Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive140
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Jiujitsuguy
[edit]| Appeal is declined at this time. Jiujitsuguy may file another appeal following further positive editing in no less than three months. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
Statement by Jiujitsuguy[edit]Per the advice and constructive criticism offered by Stifle[1] and concurrence of Cailil [2] I am resubmitting my appeal. In the break between my last appeal and the instant one, I have created articles and added content on a variety of subjects including archeology, orthopedics, military history and weapon systems[3]. I have edited constructively, in a collegial, collaborative and non-confrontational manner. I understand now that my previous editing pattern was abrasive and tendentious. In addition, rather than seeking to reconcile differences with a colleague with whom I was having a dispute, I moved too quickly to AE, which was entirely inappropriate. AE should never be used as a tool to silence anyone and should be avoided when possible. I will try hard not to repeat the past mistakes that have led me to the instant topic ban, now in its 14th month. I also wish to offer my sincerest apologies to T. Canens for misconstruing his disciplinary actions and acting with haste in making groundless accusations against him. I blame my lack of maturity for the tasteless outburst and I am embarrassed by it. I sincerely hope that in light of my constructive editing, the fact that I've expressed contrition and recognize my mistakes, the fact that I’ve embraced the suggestions of the aforementioned syops rather than arguing with them, the fact that I’ve already been banned for a year and two months and the fact that I have zealously adhered to the provisions of the topic ban, that the ban be lifted. Whichever way you decide, I thank you for taking the time to consider my appeal and will of course respect your decision. I do however, hope that you will look favorably upon it. Thank you.
Statement by Timotheus Canens[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Jiujitsuguy[edit]Statement by The Devil's Advocate[edit]Jiujitsuguy had appealed the topic ban just two months ago and has only made 113 edits in the past month and made no edits in the month immediately following his appeal. This second appeal seems hasty, especially given the reason for his topic ban from ARPBIA areas. I think this appeal should be declined. Perhaps AE admins should consider giving JJG some strict bounds determining when he can appeal again. Not just a time limit, but strict editing criteria so that he will not be able to appeal until he has truly demonstrated editing that makes a future appeal worthy of some consideration.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves[edit]100% in agreement with TDA's statement. Nothing in their actions show substantive changes which are required for appeals - mostly there's no changes because they've done nothing, and thus cannot prove anything ES&L 21:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Statement by AgadaUrbanit[edit]The ban is quite old, from July 2012. AE's aim is not to punish, but try to prevent further disruption. If editors follow guidance of administrators in good faith, the evidence is the constructive contributions, it is reasonable to assume that their ban to be lifted. I doubt that quantity is not sufficient, and clearly it is not a question of quantity, rather a question of quality. I reviewed JJG's latest contributions which beyond doubt improve this tree of knowledge we're growing here. Therefore I would not mind JJG's ban to be lifted. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Statement by Marokwitz[edit]Based on past activity, I believe that Jiujitsuguy can be a good and constructive editor. I believe his/her recent statements and edits are good evidence that the editor would conduct himself differently in the future. Therefore I recommend lifting the topic ban. The editor can always be topic banned again, if the need arises, so I see no risk in giving him another chance. Marokwitz (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Statement by RolandR[edit]Indeed, "the editor can always be topic banned again". As he has been several times already: indefinitely in August 2010[4], for three months in December 2010[5], six months in March 2011[6] extended for a further two months in July 2011[7], and indefinitely in both January 2012[8]and July 2012[9]. Therre seems very little evidence here of improvement or of learning from experience. RolandR (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Jiujitsuguy[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by GRuban
[edit]| Appeal declined. Sandstein 07:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
Statement by GRuban[edit]From this diff and this explanation it looks like KoshVorlon was blocked for insisting on retaining the justification for his !vote on Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request, specifically: "Bradley Manning is a guy". This is selective enforcement: Fluffernutter writes "The discussion guidelines made clear that comments about what gender you feel Manning is or is allowed to be are off-topic", however you will notice that the justifications "Chelsea Manning is a woman" by User:Georgia guy, "she is a woman", by User:Konveyor Belt, and "Chelsea Manning is a woman", by User:I JethroBT have been allowed to stand. This has been extensively discussed on the Fluffernutter's talk page, and on WP:ANI, where she requested any appeal be made at WP:AE. [12][13] So here it is. (FWIW, I haven't voiced an opinion in the move request itself.) --GRuban (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Fluffernutter[edit]As far as Kosh Vorlon's block, it was not because he held a particular opinion, but because he repeatedly reverted a discretionary sanctions action in what appeared to be the heat of anger. Despite my making multiple attempts to explain how discretionary sanctions work and how and where my action could be appealed (and, indeed, allowing that my actions could certainly be mistaken as I'm only one person, so he should feel free to appeal), Kosh instead chose to edit war his commentary back into the RM with comments like "censored by impartial admin because IDON'TLIKEIT works for admins", "Calling bullshit bullshit" (both at [14]), and "Revert me again fluffernutter and I'll revert right back. You have NO RIGHT to revert me per WP:TPO READ IT" ([15]). And indeed, all this reverting was done while Kosh was under a 0RR restriction.
Statement by AutomaticStrikeout[edit]This is a very clear case of selective enforcement, in my opinion. Furthermore, I would suggest that Fluffernutter's involvement in the dispute over Kosh's original comment was such that Fluffernutter should have felt comfortable issuing a block. Certainly, the topic ban was excessive and should be immediately repealed. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 15:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC) @ Fluffernutter: If you think it is problematic to !vote on the basis that Manning is not a woman, but then you imply that is not problematic to !vote on the basis that Manning is a woman, haven't you shown that you are biased as to the outcome of the RfC? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 15:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC) @ Fluffernutter: If it's not possible to state that Manning is not currently a woman without getting into trouble, what is the point of having the RfC? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 16:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC) @ I JethroBT: "...implied disbelief that Manning would ever be a woman..." Kosh stated that Manning hasn't changed gender yet. I don't see how that implies that Kosh believes Manning will never change gender. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 16:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC) @ EdJohnston: Kosh can't come here and make the appeal himself because he's blocked. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC) @ Knowledgekid87: The block was for one week. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 14:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC) It has become apparent that the fight against abusive misuse of admin powers is a losing cause. Shame on Wikipedia. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 14:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by I JethroBT[edit]While I do not defend Kosh's reverts, I will mention that any instance of pronoun usage (i.e. he or she; his or her) is not substantially different than what I and others (including Kosh) have stated: it expresses an opinion about the gender of the individual, plain and simple. There are many such comments on both sides (and while it is technically possible to avoid pronouns altgoether, it's not exactly convenient given the nature of the discussion.) I do not believe it is fair to redact comments on that basis, whether editors plainly state Manning as a man or a woman. That said, Kosh's comments did not merely include such a declarative statement of gender, but implied disbelief that Manning would ever be a woman on whatever subjective terms Kosh deems sufficient. I believe fluffernutter's actions were appropriate given prior concern that these statements are needlessly inflammatory. I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC) @AutomaticStrikeout: Statement by Floq[edit]At the risk of muddying the waters, I should point out that the 0RR restriction that Fluffernutter mentions above was an informal agreement between Kosh and me, not something imposed on him by ArbCom or ANI or anything. It was voluntary in the sense that we agreed that if he followed those rules, the problems that were making me consider an RFC/U would go away. And they basically have, until now; those were the real problem areas. The reason I suggested the 0RR restriction was for cases just like this, where he tended to revert in the heat of the moment, seeing only his side of the argument. If he had stuck with the agreement, he wouldn't be blocked right now. That said, I can't really argue with the block, and haven't got the time to investigate the overarching issue of even-handedness or fairness or what have you. I think the duration could be safely reduced to time served if he agreed to abide by those rules, except that the stupid, childish attack account he created on Meta gives me no reason to bother lobbying for it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Sorry, one more comment while I'm here: I think a third party request like this should be OK, particularity since the issue is not only the KV block, but also the claim (which I stress again, I am not making, just saying it's there) of selective enforcement. This seems like a reasonable thing for AE to look into. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by TParis[edit]Just noting, so it doesn't get lost in Fluffernutter's comments, that she has not been one-sided.--v/r - TP 18:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by -sche[edit]Because admins took a hands-off approach to it, the previous Manning RM descended so deeply into a pit of ugly quarrelling about things unrelated to the policy question of "what should this article be titled?" that after nearly two million bytes of Arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee appears poised to topic-ban numerous editors from different sides of the dispute. Fluffernutter's largely thankless efforts to keep the current RM running more smoothly and on-track by redacting off-topic, inflammatory portions of several comments, including Kosh's comment and comments like this, are among the factors which have so far kept this RM from descending anywhere near as far back into the aforementioned pit. Fluffernutter has shown restraint and allowed many questionable comments, and the underlying !votes of partially redacted comments, to stand (whereas the first RM's closers said they discarded/ignored off-topic votes entirely in their close). In short, her redaction of Kosh's comment was appropriate, her block of Kosh after he edit-warred was an appropriate discretionary sanction, and the topic-ban she issued, while perhaps a bit long, is an appropriate measure (in light of Kosh's previous comments re Manning / the Manning article) to prevent recurrence of problematic behaviour. -sche (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by KoshVorlon as emailed to AutomaticStrikeout[edit]I actually can't use the template on my page as I'm IP locked per Teles on meta.wikipedia.org. (I'm locked untill Oct 8 2013 - and no, I don't want it removed. I did what he said I did and I'll take my medicine for it ). You may want to check Fluffernutter's diffs (especially where she says I reverted her), you'll find I didn't revert her at all. I removed her text saying she's redacted part of my vote, but I didn't re-insert my vote the first time. The sequenece of events is this: 1.) I posted my vote as on the Bradley Manning move page: here Fluffernutter reverted me here I began talking to her on her page. She was reverted by by MzMcbride here. Consensus on her talk page became three to one , however, she insisted that she was right and that consensus didn't matter and she reverted against consensus here (she's now at 2rr). She placed a note at this time saying " Material redacted from this comment pursuant to discretionary sanctions. Do not restore except after following the appeal procedures listed there ". I changed only her note, but did not resotore my original text here , (Admnittedly that wasn't smart, but, I didn't revert her ) Fluffernutter hit 3RR here I remnoved my vote entireley, re-wrote the vote to have only policy reasons on it and yes, I did add text on the top stating that it had been censored by Fluffernutter and posted it.
Fluffernutter went over 3rr here
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— The above was sent to me via email by Kosh, who gave me permission to post it here. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 01:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Further remarks from KoshVorlon: I read Sandstein's comments and am dissapoinated , as it seems (unless I mis-understand what he's saying ) that he's stating that's it's okay for Fluffernutter to break 3rr (which is a bright line rule), violate consensus (which is a cornerstone of Wikipedia), selectively enforce an (at this time ) uneforceable "discretionary" restriction. I saw unenforceable because the version she's attempting to enforce is still a draft version and not an approved version, not because I don't believe in Arbcomm's ability to enforce the existing version of the sanction. The existing (and approved ) version of this sanction here. This version , firstly, doesn't include anything related to the Manning article at all, second, it states that enforcemant can be taken if: if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to a topic within the area of conflict or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; imposition of mandated external review; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Please note "expected standards of behaviro , or any normal editorial process". I added a vote (B), Fluffernutter reverted (R) , I discussed (D), this is normal editorial process. Normal behavior includes not violating 3RR, obeserving consensus (which Flufffnutter did not ) observing WP:TPO (which she did not ). Also note at the top it states: Any uninvolved administrator She is not uninvolved, therefore her restriction is moot. Further there is nothing in the approved version of sanctions that pertains to WP:LOCAL CONSENSUS. (It exists on the draft version only - which has yet to be approved and it therefore not enforceable at this time ) I violated at best 1RR and only that. I respectfully request the block be lifted and the ban be removed , I further request the right to revert Fluffernutter's revert Comment by Knowledgekid87[edit]I feel that Fluffernutter was justified in the block but not for the topic ban as that is a bit over the top.
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by GRuban[edit]KoshVorlon's emailed comments have now been added here by AutomaticStrikeout. (It is unclear at this stage whether this request can be considered as a legitimate appeal.) The discussion guidelines on the RM page explicitly warned about avoiding discussion of gender and indicated that discretionary sanctions applied to the RM discussion. KoshVorlon ignored those guidelines at the time; appeared unwilling to recognize that fluffernutter was acting in an administrative capacity enforcing DS; and in reverting on the RM page left an inflammatory edit summary. The creation of an attack account on Meta confirms that he was acting in an unreasonable and aggressive manner. As others have pointed out, fluffernutter's redaction of Arkady Rose's comments shows that she was acting in an even-handed way. The account of events copied here from KoshVorlon's email does not seem particularly reliable. "Redaction" and "reversion" have been confused. In addition he still has not acknowledged that fluffernutter was acting as an administrator and, going one step further, appears to be accusing her of edit warring. Mathsci (talk) 03:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Comment by Kyohyi[edit]The question comes down to wether or not Fluffernutter's methods of facilitating the discussion can be construed as an administrative action, and wether or not they made them involved. Discretionary Sanctions allow an uninvolved administrator to sanction an editor in areas related to the sanctions. The question then comes to what is a sanction, is redacting an editors comments considered a sanction? Is redacting an editors comments an administrative action? If the answers to these questions are Yes, and Yes then Fluffernutter remained uninvolved and only acted in an administrative capacity, and those comments cannot be re-instated without coming to AE. If not, then Fluffernutter may have become involved while not intending to, and if involved, their block and ban of Kosh would be in violation of Discretionary Sanctions. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Comment by NE Ent[edit]Objection to close by non-involved admin [16]. Closing this request on technical grounds is not in the best interests of Wikipedia; editors in good standing and good faith have expressed legitimate concerns about application of discretionary sanctions. Per two of our five pillars, Editors should treat each other with respect and civility and Wikipedia does not have firm rules, more good will come out of reviewing Fluffernuffer's them -- and, I believe, eventually validating and explaining her actions -- than simply slapping a close tag on it. Such a closure would not necessarily end the dispute, as filing editors would have the option of direct appeal to the committee or opening a RFC/U, neither of which would be a productive use of wikitime. NE Ent 11:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC) Result of the appeal by GRuban[edit]
|
Mathsci
[edit]| The request is being examined by the Arbitration Committee. Sandstein 07:08, 6 October 2013 (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 Mathsci[edit]
On 17 September 2013, Mathsci was given an interaction ban between him and I. Soon after, Mathsci announced he was taking a break. The day he returned, he posted an image on his userpage and linked to two Wikipedia articles in the caption he placed with the image. The first wikilink is the name of my organization of employment. The second wikilink is to an article on the small community in which I reside. It has been there for two days. Someone brought it to my attention today. As you should be aware, Mathsci has a history of escalating disputes like this with other editors. He has outed other editors on four separate occasions. He has pursued editors in which he was involved in a dispute to other noticeboards or Internet forums where they participate. Of all the threatening behavior I've ever witnessed in my seven years of Wikipedia participation, I have never seen one rise to this level. I did not email ArbCom because Mathsci has made it clear in several recent comments that he has an inside connection with at least one, if not more ArbCom members [20]. Therefore, since I cannot trust that they will handle this correctly, I have no choice but to post it here publicly, at great risk of my privacy. I ask that the administrators please make Mathsci stop. Once done, please oversight the image edit from his userpage, then oversight this enforcement request. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please notify Mathsci? Cla68 (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Mathsci[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Mathsci[edit]Apologies to Sandstein for the lateness of this response. Yesterday I was away from home and received an unexpected invitation to stay in Aubagne. I probably would have been away longer had it not been for equally unexpected thunderstorms. I am perplexed by this enforcement request. It is the fourth time that Cla68 has suggested using arbcom processes in some way or other concerning me. The first was on 22 October 2012; the second on 5 December 2012; and the third on 4 July 2013. This request concerns the fourth version of my user page, always an anodyne uninformative page which has never been watchlisted or viewed by more than a handful of wikipedia editors in any of its versions. The first image in this latest version was an engraving of John Knox admonishing Mary, Queen of Scots by the Scottish engraver John Burnet, after Sir William Allan. The second image had a reconciliation theme similar to content I added to an article on Korea at the end of 2012.[21] The information in the original caption of the second image was derived entirely from the file name, its description and what is contained on wikipedia, sometimes as redlinks. The image file was uploaded to Commons by BotMultichillT from an official US site. Neither the caption nor the file name contains even a vague reference to anything or anyone connected with the "behind the scenes" world of wikipedia. Images on my user page in its previous versions have included various breeds of sheep, organ grinders' monkeys, an Ortolan bunting, biblical scenes, Grimm's fairy tales, scenes from Struwwelpeter, Max and Moritz, the French Revolution, the Guthrie center, monuments named after St Cuthbert, etc. All the images were chosen on a whim. The Ortolan bunting was posted after somebody told me how he had eaten Ortolan accompanied by armagnac with a napkin over his head. The images have never been intended to communicate anything to others, although, as with the Ortolan, they might have had some obscure quirky private meaning for me. Itsmejudith did once express an interest in the sheep; I also vaguely remember having an email discussion about Cuthbert with Anthony (AGK). My user talk page was recently protected by NuclearWarfare after Mikemikev posted the youtube video originally used to mock Steven Rubenstein's death last year. Anthony (AGK) changed the protection level on my user page a day or two later. Both responded to my private request in a kind and professional way. Beyond the level of courtesy and helpfulness from arbitrators which is extended to everybody, I am not aware of any special relationship with arbitrators, oversighters, checkusers or administrators; nor of any edits I have made that would suggest any such relationship. 3 months ago arbitrators did change a decision of the oversight team in removing an external link to a page on a problematic external site. As far as images go, the same image will have different meanings for different viewers. I have posted a new image related to something I saw in the the Musée Ziem in Martigues yesterday.Mathsci (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves[edit]As much as I think I'm on reasonable terms with Mathsci (I could be wrong, of course), but if there were such obvious attempts at outing (regardless of the IB), is there a reason why they are not indef-blocked right now? See User:Ecoleetage and others for precedent? ES&L 14:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by Demiurge1000[edit]The Wikipediocracy thread "Deconstructing Wikipedia User Mathsci" was edited by a user there "Cla68" at the following times:
(screenshots available on request to anyone with oversight privs) Now, it being off-wiki, Cla68 can say what he likes there of course, but it does hint that Cla68 did not choose to walk away from Mathsci after the interaction ban, but instead chose to provoke him off-site a little. Cla68 is a "Global Moderator" on that website, and his fellow "Global Moderators" also commented on that same topic ("Deconstructing Wikipedia User Mathsci") at the following times after 17 September (I'm not listing all the ones before):
There are plenty more similar comments (and maybe some from "global moderators" that I missed) by some other enwiki-banned editors there. I believe Mathsci is prevented from posting there (I could be wrong, and at least one trustee and one admin of the website are still able to post to English Wikipedia so can clarify that if necessary) thus unable to respond to deliberate provocations there. Why is this relevant? Because it shows (in my opinion) there was no intention to step away from MathSci, but rather to continue provoking him. I think Cla68 should be asked his views on his fellow forum users who posted photos of people they believed were MathSci, with mocking comments about them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
@Collect - the important difference here is that, instead of MathSci making an edit saying "I know Cla68 lives in the space base on Pluto", or even "I know where Cla68 lives", what we instead have is Cla68 making a claim (in essence) "the photo/caption added to MathSci's userpage mentioned the town where I live, and because this can not be a coincidence, it must have been an attempt to intimidate me". So really it's not a claim of "outing" as such, but rather a claim of intimidation. Because of the nature of the claim, it is up to Cla68 to confirm that the picture or caption really do refer to something non-coincidentally related to him (and thus deliberate). It is Cla68 making the accusation, thus the burden of proof rests with him. Imagine, if you like, that someone who has recently been in disagreements with you, came to arbitration enforcement tomorrow and said that they live in Huntington Beach, and therefore your use of a image and ALT text referencing Huntington Beach must be "outing" aimed at them. There are some significant differences (such as the image's widespread usage in a template), but even so, would you want AE people to just take the complainant's word for it? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The current revision of Cla68's user page contains the text "please check out Wikipediocracy", with the last word there being a link to the website of the same name. Cla68 is a "Global Moderator" of that website. For considerable periods of time during the timeframe in question, the front page of that website has included Cla68's full name. Thus, it's true that Cla68 has never included text equivalent to "my real name is John Smith" in an edit he made to Wikipedia; but it is totally true that Cla68 made an edit to Wikipedia "please see this website" and his website proudly displayed his full real name. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC) Query from Collect[edit]Is "attempted outing" (that is the posting of material relating to a location and place of employment) required to be proven accurate to be actionable, or is the apparent intent, whether accurate or not, actionable? I seem to recall discussions where it is the intent and not the accuracy which is at issue generally, and so it is improper to ask the outed party whether the information is accurate, or worse yet, to have to prove the accuracy. Am I in error on this? Collect (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC) Comments by Cardamon[edit]If user A claims that user B is person C, and user B has never connected himself to person C on-wiki, that is attempted outing and, under our rules, person A can be indeffed. If person A says that person B lives in town C, and works at organization D, and person C has never done anything on-wiki to connect himself with town C or organization D, that is also attempted outing. But if person A wikilinks to town C and organization D, and then person B pops up and says “Hey, that’s me! He just outed me! Ban him!” then person A did not out person B, although person B may have outed himself. If we were to establish a principle that any person A can be banned because some person B claims without proof that a couple of wikilinks refer to him (person B), all prolific Wikipedians would be at risk. So Mathsci did not out Cla68. Whether Mathsci violated his interaction ban depends to a considerable extent on who Cla68 is. (Remember the Essjay case, in which a former arbitrator was found to have lied about who he was. It can be a mistake to take a Wikipedian’s unsupported word as to his identity.) However, Cla68’s identity should not be investigated in public. So my suggestion is that Arbcom should take up this enforcement request privately (Sandstein already said something much like this), and that this request be deleted, as Cla68 asked. Cardamon (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Notes from arbitrators[edit]
Result concerning Mathsci[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Interfase
[edit]| User:Interfase is placed under an indefinite WP:1RR restriction regarding all edits related to the WP:ARBAA2 topic. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Interfase[edit]
In the Gyumri article, Interfase added an old image of local Azerbaijanis. An IP 188.255.44.254 (talk · contribs) removed it, while Interfase (as you can see above) reverted the IP for 14 times! As a result, the article is protected for 10 days. Also, I'd like to point out Interfase's past troublesome behavior
Discussion concerning Interfase[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Interfase[edit]Not only I reverted IP 188.255.44.254, but also user EuroCarGT [26][27]. I still think that edits of this IP is just vandalism and an anti-Azerbaijani action. Reverts of the vandals is not edir warring. But, however, after warning by administrator, I'll not return my edit, because I already initiated a discussion on this issue on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. --Interfase (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by Hablabar[edit]The "Tatars from Alexandropol" is likely to be a Photoshop forgery. There were no "Tatars" in Alexandropol, ever. There were a small number of Turks, who lived in the so called "Turkish mailla." The photo is of unknown origin. It cannot be placed anywhere in WP without further investigation. Hablabar (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Result concerning Interfase[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Interfase is wrong to characterise this content dispute as vandalism, see WP:NOTVANDALISM. They have engaged in forbidden edit-warring. Because of their recurring problems with edit-warring, I suggest a permanent WP:1RR restriction for them in the WP:ARBAA topic area, and an arbitration enforcement warning for the IP. Sandstein 07:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
|
Tumbleman
[edit]| User:Tumbleman was indef-blocked per WP:NOTHERE by User:Zad68. Note that this was not an AE block, but a normal administrative action block, and can be appealed in the usual ways. Reclosing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2013 (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 Tumbleman[edit]
Editor is an internet troll with a past record of being blocked from other sites:[28]. They describe their trolling here: [29], link to wikipedia here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OS_0_1_2. Their talk page originally contained a message [30] about how he is performing a "a case study in online wiki mediation". They have continued this subtle trolling here and been caught recently for sock puppets: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tumbleman, where he claimed this was because he was working with a PR company and she created accounts and (presumably by chance agreed with him, and was also presumably a long time watcher of the Sheldrake page by coincidence[31] as well as another account which geolocates to the same place: [32] with approximately the same user page content, see the SPI for more details). [[33]] 14th October. The editor also refuses to stop highlighting my name on his userpage (which is, quite frankly, bloody annoying) seems part of this same trolling. My request for him to stop: [34], his highlight again: [35] (today), my request again: [36], his highlight again [37]. I presume he is doing all the highlighting here: [38] to try and increase the disruption by highlighting multiple individuals continuously. I request that their current block be extended to indefinitely blocked for trolling the talk page of Rupert Sheldrake (covered by WP:ARB/PS discretionary sanctions), and preferably with talk page access removed so he stops highlighting people, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Note that a reading of Rupert Sheldrake also shows the subtle trolling, deliberate cluelessness and belligerence, but I think there is enough here to demonstrate the issue without trawling through ~500,000 bytes of material at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC) @Liz, "... I don't think you will actually see this Tumbleman participating in these diffs...". You clearly have not looked at the links I presented to the off wiki trolling and the link to on-wiki. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Tumbleman[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Tumbleman[edit]Note that Tumbleman (talk · contribs) cannot edit this page because he was blocked for one week for socking. I suggest as a compromise, Tumbleman (talk · contribs) posts any comment to his talk page at user talk: Tumbleman and it can be copied here. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Barney the barney barney[edit]Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC) with your username. I have no idea what Tumbleman (talk · contribs) is doing. At first he started on talk:Rupert Sheldrake telling everyone watching that he was going to form a "new consensus" and ignoring the already formed consensus regarding the applicability of WP:FRINGE. This went on for quite some time, in which he tried to argue that the article Rupert Sheldrake shouldn't be subject to WP:FRINGE because Sheldrake's writings fall under "alternative scientific theories". Despite the fact that numerous sources were provided to describe Sheldrake's work as pseudoscience by various well qualified scientists - and their reasons why they think it's pseudoscience, Tumbleman had selective eyesight when it came to such sources and decided to ignore them seemingly because they didn't fit in with his preconceived ideas. At this point, discussing the actual content of the page became difficult simply because any reasonable discussion wandered off topic with various ramblings by Tumbleman (talk · contribs). I think a topic ban would be helpful, or at least a request that he makes one statement and let that be that. I actually think he is a troll, trying to wind people up because he has remained largely calm throughout. While we're here, I am also concerned about other users including but not limited to Craig Weiler (talk · contribs) as well who has some information on Statement by Craig Weiler[edit]I have been following Tumbleman's statements as well. He has been unfailingly polite and courteous despite poor behavior from other editors. Barney's accusations are patently false and anyone who reads the Sheldrake talk page can see this. Accusing Tumbleman of rambling is simply ludicrous. Down below I see that Vzaak is piling on with cherry picked statements taken out of context. I'm new here. Is this how articles are edited on Wikipedia? First get on a page and use whatever sources you can find to support your point of view and ignore or dismiss everything you oppose as "biased." Then harass and try to ban editors you disagree with using trumped up charges and out of context quotes, never engage in meaningful dialog and avoid even the pretense of consensus all the while acting like you own the page by continuing to edit? Because from where I stand this is starting to look like a mighty successful strategy. Seriously, it has been repeatedly pointed out to Barney and other skeptical editors that many of their sources are shallow, almost entirely opinion and generally devoid of meaningful content. They ignore this and have instead decided to get together to stage an all out attack on the evil Tumbleman. Now Barney accuses me of bias and difficulty in understanding science based on . . . what exactly? My blog? That he hasn't read? Also, if Barney understands the basic nature of reality he should be rewarded for it. He has accomplished something that has eluded the rest of Mankind.Craig Weiler (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC) I am a bystander, reading over the dispute at Rupert Sheldrake. The discussion on the Talk Page is polarized into the two familiar camps that any topic identified as "pseudoscience" draws out. Tumbleman is being labeled an "internet troll" based on some discussion board conversations involving a user with the same name from years ago. In fact, I don't think you will actually see this Tumbleman participating in these diffs, they are conversations about the user and I don't think these old off-wiki forum discussions are relevant evidence to the Sheldrake discussion. Since this discussion is clearly divided between those who are skeptical of and those who are sympathetic to Rupert Sheldrake and his work, it seems unfair to apply discretionary sanctions to just one party of this heated dispute (which also has a range of instant IP accounts jumping in at opportune moments).
Rather than penalizing one side for not being sophisticated enough to be aware of wikiways, the previous ARBCOM case on pseudoscience and DS, I'd like to suggest that all parties head to Dispute Resolution. I'm believe that Tumbleman would be open to mediation and I don't think he/she should be penalized for his/her inexperience and stepping right into a long-standing conflict on Wikipedia. While Tumbleman registered his account in 2005, prior to his work on Sheldrake, he hadn't edited on WP since 2009 and has a total of 477 edits for the past 8 years. I can predict that I will be attacked for not providing "diffs" but I'd prefer to just link to the Sheldrake Talk Page and the Arbitrators reviewing this request can look over the conversation in toto rather than isolated statements from just one participant in the debate. Look over the Talk Page edit history and see how many different Editors have been a part of this dispute...is it really fair to pluck out one Editor from the dozens who have recently posted to this page and hold him/her responsible for a "disruption" which is actually a part of long-running conflict on Wikipedia? Liz Read! Talk! 16:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by LuckyLouie[edit]Looks like the disturbance at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake has been ongoing for about a month and a half. I first learned of it from comments posted at WP:FTN. Tumbleman appears to be at the center of it, making a lot of noise about working "for the good of Wikipedia" to protect Wikipedia from "skeptics" and something he calls "GSM". His first direct Talk page comment to me claimed I was advancing a "GSM editors" agenda [40]. This prompted my further attention, and I noted a number of his Talk page arguments have included rants against the "groupthink ideological agenda of skeptics" [41], the dangers of a "skeptical POV agenda" [42] and the agenda of "GSM editors" [43], [44], [45], [46]. Ironically, he professes his own neutrality and lack of bias while accusing other editors of bias and organized "GSM" conspiracy [47]. Given his apparent commitment to righting a perceived great wrong, I wasn't surprised when his name showed up at SPI since I'd already noticed that User:Oh boy chicken again shared a bit too many behavioral traits with Tumbleman. Others have noted the relevance of Tumbleman's past efforts to develop and promote something he calls "OS 0 1 2" which seems to be some sort of Zen joke or performance art involving "studying" and participating in conflict. Someone who refers to themselves in the third person [48] strongly indicates their desire to be at "center stage" playing a character ("The Tumbleman" ) they admittedly invented for purposes of furthering "OS 0 1 2". So, is he here to protect Wikipedia from a conspiracy of "skeptics"? Or is he here to conduct more "OS 0 1 2" conflict experiments? I say it doesn't matter. He's clearly WP:NOTHERE, a potential new drama account, and a net zero for Wikipedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by Littleolive oil[edit]I have been watching this discussion from the sidelines and I'd concur with Liz's suggestion and excellent analysis of the situation, and would suggest that the best and possibly the only way to understand this complex situation, and to be able to arrive at a fair judgement is to read the threads on the article talk page. I hope admins will have the time and take the time to do so. I am concerned that standards are being set by sub groups editing Wikipedia, and that users especially new users who don't know the "rules" are being criticized and sometimes attacked for not knowing or understanding, and for not following these standards. (olive (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)) Statement by vzaak[edit]I was the first person to make contact with Tumbleman. It began with this edit in which he removed a quote because he thought it was "an interpretation from a negative science writer". (Verify IP is him: [49].) Had Tumbleman taken a few seconds to look at the source, he would have found that it is a quote from Sheldrake himself. After ignoring my explanation of the quote [50], he came on the talk page to complain. What followed next was very bizarre behavior. The remainder of this paragraph will reference this snapshot: [51]. Strangely, he acknowledged the veracity of the quote while continuing to defend his removal of it. (There are technical reasons why the quote is necessary; it connects morphic resonance to telepathy while avoiding the word "paranormal" which Sheldrake eschews.) His writing was garbled and I had much difficulty trying to understand it. He ferociously argued that the TED blog http://blog.ted.com was a reliable secondary source and a reliable news organization! I was astonished. He repeatedly split my comments -- about 4 times -- after I repeatedly asked him to stop. In one place I said "don't split other people's comments" and his reply was to split the comment in which I said that. Throughout, he had been accusing me of "bias" despite my repeated requests for him to focus on content, not editors. Then came the revelation. I discovered his previous trolling activity under the name Tumbleman and Bubblefish, as noted above by others. At this point I was absolutely convinced this was a prank by someone that "employed a personality" that was "a bit obnoxious and over the top and playful. Tricks."[52]. I informed him that I figured it out, conceding that it took me longer than it should have. I expected him to say something like "lol gotcha". However he maintained that, contrary to his past and present behavior on the Internet, he was not just shaking things up for fun. Figuring there was nothing I could do about the situation, I haven't said a word to him since. He has contined sending me notifications and has left harrassing messages on my talk page which are really unhinged (backstory of that is here). Here is Tumbleman deleting people's comments: [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] and saying that he is being hacked [59]. Tumbleman does not seem to possess enough basic knowledge about how science works, which is not so bad in itself, but he floods the talk page with comments stemming from this lack of competence. For instance here he is going on about falsifiability (copied from sockpuppet investigation): [60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74]. Tumbleman has never understood that editing Wikipedia is about focusing on content, not editors. I tried explaining this to him early on, but it wouldn't take. He doesn't understand that writing good NPOV articles is done by collaboration among biased people. He is obsessed with calling people biased (copied from sockpuppet report):
In focusing on editors instead of content, every one of those comments is basically trolling, or at best unconstructive. And that is just a sample (not all) from Talk:Rupert Sheldrake alone. You'll find these complaints on admin boards ("editors with a clear bias"[84]) and on talk pages as well. He does all this while priding himself on using Wikipedia as "a little field study into online resolution disputes" and as "a wonderful opportunity to show the value of pure unbiased, neutral, or objectivity"[85]. Whether this is trolling, delusion, weirdness, or whatever, it doesn't belong on WP. vzaak (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by Oh Boy chicken again[edit]When I said I was dropping out, I meant it, so forgive my reappearance. I left in part because I had very quickly become disgusted by this “process,” and in part because I felt somewhat responsible for some of the heat being heaped on Tumbleman. I simply wanted to wash my hands of it all and quietly go back to Citizendium. But it occurred to me that I was mainly dropping out because an irrational faction was using false accusations as a weapon to drive me away. As far as I can tell, its reason for doing so was because I supported a proponent of a position that they found themselves opposed to (and, in my opinion, irrationally so). So I'm going to hang around and see how this plays out. I will chime in in support of Tumbleman when necessary, because nobody should suffer this kind of harassment without some sort of voice (particularly in the event he loses his own), and because I (nor anybody) should back away from a just cause because a small band internet jackals gets a little testy. Tumbleman has been accused of being a troll, and a gigantic deal has now been made over it. From where I sit and having checked the links and read the content, there is precisely zero evidence in support of this claim. But no matter, the damage has been done (as was the only point, I’m sure): Just like accusing an elementary school teacher of “inappropriate behavior” with a child, harassing Tumbleman with this “troll” stuff means “trolling” will always now be associated with Tumbleman. That is, unless we as a sane, rational community take a step back with cool heads and do what’s right: fix it for Tumbleman. I’m going to stick around until it’s fixed. Oh boy chicken again (talk) 07:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by iantresman[edit]In the request above,[86] I do not see:
But I am concerned that this request
In conclusion, I see no diffs suggesting disruptive editing or substandard behaviour, suggesting that there is no case to answer. Reading through Talk:Rupert Sheldrake, posts from Tumbleman appear to be civil, measured and reasoned. There is no requirement for one editor to agree with another. To quote The Cap'n: "That's not a banning offense, that's just persistence. He hasn't tried to vandalize the page, get users banned spuriously or otherwise behaved unethically. Unpopularity shouldn't get you banned from Wikipedia."[87] To quote Tom Butler (commenting on a specific post): "Tumbleman's suggestions and observations are well-reasoned. I suggest we use them as the standard for neutrality and test for edits"[88] Comments following temporary re-opening I've expressed my displeasure at the conclusion of this process here.[89] I am concerned that consensus among editors who are familiar with Tumbleman was 55% against sanactions. It seems to be a nonsense to invite comments, and not appear to take them into consideration. I see comparisons to the Community sanction noticeboard (CSN, that was closed because it was flawed. See CSN closure nomination. Now that I think of it, I see no difference. --Iantresman (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC) --Iantresman (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom[edit]
Discussion[edit]@Barney, it may be best not to side track the discussion and instead focus on the specific case in hand. WP:AE set up to handle single cases and primarily relies on diff based evidence (adding diffs of problematic behaviour would be extremely helpful). Thanks, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Result concerning Tumbleman[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Yerevanci
[edit]| This request is vexatious and not actionable. Sanctions against the requesting editor, NovaSkola, are discussed in the section about the request concerning them above. Sandstein 10:24, 20 October 2013 (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 Yerevanci[edit]
Yerevanci, removed perfect referenced images, and references and places without having constructive argument. Furthermore, user always breaches laws by directly attacking me, which I believe breaches Wikipedia:WikiBullying]'s Making "no-edit" orders contrary to policy as seem here
This user also adds biased material as seen in 2013 Moscow riots article. --NovaSkola (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Yerevanci[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Yerevanci[edit]Statement by Lothar von Richthofen[edit]My, how the worm turns. I find it kind of funny that one of the clique of editors who immediately began nastily biting Yerevanci when he first started out here now has the nerve to—falsely, as demonstrated below—complain about being "bullied" by him. NS claims "direct attacks", but none of his diffs support that. In fact, it doesn't seem as though they support really anything actionable at all:
What's more, the last two edits are precisely the opposite of what someone would expect an "Armenian POV-pusher" to make in this topic area. Asserting that Azeris are not just criminal "migrants" and removing links to a Genocide awareness site? If anything, it shows a conscious effort to control his own POV, which is to be applauded. Really, it seems to me that NS's core issue with these edits is that he doesn't like that an Armenian gets to edit in Turco-Azeri topic areas while he—an Azeri—doesn't get to do the same. This is a deeply problematic mentality in such a topic area. Put simply, this is a meritless tit-for-tat complaint—sloppily lodged by NS to try to one-up Yerevanci in classic WP:BATTLEGROUND fashion. This should be viewed in context of the serial violations listed in the above complaint and closed with prejudice. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Yerevanci[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
198.189.184.243
[edit]| The IPs are blocked for violating the topic ban, and the article Rupert Sheldrake is indefinitely semiprotected. Sandstein 06:57, 21 October 2013 (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 198.189.184.243[edit]
The three IPs listed are the same person per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive811#Persistent_disruptions_from_an_editor_with_multiple_IPs. Sanctions warning was given for warring at Rupert Sheldrake User_talk:198.189.184.243#Articles_of_interest_to_you_are_covered_by_discretionary_sanctions_under_WP:ARBPS
I had previously filed a complaint at ANI but no action was taken Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive814#198.189.184.243_violating_topic_ban (probably the wrong place). User is an outright vandal as well [97].
Discussion concerning 198.189.184.243[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 198.189.184.243[edit]Seralini affair is not under the category "fringe science", so there is no reason for action in that sense. Furthermore, I did not edit that article, but put my concerns I do not recognize the legitimacy of the initial topic ban, since I was merely trying to get the article to reflect WP:MEDRS compliant reviews, and editors made original research to attempt to nullify the reviews - and when I controverted them on the relevant talk page, my refutation of their argument was removed. Editors were violating the provisions of WP:DEM in misrepresenting perfectly legitimate sources, and I noted on the talk page of the editor that he was violating a provision of WP:RGW which allows alternative views to be reflected if solid sources support them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_31#POV_push I maintain that administrators may act against me for this, but there actions do not have a legitimate basis and are akin to the political corruption in Maoist or Soviet systems where influence and adherence to the party line are what give the editor power. Regarding Sheldrake - Sheldrake has called the wikipedia article on him "defamatory", so my action was actually helping wikipedia avoid a possible libel suit. For one, Sheldrake does not specifically advocate over-unity devices, but suggests a prize, similar to the JREF one million dollar challenge (though as Will Storr's 'The Heretics' shows, Randi is not intellectually honest). In other cases, legitimate sources like the JCS C were omitted, or rebuttals to Wiseman in the same journal he published in were omitted, and I added that in so as to avoid the article making claims that are one sided and border on falsehood. The latest version of my edit is here - ti would be good for editors to use it as a foundation: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=578041997&oldid=57803114771.202.210.61 (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by vzaak[edit]Considering that, in addition to the recent violation, there was a previous violation with notifications given on all IPs [101] [102] [103], it doesn't appear that the user respects the ban. I doubt that a 1-month block will do much (these violations are already somewhat far apart), but that's just my hunch. vzaak (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Added new diff; user continues to war. vzaak (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by BullRangifer[edit]Please semi-protect the Sheldrake article. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Result concerning 198.189.184.243[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dolovis
[edit]| Wrong place. Appeal of a community ban should go to WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The administrator has been notified of this appeal. Statement by Dolovis[edit]I am requesting that the topic ban imposed upon me on January 5, 2012 be lifted. I am an experienced editor, and a review of my edit history will demonstrate that a topic ban is not required. This topic ban is preventing me from legitimately contesting controversial moves per WP:BRD such as this one, or from even taking part in move discussions such as this one. I thank you for your consideration. Dolovis (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by 28bytes[edit]Dolovis notified me about this appeal, but I should note that the topic ban being discussed was not enacted as an arbitration enforcement action. Rather, I closed a community discussion at AN/I as an uninvolved administrator. I have no particular opinion on whether the topic ban should be lifted, but I believe the correct venue for deciding that would be another community discussion (e.g. at WP:AN) or perhaps an appeal to ArbCom. 28bytes (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dolovis[edit]Result of the appeal by Dolovis[edit]
|
NovaSkola
[edit]| Two month AE block. Indefinitely banned from everything related to Armenia and Azerbaijan, but with a sports exemption. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning NovaSkola[edit]
NovaSkola edited articles that are in violation of his 6-month topic ban from everything related to Armenia or Azerbaijan (2 June 2013)
Despite being under a 6-month topic ban, NovaSkola edited an Azerbaijani football article, for which he/she got blocked for 48 hours on 3 June 2013 On 2 Oct 2013, NovaSkola wrote on Sandstein's talk page about the Khojaly Massacre:
A few days ago, when I asked User:EdJohnston about NovaSkola's recent edits, NovaSkola (still under a topic ban) wrote on EdJohnston's talk page about the same thing: "I wrote to Sandstein but he didn't reply." Is this not WP:CANVASS?
Discussion concerning NovaSkola[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by NovaSkola[edit]
Statement by Lothar von Richthofen[edit]While it's true that NS was granted a specific exception, it was for sports and sports alone. None of these diffs have anything to do with sports, so the exception does not apply here. Given the fact that he's already been slapped with a monthlong block for violating the ban in spite of those clearly defined "parole conditions", he doesn't have much WP:ROPE left here, and the diffs provided clearly demonstrate a continuing pattern of NS continually gaming the limits of his topic ban. On their own, one or two of these edits might be grounds for an admonishment. But viewed together and in broader context, it's clear that NS is simply trying to find and exploit weak spots in his ban. NS of course comes back with the same lame excuse that he tried to make in July that "it wasn't about war or politics so it's ok!!!" No, it isn't. There is no way at this point that NS is not completely aware that he is banned from "everything related to Armenia or Azerbaijan for six months", save for sports. Indeed, the fact that he sought fit to even bring his exception up in the thread below shows he's well aware of the conditions. But in my eyes, the posts re: trying to edit at Khojaly Massacre are probably the most egregious. These are unambiguously edits about war and politics. While he stopped short of editing the article itself, it's clear from that he was really itching to get back into it. Forumshopping on the admin talkpages to try to get back into one of the most bitter aspects of the banned topic is like trying to buy drugs from known cops while wearing an obvious ankle monitor. To top it all off, NS went and shot himself in both feet by filing the WP:BATTLEGROUND countercomplaint below. It's clear that NS has no intentions of dropping the AA WP:STICK and respecting the conditions of his topic ban in spite of past sanctions against him. Admonishments, warnings, and exceptions are clearly insufficient at this point. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Statement My very best wishes[edit]
Statement by EatsShootsAndLeaves[edit]
I concur ES&L 08:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning NovaSkola[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Josh Gorand
[edit]| The edit made in violation of the ban has been reverted. No other action is necessary at this time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:44, 31 October 2013 (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 Josh Gorand[edit]
Josh Gorand is indefinitely topic banned from transgender topics for his inflammatory conduct and personal attacks with regard to Chelsea Manning. He has continued the dispute on his user page in his very first edits since returning to editing. He continues to misconstrue the facts, alleging that the WMF had it's hand in his topic ban to 'punish' him for his open letter.
Discussion concerning Josh Gorand[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Josh Gorand[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Josh Gorand[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Given that Gorand's recent edits are apparently intended as a parting statement, it's not clear to me what additional sanctions could achieve. I guess if he returns to editing about the topic area again, we could consider a block. Gatoclass (talk) 07:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
|
Cavann
[edit]| Cavann is topic-banned indefinitely from topics related to the Balkans, broadly construed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:44, 9 November 2013 (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 Cavann[edit]
Edit-warring Some warnings given: Edit-warring: Incivil and uncooperative Examples before the warning: After the warning, it continues:
Personal attacks and labels Some prior to his/her ARBMAC warning on 26 August:
Even after the ARBMAC warning issued on 26 August and along with two other warnings ([127][128]), the user continued his personal attacks of other editors:
Battlefield - separating users on the basis of ethnicity
Baseless and unnecessary remarks stating that some users are non-native English speakers: Tendentious editing
To summarize:
Discussion concerning Cavann[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Cavann[edit]
First of all, let me apologize for the excessive length of this response. In order to explain my behaviour, I have to explain the long-term problems I have encountered with 3 editors, Athenean, Alexikoua, and Proudbolsahye. These editors revert in tag-teams and seem to WP:GAME in addition to other problematic behaviour. Responses to Proudbolsahye and Athenean[edit]First of all, let me begin by acknowledging that I should have been more civil. I have admitted this before [178] and have tried to be more civil since then. I believe I have improved since then and will continue to improve with respect to this. Some specific answers:
Behaviour of Proudbolsahye[edit]
Behaviour of Athenean[edit]
Behaviour of Alexikoua[edit]
Athenean, Alexikoua, and Proudbolsahye tag-teams to revert other editors, and WP:GAME the system to edit war and advance their POVs[edit]
Conclusion[edit]I really did not want to get into petty nationalistic issues of the region. Given my interest in prehistory, I have noticed the severe lack of certain perspectives in Turkey-related articles. Because of this, I have gotten into problems with nationalists from all sides (on Turkish side, that would be Turanists as helpfully pointed out by Yalens here [233];User:E4024, who is from Turkey and ran into problems with Athenean, Proudbolsahye, etc thought I was from "South (Greek) Cyprus" [234]). I have been uncivil at times, but it is very frustrating to see the my hard work, research, and identifying reliable sources being rejected by what I perceive to be POV-pushing. Moreover, my problems with these 3 editors go back months, and I have been encountering the same tag-teaming behaviour. My messages at their talk pages were my attempts to fix the issues, although they also reflected my frustration, when I said things like "Any future attempts at falsifying sources will be referred to ARBCOM." In the future I will try to be more civil, and will continue to refer issues to the wider community, like I have been doing with RFC's and dispute resolution requests. Now that the Mediation policy has changed, and they let cases without the requirement of DRN (which is backlogged), this should be easier. One last time, despite the length of this response (my apologies for the length), this response is incomplete. Please do not hesitate to ask for more details. Additional Brief Comments[edit]
Statement by Athenean[edit]
I will refrain from responding to Cavann's accusations for the moment (depending on whether he shortens his response), but would like to point out that his response typifies the belligerent behavior I mention above. I will only point out that his defense that he added "Turkic" to the article is misleading, since here he edit-warred to remove "Turkic" using different excuses each time [293] [294]. Athenean (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
As I show in my statement, the problem isn't simply limited to edit-warring on Turkish people. The edit-warring is a symptom of Cavann's tendentious editing, Anatolianist POV-pushing across wikipedia, as well as his constant bad-faith assuming [295]. Even if we go ahead with the proposal, that wouldn't address the core issues outlined in this report, rather, it would merely divert them to other articles. Athenean (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd be happy to refute Cavann's allegations against me one by one, but that is not the subject of this report, the subject of this report is Cavann's own behavior, and I note Cavann has failed to refute the allegations against him (particularly the charges of Anatolianist POV-pushing and grossly incivil behavior), and instead has chosen to go on the offensive (WP:NOTTHEM). He makes wild allegations that he doesn't back up with evidence ("Athenean has a very very very very long history of disruption", when in fact my record has been spotless for almost 3 years now, "Athenean has been sanctioned 5 times", which is not true, "Athenean engages in personal attacks", but not a single diff he provides backs that claim, "Proudbolsahye falsified sources", a charge which does not stand up to scrutiny, "Proudbolsahye engages in long-term plagiarizing", another extremely serious charge that is completely baseless, "Athenean deletes source material with frivolous reasons", something which does not stand up to scrutiny, the diffs he presents are out of context, and there is a good reason behind every single one of them). He digs up very old diffs from 2010 in the hopes that something will stick. He has pointedly refused to shorten his statement [296], when every other participant has shortened theirs. The fact that he thinks in terms of "Turkey-negative" articles shows he has a POV problem. His response consists of essentially 3 retaliatory AE reports, one against a user who hasn't even participated at this proceedings. He consistently assumes bad faith on an ethnic basis, unprovokedly accusing any users of a Greek or Armenian background of "far-right" political views, an extremely severe and insulting allegation. He refuses to acknowledge that he has edit-warred, insisting it's about how he's right because he has sources, as if that makes it ok. In summary, his response here is the best evidence of his belligerent, uncompromising behavior that is outlined in this report and that is such a problem across Turkey-related topics. Athenean (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Cavann once again tries to deflect the issue of his own behavior by going on the offensive, this time with yet another truckload of stale, out-of-context diffs. I'm obviously not going to get into a detailed rebuttal of these, just point out that Alexikoua and I have very different editing interests [297] [298] that occasionally overlap (e.g. Illyrians, Souliotes). But whenever we both happen to revert Cavann, it's "tag-teaming". In fact in most of the disputes I have been involved in, including a particularly sharp one with Cavann at African admixture in Europe [299], Alexikoua is nowhere to be seen. Just like whenever an editor from a Greek or Armenian background disagrees with him, it's "far-right POV-pushing". This is just the type of permanent bad-faith-assuming behavior that makes it impossible to collaborate with this user. It's all bad faith assumptions, all the time. Athenean (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Statement by Dr.K.[edit]I would like to add a brief statement regarding the unjustified base insults I have received from Cavann for reverting him occasionally as a means to demonstrate that he tenaciously, methodically and habitually supports his strong POV with base insults coupled with relentless and diachronic edit-warring. For example at Istanbul after long discusions and after he got rebuffed by wide consensus on the talkpage, he returns months later to yet again add his POV trying to deprecate the Byzantine origins of the onomatology of the city in favour of earlier settlements, despite the available reliable sources which call Byzantium the founding city. After I reverted him he links to Golden Dawn (political party) through his piped link in his edit-summary accusing me of ultra-rightist POV, never mind that soon after he got rebuffed for the nth time by other editors at Talk:Istanbul. At the talkpage of Drmies he went to accuse me and Athenean of original research. After I responded to his accusations, he implies that I am a troll by using the phrase "I will deny recognition": I will deny recognition to Dr. K. again.. In my last encounter at talk:Miletus, his opening statement was Please, not this nationalistic POV-pushing again.: [300]. Never mind that he was pushing his POV that Miletus was actually an ancient Luwian city which only later became Greek, in utter defiance of all available reliable sources: [301]. There are many more incidents involving the rampant incivility of this editor and its synergistic relation to his POV-pushing but for the sake of brevity I will end them here. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Your reply completely ignores the fact that you are using gross personal attacks as a means to subdue your opposition and promote your POV. For example at talk:Istanbul other editors opposed you on exactly the same points, such as Tariqabjotu and Alessandro57, yet you did not attack them with claims of far-rightist POV and links to neo-nazi parties. You reserved that unjust, unjustified, unjustifiable and gross insult for me. Similarly your opening statement at Miletus attacked me with claims of nationalistic POV-pushing without justification, indeed you later agreed with me, again establishing your use of nationality-based attacks to promote your POV. You also gratuitously insinuated I was a troll at Drmies's talkpage when I went there to defend myself from your false accusations. This is the reason why this AE request must stop that. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Result concerning Cavann[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
I don't want to spend too much more time on this, so I will try to keep this brief. In particular, I am not going to present too many diffs, firstly because there are so many of them one hardly knows when to start, and secondly because I do not want to overburden the other uninvolved admins with an excess of evidence. Firstly then, having looked at Cavann's evidence regarding his opponents, I would describe it as all either ancient and already dealt with, or irrelevant or trivial; in short I see nothing actionable there. That leaves the evidence against Cavann. Firstly, it is clear that Cavann is the common factor in all these content disputes, and seems to be fighting a lone hand in most of them against multiple other users, which alone is a pattern that rings alarm bells. Cavann's explanation for this seems to be that his opponents are "nationalist POV pushers", but his opponents have included highly experienced administrators including Fut Perf and Tariqabjotu as well as uninvolved editors. Regarding Cavann's mainspace editing, I have looked through all the diffs supplied in evidence and agree that most if not all of them look WP:TENDENTIOUS to at least some degree, especially with respect to WP:UNDUE. Since the tendentiousness may not always be clear from many of these diffs without looking closely at the underlying disputes, I am going to provide a few examples which I hope will illustrate the point.
So much for mainspace. EdJohnston has already documented Cavann's propensity for edit warring (15 substantial reverts at Turkish people since early September). In several places (sorry don't have the diffs to hand) Cavann has justified his edit warring against consensus on the basis that only a consensus of "uninvolved" editors counts, but there is no support for this notion in the policy. Additionally, numerous editors have noted Cavann's propensity for WP:IDHT and incivility on talk pages; Proudbolsayhe has a done a fair job of documenting the latter in his evidence above. One of the more egregious examples is this edit summary[316] - IMO, it doesn't get much more offensive than implying - and without any apparent provocation - that one's opponents are neo-Nazis or fascists. (Some other examples[317][318]). In short, there are a variety of offences on display here IMO, from WP:TENDENTIOUS to WP:IDHT to WP:CIV to WP:BATTLEGROUND. Regrettably, although I normally err on the side of leniency, in this case I see little option but for a substantial topic ban - I would suggest, six months at minimum, if only to give his opponents some respite. Gatoclass (talk) 14:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
|