Revision as of 17:41, 8 November 2016 editRexxS (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers43,075 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)}} | |||
{{Redirect|WP:AE|the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae|MOS:LIGATURE|the automated editing program|WP:AutoEd}} | |||
__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude> | __NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!-- | ||
<includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly> | --><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly> | ||
<noinclude>{{ |
<noinclude>{{Noticeboard links|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}<!-- | ||
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
</noinclude> | |||
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}} | |||
{{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}} | |||
}} | |||
{{TOC left|limit=2}}{{clear}} | |||
==PerspicazHistorian== | |||
==SageRad== | |||
{{hat|{{u|PerspicazHistorian}} is blocked indefinitely from mainspace. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC) }} | |||
<!-- ] 14:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1480517531}} | |||
<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> | |||
{{hat|On hold until 26 November 2016, to run concurrently with a voluntary wikibreak by SageRad. ] | ] 08:42, 26 October 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 |
===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|SageRad}}<p>{{ds/log|SageRad}} | |||
<!--- 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. | |||
# - tag bombed the highly vetted ] article without any discussion or reason | |||
SageRad is on a campaign against skepticism and for giving more credence to altmed, and this ] behavior, civil as it may be, has been consistently disruptive on fringey medical and CAM topics like ]. The key issues are BLUDGEONing discussion with long soapbox-y rants against "skepticism" and for "Truth " -- a consistent behavior of using talk pages as forums, talking about "meta-issues", etc, instead of focused discussion on crafting content based on sources per policy and guidelines. He also misrepresents sources in the course of his arguments. In all of that, he fails to yield to consensus, and accuses other editors of lacking "integrity". His presence on these topics is just a tremendous time sink. | |||
# - attributing castes to people withhout any sources | |||
# - edit warring to impose the above edits after getting | |||
* The issue goes back at least to SageRad's editing at ] (a skeptic) in May 2015 ( and ) which led to a block to which SageRad responded with the expected of censorship. | |||
# - just like above, but this time he also added unreliable sources | |||
# - still edit warring and using edit summaries instead of talk page for conversation | |||
* From Dec 2015 to March 2016 at ] - see pretty much the entirety of ] in which SageRad bludgeoned the talk page with expressing his perception that the article was hijacked by "Skeptics" and was "biased"; he protested the ] attribution. A huge drag on the time of other editors. | |||
# - 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.}}" | |||
** in Dec 2015 where he first said there is a scientific basis for the diet (against all the RS) and | |||
** also from December where he wrote: {{tq|"I think it's pretty obvious here that there is a strong '''pushing''' to interpret the review article in the very least favorable way possible in regard to the Paleolithic diet, and this is holographically emblematic of the editing practice used in the entire article from the lede throughout the body. There is a serious wind blowing in the direction of "debunking" the article's subject throughout, and every single line is being used to slam the Paleolithic diet against a wall and to beat it up here. That's not cool. That's essentially like a witch hunt and trial against the article's subject being done by the dominant group of editors here. It's not alright. The readings here seem to strive so hard to interpret the article in question as being guilty before proven innocent. It's a witch hunt. There will never be any good dialogue here and no fair or unbiased approach to the article taken, so long as this is the prevailing flavor of the editorship here. It smacks of the same attitude taken in much of the Skeptic™ literature, and i call out the bias here."}} More of them same "meta-discussion" and giving his personal perception/philosophy and skeptic-complaints (more anti-Skepticism) and (the "integrity" bit in the face of consensus against his proposals, and "McCarthyism") and (noodling/soapboxing against "fad diet") and (more personal opinion) and (more anti-skeptic general soapboxing) all the way though to | |||
** in Feb 2016 - after extensive discussion - saying pretty much the same thing. | |||
*More recently he took his anti-Skeptic campaign to Jimbo's talk page: | |||
** ] in August 2016, and | |||
** ] a month later, reacting mostly to the month-long block he got due to his first one. | |||
:The titles of both of these posts are direct quotes of banned user Rome Viharo's website (which I can't link to, as it is blacklisted) and the posts echo much of Viharo's conspiracist hysteria about a skeptic takeover of WP (which Viharo apparently decided must be True after the community continually rejected his FRINGE-pushing nonsense about ] and ], two topics of longterm disruption with regard to altmed here in WP) | |||
:In both of the threads above you will find SageRad accusing others of McCarthyism, soapboxing, complaining about others' lack of integrity and his own adherence to The Truth. ( (a whole "holographic" analysis of the "Skeptics conspiracy takeover" thing); (McCarthyist); (fascist, totalitarian); (speaking truth to power); {{tq|there is an ideological war being waged here within Misplaced Pages. This is ''against'' the policies and rules of Misplaced Pages, and i have repeatedly been demonized as a result, not because i was guilty of violating the policies. but because i am an enemy to an ideological faction's dominance and therefore like an immune system they seek to eject me for speaking about the lay of the land in this regard}}); etc) | |||
:SageRad's campaign is also aligned with other altmed advocates that complain about a "skeptic takeover" of WP, like the folks at Natural News (see for example). | |||
He has continued that campaign in WP space: | |||
* On October 15 he opened a discussion at the Fringe Noticeboard ] with more soapboxing - you can read his first three noodling remarks there. | |||
* That discussion was moved to ] where he has written stuff like , soapboxing about the (nonexistent in WP) difference between institutions that create sources and the "power" in society expressed via those institutions. | |||
* On October 20 he opened a section at FRINGEN ] claiming that the ] article is FRINGE in that it treated this like a psychological condition; this was a '''misrepresentation''' in that the article specifically says "Despite containing the suffix -phobia, the majority of written work focusing on addressing chemophobia describes it as a non-clinical aversion or prejudice, and not as a phobia in the standard medical definition". | |||
What spurs this filing, is that SageRad has continued this campaign -- really ] behavior -- against the perceived skeptic takeover, in article space this fall. | |||
* On Sept 10, opened a section at ] (plant-based diet advocate who unfortunately often exaggerates health claims) focusing on his "skeptic" issue: ], generally OFFTOPIC soapboxing disrupting already difficult discussions with Greger fans objecting to any critical discussion of Greger. Made mostly all on this "skeptic" stuff. | |||
* On Sept 11 he jumped into the ] article to pursue his campaign there, making exemplified by where he brings no sources but just noodles on the topic and continues his campaign: {{tq|"And this is not solely about paranormal phenomena, but also about other aspects of interpretation of the world through science where the social movement may have a world view that is not in line completely with the actual science, and thereby uses the ''appearance'' of the role of skeptic to promote something that is not true scientific skepticism"}} | |||
* On Sept 16 entered discussion at ], an article about another diet advocate where we have consistent low level trouble from "fans" of the diet, making , again arguing against the ] attribution and writing the following (: {{tq|"The source cited appears to not support the claim. There seems to be a lot of ] going on where people seem to not hear that the source doesn't say what is claimed that it says"}} which completely '''misrepresented the source''' as I showed him I . He went on to actually invoke Godwin's Law . | |||
* On Sept 25 he joined a discussion at ] in a section entitled "]" ( right down his alley) where he helpfully brought a new ref (PMID 25522674) but then '''misrepresented it''' and again arguing that we should include more positive content about detox diets (the conclusion presented in the source is: "At present, there is no compelling evidence to support the use of detox diets for weight management or toxin elimination. Considering the financial costs to consumers, unsubstantiated claims and potential health risks of detox products, they should be discouraged by health professionals and subject to independent regulatory review and monitoring.") Even after that was pointed out to him he persisted. He also brought more of his anti-Skeptic campaigning in (already cited dif): {{tq|"Person Z calls himself a "skeptic" and some editors declare this topic is "fringe" because "it's obvious" and therefore normal sourcing considerations of Misplaced Pages are suspended and anything uttered by someone who self-identifies as a "Skeptic" and says the right combination of memes on their blog becomes a reliable source. Now i understand how Misplaced Pages works in practice, through observation of what actually happens."}} | |||
* Most recently at ] (a condition proposed in 2000 for people who have strong negative reactions to soft sounds, like eating noises)... which has been a struggle to keep neutral in the face of a lot of advocacy both by people who experience this as well as (bizarrely) by various groups who study and claim to treat people with symptoms.... He has again been abusing the talk page as a place to philosophize and push his anti-skeptic/FRINGE campaign, now about whether this condition exists or not and more generally what we do here in WP, instead of simply following sources which are extremely clear that the condition is proposed, has no classification, is not in the DSM or ICM, etc. He doesn't have access to the sources (as at the Detox article above, he was making strident claims citing only the abstract) yet he writes things like , even after I present him with the relevant parts of the sources ''twice'' ( and later , which he has refused to even engage. In all this he is pushing for content to be added that gives more certainty to the proposed condition than reliable sources allow and again fighting what he perceives as a skeptic agenda (: {{tq|"Misophonia is a condition. ...The tone of the article, and the lead, should not be one of discrediting or disbelief."}} Argh. I dread that this is heading into another slog like the Paleo diet fiasco discussed above and I have no desire to go through that again. | |||
; 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.--> | <!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> | ||
*Already 2 blocks in last 4 months for edit warring. | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
#] per GMO arbcom case in December 2015 | |||
#] via AE for 5 days for violating TBAN in July 2016 | |||
#] for one 1 month via DS for violating TBAN in August 2016 | |||
;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. --> | |||
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | ||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> | <!-- Add any further comment here --> | ||
If you look at SageRad's , this anti-skeptic pro-altmed editing is pretty much all they do here (with the exception of some Race & Intelligence work and some scattered editing on basic biology). In all these cases he is making difficult editing situations worse by adding his meta-issue to whatever the local issues are. Am suggesting '''a TBAN from anything related to health''', as it is articles about health/alt med where he has mostly brought his SOAPBOXing and disruptive, time-wasting behavior. I would suggest alt med more narrowly but I don't want to get into endless border disputes. ] (]) 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
* link updated per SageRad's request. ] (]) 15:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
* Bishonen, I will do no more adjusting. Thanks. ] (]) 16:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
::Bishonen, while i think restricting SageRad from soapboxing would help, the deeper problem of not dealing with sources and even misrepresenting them, and relentlessly advocating for his preferred content, is not going to be addressed by that. The disruption from SageRad's first edits here have been in the field of health which is why I requested what I did. ] (]) 18:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
* ]; while i see how you could suggest that this is at base an interpersonal dispute, SageRad's editing has focused on health from his first days here and there is one consistent arc of behavior that I described in my OP. Yes, that means he and I have clashed since he arrived, since my editing is also focused on health. So yes there is an element of interpersonal dispute, but in my view, it arises from my having to deal with SageRad's problematic behavior on health topics for all this time. I don't seek SageRad out; he keeps showing up on topics I edit and behaving this way. The problems are actual, not perceived by me. ] (]) 19:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
::OK, thanks for your reply. When I filed this I was concerned it might get framed as an interpersonal dispute. I cannot deny that we have been at loggerheads since he arrived; I don't want that to obscure the facts of SageRad's consistent pattern of POV editing and his behavior pursuing that POV, since he arrived here. ] (]) 19:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
::] I know you nodded at the problem with SageRad's behavior with your suggestion about some limit on his talk postings. However, I contest your description of this as "Some of this may be wits-end exasperation on the part of good-faith editors, but some of it is also a clash between editors who just cannot stand one another." and the mention of RfCs as a possible solution. This is not a DR thing. SageRad has demonstrated a consistent set of problems with regard to POV on content about health and behavior trying to get that content into WP. It is not going to be resolved by treating it merely as a series of good faith content disputes that can be resolved with RfCs. That is why I posted here. ] (]) 19:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
* and now i am going to shut the heck up, unless I am asked something. :) i am arguing too hard. I ''am'' long term frustrated. ] (]) 19:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
:Actually one more thing. The history between SageRad and me does go back to his very first edits here and I am very comfortable putting that history on the table. is his talk page before he purged it at the start of this year; that is where key interactions between SageRad and me took place. I invite anybody who wants to cast this as equivalent to review that from the top down. ] (]) 20:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
* fwiw, i have no objection at all to the month pause in conjunction with SageRad taking a break ] (]) 02:22, 26 October 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. ---> | |||
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) | |||
===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==== | |||
: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) | |||
Wow. I think a few specific editors have it out for me and are making mountains out of molehills because they have it out for me. | |||
*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) | |||
I do my best to follow sources and make good edits. On Jimbo's page, i speak to patterns i see within Misplaced Pages. Big deal. I use forums for discussion as they're intended. Big deal. | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
Ironically, i've been having issues with Jytdog, the very editor who brought this here, for the whole time i've been on Misplaced Pages. | |||
<!-- 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. --> | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
Most recently, we've been at loggerheads on the ] article. I don't think i have any other atypical conditions, but i have suffered from misophonia all my life, and only recently learned that others have the very same specific condition. And so i was learning more from MEDRS sources, and made few edits there too. And now that article seems to have a pretty serious ]ership problem with this editor. | |||
===Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorian === | |||
Anyway, i just filed for other editors to help out with that article, providing help with neutrality. | |||
<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 PerspicazHistorian ==== | |||
And then i saw the notice about this AE case, and i just have to say '''''Wow''''' i'm pretty incredulous. Didn't even read the long diatribe by Jytdog. | |||
*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. | |||
I'm honest, forthright, and speak what i see. In editing articles i've improved greatly since i began, and i think i understand the policies well. I edit according to policies. I speak honestly. I want good article -- nothing more. I want good articles that follow the best sources. | |||
: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) | |||
::even @] is seen engaged in edit wars before on contentious Indian topics. ] (]) 06:37, 29 December 2024 (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> | |||
*Hi @] @], In my defense I just want to say that | |||
Other people have issues that i speak to problems in Misplaced Pages. Are you going to shoot me for speaking? If so then it's on your hands. | |||
: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. | |||
: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==== | |||
] (]) 11:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
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==== | |||
I'm pretty busy, have a child, and working. Last thing i want is drama. This is ridiculous. To anyone who sees Jytdog's lengthy diatribe, i ask you to simply choose any one aspect, and look at it in depth. Don't be fooled by the size of the complaint. See if it really holds up under a microscope. I'm not perfect, but i edit with integrity and following the policies of Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages has problems, but it's not me. ] (]) 11:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
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) | |||
<small> '''''Tiny note.'''''</small> So i saw Jytdog said "That discussion was moved to WT:FRINGE where he has written stuff like this" with a link . Note that this contained typos and missing words and you should actually read -- {{u|Jytdog}}, will you change that in your long long thing about me please? Wouldn't want to deceive a reader, would we? The difference in the text is '''''huge''''' in light of this case, and it's obvious i revised that immediately. ] (]) 11:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Toddy1==== | |||
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. | |||
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. | |||
'''''I had changed my statement to ''''' and then was told that i was not supposed to change my statement. Well, ok, now i know that. I'm working on this in the margins of my time. I don't have hours to write here, and i don't want this drama nor to be topic banned, so what to do? Can i know how much time i may have? I don't have hours to put into this. Misplaced Pages is a labor of love, but if it's going to be like a court case then it's not the thing i would prioritize in my life right now. But on the other hand, litigious people can't be able to drive editors away by bringing such cases, but that may be just what happens too often. I love Misplaced Pages and want to see policies applied. Please read my other statement in the link above if you're interested. I sort of need help to know what the process is, in short terms. But on the other hand, i don't have time to dedicate to finding diffs and being a lawyer. I'm not paid to be a lawyer. 23:44, 24 October 2016 (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 . | |||
{{cot|This is the alternate version of Sage's statement, from the diff above. --] (]) 00:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)}} | |||
What is the process here? | |||
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 don't have time to follow long threads of comments right now. | |||
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) | |||
What do others want to ask me or have me respond to? | |||
====Statement by Capitals00==== | |||
Is there some sort of cross-examination? Can people ask me about what they are concerned about, allow me to respond? | |||
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) | |||
I do not thing Jytdog's painting of me as a really bad figure and a person on a crusade are correct. I strive to follow the policies of Misplaced Pages and it actually really bothers me that they are not followed more to the letter more often. | |||
====Statement by Vanamonde93==== | |||
I do get very frustrated sometimes by what i see as some people getting off scott-free while flouting the policies, or filibustering, while others are trying to have good dialog and to use good sourcing to write good articles. | |||
{{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. | |||
I do '''not''' think Misplaced Pages is the place to "right great wrongs" or to do ''anything'' other than report what's in reliable sources, and to copyedit and organize the content well for the readers. | |||
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) | |||
I '''do''' think it matters what is covered and how it's covered, and there are many ways this can be done about any topic. The best articles arise from the good-faith discussion among editors with differing perspectives. If they can be civil and follow the policies, and also to admit when they are wrong (as everyone is sometimes) then you get good article -- and also a camaraderie feeling. | |||
: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) | |||
I wish i could get along with Jytdog but it's been quite rough over the last year and a half. He's taught me some things. I appreciate some of the work he does. He's sometimes kind and helpful to people, and i know it takes patience. I appreciate some of the fact-checking he does. I appreciate his explaining sourcing or other policies to other editors. | |||
====Statement by UtherSRG==== | |||
However, i see him sometimes using his great talent to actually overstep what policies say, or to bend things in a certain way, or to intimidate other editors with alphabet soup (even when sometimes the essays or guidelines don't even really apply) and i have also felt him to be very obstinate sometimes, and not willing to have a truly good dialog sometimes (as in the ] article where we've most recently had some tension). | |||
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) | |||
Anyway, i love Misplaced Pages and i want to be here when i can, but i don't want this drama. I want people to be cooperative and even to admit when i'm wrong. I have done so -- admitted i'm wrong -- even to Jytdog in the past couple of months, which i could verify with diffs if anyone wants. I don't have time for the drama, or lawyering, for finding the 15 relevant diffs among 4,000 or whatever... i love knowledge and to work on articles, but the time sink tax when there's this level of drama is too much. I have a child and a job and relationships to maintain. It's real life. | |||
::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 === | |||
I am willing to answer any questions or respond to any observations that are in good faith and not from specific editors (a handful) who seem to hate my guts as far as i can tell. I'm sorry they don't like me. I wish everyone would like me, but i will always speak my honest thoughts. ] (]) 23:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
{{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) | |||
{{cob}} | |||
By the way, contrary to what Jytdog said, i '''do''' have access to most journal articles through my past university lab affiliation. | |||
Lastly, i admit i may have spoken too much about patterns within Misplaced Pages, or attributing motives to other editors, which should not use space on talk pages. Sometimes it's a response to the mirror image accusations made about me. | |||
In many ways, i appreciate Jytdog's integrity. In some ways, he really does own up to some sorts of mistakes and make corrections. He really does want to make the encyclopedia the best it can be, i believe, but perhaps needs to consider some things more carefully from time to time and not be so reactive. Sorry if that's too much critique to speak of another editor. I mean it with good will. ] (]) 00:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
Oh look.......... all the dozen or so enemies are out making horribly distorted and untrue nd biased and polemic statements against me. | |||
This is onerous and there ought to be a boomerang instead of me being on the defense. Jytdog needs to be reigned in. Everything he says about me is actually showing HIM to be on a "right great wrongs" bender, with a mission to eradicate people who disagree with him on some axes. | |||
I don't even have time for this shit. | |||
] (]) 15:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
'''''THE HYPOCRISY IS ABSLUTELY ASTOUNDING.''''' | |||
Jytdog has mounted an ideological crusade, and the people who are in continuous agreement with this come out to cheer "Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!" and others actually allow this. | |||
Get the hypocrisy, the irony: | |||
* The very thing that Jytdog is incorrectly railing about me, is what HE is doing. Running an editor out for ideological reasons. I've expressed myself in forums meant for the purpose. He doesn't like that. He stored up a list and made a Monday-morning drop of a case to eradicate me because HE doesn't like my beliefs about Misplaced Pages. | |||
* This has NOTHING to do with the policies of Misplaced Pages. I follow those to a T. I have learned the better and if you look at my recent edits, you'll see that i follow them. Therefore there ought to be NOTHING for which to ban me from any topic. Speaking thoughts and observations on Jimbo's page and talk pages is WHAT WE DO HERE! You don't like the things i've said? That's your problem. | |||
* I'm not "disrupting" -- that's a bullshit complaint. I am speaking. You don't like the '''inconvenience''' of someone disagreeing with you. You don't like the '''invonvenience''' of having to explain and justify your edits (like at the ] article, where i'm still pretty sure i'm right about the reading of the sources and the fact that YOU are doing ] and ] there with ] and even doing that incorrectly.) Sorry if you're frustrated that sometimes you cannot "win" the content you want when it's contrary to sourcing and policies. | |||
* This '''is''' a witch hunt type of thing. Better analogized to ] as it's a political purging. | |||
If you let this happen, you have blood on your hands. | |||
See what's happening here. | |||
Speaking these things is '''''not a crime!''''' The shooting of people for speaking these things '''''is a crime'''''. | |||
Most of y'all who've come out of the woodword (predictably) are in the same camp -- demonstrably through your actions, words, and edits -- '''doing''' the very thing you're accusing me of merely '''speaking about'''. | |||
This place is damned. | |||
This place is gone. | |||
This place is captured by an ideological crew. I hold strong and true to everything i've said through my time here. It's more instructive who's come out to make statements against me, than the content of those statements. You can see who hates my presence here because they hate the things i say. That is instructive. Think for yourself, observers. | |||
Kill me if you must but i will not pander or lie. | |||
] (]) 16:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
{{u|Bishonen}} -- i just saw your comment in which you pinged me. I would like to request a month to get a defense together then. I would be able to process and not feel in jeopardy of a hammer coming down at any moment. The process has felt uncontrollable so far, with the sheer volume of Jytdog's long statement in which i'm described as a demon at all turns. It's far above the 500 word traditional word limit and it's too demonizing to make a simple statement about. It's too deep of a problem and needs some serious addressing. Another thing i would ask is to be able to erase the current statement and make a coherent new one. I've been in a panic mode of sorts and other things in life have been too demanding, and as a result i've written off the cuff. I've also been in shocked traumatic response to the half dozen people who've been in bad conflict with me for a long time all coming out of the woodwork to make horrible statements about me. Wow talk about a jury of one's enemies. ] (]) 16:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
{{u|Bishonen}}, if speaking in this way is clearly reason for a siteban in your eyes and the "court's" eyes then you might as well site-ban me and be done with it, for this place is then absolutely and proven to be an ideologically purged place where speaking of ideological purging is grounds for being purged. I can't beleive that people cannot see the absolute irony in this condition. It's so basic and foundational. A dynamic where one might see something problematic and speak of it, and then they get punished for speaking of it, is not a healthy place and actually fairly well '''proves''' that there is a problem. In other words, this place is enabling to an ideological purging by one specific group. And the very saying that i see this happening is grounds to ban me. Well then, this place '''''IS ABSOLUTELY CAPTURED NOW BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT'''' and i will never be able to work well here in a collegiate way because collegiality hardly exists here and it's more like being a member of Stalin's Party -- tow the party line or be purged. So i guess you've given me your answer in your very reply. | |||
'''''THERE IS NO JUSTICE HERE. THERE IS ONLY POLITICAL GAMESMANSHIP AND MACHIAVELLIAN MACHINATION.''''' | |||
Good luck with that. | |||
Unfortunately the effect is disgusting upon this repository supposedly of the world's knowledge which pretends to be independent and open-source but is actually controlled in this blatant way, though not obvious to those who have not been through the wringer like i have. So, good job! You've got a mouthpiece that appears to be neutral but is actually captured! I think someone is pleased with this establishment ''status quo''. | |||
And the irony is my saying this will be ground for my destruction as a voice in the world of Misplaced Pages. | |||
Well, give me liberty of give me death. Guess you're choosing to give me death. | |||
] (]) 16:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
{{u|Dennis Brown}} what you propose would not be acceptable to me and i'll simply be gone, as if site-banned. I'm sick of topic bans and i'm sick of those who speak being pillories and neutralized. It's obvious that's what's happening here, and nobody has the guts to speak up, or those who would have all already been site-banned or shake in fear at a few names below who've time and again enforced the dogma. So, it's not a game i will play anymore. I'm calling it out, and for doing so if you ban me then you ban me. I will not accept any such topic ban. I will consider it tantamount to a total site ban. There's no getting around this. It's all or nothing. ] (]) 17:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
{{u|Bishonen}}, i will take a month wiki-break. That's great. I would love to. I was happy to be working on the ] article (as it relates personally and it's interesting) but then came to loggerheads with Jytdog on it, and sense he got frustrated about this, and then i posted on ] about it and was happy with that process. But then on the same Monday morning before work, to get a 1,500 word screed dropped upon me felt horrible. Yes, i felt really overwhelmed and like i have no time, and felt so screwed over in an unfair way. | |||
Here's the thing. I do see patterns here. I see editing patterns. Who doesn't? Is it wrong to speak of them? | |||
If it's wrong then Jytdog's entire screed is wrong. If it's not wrong, then it's okay. | |||
So why the double standard? Why's it alright for Jytdog at ] to accuse others of advocacy editing, whereas to say that there are problematic patterns in his or others' editing is anathema? | |||
Why is it wrong to point out the very obvious "Skeptic" memes and sources that are populating Misplaced Pages so ubiquitously? Why's it wrong to point out that there is indeed a project to send people to Misplaced Pages to edit with this directive, in fact, as documented by external sources? | |||
Why is it defined as a complete and total capital offense to speak of things in one direction, and yet the mirror image is completely sanctioned, and even praised and worshipped? | |||
Seems there is a power structure with a particular bent here. | |||
I am not "bludgeoning" -- i've spoken the '''same amount''' as others here in some public forum locations -- like Jimbo's page, and like the talk page on the "fringe" guideline. Those were '''places where this discussion is sanctioned''' --- so why is it seen as "evidence" of my "wrongdoing" when Jytdog presents these things here? | |||
And yeah -- the article on Dr Michael Greger -- i '''did''' indeed question the use of the word "skeptic" as a title for a person. So? That's good critique of the article. It's a real point that i can legally and rightfully bring up. Why is that presented as if it's a crime? | |||
Jeez.... does '''anyone''' see the craziness of this AE case? | |||
This is like ]. My crime? Thinking about things and speaking. | |||
Yes, it '''is''' like Stalin's Party. There are unspeakable things. You must not say them or you get taken here, and pilloried. Yes, it '''is''' like McCarthyism. | |||
Saying this is ''not wrong''. You don't have to agree. But why is saying that a punishable offense? | |||
I'll tell you why. It's a ]. | |||
You should think on that. Why is something a thoughtcrime here in Misplaced Pages? Perhaps because there is a power issue at play. | |||
Anyway, i edit according to policies. You will see within the last few months, any edit i have made to an article is 9 times out of 10 a good edit with good sources. I'm not pushing anything into articles. I'm not pushing an agenda other than to make good articles following the sources. | |||
Please, '''please''', go to the ] article and the ] talk page and see for yourselves. Please, see whether i am breaking any rules in a bad way, or simply trying to improve the article. | |||
With that, i will take a one month wiki-break. I need my time for other things and have too much to do to take part in a trial of this kind, and have little expectation of justice prevailing anyway. | |||
Sage | |||
====Statement by JzG==== | |||
SageRad has taken it upon himself to be arbiter of "integrity" on Misplaced Pages. The recent discussions on Jimbotalk showed that Sage rejects conflicting opinion as invalid, and considers that intergrity is measured by consonance with his ideology. On his user page he links to a website promoting an "ethical skeptic" agenda, which promotes ] (conspiracy theorist and supervisor of Judith Wilyman's substandard and anti-vaccine PhD) and the website where ], ] and others rant against pesky science for not accepting their beliefs. He has adopted the rhetoric of , who was ] while promoting Sheldrake and woo-meister Deepak Chopra (where he also had a COI, IIRC). Sage has used the name of Viharo's website, ''Misplaced Pages, we have a problem'', as the title of at least one o his threads: . | |||
One could put this down to the aftermath of ARBGMO, but long before that he was inserting accusations of censorship against ] based on Gorski's banning him from commenting for trolling. The skeptic community is generally skeptical about anti-GMO rhetoric, and this seems to have set Sage against organised skepticism pretty much from the outset. | |||
All this would be fine if Sage were capable of understanding the difference between his opinion and objective fact. He consistently demonstrates that he is not. | |||
Sage is intelligent and articulate, but he lacks the ability to accept that any conclusion differing from his own might be grounded in truth. The diffs above clearly show this. The biggest problem is that any topic ban would have to include all areas subject to skeptical activism, and I don't honestly think he edits anything much else. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
: @Tryptofish: I am not sure this actually is a case of editors who can't stand each other. I can't speak for Jytdog, but I do not dislike Sage at all. That's part of the problem: I feel very conflicted. I like him but his constant ] is vexing. In my opinion, if he could accept the possibility of any valid conclusion other than his own, he would be a valued contributor. He has the time and intelligence to read sources, after all. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
: @SageRad: You ask "What do others want to ask me or have me respond to?" Really? You can ask that still, after the recent discussions at Jimbotalk? I'd say that and contain a pretty complete answer to exactly that question. Your problem is as I state above: you seem unwilling or unable to accept that any conclusion other than yours could possibly be valid, and you clearly consider that anybody who states a conclusion other than yours is ill-informed, stupid, corrupt or some combination of the three. followed by set the tone, and I reckon the whole reason we are here is that if you took a straw poll of those who have spent time trying to work on articles alongside you, most of us would be of the opinion that left to your own devices you would make those edits again right now. It would be lovely to be proved wrong, but I have never seen any evidence of you even acknowledging that these are matters where reasonable people may differ, let alone being open to changing your mind. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
: @Bishonen: Fine with that, Sage has a new baby I think - I can still remember the effects of infant-induced sleep deprivation even two decades later. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Tryptofish==== | |||
I don't have anything particularly global to add, although I agree with Bishonen's concern that there is a genuine time-sink going on. | |||
Some of this may be wits-end exasperation on the part of good-faith editors, but some of it is also a clash between editors who just cannot stand one another. See also: ]. It's not as simple as white-hats and black-hats. | |||
Instead of editors getting sucked into tl;dr arguments where nobody persuades anyone else, have content RfCs been adequately explored as a way of moving past logjams? (Example RfC question: "Below are some sources that say that misphonia is a genuine disorder, and some sources that say that it is not. Taking the sources together, should this page present it as a genuine disorder?") | |||
I've been trying to think of a possible DS restriction on SageRad that might be practical to design. Perhaps a word limit for talk page comments about AltMed pages? --] (]) 18:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
:{{re|Jytdog}} I did not say it was interpersonal at its base. It isn't. But it is, partly ("some"). --] (]) 19:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
:@Guy: I agree with you that Sage has a lot of potential as an editor, and I was referring more to Jytdog than to you, but despite the replies from Jytdog and from you, I still think that my statement is accurate. --] (]) 00:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
Note: I IAR put back (collapsed) the version of Sage's statement that he had reverted, and I think that it is a better statement than his original one. @Sage: you are permitted to add to your original statement, so you can always add new stuff (well, there's a word limit that is not being followed at the moment) as long as you don't delete the old stuff; you can also strike through anything you wrote. --] (]) 00:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Kingofaces43==== | |||
I've been seeing problems with SageRad continue to brew on my watchlist after their GMO sanctions. Just in the context of their previous sanctions from GMOs, part of the reasoning why they were topic banned was the exact same behavior we're still seeing here. When people start to complain about how a topic is being antagonized by SageRad's continued soapboxing, they're often met with SageRad's "What, who me?" responses when told to knock it off just like we are seeing in their response to this AE. Basically, disruption in fringe and health topics followed by playing the victim when they're behavior on article pages is called out. Add in the obvious battleground behavior, and we're back to where we were with SageRad before the GMO ArbCom case. That's especially apparent with their "othering" (i.e., "bullies") of editors that try to curtail the disruption SageRad causes in topics where they engage in advocacy or soapboxing about their personal ideals. It's becoming apparent SageRad just won't listen even after their sanctions. Same behavior as GMOs, just different topics now. | |||
At the end of the day, I don't have strong convictions about specific action against SageRad since I don't have to deal with them in my topic areas anymore (mainspace at least), but it's apparent they just moved their behavior issues outside their topic ban. I do feel for editors that still end up putting up with this behavior pretty regularly though. Here area a few ideas for sanctions to impose on SageRad that should at least stop the disruption and maybe turn them around: | |||
1. '''One-way interaction ban when dealing with Jytdog'''. I don't have super strong support for this as it's really just a band-aid, but the continued battleground behavior is obvious while Jytdog has been acting at least relatively reasonable (though obviously frustrated) in the face of this string of continued behavior. I'm usually open to less complicated two-way bans, but I think we can agree SageRad's behavior is the core issue here to work on first. | |||
2. '''Expanding topic bans''' as JzG mentioned. Probably the most concrete topic ban would be a broadly construed ban on any topic related to health (including environmental contamination for clarity). A topic ban on any ] topic could be a secondary consideration, but that's harder to define for avoiding wikilawyering. Word limits might have been a consideration back when SageRad was newer to Misplaced Pages, but the issue here seems to be they just can't let go in these topics. | |||
3. '''Long-term block'''. SageRad has used tons of rope already still showing behavior (regardless of what they actually say) that they are not ] and are instead using Misplaced Pages more for soapboxing and hyperbole. Maybe that can change if they are handed a topic ban that gets them out of this activism mindset and into topics where they can act like a normal editor. I think we have to acknowledge though that if this all continues, the ] is going leading to this last option. ] (]) 02:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
:Seeing ] and ] comments on on applicable DS for a topic ban, explicitly imposes DS on "all pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted". In terms of DS, there would be no issue with a ] topic ban option, and the case could be made under that for a medical topic ban because that's where the fringe issues occur. ] (]) 15:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Skyring==== | |||
After a tangential mention in discussion below, a tangential comment. SageRad has his own strong views, is well-informed, intelligent, and productive. There's a place for him here. But when he encounters opposition, rather than discuss the points of opposition in the context on improving the article(s), he takes it personal and tries to convert other editors to his views, which he considers to be the rational factual objective plain truth, and everybody else is a deluded fool or a tool of big business or something, and ultimately Misplaced Pages is fatally flawed because of this evil and that evil. | |||
Well, it's not. It works, it's a valuable reference, it's an internet marvel. SageRad should get offa his soapbox, work with those who have contrary opinions, and for the love of ghod, stop filling pages with long rambling rants! SageRad, we love you, we want you, it's just your behaviour needs a bit of a tweak. Okay? --] (]) 06:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Alexbrn==== | |||
As an editor who has had a role in the current ] article I was surprised to see, on 20 October, postings by SageRad on both the article's Talk page and at ] report a "POV issue" because "This article presents 'chemophobia' as if it's a psychological phenomenon ..." | |||
* | |||
* | |||
On re-reading the article I saw (as did a number of other editors) that this is simply not the case: the article says ''precisely'' the opposite. This has been pointed out but since then no retraction, explanation or further comment has been made. On top of SageRad's editing history this looks far from being constructive activity. What is going on? | |||
Because of SageRad's problematic stance towards skepticism I don't think a TBAN on health content is quite right - a TBAN needs to cover (probably in addition) any topic covered by the ] guidance - broadly construed - though I fear this will not succeed because SageRad seems to have a novel view of what is, and is not, fringe that is out-of-sync with the Project. ] (]) 09:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by OID==== | |||
@Wordsmith, discretionary sanctions are authorised for a number of areas SageRad has been problematic in. So realistically you could apply any sanction you wanted (provided you felt it had merit). The real issue is that SageRad is not topic-bound in his disruption. He has an anti-skeptic agenda which manifests in disruptive editing wherever skepticism is evident. He is not pro-fringe as it was, just anti-evidence-based science. His editing MO is to show up at an article, declare bias, argue with people until he finally gets they dont agree with him, then rants about how everything is unfair. | |||
The problem is fringe and skepticism cover a huge range of topics. From pseudoscience, lifestyle, history, medical etc. Normally a targetted topic ban would suffice, but to limit SageRad's disruption would require a 0/1 revert restriction AND some sort of enforced character limit on discussions. And even *then* that would really only just keep disruption to a minimum, it wouldnt prevent anything as SageRad has a worldview that is incompatible with how Misplaced Pages populates article content. Alexbrn has laid out the most recent example. Jzg and a couple of others say SageRad is clearly intelligent etc, but I disagree. SageRad has repeatedly failed to grasp basic wikipedia concepts & policies, and as Alexbrn's example shows above, clearly has an issue in reading comprehension. There is a CIR issue here. This may be because he skim-reads and fails to grasp what is actually said - Jytdog has listed a number of examples where SageRad cherry-picks/looks at brief abstracts/summaries instead of reading and understanding what material actually says. | |||
But this disruption is not limited to Misplaced Pages, this is just his latest venue for pushing his POV/Agenda. He came here (and was subsequently sanctioned) after getting into conflict with Gorski. He previously linked to his rants/comments offsite - and even a basic internet search shows his attack-dog mentality when criticised (just in case anyone thinks to accuse me of outing, SageRad has previously linked to his offsite comments himself, then deleted them when it was pointed out they showed his bias). If you are unable to actually implement a workable sanction, this will need to go to ANI or Arbcom for a site ban discussion. ] (]) 14:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
:Annnnd we reached the hysterical McCarthy accusations again (this is an ongoing theme, if you take a look at SageRad's talkpage history, specificially their interactions with MjolnirPants). Essentially this illustrates the problem - where multiple people disagree with SageRad, its everyone else that is the problem. Keep in mind, this is multiple editors in multiple topics over an extended period of time (since SageRad came to wikipedia). This is simply a case of 'this person is not suited for wikipedia'. Failure to agree with others is generally fine. People are not required to agree all the time. Failure to agree plus disruption plus personal attacks, plus agenda pushing plus inability to accept consensus is not ok. ] (]) 16:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
:'cool down blocks' imply there is something to cool down from. Or that SageRad is acting out currently. This is not the case. SageRad's current behaviour is completely normal for him. Both during his entire tenure at Misplaced Pages, and his off-site activities. ] (]) 07:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Plea by DrChrissy ==== | |||
I am not here to comment on the merits or otherwise of this case, rather, I am here to make observations on Sage's behaviour and a plea for a moritorium. Sage's most recent behaviour on this noticeboard and at other places is very uncharacteristic for him. He is making unfocussed edits and flailing around in the multiple threads regarding his behaviour. He has even resorted to swearing which I don't think I have ever seen him do before. His baby is a new baby, I think only 6 weeks old or so, and I think is his first. To make this brief, I believe Sage may be experiencing some sort of melt-down. A moritorium would show compassion and allow Sage to either calm down and/or make decisions in a more rational way which Arbcom would be more able to deal with. <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> 17:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Robert McClenon==== | |||
Unfortunately, I see two problems here. The first has to do with the subject editor, ], who has been editing aggressively since May 2015 with a strong point of view on medical and agricultural topics. The second has to do with the history between the subject editor and the filing editor, ]. Jytdog has long been editing aggressively in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy to try to ensure that medical and scientific articles follow Misplaced Pages ] guidelines. Jytdog is almost always right with regard to policy, and has made enemies in Misplaced Pages, and SageRad is one of them, and SageRad has been aggressively attacking Jytdog since he began editing Misplaced Pages in May 2015. (SageRad made a few scattered edits before then.) Jytdog is absolutely correct in writing: | |||
Actually, one more thing. The history between SageRad and me does go back to his very first edits here. | |||
Jytdog is completely correct in writing: | |||
I don't seek SageRad out; he keeps showing up on topics I edit and behaving this way. | |||
I first became familiar with SageRad when he showed up at ] hounding Jytdog and claiming mistakenly to be a DRN volunteer. SageRad has been going after Jytdog at least since June 2015. | |||
It is impossible to reason with SageRad to advise him that his behavior is disruptive. SageRad has, since May 2015, seen all efforts to advise him to modify his behavior as "McCarthyism" and "bullying". SageRad was topic-banned by the ArbCom from the topic area of genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals. (In case anyone argues that there was a ] proceeding, he wasn’t just banned by one kangaroo under discretionary sanctions. He was banned by the community-elected panel of kangaroos, except that we are not kangaroos because we are great apes.) He has recently been blocked twice, first for five days, then for one month. It isn’t clear why SageRad is so determined to change Misplaced Pages when he has apparently decided that Misplaced Pages is such an ugly corrupt place, but that is SageRad. | |||
If any editor other than Jytdog had been the one filing this request, I would suggest that SageRad be '''Site-Banned'''. As it is, Jytdog is the wrong editor to be filing this request, because Jytdog is right, but it looks too much like (almost justified) revenge. I suggest that SageRad be blocked for another month, and that Jytdog be asked to let other editors deal with SageRad after he is unblocked this time. | |||
] (]) 17:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Capeo==== | |||
I was trying to avoid commenting here because I've butted heads enough with Sage that it just feels like piling on. That said, what the admins here are seeing as a meltdown is actually pretty par for the course. Outbursts claiming McCarthyism (such as here against Guy or here against... everyone I guess) are fairly normal with Sage, though the Stalinism claim is a new one to me. This has been an ongoing issue when it comes to such hyperbolic claims against other users or WP in general. ] (]) 18:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
Just a further note to admins, it seems unlikely SageRad will accept a voluntary editing restriction after saying they wouldn't accept an enforced one. I highly doubt it will work and will just serve to incite more drama. Perhaps I'm wrong, and SageRad will be fine with it, but I don't think you're going to get the response you're hoping for. ] (]) 20:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
Because SageRad keeps insisting that folks look at the Misophonia talk page I did. As well as the article, its history, its sources and the current research. The article was a mess earlier in the year with extraordinary levels of advocate editing. To the degree that editors were adding things to the article, openly in edit summaries no less, to favor particular researchers. The majority of editors on the talk page over the last couple years I looked at also say they have Misophonia. It was brought back to some semblance of balance by Jytdog and others back in February. It quickly spiraled back to being a mess in the interceding months. Looking at the current research "a proposed condition" is exactly the proper way to characterize Misophonia according to the preponderance of RS. There is no diagnostic criteria for it. It's not listed in any diagnostic text. It's near invariably associated with other conditions such as OCD (primarily), anxiety disorders, Autism spectrum or Tourette's Syndrome. SageRad's selective use of a sentence from the Cavanna abstract is not engaging with the actual sources or even the abstract in question, or even Cavanna's actual paper. Even in the abstract itself, it's admitted "At the present stage, competing paradigms see misophonia as a physiological state potentially inducible in any subject, an idiopathic condition (which can present with comorbid psychiatric disorders), or a symptomatic manifestation of an underlying psychiatric disorder." | |||
Cavanna and the one study he cites that agrees with him (that aren't his own) is the only person I can find that presently suggests it might be a primary condition. Even then he admits, in regard to the current definition of Misophonia, "This definition challenges the subsequently proposed views that misophonia is a discrete/idiopathic condition (which can present with comorbid psychiatric disorders)8 or a symptomatic manifestation of an underlying psychiatric disorder, at least in a proportion of cases.4 If confirmed by future systematic studies in large populations, the presence of high rates of comorbidity would go against the argument that misophonia should be labeled as a primary diagnosis. In fact, it would suggest that it is a symptom manifestation of other underlying or comorbid diagnoses and should more appropriately be labeled as a symptom, rather than as a stand-alone diagnosis. Either way, the addition of misophonia to nosographic classification systems of psychiatric disorders, such as the DSM, would require careful consideration." 8 is the study I mentioned. 4 is a short paper by Cavanna. Long story short: Jytdog's wording is correct and it appears SageRad is ignoring the caveats the source in question, which he provided, which isn't even close to the totality of sources in question. ] (]) 01:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by MjolnirPants==== | |||
I'm not going to post my usual, fifteen paragraph explanation of every nuance of my own thoughts about this. I'm just going to say two things. | |||
#I actually do 'like' SageRad in that I get the impression I could have a few beers with him, work alongside him, or have a friendly relationship with him as my next door neighbor. I would likely befriend him if I knew him IRL. | |||
#I absolutely, wholeheartedly, 100% without reservation '''support a permanent site ban'''. His views are immutable, and they are utterly incompatible with Misplaced Pages. He constantly expresses angst and frustration at his participation here. This is one of those rare cases where a permanent site ban would (eventually) make everyone happier, including Sage. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 19:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by (Roxy the dog)==== | |||
I'm going to tender for the ] supply contract with wikipedia. Must be racing up in value. -] ] 08:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by (username)==== | |||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
===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. --> | <!-- 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 hope I'll have time to return to this request — it requires a daunting amount of reading for someone not already familiar with the relevant discussions — but I have a couple of initial points: | |||
:<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) | |||
::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) | |||
:::@], 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) | |||
::::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) | |||
:::::@], 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 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). | |||
*:{{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). | |||
*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) | |||
*:Given PH's recent slew of requests on multiple admin talk pages, yes, please do. - ] ] 12:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*<!-- | |||
--> | |||
{{reflist talk}} | |||
:'''A'''. I don't see a problem with SageRad's posts on Jimbo's page. They're the kind of thing that page is for. But it's another matter to keep "adding his meta-issue to whatever the local issues are", as Jytdog puts it, to various article talkpages. I agree that is disruptive and time-wasting. To get the flavour, I've read through the ], that Jytdog referred to and I see exactly what he means by timesink. (I admit I didn't read quite all of the archive, but a good chunk, maybe half, and it was one of my worst hours on Misplaced Pages.) SageRad's bandying of phrases like "witch hunt" and his assumptions of bad faith of editors like ] and ] are just depressing. ("Thanks sir, who I have encountered before in a rather bullying fashion"... "another editor who has used bullying tactics against me in the past... the gang shows up.") The best thing might be a topic ban from going on about meta-issues on article talkpages, as well as the persistent accusations of people "ganging up" on and "bullying" him as soon as they disagree with him. But formulating such a ban properly and usefully is no doubt impossible. I see JzG too has a problem with what a ban might cover. | |||
{{hab}} | |||
==LaylaCares== | |||
:'''B'''. SageRad's comment "Didn't even read the long diatribe by Jytdog" in his response here is really unpromising. SageRad, I have read the "diatribe" carefully and found it full of interesting stuff and food for thought. Well, I would guess you have read it too by now, but for you to start by blowing off your opponent like that looks ''just'' like an unfortunate illustration of what JzG said above about a lack of ability to accept that any conclusion differing from your own might be grounded in truth. I hear what you say about real life busyness, but there's always the option of requesting more time to reply. | |||
{{hat|There is consensus to remove LaylaCares's EC flag. ] (]) 17:55, 5 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 LaylaCares=== | |||
:Oh, and '''C''', just a PS to Jytdog: updating the link just now was fine, but for goodness sake don't otherwise fiddle with your initial statement any more. Fluidity in that makes it much harder for others to evaluate and respond. If you must make new points, please do so below your main signed and dated filing, with a new sig and datestamp. ] | ] 16:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC). | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Vice regent}} 08:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::'''Note''': {{ping|SageRad}} I see you ask above how much time you may have, and saying you don't have time to dedicate to finding diffs and being a lawyer. I suggest you put a request above, at the end of your statement, something on the lines of "I'm busy in real life, can I please have a week (or whatever specific time span would fit your circumstances) to supply a responsive and factual statement?" I'm sure the admins would agree to put this on hold for the time you need. However, if what you mean is that you will ''never'' have time to make a reasonable defense, or supply any evidential diffs, then we might as well deal with this as speedily as possible. Please let us know. ] | ] 15:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC). | |||
:::'''Continued note''': I see {{ping|SageRad}} says he wants a month. (Please stop adding stuff for a minute, as that's making it rather hard to respond.) Of course that seems a lot. When I wrote my original note, I hadn't seen your latest edits ("This place is damned.. This place is gone..This place is captured by an ideological crew..." etc), which strongly supports Jytdog's complaint. If you stand by that, we may IMO as well siteban you and be done with it. But if what you need is some cooling-off time and then a new statement, it's fine by me. A month of ''not editing'' (since you're busy IRL. and will also be busy writing up a statement here) would work for me. '''What do other people think of a one-month moratorium, please'''? We could archive this request temporarily and bring it back on 25 November. ] | ] 16:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC). | |||
*'''Comment''' I'm still reading through the copious amounts of content presented as evidence. I think there is probably a need for some sort of action here, though I'm not quite sure what the best course is yet. As a point of order, however, I would like to note that this board and its administrators do not have the power to issue a topic ban from "health content"; that would be something to be brought up at one of the conventional noticeboards. The most severe topic ban available to us would be "pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine" or some narrower subset of that. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 14:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
::Reading SageRad's latest postings, I think the assessment that he is in some sort of meltdown is essentially correct. Given that he is also dealing with a newborn child, I think compassion ought to reign here. Provided Sage agrees to take some voluntary time off editing, I would have no problem with putting the request on hold for a month or so. If he returns to editing, it can be resumed with cooler heads all around. Getting some sleep and adjusting to his new family situation might help the behavior problem on its own. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 17:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
* We are empowered to implement any conventional sanction even though it is here at AE, treating it as a non-Arb issue without moving it to another board. OID raises some interesting points, and I have to admit only going through part of the evidence, yet this looks like one form of ], albeit not a textbook example. He seems to be taking a singular position on a general theme (skepticism) and ] multiple pages and refusing to listen to consensus, to the point that it is disruptive to other editors that are simply trying to build an encyclopedia. It does seem to be a pattern of behavior that extends beyond a single venue, which has gone well beyond spirited debate and to the point that it is hindering the building of the encyclopedia. Again, WP:TE. I would like to read more and will later today, but this is how it is shaping up in my eyes. ] - ] 15:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
*:I'm was about to propose something else, something not as palatable as {{u|Bishonen}}'s idea, but would entertain Bish's idea. What I don't want to happen is for {{u|SageRad}} to say he is leaving Misplaced Pages forever, then come back in a month or two and we have the same problem. I would only accept if we continue this in one month, even if it is ''in absentia''. What I would have proposed is a 6 month block and 12 month ban on pseudoscience/medicine (to include skepticism, which is a stretch), to run concurrently. That would allow a long enough period of time as to prevent disruption for 6 months at least, and perhaps past that knowing the next block is indef. ] - ] 16:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
*:If I've learned anything in my decade plus experience here, SageRad, it is that people often say things in the heat of the moment they regret. A sanction doesn't require consent by the sanctioned. My first concern is all the other editors that are affected by your behavior. People leave Misplaced Pages because they get frustrated by people doing things like what you are doing, because they can't edit in a normal fashion and the frustration is too much. That is the purpose of a sanction, not to benefit you, but to benefit them, and by extension, Misplaced Pages. ] - ] 17:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
*"If you let this happen, you have blood on your hands." Oh dear. If that was a statement made under what we can call extenuating circumstances, it's probably best if this editor stays away from Misplaced Pages for a while. ] (]) 17:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|LaylaCares}}<p>{{ds/log|LaylaCares}}</p> | |||
*'''Proposal''': What I suggested above was that we put this on hold for a month with SageRad voluntarily abstaining from editing during that period, which is apparently The Wordsmith's opinion also. Having watched SR continue to "flail around" (per DrChrissy) makes me a bit dubious about the voluntary part; is he in a state where he can and will comply with a voluntary restriction? A one-month block for recent and ongoing disruption might technically be better. But I don't like to consider it, because people generally take blocks as humiliating. (Not me, I'm proud of mine, but it took me a few years to attain such block zen.) Humiliation is very bad and goes counter to the compassion principle. Therefore, I suggest a one-month moratorium with SageRad taking a wikibreak that has nothing to do with blocks and block logs. (Please briefly indicate if you agree to do that, {{ping|SageRad}}.) If he edits anywhere ''in a disruptive way'' during the moratorium, he will then be blocked, and I advise against editing at all. And we collapse this until 25 November, but it can be re-opened earlier by SR himself, if he feels ready for it. He will be free to remove all his own posts here and start afresh, if desired. And I agree emphatically with Dennis that we must avoid a situation where we close without action, SR leaves, and then returns in a month or two, unsanctioned. We need to protect Misplaced Pages and other users from the bludgeoning that has been going on. The case should be discussed again in a month at the latest, even if ''in absentia''. Is this acceptable to other admins? ] | ] 20:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC). | |||
::For the record, that's more or less what I was suggesting. I'm not a fan of ] blocks when not absolutely necessary, and I'm not convinced this case warrants it. His conduct needs to be dealt with, but letting cooler heads prevail is a much better path for everyone involved. I '''endorse''' this proposal. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 20:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
*I'm fine with that. Can't hurt to try as long as we don't forget it. ] - ] 01:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
*OK, thanks, all. Sigh... let's focus on the edit summary and first sentence of SageRad's statement , that he is actually, now, taking a wikibreak, and put this on hold for a month. I hope he means it, because if there should be further ABF harangues in the coming month, I believe he should be blocked. Closing. ] | ] 08:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC). | |||
{{hab}} | |||
==DevilWearsBrioni== | |||
<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 DevilWearsBrioni=== | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Athenean}} 05:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|DevilWearsBrioni}}<p>{{ds/log|DevilWearsBrioni}} | |||
<!--- 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. 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.--> | |||
DWB is a user with a history of ], ], ] and ] that causes considerable disruption in Balkan related topics. A dispute at ] that began months ago over DWB's unsubstantiated claims of ] has been dragging on because DWB cannot concede that there is no case of ]. The dispute has been ongoing since January 2016, and in August of this year DWB filed at ] . The discussion at DRN dragged on for a long time due to filibustering by DWB, but the outcome was 100% against him. DWB then goes to the DRN talkpage, alleging that the dispute was not handled properly even though there are no grounds to support this. This also drags on for a while due to filibustering and again the result is against DWB. <s>The dispute then moved to formal mediation , where the mediator, ] has asked him to stay on topic and stop filibustering .</s> All the uninvolved users that have interacted with DWB in these disputes seem to think that DWB is behaving disruptively: ] , ] , ] . It is quite clear from these discussions that DWB is not going to accept "no" for an answer or ]. Added to that is a ] type behavior of filing frivolous reports at AN/I against users that disagree with him (both reports a huge of waste of the community's time and summarily dismissed). Looking through this user's contribs, I see very little content creation and positive editing, and a whole lot of wikidrama. The disruption caused by DWB far outweighs any positive contribs. ] (]) 05:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
# EC gaming | |||
;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 ]): | |||
; 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) | |||
I would also like to draw attention to this attempt at off-wiki canvassing by DWB on Reddit . DWB admitted was him in this AN/I attack thread . ] (]) 04:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
@T. Canens: I have e-mailed MEDCOM to ask for permission to include the mediation deliberations as evidence. Further more, per ], ''Protecting the integrity of mediation does not extend to protecting users who deliberately subvert the mediation process. Therefore, if a party engages in disruptive or bad-faith conduct during mediation, and that conduct later becomes the subject of Misplaced Pages disciplinary proceedings, the Mediation Committee will decline to protect the privileged nature of that party's communications.''. I firmly believe that DWB is being deliberately obstructive at the mediation proceedings. ] (]) 04:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
@T.Canens: I have struck the portion of my report involving the mediation proceedings. All diffs are from before Sep. 26 and are used to show a pattern of filibustering; the behavior at mediation was what led me to file a report. ] (]) 07:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
;DWB's defense shows exactly what the problem is | |||
1) Contemptuously dismisses guidelines like ] and ] as "essays". I have seen people banned for violating these.<br> | |||
2) Has to claim victory at every turn and cannot back down. For the rather strong claim that Italy invaded Greece in 1919 (a claim for which it should not be hard to find good sources if it were true), he presents with a) a purported document from the Greek delegation at the 1919 Paris conferece, b) an unreadable image of the "Literary Digest" from an unspecified (likely very old) date, and c) the testimony of a certain "cashier from Konitsa" in a 1958 English-language Greek newspaper . This goes to the heart of the behavioral issue. Because this user just cannot back down, he will scrape the bottom of the barrel and then declare victory ("Everything seems to check out"). <br> | |||
3) A refusal to accept reliably sourced material. Here he removes a very solidly sourced claim that "large parts of the Cham Albanian community collaborated with the Axis occupiers" , which is sourced to Hermann Meyer, an academic who specializes in WW2 and has written one of the definitive works on the Nazi unit that was active in the area at the time . Yet here he and that we shouldn't use Meyer. This is sophistry of a high degree. He has no problem claiming the shoddiest sources back his claims but will use sophistry to try and dismiss one of the best sources on the topic we could hope for. It's ''impossible'' to reach any kind of agreement at the tp with this kind of behavior, and attempts at dispute resolution devolve into similar charades. ] (]) 07:24, 1 November 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. ---> | <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | ||
===Discussion concerning |
===Discussion concerning LaylaCares=== | ||
<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 DevilWearsBrioni==== | |||
====Statement by LaylaCares==== | |||
{{ping|Athenean}} ''”The discussion at DRN dragged on for a long time due to filibustering by DWB.”'' It was closed within a few hours after discussion was opened, which you would have noticed if you actually looked into it and not just routinely assumed things. While {{u|Athenean}} likes to throw around links to various essays like WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT, I'll provide some illustrative examples of his hypocrisy in regards to this. When Athenean once tried to discredit a source, he argued that it should be avoided, and concluded ''"Otherwise things will get real ugly real quick."'' In his attempts to discredit the author, Athenean claimed that there were factual errors in the book regarding the Italian takeover of Greece in 1917. I provided him with additional sources that confirmed these details, i.e. contrary to what Athenean had claimed, there was in fact was an Italian takeover of Greece in 1917. Athenean ignored this, only to show up later in the discussion stating in a provocative way, ''"careful what you wish for"'' while simultaneously casting doubt on several sources, because according to Athenean, Chams weren't really oppressed, regardless of what the sources claimed. After I had provided Athenean with the additional sources that confirmed the events in 1917, Athenean only made one more statement related to it, he declared in another section/discussion that I had made up the "fictitious invasions of Greece by Italy in 1917." | |||
====Statement by Aquillion==== | |||
{{ping|Iazyges}} You stated that I would, ”per ]”, be blocked if I ”disrupt the decisions made” after you had closed the DRN. First of all, while I fully understand that your opinion should not be disregarded in the consensus process, you have no authority, as a DRN volunteer, to issue decisions concerning disputes. Second, the part in ], which you referred to, deals with <u>user conduct during mediation</u>. How is that, and I’m sorry if I’m being blunt, not clear to you? The part you quoted has absolutely nothing to do with enforcing content dispute decisions, because again, ''volunteers don't issue decisions'', and it has everything to do with user conduct during mediation. | |||
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=== | |||
During mediation SilentResident was, in regular fashion, campaigning for sanctions against me, and {{u|Anthony_Appleyard}} apparently took everything she said at face value. The latter filed a report against me at AN/I, stating that ''”User:DevilWearsBrioni has ignored two ARBMAC warnings already on the matter and likely would ignore a third”'' which essentially echoed what SilentResident had told him moments earlier, i.e. ''”resorting to a mere third ARBMAC warning against the editor DevilWearsBrioni will do nothing”''. For clarification, I had received ''one'' ARBMAC warning by an editor I've rarely seen eye to eye with on anything. And honestly, it boggles my mind that an ] just parrots what he’s being told and uses that as an argument for sanctions against me at AN/I. Anthony, when you claim that I have ignored two ARBMAC warnings, what do you mean and how does my behavior justify sanctions? Could you point to something specific? Did you actually bother looking into whether SilentResident's accusations were true? | |||
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 starship.paint==== | |||
{{ping|SilentResident}} How about you provide some evidence (diffs) for the things you accuse me of? '''You could start with''' <u>diffs of 3RR breaches</u>, an accusation you like to throw around. Recently you even told Anthony, among many things in your efforts to get me banned, that I've resumed ''"with <u>new</u> 3RR breaches"''. Would you be so kind to provide those diffs? | |||
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) | |||
====Statement by (username)==== | |||
'''Question to admins:''' I'd like to ask for permission to post my side of the story with regards to my interactions with SilentResident, but it's currently not possible since I will exceed the 500 word limit. I will provide diffs to show that the editor created a erroneous narrative about me that I maintain should be sanctionable. ] (]) 13:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
:@Athenean: Oh yes, my "contemptuous" dismissal of guidelines. Ridiculous hyperboles aside, ''"Otherwise things will get real ugly real quick"'' is the epitome of battleground behavior, and so is, within its context the taunting reply ''"careful what you wish for"''. Furthermore, I did not claim victory; you on the other hand did by asserting that I had made up the "''fictitious invasion of Greece''" while also refusing to discuss the issue on the talk page. Whether the invasion actually happened or not, ''you knew for a fact'' that at least one reliable source (despite your futile efforts to dismiss said source at RS/N ) maintained that it had occurred. Thus the accusation that I had <u>made up</u> ''"the fictitious invasion"'' is not only false, but also dishonest, which further confirms your battleground behavior. I will not bother responding to your analysis of the sources since that discussion belongs to the article talk page, but I will tell you that the three sources were only meant to corroborate the one source you failed to discredit; they were never intended to be included in the article (which is why I never added them). At the end of the day, you never brought forth any sources to substantiate ''your opinions'' concerning the supposed inaccuracies. With regards to Meyer, the claim that I've argued that we "shouldn't use Meyer" is a lie. So is the statement that I tried to "dismiss one of the best sources on the topic". I disagreed with some of the wording on the article, but I never questioned the source itself. Finally, maybe you could explain why you put "oppression" in quotations marks despite several sources asserting that Chams were in fact oppressed? | |||
====Statement by ]==== | |||
One thing that concerns me is his apparent knowledge of many WP guidelines but it seems that when it comes to WP's that disagree with or contradict him, he either has selectively avoided them or feigns ignorance. ] ] ] 14:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
:I would also add that for the DRN case, it was arguable that there was fault, but this is because the DRN isn't for a "right wrong" conclusion, unlike OR or RFC there are no "winners", it's for building consensus so that ideally all parties agree to something, because of this a OR case like this doesn't really belong in DRN. ] ] ] 14:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
<s>I gave DWB a (arguably) formal , by telling him that if he chose to continue disruption ''without'' community involvement, I could request that he be sanctioned by an admin, per ] (Which covers informal mediation, DRN and mediation comitee mediation.</s> While RFC was an option, I suggested formal mediation or else arbitration, (I was at the time under the misconception that the mediation committee's agreements were binding, I was informed that it wasn't later by another mediator of the DRN) due to the history of the talk page and OR arguments. <s>He chose to these warnings.</s> | |||
:I have removed some of this after reviewing it and realizing that I mis-read it earlier. ] ] ] 20:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
{{Ping|Resnjari}} I resent your implication of partiality. How have I been partial? I closed it in a logical manner, unless the source that agreed with it was totally disproven it isn't OR. ] ] ] 01:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by ]==== | |||
Unfortunately, I have to agree with the filing party that the only way to avoid disruption is to give ] an indefinite topic-ban from all ]-related editing. Informal mediation was attempted at ]. DWB persistently argues that any edits with which they disagree are necessarily ], in spite of repeatedly having that argument considered and rejected. I then proposed formal mediation, which is being done by ], to which the parties agreed. However, DWB apparently isn't following the mediator's instructions to stay on topic (even though multiple copies have been defined) and is ]ing. I don't see any alternative to an indefinite topic-ban, because this editor is not contributing constructively to the encyclopedia in the ] area but is being disruptive. ] (]) 15:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
::I have, belatedly, given ] the formal alert concerning discretionary sanctions. It is unfortunately my opinion that this case will have to be withdrawn as being defective in two respects. First, it appears that the formal notice wasn't given earlier. Second, it relies partly on inadmissible testimony from Mediation proceedings. As a result, I think that DevilWearsBrioni should be given a very strong normal administrative warning that any further disruptive editing in the area of the ] will result in a topic ban. A topic-ban isn't (as far as I can tell) within the scope of normal administrative action. Clearly formal mediation isn't going to work, because it has already been tried and has failed, so only administrative action is available. If anyone wants to go back to ] and ask for a community topic ban, that is within the scope of the community. ] (]) 13:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::I see that the alert was given on 26 September 2016. Therefore any disruptive editing after 26 September 2016, except in formal mediation, is sanctionable. I defer to the judgment of the Mediation Committee and the administrators here as to whether disruption of mediation is sanctionable. However, it doesn't appear that there was any disruptive editing outside of mediation after 26 September, so that I restate my recommendation that this case be closed with a very strong normal administrative warning that any further disruptive editing will result in at least a topic-ban and possible an indefinite block. At this point, a topic-ban is unfortunately out of scope, and a block would be punitive. ] (]) 23:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by ]==== | |||
The problem with ] is that although he has a decent knowledge of Misplaced Pages's rules, his editorial conduct so far has been extremely disruptive on ARBMAC-protected articles. His actions and stance have not contributed anything, besides disruption. He's trying to impose certain POV regarding historical events of the past, at the expense of neutrality. To achieve this, he keeps raising false WP:OR and WP:SYNTH cases, (where in NOR Board, DRN Board, ANI Board <s>Mediation Board</s>, and Talks, absolutely no neutral party has backed him). By insisting on his own perception of rules, broke 3RR , violated ARBMAC , violated NPOV, abused the Tagging , acted against consensus, refused to be reasoned by others, dismissed dispute resolutions , and refuses to remedy. This leaves us no other options. I suggest that DevilWearsBrioni is indefinitely banned from any Balkan topic-related articles, or at least be given a strong warning like Robert McClenon suggested. -- ]] 16:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
*'''Note for ]:''' Such a diff exists, just it seems the filler forgot to include it: . The AE report has now been corrected. -- ]] 10:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC) <small>Moved to editor's section from results section. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC) </small> | |||
*'''Reply to ]:''' Since the majority of the scholars agree on traitorous collaboration of Chams with Nazis, and only a minority adopts the viewpoint from that peer viewed content you have tried to restore, then I have every right to remove it until it is fairly presented into the article, without leaving a false impression of being the majority's viewpoint. If you do believe that citation reflecting a minority viewpoint shouldn't be clarified in its attribution (name those who support it), then, you better send an e-mail to the founder of Misplaced Pages, ], and tell him your disagreements with his rules. What he said: "''1) If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; 2) If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; 3) If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then—whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not—it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Misplaced Pages is not the place for original research.''" As for ], this unfortunately is not the first time. Such assumptions you have made in the past too, like here: , where you have assumed the Wikipedians for bias against Muslims when they do not accept your positions. Furthermore, accusing the Mediators, such as ], for partiality just because they did not rule in favor of your positions, makes your own objectivity and good faith rather questionable. -- ]] 08:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by ]==== | |||
A request to waive the ] has been made to the Mediation Committee and will be discussed on the Committee's mailing list. Unless and until such time as the Committee consents to waive the privilege, nothing said or done in the mediation may, by policy, be used as evidence in this proceeding. All previously-made statements made about what has happened there should be withdrawn and, whether or not withdrawn, must be disregarded by all administrators considering this case. For the Mediation Committee, ] (]) 07:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson) | |||
:The request to waive the privilege of mediation has been declined by the Committee. The privilege of mediation remains in effect and, as noted above, nothing said or done in the mediation may, by policy, be used as evidence in this proceeding. All previously-made statements made about what has happened there should be withdrawn and, whether or not withdrawn, must be disregarded by all administrators considering this case. For the Mediation Committee, ] (]) 20:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson) | |||
====Statement by ]==== | |||
I am a little concerned about some editors in here advocating for a ban on Brioni in participating on all Balkan related topics on Misplaced Pages. Brioni’s insistence on raising certain content issues have been in relation to one article, that of the Expulsions of the Chams. A number of editors who have participated in that discussion themselves have resorted to colourful language and made editing unpalatable at times, things of which they accuse Brioni in here. Moreover when Brioni has taken matters to DRN, the process was closed within a short period of time which he felt certain issues were not addressed adequately. I noted a similar sentiment on my part to editor Iazyges who eventually acknowledged that a concern of mine was within reason (see my comments: ). No editor who participated in the Chams discussion in here is clean and one can cite multiple issues on their part in the talkpage. The process is now at formal mediation where it should have gone long ago (where discussion can be had in depth, over time, instead of it being rushed and without an impartial third party watching over proceedings). All editors need to observe good faith there and stick to content instead of trivial issues. The topic of the Chams is complex and yes there are passions. Passions though should not guide the editing process such as this insistence of “traitorous actions” by Silent being invoked to remove peer reviewed material thereby making good faith questionable. A final warning should be made to all participants.] (]) 14:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
:'''Reply to {{reply|SilentResident}}'''. Well it’s not just a scholar’s “opinion” and “traitorous actions” being a reason for removal of content do not suffice. The second pillar of which you cite is exactly my point. “Traitorous actions” is not a reason to remove peer reviewed content even if you don't like it.See this is why the in the end the discussion has had to go to mediation where an outside and impartial editor to keep an eye out on proceedings. Whether Brioni will be part of those discussions or not, i don’t know. Regarding myself, I now have time and will be partaking in the discussions.] (]) 16:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
::'''2nd reply to {{reply|SilentResident}}'''. My comment was a follow up to your reason of “traitorous actions” which was not based on policy but your personal opinion regarding removal of peer reviewed content. What am I supposed to make of that? I have had more than a few experiences on Misplaced Pages by now with other editors on different topics. These editors acknowledged the mass violence and suffering done to Christian populations by Ottoman Muslim perpetrators, as I do. However when the religious identities are reversed relating to victim and perpetrator, those same editors have questioned such events and the validity of an article existing, even though peer reviewed sources exist. Such experiences have made me skeptical and it was with those thoughts in mind that I replied to you at the time. That’s why I prefer mediation and someone keeping an eye on things. May take longer, however it will be a binding and final outcome.] (]) 17:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::{{reply|SilentResident}}, once again you use that word “traitorous” and this time in front of “collaboration". The scholarship does not discount that a portion of the Muslim Cham population joined the side of the Axis powers. None though use loaded terminology such as “traitorous” like yourself. So I stand once again by what I wrote that issues relating to the article should be undertaken in mediation, so at least some kind of semblance of good faith is maintained.] (]) 18:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::{{reply|Iazyges}}, my comments were in relation to the process that occurred that was concluded within the scope of just an hour or two and closed. This left out other editors involved in the discussion being unable to comment. In the exchange that followed in the DRN talkpage there was acknowledgement that an issue I raised regarding Cham sentiments on the eve of the Balkan wars was within reason. The forum DRN that Brioni took the matter to is limited as it is designed to hear and resolve disputes in a limited fashion and not designed for a prolonged and in depth discussion. This subject matter is complex and is now at mediation. {{reply|SilentResident}}, I stand by my comments and issues of that nature should be dealt at mediation. If you still wish to partake in the discussion, do so, if not your choice. Best.] (]) 09:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by ]==== | |||
Apart from the evidence provided above, which appears quite overwhelming against DevilWearsBrioni, I believe that some additional piece of info may be helpfull: DWB displayed an aggresive pattern from his very beginning in wikipedia (forumshopping, reddit&off wiki activity as he admitted) and did not hesitate to fill two frivolous ANI reports against me (both of them summarily dismissed) ] ]. Even the heading of the last report-attack leaves no doubt that this editor is not here to built an encyclopedia in a constructive manner: he questions eight years of contribution of a co-editor as he clearly declares in the heading. | |||
After the following DRN turned against him, it was time for the DRN vollunteer to became his new opponent: he even edit-warred ]] and warned him not to revert again: ]. Although he was again adviced by mediator not to engage in further edit-warring ], this wasn't enough: ] | |||
The OR obsession in the case of 'Expulsion of Cham Albanians' and the way it is handled by DWB during the last months, reveals a disruption and stubborness. The fact that a number of mediators/administrators asked for a ban/restriction isn't unfounded. Although a topic ban in the entire ARBMAC may be too much a restriction in a more limited area, let's say Albania/-ns broadly constructed, will certainly be a better solution.] (]) 20:13, 29 October 2016 (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) | |||
* Two procedural points: | |||
*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) | |||
:* We need something more for "awareness", which has a very technical meaning in this context. See ]. If no such diff is available, we can't impose a discretionary sanction, but normal admin action is still available. | |||
*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) | |||
:* Per ], formal mediation proceedings cannot be used as evidence in subsequent dispute settlement absent prior written consent from MEDCOM. Unless such consent has been given, the portion of the complaint related to mediation will have to be stricken. ] (]) 07:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
*@]: I agree that the draft should be G5'd, but will wait for consensus to develop here. ] (]/]) 01:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::* Since the formal notification diff we have is from Sept. 26, can the complainant organize his diffs to make clear which ones took place before the formal notification and which one after? We can consider diffs before the notification as background or for normal admin action, but not for a discretionary sanction. In addition, please remove all references to the formal mediation proceedings unless and until MEDCOM waives the privilege. ] (]) 01:46, 28 October 2016 (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) }} | |||
* The noticeboard discussion is now at ]. ] (]) 23:07, 30 October 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 AstroGuy0=== | |||
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by ה-זפר== | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}} 03:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|AstroGuy0}}<p>{{ds/log|AstroGuy0}}</p> | |||
<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found ]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. <p>To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see ]).''</small> | |||
; Appealing user : {{userlinks|ה-זפר}} – ] (]) 15:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
; Sanction being appealed : Blocked for 1 year for breach of Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban () | |||
; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|EdJohnston}} | |||
; Notification of that administrator : Admin notified - | |||
===Statement by ה-זפר=== | |||
<small>Copied from user talk page at ] by ] (]) 15:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)</small> | |||
Please copy my appeal to the ] or ]. :I was blocked, with out a explanation, the reason stated was I did a violation of my ARBPIA articles ban, but I did follow my topic ban by not editing IL-PS topics. What I didn't know is that ], ], and even ] are related to IL-PS conflict. I believe Golan is like IL-SY dispute, and I'm notified on topic ban of IL-PS topics. (and now it changed to Arab-IL topics?) :On Golan Heights ( in particular), I tried to make the article better, but ] got involved with me in a revert conflict, after I took it to ], I know I was topic banned. On the talk page the user said "Your edit should keep the mentioning of the occupation in the infobox", and in my edit occupation was in the head and in the infobox was the current administration IL/SY (two thirds/one thirds). The other user was not notified on revert conflict. and there was a post on my talk page saying in "you have too much of an Israeli slant in your editing style", whereas my edit was indeed neutral. I was just revering to get the fact of Purple line on the head of Golan Heights, the other user finally agreed, but continued revert conflict on the infobox on current administration IL/SY (two thirds/one thirds) = to just, occupied by Israel. :After a recent report at ], I got blocked? why? My topic ban was not explained to me and also I got blocked now? This is very unfair! ] <sup>]</sup> 04:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
<small>Please note I originally copied the above message incorrectly and lost the links. I have now replaced it with the source and it now contains the links - nothing else is changed. ] (]) 07:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)</small> | |||
<small>Copied from user talk page, ] (]) 11:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC) ...</small> | |||
:{{reply to|Boing! said Zebedee}}, Thank you, hope you and the other admins go through my words and links. There's a thing in my mind = '''] is no where related to Palestine. Golan Heights is a dispute between ] and ]. So, due to I was reported (not notified about it though), fine. ? That's what I'm saying, then why was I even topic banned on first place? The other user was not even warned for the reverts, why just me? Also later I'm ? Are the administrators gone out of dictionary or it's meanings? Israel-Palestine conflict is something else and Arab-Israel conflict is other, whereas ] is not even near to the ], lol. If I'm notified on "Israel-Palestine conflict topic ban", the how can I be blocked on violation of "Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban"? It makes no sense to me! The topic ban and even the block makes no sense. I think some admins just want to sandwich me up! I had a headache for no sense. Haha. The revert conflicts could have been solved on the Golan heights talk page (as I already explained the revert conflict in the RED box above)''' HAHAHA... | |||
:''On Golan Heights ( in particular), I tried to make the article better, but ] got involved with me in a revert conflict, after I took it to ], I know I was topic banned. On the talk page the user said "Your edit should keep the mentioning of the occupation in the infobox", and , indeed neutral. I was just revering to get the fact of ] on the head of Golan Heights, the other user finally agreed, but continued = to include, occupied by Israel in infobox.'' | |||
:HAHAHAHAHAHA..... ] <sup>]</sup> 10:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
===Statement by EdJohnston (re David Aaron's appeal)=== | |||
It is unfortunate that the editor's responses show he doesn't understand the ban. If we could be sure he would follow Misplaced Pages policy in the future the block could be lifted. The ban itself is negotiable, though it can't be lifted by me since . The ban is in place due to a concern that he can't neutrally. When a new editor jumps into the hot-button articles right away (such as Golan Heights) and seems unaware that he is acting like a bull in a china shop it causes concern. ] (]) 19:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
===Statement by JzG=== | |||
I find it astonishing that anyone would not realise that the Golan Heights are related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. I consider that ה-זפר was given a lot of support and guidance in how to avoid falling foul of the restriction, and failed to use it to material advantage. The length of his current block seems harsh, as he comes across as ]-ish not a ] warrior, but the restriction appears valid and the violation of the restriction, leading to blocking, unarguable, especially given the thoughtful help offered on his talk page. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
===Statement by ANI participant Dennis Brown=== | |||
I will stay on this side of the line since I participated in the ANI. David seemed to have a great difficulty understanding the previous topic ban, even though it was explained many times. If someone is capable of stringing together coherent ideas into prose, you would expect they are capable of understanding the concept of a topic ban once it is explained more than a few times. As I said there, ] and I find it difficult to believe that David is so thick as to not have understood all along. In short, I don't believe the feigning of ignorance. So was a block and ban justified? Absolutely. | |||
As for the duration, we admin use our best judgement to determine what a consensus of editors would choose, and sometimes we fall short and sometimes overshoot the mark. One year is on the high side, but is within acceptable limits. It is impossible to gauge with any accuracy how long is "long enough", after all. If a consensus here believes a different duration of block is more appropriate, I'm sure {{u|EdJohnston}} would accept that consensus without issue. I support his block, but I'm willing to support anything for at least one month, which I think is grossly insufficient. I strongly prefer at least 90 days for the block, but I'm more concerned with finding consensus and moving on. ] - ] 22:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
*As per Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's note below, it is obvious David is choosing to not get the point, so I don't see how reducing the block would be beneficial either. My opinion would therefore be to simply leave it as it is. ] - ] 15:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
===Statement by OID=== | |||
<s>Golan Heights are not Palestine. If administrators are taking/interpreting the Israel-Palestine case/remedy's to apply to Israel and all Arabs regardless of location under 'broadly construed' then there should probably be a request to amend the case to make this explicit.</s> Thanks Roland for the correction. ] (]) 07:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
===Statement by RolandR=== | |||
For the benefit of ] above, and in order to clarify any possible misunderstanding, it is worth repeating the outcome of the original arbitration case. By eleven votes to none, ] that "The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted", and by fourteen votes to none ] that "All Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions". There is no possible ambiguity here. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 10:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
===Statement by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi=== | |||
My view as stated at the ANI has not changed: {{blue|'You don't understand how ] (fought over as part of the ]), ] (occupied by Israel after the ]), and ] (]) ''don't'' fall under the ]?'}}. Indeed, it was reinforced less than 12 hours later by a follow-up comment: {{blue|'I did follow my topic ban by not editing Golan Heights... What I didn't know is that... Golan Heights are related to IL-PS conflict.'}} Now there is an unexplainable level of confusion in these statements, particularly the latter. Now, clearly ] is '''not''' an issue, as his article creation shows, so I think there must literally be a blind-spot to this specific idea (the TBan). The question then, is ''how long'' it will feasibly take him to comprehend the restriction- and that is the length of time the block should run for. <s>How long is a piece of string?</s> <s>But ]' agreement to clarify its parameters will surely help reduce this from a year. Personally I think three months should suffice. If it doesn't, then what will?</s> | |||
*Striking proposal to reduce length of block. Due to the fact that, going by his second statement, '''ה-זפר '''seems to be getting mega-lulz out of this. ] <sup>''''']'''''</sup> 07:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by ה-זפר === | |||
===Statement by Debresser=== | |||
If my opinion be know, it is that 1. The initial indefinite topic ban was overkill. Banning all interested editors, or even all POV editors from the IP topic is a bad "solution". The one-year block was also excessive, and clearly punitive. It is not in the interest of this project to ban or block an editor who has shown he can be productive in this area for such an overly long period. WP:AE should be more understanding and use sanctions as a last resort. 2. It is easy to make an edit that is ''not'' related to the IP-conflict on a page that ''is'' related. We should show some understanding, and not slam people on the wrist for a mistake. ] (]) 19:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
===Result of the appeal by ה-זפר=== | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the discretionary sanctions log below where their sanctions is logged. --> | |||
*I agree with by {{U|EdJohnston}}: "It's a puzzling fact that he seems not to understand his ban". ] (]) 17:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
*Might I suggest that the sanctioning admin actually type out the exact wording for area of conflict from ] or ] next time? It's not that much longer. ] (]) 19:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
*:Yeah, that's on me. I stand by the ban, agree I could have been a bit clearer about it; I've gotten a little rusty with AE procedure. No specific comment on the length of the block, but the comments above about the implausibility of understanding the limits of the ban seem spot on. ] (]) 22:09, 25 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
*: The block is fundamentally sound, and I don't think we need to tinker with the block length at this time. We can revisit after three months if a more convincing appeal is presented then. ] (]) 07:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
*To my mind, trying to claim that Golan Heights-related issues aren't covered under ] is a case of trying to get clever and skirt around something that ought to be very clear. I don't think that trying to find technicalities to get around a sanction is something that should be encouraged. ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC). | |||
==My very best wishes== | |||
<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 My very best wishes=== | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|DrFleischman}} 20:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|My very best wishes}}<p>{{ds/log|My very best wishes}} | |||
<!--- 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. | |||
# The '''first''' time My very best wishes re-inserted highly contentious material to ] without consensus during the pendancy of an . Instead of posting something on the talk page, My very best wishes described the perfectly reasonable RfC as "ridiculous" and accused the requestor, {{u|EvergreenFir}}, of using it to stonewall. The irony here is that the one stonewalling was My very best wishes, not EvergreenFir. | |||
# |
# 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" | ||
# The '''third''' time My very best wishes re-inserted highly contentious material to ] without consensus during the pendancy of the . In the edit summary they acknowledged the existence of the RfC. My very best wishes ignored that the content should be excluded during the pendancy of the RfC. A pretty clear violation of ]. | |||
# Playing dumb and failing to acknowledge RfC, after . | |||
# Refusal to self-revert, and failure to acknowledge that their re-insertions violated our ] policy. | |||
# My very best wishes continues to edit war over this material, now re-deleting an {{t|undue-inline}} tag that flagged the existence of the RfC. --] (]) 07:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | |||
;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. --> | |||
(one of many). | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
: Made aware of contentious topics criterion: | |||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> | <!-- Add any further comment here --> | ||
(My apologies if I've messed something up, as this is my first time lodging an AE complaint.) --] (]) 20:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
* {{u|My very best wishes}}, the arbitration warning states: {{cquote|'''Consensus required:''' All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.}} This is what you did, three times. Your primary justification appears to be that you were following some sort of custom to preserve the material being discussed in an RfC. This custom does not "trump" (pardon the pun) active arbitration remedies, ''especially'' when you are re-inserting allegations of sexual misconduct in a BLP. I'll also note that ] states: {{cquote|Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RFC is resolved.}} --] (]) 23:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
::{{u|My very best wishes}}, thank you for that I did accidentally and technically violate 1RR just now (after filing this complaint) by restoring a dispute tag while the relevant dispute was ongoing. I acknowledge my mistake and have --something you have refused to do. As for your that the RfC be closed, I agree that would help toward resolving the content dispute, but not toward resolving this conduct dispute. --] (]) 16:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
* I have identified at least 3 verifiable falsehoods in {{u|Tataral}}'s , but they really bear on the matters not pertinent to this complaint, which is about My very best wishes's conduct, not about my conduct or the content dispute. --] (]) 16:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
* {{u|Drmies}}, {{u|Lankiveil}}, and {{u|JzG|Guy}}, I think some of you (at least Drmies) have misunderstood this complaint. I'm not screaming BLP violation, I'm saying that Mvbw clearly and flagrantly violated the arbitration remedy that provides: ''"'''Consensus required:''' All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)."'' Mvbw and I have a disagreement about content, which is being hashed out on the talk page. The difference between my behavior and theirs is that I have used only the talk page and tagging to "stick to my guns" whereas they have repeatedly re-reverted the same content without consensus, in violation of active arbitration remedies, to stick to theirs. One is the right way to edit DS articles and the other is not. I'm puzzled that you're so quick to excuse such behavior on one of the most visible and contentious articles in the encyclopedia - one that was basically what DS was designed to manage. Drmies, I'm also surprised at your uncharacteristically un-AGF comment. If you look at the entirety of my contributions to ] you'll see that I've taken all sides, sometimes with Mvbw and sometimes against, and I have nothing against them beyond that they have behaved disruptively in this particular dispute and have set a very poor example for less experienced editors. I have to be honest, this smacks of favoritism toward the long-timers, even if unintended. --] (]) 17:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
::{{u|Drmies}}, I must say I'm completely baffled by your latest response, and I think you continue to misunderstand me. I absolutely disagree with those who say that insertion of the rape content is immediately blockable, and I'm blinkered as to how you can tag me with poor arguments made by others. Moreover, your suggestion that Mvbw "did something I think is wrong and didn't repeat it" is verifiably false. Mvbw restored content without consensus ''three times''--in clear violation of AE remedies, no?--while there was ongoing talk page discussion. The third time I had ''specifically'' this behavior and asked editors like Mvbw to stop restoring the content without consensus. So what does Mvbw do? They ignored the discussion and restored the content anyway. (1) How is this good behavior? (2) How is this in compliance with AE remedies--and if it's not, are you really ready to signal that enforcement of AE remedies is discretionary? --] (]) 16:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
::{{u|Drmies}}, say what? You continue to misread. The was set up by EvergreenFir, not by me, and the comments you're quoting aren't part of it. --] (]) 17:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
::{{u|Drmies}}, I hope I can answer your questions by saying: (1) Yes, I hope everyone will stop fighting over that content, not just Mvbw; (2) ] is the reason I chose to bring this complaint against Mvbw; and (3) My dream remedy would be an uninvolved admin posting a big, bold notice on the talk page saying something like, "Everyone, knock it off and leave this material out of the lead section pending formal closure of the RfC or other consensus to restore this material, ]. Violators will be tbanned until after the election." I don't know if you guys have authority to do that, but it would solve a lot of problems all at once. --] (]) 18:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
* {{u|Schmarnnintelligenz}}, you are deliberately misrepresenting my motives. In , I explain that the reason for this complaint is to discourage bad behavior (edit warring, reverting with out discussing) by Mvbw and others. --] (]) 16:40, 1 November 2016 (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. --> | |||
<!-- 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. --> | |||
<!--- 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 My very best wishes=== | |||
<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 My very best wishes==== | |||
In the I refer (edit summary) to closed by an administrator. I obviously did not mean user EvergreenFir in this edit summary. I meant other users. | |||
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) | |||
An administrator who closed this request also opened that was a lot more helpful. version of the page which existed at the moment of posting this RfC by admin. The content under discussion in the RfC was the last paragraph in the introduction. Strictly speaking, this paragraph should not be modified during standing RfC until it is closed. However, I do agree that the initial version of this paragraph was POVish, and it evolved to another, more neutral version, one that I have restored (3rd diff in complaint). | |||
===Discussion concerning AstroGuy0=== | |||
I think this latest version is fine and should remain, possibly in , even more neutral version. However, if the RfC will be properly closed with conclusion to remove, I am very much willing to agree with consensus. But the RfC is still open, and there is no consensus to remove this material from intro. I fully explained my edits and . Nevertheless, the filer decided to go ahead with this complaint. Why? If am wrong here, please explain, and I will try to improve. Note that I discussed this subject on article talk page. | |||
<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 AstroGuy0==== | |||
As a note of order, the US politics is not an area of my major interest, and I did not receive a formal warning about discretionary sanctions in this area, although I know about these sanctions. ] (]) 22:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Iskandar323==== | |||
*''A constructive suggestion''. Could an uninvolved admin look at and close it please, one way or another. End of story. ] (]) 01:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
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) | |||
*P.S. Note that DrFleischman just threatened to report yet another user on WP:AE and ... violated 1RR rule on this page , (note that both his edits are restoration of "content challenged by reversion" he complains about here). DrFleischman is well aware of the 1RR restriction on this page, but refused to comply . Note that I made only three edits on this page during a week. ] (]) 10:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::DrFleschman now , but asked other users (edit summary) to continue edit warring on his behalf. I tried to explain him that he acted inappropriately, but . ] (]) 18:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
@James J. Lambden. After reading comments , it appears that most people agree with by Awilley. His text is similar to that in . <u>I think this text actually reflects consensus on the page.</u> ] (]) 16:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
@James J. Lambden. | |||
#No, this is wrong count by you. Most people on the RfC agreed that at least one phrase should be included in intro. | |||
#Even if I made mistakes, I corrected them later - see my last diff which places essentially same content as was previously placed by admin ''''; | |||
#I think some participants around here are gaming the rules by removing everything they do not like to claim "hey, you can not place this back as something I challenged by reversion", | |||
#I think my editing of BLP pages is generally fine (I had no a single warning for this); | |||
#This is all beyond the point because I am not going back into this mess per suggestion by Lankeveil. ] (]) 01:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
:@EtienneDolet and James J. Lambden. Yes, I have ''some'' interest in US politics, but this is not an area of my ''main'' interest. Why do you see it as a problem? ] (]) 01:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
:@Athenean. I think my involvement in the area of US politics is generally constructive. I discuss these issues a lot prior to making any edits. Here are my most recent edits in article space - very few of them are in the area of US politics. Here are my edits in article ''talk'' space - most of them are US-related discussions. If I removed or reverted something in this subject area, that has been extensively discussed on article talk page (including my participation) and at least some other users agreed with my changes. ] (]) 04:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
@Lankeveil. I agree to leave this topic area voluntarily for a couple of weeks, no problem. P.P.S. I do have an opinion about this election, but it's not anything original and was nicely explained by many political commentators like . ] (]) 14:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
::@EtienneDoliet. In the comment you quoted I refer to . Yes, this RfC is ridiculous because it asks about the number of words in a phrase. That's why an admin posted another RfC instead. As about child rape ''accusations'', I saw them in and they seemed well sourced to me. I do not insist these accusations should be placed back. This is something to be decided by WP:Consensus. ] (]) 05:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::@Tiptoethrutheminefield. What "attack dog"? I only made three or four edits on this page. In fact it is the filer of this request who constantly edit war on this page, even during his own standing AE request , and admitted that he submitted this request to gain an upper hand in a content dispute . ] (]) 17:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
:I am not sure why exactly three contributors below (EtienneDolet, Athenean and Tiptoethrutheminefield) blame me of Putinophobia, and not for the first time. This AE request has nothing to do with ]. I do not even edit page about him for a long time. . I guess many people around here do not like P. So what? ] (]) 02:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Tataral==== | |||
If I'm not mistaken, User:DrFleischman has made at least 3 reverts during the last 24 hours in violation of 1RR. It is somewhat amusing that this user, DrFleischman, who is engaging in revert warring and battleground behaviour to such an extent, threatens to file frivolous reports over the same issue against one editor after another (who unlike him haven't edit warred and who have made only one edit during a whole week reinstating the stable and consensus-supported version) when he doesn't get it his way. When someone claims everyone else is wrong, it's usually the other way round. | |||
When reading the talk page in its entirety, after 2 weeks of discussion, it is clear based on policy-based arguments that there is consensus to include a brief mention of the controversy, in the form of the wording that has been stable for quite some time now. Numerous editors have presented sound policy-based arguments (summed up nicely by JasperTECH under the heading "My comment copied from below") in favour of its inclusion, at least in the form of a brief mention (as is currently the case), but on the other hand there is a case to be made that consensus is against including a whole paragraph on it, as was originally the case. The current two-sentence wording is much shorter than the original paragraph, and also a lot more neutral, and is really a compromise and the result of painstaking work by many editors to find an acceptable, neutral and WP:DUE wording that complies with the BLP policy to the maximum extent possible. If User:DrFleischman disagrees with it, he should seek consensus on the talk page instead of revert-warring or trying to bully other editors. --] (]) 11:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by James J. Lambden==== | |||
Nowhere in My very best wishes's response do I see a link to any discussion showing consensus to include the text he restored. Did I miss it? | |||
His comment above is also dubious: | |||
* "As a note of order, the US politics is not an area of my major interest" | |||
He made ] a few days ago on the ] talk page: | |||
* "I usually do not edit US politics and have more or less fresh eyes here" | |||
Yet, examining his recent contributions I see he's involved in the following articles: | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
Now I'm just a simple caveman but the ''Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy'' seems like a relatively obscure topic for someone not very interested in American politics. | |||
It will be interesting to compare editors' responses in this request to their responses in {{u|Anythingyouwant}}'s request above, since they involve the same bit of text in the same article. ] (]) 15:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
{{reply|My very best wishes}} You say: "<u>I think this text actually reflects consensus on the page.</u>" Let's see: | |||
On ''Oct 17'' the RFC ("Allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump were widely reported in the weeks before the election.") was sufficient stood at: | |||
* Yes: '''5''' | |||
* No: '''5''' (one of those saying it should only be expanded to include Trump's counterclaims) | |||
* Maybe/Comment: '''3''' | |||
You expanded it to a paragraph shortly after, including a poorly-sourced claim of '''"child rape"''' (]) | |||
On ''Oct 20'' the RFC stood at: | |||
* Yes/short or one sentence: '''2''' | |||
* Yes/more than short or one sentence: '''9''' | |||
* No: '''11''' | |||
Based on that you restored a full paragraph (]) | |||
On ''Oct 26'' stood at: | |||
* Yes/short or one sentence: '''4''' | |||
* Yes/more than short or one sentence: '''13''' | |||
* No: '''13''' | |||
Based on that you restored a 3-sentence description (]) | |||
Comments addressing potential BLP violations are I believe misguided - the relevant policy (as DrFleischman specifies in his complaint) is ]: | |||
* '''All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.''' | |||
In each of these instances consensus was not just absent but ''against'' the multiple-sentence description restored by My very best wishes. | |||
My own opinion (as far as BLP) is that a single restoration of a poorly-sourced '''child rape''' claim, against consensus, in a highly visible BLP and an area covered by discretionary sanctions is grounds for a permanent ban from BLPs. ] (]) 18:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Schmarnnintelligenz==== | |||
I came here feeling invited via a link posted by DrFleischmann to ] and am really astonished reading this (not all tl;dr;) and just wanted to leave this comment: While working on some of the current politics articles I saw the name DrFleischman really often - and often reverting other users. Then suddenly he placed a warning on my usertalk although I had strictly followed the 1RR rule prominently displayed on the Trump article, so I looked a bit more what he was doing and to me several edits look like breaching the 1RR or "avoiding" it by using just other words. Also in my eyes DrFleischman is very skillful on talkpages interpreting disagreements towards the solutions he wants to achieve, often by accusing fellow contributors of not adhering to the guidelines, also often by positive, constructive language. In the Difflinks provided I don't see acting against the rules, just editing with similar means like DrFleischman. Perhaps both could agree to both adhere more to our giudelines and look more friendly for consensus while accepting that consensus is not always "what I want" and that consensus is fluent and not only the "powerusers" here have valid arguments. My suggestion would be: Close this here and ] --]] 17:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
:As I see that this is still an open case, I ask the admins to have a look at ], especially . I'm really shocked. So this case here is deliberately used to force content out of an WP article by trying to force ''one'' user to grant a consensus with many others? Do I undestand that langauge correct? --]] 14:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by EtienneDolet==== | |||
{{ping|Lankiveil}} and {{ping|JzG}} and to all the other admins involved in this case. There's a lot of misleading claims here that My very best wishes regularly employs in order to excuse himself when the going gets tough. Just two months ago, in this ], Mvbw was quick to say that '''he was actually interested in American politics''' to excuse himself from tag-team edit-warring charges piled against him. Here is exactly what Mvbw at the tag-teaming accusations against him: | |||
{{quote|If it helps, I promise never look at the editing history of VM in the future, even though this is not forbidden by policy. That however, does not guarantee that I will not appear on the same pages as him, '''because we have a significant overlap of interest, including US politics.'''}} | |||
To clarify matters further, he also the following in response to {{u|Softlavender}}'s that the tag-team edit-warring was spreading to different topic areas: | |||
{{quote|@Softlavender. Even if I was not interested in these subjects '''(yes, they are actually interesting to me)''', but only wanted to improve content as a generally disinterested contributor, that still would be OK.}} | |||
And indeed, there's this stark comment : | |||
{{quote|It was only very recently that the ongoing presidential campaign in US brought my attention. '''This is something highly unusual and therefore interesting to me.'''}} | |||
So it's one form of the truth when he's under fire with one accusation, but it's another form of truth under another. Apparently, it's an all too familiar pattern of playing dumb when it comes to not only editing at mainspace (as exemplified by {{u|DrFleischman}}), but even as he defends himself as well. All in all, it's quite deceptive towards admins that haven't known this user's history and apparent pattern of disingenuous handling of his affairs. As for Mvbw's editing pattern, I'm surprised this user is not banned for alone. As I am also surprised that he wasn't banned . I mean, there's a pretty strong pattern here of treating the articles of people he ] with a sly attempt to destroy them, either by undermining the consensus building process to make them better, or to directly add material that would undermine the article altogether. I suggest the admins look beyond this report and seriously consider the long pattern of problematic behavior this user has be accused of doing. It's the only way of truly grasping the extent of the concerning behavior this user has caused in the project. ] (]) 01:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
:{{u|Drmies}}, see the edit-summary of that . You see the part that says '''"RfC is ridiculous and used for stonewalling"'''? Well, that's not the same as making a wrong edit that's "not maintained by consensus". Indeed, that would make it sound okay. As in, much more blameless than it should be. You know, as if it were some accident or something. But this was a highly contentious edit in the most visible BLP article in Misplaced Pages (and of a guy that's known to sue, might I add). To top it all off, Mvbw makes a mockery of this project's consensus building procedures (: '''"This is probably the most ridiculous RfC I have seen in the project"''') and has the effrontery to dismiss those who participate in them as nothing but "stonewallers". And he does this not , not , but times, which in itself makes a mockery of the RfC. So it's not just a wrong edit, it's a disruptive POV pushing pattern. He has openly taken a side on the issue and pushed his POV even while good faith editors were in the process of building a consensus. The pattern is there. The disruption is there. All the fundamental signs that would usually lead to a topic ban are there. What else is missing? I've seen users get indeffed for doing much much less. ] (]) 04:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
::That should not give you the right to material you don't like only hours before you made that remark. ] (]) 05:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::Could admins here make in any less obvious that they are waiting until after the elections to resolve this case? ] (]) 19:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Athenean==== | |||
I'm frankly amazed My very best wishes hasn't been topic banned from US politics articles already. At ] in particular, all he does is edit war . The alone is especially disturbing and grounds for a ban just by itself. He is '''edit-warring to reinstate extremely defamatory, poorly sourced material to the lede of a high visibility BLP article.''' for crying out loud. Can anyone think of something worse? Because I can't. Drmies' special pleading that it was a "setup" is baffling. Users are fully responsible for their edits, and Mvbw is a veteran contributor. Especially in hot articles like Donald Trump, all users should be extra careful with their edits. The conspiratorial suggestion that he was somehow "set up" is simply mind boggling. | |||
As someone else has pointed out, for someone who disingenuously claims to "not be interested in American politics articles", he sure edit wars a lot . In fact that's pretty much ''all'' he does in this topic. Content building is virtually zilch. Talk pages are mainly used for obfuscation and deception instead of trying to resolve disagreements in good faith. For example here is demanding users not edit the article until the RfC is closed (but he himself has no problem re-adding controversial material on Donald Trump even though an RfC on the material is ongoing), deliberately misconstruing RfC results (), wikilawyering about when 1RR applies , the list goes on. | |||
Which brings us to what is arguably the most disruptive aspect of Mvbw's editing: the active use of deception. Mvbw frequently plays dumb (e.g. pretending not to notice an RfC is ongoing) even though he knows full well what is going on. Rules and guidelines are selectively misquoted and manipulated as desired. This shows great contempt for the wikipedia community and its processes. In one edit summary he will say an Rfc is "ridiculous" and use that as an excuse to revert , in the next edit summary he uses the fact that the RfC is ongoing as an excuse to revert again (but this time he validates the RfC) . This user just makes a mockery of the entire wikipedia community process at every turn. This is a game to him. | |||
Finally, I would also like to disabuse everyone here of the naive notion that Mvbw's disruption in this topic area will magically cease after Nov. 8. As anyone who is familiar with him knows, Mvbw's ''raison d'etre'' on wikipedia is a deep and abiding Putinophobia. This is why he edit wars to remove any material that reflects negatively on Clinton and her people using absurd, mocking edit summaries ("not every cold deserves mention", "petty details", "RfC not closed", etc...) and edit wars to reinstate any material that reflects negatively on Trump (the more defamatory the better). Reliable sources and wikipedia process mean nothing; it's all about the mission. Regardless of who wins, I can guarantee the chance of Mvbw abandoning these articles after election day is zilch. | |||
Considering the lack of positive contribs, and the disruption wrought, I can't think of a single reason why this topic area benefits from Mvbw's presence. ] (]) 00:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
@Drmies: So the fact he re-instated the child-rape only once makes it ok? I find it impossible to believe that Mvbw didn't do this knowingly and intentionally. Then we also have this , which while not quite as bad as child rape, is quite close. Then there's this little gem here with the whole guilt-by-association gimmick with Mike Tyson . Doesn't quite accuse Trump of rape, but comes quite close. This is deep, deep in ] and ] territory. I'm just curious, what would this user have to do to get banned from this topic area? Because if the above behavior is not enough, I don't know what is. ] (]) 06:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield==== | |||
I wholeheartedly agree with Athenean's "''anyone who is familiar with him knows, Mvbw's raison d'etre on wikipedia is a deep and abiding Putinophobia''" description of the editing aims of My very best wishes. Regarding the Mike Tyson gimmick Athenean mentioned. I also tried to remove that content , only to see it immediately returned by My very best wishes . As explained here , this off-topic content about Mike Tyson's 1992 rape conviction was being added and then editorialized into being linked to his 2016 endorsement of Trump in order to blatantly imply guilt by association. That Mvbw has continue to edit war in this obviously invalid content is telling, but I think even more telling is the silent agreement of many editors to allow it and similar disgraceful content to remain and allow Mvbw to be the attack dog in reversing any attempts at deletion. This is not just "sticking to one's guns", to use Drmies' wording - it is a '''constant''' and '''pov consistent''' obstruction to the removal of content that clearly breaks numerous Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines on content, language usage, editorializing, and BLP issues. These policies and guidelines take precedence over article-specific sanctions, so Drmies' hand washing "there was some kind of consensus over it" shows a failing in the judgment and guidance that are expected from an administrator. It also displays some flippancy - can Drmies actually point to the talk page discussion that decided on the consensus for the Tyson content he claims exists? There was none - the "consensus" that has allowed that content to remain is nothing more than a "the party that edit wars the longest wins" - this is not how consensus should be determined, and article-specific (even if article-specific ARBAPDS sanction supported) consensus anyway cannot decide to ignore site-wide policies and guidelines. ] (]) 15:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
::My very best wishes, re your question, by "attack dog" I didn't mean this is what you have been doing, but that I think there are editors who look on you as having that purpose for them: they would like, for pov reasons, to retain for example the Tyson editorialized content, but chose not to defend the material on talk (since it is ultimately un defendable). Instead they are letting you do it through your reverts, knowing that if you are blocked it does not affect them - you are a recent arrival to that article and are editing there for different reasons. ] (]) 03:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by JFG==== | |||
{{u|My very best wishes}} is clearly an experienced editor who knows very well how to walk a fine line on the edge of the rules, and quickly retract when caught. I wouldn't go so far as to call him "on a mission" but I concur with {{u|Athenean}} and {{u|Tiptoethrutheminefield}} about his general editing style and behaviour, which tends to discourage editors who are not as strong-willed or as passionate. Unfortunately, neutral and consensus-minded editors can get tired of fighting such people and refrain from further attempts to improve articles on sensitive topics — precisely driving away the kind of contributors we need at Misplaced Pages: that is the key issue to me in this case. This particular violation doesn't look like a big deal, but it is part of a tendentious pattern coupled with sometimes derogatory or lawyeresque comments. In that spirit, I would find it unfair that MBVW escape with a mere slap of the trout when just a few days ago the same kind of minor violation (although from an editor who has generally proved to be more amenable to consensus discussions) was sanctioned with a TBAN for {{u|Anythingyouwant}} considering his overall pattern of behaviour. Therefore I advocate the exact same "{{u|Vanamonde93|Vanamonde}}-standard" sanction for MBVW, with an encouragement to be less combative in his future contributions. — ] <sup>]</sup> 20:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
===Result concerning My very best wishes=== | |||
:''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 is hard to escape the suggestion that this is a setup, and some commentators confirm that. The worst in all this is the inclusion of the "rape" phrase--but that's only in the very first diff. Another editor (Steeletrap, if I remember correctly) used that word on another Trump-related article (can't find which one right now) and I warned them not to do that again--perhaps My very best etc. saw that warning. Moreover, that content was there before the RfC started, so whether removal or reinsertion is the disruptive bit remains to be seen--in other words, what the B is in BRD, for instance. And so what we have is three reinsertions over the course of a week, the first one of which with what I consider a serious BLP violation, but the second ones without that mistake. Now, when exactly which RfC was started and when what content was in, that's less interesting than other matters here: there is no BLP exception (except for in the first, already mentioned and not repeated edit), and the content itself is better documented than the recent effort to land something on Mars. Now, someone inserts that rape shit again, me and a bunch of others will be happy to block on the spot. You want a sentence instead of three sentences on this content, that's fine--but you wait until the RfC is closed before you go to AE, because--again--while one may argue it is undue, it is very hard to see it as a BLP violation. So, this AE request certainly proves that My very best sticks to their guns, as does Dr. Fleischman--good for both of you. It also proves that every single case here has the potential of becoming a lithmus test, which is why James Lambden should really withdraw from this subject matter, since they seem to be incapable of treating any Trump-related conflict as just an editorial conflict, not as some matter of life and death. ] (]) 01:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
**Dr. Fleischman, I am surprised to see you read so much, or misread, my "stick to guns" phrase. Seriously. I have little more to add, except that I just saw yet another editor saying that the rape thing ought to be immediately blockable. It's not. It's not a crazy edit (read the sources, there are some)--just a wrong one which was not maintained by consensus. One of the things that needs to happen here is that if someone does something you think is wrong and doesn't repeat it, that you be happy and maybe congratulate the other editor. ] (]) 03:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
**Etienne Dolet, Athenean, et al., "inserted" or "reinserted"? As far as I can tell the editor only inserted it once. Yes, that's not great while an RfC is going on but it's better than twice. Now, that edit, claiming that that's somehow almost as bad as accusing someone of child rape is ''prima facie'' ridiculous, and such commentary invalidates the point--never mind that "You can do anything. ... Grab them by the p---. You can do anything" is well verified, and is read widely as describing sexual assault. Grabbing someone by the qeuynte is indeed a "sexual advance" in one literary text, but that one is a fabliau and hardly a reliable source for dating advice. And if the Mike Tyson is guilt by association, then you have a bigger problem since apparently it's in the article right now, which I assume means there was some kind of consensus over it. Besides, what the editor did was modify something that was already there, so I don't see how that is POV or disruptive or whatever. No, I do not believe I have seen editors indeffed for less. That kind of exaggeration is typical, maybe, for this topic area, and I hear it on TV as well, but in an arbitration forum it is counterproductive. ] (]) 15:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
**Dr. Fleischman, I don't quite follow. The three diffs do not make the same edit. The contained the rape allegation. That's contentious, I agree, but they didn't repeat it. The is hardly as controversial as you may claim, and is more a tweak than anything else--as long as we're talking about the lead, and not about Tyson (which is not, as far as I can tell, the subject of talk discussion). One can easily argue that it's an improvement since it turns a specific point about the campaign (already there in the lead--the groping bit) into a general point about the subject, which in this article is (more) appropriate. The edit appears factual and well verified, or at least easily verifiable; I don't see how one could call that change a BLP violation or something like that--just compare Anythingyouwant's version to My very best wishes's. The actually restores content that was already there in Anythingyouwant's version just before My very best wishes "second" diff--so you're faulting Mvbw for basically making the that Anythingyouwant made when the latter moved that same material to another spot in the lead. And I assume that if Mvbw did that while an RfC was ongoing, then Anything also did it while an RfC was ongoing.<p>Plus, I don't want to nitpick, but that RfC is not much of an RfC. I'm not big on formalizing anything, but it seems like a discussion over a few phrases more than a well-formed, clear RfC. The ''question'', as Lankiveil says below, is reasonable, but it's hardly a clear-cut question to be answered with an unambiguous mandate to include or exclude some specific content or organize it in some specific way. I mean, the opening section ends with "Or just listen to the tape yourself." I wouldn't call this RfC ridiculous, but to have that ongoing discussion being used to get someone banned is pushing it too far. If you want RfC's to be binding, set them up better. The second part, for instance, is this: "Saying Trump "appeared to" brag is non-neutral. He bragged, and sources such as the Washington Post article verify this." OK, that's a statement by an editor (you), and editors can discuss. But that's not much of an RfC. If you want to nail an editor for reinserting after you said on the talk page you didn't like the phrase, that's your prerogative, of course, but I can't see how this is some grave violation (or any violation at all) which needs an arbitrated slap on the wrist. ] (]) 17:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
**Dr. Fleischman, I stand corrected: I was citing from ]. But I deny that I ''continue'' to misread, and my point about Mvbw's edits compared to those of others stand. As for the RfC, well, no conclusion is ever going to be reached on it--and I would like to ask you, since the RfC is technically still ongoing, whether you will also file charges against the editors who have (re-?)inserted the groping content which is currently in the article. Doesn't that very fact suggest the RfC is either impossible or already outdated? Isn't your time better spent dealing with that little tag and rather outlandish claims such as ? ] (]) 17:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
*I might be sympathetic to the comments about the RFC being "used for stonewalling" if it were ridiculous and heading for the snowball clause, but I see a perfectly reasonable question with no clear consensus either way. The user should not have re-inserted this material while the discussion was under way. I'm not sure this rises to a level where sanctions need to be considered (assuming the problematic edits are not repeated), but it might be best if MVBW were to leave this topic area voluntarily for a couple of weeks, which I assume will not be a problem given that it is "not an area of ... major interest". As for the 1RR breach by ]; it is there but given that the user has voluntarily self-reverted I don't see anything to be gained by throwing the book at them. ] <sup>(])</sup> 09:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC). | |||
* Meh. The election is weeks away and the candidates both highly divisive, anyone expecting calm and measured editing is delusional. Long-time Wikipedians would be best off showing everyone else a bit of class and following ] with emphasis on the D, but this specific case is in the end a content matter where reasonable people may differ. Perhaps a slap with the ] and move on. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
==Ihardlythinkso== | |||
{{hat|{{user|Ihardlythinkso}} is banned from the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed, until the 2016 US presidential election is complete and the losing candidate has conceded, or until December 1, whichever is earlier. }} | |||
<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 Ihardlythinkso=== | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|MrX}} 20:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Ihardlythinkso}}<p>{{ds/log|Ihardlythinkso}} | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
The article in question is subject to 1RR. ]. . | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
# 2nd Revert | |||
# 1st Revert (falsely asserts ]) | |||
# 2nd Revert (falsely asserts ]) | |||
# 1st Revert (falsely asserts ]) | |||
# Revert of the same material. Falsely asserts BLP | |||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | |||
* | |||
* | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
*Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. | |||
*Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on by {{admin|Lord Roem}}. | |||
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. | |||
* | |||
* (The warning was completely ignored). | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
IHTS routinely ignores consensus, makes false appeals to policy, and attacks those who disagree with him. As evidenced by the particular edit that he is pushing and the relevant talk page section: ], it appears that he is carrying on where a recently-topic-banned user left off. | |||
He is not above insulting other users who disagree with him. In this case, {{U|MelanieN}}: | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
*Contrary to what IHTS wrote below ({{tq|"Take a look at the Donald Trump revision history of minutes ago, to see Mr X reverting my simple & correct change, and accusing me of valdalism in his edit sum. "}}), I didn't accuse him of vandalism; I accused the user who made of vandalism, thus the 'and' in my edit summary. The reason why I included IHTS' edit in the revert was because his edit seems to go against ] which says "A change from a preference for two digits, to a preference for four digits, on the right side of year–year ranges was implemented in July 2016 per ." | |||
:In any case, I think I violated 1RR also (although not intentionally). Please feel free to topic ban me as well if it serves the greater good.- ]] 18:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
===Discussion concerning Ihardlythinkso=== | |||
<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 Ihardlythinkso==== | |||
I removed misleading & erroneous text indicating Trump said he *did grope* , when he merely asserted on the tape that he could get away with doing so if he wanted to by virtue of his star status. (An enormous difference. The former is tantamount to putting in the BLP subject's mouth that he confessed to committing potential criminal act, something only imagined or contrived/fictionalized by presumably hateful political detractors. A little objectivity for what he said, please. As thoughtful, conscientious WP editor it was/is my duty to immediately remove.) Thank u. ] (]) 22:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
:Disgusting commentary slamming me in goofy ways from MelanieN, Drmies, Dennis Brown. (MelanieN made back-handed insult of the BLP subject on the Talk page, that he's a liar. I suggested the illogical arguments she posted on the Talk page, plus the back-handed insult of the BLP subject, make her unfit for contributing at the Talk page. And Dennis Brown says *I* was "unnecessarily rude", and Drmies interprets as a "dig". False. | |||
:An editor reverted my BLP text removal with editsum argument that Trump's "I don't even wait" applied "obviously" to groping women, when that is purely bogus, it applied to kissing women. I'm sick of you three, block me for that? (The "ugly behavior" is not mine, Fleischman!) And where has anyone at any time explained how WP:BLPREMOVE has been inappropriately used for removing assertions the BLP subject never made, being stuffed into his mouth, when said assertion can fairly be read to be admission to potential criminal act? Nowhere. (I've done what is duty for WP editor to do. Yet you three seem to support the other side--slanderous false assertions attributed to the BLP subject.) | |||
:The discussion here is to what level *I* warrant sanction, are you sure you have your WP caps on properly? And you are admin? You need to explain yourselves in simple English. (Impossible for Drmies, who seems to communicate only by innuendo.) ] (]) 22:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
:Hey Dennis, you'd make a good judge (not), where your "I've been insulted!" dictates your rule of law. How shrimpy. ] (]) 23:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
:{{tq|And IHTS, the comment to Melanie ''was'' unnecessarily rude. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)}}. Excuse me, I forget you are "King of admins" and your opinion is sacrosanct. (Just how advanced an admin are you, when prone to antagonizing a pissing/cat-fight like this? Your brotherly love philosophizing all over he WP is apparently reserved for those whom you like, and for those don't bow to you, they receive the Brown treatment, including "WP:NOTHERE" encouragements for full WP ban at ANI from you . You're irredeemable, Dennis.) ] (]) 23:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
:Take a look at the Donald Trump revision history of minutes ago, to see Mr X , and accusing me of valdalism in his edit sum. (This s/ show you the quaility, prejudice, inattentiveness, and aggressiveness of the complainant, no?) ] (]) 18:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
:{{tq|his edit seems to go against MOS:DATERANGE which says "A change from a preference for two digits, to a preference for four digits, on the right side of year–year ranges was implemented in July 2016 per this RFC." - MrX 18:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)}} From ]: ''Two-digit ending years (1881–82, but never 1881–882 or 1881–2) may be used in infoboxes and tables where space is limited (using a single format consistently in any given table column)''. ] (]) 01:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
:Interesting policy-free agenda: {{tq|It'll cool down after the election hopefully, but temporarily removing some of the more invested participants from the article will also give everyone room to breathe and work collaboratively rather than competitively. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC).}} (So MelanieN, with her blatant illogic on the Talk, and calling the BLP subject liar, is not an "invested participant"?! And Nomoskedasticity's absurd rationale for revert .) This smells. ] (]) 07:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
:It seems a tag applied by another user has stuck for awhile ({{tq|Trump bragged about forcibly kissing and ] women {{pov-inline|date=November 2016}}}}), which somewhat accomplishes the same thing as my copyedit, but in a different way. So I'm pleased with that, and anything I may have done that may have spurred it along. (Especially I disagree w/ word "forcibly", which is misleading, per user Adlerschloß "nonconsensually" is accurate, though I never made comment at Talk:Donald Trump about same, but happily the tag seems to cover that to some extent as well.) This is not the first time I've seen a stable result come out of the oven like this. (It happened with the current long-standing Trump profile image, that popped out from I think user GoodDay after an RfC I initiated to put an end to edit wars and an unpleasant disorganized debate between two other competing images. It also happened at ] after a user's lengthy sec add consisting of random quotations from lesser players designed to impugn Fischer that he was, w/ no existing diagnosis, mentally insane.) ] (]) 08:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
:Fascinating how Drmies undercuts importance of artificially introduced criminally self-incriminating language "bragged about groping" vs "being able to" ("{{tq|The semantics here are really .... well find your own words.}}". There's no doubt in my mind having had awareness of Drmies's politically related issues posts that he sides w/ Democratic politics vs Republican, so he closes the Talk RfC as "neutral party", yeah? Oh yeah. (This is what gives WP a bad name, if you haven't heard that already. Plus if I were Trump, I'd consider suing WP for defamation.) ] (]) 03:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
:Drmies, you can't seem to bypass any opportunity to dig me, in your usual unfair, uncontrolled, undisciplined non-concrete non-specific way. You just like to bad-mouth and smear, from {{tq|years}} of holding a grudge. (And you call me "blind to hate"?! Look in the mirror, professor.) ] (]) 03:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
:Purely disgusting. And the material in question doesn't even belong in the BLP lead, which I never contended with, or even mentioned, also. Amazing. Encyclopedia Walmart. ] (]) 09:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Dr. Fleischman==== | |||
* {{u|JzG|Guy}}, I think you might have misread the complaint since MrX listed the diffs in reverse chronological order. The latest 1RR violation was today, October 31. --] (]) 23:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
* {{u|Dennis Brown|Dennis}}, in my view your job should be not so much to minimize the force used, but to clean up the ugly behavior. I mean you seem to be effectively throwing up your hands and saying "anything goes" on the ], one that has an impact on the election of the most powerful person in the world. An appropriate sanction of some sort--a tban, or maybe a short-ish block?--could at least have some deterrent effect. Frankly, between this complaint and the one I lodged above, I'm so frustrated by the current level of disruption at ] and admins' apparent unwillingness to step in and do anything about it that I'm about ready to give up until after the election. --] (]) 16:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
* I would oppose against {{u|MrX}}. They have been a civil and valuable contributor to the article, and we need more of those. --] (]) 21:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
* I am very troubled by {{u|Ihardlythinkso}}'s , which I think is saying that they are "pleased" that their edit warring has paid off. I hope I've misinterpreted. --] (]) 17:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
* {{u|JzG|Guy}}, {{u|Drmies}}, {{u|Dennis Brown}}, {{u|Vanamonde}}, {{u|Lankiveil}}, flagging from {{u|Ihardlythinkso}} as a possible ]. I'd take this to ANI if we weren't already at AE. --] (]) 19:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
:* {{u|Drmies}}, no problem. I just thought it should be evaluated by someone with more experience in such matters than I. --] (]) 22:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Mr Ernie==== | |||
I'll make a similar comment to the one I made regarding the Anythingyouwant case. There are a group of editors who are intensely determined to include each and every negative mention of Trump that comes up in the news. Our policies and essays (NOTNEWS, RECENTISM, BLP, etc) are clear about what we as editors should do about this. This is simply another attempt to wikilawyer an editor opposing this viewpoint out of the topic. I'd hope that our admins are clever enough to see this filing for what it is, and ignore it until the election is over. ] (]) 17:41, 4 November 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 seems stale, but that's unambiguous edit warring and ] so I could be persuaded that this is another one for the post-Dec 1 restriction as per Anythingyouwant. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
--> | |||
*I'm with {{U|JzG}} except for the "stale" part. This is a pretty clear violation of 1R. The semantics here are really .... well find your own words. Editors are arguing over whether there was mention of forcible kissing and groping or just kissing. As for --well that dig is par for the course for this editor, I think. The question came up why this wasn't done at ANEW, as a clear 1R violation. One net effect of not reporting it there, but here, is that a block is unlikely, as this gets staler by by the minute. This board here should be used, in my opinion, for serial offenders; I don't know if IHTS is a serial offender in this topic area or not. If not, and I don't know if they are or not, then a topic ban is maybe too strong. ] (]) 03:38, 1 November 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) | |||
**Par for the course, {{U|DrFleischman}}--I don't see a legal threat, just a very polysyllabic bit of asininity, the kind of thing that makes it clear that the editor is so blinded by either POV or hatred of those who disagree (especially administrators), or both, to the extent that I will roll with admins commenting below. I've heard this nonsense before, been hearing it for years from this user, and that's fine, but when they export their personal issues into talk space, article space, RfC space, then their behavior becomes sanctionable. The 2016 election topic area is already messed up enough. And for the record, if any of the admins want to look at the closes I made on the Trump talk page, please do. ] (]) 22:13, 4 November 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) | |||
*<s>This is why I haven't been supportive of topic bans in recent cases like this that I think are borderline. Yes violations, but I'm not sure it is crying BLP as much as not understanding that this won't qualify as a BLP exception, and not a serial issue. There are going to be more cases like this as election day approaches. If IHTS would voluntarily agree to avoid all post-1932 political pages until after the election, that would be acceptable to me.</s> Otherwise, the "Anythingyouwant" sanction <s>at the most. I'm not saying something stronger isn't within our authority, it's just that what is happening here is a mirror reflection of the country as a whole and we can't tban our way out of either. It is the ugliest election I've seen in my 50+ years, so it's no shock that some ugly behavior is going to happen here. Let's use the least force necessary to deal with the problem if we can, including future cases during this election cycle.</s> And IHTS, the comment to Melanie ''was'' unnecessarily rude. ] - ] 14:53, 1 November 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) | |||
**Dr. Fleischman, I'm not throwing up my hands, I am accepting the reality that there are going to be problems today and tomorrow due to the events bringing out passions from both sides. Both of the choices I have presented here would remove IHTS from that article and politics in general during this heated period. That is hardly throwing in the towel. No matter what we do, that article is going to be frustrating for editors until after the election. Admin can't fix that. At best we can patch here and there. ] - ] 16:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
**Struck my idea of not using sanctions at all after IHTS's reply, leaving me with suggesting the short term tban, as bizarre as that is. ] - ] 22:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
*What, this again? Unsurprisingly, I find myself concurring with {{u|Drmies}} that this should have been sent to ANEW. However, it wasn't, and an edit-warring block would be punitive at this point. The diffs provided also show a tendency to stretch policy to breaking point to support their edits. As with Anythingyouwant, this sort of misuse of the BLP exception seems wilful, so I would also support the custom-made topic band we created for Anythingyouwant. If this were a one-off, I'd be willing to be lenient, but {{u|Lord Roem}} banned them from the Trump page for a month not that long ago, and it didn't seem to achieve very much. ] (]) 05:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
*Looking at the text being removed, I think that ] is valid. Those arguing against IHTS are probably going a little too far in inferring Trump's meaning for a BLP. So, no problem there. What I ''do'' have a problem with is the tone of the comments on the talk page. Some of them are borderline, but clearly goes way too far. For this reason I'm happy with Guy's suggestion of a restriction similar to Anythingyouwant's. ] <sup>(])</sup> 11:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC). | |||
**Given the lack of fresh commentary and the consensus amongst admins for a restriction on IHTS (albeit for different reasons), unless there are any objections to the contrary I am going to close this as such in 24 hours. ] <sup>(])</sup> 08:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC). | |||
***Endorse a topic ban similar to the one for Anythingyouwant. ] | ] 23:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC). | |||
{{hab}} | {{hab}} | ||
== |
==Lemabeta== | ||
<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|Afterwriting}}<p>{{ds/log|Afterwriting}} | |||
<!--- 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: ] | ||
: Specifically: {{tq|] are authorised for all <s>articles</s> <u>pages</u> relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an ] action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.}} | |||
<!--- 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. | |||
# - Started a page on a Georgian ethnologist. | |||
:# Edit wars to once again Removes "pseudoscience" from opening sentence. | |||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any | |||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> | |||
:# Blocked for edit-warring | |||
:# Blocked for edit-warring | |||
;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. | |||
; 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) | |||
The ] article is covered by ] in the field of pseudoscience. The alert can be found at the top of the talk page ], linking to ]. | |||
:(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> | |||
::(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 : | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
===Discussion concerning Lemabeta=== | |||
The ] article is currently under a concerted attack to remove the appellation "pseudoscience" from the opening sentence, which reads "'''Chiropractic''' is a form of ] and ]... ". Afterwriting is now edit-warring to force the removal of the term. There is no doubt that the underlying theory that chiropractic bases itself on, "]" is considered pseudoscience by mainstream scientific opinion: , , , and our Arbitration Committee has previously endorsed discretionary sanctions against editors on the chiropractic article - ]. | |||
<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==== | |||
Afterwriting has a history of attempting to force his preferred version by editwarring (see previous blocks and his present talk page), and is now doing this again in an attempt to whitewash Chiropractic contrary to mainstream scientific and medical opinion. | |||
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) | |||
: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. | |||
I request that {{u|Afterwriting}} be topic-banned from chiropractic and related pages to prevent further disruption and edit-warring. --] (]) 17:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
: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) | |||
::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) | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
:::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) | |||
<!-- 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. --> | |||
::::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) | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
===Discussion concerning Afterwriting=== | |||
<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 Afterwriting==== | |||
====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.'' | ||
<!-- 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).