfaces" and going into the next column. The removal of sourced material without consensus is disruptive. | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
====Responses==== | |||
{{u|Kingsindian}}, I dont think you did anything wrong, in fact I applaud you for trying to help. The sad thing is, he didnt listen or take you up on your offer to help. Instead he just kept being disruptive. ] 07:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
{{U|Mystery Wolff}} here are the facts. | |||
:# You are trying to remove long standing material. The material was recently moved over from ] when ] was made a true daughter page per consensus the entire Aerosol section was moved over and then eliquid was merged in. The removed line was added in March 2015 to Safety. | |||
:# The source is listed as a review by Pubmed. Go here, click on Publication Types and see for yourself. | |||
:# There may be a controversy between the sources. But what you cant do is remove one source, a review which is a secondary source, and replace it with a primary one. Per MW's own words, my bold, "AlbinoFerret reverted the follow-up <b>study</b>" it is a primary source. | |||
If you disagree with a policy or guideline, you cant ignore it. You cant just edit contrary to it. PAG (policies and guidelines) have broad community consensus. You can try and have them changed, but you cant ignore them. I also think that you are trying to bring ] to the articles. ] 13:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
===Discussion concerning Mystery Wolff=== | |||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by Mystery Wolff==== | |||
* New editors have the right to be treated with respect and civility. AlbinoFerret asserts in this AE that I am disruptive SPA, labeling me a such as if it is a fact. The first time I interacted with AlbinoFerret when he and S Marshall where telling me to not interact with QuackGuru because he would topic banned, in relationship to an ARB on S Marshall. The next day SMcCandlish requested to Lankiveil that the Alert be posted on my Talk page, and L235 did the follow-through. All 4 of these editors involved with the historical context of the previous ARBs and AEs on Electronic Cigarettes. My edits were not being questioned as much as the discussion pages, talking about edits before edits were done. | |||
* AlbinoFerret then posted in defense of S Marshalls edits on my TALK page and said the ECIG article was being edited as it should. He then threatened to bring me to here to the AE panel and report me as disruptive SPA. SPA is defined as a negative term, especially as used. He said I was in violation of the ARB. | |||
* Amoungst other things taking up the suggestion of EdJohnston, I pinged the ARB and asked the article be put into full protection because after the topic ban of QuackGuru a blizzard of edits were being put in, and on the ones I objected to, I was told by S Marshall he would simply move on. I made the point one editor puts in 10 edits every day, any other editor objecting to the change by BRD would be FORCED into an edit war. | |||
* After that suggestion of FP of the article, AlbinoFerret made good on his assertion, and created an AE on me. Not for my edits, but rather for what I was saying in TALK, and for requesting FP. | |||
* As usual for wrongly accused, I represented myself, did not understand the AE process, drew ire for TLDR, and worked through the process. All the while editing the articles and having my edits in the articles reviewed and the majority unchallenged. My edits are helpful, and useful. | |||
* AblinoFerret when he created the AE on me went out to most of the editors and notified them on their TALK pages. I thought that was simply a way to drive home his point of calling me disruptive SPA. | |||
* The much of the linage and timeline of the above can be view on my own TALK page. | |||
---------- | |||
After the outcome AlbinoFerret went to immediately threaten another AE against me, on Spartaz TALK page. Sparta took no involvement in that at all. A sockpuppet came out of cloak reverted me, the same sock was active during my previous AE critical of me, DeltaQuad banned them and reverted their REVERT of my edit that AlbinoFerret was complaining about. https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Spartaz#Do_I_need_to_open_a_new_AE_section.3F | |||
Regarding this case now, I took the step of Edit Warring Warning AlbinoFerret here: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:AlbinoFerret AlbinoFerret did not accept the warning as valid. Threaten an AE, INSTEAD OF ANY OTHER DISPUTE RESOLUTION<br /> | |||
----------- | |||
I believe this AE request by AF to be an abuse of process, predicated on wanting to control the pages in question, and edit with editors that share the ideas on what the pages should be. I believe the goal is to remove me from editorship, and to reinvigorate S Marshal to do editing with him again. I wonder out loud why AF is involved with all these ARBs and AEs, and the premise is the entire problem with the articles is being attributed to QuackGuru. <br /> | |||
This AE is entirely premised on an ongoing TALK discussion of the edits I warned AF about. '''I have now been accused of being a liar, in relationship to those edits. I am not.''' Putting this to AE is completely inappropriate and skips all the steps. AF follow through with his threat of AE, but its is not the right thing, it skips all the normal DS steps, and makes this AE an arbitrator of content discussion, that are in process. NOTHING in this AE is even a claim against the Discretionary Sanctions, its simply that the AF thinks my edits are wrong. <br /> | |||
--------------------- | |||
# Its a good edit I stand behind. There is no explanation of how this violates the ARB. The AE requires that to be explained. | |||
# Its a good edit I stand behind. There is no explanation of how this violates the ARB. Primary is not a code word for can not be used, per WP guidelines. The AE requires the violation to be explained. | |||
# This is part of a two part revert for a single item, where a stray character prevented. How does this violate the DS? | |||
# I am undoing here AlbinoFerret that REVERTED 5 of my edits. Each had an explanation when put in 4 days earlier. I warned AlbinoFerret for edit waring. How is this a violation of the DS. I am using the proper process. | |||
# I place a warning for edit warring on the above 5 edits. HOW is this a violation of the ARB? I AM TRYING TO RESOLVE A CONTENT DISPUTE. This is really frustration to see this as an AE item. Its not a violation, its me trying to deal with an editor who owns the page. | |||
# This is not really a revert. Its me deleting a sentence for the reasons I describe. I stand behind the edit....and I am in process of doing that within the ARTICLEs TALK. This is not a violation of the AE. Nor is a reason explained why it is. | |||
# This item is me Reverting AlbinoFerret who had reverted me. Please note I did not take it to an edit war. I also said to take the discussion to TALK. This is being listed as a violation of the ARB. It is not. Its a goodfaith effort to resolve the item. | |||
# This is not another edit warring warning, its the same one. I stand behind what I was saying. HOW is this a violation of the ARB. I just had 7 items reverted by AlbinoFerret and I am trying to resolve it....per WP processes. | |||
Next AF refers to the previous AE. | |||
Additional section remarks: I am not a disruptive SPA. When he says I have only edited 1 other article, that number is wrong. AF is asserting I need to have approval to put in any content, that is NOT true. I agree my edits need to be done properly in all respects. I am saying the sourced cite does not make the claims as written into Misplaced Pages, and I stand behind that and it needs to be resolved in TALK and not inserted into the AE option of AF's first resort. I have NOT edit warred, and I am working the processes to resolve it before I get sucked in. Removal of a sentence that I am asserting is not sourced correctly....and then taking it to TALK....his last line in his comments....IS NOT "disruptive" it is an editor simply trying to improve the article. Geeez. I have to show this edit was important enough now in the TALK page, an step where I have been accused of being a liar in that TALK page. So I have an interest in presenting why I did that the edit. But that should be in TALK and not this AE. | |||
Lastly: I took Kingsindian up on his offer to put the questions of MEDRS being only and always from Primary....to find a forum or board to take that too. I am having a dialogue with him on the TALK page. I expect both of us are not doing this full time or anything. So when AlbinoFerret says I did not listen, that its sad, and uses my interaction with another editor to make his claim here, its insult to injury. | |||
----------------- | |||
TLDR: Consider the negative effects that come from this AE board being misused by AlbinoFerret. Consider how much an editor like me has to jump through hoops to just edits these pages. Please understand that I want to edit the pages I am editing, but I have not intention of doing that improperly or violation the rules. Being Bold should not be gamed by myself or others. It is not helpful to threaten the AE on people. If all other DS methods fail then sure take it to AE. The case in point never made it out of the TALK pages. Why are sockpuppets and editors who are unrelated to the articles coming in and reverting my edits????? Why is AlbinoFerret telling me about boomerangs when I keep my stance in the TALK pages.<br /> | |||
The talk discussion has not even finished to the set of edits. If I don't get satisfaction after that I was going to take Kingsindian up on next steps. If my edits get sustained, then other editors can escalated it in Dispute Resolution. Why are we doing this now? This is really a harsh atmosphere for editing and you can see the reduction of editors because of the threats of AE on editors. I HAVE NOT LIED, OR CREATED FAIRY TALES as has been asserted by William M. Connolley https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=prev&oldid=698000777 If this is to be an AE, there should be something being asserted that is violation of sanctions, look at the 8 lines by AlbinoFerret, is there even one that explains to the AE the violations? A line from the movie CLERKS.....I am not even supposed to be working today! ] (]) 14:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::{{ping|Kingsindian}} I have responded in detail on the TALK here: . In a nutshell to the sentence, it is undue weight, premised upon an Opinion article published talking only to the Debate, and public policy. See abstract here When I say its OR by the cite, this is why. It is not a review. There is a larger question on MEDRS and application in WP that I may ask for help on creating a proper venue for a discussion, that will be after I see how this all goes. MEDRS is being used as some sort of stamp of approval of content, however its not. Its a protocol for inclusion in articles, it is not a mandate that information be put into articles. In this case the Opinion article formed new conclusions, by combining outdated sources, and conflating two different scientific topics in its presentation. Specifically it took information on SMOKE, and combined it with VAPOR, as if combustible cigarette smoke is a perfect corollary to vapor products. Its OR is within the sentence that starts with THUS. | |||
:::Again cite is an opinion piece speaking to the public policy. The WP sentence is premised in significant part on this sentence. '''"Recent studies have demonstrated that nicotine from electronic cigarettes also deposits on indoor surfaces79 and is absorbed by non-users.80,81"''' AlbinoFerret reverted the follow-up study of source 79, the followup refutes the original. The follow-up is reviewed by the FDA. Sources 80 and 81 both speak exclusively airborne, which is called 2nd Hand, and NOT 3rd hand, which is the topic here. The article itself is on public policy. | |||
:::I am using the premise of properly using sources to avoid junk science from injecting itself into WP....and that is the entire basis of MEDRS. Having hours of work reverted by an editor, who drops in, and then out, seemingly for end-arounding of 3RR, and then calling me a liar, is not fun. We can have a debate about nurture vs nature, and subject matter expertise vs WP editing chops in a different forum than an AE, and that would be a good discussion to have. 3rd hand exposure is surfaces, the sentence removed is talking about inhalation...its a strong clue to why the sentence should be removed, I just did the work to confirm it. The argument of AlbinoFerret amounts to, it was included once, it must be right, and that would mean that no WP article could ever be improved. ] (]) 07:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
{{ping|AlbinoFerret}} Yes I did remove the sentence because of its source, its undue weight, and when I did that, I replaced an in-vitro study, with the followup study that was done with as a controlled study, looking at no source, compared sources 1 and 2. You reverted that citation. Instead of joining your edit war, I warned you, and will bring it back when I have the link for the FDA review of it. A Sockpuppet got banned because of their reverts of me, and now another editor has reverted me, who is calling me a liar. I have not created an AE, I spoke to them on their TALK page. The follow-up to the in-vitro study which I want included, refutes the very same author's own in-vitro study and it was presented at a FDA conference, as review. I am confident it is a proper cite.<br /> | |||
You are confused to what items are secondary and which are primary, and which are primary quotes listed in articles published as "controversy and debate" The cite in question is not a review. It lists out its purpose as : '''"A Neglected Element in the Electronic Cigarette Debate."'''"This paper synthesizes relevant literature regarding biological properties of nicotine and its effects during development, and presents potential measures for consideration to protect the health of these vulnerable populations." It specifically quotes that in vitro testing and applies that to a different subject of Smoking, than draws a new conclusion. It even claims that nicotine is a carcinogen by itself, which is fully discredited by multiple sources.<br /> | |||
I am trying to bring WP:Truth to the article....that page says "This page in a nutshell: Any material added to Misplaced Pages must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source." I am doing just that, I have verified through reliable sources. I have examined the reliable sources. The only disruption is that of proper editing to something that you seem to want to retain, on pages you seemingly are talking ownership of. But my changes are simply the nature of editing, and nothing more.<br /> | |||
Lets talk about this AE, and not the content of the TALK page, and attempting to litigate it here. This all boils down to you threatening to bring me to an AE multiple times, for edits done properly, and in middle of discussion on a TALK page. Where at least two other editor agree with my edit, in this case, specifically. I believe this is an abuse of the AE system. You have not raised anything other than an ongoing TALK page discussion. <br /> | |||
I believe you are talking edits to this page personally and I wish you would not do so. I know you have recently created an AE on CFCF. I just have to say that this AE is no proper, it does not present cognizable violations of the DS. I was not party to the ARB in question, but an editor who was, did place that Alert on my page. With which I asked that the ALERT be put on the Talk pages. I am obliging myself to talk discussion on my edits. I don't own the page, and neither do you. This rush to AE should stop. Will you? Everything in this AE is basically just a duplicate of the TALK page, except editors are more familiar with the subject matter there. ] (]) 23:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::*{{Ping|Cullen328}} Our only interaction was your explanations after I raised concerns to EdJohnston here. Before I could reply, it appears you posted below. You use the pejorative calling my defense of self wikilawyering, which WP says "Some Wikipedians allege that the charge of wikilawyering is used, particularly by Wikipedians more influential than them, to avoid giving careful attention to their claims." I would concur. I do not believe that you have read the edits that are being questioned by this AE. Because you first found this on EdJohnston's TALK, I would guess you have not looked at the ongoing active discussion on the page in question. Several editors support the edits of this AE, more than don't want them. I am trying to talk to the point of the edits, why I made the edits, and I am also here trying to explain why I should not be banned. AlbinoFerret has threatened me with boomerangs, and he has recently done it with other editors in the AE.....and I guess he has a point....if my defending of the edits being called out are the context entirely of why you think I should be topic banned. But what else can I do but explain my actions and raise up that EdJohnston is involved, was involved, and his rush to go for sanctions on me, is over the top. Perhaps if I was savvy I would have said nothing, and this would have been closed with no action. But I have no intention of becoming an expert in AE defense. I replied to you on EdJohnston's TALK perhaps you should not read that now. I really do not understand the basis of my edits in question which makes you support such punitive actions, can you explain those edits or items in the talk pages of the articles, or is it just simply my wikilawyering (as you call it), in my response here at AE, or my raising concerns to EdJohnston? Thanks, please let me know. ] (]) 10:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
*{{ping|Thryduulf}} this entire AE is concerning an active discussion going on here: and here . What in the edits listed above and my responses are in violation of this AE? | |||
* :I realize an encyclopedia is a large animal, but that does not mean that I should just open a page of the book and edit it. I am editing a topic to which I have some reasonable amount of knowledge on. Misplaced Pages should not de-evolve into a mob rules mentality. The assertions in AlbinoFerret's first AE on me were rejected ultimately, I am not a sockpuppet. I have many edits that are and were well taken, and remain. The page in question of this very AE is one page that I created, that I agreed to having merged with another. That are not actions of not working the process and using consensus. I placed an edit in GMO, it was accepted and then further improved. | |||
* :Another editor who stopped editing is being urged to come back to these articles by AlbinoFerret after the last AE by AlbinoFerret ended without satisfaction. He urges him to hold on until the new year https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:S_Marshall#Mystery_Wolff Then I get this AE created against me for an ongoing normal discussion on editing. Its all highly short circuited. | |||
* :If not for EdJohnston, perhaps the first outcome would have been a warning to me. Instead of going after a 6 month ban. Perhaps I am defending myself, with the in-artful skills, but I do think I am not being fairly treated. | |||
* :Where does the 6 months as a first warning even come from. I read the ARB, the first warning is supposed to be 30 days. It this rush to judgement, terms like indefinite ban are being push around. How is this? | |||
* :Why not let the twin discussions finish out, before rendering a conclusion. | |||
* :If you look at the exact topic in question you have 3 editors in favor of the edit questioned here, and one editor analyzing the situation, and AlbinoFerret on the other side, and who has started this AE. This is a short circuit of process, and an quick determination when one does not need to be done. The topics in question are complicated, I have asked {{ping|Doc James}} who is an editor of these pages, to take a look. (Though he is clearly busy with other items) Let the process work on the TALK pages, content creation is not part of AE. Yes there is a dispute, but it is orderly and well intended by myself. The two other editors who favor the change, perhaps could be queried also. Thanks. ] (]) 14:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
'''I feel this is very important to note here and now.''' Please review my edits in Electronic Cigarettes Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Electronic_cigarette&action=history I am the last editor, I am doing non-trivial edits and not being reverted for the most part. The last revert came from a sockpuppet who was banned and no one changed it afterwards. There was one revert by SPACKlick, which I did not edit war on, its something I would come back to if I want address his concerns. The other article in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Electronic_cigarette_aerosol_and_e-liquid&offset=&limit=500&action=history I was reverted twice recently by editors who do not regularly edit these articles, or by my query ever. I did not edit war. The discussion is ongoing. I have asked for a RFC, I have asked Doc James to look at these because AlbinoFerret removed 5 of my edits based on MEDRS. Kingsindian has said the MEDRS check was not valid, however its very complicated, and does need eyes. My edits stand as reverted out, and I am working Talk. I want to note that I see that AlbinoFerret reverted a large section by CFCF, which then had an AE created by AlbinoFerret. I understand this topic of Electronic Cigarettes has been contentious but I am indeed operating inside the lines, and my edits are remaining. I would suggest the historical aspects of why this article is contentious over years, I am not the source. I did edit warring WARN AlbinoFerret which has not been removed....I assume much like the instructions for a formal Edit Warring Noticeboard, that the requester and the subject will both be examined by the AE--IS TRUE? Lastly, the discussion is ongoing, 3 editors want the edit in that the subject of this AE----AlbinoFerret does not----I honestly do not understand why the TALK page discussion is not let to proceed, with now a RFC in the works, and Medical Projects guidance being sought. '''TLDR. Look at my intact edits, and support by other editors for the edit which is the topic of this AE, in the actual pages TALK.''' Thanks ] (]) 00:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
=====Response to EdJohnston===== | |||
AlbinoFerret created an AE on me after I took you up on your suggestion on a one month Full Protection of the article. You also had me explain in the TALK pages if I was a sockpuppet and why I choose to edit. I responded because I believed I needed to. It was from that I created the request to AE to followup on the ARB and put in Full Protection. Only after that did AlbinoFerret create his first AE. At that AE I stated same and explained why you were involved. It was not Spartaz who suggested I be topic banned for 6 months it was you. ( at the very bottom ) That of course created a reaction by me. Perhaps I don't have all the ablities to handle an AE, but it should not be a chinese finger handcuffs either. That AE was about TALK pages, not edits. That AE was saying I was a sockpuppet. That AE was rescinded. Not to say that I did not listen....but to say that its being made out like it was shortened. Again I did take the feedback<br /> | |||
This AE is about an ongoing TALK page item, which has not been resolved. This AE was created by AlbinoFerret after he reverted 5 of my edits and then again, that I had made days previously. It got to the point where I thought I should bring AlbinoFerret to AE, but I decided not to and also not to NoticeBoard 3RR to AlbinoFerret, and instead use the copy and paste warning. AlbinoFerret did not take well to that, and quickly this AE was created, as he promised.<br /> | |||
The edits are still being done on the page, and are middle of resolution in TALK. I want to make clear I did not edit war, and I used the TALK pages to get concensus and agreement. I think I need to say that again. The discussion in TALK is ongoing and I did not edit war, and this has been going on concurrently along with this AE.<br /> | |||
I believe if you look at the content of my edits I am staying at the top three levels ] <br /> | |||
When you say '''"People who are still coming up the learning curve on Misplaced Pages should stay away from troubled areas. Up till now E-cig has been the only area he works in. So I'd make the topic ban from electronic cigarettes indefinite"''' That is over the top. If you believe that, then you can just have AlbinoFerret or whomever else make a topic so contentious that all editors are shunned away. You will see less and less new editors. And POVwarriors will have won. I choose to start with a topic that interests me. The standard I should be held to is the content of my characters, the ones I edit with. I have made many edits in these pages that remain, and are useful. I have been threatened with boomerangs enough to know that I am not throwing them, they are not returning to me.<br /> | |||
As I have said on your talk page, we have interacted, and those items with which we have are in large part what AlbinoFerret is using to ferret me. The discussion should be resolved on the TALK pages before the AE was started. The AE should not be the first resource. And involved Admins give the appearance of bias. <br /> | |||
EdJohnston, in relationship to me, I think you are biased and involved. And your rush to ban me at first in the first AE, for 6 months really feels like thumb on the scale. By me saying that, I am sure you can find many who will support you, but that is again you, and not the content of what is being done here. I concede any popularlity contests. I lose. But for a fair process and for Misplaced Pages to work, we need to focus on the edits and the conduct in TALK. If people want to toss terms out like SPA at a drop of hat, they can, but it should not be a code word for admins to run with.<br /> | |||
What I am asking: Let the dispute be resolved in the TALK page. There is an ongoing discussion which relates to MEDRS, Primary, whether all article parts belong in MEDRS, and sorting out confusion on MEDRS. Already Kingsindian has pointed out to AlbinoFerrett places where MEDRS is not the measure. Its ongoing. And 2ndly I would like you to not have you being pushing the way the AE. I believe you are involved, and I said so at the rescinded AE, what you are concerned with I would have not done if you had not actually asked me to respond, and then I did not take your suggestions and try to have them done by the ARB itself.<br /> | |||
6 month ban as my your first answer you had and suggested to others....I am just asking you step back from this one. Let perceived uninvolveed admins look at the merits. I responded to each of the 8 items, and AlbinoFerret has not explained how they are a violation of the DS, beyond he he wants my edits gone. The actual TALK pages is working this. | |||
Thanks ] (]) 11:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Kingsindian==== | |||
My involvement in this issue is simply to try to help out a new editor with WP bureaucracy. A serious charge of source misrepresentation has been made against MW. I have no knowledge about the topic, so I will simply wait for MW to respond specifically to this point. ] ] ] 22:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
: {{re|Mystery Wolff}} I simply want to hear from you the reason for the edit summary in this . You said that the source didn't support the sentence, while it seems to me virtually a copy paste from there. Could you explain? ] ] ] 16:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:: My own viewpoint is that MW is acting in good faith, but their actions are disruptive. "Source is engaging in OR" makes no sense in Misplaced Pages's definition of OR. What MW seems to be saying is that the source made a tentative comment, regarding risks, not directly having to do with e-cigarettes, which the article includes too uncritically. That is indeed a valid point of view, which a couple of people on the talk page also seem to find reasonable. I have no comment on the AE request in general, but would recommend that MW stop editing this section altogether, till consensus is found. I promise to work with them to draft a RfC for this. There is no need to hurry, there is no deadline. ] ] ] 13:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::: {{re|EdJohnston|Thryduulf}} I have no comment on the decision, but I'm just letting you know that MW stated on the their talkpage (in discussions following the last ban/reversal) that they are not generally interested in contributing to other topics currently. Make of that what you will. ] ] ] 16:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Cullen328==== | |||
:#I agree completely with {{U|EdJohnston}} here. After spending some time reading this editor's wikilawyering, I think it would be wise that they spend six months actively editing in areas that have nothing whatsoever to do with e-cigarettes, smoking cessation, nicotine addiction, tobacco and smoking, broadly construed. If they contribute constructively to dispute resolution in ''entirely unrelated'' areas of the encyclopedia, and come back with an explanation of how they have learned that their past approach was counterproductive, then I will suppport lifting any topic ban. Note: To the best of my recollection, I have had no interaction with this editor. ] ] 07:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by (username)==== | |||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
===Result concerning Mystery Wolff=== | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
* | |||
*It seems to me that ] had the right idea when he from the area of electronic cigarettes, on 12/19/15. The ban was later lifted. Mystery Wolff first came to my attention through his . But today we are reviewing a complaint about his edits in the E-cig area. From the diffs presented here, he is unable to pursue proper negotiation with other editors on a contentious topic like electronic cigarettes. He edits aggressively, but lacks experience. People who are still coming up the learning curve on Misplaced Pages should stay away from troubled areas. Up till now E-cig has been the only area he works in. So I'd make the topic ban from electronic cigarettes indefinite, but with the right of appeal in six months. ] (]) 21:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
*I agree that we need to place a topic ban from e-cigs here. Mystery Wolff, you seem unable to edit in this area in a collaborative manner, even after much advice, several warnings and very nearly having a topic ban imposed previously. Contentious topics make extremely poor learning spaces for editors who are unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages's culture and expectations, and if you don't learn how to engage with other editors in a constructive and collegiate manner then you will end up being blocked. A topic ban is a way to try and avoid this - we ''want'' you to become a good editor, but that is not going to happen if you continue to edit the e-cigs area before learning the ins and outs of Misplaced Pages. There are literally hundreds of thousands of completely unrelated other topics this encyclopaedia covers, so pick one or more of them and spend some time editing them and in six months or so you can appeal the topic ban with evidence that you can edit collaboratively and constructively. With any luck, the e-cigs area will be less contentious by then in any case. ] (]) 12:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
==Athenean== | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
===Request concerning Athenean=== | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Mondiad}} 20:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Athenean}}<p>{{ds/log|Athenean}} | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | ||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] |
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | ||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | ||
(Even though this isn't the usual R&I fare, I consider the intersection of "Race/ethnicity and sex offending", to come under "the intersection of '''race/ethnicity''' and human abilities '''and behaviour'''") | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> | <!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> | ||
# Asserts that "A majority of the perpetrators were Pakistani men" despite the cited source (freely accessible at ) does not mention the word "Pakistani" or any variant once. | |||
# Called a scholars’ work '''garbage''', while voting on a certain issue. The scholar in question, Kristaq Prifti, is a reliable source, and is the head of the ]. The edit is in breach of ] and ]. He actually called him the same for a second time ] --] (]) 21:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC) And here ( January 4, 2015) he calls the work of Kristaq Prifti for a third time '''garbage''' in this very WP:AE response.--] (]) 01:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
# |
# Describes the sex offender ring as "Pakistani" in the opening sentence when the cited source in the body says that they were only "mainly Pakistani" | ||
# Told Resnjari that this was an edit conflict, called Resnjari '''paranoid''', and said that Resnjari's comments were '''rants''', after Resnjari had reacted and reverted such action . Athenean's edit is in breach of ], ], and ]. | |||
#. Called a contributor an '''idiot''', and his actions '''idiocy''' twice, during an SPI investigation, questioning her sexuality, background, and ethnicity. Again in breach of ], ], and ]. | |||
The above are some examples as to how this user several times doesn’t show respect for neither the sources used in wiki, nor for wiki users. Athenean is active in the Balkans-related topics, and I think he needs some cooling off from the Balkans area for some time and reflect about his behavior. He has been a wikipedian for a long time and may know that a cool head is way more productive. He is in clear breach of ], ]. His battleground behavior puts him in breach of ]. Some sanctioning may be useful in decreasing the harassment that other users are feeling because of Athenean's recent activity in wiki. | |||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | ; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | ||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
Athenean is not new to feuds with Albanian editors. The above two warnings/bans were a reflection of similar activities that Athenean had committed in a delicate area such as the Balkans. Even though a long time has passed from these bans, it seems like Athenean is back to his older self, where his activity in wiki led to the bans. | |||
: Made aware of contentious topics criterion: | |||
# Both Athenean and ZjarriRrethues were admonished and warned; and the interaction between the two was banned. | |||
# Both Athenean and ZjarriRrethues were subject to an interaction ban and cautioned. | |||
# | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> | |||
# by {{admin|Stifle}} | |||
# by {{admin|The Wordsmith}} | |||
# by {{admin|Timotheus Canens}} . | |||
# by {{admin|HJ Mitchell}} | |||
#Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> | <!-- Add any further comment here --> | ||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | ||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> | |||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> | |||
*User was notified. .--] (]) 20:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | ||
Additional comments by editor filing complaint: | |||
===Discussion concerning Athenean=== | |||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by Athenean==== | |||
This is a rather desperate and frivolous attempt by Mondiad to have me banned simply because he doesn't like me. He deliberately misconstrues and exaggerates for effect. | |||
* The first diff refers to the work , by one Kristaq Prifti. I have never heard of this person, but the work itself is typical nationalist historiography in the service of nation-building, which I frankly consider garbage. As you can imagine, there is no shortage of such works in the Balkans, and I have very little time for this kind of stuff. However, this is not a personal attack against any wikipedia contributor, nor was it intended to be. Mondiad either does not understand what a ] is, or else is deliberately pretending not to. | |||
* The second diff was a result of an edit conflict. I certainly did not mean to remove Resnjari's comments, it just happened as a result of the edit conflict. I was annoyed at the assumption of bad faith by Resnjari, who thought I was deliberately trying to remove his comments. However, that was just a misunderstanding that ended there. That someone would try to use this against me is laughable, and a sign of just how desperate Mondiad is to have me sanctioned. | |||
* Regarding the third diff, I am referring to this comment by {{userlinks|MorenaReka}}, whom I am certain is the latest sock of {{userlinks|Sulmues}}, a prolific sockpuppeteer that has done tremendous damage to the encyclopedia over the years. Quite frankly, I find the statement "being hysterical is a disease, and affect especially women" extremely sexist and idiotic, as well as suspicious. And socks of users in bad standing (which MorenaReka almost certainly is - I have dealt with dozens of Sulmues socks) are not entitled to the same courtesy as regular contributors. | |||
This new user seems intent on POVPUSHING regarding "Asian/Muslim grooming gangs" and making contentious claims that are not backed up by sources. ] (]) 03:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
I am a very experienced contributor in Balkan articles, with thousands of edits and several GAs under my belt. This is a very difficult area to edit in, plagued by nationalist ]s, trolls, sockpuppets, and the like. As you can imagine, discussions do get heated some times, but in general I do me best to keep a cool head. None of the above diffs are what Mondiad claims them to be. I have a pretty clean record, (spotless as of the last 4-5 years, in fact). This is in contrast to Mondiad, who is quite rude and incivil himself ( ) and was recently blocked for edit-warring . To sum up, this is a frivolous request and an attempt ] by someone who opposes me. The fact that Mondiad went digging as far back as 2010 is indicative of the desperation level of this request. If anything, Mondiad should be admonished for filing a frivolous request and attempting to game the system. ] (]) 20:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
=== |
===Discussion concerning AstroGuy0=== | ||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
===Result concerning Athenean=== | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
* | |||
*Except for use of some bad language by ] in diffs #1-#4, I don't see a reason for enforcement action. One of the topics of disagreement is a on whether ] should be moved to ] (the singular). It is likely that the encyclopedia will still survive, whether we retain this as a singular term or a plural term. The only issue of AE relevance seems to be the possible expression of nationalist sentiments in the move discussion itself. Perhaps an admin could leave a warning in the move discussion telling people to watch their language. ] (]) 21:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
*I agree with EdJohnston. ] (]) 03:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
==SageRad== | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
===Request concerning SageRad=== | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Only in death}} 23:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|SageRad}}<p>{{ds/log|SageRad}} | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] : | |||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> | |||
# Links to an offwiki website on another (who is also under restrictions) editors userpage and refers them to the usersubmitted comments on the articles by a "SageThinker" that are clearly AgroChemical related. (Comments may not show on all browsers - works on chrome and firefox) Broadly construed this is a violation of their own topic ban, but on top of that this also puts at risk the other editor by engaging them in what could be a potentially dangerous area for them. | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> | |||
*Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above. | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> | |||
SageRad is under restriction from GMO's and Agricultural chemicals. The above is an obvious link to AgroChemicals, however this seems to be either too narrow a ban, or one that is ineffective given SageRads POV-based editing. Comments like on a critic of (anti-industry/bad science/fringe views) BLP talkpage, are indicative of SageRads agenda on Misplaced Pages. There is also stuff like on Love Canal, adding POV tags alledging a pro-industy bias. Essentially SageRage appears to only be on wikipedia for one purpose, and that purpose is to push an anti-chemical corporation viewpoint. There is a common theme, Monsanto appears on both the Yvette Entremont and Polychlorinated Biphenyl pages. Even if you agree as a large chemical company there is legit material that doesnt infringe on SageRad's topic ban, when it comes to chemicals and pollution..... I am requesting an extension of SageRad's ban to include anything Monsanto related, broadly construed. There is also further reading if needed which can reflect on SageRads insufficient grasp of fringe material etc. I have only looked at the last couple of days, Christmas/New Year being a busy time. Given the above pattern I am sure there is more material available if closer scrutiny is requested. It is however midnight now, and given I have a full-time job, I will likely be unable to respond in detail for about 18 hours. | |||
:Tryp, second link, direct quote: "There is definitely POV pushing by the agrochemical industry. Monsanto and Dow and the whole industry are definitely involved. They have been pushing their line on pages like "Glyphosate" and "Monsanto legal cases" and "2,4-D" and all GMO related pages." SageRad is banned from discussing agricultural chemicals. I am not sure how that does *not* qualify. In the past AE has taken linking to offsite material that you are banned from discussing as a violating of a topic ban. Of course while totally irrelevant and I am sure in no way related to SageRad. makes interesting reading. | |||
:Ah I see the problem. See comments on the articles rather than the articles themselves. They may not show up depending on your browser due to the pagecoding involved. (They dont on my phone for example, but do on Chome) I have edited the above to clarify. | |||
::Just to point out, I did not request a ban from editing, just an extension (which would be allowed under the discretionary sanctions) to their topic ban to all Monsanto-related pages (which would not affect any dispute on paleolithic diets anyway as it is entirely unrelated to GMO's, monsanto or agro-chemicals) RE JzG's comments, while kvetching between editors is one thing, going to a known oppononent of GMO activists biography and announcing its 'biased' while clearly pushing a GMO activist agenda onwiki is another. This is the first step in SageRad's editing pattern. Announce bias, attempt to skew content towards fringe views, argue tenditiously on talkpages against consensus for their preferred version. The aim is to cut this off at the start, not have to repeat the pattern. ] (]) 14:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
So EdJohnston, just to be clear on this, its your opinion that posting external links to material that you could not post on-wiki is not a violation of a topic ban? | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> | |||
Notified | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
===Discussion concerning SageRad=== | |||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by SageRad==== | |||
Wow, when i posted those two articles to DrChrissy's talk page, i was referring to the comments by Jimbo in the one article and by Wikimedia Foundation employees in the other one, about the existence of paid editing in Misplaced Pages and Jimmy Wales vowing to 'not let Misplaced Pages become a PR platform'... those are the comments to which i was referring. I didn't say "look at the comments section" -- i said "Some very good comments" by which i meant the main thrust of the articles that i passed those on. I didn't see those other comments after the articles. I'd like to get back to work now. smh. ] (]) 10:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
{{re|Kingofaces43}} would you please -- I also of the ] article, as well, and it was nothing but a note on meta-level issues about Misplaced Pages editing, mainly the comments by Jimbo on not letting this place get dominated by bias from various sources. It's completely fair to post that kind of thing and has nothing to do with GMOs or agricultural chemicals ''at all'' and i'm getting really tired of the onerous way that people continue to flip me off and bother me. I'm editing in areas other than the topic ban, even though i think the topic ban is a bad result in itself. I'm being honest to my word about it, and i would appreciate it if you could just leave me alone and stay the hell away from me. If you ever see me '''actually''' violate my topic ban, bring it up at that time, ok? ] (]) 19:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Tryptofish==== | |||
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I am just not seeing anything in the two links within the diff provided, that has anything to do with the GMO case or with the existing topic ban. It is simply stuff about paid editing issues on Misplaced Pages, but not about paid editing on behalf of any GMO companies. Any proposals for changing the scope of the topic ban belong at ARCA, not here. --] (]) 00:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:I've looked again based on the filing editor's further pointers. I don't think it has anything to do with the browser one uses (I'm using Firefox). Again, there is nothing relevant in the actual reports on the pages in the two links, but I can see that the purported issue is about the posted comments at the end, from readers. There are comments from someone with a screen name that is not SageRad, who may or may not be SageRad, and the comments do relate to topics under the topic ban. Even if we speculate that SageRad did make those comments, I think that it takes a huge leap to consider linking to the stories to be a violation of anything. The edits here at Misplaced Pages do not point to the comments at the end. There simply is not anything posted on-Wiki that violates anything. I urge that this AE request be closed promptly, with no action. --] (]) 00:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::I feel like I cannot log in without seeing yet more vexation coming out of the GMO case. I agree entirely with what Looie has said, and I am disappointed in what Kingofaces and Capeo are saying. My advice to everyone, on both "sides" of this mess, is to drop the stick and move on. We should be here to edit an encyclopedia, not to try to play gotcha with one another. --] (]) 20:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by AlbinoFerret==== | |||
I echo Tryptofish's words that this the links on DrChrissy's talk page do not even come close to a topic ban violation. There is no mention of GMO's or the companies that produce them. ] 00:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
Per Looie496's comment below, I think a ] is appropriate for filing this as a way to remove an editor they disagree with on other articles. ] 14:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by David Tornheim==== | |||
I agree with the above two editors (AlbinoFerret and Tryptofish) that there is nothing in the two diffs related to GMO's and the topic ban and that this case should be dismissed. --] (]) 01:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Capeo==== | |||
I see what's being pointed out but I'm not sure how stuff like this is normally handled. Sage linked to two articles and specifically said check out the comments, which are clearly Sage's comments, which if said on-wiki would definitely be a TB violation. ] (]) 02:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:Actually the more I think about it, it doesn't matter who made the comments, particularly given there is only one comment on the second link. If linking to a webpage that conflicts with one's TB is considered breaking it then I would think linking to a page and saying "look at this comment" would too. Either way it's a pointy bit of gaming. ] (]) 04:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Kingofaces43==== | |||
Tryptofish mentioned browser issues; you may not be able to view the comments without turning off adblockers, java-script blocking software, etc. This looks like a very direct violation of the topic ban now that I looked for myself. SageRad specifically told DrChrissy and others to look at the comments of two articles. The doesn't have problems in terms of SageRad's topic ban per se, but has only one comment by SageThinker: | |||
:"There is definitely POV pushing by the agrochemical industry. Monsanto and Dow and the whole industry are definitely involved. They have been pushing their line on pages like "Glyphosate" and "Monsanto legal cases" and "2,4-D" and all GMO related pages." | |||
Considering SageRad specifically linked to this second article and told people to look at the comments section where the only comment is about GMOs, etc. this is a direct violation of the topic ban. | |||
That violation comes without getting into that the commenter in both links named SageThinker is very likely SageRad based on comment patterns, etc. I'm not sure how/if off-wiki activities being linked here should be evaluated in this context, but we already have on-wiki evidence of the topic ban violation. ] (]) 03:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:SageRad has claimed above, "I didn't see those other comments after the articles." after the comments such as the one I quoted had been deleted from the article. Seems like an attempt to try to hide the involvement with a statement like that. I find the attempt of veiled misrepresentation of editors with those actions problematic, though I'm also not sure if anything really can be done since the off-wiki comments have been deleted. I would ask though that admins at least give a formal warning at this point given the documented involvement in GMOs with those comments and now the attempt to play it off like it never happened. Seeing this and some of the same hypberbole in ] that resulted in the GMO topic ban does seem to show they need to be formally told to knock it off at least. ] (]) 19:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
==== Comment by JzG ==== | |||
Kvetching between users, on their talk pages. This is IMO not actually specific to the topics under restriction, it's just a generic ''argumentum ad conspiratorium''. Misplaced Pages is a vast conspiracy Man against The Truth™ - and if we want to ban everybody who makes these silly claims then we'd have no editors left. We already know that some of the GMO partisans assert that all pro-science editors are funded by the GMO industry, just as homeopathy fans assert that the reality-based community are funded by Big Pharma and climate change deniers assert that we're in the vice-like grip of climate scientists feathering their nests on the endless bounty of the IPCC. It's bollocks, but it ain't going to change. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
==== Comment by Looie496 ==== | |||
I don't like this request at all. The filing party has never edited in the GMO domain as far as I know. Instead they have been in a dispute with SageRad regarding the ] article -- which has nothing to do with the topic ban -- and are searching for weapons to use against SageRad. I suggest dismissing this request and warning the filing party not to abuse the enforcement process. ] (]) 13:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
==== Comment by uninvolved Kingsindian ==== | |||
This is the kind of request which makes me wonder what on Earth is the purpose of this board. How has this resulted in any disruption? Why should one care that one editor is talking about something with another editor, neither of whom can edit in the area? ] ] ] 20:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
===Result concerning SageRad=== | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
* | |||
*Agree with the post above by ] that there is no need for AE enforcement here. The complaint is about the posting of two links by SageRad, and it's not persuasive. The links don't go anywhere troublesome. ] (]) 20:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
==Jytdog== | |||
{{hat|1=] blocked for 1 week by ] for a vexatious request in violation of an interaction ban. ] (]) 14:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)}} | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
===Request concerning Jytdog=== | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|DrChrissy}} 19:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Jytdog}}<p>{{ds/log|Jytdog}} | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] " specifically, the 2-way interaction ban between Jytdog and myself. | |||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
# Jytdog was given a 2-way interaction ban with myself. ] states that editors with an interaction ban should not "make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Misplaced Pages, directly or indirectly" The diff shows that Jytdog has posted a link about the final ArbCom decision on his User page which reports sanctions against me - thereby Jytdog has made a direct reference to me. | |||
# Jytdog has also commented on his User page regarding the Arbcom decision, "...and an interaction ban was imposed with another user." This is an indirect reference to me. | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> | |||
Jytdog has a long history of being uncivil towards me and received a warning about his behaviour here. | |||
Admins below do not seem to understand my motivation for filing this. Imagine if you have had a finding against you. Nobody is proud of that - whatsoever. Why then is it considered acceptable that someone posts reference to that finding against you, when that person themselves is not allowed to make a reference to you. I don't really understand Jytdog's motivation to post about his loss of privileges, but, if he wanted to do this he could easily have edited out those findings relating to me and thereby avoiding any possibility of violating the interaction ban. But he chose to include references to me, and the motivation for this surely must be questioned. In my eyes, it is Jytdog who refuses to drop the stick and get on with editing without his clever gaming of the system to taunt and goad me. A 2-way interaction ban is supposed to protect each of the participants, not to end up with suggestions of a week long ban simply for asking a question about an Arbcom finding.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 20:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:*@Tryptofish - apologies if I have misrepresented something. Perhaps you can tell me which facts I have got wrong.<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy</span> <sup><span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]</span></sup> 20:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
===Discussion concerning Jytdog=== | |||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by Jytdog==== | |||
====Statement by |
====Statement by AstroGuy0==== | ||
I thank Floq for pinging me and for what he said, and his description is accurate. I guess that for the sake of completeness, I should point out that I left a message at Jytdog's talk yesterday, cautioning him that he has been getting close to the edge of his own restrictions. However, I do not believe that he has crossed the edge, and he has replied very clearly that he understands my advice. On the other hand, I have indeed tried everything that I can think of, to help DrChrissy, but I cannot save editors from themselves. I think that the three administrators who have commented here are reading the situation correctly, and I think that a boomerang block is sadly necessary. --] (]) 20:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:{{Ping|DrChrissy}} I request that you retract that last sentence, in which you refer to me, and in which you get several facts wrong. I can understand that you feel angry here, but lashing out at me only makes things worse. --] (]) 20:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::I am not at issue here, and therefore I am not going to engage in a discussion of details that are irrelevant. I retracted the sentence myself. --] (]) 20:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::And now, it's edit-warred back. --] (]) 20:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by |
====Statement by Iskandar323==== | ||
This rather dated "Asian/Muslim grooming gangs" malarkey from the UK has recently been pushed on social media by a certain US tech billionaire and is now recirculating in right-wing social media and the blogosphere, partly in connection with UK politics, so this trend could flare before it dims. ] (]) 03:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
This is not the first time DrChrissy has tried to abuse Misplaced Pages processes to remove opponents. I fully support a boomerang block for this obviously vexatious complaint. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by (username)==== | ====Statement by (username)==== | ||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | ||
===Result concerning |
===Result concerning AstroGuy0=== | ||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | ||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | ||
*<!-- | |||
* | |||
--> | |||
*This complaint doesn't make any sense. ] is only linking to the Arbcom case under which he himself is restricted. He is putting a notice about his Arbcom restrictions on ], which is super-correct. His only reference to you in any way is "..an interaction ban was imposed with another user." In my opinion this request should be closed with no action. ] (]) 19:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:The second diff was before AG0 received a CTOP alert. I've alerted AG0 to other CTOPs that they've edited in, and I am going to warn them for their conduct in diff #1 without prejudice to other admins determining that further action is warranted. ] (]/]) 04:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*Linking to the ArbCom case on his user page, and listing the sanctions against him, is not a violation of the topic ban, and I'm particularly disappointed that this really quite ridiculous AE request has been filed by the same person who keeps getting "one more chance" breaks when they violate their own topic and interaction bans. I'm inclined to block DrChrissy for a week for continuous refusal (or, inability?) to drop the stick. My initial sympathy for DrChrissy, who has contributed some good content over the years in non-GMO areas, has now officially been used up. Several editors, including valiant efforts by ] (who I believe practically begged DrChrissy not to file this on DrChrissy's talk page on January 2nd), have not been successful. Next step is blocks of quickly increasing length. I don't see any other way to stop this. Any objection to such a block by uninvolved admins? --] (]) 19:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:I also looked at the source, and it indeed does not in any way support the claim made; it does not mention "Pakistani" even once. This is a fairly new editor, but I think we need to make it very clear to them that misrepresentation of sources is not something we will tolerate. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:*I've blocked DrChrissy for 1 week. Note that in addition to filing a clearly vexatious request, DrChrissy is questioning the motives of Jytdog in this very filing, which is a violation of their i-ban. Filing an AE request is not a get out of jail free card to restart a feud in a protected space. Finally, I'll note that Tryptofish's removal of the sentence in DrChrissy's statement might be a touch out of process, but I have no problem with it. --] (]) 20:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::Given that AstroGuy0 has already been issued a warning, I don't think anything further is necessary, and will close as such unless any uninvolved admin shortly objects. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*(edit conflict with Floquenbeam) I agree with EdJohnston that this complaint is without merit. However, I disagree that this should be closed with no action. Editors under an interaction ban may, of course, submit a request for enforcement should they believe a violation of the ban has occurred (]). However, submitting a report that is so obviously vexatious, so obviously an attempt to carry on the dispute that caused the interaction ban, violates the spirit and purpose of the ban. I was coming here to block DrChrissy for a week for this report and would have done so had EdJohnston not already commented. ] (]) 19:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:*Agree with ] that a one-week block of DrChrissy is appropriate. ] (]) 20:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
{{hab}} | {{hab}} | ||
==Lemabeta== | |||
==Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )== | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | ||
===Request concerning |
===Request concerning Lemabeta=== | ||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks| |
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|EF5}} 20:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Lemabeta}}<p>{{ds/log|Lemabeta}}</p> | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )}}<p>{{ds/log|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )}} | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | <!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | ||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] |
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | ||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | ||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> | <!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> | ||
# - Made a draft on a European ethnic group, which they are currently barred from doing. | |||
# Link to wikidata (an entry he created) and through it to Findagrave (an entry he created). The same article ] also contains from the last few days other links to Wikidata entries he created, most of them with similar links to Findagrave entries he created. E.g. links to , | |||
# - Started a page on a Georgian ethnologist. | |||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | |||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> | |||
# 2 week block for violation of same sanction | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | ;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | ||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> | <!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> | ||
*Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. | |||
*Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above. | |||
*Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | ||
I likely filed this improperly, but to sum it up they continue to make pages in a scope they were banned from. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 20:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> | |||
:On the bullet point, I’ve never filed an AE report before, and I wasn’t sure if “block” meant T-ban, p-block, etc., so I just picked whichever one made the most sense. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
I alerted Richard Arthur Norton of the potential problems with these edits yesterday on his talk page. He replied, and some further discusion followed. Meanwhile, he continued making the same kind of edits (see diff in evidence above). | |||
:(Not sure if I’m allowed to reply here) I’ve never filed an AE report before, and I wasn’t sure if “block” meant T-ban, p-block, etc., so I just picked whichever one made the most sense. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:: <small>Response to Bishonen. Moved from results section. ] (]/]) 21:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
The original sanction was in part due to problematic links to Findagrave. For the current links, the question is whether Wikidata is an external site or not (if so, it would be an obvious violation of the restriction), and whether avoiding linking directly to Findagrave by linking to self-created Wikidata pages where the (usually) only source is a self-created Findagrave page is enough of a loophole to avoid being a breach of the sanction. To me, these are violations of arguably the letter and certainly the spirit of the sanction, and the discussion shows that he doesn't really care one way or the other and continues anyway, even during the discussion we had. ] (]) 15:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::(RES to Bishonen) That's fair. When starting the AE, it only gave me nine options, none of which seemed to fit right. The third bullet ("Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on DIFF by _____") didn't seem to fit, as the sanction wasn't for verbal conduct. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 22:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | ||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | ||
===Discussion concerning Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )=== | |||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )==== | |||
Another fishing expedition by User:Fram to get me banned. Terrible convoluted logic, and a poor understanding of the transitive property. I am not to link to Findagrave entries, that I create, from Misplaced Pages. I link to Wikidata from Misplaced Pages. Wikidata links to Findagrave. Having me not link to my Findagrave entries was wrongheaded from the start, you are forcing the Misplaced Pages standard of fair-use onto an external website with a different standard of fair use. The terms of use for obituaries from the New York Times and Newspapers.com and Genealogy Bank and Familysearch, from their archives, allows for their non commercial use. Calling it "a loophole" is ]. If the law says to come to a complete stop at a stop-sign, you do it. You don't also come to a complete stop at a yield-sign, if you slow down at a yield sign you haven't found a "loophole", you are obeying the law. --] (]) 15:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
=== |
===Discussion concerning Lemabeta=== | ||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by Lemabeta==== | |||
I have no idea why people are so out to get Richard Norton. He's a net positive to the encyclopedia; a group of shitty edits a decade ago and it's a never ending vendetta. Quite ridiculous... There is no logic to the original sanction, let alone with Vogonesque adherence to it. ] (]) 03:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
Yeah, my bad. Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed" I recognize my mistake. --] (]) 20:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by (username)==== | |||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
===Result concerning Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )=== | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
* | |||
==Scjessey== | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
===Request concerning Scjessey=== | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Mouse001}} 02:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Scjessey}}<p>{{ds/log|Scjessey}} | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: | |||
] on articles related to ] | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> | |||
# Assuming sock/meat of ] without any evidence in edit summary | |||
# Personal attack in edit summary ("SPA") and uncivil comment | |||
# Assumption of bad faith in edit summary (this edit was reverted by another editor for this reason ) | |||
# Personal attack in edit summary | |||
# Personal attack and assumption of bad faith in talk page comment | |||
# Personal attack and assumption of bad faith in edit summary | |||
# Personal attack and assumption of bad faith in talk page comment | |||
# Removing long standing text that is in dispute | |||
# one of his attempts to use the SPA tag without consideration | |||
# Assumption of bad faith in talk page comment | |||
# Improper susp. sockpuppet categorization of my IP | |||
# counterproductive edit summary, assumption of bad faith in talk page comment | |||
# Personal attack and assumption of bad faith in edit summary (related to below diff) | |||
# Personal attack and inadequate reason to revert (related to above diff) | |||
# Personal attack in edit summary and assumption of bad faith in talk page comment | |||
# Deleting warning (#1 in below "Some warnings..." section) and writing assumptions of bad faith and personal attack in edit summary | |||
# Disregarding the warning by ](#2 in below "Some warnings..." section) and personally attacking him | |||
# Deleting warning (#3 in below "Some warnings.." section) and writing assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks and unpleasant language in edit summary | |||
# Evidence of ], he has never edited the page before he removed my content additions | |||
# Evidence of ], he has never edited the page before he removed my content additions | |||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | |||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> | |||
# See result section - an administrator issued him a personal attack warning | |||
# "repeated personal attacks" | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> | |||
# | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
; <font size = "3">Some warnings and such given to the editor regarding his behavior in the above diffs:</font> | |||
# Warning him about personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith | |||
# Warning by UW Dawgs about Scjessey's comment towards me. UW Dawgs cited ], ] and ] | |||
# Warning him on talk page about the recurring ad hominem attacks | |||
# Asking him to refrain from assuming bad faith in edit summary | |||
# Asking him politely to refrain from ad hominem attacks in talk page comment | |||
# Asking him politely to refrain from personal attacks in edit summary | |||
The diffs that I have displayed show repeated ], ], ], ] and other unwanted behavior by the editor. Repeated warnings and requests have been given towards him which he has willfully disregarded. As a newcomer I have been treated very poorly. He seems to continuously refer to me as a "SPA" (this is seen in the diffs above) as part of attempts to discredit me based on attacks to my character. | |||
I have tried to maintain civility by ignoring the attacks and in some cases bringing the editor's behavior to his attention. He has been asked many times to stop the attacks but has consistently shown an unwillingness to take notice of them. I believe that the editor's aggressive editing style on topics related to Hillary Clinton is not constructive and may inhibit his ability to edit in a neutral manner. | |||
--] (]) 02:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:I may have a "single purpose" of editing political articles for the time being. In any case, it is applicable to Misplaced Pages policy the editor should focus more on the content of my edits instead of attacking my character. I must say that this editor has posted several "warnings" on my talk page, most of which I believe were unjustified and driven by the editor's hostility towards me. However I do agree that I have made a few mistakes in my editing (I am new to Misplaced Pages), but I have recognized my mistakes and took the appropriate steps to ensure neutral and encyclopedic additions. Some examples and .--] (]) 03:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::Looking at the page that NorthBySouthBaranof linked, only thirteen of my edits are for those two conservative politicians. So him saying "Their remaining contributions are largely positive edits to biographies of two conservative politicians" is not quite accurate. I am not at fault for every revert war that I took part in and the few revert wars did not always involve inserting apparent negative material. I trying to edit in a policy-based and neutral manner that represents facts and viewpoints fairly and according to their weight.--] (]) 05:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)-- | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
===Discussion concerning Scjessey=== | |||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by Scjessey==== | |||
:Ethnographic groups and cultural heritage are '''related but distinct concepts'''. An ''ethnographic group'' refers to a '''community of people''' defined by shared ancestry, language, traditions, and cultural identity. In contrast, ''cultural heritage'' refers to the *''practices, artifacts, knowledge, and traditions preserved or inherited from the past''. But cultural heritage is indeed a component of ethnographic groups. | |||
====Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof==== | |||
:So i don't believe ethnographic group should be considered as either history of the Caucasus or cultural heritage. ] (]) 20:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Taking a quick look at , fully 83 of them are to article and article talkpages related to Hillary Clinton, and this includes a number of instances of revert-warring negative material into such articles. Their remaining contributions are largely positive edits to biographies of two conservative politicians. When a user's contributions are so clearly politically polarized, it cannot possibly be considered a "personal attack" to describe such an editor as a single-purpose account and raise concerns that they are editing not in an effort to write neutral, dispassionate encyclopedia articles but rather to push a particular partisan POV, to make candidates they support look good and candidates they oppose look bad. ] (]) 03:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
::In my opinion, cultural heritage (both tangible and intangible) '''emerges from''' ethnographic groups but '''does not define the group itself'''. ] (]) 20:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::I think ethnographic groups fall under the category of Ethnography, or even socio-cultural antropology but for sure not cultural heritage. ] (]) 21:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::I understand, i already apologized on my talk page for this accident. I will not repeat this mistake again. ] (]) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by (username)==== | ====Statement by (username)==== | ||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | ||
===Result concerning |
===Result concerning Lemabeta=== | ||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | ||
*It seems to me that Mouse001 is indeed an account with a single purpose, and that that Scjessey's occasionally strong wording does not cross the personal attack boundary. Stating that another editor is an SPA or saying "for fuck's sake" does not constitute incivility. In a different section, an editor commented that the BOOMERANG doesn't apply on AE pages. I am unfamiliar with such a rule, and here is, yet again, a good example of the applicability of that throwing stick: we have here an SPA whose edits appear to have the sole purpose of bringing a living person in discredit by what looks like synthesis and innuendo. ] (]) 02:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
**Right from the top of the page: "If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it." Boomerangs can absolutely fly at AE, and it's certainly happened before. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | ||
*<!-- | |||
* | |||
--> | |||
* I don't see Lemabeta mentioned in the case itself, but they're currently under ] from "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed". ] (] • she/her) 20:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:To be fair, when you click above to add a new enforcement request, the template states:<br><nowiki>;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]</nowiki><br><nowiki><!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---></nowiki> ] (]/]) 20:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*{{tq| Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed"}} @]: what did you think "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage" meant? I think it's pretty obvious that that an article on an ethnic group from the Caucasus and about an ethnologist who writes about that region is covered by your topic ban. ] (]/]) 20:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:Note that I've deleted ] as a clear G5 violation. I think ] is a bit more of a questionable G5. ] (]/]) 20:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:Your definition of "ethnographic group" includes the phrases "shared ancestry" (i.e., history), and "shared ... traditions" and "shared ... cultural identity" (i.e., cultural heritage). Your attempt to exclude "ethnographic group" from either of the two categories in your topic ban is entirely unpersuasive, particularly since your topic ban is to be "broadly construed". ] (]/]) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:@]: this doesn't seem like a mistake to me, but I'm okay with a logged warning here. ] (]/]) 21:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:@]: This is about violating the TBAN. Per my response to leek, I think the issue is with the AE request template, which is a bit unclear. ] (]/]) 22:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:@]: I don't think a block is needed here, but the next violation, definitely. ] (]/]) 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:@]: They were "reviously given ... contentious topic restriction", the topic ban at issue. ] (]/]) 22:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* {{re|Lemabeta}} Not every single thing you could write about an ethnic group would fall under cultural history, but that's not really relevant on the Rachvelians page, where the History section was entirely about their cultural history, even containing the words {{tqq| highlighting their ethnographic and cultural identity}}. There's a reason we use the words "]" on most TBANs, and a reason we encourage people to act like they're TBANned from a broader area than they are. (Consider: Would you feel safe driving under a bridge where clearance is exactly the same height as your vehicle? Or would you need a few inches' gap to feel safe doing it?){{pb}}This does seem like a good-faith misunderstanding, so if you will commit to not making it again in the future, I think this can be closed with a clarification/warning. But that's an important "if". If you want to argue semantics, then the message that sends to admins is that you don't intend to comply with the TBAN, in which case the next step would be a siteblock. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- ]</span><sup class="nowrap">[]]</sup> <small>(])</small> 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*{{u|EF5}}, I don't understand your {{tq|"Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above"}} statement, can you please explain what it refers to? ]? Lemabeta's block log is blank. | |||
:That said, I'm unimpressed by Lemabeta's lawyerly distinctions above, and also by ]. I'll AGF that they ''were'' accidental, but OTOH, they surely ''ought'' to have taken enough care to realize they were violations; compare Voorts' examples. I suggest a block, not sure of what length. A couple of weeks? ] | ] 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC). | |||
::{{u|EF5}}, OK, I see. Blocks and bans are ], and the block log only logs blocks. ] | ] 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC). |
Latest revision as of 03:34, 9 January 2025
"WP:AE" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:AE (disambiguation).Noticeboards | |
---|---|
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
General | |
Articles, content | |
Page handling | |
User conduct | |
Other | |
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards |
Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Important informationShortcuts
Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
PerspicazHistorian
PerspicazHistorian is blocked indefinitely from mainspace. Seraphimblade 03:34, 9 January 2025 (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 PerspicazHistorian
I do not see any positive signs that this editor will ever improve. So far he has only regressed. Nxcrypto Message 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorianStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by PerspicazHistorian
I didn't know about the three-revert-rule before User: Ratnahastin told me about this: User_talk:PerspicazHistorian.
Please grant me one more chance, I will make sure not to edit war.
Statement by LukeEmilyPerspicazHistorian also violated WP:BRD by engaging in an edit war with Ratnahastin who reverted his edits and restored an article to a stable version by admin. Also, I want to assume good faith but it is surprising that PerspicazHistorian claims that he did not know the three revert rule given that he has more than 800 edits.LukeEmily (talk) Statement by Doug WellerI'm involved so just commenting. I don't think this editor is competent. I had to give them a community sanction caste warning as they were making a mess of castes. See this earlier version of their talk page.]https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:PerspicazHistorian&oldid=1262289249] and User:Deb's comment that "It was very unwise of you to keep moving Draft:Satish R. Devane to article space when it has not passed review. As a direct result of your actions, a deletion discussion is taking place, and when this is complete and the article is deleted, you will be prevented from recreating it. Deb (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)" There have also been copyright issues. I strongly support a topic ban. Doug Weller talk 11:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Toddy1This is another editor who appears to have pro-Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and pro-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) views. I dislike those views, but find it rather alarming that Misplaced Pages should seek to censor those views, but not the views of the political opponents. Imagine the outrage if we sought to topic-ban anyone who expressed pro-Republican views, but allowed Democrat-activists to say whatever they liked. A lot of pro-RSS/BJP editors turn out to be sock-puppets, so please can we do a checkuser on this account. And to be even-handed, why not checkuser NXcrypto too. If we want to talk about WP:CIR when editors make mistakes, look at the diff given by NXcrypto for "Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested" - it is the wrong diff. He/she did notify PerspicazHistorian - but the correct diff is . A topic ban from Indian topics would be unhelpful, unless given to both parties. Misplaced Pages is meant to be a mainstream encyclopaedia, and BJP and RSS are mainstream in India. Loading the dice against BJP and RSS editors will turn Misplaced Pages into a fringe encyclopaedia on Indian topics. I can see a good case for restricting PerspicazHistorian to draft articles and talk pages for a month, and suggesting that he/she seeks advice from more experienced editors. Another solution would be a one-revert rule to last six months.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC) Statement by Capitals00I find the comment from Toddy1 to be entirely outrageous. What are you trying to tell by saying " You cannot ask topic ban for both editors without having any evidence of misconduct. Same way, you cannot ask CU on either user only for your own mental relief. It is a high time that you should strike your comment, since you are falsely accusing others that they " Statement by Vanamonde93Toddy1: I, too, am baffled by your comment. We don't ban editors based on their POV; but we do ban editors who fail to follow our PAGs, and we certainly don't make excuses for editors who fail to follow our guidelines based on their POV. You seem to be suggesting we cut PH some slack because of their political position, and I find that deeply inappropriate. Among other things, I don't believe they have publicly stated anywhere that they support the BJP or the RSS, and we cannot make assumptions about them. That said, the fact that this was still open prompted me to spot-check PH's contributions, and I find a lot to be concerned about. This edit is from 29 December, and appears to be entirely original research; I cannot access all of the sources, but snippet search does not bear out the content added, and the Raj era source for the first sentence certainly does not support the content it was used for. Baji Pasalkar, entirely authored by PH, is full of puffery ( I will note in fairness that I cannot access all the sources for the content I checked. But after spotchecking a dozen examples I have yet to find content PH wrote that was borne out by a reliable source, so I believe skepticism is justified. We are in territory where other editors may need to spend days cleaning up some of this writing. Bishonen If we're in CIR territory, just a normal indefinite block seems cleanest, surely? Or were you hoping that PH would help clean up their mess, perhaps by providing quotes from sources? That could be a pathway to contributing productively, but I'm not holding my breath. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Statement by UtherSRGI've mostly dealt with PH around Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ankur Warikoo (2nd nomination). They do not seem to have the ability to read and understand our policies and processes. As such, a t-ban is too weak. The minimum I would support is a p-block as suggested below, though a full indef is also acceptable. They could then ask for the standard offer when they can demonstrate they no longer have WP:CIR issues. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Result concerning PerspicazHistorian
PerspicazHistorian, can you explain your understanding of WP:edit warring and the WP:3RR rule? I'd like you to read thoroughly enough to also explain wny someone may be edit warring even if they aren't breaking 3RR. Valereee (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
References
|
LaylaCares
There is consensus to remove LaylaCares's EC flag. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2025 (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 LaylaCares
Pretty obvious case of EC gaming. Account created on Nov 17, 2024, then about 500 mostly minor edits followed by the first substantial edit ever was the creation of this article on Dec 17 (subsequently moved to draftspace).VR (Please ping on reply) 08:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning LaylaCaresStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by LaylaCaresStatement by AquillionQuestion: Assuming it's determined that they gamed the extended-confirmed restriction, would the page they created be WP:G5-able? I've asked the relevant question in more detail on the CSD talk page, since it is likely to come up again as long as we have such a broad restriction on effect, but I figured it was worth mentioning the issue here as well. --Aquillion (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC) Statement by Dan MurphyPlease look at Draft:Hamas–UNRWA relations, written by the account under discussion. It's a hit job, originally placed in mainspace by this account. Anyone who wrote that shouldn't be allowed with 1 million miles of the topic.Dan Murphy (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC) Statement by starship.paintI've edited Draft:Hamas–UNRWA relations, so Dan Murphy's link is inaccurate for the purposes of this discussion. For the version of Draft:Hamas–UNRWA relations with content only written by LaylaCares, click this link. starship.paint (talk / cont) 10:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning LaylaCares
|
AstroGuy0
AstroGuy0 has been issued a warning for source misrepresentation by Voorts. No other reviewers have expressed any wish for further action. Seraphimblade 06:29, 7 January 2025 (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 AstroGuy0
(Even though this isn't the usual R&I fare, I consider the intersection of "Race/ethnicity and sex offending", to come under "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour")
This new user seems intent on POVPUSHING regarding "Asian/Muslim grooming gangs" and making contentious claims that are not backed up by sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC) Discussion concerning AstroGuy0Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AstroGuy0Statement by Iskandar323This rather dated "Asian/Muslim grooming gangs" malarkey from the UK has recently been pushed on social media by a certain US tech billionaire and is now recirculating in right-wing social media and the blogosphere, partly in connection with UK politics, so this trend could flare before it dims. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning AstroGuy0
|
Lemabeta
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Lemabeta
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- EF5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Lemabeta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 5 Jan 2025 - Made a draft on a European ethnic group, which they are currently barred from doing.
- 4 Jan 2025 - Started a page on a Georgian ethnologist.
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I likely filed this improperly, but to sum it up they continue to make pages in a scope they were banned from. EF 20:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- On the bullet point, I’ve never filed an AE report before, and I wasn’t sure if “block” meant T-ban, p-block, etc., so I just picked whichever one made the most sense. EF 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Not sure if I’m allowed to reply here) I’ve never filed an AE report before, and I wasn’t sure if “block” meant T-ban, p-block, etc., so I just picked whichever one made the most sense. EF 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Response to Bishonen. Moved from results section. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- (RES to Bishonen) That's fair. When starting the AE, it only gave me nine options, none of which seemed to fit right. The third bullet ("Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on DIFF by _____") didn't seem to fit, as the sanction wasn't for verbal conduct. EF 22:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Lemabeta
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Lemabeta
Yeah, my bad. Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed" I recognize my mistake. --Lemabeta (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ethnographic groups and cultural heritage are related but distinct concepts. An ethnographic group refers to a community of people defined by shared ancestry, language, traditions, and cultural identity. In contrast, cultural heritage refers to the *practices, artifacts, knowledge, and traditions preserved or inherited from the past. But cultural heritage is indeed a component of ethnographic groups.
- So i don't believe ethnographic group should be considered as either history of the Caucasus or cultural heritage. Lemabeta (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- In my opinion, cultural heritage (both tangible and intangible) emerges from ethnographic groups but does not define the group itself. Lemabeta (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think ethnographic groups fall under the category of Ethnography, or even socio-cultural antropology but for sure not cultural heritage. Lemabeta (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I understand, i already apologized on my talk page for this accident. I will not repeat this mistake again. Lemabeta (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think ethnographic groups fall under the category of Ethnography, or even socio-cultural antropology but for sure not cultural heritage. Lemabeta (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- In my opinion, cultural heritage (both tangible and intangible) emerges from ethnographic groups but does not define the group itself. Lemabeta (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Lemabeta
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I don't see Lemabeta mentioned in the case itself, but they're currently under a topic ban imposed by a consensus of AE admins from "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be fair, when you click above to add a new enforcement request, the template states:
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> voorts (talk/contributions) 20:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be fair, when you click above to add a new enforcement request, the template states:
Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed"
@Lemabeta: what did you think "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage" meant? I think it's pretty obvious that that an article on an ethnic group from the Caucasus and about an ethnologist who writes about that region is covered by your topic ban. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)- Note that I've deleted Draft:Rachvelians as a clear G5 violation. I think Mate Albutashvili is a bit more of a questionable G5. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Your definition of "ethnographic group" includes the phrases "shared ancestry" (i.e., history), and "shared ... traditions" and "shared ... cultural identity" (i.e., cultural heritage). Your attempt to exclude "ethnographic group" from either of the two categories in your topic ban is entirely unpersuasive, particularly since your topic ban is to be "broadly construed". voorts (talk/contributions) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Tamzin: this doesn't seem like a mistake to me, but I'm okay with a logged warning here. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Bishonen: This is about violating the TBAN. Per my response to leek, I think the issue is with the AE request template, which is a bit unclear. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Bishonen: I don't think a block is needed here, but the next violation, definitely. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- @EF5: They were "reviously given ... contentious topic restriction", the topic ban at issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Lemabeta: Not every single thing you could write about an ethnic group would fall under cultural history, but that's not really relevant on the Rachvelians page, where the History section was entirely about their cultural history, even containing the words
highlighting their ethnographic and cultural identity
. There's a reason we use the words "broadly construed" on most TBANs, and a reason we encourage people to act like they're TBANned from a broader area than they are. (Consider: Would you feel safe driving under a bridge where clearance is exactly the same height as your vehicle? Or would you need a few inches' gap to feel safe doing it?)This does seem like a good-faith misunderstanding, so if you will commit to not making it again in the future, I think this can be closed with a clarification/warning. But that's an important "if". If you want to argue semantics, then the message that sends to admins is that you don't intend to comply with the TBAN, in which case the next step would be a siteblock. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC) - EF5, I don't understand your
"Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above"
statement, can you please explain what it refers to? This T-ban? Lemabeta's block log is blank.
- That said, I'm unimpressed by Lemabeta's lawyerly distinctions above, and also by their apology for "accidental violations". I'll AGF that they were accidental, but OTOH, they surely ought to have taken enough care to realize they were violations; compare Voorts' examples. I suggest a block, not sure of what length. A couple of weeks? Bishonen | tålk 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
- EF5, OK, I see. Blocks and bans are very different, and the block log only logs blocks. Bishonen | tålk 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC).