Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive256
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Icewhiz
[edit]| Moot. The appealed block has expired. Sandstein 11:23, 4 September 2019 (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 administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. 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 WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Icewhiz[edit]The block was logged as an AE action. This appeal is in accordance with Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Standard provision: appeals and modifications. timeline/facts:
I am appealing this sanction on the following grounds:
Additional comments[edit]The block has run its course, so this appeal is probably moot in any event at this point. In retrospect - this was far from a wise edit given the past dispute on the page (one of dozens), however I do want to say this is not what drew me to the page (which were the actions of an unconnected user on the talk page + tags there). Should I have known better? Probably. I made 2,621 edits in August (1,331 mainspace, 447 talk, and 567 to wiki space (mainly AfDs - which I need to ponder whether they can also be construed to fit within an IBAN) - in all of which there was a chance I could've screwed up). I am happy I fixed a rather major conspiracy theory in Holocaust articles + got a number of Polish articles (Islamophobia related, LGBT rights relates, Jew with a coin) through DYK + created a few additional articles on the Islamophobia/LGBT and related offshoots. In the foreseeable future I probably intend to curtail my editing to this website, I am tying up loose ends over Warsaw concentration camp (where a conspiracy theory,[4] was present (as fact) in English Wikipedia main space for 15 years - and not just in this obscure article, but also in German camps in occupied Poland during World War II, Extermination camp, and a bunch of other articles - par the course for this topic area, though extreme in scope this time). Thank you for your time spent processing (and commenting on) this appeal. Icewhiz (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by Bradv[edit]I'm not sure this matters, but I would like to clarify that Piotrus' warning to Icewhiz came while I was investigating this and preparing the block notice, and I did not see it until afterward. The intent of the temporary interaction ban was to stop the disruptive editing and edit warring that was happening between these two editors. There is plenty of evidence that this article is a locus of that dispute in the history, on the talk page, and in the talk page archives. Icewhiz is taking advantage of the IBAN to rehash these disputes at a time when their partner in the dispute cannot respond. I'm not aware of any sort of time limit on what counts as a "undo" for the purposes of an interaction ban. If there was a conversation that established this at some point in the past I would appreciate it if someone could point me to it. As we can see by the events here, such a time limit, whether adopted by policy or convention, can be easily gamed. It's also worth pointing out that this block is not designated as a clerk action, even though I likely wouldn't have investigated or acted here if I were not a clerk. This is subject to the usual standard provisions and therefore a review here is appropriate. – bradv🍁 14:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Piotrus[edit]I wasn't going to comment until I've noticed that this appeal seems to be framed significantly with regards to my edits (and also a 10 year old arbitration case that some people seem to be dredging up every now and then to poison the well, sigh). (I also wasn't going to present evidence in the ArbCom case until my name was called out in a similar fashion, but clearly, some people don't learn...). Anyway, I'll leave it to others to decide whether the violation indeed occurred and whether the penalty was correctly applied. I will just note that I gave a friendly notice to Icewhiz when this popped up on my watchlist and I recommend that he (and his interaction ban 'partner', User:Volunteer Marek, who likely cannot even comment here) ask for clarification with regards to articles they jointly edited (and often, edit warred on) in the past. The edits on Bielski partisans are only one of several articles that they both disagreed on in the past that Icewhiz has edited since their mutual interaction ban was implemented few days ago (others include: Institute of National Remembrance, Act on the Institute of National Remembrance and Jew with a coin). I do not have time and will to see if he indeed did remove or restore any content that VM had disagreed on in the past, but this being a fourth article in the series I find the implication of the interaction ban restriction on the affected parties not being allowed to "undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means" problematic, and this needs a clarification ASAP. Namely: 1) can the parties remove or readd content they disagreed on in the 'distant' past, like six month ago, or a year, or two years ago? 2) how big such an edit has to be to trigger a sanction? Word, sentence, paragraph? 3) Does it effectively mean that once one of them makes an edit to an article, they "own" it? I mean, in the case of Bielski partisans, VM and Icewhiz disagreed about numerous issues, big and small. Few days after the iban, Icewhiz revisits this, with edits that VM would almost certainly find problematic. But as the 'first mover, post-iban, he effectively locks VM from this article, doesn't he? Particularly if his edits are extensive. And if his wording is a bit different from edits of the past, who can judge if this is really a revert? Interaction ban is not the same as topic ban, but the practical aspects of this seem rather murky. In other words, we have to consider to what degree one can game the system by exploiting interaction ban to enforce a one-way topic ban on their iban partner? (Note: I am not saying iban was gamed in this particular case, it may be an honest mistake, I leave this for others to judge, but the scope for abuse of the policy as worded currently is imho rather big). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by François Robere[edit]Icewhiz's I-Ban "partner", Volunteer Marek, reverted content added (or re-added) by Icewhiz last month ([5][6][7] → [8]), and commented on threads where Icewhiz is heavily involved ([9][10][11][12][13][14][15] → [16][17]). This is much closer than what Icewhiz was blocked for (reverting a year old change with >50 intervening edits), but no one reported him as, just as before, there were intervening edits and no direct interaction. Editors under an I-Ban should not be required to "Wikiblame" their edits to make sure they're in the clear. François Robere (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC) @Winged Blades of Godric: Too late - it's the Rule of the Bureaucrats. Per Sandstein I-Banned editors should "Wikiblame" every single edit, lest they accidentally override some ancient edit they weren't even aware of. Per Hut 8.5 "edit wars" should now be considered not a speedy and intense affair as in WP:3RR, but a life-long, one-edit-a-year vendetta: I will revert you even if it's the last thing I do!... <cough>. Indeed, they are afraid that one editor @TonyBallioni: Tony, what interaction exactly was there between the two? "Interaction" by definition is "reciprocal" and "direct";[18] here there was nothing reciprocal nor direct. It's like a book being left on a library shelf - VM put it there, and 14 months and 55 readers later Icewhiz picked it up. How is that "interaction"? François Robere (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC) @GoldenRing: Riddle me this: the length of an "evidence" page is 157,779 bytes, or roughly 12,000 words, of which perhaps a third concerns Icewhiz - 4,000 words. The case has been open for three months, though it was supposed to be concluded in less than a month and a half. Question: What size of a briefcase should Mr. Whiz buy at the office supplies store to keep track of all the articles he's not supposed to touch? François Robere (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Statement by WBG[edit]What SoWhy says. Pathetic to be mild and I hope we don't have another Sandstein in the making. ∯WBGconverse 15:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]1. Even if Icewhiz deserves a block, being the first time, it should have been a 24 hour block, not a 72 and I would like clarification from @Bradv: why a first time offender got a 72 hour block which is not the norm. 2. I do find it troubling that Bradv just swooped it and blocked, especially in this area, especially when Icewhiz was asked to revert and Icewhiz is known for reverting when asked, as is the custom. 3. I do want to point out, that the only other time Bradv, to the best of my recollection, made an AE action, is when he brought me to AE for something that was already resolved and it ended up causing much drama. (as someone pointed out at his RFA) This should be promptly overturned, you can't expect someone to go through a year of history to check to see if they are clear to edit, especially if they were going to revert anyway and Bradv should be warned to not be so triggerhappy, we know where that leads to. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Levivich[edit]
Here's my refutation of the suggestion that Icewhiz was trying to game the system: Icewhiz was blocked for this edit, removing content. It had been most recently added, not by VM, but by Piotr. Before Piotr added it, it had been removed, not by Icewhiz, but by another editor ("Editor X"). The content was originally added, not by VM, but by yet another editor ("Editor Y"). Piotr's addition happened a year ago. Icewhiz had a whole year to take Piotr's addition out. It makes no sense to think that Icewhiz intentionally waited until he was under an IBAN with VM to take out that content. First of all, he knows that Piotr could have reverted–so it doesn't matter that VM was under an IBAN (this is what kills the entire "but they could game with first mover advantage" theory – no, they couldn't, because there are other editors, not subject to an IBAN, who would make such an attempt ineffective). Secondly, never has Icewhiz's editing been under more scrutiny than it is now (as proven by bradv independently monitoring his editing and blocking him). This is the worst possible time for Icewhiz or VM to misstep (as proven by the fact that we're even here right now having this conversation). Icewhiz's edit was a revert of Piotr, not of VM. The IBAN says they can't undo–that means a direct undo–it doesn't say they can't edit any article that the other editor has edited, or add/remove any content that the other editor has ever added/removed. Yes, there was a dispute between Icewhiz and VM at that article, but it wasn't a dispute just between them, it was between two groups of editors. And Icewhiz may be in a dispute with other editors over the content now (like Piotr or Editor Y), but that doesn't make it a "continuation of a dispute with VM", but rather "a dispute in which VM was involved along with many others". @L235: You've made my point exactly: in the 2018 AN thread, the IBAN was amended to put in the 30-day no-editing-each-others-articles restriction, because a regular IBAN doesn't cover that (just as this IBAN doesn't cover it). There was plenty of discussion in that thread about what a reasonable time period would be. 30 days is reasonable; a year is not. It's not binding precedent, but it's precedent. @Hut 8.5: do you really think that me filing an AE against VM would be a better outcome than, say, what Rexx is suggesting below? Better for me, better for VM, better for admin, better for the community as a whole? De-escalation, right? Even if you don't agree with me about the interpretation of the IBAN, there is still that irrefutable point that there was no reason for a block, because a warning about not editing each other's articles even it's been a year and 50+ intervening edits, would have had the same effect. (Note the warning he received was for posting in a talk page thread, whereas the block was for something quite different–and the one year/50+ edits-interim thing is unusual enough that it should have been explained clearly in a warning before anyone was blocked). Requesting more words for this post–I'm not planning to post further, I know you're sick of hearing from me :-). Thanks. – Levivich 01:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by Mr Ernie[edit]It is really frustrating to see such one-sided dispute resolution. There's been Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Icewhiz[edit]
Result of the appeal by Icewhiz[edit]
|
Bill Josephs
[edit]| Blocked for two weeks by Bishonen. Any repetition on Bill Josephs' return is likely to be met with an indefinite block. GoldenRing (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2019 (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 Bill Josephs[edit]
N/A
I'm inclined to think that he's WP:NOTHERE. His edits seem SPA-like, and keeps continuing despite numerous warnings and editing restrictions. I wasn't sure whether this would be better for AE or ANI, so I apologize if this isn't the best place.
Discussion concerning Bill Josephs[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 Bill Josephs[edit]Statement by Cullen328[edit]Before delving into the I/P area in a counterproductive way, this editor tried to add some unacceptable original research to Ernie Kovacs, the biography of a comedian killed in a 1962 car crash. In other words, they have yet to contribute anything of value to this encylopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Bill Josephs[edit]
|
Benjamin M.L Peters
[edit]| User indef-blocked by GoldenRing as a normal admin action ~Awilley (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2019 (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 Benjamin M.L Peters[edit]
User persistently changes information about political alignments without discussion or sources. This user has been repeatedly warned about this behavior but will not communicate. Of this user's 61 edits, none are on talk pages. I am bringing this here, instead of ANI, as I don't think the user is NOTHERE, but the user is certainly not being constructive in the area of politics.
Discussion concerning Benjamin M.L Peters[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 Benjamin M.L Peters[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Benjamin M.L Peters[edit]
|
Icewhiz
[edit]| No action taken. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:03, 8 September 2019 (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 Icewhiz[edit]
Bold text Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) and Icewhiz (talk · contribs) are prohibited from interacting with or commenting about one another, except that they may submit (directly to the committee) responses to a proposed decision in these proceedings. Arbitrators supporting will desire immediate implementation under net 4 rules.
Icewhiz has been prohibited by ARBCOM from intereacting with Volunteer Marek, despite this, Icewhiz continues adding potentially inflammatory insinuations against VM that go beyond acceptable discussion as per IBAN Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) and Icewhiz (talk · contribs) are prohibited from interacting with or commenting about one another, except that they may submit (directly to the committee) responses to a proposed decision in these proceedings. Arbitrators supporting will desire immediate implementation under net 4 rules. I believe that Icewhiz has potentially violated this interaction ban, by adding new accussations towards VM and and adding and including his name in statements about Holocaust Denial-VM has previously strongly objected to this[24], and it is unlikely Icewhiz is unaware of this fact.Per IBAN issued, Icewhiz can only state this directly to the committee.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Icewhiz[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 Icewhiz[edit]My statement was on evidence presented to ARBCOM, and not any comments made by the party to the ban on the PD page. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Proposed decision#Interaction ban has an exception for proceedings, and I posted this after this explicit clarification by ARBCOM: Statement by Jorm[edit]This feels like scalp-hunting. Newyorkbrad has the right of it. This is a frivolous waste of time.--Jorm (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Icewhiz[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Buffs
[edit]| Extended confirmed protection removed from the specific article. Discussion about the application of ECP more generally, including logging, is happening at WP:AN#Why is Ibn Saud under restrictions??. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2019 (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 administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. 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 WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Buffs[edit]See above @Newyorkbrad:, @Hut 8.5:: Thank you so much for your inputs. May I ask for comment about logging such ECPs? Is that not part of the requirements? While this may not exactly be the forum to use (or maybe it should be?...I don't know). I think a review of the articles under ECP is in order to make sure they've been properly logged. To be blunt, this seems like the proper forum to ask such a question/direct such questions, but I could be wrong. Buffs (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Ymblanter[edit]As I said at AN, the case is similar to the one (AirBNB) which caused the currently pending PIA ArbCom case. For this article, I would be willing to unprotect. It will obviously need to be reprotected if PIA-related disruption starts, or if the outcome of the ArbCom case would require protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Buffs[edit]We should not be preemptively locking down articles that are not "broadly construed" to be in the conflict area. We should be as unlocked as possible to allow as many people to edit Wikipedia. If disruption occurs, then we have escalation steps that we can take, up to and including locking it down. But to lock it down when nobody ever edited it in the first place just seems so wrong. I think it should be unlocked and the edit notice be removed. If someone does edit in the article in a way that is disruptive to the IP conflict, then we can deal with it then the same way we deal with it now in other articles that are not locked down with ECP protection but where edits are broadly construed to be an IP area edit. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by Buffs[edit]
|
Gbabuch
[edit]| The General Prohibition is enforced, for preference, using extended-confirmed protection and this appears to have been effective in this case. If this user keeps editing A-I articles, please report to me, another admin, or back here; the result should be a longish block. GoldenRing (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2019 (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 Gbabuch[edit]
Discussion concerning Gbabuch[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 Gbabuch[edit]Statement by Buffs[edit]Removing a notice on your talk page should not be considered a detrimental or dismissive act. No one is required to keep such notices on their talk page. As a community, we need to abide by our own rules instead of casting aspersions on actions that are permitted under our own rules (see Wikipedia:User_pages#Removal_of_comments,_notices,_and_warnings). "But he just removed it as soon as I posted it." So what? That he saw it is the important thing. It isn't your place to log wrongs on their user talk page. Buffs (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Gbabuch[edit]
|
Lsparrish
[edit]| Lsparrish is given a logged warning to avoid edit warring or promotion of fringe material on articles under discretionary sanctions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Lsparrish[edit]
Requesting a topic ban from fringe science topics.
Lsparrish is basically a WP:SPA advancing the fringe field of cryonics, an area which is a long-term focus of civil POV pushing by advocates of the commercially lucrative but scientifically insupportable freezing of recently deceased individuals, or parts thereof (normally the brain).
See [26]. Edits to:
These support fringe views pretty much consistently. Lsparrish has occasionally tried to make these articles less like sci-fi and mroe like an encyclopaedia (e.g. [27]) but the overall weight of contributions is consistently to advance a field that is, bluntly, a scam.
Discussion concerning Lsparrish[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 Lsparrish[edit]Hello everyone. It is good to see more eyes on these edits, as well as constructive comments from uninvolved editors. I fully acknowledge that cryonics is unproven and does not enjoy general acceptance. However, I feel I have raised reasonable concerns with the current text of the Cryonics article. I would be interested in resolving these in collaboration with others if permitted to to so. As you can probably tell, I'm still getting the hang of editing Wikipedia, and some of the rules as to what is considered edit-warring are still a bit opaque to me. I've been mostly puzzled by the very rapid (and often accompanied by snarky and/or accusatory comments) reverts to my recent changes on the article, which were (I thought) not particularly POV pushing, rather the opposite. I hoped that a few reverts here and there of these seemingly hostile reverts would draw additional scrutiny from uninvolved editors. Edit warring, according to my previous understanding of the concept, involves attempts to wear out the opposition with repetitive reverts, something I've never purposely done and have no intention to do under any circumstance. Regarding my comments on Talk being basically POV pushing, it may be that I've been a bit more verbose or stubborn than was merited. I've tried, perhaps unsuccessfully, to strike a balance between pushing back on extreme POV (which seems to be that anything speculative must therefore be fraud) and the demands of brevity / Wikipedia's scope. Cryonics has been marketed as speculative from the beginning, and I'm hopeful that further sources will be found noting that this is actually okay, regardless of whether I'm involved in the article's future development. That being said, I'd be grateful for another chance to get this right, and welcome any feedback on how to do a better job and be a better editor. Lsparrish (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by David Gerard[edit]Lsparrish has an extensive history of attempting to edit-war WP:PROFRINGE edits into the article, and long-winded and tendentious justification of his edit-warring on the talk page - look at the history and talk for many examples. He has been warned several times, both on his own talk page and the article talk page, that discretionary sanctions exist in the area, and is quite aware. It would be good if this stopped, but he's been promoting cryonics online for at least the last nine years, and there's no visible reason to say he'll stop even if he were to claim he would - David Gerard (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by Levivich[edit]Thoughts from an uninvolved editor:
Statement by Buffs[edit]I was going to add my two cents in here and had a list of things I'd found... Suffice to say "what Levivich said" is sufficient/spot on. Buffs (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by JFG[edit]This is essentially a content dispute. The editor under scrutiny has been warned against pushing fringe POV, and s/he welcomes a civil debate on the wording of the article. No sanction necessary. — JFG talk 10:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by JzG[edit]Lsparrish says
Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]The discussion below gives the false impression that the sentence "It is a pseudoscience,[3] and its practice is quackery" is the lead sentence of the article. It is not. The lede sentence is a technical description. It is followed by the very reasonable observation that mainstream science regards cryonics with skepticism. Only then does the above sentence appear. There is value -- even in a neutral encyclopedia -- in saying things directly and without caveats. Cryonics is indeed a pseudoscience, and its practice is indeed quackery. Saying anything less definitive would be deceptive and a disservice to our readers. I suggest that those below arguing that the sentence above is "unencyclopedic" or that there is some amount of doubt about the nature of cryonics would be better advised to do some research about it rather than to shoot from the hip. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Lsparrish[edit]
|
Lo meiin
[edit]| Not currently actionable, but Lo meiin is warned to avoid battleground-like conduct. Sandstein 07:41, 19 September 2019 (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 Lo meiin[edit]
None, a new user
Lo meiin is a new user who immediately took interest in the I/P area. They opened multiple garbled RFCs (1, 2, 3), two of them on the same article at the same time. Responded in uncivil manner to an opinion they didn't like and repeatedly made significant POV changes against consensus.
Discussion concerning Lo meiin[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 Lo meiin[edit]First of all I’d like to begin by refuting the allegations made against me. I started out filing an admin notice on auh20s talk page as I saw he is engaged in editing conflict with some editors not as a personal attack but as an appropriate means of dispute resolution. I’ve also requested countless RFCs, 3O before editing, and I even recognized where I went wrong apologized and learned from the experience in order to grow as an new editor. In addition, even after I apologized, I was labelled profanely as a “punk”, despite condemning previous personal attacks on auh20 republican by other editors. Why I combined both generally and substantially recognized states in Asia together is to avoid contention over the issue and satisfy all parties to the dispute. In addition, I attempted to present the facts in an NPOV manner by plainly and objectively stating the facts and by making no significant changes to Taiwan and Palestine’s labelling. Despite my personal reservations on the issue and me being mainland Chinese, I conceded to labelling Taiwan as a “country” for the sake of Wikipedia. Auh20 and his ally warkosign (who happens to be Israeli, making him POV on the issue) are once again hungry for conflict by reverting these edits, possibly due to their bias towards Israel over Palestine. I would also like to mention that auh20 has made several reverts to already established articles that group un member and observer states together to impose his view without previous consent. I suggest combining the two categories together to end this ceaseless feud and to turn to a new chapter on Wikipedia; and if this request is granted, I will vow never to edit any Arab- Israeli related articles until I am a confirmed user. Lo meiin (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by Nableezy[edit]There was supposed to be some sort of clarification on broadly vs reasonably construed and what is subject to the edit-restriction. AFAIK, currently only articles that are themselves as a whole related to the conflict are covered, and edits elsewhere, such at Airbnb, and consequently List of sovereign states, are not. nableezy - 20:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]ARBPIA 30/500 is clear and the amendment request referenced here is also clear. The article itself should not be under ECP but the editor should be blocked for violating ARBPIA 30/500 and for being disruptive. He was warned several times that he can't make edits in this subject area and that talk page edits are generally allowed if they're not being disruptive (I am not sure if RFC's are allowed). We had a similar case over at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive256#Bill_Josephs just a few days ago where a new user was behaving similarly and was blocked. This seems to me a clear case and not sure we need a drawn out AE action and most certainly don't need any more articles protected. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC) On your part, you are in no position to tell me what to do in this matter when you yourself are a POV editor and advocate for the state of Israel Lo meiin (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by AuH2ORepublican[edit]
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Lo meiin[edit]
|
WikipediansSweep
[edit]| WikipediansSweep is indefinitely topic-banned from everything related to fringe science, including but not limited to Walter Russell. Sandstein 17:49, 19 September 2019 (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 WikipediansSweep[edit]
[49] Alerted to DS in PSCI by Bradv on September 7
I originally got pulled into this debate (on whether Walter Russell was a genius and discovered Plutonium before Niels Bohr, among other issues) as a result of a WP:3O request. I tried to be very calm, civil, and helpful, and took WikipediansSweeps less than civil behavior and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality in stride. But after more than a week, its become clear that WikipediansSweep is a WP:SPA who strongly wants Walter Russell to be portrayed in their chosen POV. For additional evidence of WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND, see Talk:Walter_Russell#Third_opinion, and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Walter_Russell. Please let me know if I've done anything wrong in this request, I have never filed a claim at AE before, and the process is a bit confusing. I tried to be very patient with WikipediansSweep, and I'm dissapointed it had to come to this. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Discussion concerning WikipediansSweep[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 WikipediansSweep[edit]Concerning the above comments in regards to changing or reverting edits that do not match the criteria prescribed recently does not seem to be ingeniune as i am actually finding sources which support the conclusions and statements i have undone edits on. One example is the Modern Leonardo claim about Walter Russell which I supported in the talk portion of the article. There have also been sweeping edits in regards to multiple paragraph deletions and other credibly sourced portions upon which i am now paying for subscriptions to support and to find. The fact this man was an architect, painter, sculptor, speaker, musician, ice skater, and inventor are all supported in my sources recently mentioned. I do not have a battle ground mentality but request sensible edits that do not step over the bounds to match someones point of view rather than find the material questionable without research. I do find a lot of edits sensible and have not touched those, but major edits in regards to things as simple as personal history to well documented sources and saying "read the rules" as its justification whenever it fails to even meet that criteria is a bit absurd. I admit to somewhat of senseless ramblings but let us be humble and admit our shortcomings and imperfections. I also do believe Einstein was somewhat fringe in the years he published his famous papers which were originally scorned and then brought up many worlds theory and how it was initially scorned, both were seemingly fringe at the time, the mentioned how planck stated that science progresses one funeral at a time. But there are some ramblings in there i do admit. But i am simply trying to publish the truth out into the world and am conforming to every standard i see that requires more due dilligence. For example there was major edits done in regards to this man bein a master musician, artist, sculptor, architect, and how was able to successfully defend his points in the new york times against outspoken scientist, where i have them, albeit clumsily in an failed embedded format, sourced. This man was also personal friends of thomas edison, mark twain, and theodore roosevelt, and many more outstanding people in our society. I also am using a mobile device for most of this if not nearly all so forgive my lagish response and failure to be more formal in multiple places such as this. I also am noting how many warnings i received and honestly have only gotten one on this end. Also my friend above, whom i thought i was in good standing with now due to my lengthy sourcing last night, originally deemed this man a kook, quack, and in my opinion shot from the hip and demanded major editing was required on this article due to simply being ill informed. Also it seems as if i am the one doing the most work on the page as i am the one find sources, and asking for validation on edits rather than "fringe stuff removed" sweeping edits that include many things not considered fringe. It was a mans unique universal perspective or philosophy if nothing more being removed as fringe to where it begets the concern on how philosophy itself doesn't classify into the same spectrum. All of which i have asked for clarity on in the talk page with some but not adequate response. So apologies as i am in an attempt to actually uncover the truth in a format befitting to all readers, not defend my point of view strictly in regards to this individual. But obviously one of the best painters, sculptors, architects, and considered by a considerable few a polymath does not seem to be quackery by any stretch of the imagination. There are articles of him giving edison medals of honor from his society and it seems almost foolish to see a man never deemed a quack in his time of prominence to be in our times deemed such by people whom lack the full information on him. I am doing my best with the little i have and do not adopt battle ground mentality but a sturdy one finding only support for my claims. I apologize if this is over my word count. (Added 10 minutes after original comment: as i said i have only received one warning on this end and admit to somewhat senseless ramblings, i am using a mobile device mostly due to situational standards, i do apologize for the lagginess and informality of much of my input, i also apologize for seemingly brutish behavior which is not intended as such, i am only trying to find the actual material accepted by standards laid out here and question the exact reasons behind some things not being seen as reasonable sources, and i have a very limited pallet, and somehow even with 10 other editors, i can, on my phone, validate many claims with dozenz of sources previously deemed kookie by other editors, that should be stating something, i hope to be in good standing and will continue to find other sources, something i was in the process of until i saw this) WikipediansSweep (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Additional: look i will take this as a formal warning because i am new to editing on wiki and for the most part am swamped in response complexities i find it hard to retort. I will cool it on my end and keep the discussion strictly professional and if there are further warnings you can ban me. For now I'm the only one adding source information previously deemed unfindable and thrown to the way side with lack of scrutiny. It honestly seems as if no one is reading those either and it seems the edits go far beyond the bounds of normal desire to present the facts and instead with a scorn for something that goes against the mainstream. Almost as if the vigor against faith healing is applied to this. That is my two cents though, I would honestly love to hear advice and feedback as it seems many eyes will view this and would be beneficial. WikipediansSweep (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning WikipediansSweep[edit]
|
TheTimesAreAChanging
[edit]| TheTimesAreAChanging is blocked for two months. Sandstein 15:33, 20 September 2019 (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 TheTimesAreAChanging[edit]
Responses.
Discussion concerning TheTimesAreAChanging[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 TheTimesAreAChanging[edit]This is obviously a frivolous request for the reasons laid out by Paul Siebert below, and in far greater detail than the request deserves. My very best wishes's diffs simply do not support his claims. In fact, the bad faith displayed by MVBW in reinstating the apparently pro-Nazi IP's deletions is obvious from Icebreaker (Suvorov)'s revision history, where MVBW is edit warring with several users over long-standing content dating back as far as a decade ago, while pretending that it was recently added by an IP (as if that would be sufficient explanation for his edit). Note that MVBW also removed sources only to cite the lack of sources as justification for further deletions, omitting the consensus of academic historians in favor of the following profoundly misleading "summary": "Rolf-Dieter Müller a former professor of military history at Humboldt University who served as the scientific director at the Center for Military History and Social Sciences of the Bundeswehr states that Hitler claimed that he had been forced to counter Soviet expansionism with a preemptive strike." (Hitler may have claimed this, but RS do not take official statements by Hitler at face value.) This case should be dismissed and MVBW should be discouraged from gaming the system to "win" content disputes.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by Paul Siebert[edit]US ban should be discussed elsewhere.
Despite MVBW's dishonest behaviour (I know exceptional claims require exceptional evidences, and I am goint to present them), I was taking no actions against him, because I believed that that was only my problem. Now I started to realise that his activity is harmful for Wikipedia in general, and I would like to present evidences against him. In connection to that, it would be correct to suspend this case, and to wait for arbitrators' opinion on the evidences I am going to present. If the conclusion will be that I am right, then the TTAAC's edit summary was just a statement of fact, although redundantly emotional one. If the decision will be in MVBW's favour, than TTAAC's words are a personal attack. Since I was not going to report Biophys/MVBW before that case, I need some time to collect the evidences. Should I present them here, or they should be a separate case?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Drmies[edit]Just one thing: will this EEML shit ever cease? And why on earth does TheTimesEtc. think this is somehow appropriate to bring up in an edit summary? I have been rev/deleting EEML references and old user names since they really constitute OUTING--and here we go again. But really, in the end: this is all water under the bridge, and should be disregarded/not mentioned/removed. Editors should be judged NOT on what happened a decade ago which somehow might be construed to be relevant today. Sheesh. Paul Siebert, I don't know what "evidences" you are trying to present, but I sure hope they are younger than my children. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Statement by (Jack90s15)[edit]MVBW Said I should read the book Icebreaker (Why Stalin did it? Read the Icebreaker (Suvorov).) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soviet_Union&diff=916481834&oldid=916481666 But then right after MVBW Deleted all the Sourced Information that were put by Paul Siebert with the False edit summary?? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icebreaker_(Suvorov)&diff=916483449&oldid=890861013Jack90s15 (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@TheTimesAreAChanging: that is Clearly Pov pushing they falsified what I put Rolf-Dieter Müller did not say (that Hitler claimed that he had been forced to counter Soviet expansionism with a preemptive strike)
(Rolf-Dieter Müller a former professor of military history at Humboldt University served as the scientific director at the Center for Military History and Social Sciences of the Bundeswehr. states Hitler claimed that he had been forced to counter Soviet expansionism with a preemptive strike. Proponents of this absurd justification can still be found today, a few even among historians and retired generals) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icebreaker_(Suvorov)&diff=916489392&oldid=916486083 its on page x
"Rolf-Dieter Müller a former professor of military history at Humboldt University who served as the scientific director at the Center for Military History and Social Sciences of the Bundeswehr states that Hitler claimed that he had been forced to counter Soviet expansionism with a preemptive strike." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icebreaker_(Suvorov)&diff=next&oldid=916600593 Statement by Icewhiz[edit]MVBW actions here on content (Icebreaker by Suvorov) described in academic literature as "overarching conspiracy theories" (source: Slavic Review) merits very close scrutiny from a WP:PROFRINGE perspective.Icewhiz (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC) Adding - Icebreaker transfers responsibility for World War II from Hitler to Stalin.Icewhiz (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC) Result concerning TheTimesAreAChanging[edit]
|
Paul Siebert
[edit]| Paul Siebert is topic-banned from everything related to the Eastern Front (World War II) (i.e. the Germany vs. USSR aspect of WWII) for three months. Sandstein 19:45, 28 September 2019 (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. The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Request concerning Paul Siebert[edit]
Responses
Discussion concerning Paul Siebert[edit]@admins The end of the post contains a discussion of subjects related to my personal life, and I don't want them to be guillotined. I asked Sandstein, he told ~600 words is ok. Before July 2018, I believed MVBW was a tough but valuable opponent. After this (read my concluding remark and Response#9), MVBW is not welcome at my talk page, I am ignoring him, and I never comment on his contributions. I am going to continue ignoring him in future, AE, ANI or admin's pages are the only exception.
Comments:
Statement by (Jack90s15)[edit]
And I was not following them I was watching the page after they told me about the book. The other page I came across at the same time as they were editing it was a Coincidence Jack90s15 (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by Icewhiz[edit]The trigger to this dispute seems to be MVBW removing 70% of the page - [74] saying an IP added it (the IP reverted another IP that removed it diff) - content that has been present on the article for over a decade. The article in question is on a book that transfers responsibility for WWII from Hitler to Stalin. This article in Slavic Review sees this as "overarching conspiracy theories". The book is mainly known for this controversy. The version created by MVBW - permalink is problematic from a NPOV and PROFRINGE standpoint - this version is absent anything critical on this book - presenting it as mainstream (when it is very much not so).Icewhiz (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Statement by ZScarpia[edit]The description given by Icewhiz of the book Icebreaker (the full text of which is available here) in the comment immediately above, "a book that transfers responsibility for WWII from Hitler to Stalin", is inaccurate and, since Suvorov has been conflated elsewhere with Irving, rather gives the impresssion that he, and by extension MVBW, is some kind of Hitler apologist. The book came out in 1990, when in the Soviet Union, the period before Operation Barbarossa, when the Soviet Union was an ally of Germany, attacking Poland and assisting the German war effort with material, had been blanked from history. Suvorov's aim wasn't to defend Hitler but to attack Stalin. He wrote in the Preface to another, similar book of his, "The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II": "This book is about Stalin's aggressive endeavors, about his role in plotting World War II - the bloodiest slaughter in human history. Perhaps one might become suspicious: in exposing Stalin, am I attempting to exonerate Hitler? No, I am not. For me, Hitler remains a heinouse criminal. But if Hitler was a criminal it does not at all follow that Stalin was his innocent victim, as Communist propaganda portrayed him before the world." There are a lot of conflicting theories about why Hitler attacked the Soviet Union when he did. Because of his well-known desire for lebensraum in the east he would eventually have attacked in any case. However, both the Soviet Union and Germany would have viewed the likelihood of each attacking the other eventually as being high, so to present Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union as being pre-emptive is not far fetched. The thesis that the Soviet Union was on the point of launching an attack on Germany in the summer of 1941 is more so. However, to paint the book as consisting of "overarching conspiracy theories" as Icewhiz does is really over-egging it. ← ZScarpia 14:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC) {Word count: 319}
Statement by Nug[edit]I wasn’t going to comment here, but I have to say it is ironic that Paul doesn’t consider saying ”MVBW is acting as a troll”, let alone calling MVBW a ”Hitler defender” a personal attack, given that he took such offence to my mild rhetorical question as to whether Paul sources some of his views with respect to the Baltic states from Sputniknews.com or rt.com. Paul proceeded to out me here in response[75]. EEML happened over 12 years ago for heaven’s sake. Paul should just apologise to MVBW. --Nug (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC) Statement by GPRamirez5[edit]@ZScarpia. It appears to be consensus that Icebreaker is conspiracy theory. This book from Yale University Press calls it "flimsy and fraudulent" and influenced by Suvorov's background as a "master of disinformation". One very notable and disturbing fan of Suvorov's work, however, is the notorious Holocaust-denial site the Institute for Historical Review.GPRamirez5 (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Result concerning Paul Siebert[edit]
|