Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive246
Nableezy
[edit]| Closed without prejudice to a good-faith complaint because the complainant was blocked as a sock. Sandstein 12:52, 2 February 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 Nableezy[edit]
Discussion concerning Nableezy[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 Nableezy[edit]WP:ASPERSIONS applies to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation. I admit I repeatedly called this obvious NoCal sock a NoCal sock. The "extremely Zionist or pro-Palestinian" comment, which is about edits, and not as dishonestly claimed above about an editor, however is not that. I can substantiate that each of the editors I named have a demonstrated history of extremely Zionist and anti-Palestinian editing. E.M.Gregory has authored Anti-semitic anti-Zionism, List of deaths and critical injuries caused by Palestinian stone-throwing, and a string of articles that had as their common topic "Palestinians as terrorists". Shrike, when not just reverting, followed this edit with this one. Icewhiz, well, thats a longer list. But here, a simple one, part-time historian, fine to use when it is a pro-Zionist voice as opposed to an actual historian who happens to be cited as a pro-Palestinian voice is A book by a visible activist and self described as Finkelstein’s magnum opus is both a monument to Gaza’s martyrs and an act of resistance against the forgetfulness of history. is definitely a WP:BIASED source. All those editors do have a history of pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian editing. That isnt an aspersion, its a fact. As far as calling this new editor an obvious sock of NoCal, well, dont be so obvious then. And for the record, the lie that I accused anybody of harboring any ethnic hatred is just that. A lie. I said, and say, that a number of editors who have taken it as their common goal to label a Palestinian woman an Israeli have that history. That is true. nableezy - 21:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Some of these diffs I have no honest idea what they are supposed to violate though. A user declined a DYK based on what I view are spurious claims of "POV" made on the talk page by other users and I said they are purposely reducing exposure of a topic and doing so based purely on facile claims of POV. Thats an aspersion? Directed against who? The civilian to settlers change was an error, I didnt realize that one of the victims was not a settler and only the others were. nableezy - 21:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Also, I was not mocking Shrike's English. I was curious as to how their usual level of English was so much more improved an AN. What I said is that based on his or her English in use throughout the project, I dont understand how they wrote that ANI post and I asked if he was directed to post it by somebody else. But thanks for bringing that one back up, cus I would still love an answer as to how somebody who would put in an encyclopedia article a sentence like professor from Wellesley College describe the book "comprehensive historical description and compelling psychological interpretation of the “delusions of a people under siege"" or comments Meantime all the article is without the proper context removing it. but is able to make a perfectly formatted complaint with excellent grammar and words I have never seen him or her use such as a view not shared by Cullen328 who saw this as a commitment to the community, or TonyBallioni who aptly noted that while "controversial subjects" is so overly broad that it is unenforceable. nableezy - 21:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Also, and another obvious similarity with NoCal, the above user is dishonest with my edit to User talk:LeahBorovi, neglecting to include I removed that their creation violated the arbitration case when I saw that it was created a few months prior. Seems odd you have such a similar style as NoCal in making a complaint doesnt it? nableezy - 21:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC) User:Calthinus, you are reading way more into the userbox than what it actually is. Its a critique of Wikipedia and its issues with systemic bias. I do not have and have never had on my userpage any statement of support for Hezbollah. But at the time Wikipedia allowed statements expressing support for such entities as the IDF but disallowed ones supporting ones for Hezbollah. I see that as a problem, obviously. I didnt even make that box, credit for that goes to User:Eleland. And I dont believe pro-Zionist equals anti-Palestinian. I meant each of those editors does have either extremely pro-Zionist editing histories or anti-Palestinian ones. Not that the two are equivalent. Just look at the context here. One of the editors claims it is a BLP violation to call somebody a Palestinian. You want to tell me that is not "anti-Palestinian". To claim that even being associated with that title violates WP:BLP? That title never seems to be an issue when applied to a terrorist. But a girl that none of these people would think twice about had she not been an Arab who preferred to be called a Palestinian, it is so seriously a negative to call a person a Palestinian, that despite her family's express wishes, despite several reliable sources explicitly calling her a Palestinian, it is a BLP violation to call her that. Does that not fit the description of "anti-Palestinian"? Am I guilty of "casting aspersions" when I say that it does? nableezy - 00:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC) User:GoldenRing, as far as constructive, here is my providing a number of sources that say Ms Maasarwe was in fact a Palestinian, in response to the verging, if not outright, on racist claim that calling somebody a Palestinian is a grave BLP concern. I think that was constructive. Was it collaborative? I admit I find it hard to collaborate with people who say things like calling somebody a Palestinian is a BLP violation, but I try. nableezy - 14:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC) In response to the claim that I am still accusing every new editor who opposes him of being a NoCal sock, um no. The ones I do accuse of being NoCal socks however generally have a habit of being proven as such. A quick trip to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive would demonstrate that. nableezy - 16:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC) User:Calthinus, after it was made clear that reliable sources call her a Palestinian, after her family's wishes that she, and they, be called Palestinian, Icewhiz has continued to claim that calling her a Palestinian is a BLP violation. Seriously, just work through that sentence replacing Palestinian with Jew. If somebody were to say that calling some person a Jew was a BLP violation, despite the express wishes of that family and reliable sources, including some of the ones that person was citing themselves, called them a Jew, that it was a derogatory claim to call a person a Jew, what would the reaction be? You wouldnt think that person could rightly be called anti-Jewish? nableezy - 16:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
User:GoldenRing, I wasnt clerking the request. I was striking all the comments made by the sock of a banned user per WP:BANREVERT. Here it isnt possible to simply revert the edits so I struck them. I apologize if that was out of order. nableezy - 11:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC) Statement by Huldra[edit]Just my 2 cents: note that in no. 6 above, under The Kingfisher "Additional comments by editor filing complaint"...they link to a discussion from ...2008. What are the chances they followed each and every link on Nableezy's user page...compared to the chances of them knowing that discussion from a "previous life"? Huldra (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Re Icewhiz's comparison of Palestinian in Israel with Jews in the US: that is a comparison of apples and oranges. The US is a country for all its people, while Israel defines itself as a "Jewish state". (If the US had defined itself as, say, a "Christian state", then it would have been comparable. But it doesn't.) And, when Israel defines itself as a "Jewish state", you cannot possibly expect the 20-25% of the population who are not Jewish, to primarily identify with it. It is like having your cake, and eating it too: it can't be done, Huldra (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Calthinus[edit]Imo -- I've had mixed interactions with Nableezy, case of a user who is passionate so is willing to devote time (positive) but this can come at the cost of fights on controversial issues (meh). Some of things I've seen him saying from time to time do really need to stop, especially on this very fraught topic area. One must comment on the edit, not the editor, and AGF. Case in point, [| he calls editors] Case in point about the lack of conciliatoriness -- note the defiant note on his userpage about being not allowed to support Hezbollah in a userbox -- [[3]]currently on Nableezy's user page -- imo, even if one supports Hezbollah, this is not a good way to signal that (if?) your goal here is to build an encyclopedia together with others. Hezbollah's goal is to "obliterate" a state of 8 mill people, spreads wild conspiracy theories that Jewish people are responsible for spreading HIV, etc -- even someone who would like to with others can be honestly really put off by that. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Commentary on Aiia Masarwe issue[edit]Just wanted to point out here -- I did not join in when the editors noted were trying to remove the description "Palestinian" from her page, because I did not agree with that but I think it is entirely wrong to paint this as some massive infraction on their part. You have to understand, in Israeli society, which is in a state of a low level permanent war, that label is very much heavy and can be interpreted to mean "fifth column". This is not some simple issue of Icewhiz or others allegedly pushing their POVs and Nableezy calling it out, instead it is a case where there are two sides and some on the "Palestinian side" appear unable to accept that the other side could have been editing in good faith -- even when, in this case, I personally also disagree with them. Instead of helping create a good atmosphere, Zero is actually egging Nableezy on to assume bad faith in his comment. --Calthinus (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Debresser[edit]I know only one thing, and I have said it before: this editor is systematically aggressive in both his style and in his disregard for the opinions of others regarding proper editing and editing behavior, and his contributions in the IP-area are in the final account more disruptive than positive. I have not examined the present accusations in detail, but Nableezy has been guilty of all of the types of transgressions he has been accused of one time or the other, most of them more or less permanently. Debresser (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by Bellezzasolo[edit]@Nableezy: if it's so obvious, SPI is thataway. If there isn't enough evidence to support a sockpuppetry investigation, then continually making allegations of socking is textbook ASPERSIONS. Regarding
Statement by Zero0000[edit]How long would an editor last after claiming that it was a BLP violation to call someone Jewish? Hours at most. But when someone claims it is a BLP violation to call a dead person a Palestinian, even after her family begged everyone to call her Palestinian on account of her being, duh, Palestinian, well...what can be said? Nableezy's description of such editing as "extremely pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian" is understatement. There was a concerted effort at Killing of Aya Maasarwe to remove the word "Palestinian" from the article and nobody should imagine for a moment that it was motivated by article quality. As for the diffs referring to Israeli occupation of the West Bank, in this edit Icewhiz deleted 149,943 characters claiming to be motivated by article length. Anyone looking at what was deleted will see how well it matches Icewhiz's very strong pov. So Nableezy's description of that edit was correct too. So who is the greatest danger to the project: those who endlessly push their political pov and "support" it with tendentious argument, or those who call it for what it is? AGF is an important principle on this project, but as WP:AGF makes clear it is not a permanent free pass to behave badly and expect everyone else to pretend that you aren't. Zerotalk 01:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Icewhiz[edit]The entirety of the statement above, by Zero000, is a repeat of an AE report just closed on 14:55, 31 January 2019 as In regards to Zero000's hypothetical Jewish labeling question, we would: (NB: diffs here not discussed in the closed report)
Nableezy has an AE past for "Palestinian" use - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive103#Nableezy - I too have noticed Nableezy's hostile behavior in the last month, and hats off to @The Kingfisher: for taking the time to comb through the edits and present all this. In the space of 253 edits in January 2019 (entirely, or almost entirely, to I/P topics) Nableezy has managed to be hostile towards (counting by named editors, and "you"s addressed to people he responded to in the diffs above): @The Kingfisher:, @Sir Joseph:, @Shrike:, @E.M.Gregory:, Icewhiz, @Lagrange613:, @LeahBorovoi:, + a serious BLP vio in turning non-settlers into settlers. 7 editors + BLP vio - in 253 edits. In regards to Nableezy's argument he was addressing editing history - the argument itself is entirely unconvincing, and is resoundingly refuted by diff10 in the report above - 06:35, 22 January 2019 - in which Nableezy refers to "the most extreme pro-Israel/anti-Palestinian editors on Wikipedia" and " the more extreme pro-Israel editors". Finally, in regards to use of "Zionist" - some of the alleged "extremely pro-Zionist" editors never said they were Zionist (e.g. myself). "Zionist" itself has a long history of being used as a pejorative - from the USSR,[1] in recent years in the West,[2][3] as well as Hezbollah - which uses "Zionist Entity" to refer to Israel,[4] and "Zionists" to refer to Israelis and supporters of Israel (against which Hezbollah's moqawama (resistance / struggle) has carried out attacks - including civilians). In some circles "Zionist" is stigmatised and anchored to "Nazism".[5] Icewhiz (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC) References
Statement by François Robere[edit]
Statement by Nishidani[edit]Yes, Nableezy could have been more astute by avoiding calling a spade a spade. It’s not for third parties to interrupt the presentation of the facts by extensive debates on the topic itself. But at least, given the contaminated character of I/P discourse generally, the terms being used here should be clarifed. References to extreme forms of Zionism have been around a long time, here, here,and here, to cite a few examples. There is a distinction between (secular) Zionists who consider the project essentially completed in 1948 (e.g.Walter Laqueur the conservative Zionist historian of the movement, whose hostile views of post 67 extremist Zionism I cited here), and those who, in the wake of 1967, think it an ongoing project, to be completed by the integration of (nearly) all Palestinian land into Israel and the relegation of half of that state’s population to a special regime of law not applied to people of Jewish ethnicity. Representatives of both these positions edit here (legitimately). Wikipedia's articles are comfortable with the former, embattled by the latter, for the simple reason that 'extremist Zionism' refuses to recognize that in a dispute between two parties, to be covered neutrally, you cannot persist in rubbing out the other ethnic narrative and feign 'neutrality'. The word ‘Zionist’ is not a term of opprobrium in Israeli usage, to the contrary, and most Israeli politicians are proud Zionists beginning with Benjamin Netanyahu. It is ridiculous to make out, by citing some Lebanese or Iranian cleric, that, ipso facto the word is POV-charged. Icewhiz gives the impression of being on the extreme end of the Zionist spectrum in numerous edits. The following shows his position unequivocally. in making this comment, branding several Israeli scholars ‘ on the fringes of the Israeli radical left’, he declared that in his view, moderate Zionists, rabbis and scholars of high distinction and international repute are not only ‘radical leftists’ but worse than that, on the extreme fringe of that 'radical' (extremist) 'leftist' group. This is an example of the extremist attitude Nableezy deplored. Extreme Zionism consists in attempts to either contest mention or erase from the historical picture ‘Palestinians/Arabs’, when people of that origin constitute half of the population of Israel/Palestine, or to paint them as a terrorist security threat. Many editors here do precisely this, but they watch their p's and q's. This is all over the page which elicited Nableezy's remarks, at Killing of Aya Maasarwe. ‘Zionist’ is a legitimate (self-) descriptor in Israeli usage, since it is the doctrine underlying a legitimately constituted modern state, whose status as such under international law cannot be equivocated. Extremist Zionism, according to its many Israeli critics, wants the reality of Palestinians to disappear one way or another, and editors who persist in battling every use of trhe ethnic designator ‘Palestinian’ are not ‘moderate’ or neutral. They espouse in practice an extreme form of ethnonationalism, for which, in this area, there has been considerable tolerance. Calthinus, I have responded to your remark about us all being ‘pro-human’ on your page.Nishidani (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]Regardless of the content dispute, this area is subject to higher level sanctions and ASPERSIONS is subject to discipline. Nableezy repeatedly calls people socks and if he thinks people are socks, he can file a sock report, but casting aspersions is not the way to go. And yes, for the record, I was blocked for stating that Nableezy was anti-Israel, so yes, stating that someone is "anti-Palestinian" is fair game to be blocked, if we want to be fair and impartial. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]
Result concerning Nableezy[edit]
|
Nableezy
[edit]| No action. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:04, 5 February 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 Nableezy[edit]
(While these are old, XTools shows that Nableezy significantly curtailed his editing after the 2012 TBAN).
alerted other user 21:36, 27 January 2019
Discussion concerning Nableezy[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 Nableezy[edit]Its nice of Shrike to, again, take the mantel up for a banned editor. But fine. Again. There are editors who have a history of extremely pro-Zionist and or anti-Palestinian editing. Some of them have been making claims that verge into, if not jump directly to, racist claims that even calling somebody a Palestinian is a BLP violation. I've already said number 4 was a mistake, was unaware a single victim was not a settler. The rest is not "casting aspersions", Ive very much documented why I say these editors have a history of extremely pro-Zionist or anti-Palestinian editing. For example, the new filer of this complaint, says it is ASPERSIONS to say he or she has a history of pro-Zionist and or anti-Palestinian editing. Well here you change Jewish terrorist to Jewish militant and in the very next edit, in the very same article, an article on a settler shooting four unarmed civilians, add Palestinian terrorism as an easter egg link to Palestinian political violence. Is that not extremely pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian. E.M.Gregory has authored Anti-semitic anti-Zionism, List of deaths and critical injuries caused by Palestinian stone-throwing, and a string of articles that had as their common topic "Palestinians as terrorists". That is not a history of anti-Palestinian editing? Icewhiz at this very article has repeatedly said that even calling a person, despite the sources doing so and her own family requesting so, a Palestinian is a BLP violation. That it is so severely negative to call somebody a Palestinian that even with sources it violates BLP to do so. How exactly does somebody even pretend that is not anti-Palestinian is rather beyond me. Yes, I said that a group of users who all have a history of extremely pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian editing have taken it as their shared goal to expunge a persons own identity from the article. And they do it shamelessly I might add. That is manifestly true. Its nice to see my calling your buddy an obvious sock is no longer cited as an aspersion. And since Shrike, as you are now claiming I mocked your English (I wasnt). Could you please tell us if you wrote this complaint, or, if like this very complaint you are making now, it was written by a banned user and you posted it on their behalf? Because I have never seen you write so many consecutive sentences in perfect English. You have never, as far as I can recall, even used the apt, much less used it aptly. Can you tell us what aptly means? Because editing at the direction of a banned user is a violation of WP:BAN, and if you are writing sentences on talk pages likeMeantime all the article is without the proper context removing it.Its clear WP:POV violation but on AN writing about who aptly noted that while "controversial subjects" is so overly broad that it is unenforceable then I question why you cannot use that level of English in talk pages, to say nothing of the uniformly poor English used in articles by your good self. Who wrote the complaint and why did you post it on their behalf? If they were not banned they could have done it themselves. User:Bellezzasolo, you know that is an essay right? Can yall accept that I do not make unfounded claims of somebody being a sockpuppet? That I was just waiting for that sockpuppet to provide a bit more evidence to file? nableezy - 15:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Nishidani[edit]On a point of order. The gravamen of this charge sheet is with some slight editing, copied and pasted from the prior complaint run up by perhaps the most deleterious puppet-master in the history of wiki I/P articles. That is shown by the repetition of the spelling error, TABN, reproduced from the archived report. In reproducing the gist of that material virtually verbatim it looks, disturbingly, like Meat puppetry, unwittingly certainly, but proxy editing objectively. This is now the 30th attempt to get Nableezy banned (A trip down memory lane), 20 of which were dismissed, and the last 5 for the preceding 7 years were dismissed as frivolous or withdrawn. That is no guarantee of immunity, but piping a sock master’s files looks odd, as was odd the cheer squad commending the first complaint when it was obvious for months that Kingfisher was one of NoCal's socks (I think there is another, - only Nableezy seems to be able to sleuthe up proof for what is otherwise a strong subjective impression which, as such, is not actionable,- and this influences the way one judges the flow of a talk page). I will not comment on the merits, but Nableezy is not the only person to note that Shrike’s English is normally full of grammatical errors (here and here, to the point one does not know what he is saying) except when he files an AE complaint. Nishidani (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Bellezzasolo[edit]@Nishidani: - that's what "closed without prejudice" means.
Statement by Huldra[edit]Just a little note about WP:AGF: it is rather difficult to AGF, when you are dealing with serial liars like Nocal. What was really illuminating to me, was a discussion with a Nocal−sock a few years ago, on Talk:Walid_Khalidi#Khalidi: he basically argued for keeping stuff in an article, even when it was clearly false. Now, over the years I have found many mistakes in books which are clearly WP:RS; books by, say Benny Morris, Israel Finkelstein, or Walid Khalidi (see here). And I will fight, tooth and nail, to keep those mistakes out of any Wikipedia article. That someone, even a serial lier, can argue to keep them in, is truly shocking to me. So, sorry, when his socks are concerned: there ends my AGF, Huldra (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Statement by Hijiri88[edit]I'd suggest closing this with no action. Most of the filer's comment (which I hear is a copy-paste from that of a blocked sock, but that's really beside the point) amounts to "User X on the pro-Israeli, anti-Palestinian side was blocked or sanctioned for Y, I think what User Z on the pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli said/did is equivalent to Y, therefore you must sanction user Z to be fair". The conflation of what User X did and what User Z supposedly did (or, rather, the repeated insinuation that what User Z supposedly did was much worse) appears to be entirely subjective, with virtually all of the long comment consisting of links to prior sanctions of User X. I don't see anything of substance here, except perhaps the possibility of a strongly worded warning that "closing without prejudice" does not necessarily mean "please reopen immediately". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Nableezy[edit]
|
The Rambling Man
[edit]| There is no appetite for sanctioning someone for criticism of Wiki institutions or editors in official roles for their actions in those roles. Several editors have commented that Softlavender appears over-zealous in reporting TRM's actions and, while there are no arbitration remedies covering such behaviour, I hope they will take note and leave well alone. GoldenRing (talk) 08:51, 7 February 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 The Rambling Man[edit]
These are all from between 20:18 6 February 2019 and 00:10 7 February 2019 at WT:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard:
Here and at WP:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Arbitration Committee.
Discussion concerning The Rambling Man[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 The Rambling Man[edit]I literally have had enough of Softlavender's harassment now. I can't take this any more. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC) Statement by WBG[edit]I don't have much sympathies for TRM's communication style but this request is ridiculous. You need to understand the context of TRM's statements and most importantly, the sanction, imposed by the committee, is not a tool to hunt TRM with. I will urge for an rejection.∯WBGconverse 07:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC) Statement by Sitush[edit]Yes, as Sandstein has just noted in the section below, this report is an overstretch. I have watched from afar for some time and wonder if Softlavender now needs some encouragement to leave TRM alone. There are plenty of other people who are capable of reporting should circumstances appear to justify it. - Sitush (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC) Result concerning The Rambling Man[edit]
|
Willwill0415
[edit]| User indefinitely blocked as a normal admin action by Black Kite. |
|---|
| 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 Willwill0415[edit]
Discussion concerning Willwill0415[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 Willwill0415[edit]All I did was put a comma in the Mosler article lol, how is that bad? I wrote maybe a third of the article, and people liked it, so I think Ive been useful to that article. I already submitted an arbcom request and an ANI about the incel article months ago the only people who care about the article basically bullied me and everyone else who wrote neutrally about incels on that article (last year). I got sent from Arbcom to ANI last year, where a group of ideologues and people who admit on wikipedia about a political agenda against incels topic banned me to get me to stop challenging them on the talk page. To repeat myself, Involuntary celibacy as a sociological concept was purged from Wikipedia as a political goal by veteran Wikipedia and ideological feminists that dominate the incel talk page. Its a 30 or so person "consensus" that roams Wikipedia engaging in political fights under the pretense of preserving Wikipedia. Involuntary celibacy as a sociological phenomena isnt dependent on the misogyny of the incel boards. But people claim that is so, and thats utterly ridiculous, and the lack of professionalism of the Wikipedia community continues to astound me. Also, note that love-shy redirects to that incel page full of yellow journalism in a negative-feedback-loop from Wikipedia too. This article reads like an encyclopedia dramatica article. If someone complains about the incel article, theyll probably get topic banned, even though involuntary celibacy (or incels) isnt fundamentally a gender issue. Its a mental and societal health issue as defined by academic sources. Also, my recent contributions to the incel article today were kinda sloppy, but my contributions last year were better. Statement by Jorm[edit]Willwill0415 is not here to edit the encyclopedia in good faith. A simple glance at their history will tell you all you need to know about them - including their stated intent to immediately violate their topic ban from American Politics and to the surprise of no one, they've done it. This will continue ad nauseum.--Jorm (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Willwill0415[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Karumari
[edit]| Declined. Karumari needs to demonstrate that they understand WP:NOR by editing constructively in areas that are not connected with India or Pakistan. --regentspark (comment) 16:24, 8 February 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 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).
I was informed about it here: that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban
Statement by Karumari[edit]I have avoided editing articles where other editors raised objections to some of my edits. Subsequently, I have asked on the talk pages of articles if a particular reference could be used as a source before editing any other article. I want my topic ban to be lifted completely as I believe I am refraining from editing articles where there are objections, voluntarily. I have not indulged in any edit war. I am not sure if my links are as they should be-someone please correct them if they are not. Thanks! Statement by JamesBWatson[edit]Karumari has certainly made a good-faith attempt to keep out of topics where his or her editing has been considered problematic, and I acknowledged that on his/her talk page when I imposed the topic ban. However, as I also said then, the effect has not been to end the problems, but merely to move them to another topic. More than one section of Talk:Anti-Hindu sentiment shows Karumari unable to understand what he or she is told. To give just one example, he/she seems to be sincerely unable to understand that women entering the Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala because they think excluding women is wrong does not mean that they are doing so to express "anti-Hindu sentiments". Indeed, many of them are Hindus themselves. It may be, in fact, that Karumari's difficulty in understanding the problems with his/her editing will be there no matter on what topic he/she may edit, so that they will not be able to edit successfully anywhere. However, I have gone for a topic ban rather than a block in order to give Karumari a chance to learn, away from issues to do with Pakistan and India, where there are issues on which he/she clearly has strong feelings which may make it more difficult to stand back and see things in perspective than for other topics. I really think that accepting this topic ban, and editing for six months on other topics, will give Karumari the best chance of eventually settling in as a Wikipedia editor, and being able to continue to edit, without either getting blocked from editing altogether or else leaving in frustration because of continually finding that every attempt to be helpful is rebuffed by other editors. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC) Statement by Vanamonde[edit]The problem here is not that Karumari has edit-warred, but that they have demonstrated a persistent inability to understand our policies on verifiability and WP:NOR, as is seen here, here, here, and here. As such, I recommend that this appeal be denied; I think Karumari needs to learn how to edit in compliance with these policies in a less contentious area. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Karumari[edit]Result of the appeal by Karumari[edit]
|
Request concerning Koertefa, Norden1990, Borsoka, KIENGIR, Fakirbakir
[edit]| Procedurally closed. Please resubmit using the format provided by the instructions at the top, and provide all required information. Sandstein 16:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The editors have formed a practical "cabal", with the purpose of fixing what they call "ethnic bias" on Hungarian, Slovakian, Romanian history articles and they have been doing this for a long time (translation sometimes required, google translate should be enough to get the general picture): Assistance/Collaboration/Consensus building[edit]
One Team, One Mission[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by muffizainu
[edit]| Appeal declined. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:48, 8 February 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 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).
Statement by muffizainu[edit]The topic ban was initiated after I created the article “Khafd”, which is the Arabic term for the term for female circumcision. Wikipedia has similar pages defining Arabic terms, for example, the male equivalent practice, which is called “Khitan”. The Khafd page was created after a lengthy discussion on the FGM page, here and here. Following that talk, I reverted to doing doing research on the term Khafd, and drafted the page accordingly. In this page, I added multiple credible dictionary references (including Britanica) to define the Arabic term. I am also aware on the difference of opinion on the debate around FGM vs Female Circumcision vs Cosmetic Genital Surgeries; it is for this reason, and to be neutral, the “Khafd” directed the link to the original FGM page for more information. I have also pointed out many inaccuracies in the FGM articles in the past, which have all been ignored. The topic around FGM is an extremely sensitive topic in which there are many different opinions. Wikipedia must be a platform where multiple sides of the story are shared with good references, and that is what I proposed to do. However it seemed that only one side was heard. In the past few years, more and more academics are having reasoned dialogue around biases surrounding FGM, and I’d be happy to continue that dialogue on Wikipedia.
Statement by AGK[edit]Thanks to GoldenRing for notifying me. Reading the appeal, I suspect muffizainu still does not grasp why I topic-banned them to begin with. Muffizainu would need to display a radical change of attitude in order to convince that the problems exhibited in 2018 had been addressed. Consequently, I cannot recommend lifting or amending this sanction. AGK ■ 21:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by muffizainu[edit]Result of the appeal by muffizainu[edit]
|
VwM.Mwv
[edit]| Blocked for one week. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:46, 13 February 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 VwM.Mwv[edit]
VwM.Mwv is a very new editor (account created on 6 January 2019). Almost all of their 200 edits have been to articles in the Palestine/Israel conflict area, and they were notified of the arbitration ruling and general prohibition on 9 January. Despite this, they have continued to edit extensively in the topic area - a sample of such edits is listed above. The editor has also been using Talk pages as a forum, polemicising about the subject rather than discussing improvement of the articles. See for instance this edit at Talk:Walter Guinness, 1st Baron Moyne, and several edits [25][26] at Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. In the course of thewse edits, the editor explicitly states that another editor is "anti-Semitic". After I collapsed (without deleting) some of the editor's off-topic comments and the replies, and left them an explanation on their Talk page, they started to edit-war to reverse the collapse, as detailed above. The editor has already been warned about edit-warring on another article in the topic area, but continued to edit the Talk page disruptively. Under the Genetral prohibition, "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive". This editor's comments have become disruptive. Combined with the personal attack and edit warring, they cross the threshold for a sanction.
Discussion concerning VwM.Mwv[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 VwM.Mwv[edit]Statement by Shrike[edit]
Result concerning VwM.Mwv[edit]
|
Cristina neagu
[edit]| Topic-banned from Romania and Romanians for six months. Sandstein 12:24, 18 February 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 Cristina neagu[edit]
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Discretionary sanctions
This editor shows a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and pushes a nationalist POV. A six months topic ban from East-European politics and history, broadly conceived, would be all right. @Mr rnddude: I agree with a formal warning and subsequent scrutiny. My impression was that she did not get the point to refrain from WP:TE, although she did not lack wise advice. We rarely have problems with holding opinions off-wiki; we do have problems with on-wiki behavior. I had agreed with Mr rnddude to let you go with only a formal warning, but then came [34]. Do you realize that you're making yourself a disservice with such statements? Is [35] supposed to be funny? About [36] and [37]: do provide evidence for you claims, otherwise you have just made it more difficult for yourself. Provide clear-cut evidence that I'm using "techniques of manipulation", otherwise you just make it harder for yourself. When I was prepared to let you go with a formal warning, why did you have not seized the opportunity? Injustice, mockery, false proofs, these are serious charges. But if you cannot provide evidence for your claims, you'll be the one found guilty of casting aspersions. I have stated We're intellectuals. We don't listen to mere rhetoric, we listen to evidence. So, sorry,
Discussion concerning Cristina neagu[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 Cristina neagu[edit]Hello! I am not "nationalistic" user in the terms of battling (patriotic person yes, is this forbidden?), I created 145 new articles on Wikipedia. Thank you, Tgeorgescu, that you are hunting my profile and every words. Then you pretend you are a Christian, because I am really not problematic at all. Burebista, Decebalus and Trajan are part of the Romanian ethnogenesis (Dacian and Romans, Romania comes from "the people of Rome"). See what Britannia says. But I obeyed, it was a talk about a gallery of images. Banned for what, and why so harsh? In 2 and 3 those were my comments indeed but find out we reached the consensus, most likely I agreed with the user's actions and the "spammed" gallery was removed. The user even educated me in Wikipedia rules on nations articles. Regarding 1 I just removed "at par with Cuba and Malaysia", I remember I have seen on some pages the same thing (that comparative notes are not really necessary). I didn't keep going, I had a removal, then a removal with explanation and that's all. The user came back and put it back, ok. I can live with that. Remember, I obeyed every time!!! With everything, I tried to make this work. I am really not problematic at all, just show me from where to read and tell me what I have broken. I have a positive attitude and I will really educate myself more. I accept any decision, just hoping Mr admins will be wise. Tgeorgescu already warned me, but he is a single user, he might have been subjective. Anyway, I still listened to him but maybe I am still wrong in some aspects. If you think I am wrong, dear admins, let me know. Why ban if I was never even warned by an administrator? I just hope women are also welcomed on Wikipedia. In all the 3 cases presented I obeyed the opinions of the users at the end. Battling is a lot said, believe me. We can't have different opinions at all? Did you see wars involving me? Most of the times I didn't have the last word. Ok, I can reproach myself I might have been rude in some comments, and I really do apologise. 145 articles in 1 year and my activity was really light. I try to be human with everybody. Christina (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: Just that it was off-article, I expressed my opinion but I didn't add it on the article. Just saying... Cristina neaguu (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: When did you agree? You are not administrator (Mr rnddude is a kind user, a real human being, but I think he is also not), it means you retract your reclamation involving me. And you are pushing it to the limits, I see you are doing everything in order to see me in trouble. One thing I can guarantee, I will check there is no steal of identity in the case of real Mr T. (Tudor) Georgescu of the Netherlands. I will mail him, contact him on Facebook, and I will find out who is the person on Youtube in the video (hoping it's not a big hoax). Because at your profile you pretend some personal things. This can also be against the rules of Wikipedia. Your hatred could be explained, if you have some association with some users on the page of Romania. Because you started hunting me from nowhere, we didn't even edit the same pages. I might be wrong, but what if I am true? Do you think what's strange? You are calling yourself on your page HACKER, threatening with some "hacker manifestos". Great guy, 45 years old and a Christian. Hacker. I ask you kindly to leave me alone, because all the users on Wikipedia could be similar with me if we look up. You just invent accusations without reason. Groundless. I don't care I have a big mouth against injustice, even Sandstein agreed I have a big mouth but I should not be judged here. You pretend you are moral and a man of God! Sure, I can't have an opinion, this is similar to the marxism not to the US/UK societes. They do not put their fist in your mouth. Christina (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC) @EdJohnston: Not at all, user Tgeorgescu is hunting me down and is harrassing me. I never had any conflict on Wikipedia (or at least I wasn't reported), I always proposed consensus if somebody wasn't satisfied with my edits and I rarely want to have the last word. Blocking me from an area which I also love, would be an injustice. I am being judged through some comments, not by my actions. In years, all the users had loads of comments like that. Including you maybe. Christina (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu: Sure. Regarding 1, the user had the last word, we had no war of reverts. I first edited by removing a very small comparative part (it was so small, for God's sake, I didn't manipulate anything). Then I explained my revert. It was only one revert, then I wrote him on the talk page. Regarding 2. It was independent opinion, on the history of Romania I didn't write that. On photos' description the same. It's like, do what the others agreed and not what you think! 3 I was rude but I reached a consensus with the guy, and he educated me a little bit. I apologised and I am really apologising once again. In the end I understood he had good intention. 4 AGAIN, reporting me for the first 3, of course I was emotional. But I didn't swear anyone. DO YOU STILL CONSIDER RETRACTING THE RECLAMATION? YOU SAID IT. Christina (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu: At least Sandstein and Mr rnddude didn't find me any guilt. They stand for justice, even Sandstein, although he didn't like my comments! And I apologised before, and now after. If I would have been such a threat, I would have been commented by many administrators and users already in some days already. Generally from what I saw on Wikipedia, some admins are not interested really to be judges. But to eliminate any potential threat even if it isn't. I will never forget what you did against me, and as a pretending Christian. You harmed an innocent woman and a simple user. A contributor to the Wikipedia, nothing more. Shame on those that stand for injustice. Yes, I am also a big patriot and world's civilisation and culture lover, but not that type of crazy nationalist. Christina (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu: How can I love you, when you keep going with the manipulation? You wrote sentences acting like an admin which you are obviously not. It didn't even matter that you brought false proofs. I had 0 complaints on Wikipedia, I feel it's a big shame for me even to be discussed here. In any trial, it would be written "unreliable evidence, solution is resolved by rejection (denunciation without reason)." But unfortunately I can't defend myself like that. 2 users (1 admin) said not guilty, and another 1 user (admin) said guilty. Christina (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu: I don't "fill" anything, I am not vengeful. I am not on Wikipedia to report users, like you. You came from nowhere leaving on my talk page a "warning", when you weren't even admin. Almost 17 years and my Romanians still didn't choose you as administrator. And on your talk page you sent me to the therapy. Yes, you are pretending you are like an admin, but you are not. It's funny the Romanian Wikipedia knows you. You are making many users leave Wikipedia, Sandstein said something about collegiality. Didn't he? Now after that warning, you are reporting me asking a TBAN. That's very harsh, we never edited together, we never met on Wikipedia. Jesus, I told you it's important for me not to be blocked anywhere! The administrators will decide, I will wait for their decision and that's all. But I might leave Wikipedia for good. I am really opressed for absolutely nothing. A warning for my big and bad mouth (not the worst though) can be imposed. But that's all. I NEVER GOT A REPORT. I could have got an official warning from an administrator, not from somebody who wants me burned on a pillar like Joan of Arc. I would really want to ignore you, but unfortunately on Wikipedia it's not possible. Christina (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu: You are just using psychological techniques of manipulation. I see you keep going. First, you are presenting false proofs of my behaviour and ask for a harsh 6 months (you ask a lot to be banned well, or to be surely banned in order to destroy my Wikipedia record which was clean). Then you are acting like you are an administrator. Then you take control over all, proposing ban and insisting with banning me. I am telling you to stop replying, then you start increasing the idea that a ban on politics is just nothing, nothing to me. Which is false, really not true! OPPRESSED? Yes, by you, and also harrassed. Not the Romanians, wtf? MYSELF. You already agreed with a formal warning, but just to know I only think I have a bad mouth. And why did you agree first? Just to picture into the good guy, then to return with accusations. ;) TO INCREASE MY GUILT IN THE EYES OF THE ADMINS! I already read about your page and some of your edits, and quite many of them are psychological. A hacker and a manipulator. Well, you are calling yourself a hacker. Christina (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu: Because you have no word and the reclamation was wrong first of all. Retract the reclamation if you said it, you will have my respect, everything is fine. I am certainly not a crazy nationalist. I might be a quality contributor, you don't have many on those pages. I was already attracted by history, culture and civilisations, but I was editing handball until I saw injustice and mockery. On some pages there is equity, on the others was not. Just mockeries. I made a lot of friends. I am not having war or reverts, I am not battling just discussing. I rarely wanted to have the last word, I asked for more opinions. Christina (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu: You don't even read what I am saying. Do you have problems with your eyes? Mockery has nothing to do with you. I said I started being attracted by those pages because I found mockeries. This was outside our subject. False proofs, I already proved, and 2 guys already voted against my TBAN. Of course it's injustice! You really want to see me banned, don't you? It's talking the rage in you. Christina (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu: So Galobtter, top of "my case", was blocked for 1 week. For real accusations and a lot worse than I did. What did I do anyway? Admin Sandstein says he can't accuse me of anything than a big mouth. Compared to you, Galobtter is a real contributor to the English Wikipedia and a jurist. You are hunting positions, when we already have volunteers who met eachother in the United States, whilst I am contributing. This is not the Romanian Wikipedia where you look for that admin job for 17 years, and they rejected you because of your attitude towards users who are gone now. I HAVE 145 ARTICLES, YOU ONLY HAVE 8. Basically I am accused by a non-contributor. HOW CAN YOU BE ALWAYS RIGHT IF YOU DON'T WORK? That's not me, of course. I am a contributor so I can make mistakes. But not against Wikipedia policy. Christina (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu: Just that you need to bring real proofs. Because it's full of your personal subjectivism. Christina (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu: You can easily use any accusation, about 1000, but without bringing solid, non-weak evidences.. I am sure you will be back. You like my user. I can easily do the same against you, but I am not gonna do that. Against you or anyone who is ok. Your outside behaviour is ok, just your reports are not. The admins will have to understand you really want to see me banned as innocent user, you can't stop, there is something burning in you. Christina (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC) @GoldenRing: With all due respect, NATIONALIST AGENDA? I have barely edited on Romania. And in each town I have edited, I just completed the Antiquity or I have added it. This is incredible what's going on and how you treat me superficially. Some user above me really did bad things and was blocked for 1 week, and I can get 3 or 6 month? After all all who proposed this unreal penance? An administrator or a hunting user? If you really want to punish me, without clear evidence (some users and admins found me no guilt, than a big mouth which can be improved since I only have 1 year), punish me 1 week or 2. Do you understand what a harsh and heavy punishment is even 3 months? Put yourself in my place! I also want to mention I had no report before, 0 official complaints. And now I am with the violators and criminals of the Wikipedia? Christina (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC) @GoldenRing: Did you even check my edits? On the talk page, I had an opinion, on the page I left exactly like the other history users agreed. I am punished for some personal opinions which were not added by me on the articles. Do you realise how lame is that? On the talk pages, I can have any opinion I want if my actions don't go against the community. Maybe my history education is the problem, but I learned from this and now I check sources like Britannica and not only (Western). For universal writings. Christina (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Statement by Mr rnddude[edit]Procedural comments: 1) Cristina neagu, comments are to be posted in independent sections. That is, don't post in another person's section. If you need to notify them, use the messaging system (WP:PINGs). 2) Tgeorgescu is pushing for a six month TBAN, not a six month block. A TBAN will prevent you from editing in a specific area of Wikipedia, but will not exempt you from contributing elsewhere. Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Cristina neagu[edit]
|
Springee, Trekphiler and RAF910
[edit]| Springee, Trekphiler, RAF910 and Dlthewave are warned not to misuse Wikipedia as a forum for polemic statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. Sandstein 07:51, 23 February 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 Springee[edit]
Springee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Trekphiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log RAF910 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
Note: This pattern of POV-pushing involves three editors. I hope that submitting them together is not problematic. These diffs and quotes are merely examples; the entire discussion should be read for context.
Taken together in the context of the overall discussion, these comments represent a pattern of obstruction to the consensus-building process by refusing to work toward a compromise, refusing to accept that consensus may change and setting ever-higher bars for inclusion of criminal use content. The initial discussion on the Wikiproject Firearms page and selective notification of editors raise canvassing concerns as well.
RAF910 has pointed out some of my writing on the topic and I too would encourage folks to read User:Dlthewave/Signpost_Opinion_Firearms. It is understandable that this may be viewed as polemical, however I feel that it is important to highlight the long-term pattern and I've been careful not to name individual editors. I view this episode as a continuation of the pattern described there. My goal is not to add criminal use to every firearm article or block everyone who disagrees with me. I just want to discuss it in a civil, open manner without being accused of bias. I find it interesting that Wikiproject Firearms members have repeatedly stated that criminal use is outside the scope of the project (most recently in November 2018) yet the project pages are still being used to provide recommendations on criminal use content and begrudgingly notify fellow editors of "out of control" lists. The lack of interest in developing best practices for criminal use content is one reason that I started the Gun Politics Task Force, an idea first proposed in 2015 by project members who did not want to get involved with political topics. It seems that their idea of "not getting involved" has evolved to mean excluding this content from articles within the scope of the project. The fact that RAF10 has made only two brief comments actually highlights part of the problem: They have made no attempt to actually discuss the content in question. –dlthewave ☎ 15:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Springee, Trekphiler and RAF910[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 Springee[edit]I don't understand why we are even here. This is a content dispute. The claim of improper notification Dlthewave made was wrong as APPNOTE specifically says notifying previously involved editors is not canvasing. However, when a few months after participating in said discussion Dlthewave reverts a consensus edit that is a problem. Rather than disputing the consensus Dlthewave ignored it. Since Dlthewave is concerned about improper notification I would point out that the project the editor started has a goal to add content such as mass shootings into firearms article when possible [[45]]. The ~10 project editors have been nearly unanimous in their opinions on such material. Why wouldn't any notice to such a sympathetic project be automatically seen as improper notification? Dlthewave isn't a "bad guy" or anything and, even though I think this ARE is way off base, I think in general they are acting in good faith. However, this is a very inappropriate use of ARE to try to address a content dispute. Finally, I would suggest that Dlthewave's own POV is very strong in this area. Consider that in their Signpost submission, towards the end of their article, they implied that editors such as myself were keeping criminal content out of an article against a general RfC discussion ("To date, the article does not make any mention of criminal use") but neglected to mention to readers that this was due to a new, local RfC that said consensus to not include. If there is PUSH I would say it is in both directions but also, even in Dlthewave's case, all within Wiki policies and guidelines. Springee (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Legacypac's comments
Additional follow up comments MastCell (talk · contribs), I'm not clear if you are suggesting I've engaged in battle ground behavior. I wouldn't think so. I've tried to engage editors like Dlthewave and K.e.coffman on their talk pages specifically to avoid civility issues. As K.e.coffman said, I have been civil. I do suspect I'm long winded and willing to post my concerns. I can see how that can be seen as stonewalling. You suggested I moved a goal post with respect to the Glock crime inclusion. I don't believe I have. I suggested that the sort of articles that could establish WEIGHT would be articles "about Glock" that talk about mass shootings. Never did I claim that simply finding any example should be sufficient. To K.e.coffman's credit they found two articles along those lines. Not to dive too deeply into the content dispute but the articles are of limited quality and don't draw any causal links. Basically I don't think they provide encyclopedic content. I said as much. I did not remove the new material from the article. I don't see how a civil disagreement on the talk page is stonewalling nor do I see how this isn't part of the process. (new edit) @MastCell:, I don't think I have ever claimed this is a gun control issue nor accused others of promoting gun control. I have supported inclusion of criminal material in firearms articles (Mini-14, AR-15 style rifle). I can also point to examples where I was part of the consensus that opposed it (S&W M&P15, M1911). In the case of Glock, yes, I felt the WP and VICE articles don't do a good job of establishing weight for inclusion. However, after a sock added a new source I have stated I favor inclusion (but not as currently written).[[51]] I think it's unfair to classify my objections based on weight as some sort of anti-gun control mindset in my edits. Springee (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC) K.e.coffman (talk · contribs), I appreciate that you acknowledge the civility. I don't agree with much of what you have said here but I also view you as civil. So first, how do you think my question at WP:Firearms [[52]] would be canvasing? I made no edits to the article but I did raise a question. I suppose you could argue that the sort of editors who watch that talk page are likely to be sympathetic. However, wouldn't that same concern apply to anything posted to WP:Gun Politics, the project Dlthewave started? The few participants listed have been strident in trying to add crime material to many firearms pages. Look at the list of Collaborations and Related discussions. Every case is a discussion regarding the inclusion of crime content in a gun article. How is that different? Anyway, based on the WP:Guns discussion the long list of crimes was removed from the article. Even now it appears that editors agree that the long, indiscriminate list should not be in the article. Pinging the involved editors when the topic came up again in February was APPNOTE (see Mr rnddude's statement below). Yes, I did feel the proposal you highlighted at the S&W M&P15 page was forum shopping because less than two years earlier we had a RfC with significant participation looking at the exact same content.[[53]]. I think my view that nothing had changed was vindicated by the result of the recent RfC that reached the same conclusion as the previous one. How should editors feel when people simply ignore previous RfCs? You said that based on previous AEs I should know about problematic behaviors. I agree. This is one of the reasons why I work very hard to remain civil, even in the face of attacks such as those LP has leveled against me here thus I'm not sure why you would highlight "Personalizing disputes" or "canvasing" given, as others have noted, we are dealing with APPNOTE. I do have a long term concern that is shared with other editors who have worked in the area of firearms. It does seem that some editors really push on the crime aspects by trying to put lists of crimes into every article. I have weight concerns with that which I've expressed with others and even asked Dlthewave to help with [[54]]. What I've seen is many of those editors got frustrated and found that either they did take things too far and violated CIVIL or they gave up and left that article space. So while I think it is incivil to suggest an objective to chase away editors who don't agree with a POV, I can understand why others feel that way.
But I do have a solution: I think one of the best things we could do for this problem, ie should crimes be added to many of these articles, is to visit the question of WEIGHT. I've discussed this a number of times and will throw it out here just in case. Does weight have reciprocity? That is, if A is significant to B, does that mean B is significant to A? In the case of some gun crimes people have argued, "the crime was significant and articles about the crime mention the gun thus the gun article must mention the crime". Other times we have decided that even if the crime was significant and a tool of the crime was significant, that doesn't mean the crime appears on the tool's article. For example, after a RfC it was clearly decided that it was UNDUE to include the DC sniper attacks in the Chevrolet Caprice article. Perhaps if we could answer this question we would cut down the back and forth. Statement by Cullen328[edit]I am neither pro-gun nor anti-gun and feel that I am neutral because I have been criticized roughly equally by people on both sides of that debate. But if someone added content to an article about a kitchen knife manufacturer reporting that some criminal stabbed someone with a knife made by that company, I would object. Undue weight. It would be inappropriate, in my view, if someone added content to an article about a company that rents trucks stating that company inadvertently rented a truck to someone who carried out a truck bombing. It would be inappropriate to add content to articles about Home Depot or Lowe's or any other home improvement company reporting that somebody bought supplies there that were used to build a terrorist bomb. All bets are off, of course, if such a company was proved negligent in a court of law. Last time I checked, sales and ownership of firearms remains legal in the United States for the vast majority of adult citizens. And the overwhelming majority of legally owned firearms have never been used in a crime or any act of violence. Personally, I favor universal background checks and other reasonable restrictions on gun ownership so the so-called "pro-gun" editors might be wary of me. But really. If reliable sources report that celebrity X died of alcoholism, and their favorite beverage was Cutty Sark should we add that to Cutty Sark (whisky)? I do not think so. Undue weight and soapboxing. This should be declined. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Statement by RAF910[edit]Please read User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles, User:Dlthewave/Signpost Opinion Firearms and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions "Opinion: Firearms". Where Dlthewave portrayed himself as the epic hero fighting the forces of darkness. Basically, this is in direct violation of Wikipedia:Advocacy. Also, see User talk:Felsic2/Gun use "Requested move 19 May 2018" where on 4 June 2018 there was a consensus NOT to move this page to Wikipedia:GUNUSE or Wikipedia:GUNCRIME. However, 18 January 2019, Dlthewave ignored said consensus and created (backdoor) redirects to said page anyway. This is also clearly a violation of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Also, he is constantly accusing his fellow editors of acting in bad faith and violating Wiki policies. And, as you can see he is adept at Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Dlthewave's edit history speaks for itself. I believe it's his ultimate goal to get as many "pro-gun' editors as possible blocked or topic-banned, so they cannot interfere with his crusade.--RAF910 (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Springee, Thank you for reminding me. On 11 April 2018, Dlthewave started the Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Gun politics page with the expressed purpose of adding "criminal use" sections to firearm articles. Again, showing that he is a self declared Political Advocate. --RAF910 (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC) MastCell, is wrong. I have made no effort to "to move the goalposts" or " responded with a litany of excuses that seem fundamentally like stonewalling." If you read the Talk:Glock page, the only editor moving the goal post is Dlthewave. I have only made two edits to this page, and only one edit in this regard..."OPPOSE the addition of a criminal use section in any form, for reason already stated.--RAF910 (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)". The other edit was..."Starting a new discussion on the same issue, is just another attempt at forum shopping. The above discussion is 2 for and 4 against inclusion of a criminal use section.--RAF910 (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)" after Dlthewave restored the "Criminal use" section against the aforementioned 2 to 4 consensus.....Also, how anyone could say that I'm trying to shut down the discussion at the Talk:Glock page with these two edits is patently ridiculous. The only editor trying to shut down discussions here is Dlthewave who is constantly accusing his fellow editors of acting in bad faith and violating Wiki policies. see User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles, User:Dlthewave/Signpost Opinion Firearms and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions --RAF910 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Dlthewave latest comment confirms that he knows that I have not engaged in any disruptive behavior. He's just upset that I have only made "two brief comments" and that I'm not willing to get involved in long drawn out discussions. He also acknowledges that it's understandable that his edits may be viewed as polemical, but he feels it is important to highlight what he believe to be long-term patterns. I don't know, or care why Dlthewave is here...I want no part of it.--RAF910 (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC) Statement by Mr rnddude[edit]
Sigh. I couldn't read past there, although I see Drmies is also named. Fascinating that a pro-gun editor should canvass a gun-control advocate. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Legacypac[edit]I follow the NRA article where Springee can be counted on to push a "nothing negative about the NRA or guns" agenda. He denies any COI but from what I've seen the NRA should be sending him thank-you cards and maybe an honorarium for his dedicated efforts. Such volunteer dedication is truly rare. I'm not familiar with the other editors named here. Legacypac (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Trekphiler[edit]Personal attack? Seriously? At what point did I even mention my alleged target's username? (Hell, I don't even know it. Or care.) POV-pushing? That has to be the thinnest excuse for a POV push I've ever seen. I do believe the Glock page's "criminal use" section should be remvoed, because all it does is catalog crimes with no particular cultural or historical significance & no impact on any laws, nor on Glock's policies or sales. As such, IMO, including it is POV against firearms. My views on the subject are strongly held, & may be strongly stated. I will offer no apologies for that. So, I would suggest this is an effort to silence criticism or an opposing point of view rather than persuade or achieve consensus. (That "consensus" may amount to nothing beyond a narrow majority vote is a policy matter better dealt with elsewhere.) Since I expect to be held to a different standard from anybody else, as always, I will expect a topic ban, if not an outright indefinite site ban, any second now. So be it. Good riddance. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 18:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Statement by K.e.coffman[edit]I've participated in these debates and I would like to highlight a long-term pattern of uncollegial behaviour, the voicing of conspiracy theories, and general failure to assume good faith on article Talk pages & via edit summaries. For example, Trekpiler persists with his theme of a "[gun] confiscator lobby" which the editors who do not agree with him apparently belong to: WP:GUNS Talk page, February 2018: permalink
Smith & Wesson Talk page permalink
Glock, Nov 2018, via edit summary: RAF910 expresses similar sentiments, with accusations of "crusades", "missions", etc.
Springee is at least civil, but he misunderstands canvassing. This was a clear case at WP:GUNS: Crime list at Glock. He then uses that discussion to claim prior consensus on the Glock Talk page, as detailed in OP's report. Springee (along with RAF910) has also accused others of forum shopping on article Talk pages. See for example, Smith & Wesson M&P15 Talk page, October 2018 [56], four instances of "forum shopping" from Springee and one from RAF910. I discussed with Springee here. Springee participated in prior AE requests in the topic area, so he should have known about the problematic behaviours highlighted there, such as "personalizing disputes" (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive233#Thewolfchild), and "Canvassing amongst project members or by using project pages will be heavily frowned upon" (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive228#Thewolfchild). --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@Drmies: re: double standard on sourcing, I do believe that Springee fundamentally misunderstands NPOV and does have a double standard. For example, he argued on the NRA talk page:
Source: NRA Talk page (a protracted discussion). I was reminded of this 2018 thread because of Springee arguing, a year later, that The Truth About Guns is a suitable sources in the article on The Truth About Guns: WP:ABOUTSELF and qualifications. I don't think that any lessons have been learned. ----K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC) Statement by Drmies[edit]On the actual matter, well, some of the pro-gun editors have a tendency to be somewhat inflexible, and play it too personal: Trekphiler's comment, cited above, on the "effort to dirty Glock" is an example thereof; I believe this is the kind of thing that led us to the Arb case on gun control in the first place. Another thing that was so important in that case was the...let's charitably call it "quibbling" over what are reliable sources; we see some of that here. And the more you look at that comment, the more reason there is to think that they are simply too hotly involved, throwing shade on good-faith editors. Now, RAF's note on my talk page--yeah I supported removing that section earlier, and it's true that I'm a Nerfgun-toting admin, so I suppose a kind of selective canvassing is possible, but for such a judgment one would need some more evidence than just this one. Finally I'll break a lance for Springee, an editor with whom I frequently disagree (because foolishly they disagree with me), but I believe them to be working out of good faith and with a strong enough knowledge of what we're doing here. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Pudeo[edit]Why are these editors being bundled like this? The general behauvior of RAF910 and Springee for instance is very clearly different. Are you expecting some kind of a collective sanction? The content issue needs to be settled for once and for all somehow. It is ridiculous to keep fighting over the criminal use section in different articles. (My opinion is that criminal use should be mentioned when there is a lot of coverage commenting exactly that, like with bump-stocks and AR-15 style rifles, but random lists of crimes in most articles is completely useless WP:TRIVIA.) In the case of Glock, the list of crimes is undue, and Dlthewave's viewpoint was in the minority and perhaps that is why he is resorting to this board. Dlthewave's first point about canvassing the Firearms project is rather absurd when you consider that he himself has started an alternative task force called Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Gun politics. If you go look at the project's talk page, you will find Dlthewave informing the project about the criminal use RfCs and discussions. How is this any different? I also think that the userpages (User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles and User:Dlthewave/Hall of Fame) are a violation of WP:POLEMIC and illustrate an uncollaborative attitude, certainly more than anything Springee has done, in any case. MastCell's comment about the three editors having a "deep-seated partisanship" (and apparently Dlthewave not?) is strikingly biased, and given MastCell's history at AE requests that relate to gun politics and general politics, I have raised the issue directly on his talk page.[57] --Pudeo (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC) Statement by Truthbill[edit]If there were was so much concern with NPOV they would not object to experts on criminal use such as highly respected criminologist Dr. Blair and Dr. Fox and there studies. But they have because they and there studies contradict there sources of uniformed journalist sensationalism(shown to be belatedly false). And this is what all this boils down to. They wish to have there views presented and when a majority object to this they slowly pester and pester other editors until they then can go run and tell in there attempt to manipulate the system. Editor Dlthewave has even petitioned to remove the two policies that allow a editor to ask others to not post on there talk page. For any admin to not acknowledge these tactics or there stated intentions for what they clearly are, and then try to condemn editors who get flustered and make some minor infraction that is used to then try and remove this opposition presents the appearance of impropriety, no matter how they choose to frame it.Truthbill (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Result concerning Springee, Trekphiler and RAF910[edit]
|
Sir Joseph
[edit]| Blocked for 72 hours. GoldenRing (talk) 09:04, 22 February 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 Sir Joseph[edit]
N/A
A 1 revert rule was instituted for Ilhan Omar on February 18. An edit-notice was created informing editors of that fact. Sir Joseph has previously been reverting over this same section header (eg [ here). After making two reverts, the editor was asked to self-revert. The user declined and has been editing since. A clear 1RR violation with a refusal to correct it.
You reverted to a version from one day prior. You restored a prior version of the article. That is by definition a revert. And you were offered the opportunity to self-revert. You refused. nableezy - 17:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Yall Sir Joseph is still insisting he did not revert twice. He seems to be under the impression that if he does not hit undo then it is not a revert. Our policy however makes that a non-argument. I dont really care if he is blocked or not, but it needs to be made clear to him what is a revert. If it takes a block then do that. But after this thread, in which he takes "not clearly a revert" to mean "not a revert" (even though I disagree on the clarity) and continues to argue over it, I for one am unconvinced that this will not happen again or that he understands that he did in fact violate the 1RR. He was given the opportunity to self-revert. He refused. And now he is indeed wikilawyering, poorly, over what a revert is. nableezy - 17:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Sir Joseph[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 Sir Joseph[edit]This seems to be a bad faith request. As I stated on my talk page, there was no first revert, I made mention to go to Wikipedia:Reverting#What_is_a_reversion? where I changed the wording, which is the normal change not a reversion. MVBW then reported me to EW, and Icewhiz and SoWhy said the same thing. Admin, @SoWhy: explained this diff is not a reversion, and Icewhiz further clarified that the first diff Nableezy is pointing to is from weeks ago and can't be used as the first point of reference. diff I urge you all to look at the timeline of the diffs and not just Nableezy's request, we don't look at the baseline from weeks ago, this article is under 1RR. 1RR means you can't revert more than once in 24 hours. I did not revert more than once in 24 hours. I have also been participating in the discussion at the talk page and this is just playing the numbers game to get their side, which seems odd and disheartening to drag the IP conflict into a US Congresswoman's antisemitic tweets. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Regarding Volunteer Marek's edits, are casting aspersions now allowed? He brings edits a, from years ago and b, from edits that are clearly not 1RR as even @Bishonen: pointed out to @PPX:, in VM's diff 36. So he's just again trying to muddy the waters with diff-bombing. It's a damn shame that people have to tag-team and make Wikipedia such a toxic area. Pointing out that 1RR doesn't apply to articles that 1RR doesn't apply to is now considered GAMING? I suggest a one-way IBAN for VM, every interaction he has with me has been negative and sniping, he brought me to AE for a frivolous action and he has it in for me, it's clear he can't interact with me civilly. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Statement by My very best wishes[edit]
Statement by Icewhiz[edit]@Newyorkbrad: - see diff at AEW. The first diff was an edit, not an undo, which passed through a state created by a different editor. The second diff is clearly a revert. The article is heavily edited (and just recently placed under 1rr) - to understand that the fist edit is a revert requires examining the edits of others in the page. Icewhiz (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC) Volunteer Marek[edit]Let's cut the bullshit. Dude has been on Wikipedia almost as long as I have. He's been to WP:3RR and WP:AE countless times. Hell, it looks like he jumped right into the middle of an edit war. His edit summary begins with the words "again, her comments are..." (my emphasis). By using the word "again" he is clearly indicating that he is reverting/referring to an earlier version. He knew, and he knows, it was a revert. That's sort of a point of jumping in to edit war. Can we please stop pretending that this isn't just bad-faithed attempt at Wikilawyering? Which actually accerbates the offense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC) And oh yeah, go to Sir Joseph's talk page and type "1RR" into the Archive box. It's immediately obvious that this isn't his first tango. Sir Joseph routinely violates WP:1RR on controversial articles under that restriction, then tries to WP:GAME the rules by claiming it's not actually a revert or whatever other "exception" he can invent for himself [60] [61] [62] [63] (just a few). This is a pattern.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Sir Joseph[edit]
|