Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive65
Varsovian
[edit]| Varsovian (talk · contribs) and Loosmark (talk · contribs) banned from interacting with each other for two months. | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Request concerning Varsovian[edit]
[2] <Accusing other editors of calling him racist, not providing diffs. This entire thread seems like a harassment thread, aiming at driving an editor away from a discussion> [3] <Personal attack and bad faith assumption - discussing another editor in a fashion that shines bad light on them and is not relevant to the ongoing discussion> [4] <Unnecessary comments about another editor - borderline personal attacks, poisoning the discussion atmosphere>
Reply to Strife: Have you read the Digwuren sanction Varsovian is under? We are not talking about just reasonable civility standards (which is always somewhat personal interpretation) but direct violation of his sanction which requires him to provide the diff at the same moment when he is alleging misconduct of another user. He accused me of trying to divert attention from a warning I received. How exactly was I trying to "divert attention"!? He claimed that Kotniski is making accusation of racism without any diffs, is that not in direct violation of his Digwuren sanction? What exactly is the point of having him under such a sanction if he can freely ignore it!? Dr. Loosmark 09:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Reply to Varsovian's statement: I am not quite sure why is Varsovian providing diffs from 2009. Yes I might have made mistakes in the past but I own my errors and those diffs have nothing to do with request against Varsovian. Just briefly: 1) Kotniski has not accused Varsovian of racism, but Varsovian keeps repeating that. 2) He wrote bellow: How is it a personal attack to mention that he’s been warned that week?. Mentioning that I was warned that week is not a personal attack, however implying that I am trying to "divert attention" from being warned is in direct violation of his sanction. 3) I totally reject the bad faith accusation that I have deliberately mistranslated a source. I maintain that my translation was accurate. 4) Claiming that I have a problem "controlling myself" as he claims bellow is uncivil. Dr. Loosmark 11:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Further reply to V.: Varsovian is now stating that he didn't accuse me of deliberately mistranslating a source. Fine. Here is what he wrote: But instead of being happy that I haven’t assumed bad faith and reported him for deliberately mistranslating a foreign language source, Loosmark instead reports me! Why should I be "happy" that he didn't report me for deliberately mistranslating a source? In my opinion his implication is clear: the only reason I could possibly be happy that he didn't report me for deliberately mistranslating a source is if I would have really deliberately mistranslated a source. Dr. Loosmark 12:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Reply to Stifle's proposal: An interaction ban between Dr.Loosmakr and Varsovian!? You have to be kidding. Varsovian broke his AE restrictions and on top of it Sandstein advised him just a couple of days before that he is not allowed to write that people accuse him of racism when they obviously do not. That is what this report was about. After I opened an AE request here, Varsovian instead of explaining/appologizing for his conduct/comment, started personal attacks against me providing a whole series of diffs which are: 1) old (some of them from 2009) 2) have absolutely nothing to do with his breaking of the AE restrictions. Among other things he even hinted that i deliberately mistranslated a foreign language source (quote: But instead of being happy that I haven’t assumed bad faith and reported him for deliberately mistranslating a foreign language source, Loosmark instead reports me!). A very creative way of getting off the hook indeed. He breaks AE restriction, I report him and the results is an interaction ban for the two of us!? Dr. Loosmark 13:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Reply to Varsovian statement: Yeah Varsovian wrote "I am not accusing Loosmark of misconduct" to cover his himself against possible sanctions but then immediately added that I should be "happy that he haven’t assumed bad faith and reported him for deliberately mistranslating a foreign language source". The implication is clear, if I had not deliberately mistranslated a source then why should I be happy that Varsovian did not report me for "deliberately mistranslating a foreign language source"? Unless he is saying that he knew I wasn't deliberately mistranslated a source but was willing to report me anyway. To give an analogy imagine somebody tells to you: "I am not accusing you of being a thief. But be happy I have not reported you to the Police for stealing a car." What exactly is that? Dr. Loosmark 14:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC) I won't reply to Varsovian statements anymore because clearly he is trying to turn this report into a big mess and then everybody will forget what the report actually is about. Suffice is to say that his analogy is ridiculous, no person would "break a window and hot-wiring the car" just because he lost the keys. Such things actually do happen often and there are reserve keys, plus most car manufacturers can give you new keys. In the worse case scenarion you'd call the Police and try to get the car to a mechanic to replace the lock. So yeah if you see somebody "breaking a window and hot-wiring the car" you can 99% assume something dodgy is going on. Dr. Loosmark 14:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Varsovian[edit]Statement by Varsovian[edit]Summary Loosmark's accusations Third diff he provides. I must admire Loosmark’s front here: the gall he has when complaining about this post is staggering. Loosmark claimed that a Polish source “states precisely that he [the subject of this article] was in the "Belarusian police" ”. The source actually says “Sawoniuk, który w czasie okupacji służył w granatowej policji białoruskiej,". “granatowej policji białoruskiej” actually translates as “the Blue police in/of Belarus” (for details of granatowej policji see this article). It most certainly does not translate to “Belarusian police”. I assumed and stated that Loosmark had made a good-faith mistake in his translation and state that I am not “accusing Loosmark of misconduct” with his unfortunate mistranslation (despite the fact that Loosmark has translated the phrase in precisely the meaning which supports his PoV). But instead of being happy that I haven’t assumed bad faith and reported him for deliberately mistranslating a foreign language source, Loosmark instead reports me! Second diff he provides.The same week as being warned he threatens to report me for stating that a if a man who was born in Poland to a Polish mother is not Polish, another man who was born in Poland to a Polish mother is also not Polish. How is it a personal attack to mention that he’s been warned that week? First diff he provides. No diff? Got me on that one. There is no diff: because the post contains a direct quotation from the post immediately above it! Let’s get one thing straight: if one said to somebody “you are anti-negro” or “you seem to have something against black people”, one’d be calling them a racist. Insert the word Polish or Poles in place of negro or black and you have the same accusations of racism. Strangely Loosmark doesn’t mention Kotniski’s repeated accusations that I am not editing in good faith ([6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11], a quote from that last one “That you're putting unsourced facts into an article, or dishonestly citing sources which don't support what you're writing, or putting off-topic information into an article just to smear a particular nation that you seem to have something against.”) or that the first post in that thread is “You have now made your second accusation that I am editing in bad faith. Kindly refrain from doing and strike out your accusation on the WP:POLAND page or I will request that you are warned of DIGWUREN sanctions.” How is a polite request that somebody doesn’t not make accusations of bad faith editing a “harassment thread”? Loosmark also claims I am accusing “other editors” but he has only provided a diff which mentions a single editor. What an unfortunate mistake.
This all suggests that Loosmark has Given that the solution has worked well on that page, I suggest that it be extended: i.e. Loosmark and I should both be topic banned from each other. We will not be allowed to reply to each other’s posts on discussion pages or talk pages, we will not be allowed to comment on each other’s edits. We will not be allowed to edit an article for 48 hours after the other has edited it. We will not be allowed to mention each other or even allude to each other anywhere on WP (i.e. talk pages, discussion pages, edit summaries, AE requests, everywhere!). I believe that this action will solve the problem and am only sorry that I haven’t got the strength to simply ignore Loosmark everywhere in the same way that I have managed at Talk:London Victory Parade of 1946.
Comments by Kotniski
I'm reminded of a group of editors from Eastern Europe who used to tag team their opponents: one or more would deliberately wind up an opponent and then another would immediately report the smallest infraction by the wound-up opponent. While clearly Loosmark and Kotniski would never engage in such behaviour, we have [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] from Kotniksi and then Loosmark jumps straight in with a report. Against me of course, Kotniski's self-confessed incivility isn't even worth a mention to Loosmark. Varsovian (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Resolution suggested by Stifle I'd much prefer that you made the ban six months and made it more than just an interaction ban. I'd prefer to see it as "We will not be allowed to reply to each other’s posts on discussion pages or talk pages, we will not be allowed to comment on each other’s edits. We will not be allowed to edit an article for 48 hours after the other has edited it. We will not be allowed to mention each other or even allude to each other anywhere on WP (i.e. talk pages, discussion pages, edit summaries, AE requests, everywhere!)" Obviously I'd welcome contributions from other editors as to how to best word this ban. Varsovian (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Varsovian[edit]What we have here is a strongly POV-motivated editor who gives a very clear impression that his sole purpose on Wikipedia is to smear Poland and Poles generally (or wind up Polish editors, I don't know exactly what his motivation is). Anyone with an ounce of experience with these issues knows this - we won't make any progress by trying to pretend such things are not so. So frankly I'm not so concerned with the uncivility of his comments (and I'm sorry if people find what I say back to him uncivil, but Wikipedia forces reasonable editors to interact with people like that, so it's understandable if frustration and the desire for simple truth sometimes leads us to call spades spades), as with the inherent and unapologetic biased-ness of his editing. And it's not just him - there are other similar editors (you all presumably know them better than I do) on all sides. If ArbCom and admins really want to solve these issues, they must address the underlying problems of agenda-driven editing, rather than (just) the surface phenomenon of incivility.--Kotniski (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Varsovian[edit]
Congratulations! And after seeing these two bicker on my talk page all day long, I agree that they need a break from each other. Accordingly, per WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions, Dr. Loosmark and Varsovian are hereby banned from interacting with each other for two months. Violations of this ban may be sanctioned by an extension of the ban and/or blocks and/or additional sanctions. What counts as "interaction" is to be determined by uninvolved administrators in their sole judgment, but shall include (without being limited to) making reference to the other on any page, or replying to or undoing each other's actions; they may still edit the same pages or discussions if they do not react to one another and otherwise stay out of each other's way. Should either party believe that the other violates this ban, they may not react to this except by means of the following procedure: they may inform one uninvolved administrator, on their talk page, of the diff of the edit in question as well as of this topic ban, and ask the admin to determine whether that edit constitutes a sanctionable violation; they are required to abide by that admin's determination without further argument. The other party is not to be informed of, and may not reply to, that request unless asked to by the admin. Should the admin not react to the request within 24 hours, or decline to make the determination whether or not the interaction ban was violated, another admin may be asked in the same manner, and so forth until a determination is made one way or the other. Sandstein 20:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC) |
Shuki
[edit]| Not actionable as an enforcement request, but Shuki warned against WP:NPA. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Shuki[edit]
Yn, the difference is that I am not saying that Shuki is intending to mislead others. By saying the argument is "bogus" I am saying that the argument has no merit, I am not saying that he or she is purposely misleading others or impugning his or her character in any way. There is an accusation of bad faith in saying somebody is lying, it is a clear cut personal attack. How about you use whatever influence you have with Shuki and explain to him or her why such accusations are inappropriate. nableezy - 00:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC) I dont think an interaction ban would be possible, we both work on a ton of the same articles. nableezy - 00:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Ep, Im not going to waste too much time replying to you, but bogus also means fake, or, in the sense I was using it wiggity-wiggity-whack; bulls***; unfortunate; silly; unbelievable; not genuine; the opposite of excellent. And if Shuki has said that such a word caused offense I would not have continued to repeat it. As for your other request, I presented diffs backing what I said on the Katzrin page, and the accusation on the RFC is so nonsensical I am not exactly sure what Shuki is accusing me of lying about. nableezy - 08:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Shuki[edit]Statement by Shuki[edit]If an editor, such as Nableezy, consistently makes statements directly attempting to attack and delegitime my edits and comments, and not related to the topic/discussion, they he should not be surprised when he is accused of lying and should instead verify if he has indeed made baseless disruptive accusations. Frankly, each reply Nableezy provides above is in defense of his allegations. --Shuki (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Shuki[edit]
What we have here seems as interaction problem between two specific editors. I'm not sure, though, that long term interaction ban would be a constructive solution. I couldn't get the whole picture from the diffs provided here, but I'm sure that there is a solution that can sattele down this conflict without actionable measures have to be taken. --Gilisa (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Nab -- can you supply more detail? Specifically, showing the lack of truth in the accusations? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Being guilty of it myself before, one thing I have learned about the I-P area that is very important is never call anyone a liar. He may have misled others with his comment, inserted silliness, made a bogus claim, or a number of phrases that say similar things but liar is too offensive and could even imply that he as a person is overtly and intentionally immoral instead of someone you just disagree with and may not like. It simply shouldn't be used in an already touchy topic area. I don't blame you if you are livid with Nableezy at all. I often am. We just can't apply that label to anyone here even if another editor's comments were questionable. So refrain from doing it and the problem should be solved. Simple enough fix. Of course, I'm not saying say everything but liar since that can open up its own can of worms.Cptnono (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Shuki[edit]
Cptnono is correct: "He may have misled others with his comment, inserted silliness, made a bogus claim, or a number of phrases that say similar things but liar is too offensive and could even imply that he as a person is overtly and intentionally immoral instead of someone you just disagree with and may not like. It simply shouldn't be used in an already touchy topic area." It is acceptable to critically engage the statements and opinions of others if a professional tone is employed; "bogus argument", however, is already too confrontational in my opinion. But it is certainly not acceptable to attack people themselves ("liar"). As requested, I am warning Shuki not to repeat such personal attacks. Nableezy, however, is also cautioned that this page is neither a substitute for the dispute resolution process nor for wikiquette alerts. Please do not make enforcement requests except to request an actual sanction in situations where the normal dispute resolution process has been exhausted. Accordingly, I am closing this as not actionable. Sandstein 09:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC) |
I Pakapshem
[edit]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 I Pakapshem
[edit]- User against whom enforcement is requested
I Pakapshem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- User requesting enforcement
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ARBMAC#Editorial_process
- Diffs of edits that violate it, and an explanation how they do so
I Pakapshem is under a 1R/week ARBMAC restriction [70] that is still in effect, as he has not asked for it to be lifted. He broke that restriction with two reverts to Panajot Pano [71] [72]. He openly admits the 12.106 IP is him here [73] (which by the way, he used to edit to circumvent a 6-month block imposed by Moreschi [74] [75]). Both edits are reverts, since they are identical to a previous removal [76]. He has thus clearly broken his restriction.
- Diffs of prior warnings
ARBMAC blocked and sanction multiple times [77]
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
His last block was 6 months, so one year block this time. Considering this is a disruption-only account with virtually no useful contributions, an indef topic ban from all articles, talkpages, and discussions that fall under ARBMAC would not be inappropriate.
- Additional comments
In addition to breaking his restriction, Pakapshem has since his return from his 6-month block:
- Attempted to out me using what he thinks is my real name (the redacted contribs [78])
- Filed a frivolous, vitriolic AN/I report against me [79], which was duly ignored by the community. It is noteworthy that he included diffs from my very first edits in 2007, meaning he went over every single one of my 10k+ diffs. He gathered these diffs over the 6 months he was blocked, and when his block expired, he jumped right into the same old ethnic feuds, bringing, as one user aptly described "a truckload of new ammunition". This shows he has learned nothing from his previous blocks and has resumed the same WP:BATTLE behavior that got him blocked in the past. Athenean (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning I Pakapshem
[edit]Statement by I Pakapshem
[edit]Comments moved by PhilKnight (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
In reply to 'enforcement action requested' section
[edit]As far as I know my ARMBAC restriction has expired a long time ago. I just came back from a six month ban, and was immediately pursued with reports by this user and his close partner User: Alexikoua. I urge the admin or admins to look at the specific edit that I made, and also the talk page of the article Panajot Pano where I tried to resolve the dipute with above user and User: Alexikoua. Athenean's comment in this talk page is as follows: There is nothing wrong with the source, so I have reverted him. Pakapshem's objections to it are frivolous and need not be taken seriously (source is not verifiable by other sources). What nonsense, seriously. This is blatant tendentious editing and needs to stop. Athenean (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Panajot_Pano"
I think Athenean's battle mentality here is shown clearly, by refusing to discuss the source, which is totally biased and unverifiable (World Hellenic Council). I also strongly urge the admins to review my previous report of Athenean, where his arrogant, agresive, tenditious behaviour is put on display again and again. --I Pakapshem (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
In reply to 'additional comments' section
[edit]Hehe, and what are you doing here and in your previous encounters with me? As soon as I came back from my ban you reported me right away, and you buddy Alexikoua reported me right away as well. As soon as I make an edit, you or Alexikoua are there to revert or change it with tenditious, negative, arrogant comments as I showed in my report about you. I think the WP:BATTLE mentality belongs to you Athenean, by chasing my every edit or change of any article in order to find any technicalities to get me banned.--I Pakapshem (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I would also like to add something else. While Athenean has reported me here, he has apparently has instructed his friend User: Alexikoua to revert my revert on the Panajot Pano article here: [81]. This is due to the fact Athenean has a 1RR restriction on Balkan related articles, and so has Alexikoua do his bidding for him. I believe Alexikoua might have a 1RR restriction as well on balkan related articles, and he has already made to changes to the article this week. --I Pakapshem (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Something more. While I am trying to resolve the issue about Pano's ethnicity in the article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panajot_Pano, Athenean comes to the talk page and instead of assuming good faith and being helpful he proceeds to call me a paranoid natiionalist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Panajot_Pano. I hope the admins consider his personal insult against me very well when they make a decision, as they fall in line with the insults, attacks and harrasment of other users and admins by Athenean in my report of him from thirteen days ago that was completely ignored by the admins: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive618#Request_about_Athenean --I Pakapshem (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning I Pakapshem
[edit]Comments by User:Sulmues
[edit]Bad faith report as many reports filed by specialist User:Athenean. Athenean has the list of all the sanctions that the Albanian users have received (on the other hand, that list is enflated pretty much by his own reports, so it ain't that difficult for him), so what did he do? He took out of his sleeve this sanction of August 22 2009 that I Pakapshem had received almost a year ago! After that I Pakapshem was blocked for 6 months and as soon as he came back, Athenean files reports after reports. I have been reported way too many times by Athenean and what bothers me from this user is that he is never communicative with people who contribute, just brings them to ANI or AE and makes these people sick of Wikipedia, when sometimes it's so simple to drop a line on someone's talk page. We've already had a huge hemorragy of Albanian users, who are newbies that are promptly reported by user:Athenean. His inability to civilly communicate and solve content issues through talk pages or user talk pages and his lack of proper communication is noted. I Pakapshem is just the current Albanian victim of Athenean. This is harassment. I have several times advised Athenean to engage in contributions rather than spend his time in Wikilawyering. After 3 full years in Wikipedia and 9K edits, Athenaen has written only 4 little stubs of 3 lines each. I had told user Athenean to engage more seriously in dispute solving rather than reporting the Albanian users [82], but it seems that it's outside of his nature to collaborate. All we get from Athenean is a poorer Wikipedia in the Balkan articles. I have endorsed I Pakapshem report against Athenean Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive618#Request_about_Athenean and I truly believe that Athenean should be sanctioned with staying outside the Balkan articles for a certain period because he needs to cool off. That report was ignored by an admin because Future Perfect at Sunrise pointed to the lack of contributions from I Pakapshem. This time, to be consistent, I am going to point out to the closing admin the lack of contributions of the reporting party, i.e. Athenean.--Sulmues Let's talk 21:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Comments by User:Alexikoua
[edit]User:I_Pakapshem really deserves a new long-term block since he did not respect both his latest 6 month block (it's not the first time he was block evading) nor his 1rr/week restriction. 3 administrators stated that they were surprised or at least he is very lucky he didn't received an indef ban yet (Future Perfect [[83]] Edjohnston [[84]] and Moreshi [[85]]).
About Sulmues' trolling comments I have nothing to say (Typical disruption as he also did here causing the spi to delay one month...) Shouldn't we block someone that violates his restrictions and evades his blocks so obviously? It's not only this but Pakapshem is trying to game the system by throwing empty accusations and pretending that he respected his blocks/restrictions something he never did. Especially if someone has nothing to do here but to play a naive nationalistic edit war. I believe the answer here is easy and such obvious disruption needs to be immediately reported and stopped.Alexikoua (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning I Pakapshem
[edit]- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
(This result edit-conflicts with Alexikoua's comments and does not take them into account.)
I Pakapshem
[edit]Considering
- that according to WP:ARBMAC#Log of blocks and bans, I Pakapshem is subject to a one revert per week restriction imposed in August 2009 by Nishkid64, which has not expired;
- that the reported edits [86] and [87] by I Pakapshem violate this restriction;
- that the other evidence submitted by Athenean is strongly indicative of additional disruptive conduct by I Pakapshem;
- that the log of blocks and bans already features the following entries concerning I Pakapshem:
- "I Pakapshem (talk · contribs) blocked for a week and topic-banned from all articles relating to Albania for a month. Moreschi (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)"
- "Reblocked for a month for block evasion as an IP. Moreschi (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)"
- "I Pakapshem (talk · contribs) blocked 6 months: blanking sourced content at Albanian nationalism the final domino in a long chain of some truly terrible editing. Moreschi (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)";
- that the above shows that I Pakapshem has a long history of unproductive editing in this topic area and has shown that he is not deterred by lengthy blocks;
- that I Pakapshem's reply does not address his conduct, that the alleged misconduct by Athenean is not the topic of this request (instead, a separate request concerning Athenean should have been made if Athenean is believed to have acted disruptively) and that even if true, such misconduct by Athenean does not excuse or mitigate I Pakapshem's misconduct;
- that in view of the above an indefinite topic ban of I Pakapshem is required to prevent further disruption;
I am, per WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, indefinitely banning I Pakapshem from the topics of Albania, Albanians, Greece and Greeks. This topic ban covers all pages, parts of pages and discussions related to these topics, broadly interpreted. Any violation of this topic ban may result in an indefinite block without further warning. Sandstein 23:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Sulmues
[edit]The comment by Sulmues, above, does not address the topic of the request, is made in an aggressive tone and contains allegations of serious misconduct that are entirely unsupported by useful evidence ("Bad faith report as many reports filed by specialist User:Athenean", "His inability to civilly communicate", "This is harassment", "All we get from Athenean is a poorer Wikipedia in the Balkan articles"). This violates WP:NPA and constitutes disruption of the arbitration enforcement process. Sulmues has previously been warned of possible WP:ARBMAC sanctions and has received several lengthy blocks for topic-related disruption. Consequently, per WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, Sulmues is blocked for a week and also indefinitely banned from editing WP:AE sections related to the Balkans or the WP:ARBMAC decision unless he making an enforcement request himself or is the subject of the request. Sandstein 23:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Russavia
[edit]| Russavia (talk · contribs) blocked for 48 hours, Maed (talk · contribs) warned. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Russavia[edit]
Discussion concerning Russavia[edit]Statement by Russavia[edit]My only statement to this frivolous and pathetic AE enforcement request is at [90]. I am not entertaining this rubbish. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 08:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Russavia[edit]I am happy that the disgusting EEML team got its due. Now it's time that the Russian allied force here gets enforced so Wikipedia could little by little return to normality with eastern european matters. Maed (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Russavia[edit]
The restriction prohibits "commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with editors from the EEML case". The edit by Russavia at issue here concerns these editors as a group, not individually. But a fortiori, a rule that prohibits commenting on certain editors as individuals also prohibits commenting on all (or several) of these editors. The request, therefore, has merit. Russavia's statement is a non-statement, being limited to a link that leads nowhere. Reviewing his recent edits, I assume that Russavia may have meant to link to this preceding comment of his, but that comment is also an unnecessary comment on the conduct of "the EEML members" and therefore also a violation of the restriction, as well as a personal attack. Consequently, in enforcement of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys#Russavia restricted and applying Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys#Enforcement, Russavia is blocked for 48 hours (24 hours for each comment). Additionally, the statement by Maed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) above is exactly the sort of battleground conduct that the Arbitration Committee meant to stop by way of its decisions WP:DIGWUREN, WP:EEML and WP:ARBRB. Maed is warned that future disruption of this sort may result in sanctions as described in WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 16:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC) |
JBsupreme
[edit]| Closed as not actionable. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning JBsupreme[edit]
Discussion concerning JBsupreme[edit]Statement by JBsupreme[edit]Comments by others about the request concerning JBsupreme[edit]Gah. Everything about this report annoys me to no end. Something my 98yr old grandmother would be comfortable saying ("off your rocker"), is neither incivil or an attack; it is a mildly tart phrase to express disbelief in something someone has done or said. Non-directed profanity ("I'm calling bullshit...") is not in itself incivil. This isn't the kiddie pool; we can use profanity when we feel a need to express a point of view, as long as it isn't directed at or referential to another user ("this is fucking ridiculous" vs. "you are a fuckwit"). The "diffs of prior warnings" section has been IMO abused and exaggerated by Jeff G in a "Don't template the regulars" kind of way.
The house of cards has been knocked over. Tarc (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning JBsupreme[edit]
Without expressing an opinion about the substance of the edits, I agree with the commentators at ANI that this is not actionable because the amendment has not yet been archived as passed and recorded on the case page, nor has JBsupreme been officially notified of it. Jeff G., in view of the unanimous community opinion expressed at ANI, I think that this request is improper forum shopping and should not have been made. (I am leaving this thread open for now in case other admins disagree and think it is actionable.) Sandstein 22:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
|
Jeffrey Vernon Merkey
[edit]| Two socks blocked via WP:SPI. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey[edit]
Edit history of User:Linuxmdb [100] shows a pattern which indicates that Jeff Merkey is the person behind the account.
Discussion concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey[edit]Statement by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey[edit]Comments by others about the request concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey[edit]This is already at SPI, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey. Sandstein 11:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Jeffrey Vernon Merkey[edit]Two socks blocked by Tim Song at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey/Archive. Sandstein 20:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC) |
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by User:I Pakapshem
[edit]Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
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).
- Appealing user
- I Pakapshem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – I Pakapshem (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
- Topic ban that covers all pages, parts of pages and discussion related to these topic from the topics of Albania, Albanians, Greeks and Greece imposed at:
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Notification of that administrator
- The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.
Statement by User:I Pakapshem
[edit]I was not aware that I was violating any restrictions. I believed that the restriction imposed on me by User:Nishkid64 was expired. Since my return from my 6 month block I have been working to improve Albanian related articles and started some like Shaban Polluzha. --I Pakapshem (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Phil, that was a year ago and I deleted that stuff from my talkpage. I think it's understandable that I might not remember all the details of a notification about sanction which I deleted and got almost a year ago.--I Pakapshem (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Statement by User:Sandstein
[edit]I agree with PhilKnight, below. Sandstein 13:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 1)
[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)
[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by <User:I Pakapshem>
[edit]Result of the appeal by User:I Pakapshem
[edit]- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- There isn't any new information in this appeal. The user was notified of these restrictions, so the excuse that he didn't know isn't valid. In my opinion, this should be declined. PhilKnight (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Violation of Arb ruling at John Buscema
[edit]| Scott Free (talk · contribs) (previously Skyelarke (talk · contribs) and Tenebrae (talk · contribs) are banned from editing John Buscema for one year. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The Arb ruling states:
1) Skyelarke/Scott Free attempted to restore his 2007 non-consensus edits in July 2008, as noted by now-admin User:Emperor here, who told him, "your edits to this page and the addition of that link is a pretty blatant attempt to get around things like consensus." After comments by Emperor and myself, Scott Free backed off from this attempt.
At this point, he began to reinsert the same or similar non-consensus edits as he did prior to the Arb ruling — with the addition of certifiably false citations. Some, which I initially took to be the work of an IP vandal, were made under what I alter learned was his IP, User:132.216.67.168.
Before that last edit, I had written on the article talk page:
The RfC at Talk:John Buscema#RFC has attracted little attention. It does, however, give detailed comparisons of Scott Free's disallowed, non-consensus edits from 2007 and his same/similar edits today.
This is disruptive editing, and while there is a lull while admins watch the page, Scott Free on the article talk page has made remarkable, obfuscating statements that indicate he will continue his efforts at first chance. Because of this disruptive editing, and his violation of both the letter and the spirit of the Arb ruling I believe Scott Free should be banned from editing this article for a reasonable period of time as the Arb ruling states. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC) I wasn't informed of this request. Either I could make a defense, but I think at this point I'd like to request that the case be re-opened, since the above is virtually a reitiration of the previous arb case complaints anyway. I'd like to summarize the problems since the ruling and include evidence and submit evidence that would include User:J Greb in the dispute. Anyway, I volunteer to step back from editing the article and the talk page indefinitely.--Scott Free (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC) defense[edit]On second thought, since I don't see any indication that the matter will be resolved any time soon - I might as well respond here : 1) We had a productive discussion on mirror sites - I agreed the link was innapropriate - the cited comment is an uncivil accusation.a 2) I had clearly explained what I was doing in various ways: article talk page :b, arbitration clarification: c talk page to an admin d with GA comics article experience:e placing a template on the page: {{Under construction}} One instance of me forgetting to sign in is suspected as vandalism - why? 3) Accusation - I tried to resolve it in a civil manner beforehand and followed due procedure afterwards: f "Scott Free on the article talk page has made remarkable, obfuscating statements that indicate he will continue his efforts at first chance." "I'm a little concerned because after I contacted you on your talk page to initiate a discussion on your recent edits, and explain my own, you unilaterally, and without the reciprocal courtesy of a discussion, reverted many of the changes — specifically the clogging minutiae about a few inkers you seem to admire ..." ??? - Not true - Here's the article at that time of the comment (June 20) - the inker phrase is not there - see line 74f - I clearly offered discussion and explanation here (after line 111): g Things were at least civil and going relatively OK until the abrupt - h The above section has several innapropriate accusations - To his credit, of the 24 added references, there were 3 reference page typos which he spotted. I corrected them. What is the problem? I have explained on the talk page how the accusation of falsifying reference material is spurious and will add more info. Stumbling Block 1 - Repetitive, rigid, dogmatic, illogical consensus statement The so-called 2007 RFC consensus version is almost entirely unreferenced : 2007 Any I've material tried to re-introduce has been referenced, or modified according to comments in the 2007 RFC, or adapted, etc.. expansions I had added over 40 referenced passages after the RFC - so clearly, it's mathematically improbable that the 2007 RFC with 4 refs can have a serious bearing on any expanded material - I think it represents a lack of understanding of the verifiability policy. The problem is that he's seems convinced that I'm absolutely disruptively editing against a past consensus - (and seems to think that the arbitration decision supports his claim that there exists permanently rejected content on the article) and I don't think that that will change anytime soon. Has anyone besides TB supported this consensus claim? Stumbling Block 2 - Repetitive, uncivil conduct and content accusations based on the above This is what he's been repeating regularly since April 2007 1 Here are the recent sample of a string of uncivil conduct and content accusations, besides the many on the article talk page: Article edit descriptions: 02:47, 22 June 2010 Tenebrae (talk | contribs) (35,463 bytes) (rvt fannish, wholesale changes made without discussion, and similar to changes previously made that an RfC disallowed.) (undo) Noticeboard: 2 Admin talk pages: 34 (Calling it a brewing edit-war is exaggerated and inflammatory) Unfortunately he seems convinced that his behaviour is perfectly justifiable and arbitration hasn't noticeably changed that - unfortunately it's proven very effective in creating suspicion and mistrust and makes it very difficult for me to get any neutral admin or community assistance. Basically I see the real problem as being a small group of rigid deletionist niche editors attempting to block article expansion. If people are so concerned about NPOV issues (which I've never seen clearly explained in terms of NPOV policy per se) and respect of consensus, why are they relunctant to submit the contested material to a Peer Review? That would seem like an ideally adapted process to verify NPOV and establish a stable consensus. I have no beef against anyone. I wish everyone all the love and happiness in the world. I simply maintain that I'm a trustworthy Wikipedia GA article editor attempting to get neutral, civil feedback on article expansions. I've never bothered responding to the basic personal accusation, because I've always found it silly. But for the record, no, I'm not a deluded fanboy desperately trying to sneek in rejected fancruft. Peace out --Scott Free (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Response to Scott Free[edit]In the interest of brevity, I'll try to address just the major points. 1) He says, "I had clearly explained what I was doing". This "clear explanation" was an WP:OWN statement:
Given his disputatious history with the article, it would actually be simpler for other editors to see his edits bit by bit, rather than try to deal with a giant batch of them at once. In any event, it's inappropriate to warn off other editors until after he's good and done.
That post was a response to Scott Free calling those above edits "typos" ("Thanks for pointing out the typos." ... 14:04, 25 June 2010). My "abrupt" post pointed out:
[As I wrote on the Talk page] "Compare your non-consensus version from 2007, which you tried to sneak back in...
To which I replied on the Talk page: "So you're saying you should be allowed to make outright citation falsehoods and then see if excellent, experienced editors catch if after the fact?" In any event, it's currently the subject of an RfC, which is form of peer review. I could give more examples, but it comes down to:
Response[edit]For the content issues, I had responded on the talk page: here For point six - the unreferenced material that has been re-inserted has several references added to them. Obviously an important distinction. Current article structure has been respected. I have no desire whatsoever to edit war - my last edit was simply to make corrections for the RFC discussion version. My main claim is that my efforts to initiate discussion to resolve the consensus confusion has been met with disruptiveness that makes it practically impossible to have neutral discussion. I'd be willing to have the case re-examined by arbitration - as a new arb request or maybe an ammendment request - I'm not too sure how to proceed. But it would essentially be the same statements and evidence presented here, with maybe 3 or 4 added points. --Scott Free (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Response to Sandstein[edit]"Frankly, I am not able to determine, based on the lengthy and nonstandard enforcement request and the long discussion above, who if any of the two is editing in accordance with any consensus." Precisely why I suggest taking it back to arbitration. Although I realize that the sanctions you propose are the standard thing to do, even though it won't change anything, I don't blame you. I suggest that the remedies apparently haven't helped resolve the content dispute and probably need to be revised. My situation as an editor has changed considerably since then and I would like to present evidence that the input of JGreb has emerged as a consistent pattern of non-neutral input that has been disruptive. IMAO, his description below is almost completely one-sided and in support of one party's unproven allegations. The charges of false references really are not true. I'm willing to provide scans of the reference works to prove that they are correct. Edit warring - to put things in perspective - there was one very minor instance of edit warring 3 years ago that lasted 2 hours. What's happening now, whatever it is, is very slow thing that has stopped. I humbly suggest that two bathtub farts in four years do not a persisent edit war make:-) Cordially, --Scott Free (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Administrator discussion[edit]Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema indicates that this is the latest episode in a multi-year (since 2007!) series of edit wars between these two editors concerning John Buscema (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Frankly, I am not able to determine, based on the lengthy and nonstandard enforcement request and the long discussion above, who if any of the two is editing in accordance with any consensus. But a look at the article history shows that the two still edit war with one another about the article. Consequently, if no admin disagrees, I will stop the persistent editwarring, in enforcement of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema#Disruptive editing, by banning both editors from editing the article for the duration of one year. Sandstein 20:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
|
Megistias
[edit]Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Megistias
[edit]- User requesting enforcement
- Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Megistias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions ("editorial process")
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
[104], [105] (resuming same edit-wars for which he was sanctioned earlier, see below)
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
n.a., was already sanctioned previously for same edit wars
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- at a minimum: reinstatement of revert limitation as previously imposed in May; preferably: full, long-term topic ban
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- In early May, a group of several Greek and Albanian users were put on revert limitation until "the end of June", following a "travelling circus" situation that had escalated in revert-wars over Dardanians and Albanian nationalism, among others. While the other sanctioned editors have largely tried to edit constructively under the terms of these sanctions, Megistias simply waited out the sanction without editing anything (except for a few tag-team votes in AfDs), but returned immediately on their expiry to resume exactly the same revert-wars. Both his reverts are blind reverts and without talkpage explanation to his preferred version from before May [106][107], undoing multiple intermediate constructive edits. They also show the fundamental problem with his editing: his extreme mental inflexibility, which makes it almost impossible to debate anything with him. In the Dardanians case, the content problem with his edits were extensively discussed at the time, to the point where even his allies conceded he was wrong [108]. He now reverted without any sign of acknowledgment that he even noticed the arguments against him, then or now. [Background sketch of content dispute: this is about an article on group A (the Dardanians), where M. insists on mentioning a certain group B (the "Peresadyes") as parts of group A, noting at the same time that B were also part of group C (the Thracians). The objections were that both the link between B and C is overstated (because the sources only mention it as a conjecture, whereas he insists on presenting it as fact), and that the link between A and B is non-existent, because no source even mentions B as part of A.]
- Since these edits display the continuation of a very long-term, persistent pattern of disruption with no prospect of improvement, I ask for long-term sanctions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Megistias
[edit]Statement by Megistias
[edit]Comments by others about the request concerning Megistias
[edit]Result concerning Megistias
[edit]- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Saguamundi
[edit]| Saguamundi (talk · contribs) blocked for two weeks. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Saguamundi[edit]
Discussion concerning Saguamundi[edit]Statement by Saguamundi[edit]No the reverts I made are not an attempt of arbitration enforcement. Otherwise the editions and reverts of tariqabjotu can apply as an arbitration enforcement as well. I reeadded the Geology Flora and Fauna sections because of their relevance and credible academic references. Any body has the right to contribute and is not vandalism.
Comments by others about the request concerning Saguamundi[edit]Result concerning Saguamundi[edit]
Blocked two weeks. Clear case of repeated breach of revert limitation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC) |
Tariqabjotu
[edit]| Not an arbitration enforcement request; not actionable. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Tariqabjotu[edit]
Result concerning Tariqabjotu[edit]This page is only for requests for the enforcement of an arbitration decision. Since this request does not concern the enforcement of a specific arbitration case, it is closed. See WP:DR for how to resolve disagreements with admins and other editors. Sandstein 10:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC) |
Varsovian
[edit]| Not actionable. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Varsovian[edit]
Discussion concerning Varsovian[edit]Statement by Varsovian[edit]Please note that the section in which I contributed was Nazi names for Polish places. I did not make any post at all in the other section MyMoloboaccount mentions (i.e. this one). It is not a "sub-thread" which I posted in: it is a different section and on a different topic ("Nazi names" as opposed to "German names" and is about the inclusion of politically-driven names to ledes). And even if I had posted in that section, the exact wording of my interaction ban (which for some reason MyMoloboaccount fails to link to) states "they may still edit the same pages or discussions if they do not react to one another and otherwise stay out of each other's way." In no way have I reacted to any comments by anybody other than Radeksz. And how is it 'provocative' to point out that the names given to Polish towns/villages by the Communist regime in post-war Poland but no longer used are included in the ledes of the articles about those places? I note that this is the second time today that a former member of the EEML has attempted to have me blocked (here Radeksz reports me for supposedly misrepresenting what sources say and then does precisely that himself). I further note that in reply to my question "Has something happened today at Enforcement ... ?" ([117]) Radeksz replies "I'm guessing Coren is referring to your frequent visits to that page, or perhaps just the last one" ([118]) and that edit was made 20 minutes before this request was first posted. Could there have been off-wiki communication as to which of the former EEMLers should next harass a victim? I do hope not, I really hope that the lessons of EEML have not been forgotten so soon. Varsovian (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Varsovian[edit]Regarding Varsovian concerns about timeframe. I actually posted this in somewhat similiar form to Sandstein by email for clarification yesterday(I didn't want it to be posted here as I am not sure if it violates the ban). He advised me to post it here[119]. Also despite Varsovians claims I have expressed clearly that I have no opinion if those actions are reason for block or not. The interaction ban seems to be new invention, so I am asking for clarification of the subject.
No I did not, and your behaviour was discussed here before from what I can see, so there is nothing strange in Radeks statement.Furthermore you falsely imply that Radek made reference to this request, while he didn't. If you think Radek's actions require intervention please start an appropriate thread about this. The matter here is the issue of clarification of the interaction ban.
Skapperod-you didn't notice the following Loosmark started discussion about Nazi names-in his first post this sentence is included right at the beginning: think it's especially problematic that he also adds into the lead separate names which were invented in 1938 by Nazi Germany[120]
I was contributing in discussion about German and Nazi names[121], which included information about edits by HerkusMonte. Once I overviewed recent HK's edits I noticededits to Wielbark page, which I knew from history. I checked sources and contributed to the article in significant way adding large section on history sourced by many publications. Mystery solved. You know very well that I edit many articles on Polish history including Polish cities,towns and villages that were within Germany before.
Loosmark was never part of EEML discussion group. And finally-if you believe something has merit to report, It would be polite to start it in seperate request,rather than divert the topic of this one. Reply to Skapperods statement 18:20, 6 July 2010 : from history-as if in historical knowledge I am aware of regarding history of the that region not about history of the wikipedi. Regarding HK edits-I checked user contributions to see all recent locations that could be affected by introduction of Nazi naming, didn't actually check all links provided on the discussion page, since checking user contributions is easier. You seemed to missed my edit where I changed the sentence to be more precise and not to lead to any missunderstandings[122]. Since Sandstein has decided on this matter, I have nothing else to add, and apologise to him for any trouble. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Skäpperöd[edit](after multiple ec) I participated in the discussion Molobo referes to. Molobo misrepresented what happened.
Further investigation is however needed concerning the recent "help-each-other-out"-behaviour shown by Loosmark, Radeksz and Molobo. Radeksz just returned from a topic ban and Molobo just returned from a long block. The EEML case is widely known.
Skäpperöd (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Chumchum7[edit]
Result concerning Varsovian[edit]
The edit at issue is not a violation of the interaction ban because the talk page comments do not relate to one another. The question borders on the frivolous. I am sorry not to have communicated more clearly to MyMoloboaccount, after he asked the same or a similar question to me by e-mail, that third-party engagement in these matters is entirely unwelcome because the point of an interaction ban is to make the users leave each other alone, and such "questions" are counterproductive to that goal. I am warning MyMoloboaccount not to continue to needlessly stir up trouble, or they may face sanctions. All other involved editors should do likewise and drop the matter. If no other admin objects, I will close this thread without action. Sandstein 18:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
|
Bdell555
[edit]| Breach thought proven, but no sanction applied primarily due to request turning stale. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Bdell555[edit]
Discussion concerning Bdell555[edit]Statement by Bdell555[edit]Convention was "per day". If it is 24 hours then describe as "per 24 hours". This isn't a 3RR case. In any case, re the substance of the Michelle Gildernew article, I am adding a fact cited to a WP:RS, namely the Guardian, and if the Guardian found the fact WP:NOTABLE, it is presumptively notable for Wikipedia and does not warrant deletion. The Guardian did not see the relevance of the other material Mr Fenian refers to, and it would accordingly take WP:OR to make it relevant. If calling attention to material in a major UK daily concerning a politician constitutes a WP:BLP violation if it so much as raises the slightest question about the propriety of what that politician has done (what happened to WP:WELLKNOWN?), then the triumph of WP:BLP over WP:NPOV is truly complete!Bdell555 (talk) 08:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Bdell555[edit]Comments by PhilKnight[edit]The Guardian article says "McGuinness did not want to be drawn on Fermanagh and South Tyrone MP colleague Michelle Gildernew, who claimed £21,000 for housing allowance in London but only £300 in travel expenses – suggesting few visits to the capital", so the implication was contained in the source. Perhaps it would've been better to phrase this differently, attributing the suggestion to The Guardian, but I don't consider this to be blockable. PhilKnight (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Bdell555[edit]
|
Brandmeister
[edit]NOTE: Previously, the conclusion was: Request suspended because of the unclear status of Brandmeister's account; may be resubmitted if editing resumes. Having resumed the same reverts, I file back this, as is in its original form (with the original filer) adding the three new reverts with his new account user:Twilight Chill on the same Karabakh Khanate article [139], [140], [141], [142]. And as seen below the admin wrote: in that case the diffs submitted here should be considered as though they were recent edits.
Request concerning Brandmeister
[edit]- User requesting enforcement
- Aregakn (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Brandmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- renamed to Nightbolt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- now editing as Twilight Chill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (added by Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC))
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
[edit]New reverts on Karabakh Khanate
The diffs contain evidences of disruptive editing, violation of 1RR rule, thought technically the majority of reverts were not violating the 3RR as well but the RVs from 9 to 11 do, permanent deletion of referenced information which might be considered edits not in good faith; the article was blocked due to edit-wars until the 3rd of June for a consensus to be reached and just after the ublock Brandmeister jumped into editing it in the same manner without having consensus. According to WP:TE it's a clear pattern of Tendentious Editing.
Others include but are not limited to
[edit]Besides the reverts as such, Bradmaster jumped again into edit-warring right after the temporary block was lifted from this article as well.
Is a featured article.
- Here he taged some controversial edits as minor and then adds a new section, which includes five claims all supported by the same business newspaper which had only reprinted what Azeri side had been reporting. Ionidasz revert with a long edit summary
- Brandmeister revets back having again violated several remedies of AA2.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to
[edit]Brandmeister was first placed under restriction and then topic banned for 6 months because it was not sufficient [143] and he clearly knows the rules. Some attempts to discuss and warn were also made as described in the "Additional comments".
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
[edit]- Several attempts were made on his talk-page to let him see his problematic behavior but he disregarded or system-gamed [144], [145]. The many calls for discussion and consensus on the articles' talk-pages were disregarded as well.
- Although quite active on other WP projects for the last days, he refuses to discuss issues on the subject articles when they are blocked showing no interest in positive contribution.
- Together with the previous bans and his current behavior it is more than obvious Brandmeister's goals are different from contributing information and are strongly tendentious towards the picky articles of AA2.
Re Grandmaster
[edit]Grandmaster and Brandmeister are together with a bunch of editors (about 24 more) involved in quite a huge-scandalous Arbitration request on Ru.WP including canvassing and harassment of editors (also active on En.WP) in real life. I'd like to exclude any of those being able to participate in any formal processes (besides those concerning them directly) against any of the members of the group until the final decision of ArbCom. The notification of it has been made on the ArbCom talk on En.WP. Aregakn (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Re the IP message
[edit]If what the IP user said is true, he could participate in discussions and other activities by his IP anyway, as he did interestingly notice the AE. This only confirms that Brandmeister was/is not interested in consensus and discussions and the content of Wikipedia but has other goals. I'd also like to request all the IPs that Brandmeister used be checked and the result of this AE to be on those too. I'll add the latter to the sanction request. Aregakn (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
[edit]Topic ban: Formally placed on 1RR, then topic banned for 6 months. The editor showed clear pattern of Disruptive and Tendentious Editing with refusal of Consensus.
- Additional note for the requested action: If what the IP presented is right, I would like to ask the result of this AE to be enforced on all the IPs (including the IP presenting himself as Brandmeister) Brandmeister used to log in with, or a direction how it can be achieved given. Aregakn (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
User informed. Aregakn (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Brandmeister
[edit]Statement by Brandmeister
[edit]First of all, I would note that since June 9 I have no access to my account, probably because it is compromised now. I have already wrote to stewards and Wikipedia functionaries about that. Regarding the request, I follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle. However, the Karabakh Khanate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in particular suffered from repeated and obvious source distortion: at least three registered users and some IPs have been modifying the lead text to push systemic bias and I was ultimately forced to request a semi-protection. As for Khojaly Massacre, there was no "jumping again into edit-warring" there and I explained that to Aregakn on my talk page. There is no policy, which prohibits editing after protection has expired. As for Nagorno-Karabakh War, I would encourage Aregakn to discuss the sources at talk, this venue is not for dispute resolution. 213.154.5.92 (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding my recent Karabakh khanate edits, there is an ongoing source distortion by multiple users to push a certain POV. The refs are instantly verifiable as being from Google Books and even the excerpts from associated pages have been provided, nonetheless the distortion continues. That has been already discussed at the article's talkpage, but unsuccesfully and so far the article requires a {{Cite check}} template. In such a situation I was thinking of bringing that issue to WP:ANI. Twilightchill t 22:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Statment by Ionidasz
[edit]It's the nth time Brandmeister accuse other editors of distorting, which is plain incivil. 17 reverts in the same article in a short period of time speaks volume. Just check the talkpage to see what is the problem with sherry picking. Ionidasz (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Brandmeister
[edit]From what I see, many of reverts were on SPA IPs, which were used to edit war in this article. Some of reverts by IPs were accompanied by incivil comments, accusing others of vandalism, etc. Eventually the article was semi-protected to stop the IP disruption. Grandmaster 04:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- I would just like to point out that it's misleading to say that Brandmeister was reverting IPs, when 9 out of the 13 reverts in that article were reverts against registered users and that only the 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th were against IPs. Note that on Khojaly, that the main user with whom he was reverting was sanctioned, but not Brandmeister. I can provide further examples of disruption, if the above are deemed insufficient.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Brandmeister
[edit]- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
To resolve this request, we need to determine whether Brandmeister's account is indeed compromised, as is being claimed by the IP above. If yes, it should probably be blocked on these grounds, and the request is moot. I'm asking a checkuser whether they can help determine this. Sandstein 21:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Brandmeister's account has not performed any checkuser-logged action since 18:34 UTC on 9 June 2010. J.delanoygabsadds 22:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I.e. after the date the IP claims the account was compromised? Grandmaster 05:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Because of the unclear status of Brandmeister's account at this time, this request is suspended. It can be submitted again as soon as Brandmeister (under that or any other account or IP) resumes making controversial edits in the topic area; in that case the diffs submitted here should be considered as though they were recent edits. Sandstein 06:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I.e. after the date the IP claims the account was compromised? Grandmaster 05:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Johnalexwood
[edit]| Johnalexwood (talk · contribs) warned about possible topic ban. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Johnalexwood[edit]
Discussion concerning Johnalexwood[edit]Statement by Johnalexwood[edit]Comments by others about the request concerning Johnalexwood[edit]Result concerning Johnalexwood[edit]
The requested sanction under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Discretionary topic ban does not appear to be possible at this point, because that remedy requires "a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated". No diff of such a warning is provided in the request. Sandstein 20:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
|
MrSimmonds
[edit]| MrSimmonds reminded to abide by WP:BLP and other important policies. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning MrSimmonds[edit]
Discussion concerning MrSimmonds[edit]Statement by MrSimmonds[edit]Comments by others about the request concerning MrSimmonds[edit]Result concerning MrSimmonds[edit]
|
Russavia
[edit]| Closed as WP:POINT violation. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Russavia[edit]
ag
Discussion concerning Russavia[edit]Statement by Russavia[edit]I have been alerted that this request is here. This was not meant to be posted here, but rather in my userspace as a response of sorts to Shell Kinney in relation to things that have been said by Shell and other editors on my talk page and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Eastern_European_mailing_list_.285.29, in direct relation to that Amendment request. I repeat, this request was not intended to be placed here. If an admin wishes to block for this being disruptive, then that is fine, but it was an error on my part, but I do ask that they wait for my response at the amendment request, because there are deeper issues at hand here, and admins who are active on this board may be interested to see my statement there, and place their own input there as well. Thanks, --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 21:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Russavia[edit]Russavia, please explain why you request arbitration enforcement against yourself. Sandstein 19:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Russavia[edit]
|
Tuscumbia
[edit]| Tuscumbia and MarshallBagramyan topic-banned for three months. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Tuscumbia[edit]
Discussion concerning Tuscumbia[edit]Statement by Tuscumbia[edit]First of all, I am aware of my restrictions and there was only one revert I made after MarshallBagramyan, asking for additional sources [158] due to the fact that the source he provided and selectively chose the text from comes from an Armenian author presenting a POV. The problem is that the text from source he claimed as reliable was not supplemented by any other 3rd party source. Neither did he present any text indicating the other side of the story. All he put out there was the information about alleged pogroms and hostility from Azerbaijani army towards Armenians failing to mention a word about the fact that Armenians revolted first. The other subsequent edits [159] [160] [161] by me were made during the course of discussion while working out our differences. I would search, find and add sources/sourced information, while at the same time he never looked for any other source and moreover did not and still has not provided the correct information about the book I marked as dubious. Here [162] he claims that he provided the source (Hovannisian, Richard G. (1996) The Republic of Armenia: From London to Sevres, February - August 1920, Vol. 3. Berkley: University of California Press, p. 132. ISBN 0-5200-8803-4) and that I am wrong about marking some of the text dubious however, he still fails to see that the above mentioned source is source No. 7 in the the article, never marked as dubious by me. What I did mark as dubious is his source Hovannisian. Republic of Armenia (No. 17, 20, 21) which have nothing but just a book name (unavailable to be found online) and which has no mentioning of ISBN number whatsoever. I asked him on the talk page to provide the correct information about the book [163] but what he came up with is only The Republic of Armenia: From London to Sevres, February - August 1920, Vol. 3. Berkley which differs from the title marked as dubious by me. In the meantime I found another book by the same other Hovannisian, Richard G. (1992). The Republic of Armenia: The first year, 1918-1919. Los Angeles, California: University of Califronia which I added to the article but the text was promptly removed Davo88 because it had a mere mentioning of hostility of Armenians towards the native Muslim population of Zangezur. MarshallBagramyan claims he invited me for discussion. Not true. 'I reverted him and I asked to discuss the source on the talk page. Before any consensus was reached he went on reverting me even though I left his text and never removed it. I only added the dubious tags for the time being while the issue was being discussed. See here [164]. Speaking of ethnic heritage, I never made any insults about the editor's comments (See here [165]). All I told him was that being an Armenian and being selective about choosing the ethnic Armenian author as a source is understandable. Nothing else was said about his heritage and any attempt to present is as some kind of insults about ethnicity is inappropriate and fruitless. In the meantime, please see [166] MarshallBagramyan's "welcoming" message when I started discussion on the talk page. All he starts off with is his derogatory tone with depreciatory word like "absurd questions", "cheap way", "stinky argument", "frivolous complaints" dismissing me not only as an editor but as a human being. This is a pretty hostile, sarcastic and unfriendly attitude which hampers all editor work. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Tuscumbia[edit]Result concerning Tuscumbia[edit]
The request has merit. The three edits given as evidence are reverts as defined at WP:3RR because they undo the work of others. Taking into account that this revert restriction violation occurs soon after a one month topic ban in May 2010, a more substantial sanction is needed to deter Tuscumbia from future disruption. Consequently, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement, Tuscumbia is topic-banned for three months from pages or edits related to Armenia or Azerbaijan. But while Tuscumbia's response dwells mainly on content disputes for which WP:AE is not the proper forum, it highlights this comment by MarshallBagramyan. I find the following statement problematic: "Falsely alleging POV is a cheap way to discredit someone. It's a stinky argument and one which has been vainly used by the Azerbaijanis time and time again." This is not only incivil (one may disagree with an argument, but calling it "stinky" is unacceptable), but also misuses Wikipedia as an ethnic battleground, in that it casts an editing dispute between Wikipedians as a dispute between "the Azerbaijanis" and other people. Because MarshallBagramyan has been previously sanctioned (one year 1RR and 1 month topic ban, see WP:ARBAA2#Log of blocks and bans), a longer topic ban is now needed. Therefore, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement, MarshallBagramyan is also topic-banned for three months from pages or edits related to Armenia or Azerbaijan. Sandstein 14:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC) |