Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive184
HistoneSebas
[edit]| Since there haven't been any reverts in a couple days I'm opting for full protection for a week (as normal admin action) to ensure that it's stopped. Any other admin should feel free to block either party if they feel it's needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:01, 2 November 2015 (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 HistoneSebas[edit]
The user failed to respond to discussion on article talk page and his own, to violate 1RR twice.
Discussion concerning HistoneSebas[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 HistoneSebas[edit]Statement by Rhoark[edit]I'm not convinced of a 1RR violation from the diffs provided. An edit that makes a good-faith attempt to incorporate feedback is not a reversion. Rhoark (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Statement by Kingsindian[edit]EdJohnston's comment here is not accurate, since Makeandtoss did give many sources for "repelled". The destruction of the Karameh camp was only part of the Israeli war aims. However, there has been no dialogue between HistoneSebas and Makeandtoss on the article talk page. This is the kind of stuff which results when people try to argue complex historical matters through edit summaries. In the larger context, this supports my belief, frequently expressed, the "result" section in the infoboxes should simply be deleted. It is a magnet for POV pushers and vandals, and serves no purpose at all. Actually, infoboxes should burn in hell. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning HistoneSebas[edit]
|
Anticyclone à banias
[edit]| Since there haven't been any more edits by Anticyclone à banias for a few days I'm closing with no further action (though I'll note that Anticyclone à banias has since been alerted to DS). Other admins should feel free to take action as needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:05, 2 November 2015 (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 Anticyclone à banias[edit]
Another new account edit-warring on Gaza Strip
Discussion concerning Anticyclone à banias[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 Anticyclone à banias[edit]Statement by Rhoark[edit]Interestingly, the question of whether this violated WP:1RR hinges on whether ClueBot NG (talk · contribs) is to be considered an editor. Rhoark (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC) The user seems to have been discussing this matter on the French pedia[2] where it's determined they made a good faith error adding information from an outdated CIA factbook. Rhoark (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC) @RolandR: This sort of due diligence I think ought to be done before filing. Rhoark (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Statement by Kingsindian[edit]Regardless of the merits of the complaint, I dislike the notion of bringing this to WP:AE before discussing it on the talk page. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Anticyclone à banias[edit]
|
Justlettersandnumbers
[edit]| Not an arbitration enforcement issue (not related to any specific active arbitration remedies). Issues with copyright permissions can be resolved by following the processes outlined at WP:COPYREQ to grant permission to reuse third party content. Noting however that granting a permission doesn't equate to demands of inclusion. All other aspects related to the content of the article should be discussed at its talk page. Finally, shooting the messenger is rarely a productive approach. MLauba (Talk) 18:52, 2 November 2015 (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 Justlettersandnumbers[edit]
The pge contributor is williing to work with and editor who knows about Scottihs history and genealogy to improve the page
"I have launched an arbitration request to request your removal from eidting this site." left on Justletersandnumbers talk page Discussion concerning Justlettersandnumbers[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 Justlettersandnumbers[edit]In case anyone wants to look at whether there is any merit in this complaint, my relevant edits are:
Statement by 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[edit]This has emanated in part from my citing the article for copyright violations, and for my edit here: [3], removing unsourced or poorly sourced content about the current baron. This appears to be a long-running effort by WP:COI accounts to retain an entry on this person--whose encyclopedic notability has never been established--on Wikipedia. The above report is a WP:BOOMERANG. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Result concerning Justlettersandnumbers[edit]
|
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
[edit]| I've sent this to ArbCom for clarification of whether it is covered or not given the grey area regarding redirects and articles. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:38, 9 November 2015 (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 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )[edit]
On October 16, 2015, after a request for clarification requested by me, Section 2.3 of the case involving Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ("RAN") was amended to say:
Today, RAN converted an existing redirect at William Sloane Coffin, Sr. into an article with the edit noted above, and then expanded the article with an additional 9 edits. I would contend that a redirect is not an article. This is not merely a technical distinction: a redirect has none of the attributes of an article, except a title. A redirect is, instead, an automated pointer to an article, not an article in and of itself. This distinction is recognized at, for instance, Wikipedia:Redirects in the section How to edit a redirect or convert it into an article; the word "convert" is a clear indication that a redirect is not an article, but must be changed in some fundamental way in order to become one. The distinction between redirects and articles can also be seen in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, in which there are different rules for the deletion of articles and for the deletion of redirects. It is recognized in the distinction between Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. The fact that articles and redirects are different things is simple common sense. By converting a redirect into an article, RAN has, in effect, created an article that did not exist before, which I believe is a violation of his ban from creating articles as outlined in section 2.3 quoted above. Such "pushing the boundaries" of his various sanctions is par for the course with RAN, and indeed has led to a number of Arbitration proceedings both before and after the full case he was the subject of. If the admins here agree with my argument, I have no recommendation for what kind of response is appropriate. I will say that the article itself is not problematic, and should be retained. BMK (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )[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 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )[edit]Statement by Andreas Philopater[edit]I would suggest that clarification by the committee as to whether or not this breaches the ban is the only desirable outcome here. The article itself should be retained; no further sanctions should be applied. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by Alansohn[edit]On October 16, 2015, after a request for clarification requested by User:Beyond My Ken, Section 2.3 of the case involving Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ("RAN") was amended to say:
RAN did not move an article into article namespace. Nor, did RAN create an article. BMK was the one who created the article in this edit. Both RAN and BMK worked collaboratively to expand the article. The term "create" -- to bring (something) into existence -- has not been met here. As there was no violation of any aspect of this enforcement action and as the encyclopedia has been unequivocally improved by the collaboration between both BMK and RAN, I move that there is no justification for any enforcement action to be taken here. Alansohn (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Kingsindian[edit]Having followed slightly the RAN drama for some time, I am amazed by the pettiness of some of the stuff brought against them. BMK states that the article should be retained, and there was no disruption to the project. Why then are we here? This seems to be the triumph of WP:BURO thinking. At most, there should be a clarification on whether the topic ban was breached, in which case, perhaps WP:ARCA might be a better venue. Kingsindian ♝♚ 05:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by Drmies[edit]A redirect is not an article. That's clear. I don't know if that really needs clarification, but there's all kinds of places in which we count them separately, for instance. I can't see the NYT obituary on which RAN's version was based so I can't see if there was a copyvio (I assume there wasn't, AGF and all--and common sense). I understand that Tim (Carrite) has been ferrying content in a way allowed by ArbCom (thanks for doing that, Tim) and don't know why RAN didn't go that route here; I can't help but think that RAN was trying to skirt the decision here a bit. Personally I don't see the point in a block or something like that, but I suppose it's a good idea for ArbCom to at least speak out on the matter in order to admonish/clarify. Drmies (talk) 05:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )[edit]
|
Appeal of discretionary sanction topic ban violation block of HughD
[edit]| Appeal declined. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Statement by HughD[edit]The block notice cited "deliberate violation" of the topic ban. No violation of the topic ban, intentional or otherwise, took place. The topic ban is an administrator action under discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBTPM. The scope of topic ban is "...any articles involving the Tea Party movement broadly, including but not limited to anything at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers..." The block notice and discretionary sanctions log entry cited an edit to Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is not within scope of the topic ban. The demonstrated consensus of our community is that no reliable sources support a relationship between the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity and the Tea Party movement or the Kochs. Evidence that Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is not within scope of the topic ban includes, most significantly, an explicit ruling from the banning/blocking admin that Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is not within scope of the topic ban User talk:Ricky81682#Question on scope of ban: "I don't see a connection at all, directly or from Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity...There should be leeway to edit there..." Additionally, Wikipedia article space, edit history 18:35 10 July 2013, 17:13 6 March 2015. and talk page discussion clearly demonstrates community consensus that the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is not related to the Kochs. The block notice stated reason is "...adding content related to Donors Trust which is directly related to Tea party politics and to the Kochs..." Article Donors Trust was not edited. Donors Trust is not directly related to the Tea Party movement. Koch family foundations have contributed to Donors Trust. Donors Trust is a donor advised fund, the whole point of which is that no relationship may be inferred between a specific grantor and a specific grantee. Donors Trust is a donor advised fund; contributors to Donors Trust describe/specify/recommend the ultimate grantee. Funds generally must disclose their transfers to Donors Trust, and Donors Trust must disclose their grantees, but only very, very occasionally can we reliably state that a given donor contributed to a given org via Donors Trust. A connection grantor -> Donors Trust -> grantee is extraordinary difficult to document. See Searle Freedom Trust for an exception that proves the rule: as required by law, Searle disclosed that they contributed to Donors Trust, but also chose to disclose that their contribution was earmarked to fund a court challenge to affirmative action; a noteworthy, reliable, secondary source wrote about it, and we included it in our project. The topic-banning admin extended the topic ban to all organizations funded by Donors Trust, without consensus and without notice and without logging, and then blocked retroactively for violation of the extended topic ban. In discussion of some of these issues subsequent to the block notice, the banning/blocking admin advanced various alternative justifications for the block, including suspected use of a role account, socking, and ownership behavior, which charges can be addressed upon request if necessary. Respectfully request community discussion by uninvolved administrators regarding several related issues raised by this block:
Respectfully request repeal of block, strike-through of the block notice and strike-through of the block in the discretionary sanctions log. The block was not necessary to prevent disruption of our project. I am appealing this block in order to clear my name and clarify the scope of the topic ban. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Ricky81682[edit]First, the topic ban is for any articles involving the Tea Party movement broadly, including but not limited to anything at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers, for one year. Second, this last AE argument already had repeated violations with the same argument of a lack of intent. I don't believe intent to violate the topic ban is required. It's a bizarre and impossible argument to prove. To summarize the extensive arguments I provided at User talk:HughD, I was asked at User_talk:Ricky81682#Question_on_scope_of_ban asked about Watchdog.org (related to another edit warring issue) which had no mention of the Koch brothers there and mentioned the Franklin as one of a number of in-linked articles (with a possible tenuous connection). Prior to HughD's involvement, this was what the Franklin Center looked like, which does include a reference to Donor's Trust which directly refers to the Koch family foundations and the like. I missed it and probably should have told HughD that the second level links are directly related but I did not inform him of that. However, whether or not that was an oversight on HughD's part is less likely to me when you examine this edit of HughD's which includes a citation to this article which clearly states that the Franklin center is tied to the Koch brothers. The point is, this shouldn't be a game where HughD asks me to examine article after article and I have to solve the tenuous connections that may or may not be there when HughD knows full well that they exist and even makes it my fault that I missed the connection so HughD should be allowed to edit freely on the topic. This is a complete waste of my time and energy to police someone else like this. I considered the ban description pretty obvious but seeing as how no one else has been banned under that sanction and HughD's insistence of playing this game, I suggest we provide HughD with a broader more definite topic ban so that it's clear. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement (involved editor 1)[edit]HughD is right. Guy Macon is a hypocrite here as is Ricky81682. The topic ban is completely i possible to follow given the millions of potential topics. Why should HughD have to make sure he doesn't violate a ban he didn't even come up with? Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]This is classic entrapment. HughD was told this wasn't related to the topic and once he edited there, the trap was sprung and he was punished. Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by HughD[edit]One detail of peripheral interest here. HughD mentions the administrator’s "novel concept of "second level links." This isn't, in fact, a particularly novel concept, at least not among hypertext researchers. Nodes reachable within N links of a starting point are clearly interesting and have been studied both in terms of technical and rhetorical strategies. I’ve used the term neighborhood for the concept; more mathematically-inclined researchers would simply say "the subgraph of diameter N from node V" or something like that. The Information Architecture people use "clicks" as a shorthand: "Koch Industries are just two clicks from the Franklin Center." So it’s not an outré invention. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by Guy Macon[edit]The following sources:
appear to refute the claim that "No evidence supports a relationship between the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity and the Tea Party movement or the Kochs". --Guy Macon (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by HughD[edit]
|
Nocturnalnow
[edit]| No action for now. But further edit warring at Huma Abedin may lead to sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC) | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
Request concerning Nocturnalnow[edit]
Edit-wars the {{NPOV}} tag into the article despite clear consensus that it doesn't apply:
Notified of the sanctions by Gamaliel here.
This user is essentially a single-purpose account; out of fewer than 200 total edits to the encyclopedia, nearly 140 of them are to this biography or to its talk page. Effectively all of the edits and discussion have been highly negative toward the subject or have sought the inclusion of negative material about the subject, indicating that this user is not here to build an encyclopedic article about Abedin but rather to grind an ax against her and/or her husband. This is neatly demonstrated by this talk page comment which makes personal attacks on the subject and the subject's spouse. They have consistently edit-warred against clear talk page consensus to include negative material out of proportion to its prominence in reliable sources, to treat fringe allegations and claims with undue weight, to use poor and partisan sources and to cast aspersions on Abedin. Biographies of living people should not be edited by people with axes to grind against the article subject and I believe this editor should be encouraged to edit something else. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Nocturnalnow[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 D.Creish[edit]Based on edits since my involvement in this article I question the filer's neutrality. They have several edits to the article so I'll confine my evidence to this one example: They insist on title-ing one particular section "Conspiracy theories" despite the lack of majority support for that statement and that those who allege the theories are living congresspeople, so BLP applies. They've reverted a number of editors to retain this heading: [4] [5] [6] [7] On the talk page they misrepresent sources to support the "conspiracy theory" heading:
This is misleading. Only some do, a fact acknowledged in the opening sentence of the section:
Again, a misrepresentation. The National Review article, a reliable source cited in that same section, describes her mother (Saleha Abedin) as "closely tied to the Muslim Brotherhood" - the claim here is supported [9] Their last edit to this heading [10] relented somewhat in titling it I also believe the filer has violated rules against canvassing. He notified an editor who frequently agrees with his edits of this filing [11] but failed to notify me despite my involvement just yesterday in a disagreement involving myself, the filter and Nocturnalnow where Nocturnalnow and I agreed. I only discovered this filing after seeing his latest revert and "stalking" his contribs. I believe more editors on the article and talk page, and a focus on neutral language throughout would be beneficial. D.Creish (talk) 08:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Nocturnalnow[edit]With regard to the a single-purpose account assertion, I tried to show the Filer yesterday that I have a long history of editing going back to 2007, albeit under 4 different User names as I have forgotten my password several times after a rest from editing. I have always had a notification and linkage of that fact on my talk and or User page. I always figured the edits are what's important, rather than the name of the Editor, but in respect of other opinions, I have now written down my password and put the piece of paper in a drawer. With regard to the other complaints, I think that any objective and thorough analysis of my editing history of the article will show a reasonable person that my accepted edits have dramatically improved the BLP even as it currently stands, and at least some of the non-allowed edits would have improved it even more. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Muboshgu[edit]I'll comment a bit later. For now, World Series! – Muboshgu (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by Johnuniq[edit]The Huma Abedin article needs some serious protection and topic bans. The subject is closely associated with Hillary Clinton's campaign and hence is receiving special attention, primarily focused on WP:UNDUE mention of Abedin's husband's sexting scandal, and claims that Abedin had "immediate family connections to foreign extremist organizations" (claims where one ref states "Sen. John McCain denounced the allegations"). As an example of the "NPOV" editing on this BLP, it appears this edit at 07:27, 13 October 2015 changed the accurate "Conspiracy theory allegations" heading to the smear "Allegations regarding family members". That edit was by 119.81.31.4 which is now blocked for three years! D.Creish (talk · contribs) has a total of 24 edits, six to Huma Abedin: two highlight a scandal regarding the subject's husband (1 + 2); two repeat the removal of the "Conspiracy theories" heading (3 + 4); and two are minor adjustments. An article like this should not be getting attention from blocked-for-three-years IPs and perfectly formed new accounts and Nocturnalnow who has a total of 203 edits including 67 to Huma Abedin and 79 to its talk. Johnuniq (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by Gamaliel[edit]This editor should be encouraged to use some less contentious articles to learn about Wikipedia policies like BLP, PRIMARY. UNDUE, RS, etc. and return to this article after the election. I believe they want to improve the article but they appear to have a strong viewpoint and a less than ideal grasp of current BLP practice. Gamaliel (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC) I think that Rhoark's excellent review of the diffs illustrates the situation well. Nocturnalnow is not quite up to speed on how to properly handle BLP issues, and so a lot of time is wasted explaining basic policy and dealing with minor conflicts. Other editors are getting frustrated, as is Nocturnalnow because perhaps they feel that the resistance they are getting is obstructionist and not policy-based. Nocturnalnow should realize that the incident is already covered in the article - nobody is advocating shoving it down the memory hole - and so they should be satisfied even if it is not described in the exact language and manner they would prefer. Wikipedia is often about compromise. I"m not sure how to handle this, but I think the best thing would be for Nocturnalnow to practice with these issues in a less contentious article that they do not have such strong opinions about. Gamaliel (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Rhoark[edit]
Nocturnalnow does not seem to have a firm grasp on evaluating the reliability of sources. He also needs to be reminded that the "discuss" part of BRD is a two-way street. The claimed history of accounts seems plausible, as they seem to have similar linguistic patterns and a recurrent interest in American political scandals. I would not call that interest so narrow as to be a SPA, though. I suggest Nocturnalnow be placed under 0RR for BLP articles / claims to avoid similar disruptions. Although Nocturnalnow's behavior is not acceptable, the filer should be admonished that NPOV does not read "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views except conservative ones." While sources can be found who unleash all sorts of invective about the Muslim Brotherhood allegations, it is a claim that was supported by five congressional representatives, and many respectable news organizations chose to criticize Bachmann only by proxy of John McCain.[16][17][18][19] That is the profile of a minority view, not a fringe one. There are some very good sources to draw on to criticize the allegations[20][21], but it is simply indefensible to do so through such prejudicial section titles. This is an encyclopedia. Rhoark (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I had intended not to further argue content issues with @NorthBySouthBaranof: on this page, since there seems to be a loose consensus on where things stand with Nocturnalnow. In light of @EdJohnston:'s comments however, I need to speak to the content issues that bear upon the conduct of all parties. We should not tolerate anyone wishing the article to read more negatively, no matter how patiently they negotiate. That is what we call civil POV pushing. We shouldn't tolerate that from any point of view. Per NPOV, Wikipedia should describe disputes but not engage in them. If reliable sources substantiate the claim that a POV is factually wrong, that's still describing. That's not the state of sourcing in this matter, though. I don't think you will find a reliable source contesting any of the following:
The mainstream point of view is that worrying about these things is paranoid, vicious, ignorant, Islamophobic, McCarthyist, regressive, and generally unworthy of consideration. That's my take as well. It is not, however, objectively verifiable or falsifiable. The majority opinion is still an opinion, and to express it through the form of a section heading is engaging in the dispute. All the disparaging things the media has said about Bachmann should be put to use in describing the level of acceptance of her views, but not the views themselves. I highlighted the fact that these concerns were raised by a group of congressional representatives - not because I'm so naive as to suppose elected officials are reliable sources, but because the closest thing there is to a bright-line test of fringiness in non-academic topics is a lack of prominent adherents. Congress is fairly prominent, which is why I said this issue has the profile of a non-fringe minority view. Were it fringe, though, the only prescription would be to leave it out of the article. If it's in the article, it has to be described impartially. Avoiding false balance is a matter of weight, not a call to endorse the majority. There is no hybrid or middle ground of NPOV and FRINGE that allows Wikipedia to take the gloves off. Rhoark (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Cla68[edit]After looking at the diffs, it appears that both NorthbySouthBaranoff's and Nocturnalnow's edits are partisan. Both editors could be interpreted as engaging in BATTLEFIELD behavior. Cla68 (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Professor JR[edit]I don't normally participate in Dispute Page or TalkPage discussions, but have decided to here, as I must agree with Cla68 -- User:NorthBySouthBaranof's edits certainly qualify as partisan, or in violation of POV, as well, if Nocturnalnow's can be adjudged to be so; and, upon my review, it appears to me that Nocturnalnow's have not been, and that this filing is unwarranted. Clearly there is also no basis for the assertion by the filer that Nocturnalnow is a single-purpose account(!), and the filer's neutrality is quite apparently and obviously in question (check NorthBySouthBaranof's contributions history) as pointed out by D.Creish. It might be advisable, and to the benefit of all Wiki users and readers, if NorthBySouthBaranof were to take a brief respite from editing the Abedin article, or any other article relating to Hillary Clinton; and this comment by another editor was also entirely out of line and uncalled for. --- Professor JR (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by Ryk72[edit]Regarding the 500/30 restriction, referred to by EdJohnston below, and also independently here and at ArbCom Palestine Israel 3 here; I again urge the community to formalise this measure by amendment of WP:Protection policy and through the use of a similar technical implementation to Semi-protection. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Nocturnalnow[edit]
|
Lvivske
[edit]| Lvivske is banned indefinitely from the topic of the Azov Battalion, on both article and talk, but may appeal at any time. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Lvivske[edit]
Obviously, this is not the first time Lvivske edit-wars in EE articles, without giving any satisfactory explanation to their reverts. Whereas many of the opponents of the "neo-nazi" definition constructively participate in the RfC, Lvivske decided to edit-war. When I alerted them that I am going to file an arbitration enforcement request, they have chosen to revert again.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC) @Gamaliel:. Yes, I mean WP:ARBEE. If you open one of the folded templates on the page, Lvivske's name is there. Sorry if i screwed up smth, this is the fist time I file an Arb enforcement request.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Lvivske[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 Lvivske[edit]User is headhunting. First edit was made independent of any ongoing dispute the user had (there was no dispute notice on the article so I had no idea he was arguing with someone when I came across it). After I made a long series of edits to the article, all of my work was reverted at once without a legitimate reason. I was then threatened by Ymblanter that he would go to arbcom if I tried to edit the article again. Naturally, I restored my work. Ends up he was having a dispute on the talk page about the lead, so no explanation was given for his reverting of all the work to the body I did, nor did he in good faith attempt to restore any of it. He got the page locked with the offending, disputed, wildly POV version in place. Five days pass, I come back and see that there is overwhelming consensus to go to 'my version' of the article. I wait another day since there is no real objection to anything, and restore my work. Ymblanter files this to spite me. Whatever. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 22:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by Beeblebrox[edit]I recently applied full protection to this page to stop the edit warring. I have only been involved administratiely and have no opinion on the underlying dispute, but obviously, just waiting for the page protection to expire and reverting again while there is an open, active RFC on the subject is not acceptable behavior. Regarding a few points in Lvivske's statement above:
Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by MyMoloboaccount[edit]If you look into Lvivske's edit history it seems he violated his restrictions several times Revision as of 19:39, 30 September 2015 to Sputnik article. No discussion on talk page, no cooling off period observed. Revision as of 05:01, 29 January 2015 no cooling off period, no discussion on talk. Revision as of 05:01, Revision as of 05:00, 29 January 2015 Russia article, no cooling off period, no discussion on talk. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by Rhoark[edit]@Ymblanter: @Gamaliel: Lvivske is listed in ARBEE not in the original decision but as having received an alert that is explicitly expired. Lviviske has however been sanctioned in the area, which suffices as evidence of awareness that does not expire AFAIK. Rhoark (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC) Comment by My very best wishes[edit]Lvivske is under editing restriction: "..they are required to first open a discussion on talk, provide an explanation of their intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion". Here he provided an explanation of disagreement [23] on 5 November 2015, well before 6 hours prior to his last revert [24] and after his previous edits on the same page. Here is discussion on this article talk page that followed. None of editors who commented after November 5 explicitly objected to the edit by Lvivske. Even administrator who brought this complaint here mostly agreed with edit(s) by Lvivsky [25]! The condition of his editing restriction seem to be completely satisfied. My very best wishes (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Result concerning Lvivske[edit]
@Ymblanter: You write that Lvivske is "Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above." Are you referring to WP:ARBEE? I cannot find their username on the decision page. Gamaliel (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Yossiea~enwiki
[edit]| AE block lifted per consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Statement by Yossiea~enwiki[edit]
In regards to the indef[edit]
Statement by Swarm[edit]First, no one complained to me about you. I came across the discussion on my own and acted as an uninvolved administrator. Second, Statement by Serialjoepsycho[edit]I have to question if this 48 hour ban is actually enough. [27] I've just noticed in this diff that this user has attempted to canvass users from wikiproject Israel to the discussion. Targeting one interested on a perceived basis of their views, Vote stacking, per WP:CANVAS. There's what seems to me to be WP:IDHT behavior in the discussion. Certainly at the very least warning is called for with the canvassing.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Indefinite?[edit]While the comments in regards to a Hezbollah may go abit far, the position is not unreasonable. Wikipedia is not under a rock and it's editors do not live under a rock. A number of organizations/countries consider Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization. If these comments do (I'm not personally suggesting they do) go to far then it comes down to inflamed passions in a contentious topic area. There's plenty of folks that do this same thing without receiving an indef block. If a punishment is necessary in this regard then I ask you instead to consider an indefinite topic ban in regards to ARBPIA related topics. If they've not had any issues in other areas there's no point. Pinging @EdJohnston, Callanecc, and Gamaliel: as the facts have changed and the unban request has thus changed, unless it's necessary to open a new request in which case I apologize.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Proposal[edit]This is pretty much an aberration on the part of Yossiea the evidence suggests. It relates to a specific topic area. They as far as I understand admit this on their talk page[28]. A ten day block isn't necessary to end the disruption. Blocks and bans are not intended to be a punishment. A simple topic ban will do. Considering that they have suggested that they are aware that this was caused by stress of operating in this area and that they are not interested in operating in this area at this time it seems that the disruption has ended and you could simply take no action and just give them the rope. Any I would propose that you either give them a topic ban or take no other action but simply unblocking hem as soon as the first block is scheduled to end or right away.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment of franp9am[edit]As far as I understand it, Yossiea has been blocked forever. I'm quite new to en wikipedia and am not familiar with all corners of it. I participated in the discussion in the List of Military Occupations. While I don't agree with some of Yossiea overreactions, an indefinite block seems to me a bit too strict. In support of Yossia, I would like to remark that the discussion was quite heated anyway and some comments from "the other side" were also at least on the border of personal attacks, seems to me. (@Liz: Please, if this is the wrong place to write, move it to the right place instead of deleting). As for Liz comment below, I would like to note that Yossiea has not called another editor a terrorist but a "terrorist supporter". While I don't think that such a behaviour is helpful or constructive, it makes a difference. (The quotes given by user:RolandR were made after the block and could not have been the reason for the block). Franp9am (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Comment by RolandR[edit]For the sake of accuracy, it should be noted that Franp9am is incorrect in her/his assertion that Yossiea has "has not called another editor a terrorist but a "terrorist supporter"". What Yossiea actually wrote is "I doubt he should be editing this since a terrorist who endorses terror has a COI... Calling a supporter of Hezbollah a terrorist is not attacking an editor in violation of WP:AGF,... To not be able to call a terrorist a terrorist is, have we gone so far PC that the world is upside down?" RolandR (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Comment by Nableezy[edit]@Rhoark: I am afraid you seriously misunderstand several things. First off, the userbox makes no mention of any group, or even Israel's occupation, and regardless of that, the right to violently resist aggression and foreign occupation is kind of codified in international law. There is no advocacy for violence, its rather a criticism of the inconsistencies in Wikipedia's process for dealing with certain unpopular views. But besides all that, why exactly would it be necessary to question the motives of somebody if they were a supporter of Hezbollah? Are only Zionists permitted to edit articles on Israel? Yossiea said, and thanks Roland for the quote I hadnt seen that, I doubt he should be editing this since a terrorist who endorses terror has a COI. Are people really so close minded to not see that there are multiple viewpoints that exist on such topics as the Arab-Israeli conflict? Or is the argument that only one side of that discussion should be allowed to edit articles on that topic? That is not the Wikipedia I remember. The userbox does not say I support Hezbollah, but even if it did that shouldnt matter. I shouldnt be insulted for such a view no more than I should be able to call a Zionist editor a war crime supporter or a war criminal (the latter being what was done here). People have different views than you, part of being a grown up is accepting that. As to the conflict at the article, no we both didnt have good points. Yossiea's position is backed by zero sources. Not a single serious source claims that Egypt occupies Gaza. That was what the lol no was a response to. Not a "reasonable argument". nableezy - 20:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Yossiea~enwiki[edit]Comment by uninvolved AnotherNewAccount[edit]No idea of all of the circumstances surrounding this, but I feel the need to stand up for Yossiea here. Honestly, if you've going to block or topic ban somebody for calling somebody a "terrorist" or such language, then frankly you'll have to block or topic ban half the editors in the topic area! It's a rough-and-tumble area, and sometimes debate does get heated, and I've seen far worse conduct by other users without any admin intervention whatsoever. An indef block or a topic ban is a gross over-reaction here, and I cannot support it - most users get away with merely a warning. By the way, Yossiea seems to have been a model editor until this unfortunate incident. And the condescending attitude shown towards him by Serialjoepsycho on his talk page is totally uncalled for. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Comment by uninvolved Rhoark[edit]This case as well as the case against Jaakobou directly below stem from a userbox displayed by nableezy. The box reads " Yossiea~enwiki and nableezy came into conflict over the question of whether Israel's involvement in the West Bank should be classified as an "occupation". Both had reasonable arguments, but nableezy's comment "lol no."[30] provoked Yossiea to personalize the dispute.[31] The accusation that nableezy is "not interested in the truth" is clearly projecting motives onto nableezy that aren't supportable by evidence. However, I would consider it entirely appropriate to interrogate nableezy's motives in editing about Israeli occupation given the polemical userbox statement referencing Israeli occupation. "Assume good faith" is not a suicide pact. Apparently more contentious than the original issue is Yossiea's use of the word "terrorist". While appealing the block on his talk page he several times referred to nableezy as a "terrorist sympathizer". Honestly, that should be uncontentious, given the statement on nableezy's user page explicitly endorsing violence by "individuals or groups". That leaves no room for excusing the support as applying merely to Hezbollah's political arm or formalized military actions. Once, in a long winding discussion, Yossiea made the lazy gloss of omitting the "sympathizer" part, making for an apparently inaccurate accusation that nableezy is himself a terrorist. That would be very simple to redact, and in no way justifies an indefinite block. The notion that Yossiea's continued defense of wholly defensible statements is grounds for extending the block is Kafkaesque. Yossiea's continuing use of the word "terrorist" is not a pattern of escalating disruption, but a foreseeable consequence of the misplaced scrutiny between the disputants in this matter. Rhoark (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Comment by Nishidani[edit]
Comment by My very best wishes[edit]While comments by Yossiea were obviously inappropriate, no one was actually offended including Nableezy, as follows from his comment. Yossiea looks to me as a well-intended long-term contributor who spent a lot of time fixing vandalism problems and making gnomish edits. However, he has poor knowledge of dispute resolution procedures, administrative noticeboards, and sanctions in APBPIA area, as follows from his clumsy attempt to submit an arbitration request, his ridiculous appeal here, and comments on their own talk page. Based on their latest comments, he is ready to make every effort to improve. If I were an admin, my suggestion would be to limit the sanctions by a few day block he already received and a warning at this time. I also think he should voluntarily avoid editing the page List of military occupations that brought him the trouble. P.S. I think his argument about Gaza Strip (that was not West Bank) was reasonable, given that Israel currently conducts a blockade of this area, which is different from straightforward military occupation. My very best wishes (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Yossiea~enwiki[edit]
Per the indef block, this is (slightly modified) what I wrote on Yossiea's talk page: I'm not going to defend Yossiea's behavior - it is combative and uncooperative and he seems to have no awareness that it is inappropriate. But the user in question has had a userbox on his user page since 2010 which complains that he can't have a pro-Hezbollah userbox, and regularly has used his userpage as a soapbox on related issues. I don't think Yossiea should be calling out that editor or any other editor based on their personal views, but I'm not sure an indef block is appropriate in this case. Gamaliel (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Proposal to redefine sanction[edit]I support the indef as an appropriate response to an egregious personal attack which he proceeded to defend as if it were justified. We would not be in the wrong for leaving the block in place, IMO. That being said, I think a reduced, clearly defined sanction would provide the project with the same protection, without an indef. I would support Callanecc's suggestion for an indefinite topic ban for ARBPIA articles and an AE block with the length reset for 10 days. This seems like a sufficiently strong enforcement action and one that would provide ample preventative measures. Jpgordon and any others, objections? Swarm ♠ 05:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Yossiea has posted a relevant message on his user talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 03:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
|
Onefortyone
[edit]| Onefortyone warned as an arbitration enforcement action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:38, 24 November 2015 (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 Onefortyone[edit]
This all comes from last 9 days. If we were to talk about his decade of editing, there have been many complaints and they can be pointed too. Excelse (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Callanecc, I recommend you to see my reply[84], and you can figure out the problem with his editing. It happens that a number of sources states otherwise or contrary to the established view and at the same time they are unreliable, self-published. Onefortyone fails to observe it, and that's why in his recent reply on here,[85] he pointed the removal of his gossip sources on other articles to be worrisome. Who use the sources like The Gossip Columnist? Only Onefortyone.[86] Furthermore, it was Laser brain[87] who reported to EdJohnston first. I don't think I am an WP:SPA, its just I got active on wikipedia after over a year and have contributed on different subjects,[88][89] its just I want to sort out this problem first. Excelse (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Onefortyone[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 Onefortyone[edit]As many diffs show (see, for instance, [94] [95] [96] [97]), Excelse and his supposed sockpuppets or meatpuppets (see [98] [99] [100]) are new users whose edits are nothing more than an attempt to remove well-sourced content from Elvis-related pages that is not in line with their personal opinion, but was part of these articles for many years. From time to time, some of these Elvis fans took me to arbitration, because I am not always singing the praise of the mega star, having a more balanced view of the singer. However, according to arbcom decision, my opponents in these cases were all banned from Elvis-related articles, as all of my contributions are well-sourced (see, for instance, this more recent list of sources here), and their massive removal of content was thought unjustified. Here is what the arbcom says: "Onefortyone's editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content. To a greater extent he allows the reader to draw their own conclusions." Therefore, Lochdale, one of my former opponents, who had shown "evidence of misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" and "has removed large blocks of sourced material from Elvis Presley," was "banned indefinitely from editing articles which concern Elvis Presley." See [101]. As Excelse says in one of his recent edit summaries, "Six years passed, only second self published forums cite these gossips other than this page" (see [102]), it could well be that he was deeply involved in the former edit wars and is one of these banned users, especially in view of the fact that in the past I had been more than once the victim of attacks by sockpuppets of Elvis fans. See [103]. So some warnings against Excelse may be necessary, as most of the sources I have used are mainstream biographies of Elvis, studies published by university presses and books written by eyewitnesses. See also this discussion or this one. Onefortyone (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC) What exactly has happened during the last weeks? There was an edit war between two editors. On the one hand, there is user Excelse removing paragraphs from Elvis-related articles without plausible justification simply because this content is not in line with his fan view of Elvis Presley. On the other hand, there is user Onefortyone reincluding this well-sourced content, which was part of the said articles for many years and was written by different editors. See, for instance, this massive removal of well-sourced content or this removal of content, which was written by at least three editors, namely DomiAllStates, ElvisFan1981 and Onefortyone in 2009 and 2011. Furthermore, in his statement below, administrator EdJohnston has raised the question "whether Onefortyone's zealous efforts to add certain material to Elvis-related articles crosses the line into disruption". Perhaps it is possible to explain which of my contributions have been disruptive. I have only reinstated well-sourced material that has been removed by Excelse and I have rewritten some paragraphs, adding additional sources. To my mind, Excelse's massive removal of well-sourced content, accompanied by false accusations, is disruptive. According to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, "some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions ... An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors." This exactly describes the behavior of Excelse. Administrator EdJohnston also claims that "Onefortyone does not seem to be eager for careful discussion of his proposals". My contributions on the talk pages say otherwise. See [104], [105], [106]. Onefortyone (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC) Other editors are also of the opinion that Excelse should not remove any reliable sources from Wikipedia articles. See [107]. Onefortyone (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC) As Excelse falsely accuses me of source falsification concerning Graceland and Biltmore Estate and falsely claims that Biltmore "is not regarded by any to be ... more visited than Graceland even if we take recent years or last 20 years", here are some further, and more recent, sources: According to the Memphis City Council Summary Sheet (2014), Graceland is "the third most visited residence in the United States, after the White House and the Biltmore Estate ..." See [108], [109]. "Graceland hosts 600,000 visitors annually, making it the third-most visited home in the U.S. behind the White House and Biltmore." See Memphis Daily News, VOL. 129, NO. 233, Monday, December 01, 2014. "Graceland is the third-most-visited home in the U.S., after the White House and the Biltmore in Asheville, North Carolina, according to Elvis Presley Enterprises, which manages the attraction." See [110]. Biltmore Estate "hosts almost one million visitors every year." See [111]. "The largest private home in the United States and a National Historic Landmark, the house welcomes approximately one million visitors each year." See [112]. "Biltmore Estate ... attracts nearly one million visitors a year." See Ellen Erwin Rickman, Images of America: Biltmore Estate (2005), p.130. "Graceland, the mansion estate of Elvis Presley, is one of the most frequently visited private homes in the country. In fact, the late King of Rock’s home places third only after the Biltmore Estate and the Whitehouse." See [113]. These sources have now been listed on the related discussion page. Concerning the critical remarks by Professor Goldman and other academics about the décor at Graceland, these remarks are part of a special section entitled "Critical voices about the décor". As the Wikipedia article on Graceland is not a fan site, such remarks are not "irrelevant" but necessary for reasons of balance. They should not be removed, especially in view of the fact that these are opinions by academics. Interestingly, in his statements above, Excelse is not referring to the diffs including the entire discussions. Compare, for instance, this diff given by him and this diff including the entire discussion, which is certainly supporting my view. Another example is this diff given by Excelse, which omits the entire discussion here. As every unbiased reader will agree, most accusations by Excelse are untenable and can be disproved by evidence, i.e. the many reliable sources I have cited. Query: did Excelse improve the content of the articles in question? No, he didn't. He has only made false claims and removed large blocks of well-sourced content, as his short contribution history shows. Onefortyone (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC) There is now the false accusation by Excelse that my well-sourced contributions are "original research" and most of the sources I have used are "self-published gossip sources". In fact, many of these sources are mainstream biographies of Elvis and studies published by peer-reviewed university presses. Furthermore, after I had provided additional sources, user Laiser brain says on one of the discussion pages, "I think we're making headway here. ... I like "Mainstream biographers are of the opinion" because that's precise and it doesn't suggest that the biographers are medical experts." See [114]. Therefore, Excelse is wrong in claiming that the "whole discussion was entirely unfavorable" to me. Indeed, what is written in the biographical studies I have cited is also supported by several medical observers. See [115]. It seems that Excelse does not like what these sources say. Onefortyone (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC) I must admit that I do not understand the following statement by EdJohnson below: "So Onefortyone has decided that he is personally in charge of rectifying the situation and did not wait to achieve talk page consensus before re-adding his material." To my mind, exactly the opposite is the case. It is true that two weeks ago or so, I have added an additional source to the article on Graceland. See [116]. After that date I didn't contribute to that article. Instead, in order to show good faith, I have now started a discussion on the talk page concerning my sources. See [117]. As for the other Elvis-related articles in question, the material removed by Excelse has not yet been re-added, though I am of the opinion that this massive removal of well-sourced content accompanied by false claims in the edit summaries and without leaving explanations on the talk pages is not O.K. See [118], [119], [120]. It is a mystery to me why the many false claims by Excelse, which can be disproved by the evidence to be found in the many reliable sources I have cited, have not yet been discussed on this talk page. Onefortyone (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC) The fact that two other SPAs have recently appeared on Wikipedia, who removed exactly the same paragraphs from Elvis-related articles as Excelse repeatedly did (see [121], [122]), supports the view that Excelse may be a single-purpose account. This strongly reminds me of another user who was edit warring with me and then reported me for alleged probation violations at arbitration enforcement some years ago. However, the sockpuppets of this user were all banned. Onefortyone (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC) Excelse continues to make false claims. He says, "he just can't accept consensus and go along with it." However, there was no consensus against me, as this discussion shows. Excelse further claims that the "medical examiner" quotes I have given "were refuted already at WP:RSN". This is an obvious lie, as Dr Warlick's opinion cannot have been refuted as it was not cited there. In fact, user Laser brain only thought that Peter Guralnick, who cites the opinion of the medical examiners, might have been misinterpreted. Concerning my sources, Laser brain has also stated, "I have found the quotations in the sources given without a problem. ... The real question is whether the sources are reliable (probably yes) and whether they're being used appropriately (likely not)". Later in the discussion, Laser brain adds, "I think we're making headway here. ... I like 'Mainstream biographers are of the opinion' because that's precise and it doesn't suggest that the biographers are medical experts." On the talk page I have now added the opinion of Dr Warlick, who was present at the autopsy. He supports the view that Elvis died on the toilet, as the mainstream biographers say. Such a medical source was requested by Laser brain and I have provided it. Excelse seems to be the only user who questions the reliability of these sources, calling my edits disruptive. Onefortyone (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC) Furthermore, what makes me suspicious is that for a relatively new user with less than 100 edits, Excelse is all too well-versed with specific Wikipedia terminology such as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT; WP:GAMING; WP:POINT; WP:RSN; WP:FORUM; WP:CHERRYPICK; WP:BLUDGEONING, etc. (see his statements above), as would only have been expected from a user who in the past was deeply involved in similar edit wars and arbcom cases. So a reappearance of one of my former opponents should not be ruled out in his case, especially in view of the fact that he has only removed content from Elvis-related pages - content similar to those paragraphs that were repeatedly removed by my former opponents who were later banned from Elvis-related topics by arbcom decision. Onefortyone (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC) I'll try to avoid edit warring and personal attacks, though it is not easy to keep calm if massive content has been blindly removed from the article pages, only accompanied by false claims in the edit summaries. As you can see, in order to show good faith, I have now started intensive discussions on the talk pages. See [123], [124]. However, this seems to be a waste of time, as Excelse is still unwilling to accept my sources, and he continues to remove content that is not in line with his personal view from the article pages (see [125]). So a warning against this user should also be considered. Isn't there an arbitrator who can help solving the content dispute from a neutral point of view? Onefortyone (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Checkuser has now shown that Excelse and Related0977 are confirmed sockpuppets (see [126]), although Excelse has explicitly claimed that they are different users (see [127]). It is likely that he has also used this IP in order to remove content and to avoid the 3RR. So he may indeed be one of my former opponents who was banned by arbcom some years ago, and with reporting me for alleged probation violations he seems to be the person who is gaming the system here. In view of this fact the well-sourced content recently removed by Excelse and his sockpuppets from Elvis-related pages, which was part of the said articles for many years, should be reincluded as fast as possible by the administrators. Onefortyone (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by Gwen Gale[edit]Please be aware that there is a ten-year background of sockpuppets edit warring off-and-on with Onefortyone in this topic area. See also this from 2007. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Onefortyone[edit]
|