Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive67
Forsts23
[edit]| First topic-banned, then blocked as a sock. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Forsts23[edit]
[5] warning by Stifle (talk · contribs)
Directly after his block expired he went back to Mitanni (where he'd been blocked for edit-warring) with [7] and [8] (which also so far as I can tell, completely fail WP:EL}. Dougweller (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Forsts23[edit]Statement by Forsts23[edit]Comments by others about the request concerning Forsts23[edit]The edits which Forsts23 has been reverting have been primarily mine. What particularly concerns me about his behavior is that six days before I actually began editing Mitanni, I warned him here[10] that the text in question was cited with what is clearly not a reliable source. It seems Forsts could not find any time in six days to even glance at WP:RS, but somehow manages to revert any edits he doesn't like within minutes. If Forsts wishes to use reverts as a substitute for discussion, clearly he needs a revert probation. Thanatosimii (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Forsts23[edit]
This a copy and paste of the account's last 20 edits:
Clearly there is a serious problem here, so an editing restriction, such as a 1RR/week, or a temporary topic ban, could be appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by JRHammond
[edit]| Appeal declined. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by JRHammond[edit]The situation is simple, and grossly mischaracterized by WGFinley, who has previously blocked me on similarly spurious pretexts (you will observe the fact that I successfully had that block reversed because of its spurious nature).[13] A section of the Six Day War article stated that the French version of UN resolution 242 is not authoritative, that only the English version of the text is legally valid. This is false. So I corrected the article to note that the French version is equally authoritative as the English. I provided a source, to the deliberations on 242 just prior to its passage by the UN Security Council, in which the French delegate observes this fact, that the French version is equally authoritative. I also began a new section on the talk page to address this issue and provide an extensive explanation for my edit, contrary to WGFinley's suggestion that I've refused to try to work with others to build consensus on the Talk page.[14] Following that, somebody reverted that edit with the reason provided in the edit summary being that this source was not good enough to demonstrate that the French text is legally authoritative. I again returned to the Talk page, observed that no source was provided for the (false) assertion that the French text was not authoritative, and that thus a double-standard was being applied.[15] Nevertheless, I did not simply revert the revert to restore my previous fix. Rather, I made an enormous effort to find authoritative sources to satisfy the stated objection to my edit.[16] Having done so, I again corrected the unsourced and false assertion to the contrary, this time, to satisfy the objection, including those additional sources. [17] An anonymous editor (IP only) then reverted my fix, with the edit summary stating "revert 1RR violation".[18] (1) I did not "revert" my edit. I took the objection to my original edit into consideration and provided numerous additional sources. (2) A non-admin has no legitimate authority to revert my fix under the guise of enforcing Wikipedia policy. That is not a legitimate reason to revert my fix, or a legitimate objection based on the merit/demerit of the edit itself. (3) No further discussion was made by this editor on the talk page, despite my creation of a new discussion extensively explaining my edit and offering sources. There was no explanation made for this revert on Talk, and no objection raised, such as with regard to my additional sources. Given these facts, it seemed reasonable to me to re-implement my fix, in order to correct a factual error and thus to improve the article, and I did so.[19] WP:3RR clearly states that "Considerable leeway is given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page." The spirit of that principle must clearly also apply to enforcement of the 1RR rule in effect on the Six Day War article, and I explicitly made this point to WGFinley prior to this whole episode, when I agreed with his interpretation of how 1RR should be enforced. WGFinley did not object to the principle that what is important to enforce is the spirit and not the letter of the policy, that leeway should be granted to editors who make good faith edits to improve the article.[20] Yet WGFinley did NOT take into consideration, even in the least bit, the actual merits/demerits of my edit, when he blocked me, as demonstrated by the fact that he reverted my fix back to the version that contains a false and unsourced statement.[21] It comes down to a simple question: Which edit was more appropriate and helped to improve the article? Whose actions here demonstrate a good faith effort to have this article read fairly and accurately?: (a) My edit: "However, the definite article is included in the French text of the resolution ("des territoires occupés"), which is equally authoritative as the English text." Fully footnoted with numerous authoritative sources.[22] or b) WGFinley's revert of my edit back to: "The word the is present in other (notably French, Spanish and Russian) versions, but according to international law, the authoritative version of a document is the one which uses the language used in the drafting of the document, which in this case was English." Not only completely unsourced, but demonstrably false. [23] My good faith efforts speak for themselves, as do my legitimate and reasonable edits. Addendum Per JRHammond's Talk Page[edit]I don't have a voice elsewhere, as I'm currently blocked, but I would observe that WGFinley is violating his own rule and reverting an edit multiple times: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Six-Day_War&diff=379326420&oldid=379314087 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Six-Day_War&diff=379402012&oldid=379397740 He's indicated he are reverting because people are violating 1RR. The purpose of the rules is to create a civil and productive environment in which editors can work on improving articles. WGFinley is enforcing rules for enforcing rules sake, with total disregard for the spirit of those rules and the merits of edits being made. This is more counterproductive than helpful. He is undoing an edit that improves the article by stating a fact that is well sourced to definitive authoritative sources in favor of an edit that consists of an unsourced claim that is demonstrably false. The merit of an edit must be taken into account. 1RR must follow the basic policy of 3RR, which clearly states that editors who revert to maintain the quality of an article will be given leeway. Furthermore, it states explicitly that reverting unsourced material does not count as a violation of the rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3rr#The_three-revert_rule The 3RR policy on giving leeway to editors who maintain or improve the quality of an article states this with regard to featured article. But the principle applies to all articles. WP:IAR states: “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IAR The 3RR policy exception with reverting unsourced material is with regard to biographical material, but, again, the principle applies to all material. According to WP:BLP: “All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons But does not only apply to biographical information. “Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information”. “It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.” This is “particularly true of negative information about living persons”, but “is true of all information”. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html If anyone thinks that it is somehow helpful towards the goal of maintaining or improving the quality of articles to revert an edit inserting a well-sourced factual statement back to an unsourced demonstrably false statement, I would welcome an explanation of how that could be possible, because I come to the opposite conclusion. JRHammond (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC) User:Sandstein stated: JRHammond's appeal addresses only the circumstances that led to the ban, but these do not matter here: since he appeals the block, not the ban, the only proper subject of discussion is whether the ban was indeed violated and that violation properly sanctioned. This is a fallacious argument. It follows that if the ban was wrongful and illegitimate, and therefore null and void, then therefore so was the block that followed, and thus no violation occurred. JRHammond (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Further Addendum Per JRHammond's Talk Page[edit]User:RomaC posted: Mbz1 has made an attempt at possibly outing an editor, perhaps that should be dealt with. User:Mbz1 responded: The so called "outing comment" was copied from the user's talk page. It has been present there for quite some time. So there was absolutely no outing here... It's true that Mbz1 copied it from my talk page. What he neglected to mention is that he copied HIS OWN COMMENTS.[24] User:WGFinley argues that: This action has nothing to do with the merits of the material. But as I outlined above, it has everything to do with the merits of the edit. The whole purpose and intent of Wikipedia rules and guidelines is to further goal of maintaining and improving articles. To say that the merits of the edit "has nothing to do with" it is to enforce the letter of the law in clear disregard for and contrary to its spirit, purpose, and intent. As outlined above, Wikipedia policy demands that the merit of an edit be taken into account. Those arguing otherwise dismiss the entire purpose of the rules they feign to be "enforcing". Again, it comes down to a simple question: Which edit was more appropriate and helped to improve the article? Whose actions here demonstrate a good faith effort to have this article read fairly and accurately? Whose edit is in violation of the spirit, purpose and intent of all Wikipedia policy?: (a) My edit: "However, the definite article is included in the French text of the resolution ("des territoires occupés"), which is equally authoritative as the English text." Fully footnoted with numerous authoritative sources.[25] or b) WGFinley's revert of my edit back to: "The word the is present in other (notably French, Spanish and Russian) versions, but according to international law, the authoritative version of a document is the one which uses the language used in the drafting of the document, which in this case was English." Not only completely unsourced, but demonstrably false.[26] The answer is self-evident. JRHammond (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC) User:Sandstein stated: JRHammond's appeal addresses only the circumstances that led to the ban, but these do not matter here: since he appeals the block, not the ban, the only proper subject of discussion is whether the ban was indeed violated and that violation properly sanctioned. This is a fallacious argument. It follows that if the ban was wrongful and illegitimate, and therefore null and void, then therefore so was the block that followed, and thus no violation occurred. JRHammond (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
(1) Not a single admin has substantively addressed my argument for overturning the block. Not one. (2) Two of the users arguing for the validity of the block are not uninvolved. User:WGFinley has demonstrated a lack of good faith in previously blocking me on a spurious pretext and violating WP:OUTING by posting information personally identifying me. User:Mbz1 is heavily involved in editing the Six Day War article and any one of you can go and see that he has strongly disagreed with a number of my edits/suggestions, and thus he has an ulterior motive in seeing me remain blocked. His lack of good faith is also demonstrated with his own violation of WP:OUTING in posting information personally identifying me (as User:RomaC rightly observed). (3) User:tariqabjotu suggested my appeal should be denied on the basis of his argument that the merits/demerits of an edit are irrelevant. That is a fallacy, as I've already outlined. The whole purpose and intent of Wikipedia guidelines is to help maintain and improve articles. Therefore the question of whether my edit improved the article or not is absolutely relevant. Enforcing "rules" for enforcement's sake, with clear disregard for and contrary to the purpose and intent of those rules is a blatant abuse of admin authority that is counterproductive. (4) User:Sandstein suggested my appeal should be denied on the basis that the circumstances leading to the "ban" are irrelevant. As I've already pointed out, that is a fallacy. Again, it follows that if the ban was wrongful and illegitmate, and therefore null and void, then therefore so was the block that followed. Thus, no violation occurred. Again, not one admin has substantively addressed this valid point. (5) The rest of the users participating have not taken up the position you attribute to them in suggesting a "consensus" has been achieved. User:Nandesuka did not take up a position, but merely observed that two of my edits were substantially the same. He did not substantively address even a single point in my argument for overturning the block. User:PhilKnight didn't post anything relevant to my appeal, and didn't take up or even suggest an opinion one way or the other. User:Unomi asked "Can someone point me to where this particular edit was argued against? I can only seem to find the arguments for inclusion." Yet received no reply. This goes to the heart of the issue, with regard to the invalidity of and prejudicial nature of the ban, implemented by User:WGFinley wrongfully and on the basis of false characterizations, such as that I've refused to engage other editors on the talk page, which is an outright lie (as any of you can see for yourselves; see above). I request that UNINVOLVED admins capable of non-prejudicial judgment SUBSTANTIVELY address my argument and reply to my points. If I've made any error in fact or logic in my argument for overturning the block, kindly point out where. Admins will find you're unable to do so. My facts are correct. My logic is undeniable. This goes to the heart of the very intent and purpose of Wikipedia policies. If policies are enforced in a manner that violates the purpose and spirit with which they exist, clearly this is an abuse of authority and counterproductive. My appeal should be accepted on that basis. JRHammond (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Statement by WGFinley[edit]I will be brief because the facts here are clear. I will be happy to provide further detail if needed. I feel brevity is needed for a talk page that went over 330k for just a few days and makes diffs take very long to load.
As you can see this editor makes multiple attempts to bring admins into the debate on the merits of his material, I have consistently refused and remained uninvolved in this article. This action has nothing to do with the merits of the material. There's no consensus for the changes he wanted to make, he has shown he will ignore restrictions to continue to put material in that is disputed and I had no choice left but to block him. --WGFinley (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Statement by Mbz1[edit]The user was notified that he was made the subject of 48 hours ban for the article. Versus appealing the ban the user violated it. As I was told the bans are in effect until expired or successfully appealed. The diff I linked to above was a clear cut violation of the current and still in effect ban. The appeal should be declined. On a side note: the user is a single article account, who has been pushing his POV ever since he came to Wikipedia. IMO the user's topic ban for Six Days War should be extended to indefinite, and lifted, when the user proves he could make positive contributions in other topics. --Mbz1 (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Unomi[edit]Can someone point me to where this particular edit was argued against? I can only seem to find the arguments for inclusion. Unomi (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment There have been no arguments presented against the proposed edit since the 15th - and what seems to be ample evidence against the relevance / weight of the arguments presented at that time. Could someone please point to how this can get resolved? Unomi (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by JRHammond[edit]
Result of the appeal by JRHammond[edit]
Looks like the discussion has died. Barring objections from uninvolved admins, I'm going to call this appeal declined. There's no "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" to overturn the block; if anything, the consensus is to the contrary. Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
|
| No action v. NMMNG, action v. JJG rescinded, all involved parties are admonished to abide by WP:CANVASS or risk further discretionary sanctions. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning No More Mr Nice Guy and Jiujitsuguy[edit]
Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ARBPIA, Discretionary sanctions, [40]
On 16th August I removed synagogues in the Palestinian territories and in Syria from the Oldest synagogues in Israel article, since these two synagogues weren't in Israel:[41] The day after on the 17th, No More Mr Nice Guy shows up and re ads these synagogues in the Palestinian territories and in Syria to the article:[42]and then says at the talkpage that ""Israel" in this context doesn't necessarily mean the modern state of Israel".... "Perhaps a name change for the article is in order" Now this looks like a normal content dispute, and that's also what I thought until a very interesting blog was revealed to me yesterday. In that blog several of my edits are brought up. In one of the posts at this blog, the blogger reveals that he is a Wikipedia user and also says: "So, I have started this blog to publish the often hidden problems of the world’s free online encyclopedia. I plan to work with other Wiki editors on this site, and we must be totally anonymous in order to keep our accounts on the site." I looked around at this "blog" and I noticed that in one of the posts published 1 day before No More Mr Nice Guy performed his edit, the blogger said about my Wikipedia edit: "The editor removed two synagogues, the one at Gamla and the one at Qumran" .... "when these ancient synagogues were built, both Qumran and Gamla were part of an the ancient Kingdom of Israel".... "It is probably best resolved by renaming the section" This edit that the blogger advocates, and his suggestion for a rename, and his argument for what "Israel" means in this context, is the exact same edit that one day after the blog post was posted, No More Mr Nice Guy showed up and performed at that article and also suggested a rename at the talkpage and used similar argument for the meaning of "Israel" in this context. Another user, Jiujitsuguy, also showed up to the article one day after the blog post: [43][44]
Topic ban.
Discussion concerning No More Mr Nice Guy and Jiujitsuguy[edit]Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy and Jiujitsuguy[edit]Not sure what I'm being accused of here. He removed relevant sourced (from two different RS) material. I restored it and discussed the issue on the talk page.
So if I understand the accusation correctly, a blog created in August 2010 recruited me in December 2008 for the purpose of editing in a particular way? Either that or I run that blog? I deny both accusations. Both are completely without basis. I think someone should have a talk with SD (at the very least) about what kind of evidence should be brought forth when reporting other editors. Again, this is not the first time he has filed such a frivolous report. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning No More Mr Nice Guy and Jiujitsuguy[edit]
Nableezy says he has concrete evidence which unfortunately would out someone. Approaching Arbcom with a reference to the CAMERA case and an explanation that outing would be involved in the presentation of evidence is the way to go with that. --Peter cohen (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Question moved to ANI discussion. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Tariqabjotu, remember this: please don't expose or use people's off-wiki identities as evidence: people are free to express whatever views off-wiki; what's important is if/whether/how that effects on-wiki behavior . Nothing was exposed by the way, the link was taken from the user's talk page. What you've done to two editors you've blocked is not fair according to your own edit summary. You may tell me that it is different because they discuss wikipedia. Then what about that site? Few dozens of wikipedia administrators are posting stuff about wikipedia. Are you going to block all of the them or only half of them?--Broccoli (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning No More Mr Nice Guy and Jiujitsuguy[edit]
Tariqabjotu, I have now 100% evidence that links wikibias to a wikipedia user. Its personal information. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I think closer review of the CAMERA Decision is in order here and possibly something we want to have more discussion on. The CAMERA decision found that merely being a member of a canvassing group was not an infranction, it was actions taken on WP in concert with canvassing that was. It seems we may have an incoming wave: The New York Times, YouTube, and The Guardian and Haaretz. The current media attention could bring a wave of such related editing to Wikipedia and admins who have the thick skin and supply of aspirin to handle ARBPIA duties are already few and far between. The CAMERA decision also had guidance on the handling of potential WP:OUTING material, it was to be turned over to Arbcom. I'm not saying I have any problem with what Tariq did in this case I think it was an entirely proper action for the time being, I think we just may need further discussion and possible request for amendment or review by Arbcom. --WGFinley (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Tariq has lifted the blocks, I am going to close this up but I will be putting together an Arbcom filling for this case. Both editors are admonished to mind WP:CANVASSING and govern themselves accordingly. Failure to do so could result in discretionary sanctions, in this case I think an ARBPIA topic ban would be in order until the case could be heard by Arbcom (should it be accepted). --WGFinley (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC) |
Brews Ohare
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
ResolvedAttention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Brews ohare
[edit]- User requesting enforcement
- Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
"Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months. Passed 9 to 0 on 16:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)"
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive633#Peremptory archiving of particular threads on Talk page Talk:Matter, i.e. starting a physics-related discussion at ANI. See comment for a more detailed explanation.
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
Not applicable. Brews was topic banned yesterday, and he was notified of it. He's also an ARBCOM regular by now, so this'll be nothing new for him.
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
Block, and hopefully for a long while, per topic ban.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Brews was topic banned for his talk page behaviour at Talk:Speed of light and others physics pages (such as Talk:Matter). After his ban, I archived a plethora of thread started by Brews, or about Brews which distracted from improving the article. (See here for the reasoning behind this).
Brews then opens a debate about Talk:Matter at ANI, by which he hopes that his viewpoints will be recognized and so on (see comments such as "These threads include a number of unresolved issues regarding the article Matter, which in my opinion, deserve to remain on the Talk page and which point out some desirable changes that should be made on that page"). This is a clear violation of his topic ban, which kicked in just yesterday. SarekOfVulcan closed the ANI as "resolved", saying Brews was banned and that archiving was a good thing. Then Brews goes on about how it's "not resolved", than rants against high-handed abuse yet again. How much wikilawyering and attempts at dodging his ban through forum shopping do we have to tolerate from Brews before enough is enough? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.
Discussion concerning Brews Ohare
[edit]Statement by Brews Ohare
[edit]This motion is nonsense. My objection on AN/I was not an attempt to promulgate my views on any subject. It's object, clearly stated there, was to object to Headbomb's high-handed actions in archiving selected sections of Talk:Matter prematurely. Obviously, protesting Headbomb's high-handed actions is not advancing physics, it is objecting to high-handedness.
The present action by Headbomb is still further evidence of a concerted campaign by this editor to make life difficult for me, regardless of any and all other considerations. Brews ohare (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Response to arbitrators: To say that objection to high-handed tactics is in itself : “technically an infringement”, “no doubt a violation” and “an unambiguous violation of the topic ban” : is, excuse me, a ludicrous failure to make the obvious distinction between what was done and what it was done to. My AN/I complaint about Headbomb's archiving actions is not a topic-related activity, it is a complaint about Headbomb.
Contrary to some misconceptions here, the threads archived by Headbomb were created before the ban against me, I did not contribute to them in any way at all after the ban was imposed, and Headbomb archived these threads after the ban. My AN/I action was not about the content of the threads, it was about Headbomb's burying them.
What I have learned, not just from the above blunders of ArbCom over rudimentary distinctions, but from all ArbCom activity that I have experienced, is to stay as far away from ArbCom as possible, under any and every circumstance, no matter how ridiculous, annoying or demeaning that may seem, and no matter what the true merits of any argument might be. The maxim is: No matter what, stay away. I hope you folks find that resolution of mine quite satisfactory. If I can do anything about it, you will never see me again.
Of course, frivolous actions by Headbomb, like this one, drag me before you. Such forced appearances are beyond my control, but could be prevented by telling Headbomb to lay off, to devote himself to protection of WP from actual harm, to stop indulging his penchant for courtroom entertainment, and to renew his vows: "This above all, to do no harm to WP".
Please don't be offended by my desire to shun you all at every opportunity; some kind of administrative activity is necessary and you have chosen to do it. I'd rather contribute to the encyclopedia, and keep away from administration and administrators. Brews ohare (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Response to Slp1: You say “Your AN/I complaint was indeed a topic-related activity, as your own post (stating that there were issues in the archived threads that you felt still needed discussion) makes clear.” What you are saying is that the request that a Talk page be restored to its condition before the ban was enacted is somehow a prosecution of a topic-related activity. It isn't. It is a request that an arbitrary action be reverted. It is no different than a request to do the same thing on a page about apple cobblers. When a sanction is interpreted in a manner that defies common sense, it will lead to difficulties. Brews ohare (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
You might ask yourself what is the possible purpose of a topic ban. I'd say it is a topic ban because it is judged that the particular subject area is one that I have trouble with, and my thinking about physics-related topics is somehow screwed up. It is not a judgment that I cannot tell when I am being knocked about for the sake of it. And it is not a judgment call that when Headbomb brings me here for protesting his action, that is a topic-related matter: it isn't; it's a Headbomb-related matter, about Headbomb's actions. Regardless of Headbomb's opinion of it, my AN/I action was subject-matter independent, and not a violation of the topic ban against me. Brews ohare (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Summary: Under the circumstances, I find that ArbCom will rule a violation if the word "physics" shows up in anything I say, regardless if any actual content about physics is there. So, were I to say "For 50 years I have studied physics and have a Ph D in theoretical solid-state physics from one of the best physics departments in Canada and have published numerous physics articles in Physical Review" that would be a really tremendous violation of my topic ban. Got it. More than that, if I say Headbomb has reverted some text, and if that text has in it a statement like "the constant π is used in mathematics and physics" then reference to this reversion is a violation of the physics topic ban. And this entire paragraph contains the word "physics" several times, and so it is in itself a violation of the physics topic ban. Right? Got it. Brews ohare (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Reply to EdJohnston: What exactly is the offense? Is it that page Talk:Matter was off limits, so appealing Headbomb's actions that affected that page also were off limits? And what advice, exactly, have I disagreed with? Please repeat it for me so that I know what you are talking about. Brews ohare (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
What is this hearing about? I thought the issue before us was that Headbomb says my appeal of his actions was a transgression of my topic ban. I don't think so. My idea was that appealing an action was appealing an action, not an engagement in a topic-related activity. Apparently you all think differently. Why? I have asked point blank if the basis for your seeing my appeal as a transgression is this: that page Talk:Matter was off limits, so my appealing Headbomb's actions in archiving portions of that page also was off limits. In other words, it isn't the impropriety of Headbomb's action that matters, it is the venue where he did it that matters. I cannot appeal impropriety per se. No-one has replied to this question directly. Brews ohare (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Baffled: I am being given a "pass" this one time and warned not to do "it" again. No-one has explained the rules better, or just what the infraction is. Apparently "it" is so obvious no-one can believe I don't understand "it". However, my question above is not disingenuous; I'd like an answer. I'd like to know what "it" is that I am to avoid in the future. An explanation of the charge would help to avoid "it" in the future, eh? Brews ohare (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you understand a bit of confusion to find that using the appeal system to try to correct an action can result not only in denial of the appeal, but in a further tribunal that use of the appeal system is in itself a heinous offense? In other words, don't try to appeal, because appeal is a crime in some cases; you won't know which ones until it happens, and even then you won't be told why your particular appeal is one that will lead to retribution. Brews ohare (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
BTW, this action is brought under the remedy cited by Headbomb: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light#Motions, Motion 6; If there is in your minds a different basis for your ruling (and I can't think of one) Headbomb's action should be denied and he can be invited to do this all over again under the correct remedy. In particular, there is no remedy in force that restricts me from taking an action to AN/I. Brews ohare (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment by JohnBlackburne
[edit]As Headbomb stated in his post if anyone wants to continue the discussions at Talk:Matter they can simply start a new thread on the topic they wish to discuss. Brews ohare cannot as he has been banned from physics discussions, and so from the page. The correct way for him to deal with this is either accept the ban or appeal it via arbitration appeal, not raise discussions at Talk:Matter on another page, clearly breaking the terms of his ban even after being reminded of it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- On watchlists
In reply to Count Iblis if Brews or anyone wants to temporarily suspend part of their watch list they could view it as raw text, copy it to a text file or a part of their user space, then remove the parts they don't want to see while otherwise engaged. At the end of this time restore the removed entries from the copy made, merging any new ones and removing duplicates. No need to create another account, which anyway might be interpreted badly if done by a recently banned user.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
And now I take exception to this where under the edit summary Links to recent persecution it says "Blackburne files trumped up charge" (with a diff to one of his own edits not mine). Users in general have a lot more freedom in editing their own user pages, but I think this goes too far.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Brews Ohare
[edit]Rubbish. The self-appointed physics coordinator is trying to get a real physicist banned. It is not going to improve encyclopedic accuracy or reputation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Hell in a Bucket
[edit]This seems to be frivolous. I'm not seeing how Brews violated his topic ban by bringing a archiving issue to ani. I think it's fairly obvious that while brews has a vocal dedicated group that help him there is a equal group on the other side that does their best to dog him. I think that's a fair view and would urge that restrictions be placed on those that constantly dog on him. Hell if it makes them feel better reinstitute the crap on us too. There are times the committee has issued interaction bans and it only makes sense to do so fairly and on both sides. For the love of god though I swear this is really getting old. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Count Iblis
[edit]Without question, Brews should not use AN/I as a proxy to violate the physics topic ban, but I agree with Hell In A Bucket that Brews did not violate the topic ban by posting there. Of course, it is better to not start AN/I threads on a problem on a physics page, even if it isn't related to the topic matter.
In this case, we have to recognize that the topic ban was imposed in the midst of an ongoing discussion on the Matter talk page. Headbomb decided to archive the discussions and I can then fully understand that from Brews' POV that's provocative, because you then make the discussion effectively invisible for someone else who could visit that page later and would have weighed in. I also accept that there are good arguments for archiving the page. However, there wasn't much talk page activity going on apart from the discussions started by Brews, so I don't really see the urgency to do that.
I.m.o., this is really a non-issue, it certainly does not merit a block. To request one here with the comment: "...and hopefully for a long while", is unnecessarily provocative, i.m.o. Count Iblis (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Removing physics topics from watchlist
Slp1's suggestion looks good to me. If you don't want to remove all the items from your watchlist (e.g. because you do plan to come back eventually), then you could also create a new account, e.g. "Brews Ohare II" and then notify ArbCom that you have done this. You then log in using this new account as long as the topic ban is in force. Count Iblis (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Reply to Timotheus Canens about previous block
I remember that Brews had stopped editing physics related articles well in advance of the topic ban (there was a lengthy ArbCom case and he was only participating to that). This issue did not come up a that time. I do remember Brews getting an additional restriction for postings at AN/I and other such venues. But then that can give an impression to Brews now that a new explicit restriction like that needs to be issued. Anyway, i.m.o. this needs to be wrapped up asap because the longer one discusses this, the longer this stays In Brews' mind. Arguments, counter arguments and in case of a block, appeals to the block etc. etc. All that instead of Brews editing e.g. some math article and forgetting about all this. Count Iblis (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Dr.K.
[edit]I agree with Count Iblis's point that since the ban was imposed in the middle of a discussion on the Matter talkpage and Headbomb decided to archive the page, Brews may have found the circumstances surrounding these actions rather pointy. Given the past history of Headbomb and Brews it doesn't take much to ignite a mini drama which this is. I'd say Brews should stop reacting to Headbomb's actions, ill-advised or not, or those of any other of the usual actors and move on to a life beyond Physics and beyond his usual opponents. I still think that Brews has made many positive contributions to Physics, not least of which is his recent involvement in creating History of the metre due to raising points at the Speed of light talkpage. I therefore find the Physics-related restrictions imposed on him unnecessarily harsh because the creation of the "History of the metre" article shows that a rigorous debate involving Brews, even if lengthy or frustrating for some, may ultimately be good for Wikipedia. Meanwhile PhilKnight has offered a solution which is measured and wise. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Brews Ohare
[edit]- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
I agree with Count Iblis; while technically this is an infringement, a block isn't necessary. Obviously, Brews Ohare shouldn't violate the ban again, but beyond saying that, I don't believe any further action is required. PhilKnight (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- There is no doubt that this is a violation, contrary to several of people who commented above. Topic bans are generally interpreted liberally, to effectuate their purpose - i.e., a complete break from the topic area - and to prevent gaming. That said, I'll leave it to others to decide what is the appropriate sanction, if any, being undecided on that point myself. Timotheus Canens (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that this is an unambiguous violation of the topic ban "from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed." Brews needs to leave the whole area behind, and trust that for the next year other editors can and will be the ones to take up important matters concerning the articles, discussions, archiving, highhandedness etc. I'll also let others decide whether this should be an absolutely final warning or result in a block. Hearing from Brews that he now better understands the limits of the topic ban, might be helpful in making that determination. --Slp1 (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- His interpretation of the restriction as "No matter what, stay away" seems about right. PhilKnight (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Except that it seems to be more a mantra about keeping away from ArbCom, and that he still maintains that he hasn't violated the topic ban and it is all HeadBomb's fault that he is here. But I agree, that "No matter what, stay away" would be excellent guidance for him about the the meaning of the topic ban. --Slp1 (talk) 11:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- (ec)Response to Brews: I applaud your desire to try and keep away from arbitrators and administrators, but fear that you will be frustrated in your hope unless you accept that the topic ban is a complete and utter one. The only exceptions generally made are the removal of unambiguous vandalism or BLP violations. Your AN/I complaint was indeed a topic-related activity, as your own post (stating that there were issues in the archived threads that you felt still needed discussion) makes clear.[47]. You need to unwatchlist the physics pages and leave them for others to worry about. Find some non-physics topics to contribute to, do so peacefully and productively, and you never need be bothered by administrators again. --Slp1 (talk) 11:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- His interpretation of the restriction as "No matter what, stay away" seems about right. PhilKnight (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is far from unusual for a recently topic-banned editor to make the good faith error of assuming that various project or meta- discussions are not within the bounds of the ban. I have dealt with a number of very similar incidents in the past and have typically simply advised the editor that the matter is covered by the topic-ban, reverted any disallowed edits (if appropriate) and asked them not to repeat the mistake. I think this would be the best course of action here - with the implication that subsequent edits within the scope of the ban would draw a harsher response. CIreland (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't object to the concept of giving Brews one more chance. But his comments in his own section (above) give no hint that he will behave any differently in the future. If you want to give him a pass on this, why not make it contingent on a promise not to repeat the offence? His own comment section shows him disagreeing with every bit of advice anyone here has given him. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Brews thinks he has done nothing wrong. If admins disagree, they need to decide how they can convince him of this, if it turns out that this case closes with no sanction. His persistence results in many, many return appearances at the various admin venues. I am fine with making a deal about his future behavior, but he has not agreed to any deal. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- A warning says "Yes, you have done something wrong but we are assuming it was a good faith, naive error"; whether Brews ohare agrees is of limited relevance - topic-banned editors don't get to specify the scope of their ban. And whether or not Brews ohare promises not to repeat the offence is irrelevant - a subsequent violation should result in a block. There are no "deals" to made. CIreland (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I can accept that a warning is good enough were Brews a newly banned user - but he is subject to the exact same ban since October save for a two-month period between ~29 June and 22 August, so I fail to see how that argument applies to this particular case. Timotheus Canens (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- A warning says "Yes, you have done something wrong but we are assuming it was a good faith, naive error"; whether Brews ohare agrees is of limited relevance - topic-banned editors don't get to specify the scope of their ban. And whether or not Brews ohare promises not to repeat the offence is irrelevant - a subsequent violation should result in a block. There are no "deals" to made. CIreland (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that this is an unambiguous violation of the topic ban "from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed." Brews needs to leave the whole area behind, and trust that for the next year other editors can and will be the ones to take up important matters concerning the articles, discussions, archiving, highhandedness etc. I'll also let others decide whether this should be an absolutely final warning or result in a block. Hearing from Brews that he now better understands the limits of the topic ban, might be helpful in making that determination. --Slp1 (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Teeth would be a block, and while I agree that this was a violation, I see enough dissent on that point and enough dissent with its severity being worthwhile of enforcement to conclude that teeth are not appropriate here.
- Brews - This would be your one and only free pass while getting the scope and terms of the topic ban straight and clear to everyone. Please understand that you should not do this again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- This has dragged on long enough that I don't see the benefit of a block now, though I probably would have supported one ~36 hours ago. Nevertheless, Brews needs to be put on absolutely his final warning, and if this happens again, be confident a block will be sure, quick, and likely as long as the decision allows. Courcelles 08:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Closed with a warning. Every admin who commented believes that Brews' action violated his topic ban. The admins here did not reach a consensus to block, but several of them predict that the next similar violation will produce a block without further ado. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2010
- This has dragged on long enough that I don't see the benefit of a block now, though I probably would have supported one ~36 hours ago. Nevertheless, Brews needs to be put on absolutely his final warning, and if this happens again, be confident a block will be sure, quick, and likely as long as the decision allows. Courcelles 08:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Sjudɒnɪməs
[edit]| Blocked 24 hours. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Sjudɒnɪməs[edit]
Discussion concerning Sjudɒnɪməs[edit]Statement by Sjudɒnɪməs[edit]For the record, I am neither Irish nor Northern Irish, neither Catholic nor Protestant - in fact, Jewish. My interest in this article is purely one of putting the facts of the incident into WP. My edits to this article have been unbiased, for example introducing referenced statements that the PIRA has denied involvement in the attack, and issued an immediate statement to that effect. I also corrected an edit of mine to introduce the phrase "concluded" rather than "confirmed" with regard to the ombudsman's statement. I also added an external link to Bruce Anderson's excellent article explaining why the "collusion" of the agencies involved was necessary to prevent Civil War. I don't understand why listing the fatalities of the attack is verboten - many, many other articles contain exactly the same type of information - eg Virginia Tech massacre. As I have stated on my talk page, a three-bomb incident producing multiple fatalities is a complicated event, and many other articles - including those about The Troubles - contain just such a narrative list of events - eg Bloody Sunday. The deaths were not all caused in one place by one bomb, but in two places by two bombs. Explaining that seems only natural. Sjudɒnɪməs (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Sjudɒnɪməs[edit]Result concerning Sjudɒnɪməs[edit]
|
Iadrian yu
[edit]| Request struck out due to failure to fulfill conditions precedent to requests for sanctions. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Iadrian yu[edit]
[52] It is a rancorous and bully type of talk page editing at the article Miercurea-Ciuc. For having had a discordant opinion from that of him, Iadrian yu rebuked an Ip editor with such inflammatory remarks as "Please stop using Wikipedia as a forum to express your ultra-nationalistic opinions regarding Romanian lands." and "Please try to visit some forum Greater Hungary, I am sure that you can talk this kind of stuff there. " Then Iadrian yu deleted the sentences of the Ip user from the talk page as in his opinion, it was vandalism. Shortly after Rokarudi and I had tried to restore the deleted comment [53] [54] , according to WP:TALK, but Iadrian yu deleted it over and over again [55] [56] and left some reproving type of "warning" messages on both Rokarudi's talk page and that of mine afterwards. [57] [58]
It is a rancorous editing by trying to kindle animosity among Romanian and Hungarian wikipedians (see : edit summary): "is this just another attempt to promote some sort of greater Hungary"
[60] by myself.
[61] done
I want Iadrian you to receive a broadly defined topic ban on Hungarian related articles for indefinite time. Additional comments by editor filing complaint[edit]Usually I shun any interaction with Iadrian yu due to his bully type of demeanour, which is noxious for this project, otherwise, and I am not keen to have myself dragged into skirmishes.Nonethless, I have enough of him already and now I would like to enlight some grim facts about this user: Firstly, it is worth checking the block log: [62] Everything of his blocks was inflicted on him in connection with Hungarians. If you take a glance at the user page, you will find a map about Greater Romania with a caption of "Romania - the way it should be" there. For verification, please visit User:Iadrian yu 's user page and then click on the "About me" link where this map scrolls down.
The user keeps wikihounding Rokarudi and it was strikingly preceptible by even one another Romanian user, Dahn, who told him that "Iadrian, seriously, stop harassing Rokarudi: you are getting nowhere with this, at least part of your edits are way more controversial than his, and your claims about policies are desperately transparent."[63] It is also interesting to note that Rokarudi has been followed in the Wikimedia Commons too. [64] Then Iadrian yu gave a vote, in order for the "template Mureş County" to be deleted, which was made by Rokarudi, and during this vote, he told the following sentences: "Some Hungarian users like Rokarudi see Wikipedia as a battleground to express their irredentism feelings." , " I think that Rokarudi`s comment/vote proves again that for him Wikipedia is just a toll for expressing his irredentism feelings over this matter." [65] Also, this marvellous user filled a frivolous report on WP ANI under the title name of "User:Rokarudi_and_irredentism" , creating an abusive topic heading naming one another editor. [66] Further interestig reasons for reverting via edit summaries: [67] (see edit summary: "Use wikipedia to see irredentism. Please refrain yourself from this kind of edits and respect WP:ENC") [68] (see edit summary: "It is unofficial at the best. Please refrain from irredentism edits") [69] (see edit summary: "Irredentism is irredentism. This is an encyclopedia not something to express our opinions. - Vandalism") (see edit summary :"Transilvania we can`t mention facts? .Because Hungarian ultra-nationalists claim use Hungarian ultra-nationalists claim") [70] and so on Recently, I have solicited Iadrian to chuck up the sponge regarding his bout against "Hungarian revisionists" as such may entail an ArbCom report, to which he answered that "Your revert was inflammatory and inappropriate because you removed my comment but left the Vandal`s comment who practically screams for Greater Hungary- that is inappropriate behavior.", concerning the aforementioned edit of the Ip editor at Miercurea-Ciuc_talk_page.[71] [72] At this point, I think an ArbCom report is the best thing to do.--Nmate (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Statement by Iadrian yu[edit]I will enumerate my opinion regarding this artificially created problem by Nmate. Time line: first there was a Ip vandal at Miercurea Ciuc talk page where I and Rokarudi talked and conclude that talk pages are for improving the articles not for promoting various ideas. Then user:Nate appeared (wiki-hounding me, entering in conflict on purpose and creating this request) and delete my comments where I explained this IP user that what he is doing is inappropriate and asking him to come back with constructive edits[73]. Then I contacted Nmate, with a question why did he deleted my comment and on purpose left the vandals comment[74]. After that instead of providing reasonable arguments [75]for this action he responded with a threat filing this report. I deleted this "explanation" from my talk page, responded to him, on his talk page, advising him that he should listen to his own advices and to check his data before making this kind of actions/accusations[76]. Then he filed this "request" for my permanent ban. This only proves further that this user "holds a grudge" against me and that his report is made in bad faith:
I expect for this request to be rejected because of false representation and no facts/basis for such having in mind that it is filed by a user who was a colorful block log [78](if we are taking that into consideration) for personal attacks or harassment of other users: Ethnic slurs and incivility which I consider this request also, and also appear on an arbcom list for restrictions for previous ethnic based conflicts on Slovakian,Romanian,Serbian related articles and now is trying to add other users to this list of restrictions who disagree with him.Adrian (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Isn`t Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement page for enforcement of decisions already made? Not for filing a complain about something? I quote from this page: Enforcement requests against users may be brought if a user is likely to be acting in breach of the remedies in a closed arbitration case, or a passed temporary injunction (for open cases).Adrian (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Iadrian yu[edit]Result concerning Iadrian yu[edit]
|
Lida Vorig
[edit]Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Lida Vorig
[edit]- User requesting enforcement
- Grandmaster 19:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Lida Vorig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- [83] placed on 1RR by Nishkid64 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- block
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- Lida Vorig was placed on 1rv per week parole one year ago. He was absent in Wikipedia since September 2009, and returned in August 2010, and his contribs almost exclusively consist of edit warring on AA related pages, especially the article about 2010 Mardakert skirmish, where he repeatedly violated his 1rv per week restriction. Grandmaster 19:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [84]
Discussion concerning Lida Vorig
[edit]Statement by Lida Vorig
[edit]Oops, I totally forgot about the undo restriction. My bad, I'll stick to 1 revert from now on, I promise. Lida Vorig (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Lida Vorig
[edit]Lida Vorig was not revert warring alone, why is Grandmaster reporting him alone? Note that Grandmaster is saying that after a long period of activity Lida Vorig was back. But what Grandmaster is not saying is that after several Azeri users were banned from Russian Wikipedia because of a staged attack premedited and headed by Grandmaster, Azeri users who were innactive are back on English wikipedia continuing revert warring, other suspicious accounts being created after the ban. Check the users with whom Lida Vorig was edit warring with. BTW, I have been reporting Brandmeister at three occasions, and they were all archived without an admin reply. He had over a dozen of revert in a very shorp period of time in the same article and was previously topic banned. Do administrators endorse the AA2 rules based on whom is editing or what? Ionidasz (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Lida Vorig
[edit]- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- I've protected 2010 Mardakert skirmish for a week for edit warring. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Russavia
[edit]| Circus closed because of bad reviews, all clowns whacked. Stale as no admin is willing to take action. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Russavia[edit]
[85] Russavia reverted an edit by Biophys within hours (and the reason given for this revert was bogus, by the way). Russavia is under interaction ban (Biophys being "an editor from the EEML case"), and this revert most certainly not only violates it but is also a violation of WP:STALK. This is not an accident, neither is it a case of necessary dispute resolution, there was no dispute in the first place, Russavia had never edited the article or its talk page before this revert. Seriously, how many times should he be allowed to test the limits of the restriction?
N/A, officially warned as a party to the case and blocked before
Response to Russavia: Biophys is not topic banned from pre-Soviet Union Russia-related articles, as Shell Kinney, a co-drafter of the decision, made perfectly clear: [86]. Thus you were not reverting an edit made "by a topic banned editor in violation of their topic ban" (which you wouldn't be entitled to do anyway given your restriction). You are banned from interacting with Biophys, and you have violated this ban. That was a famous quote known to everybody even remotely familiar with the subject of the article, right from the very first of Chaadayev's Philosophical Letters, which predated the formation of the Soviet Union by nearly a century, there was absolutely no sound reason to summarily remove it. Now, as you effectively admit that you don't give a damn about the subject, and it is easily verifiable that you had never edited the article before, your revert (let alone the comments here) is a clear-cut attempt to make a point and a violation of the interaction ban. Oh, and there is absolutely no reason to prohibit me from reporting your violations. Reporting your violations is by itself not a violation of any existing rules or restrictions. There is no omertà on Wikipedia. Other than that, I don't fancy interacting with you and limit our communication to the bare minimum, such as mandatory notifications. Now, bottom line: Biophys peacefully edits within the limits of his topic ban, facing no objections from others, when Russavia jumps in to revert him in an egregious violation of his own interaction ban. When I report him for that, which is not prohibited by any rule or restriction, Igny and Russavia start attacking me. Very nice. Colchicum (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Wow. It has just occurred to me that the story Russavia tells us here is completely untrue unless he can travel in time. On 22 August, this edit appeared on my watch list. I took a peak because the edit summary caught my eye. The nature of the comment (and link) led me to glance over Biophys' contributions (which I had not done for 3-4 weeks previous in any great way), and that led to Pyotr Chaadayev leaping out in front me. The first edit Russavia is referring to was made at 14:49, seven hours after he reverted Biophys (7:56). Russavia, if you don't want to be reported, don't violate your interaction ban. Nobody but you is to blame for your name "being a permanent feature on this board". Colchicum (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC) No, Russavia, a direct revert is not just "editing the same articles", and you have made it very clear below that it wasn't an accident and that you targeted Biophys on purpose [87]. If a revert is not interaction, I don't know what is. Your comments on Biophys right here are also for the most part completely unnecessary for dispute resolution and thus fall under the ban. I can only repeat, if you don't wan't to be reported, don't violate your restrictions. It is a PA in itself to paint this report as harassment. Quite obviously I didn't make you violate your restriction, that was your free choice, so be a man and take responsibility. You may appeal your interaction ban to the Committee, though it looks highly unlikely to me that you will succeed given the pattern of your behavior, but for now the restriction is in effect and must be obeyed. I can show dozens of diffs where Colchicum continually engages in such behaviour – so go ahead. They are few in number, though, and many years and arbcoms old, unlike yours. Colchicum (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC) [88] So here we go again. Russavia, personal attacks won't help your cause. And this is how you were willing to collaborate, right. QED. Where is my revert on Vitaliy Mutko? this? Adding interwikis and a minor correction to a new article publicly announced on User:AlexNewArtBot/RussiaSearchResult now amounts to stalking you? Oh my... Sourcing and expanding the Sandoz chemical spill [89], another new article, where you were by far not the most interesting editor who had edited it? This is all rhetorical, of course. Get real. Certainly I won't accuse you of stalking me because of this edit, restoring a borderline hoax, or should I? Colchicum (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Russavia[edit]Response to accusation[edit]The accusation of stalking by Colchicum is, in my opinion given history, furtherance of battleground behaviour in this area by himself. As always, I will be upfront and open, whilst other try to paint an untrue picture. I have the talk pages of EEML-sanctioned editors (inc. Biophys) on my watch list. As it is possible that these editors will return to editing in this area, from time to time I make a point of having a quick glance over their contribs. I don't generally look into the specifics of the contribs unless they read like edit warring, but rather I observe their interactions on talk pages and other areas of the project, to see how they are interacting with other editors, and whether this area will see improvement upon their return. There is nothing wrong with this. I do not interject myself unnecessarily into any conversations, or otherwise engage them unnecessarily. On 22 August, this edit appeared on my watch list. I took a peak because the edit summary caught my eye. The nature of the comment (and link) led me to glance over Biophys' contributions (which I had not done for 3-4 weeks previous in any great way), and that led to Pyotr Chaadayev leaping out in front me. As editors are well aware, Biophys is currently under a topic ban as per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys#Biophys_topic_banned which states:
As we know from my own topic ban, and topic bans handed out at WP:EEML, in effect this means that Biophys is banned from editing articles relating to the Soviet Union, Russia, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, or any of the other former constituents of the USSR. It is a complete removal of Biophys from this area. Other topic banned editors chose political topics from outside Europe; I chose airline articles. Given that "All animals are equal (unless editors want to argue that "some animals are more equal than others"), this means a complete removal of Biophys from this topic area - he can go edit Pokemon or Sudanese rugby players, just nothing within this area which it is deemed he has been disruptive. As someone who has been involved in the dispute resolution of all these EEMLer's topic bans, inc. my own, surely Biophys is not able to plead ignorance. As Biophys is a topic banned editor making edits within the ban area, I would have been within my discretion as an editor with no article editing restrictions to do a wholesale revert. But instead, I made this edit. Note it is not a pure revert, but the removal of an unreferenced quote, which as mentioned in my edit summary, it's purpose in the article is not clear - formatting changes are kept. For clear reference, this is what was removed:
It needs to be noted that Chaadayev is a controversial figure, as were some of his views. This is another flag that Biophys should not be editing that article. After Colchicum posted this AE report, Biophys posted this on the talk page. Yes, the quote is from a book by Satter, who as we all know is one of those fantastic authors who is nothing but critical of Putin. In fact, his book Age of Delirium: the Decline and Fall of the Soviet Union opens with what was removed by myself. This is not Wikiquote. What exactly does the quote say, what is the context of what Chaadayev originally said, and what academic opinion does Satter put forward about this quote. And why was this one quote inserted (unreferenced mind you)? He surely said many things over his time, but why was this given prominence. That question as it stands is moot, because I am not under topic bans, and I removed unreferenced material from the article as is my right per WP:V. I did not report Biophys' topic ban violation, as that would be a clear violation of my interaction restrictions. Biophys can thank Colchicum for bringing his breach of topic ban to the fore (not the first time he's breached it if one cares to look). Response to other comments[edit]
If admins require any further information from me, please let me know and I will gladly respond. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 09:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC) General comments on broadly construed topic bans[edit]At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys#Biophys_topic_banned, Biophys:
Last year when I was topic banned, I was banned from:
If one looks at these topic bans, they are exactly the same. Both topic bans cover both the Soviet Union and the states that made it up. I won't list all 17 now independent countries that made it up, for we know what they are. The only difference is that the "country" part is worded different. Mine was worded as "successor states" and Biophys' was worded as "former Soviet Republics.....broadly construed". Everyone knows that I was unable to edit anything relating to ANY of those countries. So much so, I was unable to place in Air Botswana information on a potential buy out by a Russian businessman. Both bans "effectively remove you from a topic area in which you have been exhibiting unacceptable battleground-like behavior." That is the purpose of a topic ban. My topic ban was done under a remedy at an Arbcom in which I was not involved and coverd anyone who may be editing in the EE topic area. The remedy was passed by the committee, and was able to be enforced by admins as they saw fit. Biophys' topic ban was done under a remedy at an Arbcom in which he was involved in and was directly on himself. The Arbcom passed the Biophys topic ban, and it now up to admins at AE how they interpret it, and how it will be enforced. An uninvolved person would have good faith reason that both bans cover all eras, and all iterations of those states, due to being broadly construed. And the purpose of "broadly construed" is to stop potential wikilawyering. This is not an official Arbcom clarification on the issue, it is merely the exchange of opinions of two editors on one of those editor's talk pages, but it happens that one of those editors is an arbitrator. Requests for clarification are supposed to take place at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests_for_clarification so that any involved editors are able to provide input and engage in discussion, and arbs can do likewise. Until such time as that occurs, it is up to individual admins who work AE to interpret and enforce the topic ban as they see fit. It is up to an admin to decide whether a Russian philosopher from the 1800s (who held controversial views, and which are still controversial today) is covered by the topic ban. Or more specifically, is the Russian Empire related to the Soviet Union to the Russian Federation? I know the answer to that as a result of my own long expired topic ban. And it is a fair assumption that an uninvolved editor would say that the history of Russia directly includes the Russian Empire, and I know this as I have run it by a couple of totally uninvolved people, and they hold the same opinion. And a friendly suggestion, whilst this is still active at AE, and yet to receive any statement from an admin, it might advisable for certain editors to stop editing the article talk page, until such time as comment is provided in this (correct) forum by an admin. I certainly wouldn't continue to edit the article based upon the opinion of the person who started this request. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 07:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Interaction ban requested[edit]It was only a few days ago that another editor came to this forum claiming that I broke an interaction ban. It was clearly mentioned that editing of same articles is not an interaction ban. Colchicum would have been aware of this, and decided to bring this here. I see this as harrassment by Colchicum and I sincerely request that he receive, at the very least, an interaction ban on commenting on or interacting with myself. I have made it very clear in the past that I am willing to collaborate with ALL editors. And that includes Colchicum. He has made it quite clear that he has no intention of doing this. It's sad that he feels like this, but that is his choice. However, it is obvious that where I am concerned Colchicum only uses WP as a battleground. For example. Last year, I asked a supposed content opponent for assistance - encouraging collaboration. After the editor offered to help, Colchicum posts: "I stronly suggest you not collaborate with Ru Not only is this inexcusable for the personal attack, it is also promoting battleground mentality by encouraging other editors to engage in battleground conditions. He was warned and made no apology. Since then I have not had anything to do with Colchicum, apart from filing a 3RR report, which it turns out was not 3RR, and for which I apologised. However, the only thing that Colchicum has had to do with me is attacking my mere presence on this project, attacking my contributions (which if I were to show, people would say they are constructive), and part of this is acting in a totally partisan way and only ever attacking everything that I do, in an attempt to have me sanctioned and/or driven away from the project. I can show dozens of diffs where Colchicum continually engages in such behaviour. Colchicum will say that his last AE request was acted upon,[92] however given his history I let my comments to him on my talk page stand as my only comments at the AE report. As Colchicum has absolutely no intention of acting collaboratively, and continues to engage in battleground behaviour in relation to myself, and files vexatious reports about me -- all of which when put together seems like his only intent is to harrass myself and drive me away from the project, there is no need for Colchicum to interact or comment on me. His actions also promote battleground behaviour - the public suggestion for editors not to collaborate is the one that sticks in my head. But even this very request has invited one editor to engage in speculation about myself (and whom I have also requested an interaction ban on), and another editor who has been blocked 3 times for breaking a still current interaction ban joins the thread as well. Hence, I do ask that an interaction ban be placed on Colchicum as asked for above, so that those who want to act collaboratively together can, and then we can all disengage from battleground conditions, especially manufactured ones like this very report. I do make a general apology for this section, in that it deals with the editor, rather than the content, but this history is not likely known in this AE forum. These are my very last words in this report, as I will not be validating any further the harrassment and this battle shit. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 11:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Response to admins[edit]Jehochman, I can assure you that I have not stalked Biophys or any other editor. I stand by my reasons for perusing editors contributions. It would be stalking if I followed editors and did nothing but revert and get involved in disputes. Kind of like [93],[94],[95] and of course this very request. At least I have been upfront on what I have done. My stalker says nothing and his stalking is totally ignored. Anyway, even though I am not stalking them, if you see it as such, without admitting any guilt in that, I will agree to not to look at their contributions in anyway meaningful way in future, unless it is necessary for DR. My reasons for doing so are pretty much moot now, as I am now certain that there is no way one can collaborate with those editors in a healthy way either now or in the future. And I will not let their anti-Russian baiting to catch me again. So I will withdraw from the battleground that has been manufactured here, but I do ask that the interaction bans be placed as I have requested above, and for which reasoning is pretty clear. And in relation to topic bans and the like, please ensure that some animals are not more equal than others. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 21:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Discussion concerning Russavia[edit]Statement by Biophys[edit]After receiving my topic ban, I edited in different subject areas [96], made exactly zero reverts (beyond fixing a few obvious vandalism problems), and completely disengaged from all other participants of my case. I did not report any of them to AE even when they openly violated their bans, for example by coming to my talk page to start political debates in the topic ban area [97], or tell me about removing my contributions [98] and knowing that I can not respond. I thought the guys would appreciate my non-involvement and removal from the subject area. But what do I have in response? Russavia wikistalks my edits in a different area, Offliner complains about me to an arbitrator next day after coming from his block [99], [100], and Igny attacks me with ridiculous accusations right on this page (see below). I believe this is a serious tag-team because all three editors in question have been already blocked (two of them indefinitely) for precisely that kind of things. Biophys (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC) [Please note that I commented here only in response to accusations by Russavia at this noticeboard: [101]. I did not tell a single critical word about him before and can keep it this way after this incident].Biophys (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Petri Krohn[edit]First I must apologize to Biophys for making these accusations. However, as Russavia is accused here, he deserves a proper defense. Also I apologize for the puny nature of the accusation, but as the accusation against Russavia has even less weight, this must be said. I wish we could all just forget about this episode and go do something useful. Even considering the narrowing of the topic ban by Shell Kinney, It seems clear to me that Biophys broke his topic ban. He copy-pasted deleted content from his last version of the article David Satter and inserted it into Pyotr Chaadayev. David Satter, an article created by Biophys and edit warred over by him and his EEML opponents is at ground zero of the Russian / Soviet dispute and clearly within his topic ban. Satter is arguing that Putin was behind the Russian apartment bombings. The quote, attributed to Pyotr Chaadayev, but interpreted by Satter seems to be part of the argument. I have elaborated on the issue at the talk page here: Talk:Pyotr Chaadayev#Quote taken from book by David Satter? Russavia is not under any ban, so he should be free to edit articles on Russia. Editing the same article, even edit warring is not sanctioned in the interaction ban. He could revert, but he could not report Biophys to WP:AE. However, as he is under an interaction ban, I would suggest to him that he removes Biophys from his watchlist. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Russavia[edit]I occasionally edit Russian history of 18th and 19th centuries. I hope that's not a problem? No judgment about Russavia or any other participants of my case, although there was this recent post by Russavia at my talk page (and my response). Colchicum, could you clarify how you obtained this diff? Did you edit the article before? Do you have it in your watchlist? Or you are stalking Russavia yourself? Or, which is even worse, you are participating in continuing harassment of Russavia and coordinating it with someone who is stalking his edits? Oh wait, I drop the last accusation. If you actually followed the AE requests against Russavia, you would notice that the previous attempt to file a frivolous request against Russavia ended poorly for the person who filed it. Oh wait, did Biophys ask you to file this request in order to circumvent his interaction ban?(Igny (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC))
Dear admins who will hopefully be reviewing this, could you please look into the behavior of Igny on this page and take appropriate measures. I am fed up with his unfounded (and unfoundable) accusations. Are such blatant personal attacks to be tolerated on the AE noticeboard? Unbelievable. More on this here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive62#Igny. This is a recurrent problem, indeed, a campaign of sorts, as you can see, albeit somewhat unrelated to this request. Colchicum (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Right above me is the most ironic statement on WP. Is any admin aware that this user is under an interaction ban with myself? And have been blocked 3 times for breaking it so far? And yet, here they are yet again, breaking it, and most ironically in something that has absolutely NOTHING to do with them? What about this harrassment? Is nothing going to be done about that? So no, the statement should read "no need for the uninvolved to get involved at all, considering to do so is to break interaction ban for the 4th time". Of course, I know what will happen. I will be blocked for it. Go figure. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 20:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Russavia[edit]
Closing and archiving[edit]I am closing and archiving this as its continued presence here is only creating WP:BATTLEground mentality. No admin is willing to take enforcement action. For more information see User talk:Jehochman#EE circus. |
Momento
[edit]| Momento (talk · contribs) banned from Prem Rawat and all related articles and discussions for one year. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Momento[edit]
Here he makes uncivil or non-AGF comments:
Discussion concerning Momento[edit]Statement by Momento[edit]Firstly, I claim that according to WP:BLP "the three-revert rule does not apply to removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material". And I further claim that the material I removed was "unsourced". Will Beback thinks the sentence is question is fine and keeps putting it and variations in. I think some of it should be removed because it isn't sourced. The sentence is - "At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru to millions of Indian followers". The sources given, Lewis and Downton, both say the position he succeeded to is "Perfect Master". Lewis says "he was recognized as the new Perfect Master and assumed the title, Maharaj Ji" and Downton says "he was elevated to his father's position as Perfect Master at the age of eight". Neither source mentions "Satguru", nor does it appear in the article and therefore "Satguru" is not sourced. But instead of replacing the unsourced "Satguru" with the doubly sourced "Perfect Master" Will Beback responded with endless arguments and ended by constantly re-insert it, providing five false sources to support it and adding an absurdly incorrect translation that was contradicted by the source supplied by Will that was supposed to support it, all without consensus and all against objections. And all designed to exert ownership of this article. Will Beback claims I "repeatedly deleted neutral, sourced material that had been in the article since April 2009". In fact, as is clear from above the material I kept deleting, "Satguru", was not sourced. Will says I haven't learned from my previous blocks and bans but on the contrary I have discussed every edit a great length, edited strictly by the book and nine out of 14 of my edits to this article have been accepted by all as good edits, despite endless objections from Will Beback. Will himself was admonished for his conduct and goes to great lengths to object to every edit I make. But please have a look at the previous ARB/COM material, a one week ban would have been sufficient for these indiscretions.[126] In short, judge by this. Five edits which all conform to "material about living persons that is unsourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Three for the unsourced "Satguru" and two for an absurd translation that is contradicted by the source provided to support it. All inserted or re-inserted by Will without consensus and in spite of policy based objections. Here is my recent editing history: I have made 14 edits to the article in three months, hardly an edit war.[127] And every edit has been to correct factual errors and all edits have been accepted by all editors. The first was to remove material that other editors considered too vague and was accepted by all.[128] The second was to correct grammar at the request of another editor and was accepted by all.[129] The third was to remove material that I pointed out appeared in the lead but not in the article.[130] It was immediately reverted but all agreed it shouldn't be in the lead and it was removed a.s per my proposal The fourth was to insert material that should have been in the lead, as per my proposal, and it was agreed by everyone. At the same time I corrected an incorrect date.[131] It was immediately reverted but my edit was reinstated as being correct and was accepted by all.[132] Note that the edit summary used here was automatically appended to a later edit as pointed out by Will. The fifth was to improve grammar and accepted by all.[133] The sixth and seventh were to remove material that I pointed out was incorrect.[134]. It was immediately reverted but later reinstated as being a correct edit and was accepted by all. The eighth was to remove material that I pointed out was incorrect.[135] And was accepted by all. The ninth was to improve chronology and sources and was accepted by all.[136] Now we arrive at the current issue, a month since my last article edit. The sentence in dispute is - "At the age of eight, he succeeded his father Hans Ji Maharaj as leader of the Divine Light Mission (Divya Sandesh Parishad) and as the new Satguru to millions of Indian followers". The sources given, Lewis and Downton, both say the position he succeeded to is "Perfect Master". Lewis says "he was recognized as the new Perfect Master and assumed the title, Maharaj Ji" and Downton says "he was elevated to his father's position as Perfect Master at the age of eight". Neither mention "Satguru" and therefore "Satguru" is not sourced. Despite pointing out to Will Beback that "Satguru" is unsourced and should be replaced by "Perfect Master" and despite ongoing discussion WB inserted "and Perfect Master" into the sentence.[137] This edit a) retained the unsourced "Satguru" and b) gives the impression that Rawat succeeded to TWO positions when there is only ONE. The tenth edit was to remove "Satguru" since it was unsourced.[138] WB immediately reverted saying "pending consensus" when in fact his previous edit had no consensus and was still being objected to and discussed. The eleventh edit was to revert back to the original long standing incorrect version because it didn't include the confusion of suggesting Rawat succeeded to TWO positions.[139] Will BeBack's next edit was to insert five false sources to try and legitimise "Satguru", again without consensus. And to reinsert the misleading material that Rawat succeeded to TWO positions.[140] The twelfth edit was to again remove "Satguru" to accurately reflect the major sources and remove the misleading material that Rawat succeeded to TWO positions.[141] Will Beback then inserted without consensus and despite objections a new version which gave an absurd and incorrect translation of "Satguru".[142] My thirteenth edit was to remove "Satguru" and it's incorrect translation because it was contradicted by the source that was supposed to support it.[143] This was reverted. My final edit was to revert back to the version that is faithful to the major sources, doesn't contain the minor description "Satguru" and doesn't contain the objected to incorrect translation.[144] In short, 14 edits in three months, of which nine have been accepted by all as good and correct edits. And three edits to stop Will Beback from inserting unsourced material into the lead without consensus and despite objections, and two to remove an incorrect translation inserted into the lead without consensus and despite objections. Ignore if you can that I belong to a minority religion. I welcome any questions.Momento (talk) 05:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC) New response - I see that the admins are obviously unaware of WP:BLP policy which says- "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material". Thus ignoring that Will Beback and PatW "added and restored" unsourced material 5 times in three days and are instead focusing on my removal of the unsourced material which WP:BLP says "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.Momento (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Momento[edit]Momento is the exact kind of zealous partisan editor who makes Wikipedia impossible for more reasonable people to enjoin. As an ardent follower of the subject with an obvious and highly aggressive 'mission' to clean up the article with regard only for publicity and at the expense of proper encyclopaedic content he constantly mocks the intelligence of others with insubstantial bluster and filibustering, aggressively chases off people with less time or will to oppose his plans. etc. etc. All exactly the kind of unwelcome partisanship that Wikipedians are now struggling to find an effective way to combat. It will be a full-time job stopping Momento turning the article into a revisionist lie I'm afraid.
Momento was topic banned starting on April 20, 2009 from editing any of the Prem Rawat related articles. All articles remained stable during that year. Momento provokes others by making snarky, demeaning, and uncivil remarks to them. He has been doing this consistently to Will Bebeck and I have to praise Will for his patience. Momento constantly refuses to engage in simple, reasonable conversations about his proposals and he obfuscates discussion by denying simple facts. A good example of this was his refusal to acknowledge that the term "Satguru," which has been in the lede since 2009, is in the body of the article. He kept saying the term was not in the article when in fact it is, and all he had to do was a simple word search of the article. This is time-wasting and obnoxious behavior. I think Momento should be permanently topic-banned from all of the Prem Rawat articles because I see no evidence from his behavior since April 2010 that he has learned anything from his year-long ban. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Momento[edit]
On first impression, I agree with Will's assessment. This is clearly a single-purpose account at this point, it's the area they previously were sanctioned multiple times by Arbcom over, and though they're being polite about it the end effect is pretty disruptive. They do not seem to be helping the Wikipedia topic area coverage, on the whole. This much edit warring and a flip-flop on the title - over only the title - in the lede paragraph? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a consensus to me. Per the discussion above, and under the authority of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Article probation, Momento (talk · contribs) is banned from Prem Rawat and all related articles and discussions, for one year. Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC) |
Shuki
[edit]| Complainer and complainee both topic-banned for 5 weeks. | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Shuki[edit]
Reply to Shuki's statement: The RFC had nothing to do with the legal status of the settlements or how that should be covered. And it is not an exceptional claim that Israeli settlements are illegal, and even if it were reliable sources were provided. The text is not discussing Israeli law but international law, so Israel's High Court's rulings on the legality under Israeli law is immaterial. None of this addresses the issue though, that you have repeatedly filibustered the inclusion of reliably sourced material for pure POV reasons. nableezy - 19:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Re Gatoclass: How much emphasis should be put on the material is certainly something that is strictly a content dispute, but Shuki has not been simply moving this information from the lead into the body, Shuki has been filibustering the content from appearing anywhere in the article. Is edit-warring the only thing that is actionable under ARBPIA? Is a systematic campaign to violate core policies of this website not actionable? Is everything that is not edit-warring a "content dispute"? nableezy - 04:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not going to respond to many of the comments below. It is understandable that people come to the aid of what they perceive to be an ally. I'll just note that many of these same editors also came to the defense of the sock of a banned editor at a recent SPI, claiming that I was attempting to remove an opposing editor. That may well be the end result, but my purpose here is simple. Shuki's edits have violated a number of core policies of this website in contravention of ARBPIA. If there are editors that wish to show how that is not true they should make that case. Making this about me does not help anything. nableezy - 06:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Stifle: I understand it is easier to say "a pox on both your houses", but if you do so you are effectively saying that it is more important that there is an appearance of an equal application of the rules than it is to actually have an equal application of the rules. I have added well-sourced material about these settlements. The material I added is not "POV", it contains both the majority POV and Israel's by saying that they are illegal under international law though Israel disputes this. The material is both notable and verifiable, in fact every BBC story about a settlement contains that very same information. Shuki has removed notable, relevant, reliably sourced material from a number of articles and has done so by twisting policy such as RS and V or by giving no policy based reason for such removals. Regardless of Shuki's and Ynhockey's absurd comments about this material being "REDFLAG", there are countless reliable sources that flat out say that all Israeli settlements are illegal under international law; to record that in supposed "encyclopedia" articles cannot be seen as disruptive unless "disruption" is defined as anything the extreme right-wing of the Israeli political spectrum does not like. I understand that you all are not supposed to adjudicate "content disputes", but that does not mean you cannot actually look at the content. The material I added is backed by literally hundreds of reliable sources. Shuki removed that material on the most specious of reasons and has done so repeatedly. If people are free to simply remove whatever information they like without regard to how well sourced it is then this place truly is a complete waste of time and fails its goal of providing an educational resource. If you or any other admin is actually serious about creating an "encyclopedia" then you should not, no cannot, tolerate such behavior as repeatedly removing well-sourced content. Our "sins" are not all equal here. You have on hand a user adding well-sourced content. You have another user twisting policy and filibustering the inclusion of that well-sourced material. Shuki has in the past removed sources that say all Israeli settlements are illegal because they dont say that specific settlement is illegal. Now, the removals are of sources that say that the specific settlement is illegal because the source does not supposedly "prove" that and does not cite a specific court case saying that the specific settlement is illegal. That is plainly an absurd reason. If you want to treat both the person adding well-sourced material and the person removing it for absurd, ideological reasons then topic-ban us both. If, however, you want to ensure that our articles follow the policies of this website then I invite you to take a closer look at the circumstances. We are not guilty of the same sins here, and treating us as though we were may be easy but is without justification. nableezy - 14:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Re Stifle: I would like to know what exactly you say I am at fault of. I added sources that say specific Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. Almost 5 years ago Shuki reverted the same information asking that a source be provided. I provided that source. Shuki has since shifted the goalposts writing that the source must "prove" that Ariel is illegal under international law. No sane person can read WP:V or WP:RS and come to any such conclusion. What exactly did I do wrong here? nableezy - 18:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Shuki[edit]Statement by Shuki[edit]Nableezy has never shown any attempt to collaborate and make reasonable efforts with other editors. Nableezy also forgot to mention that he is violating the closure of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Israeli settlements. Since he 'lost' that RfC he started, he has wasted no time in opening a new front with his typical and documented battleground mentality. Nableezy is I have certainly not changed any tactics, thanks for pre-empting me here with what I had just accused Nableezy on another page, I have always demanded that sources specifically mention the locality and not just in passing. There is no such thing as 'super-majority' and the RfC Nableezy filed failed to approve that peculiar non-existent policy. --Shuki (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
2nd reply, to Stifle, to 'topic-ban us both' Nableezy, and 'take one for the team' RomaC. I certainly do not believe in WP suicide, but we know that Nableezy is ready for martyrdom with many uncivil remarks made and threatened retirement when he was blocked and then surprisingly weirdly unblocked early at the beginning of the year. Frankly, I know that most 'Israeli cities, villages, towns, and more in the West Bank / Judea and Samaria Area' articles are not on the watchlists of many, if at all, and no one has been contributing to the topic of 'Israeli settlements' articles as much as me though I wish I had more help. I admit to the kneejerk reaction to what I saw Nableezy doing (evidently and his admitted flooding of articles with tendentious boilerplate one liners, contrary to Sandstein's closing RfC recommendation to deal with each issue on a case-by-case basis) was to quickly make those reverts, and hopefully merely temporarily freeze him on his admitted conquest to add it to all 200+ articles, so that perhaps the WP community could handle this much better with, hold on, collaboration and consensus. I was not going to follow him around on each page to put it in another section, given that some editors have an issue with that too - something that calm consensus should decide. I cannot recall too many instances in which we have seen a reasonable and rational Nableezy, wanting to accomplish anything except to get is POV included and he only bothers to behave if others are watching too. To his credit, and perhaps the exception that proves the rule, he did start the RfC. Unfortunately, he did not bother to pursue further dispute resolution given his failure with the RfC. 3rd, to Stifle, I do not see how a three month topic ban is proportional to merely reverting six articles once and with my long-term record which is centred primarily around creating, improving and maintaining Israeli geography articles. Since coming out of my single 1RR 'topic ban', I have managed to keep that 1RR behaviour intact except for a repeat SPA anon who was/is repeatedly just making a mess on three articles and has been reverted by others as well. On the other hand, comparing me with Nableezy who was;
and his repeated use of AE for the hunt (of me), even though warned only a month ago from making non-actionable claims
The proper thing to do would have been for Nableezy to make another RfC, or use other dispute resolution mechanism to engage editors in this issue, or perhaps get other advice from a mentor, or like-minded but mature editor or admin. I am not interested in 'taking anyone down with me' and frankly, I don't care to see Nableezy topic banned either (and I have tried unsuccessfully in the past to suggest he make positive contributions instead of only the negative edits that he characterizes him). Peace, here on WP and in Israel, will not be made by one side attacking the other but by each side wanting to progress and improve. If I could sanction Nableezy, it would be to A) get him to join Wikipedia:Palestine, and B1) improve above stub status 200 Palestinian locality articles (in contrast to the 200 Israeli articles he was beginning to edit), or alternatively B2) create 100 new 'pro'-Arab/Palestinian articles starting with the requested ones on WP:Palestine (not anti-Israel ones) or alternatively B3) work on getting GA status for five Arab/Palestinian articles of his choice (preferably ones that promote Arab issues, and do not include anything about 'international law', warfare and blood). Instead, until then, I see this as another frivolous attempt ato bully me and scare others as well. Many have come to support me here (surprisingly, thank you and I have not emailed or canvassed anyone either) and few have come to back Nableezy up, and there is no shortage of editors who are on 'his side'. It is a fact that the six accused edits mentioned are definitely not 'an attempt by me at filibustering', that while my accuser prefers otherwise, even if I have shown to accept inserting material my personal POV would rather not have included and I collaborate. --Shuki (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Shuki[edit]
Shuki, where does WP:V or WP:RS require that a source "not just [mention the locality] in passing"? I seem to remember you made the opposite argument in the past. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The issues raised in this request are issues related to the contested content of a few articles, and should be discussed on the articles talk pages as such. IMO the request should be closed as non actionable because Shuki has never violated any policy.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC) On a side note I am surprised that Nableezy while filing the request about Shuki has no problems with IP, who inserts unsourced POV to the same articles with the edit summaries like this one for example: "an illegal settlement built on a stolen and occupied land is NOT a villeinage!!!! stop promoting lies violating wikipedias terms and the international law!!!!". --Mbz1 (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Response to Gatoclass question about Shuki editing against consensus. No, they did not, just the opposite. Please take a look at one of the articles in question talk page's discussion. Nableezy started it just few hours before he filed this AE, and there's no consensus there. As user:Noon put it:
To the closing administrator. I would like to stress out three important points provided by me and others as a small summary:
According to the above this AE against Shuki should be closed as non actionable. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC) To the closing uninvolved admins, I am not going to jump into your space as very much involved Gatoclass did, but I do agree with him: banned editors should know what they are banned for. Shuki has done absolutely nothing wrong at all. The issue of the request is a content dispute, which could not and should not be enforced by AE. Nableezy did not make nearly enough efforts to resolve the issue at the article talk pages before bringing the matter up to AE. He demonstrated a battleground behavior, and it is not first time he files non actionable, time-wasting AE. That's why IMO Nableezy should be given 2 weeks symbolic ban on AE just to make him give it another thought before he files another AE. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Gatoclass[edit]While I certainly agree that the status of all such settlements in international law should be outlined somewhere in the relevant articles, it doesn't strike me as imperative that this status be noted in the intro, unless perhaps the intro is long and/or the settlement a particular source of friction. IMO, it's sufficient that the status of such settlements be referred to somewhere in the body of the article. In any case, this looks to me like a run-of-the-mill content dispute, and I don't see anything actionable under ARBPIA. Gatoclass (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Having just read Shuki's comments above, I am obliged to amend my position. I consider Shuki's statement that "I have always demanded that sources specifically mention the locality and not just in passing" to be an absurdity, as it's clear that if a reliable source states that all Israeli settlements in area x are illegal, one does not need to find a source which specifically mentions that settlement y in area x is illegal. If Shuki has been reverting based on such specious reasoning, that could certainly in my view be considered disruptive and thereby sanctionable under ARBPIA. Gatoclass (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC) an Israeli organization .... was forced to pay damages and issue a public apology to settlers after falsely claiming that a particular settlement was built illegally on private Palestinian land - Ynhockey. Well, fine, but that is quite irrelevant to this discussion. Sources can always be wrong, we knew that. The issue here is that Shuki is demanding a higher burden of proof for the inclusion of material than is required by WP:RS. He is demanding that sources specifically state that a given settlement is "illegal", when logically it is only necessary to demonstrate that a settlement is in the occupied territories to demonstrate its illegality. A source could of course be wrong in making either statement, so that's an entirely separate issue. Gatoclass (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC) People need to stop making arguments for their take on the content dispute since that it not the scope of these requests - Cptnono. Cptnono, there is a difference between a content dispute and sheer illogic. If someone holds a position that is plainly logically fallacious, and maintains that position even after having its erroneous nature pointed out to him, that has ceased to be a mere content dispute and become disruption. In this case, Shuki's position is rendered untenable by simple logical deduction:
There can therefore be no justification for Shuki's claim that Nableezy is required to produce sources that state a particular settlement is illegal. Nableezy only needs to produce a source which states that the settlement is in the occupied territories, because its illegality is a function of its location. If Shuki is prepared to acknowledge his error and agree to stop reverting on those grounds, perhaps there is no need for further action here. If however he is going to insist on maintaining his current view, I think that would be grounds for imposing further sanctions. Gatoclass (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
While it pains me to say so, I have to agree with Shuki's assessment of Nableezy's general editing practices (although I disapprove of the specific terms used). It is unfortunate that Nableezy has chosen not to make constructive contributions to articles about settlements, but rather to go out of his way to "prove" that they are illegal. Even if, theoretically, ample sources could be provided and the significance of this statement could be proven, it still seems like a WP:BATTLE action to just go around articles about settlements saying they're illegal and adding no other content. This WP:AE request seems like yet another piece of WikiDrama to get an editor from "the other side" banned and thus have a certain version of the article say. If Nableezy continues to edit settlement-related articles, I sincerely hope that he invests more resources into improving sections about the history, geography and culture of settlements. —Ynhockey (Talk) 04:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Note to Stifle: I will respect any decision you make, but ask you to look at what each editor has done for the articles in question. In fact, as far as I can tell, Shuki has singlehandedly written most of the content in settlement-related articles. As I noted above, Nableezy has unfortunately failed to make any contributions to these articles. I ask that this is taken into account in any decision you make. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I hope that any request for enforcement against Nableezy will not look like reprisal since it has been coming for some time now. The RfC closure set a very good chance to do some case by case basis with a firm reminder not to start any shenanigans. This should have been handled better and Shuki should not be shouldering the brunt of the blame.Cptnono (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Reply to Cptnonos "Diffs and thoughts and stuff" I have edited 1080 articles. I am interested in the Arab-Israeli conflict and so are many others, so those who are interested in the same topic will of course run into me on several articles. Now to Cptnonos accusations where he mentions my name:
Also, these sources are all from Guardian and BBC. While they are usually RS, they are not considered impartial in their attitude through Israel. Infact, once Israel submitted official complaint against the BBC for being biased against it. The BBC then was forced to establish a committee that scrutinized these complaints. They never published the committee's conclusions. If you search the web for it, you will find many reliable sources heavily doubt the neutrality of British media sources like the BBC and the Guardian about the I-P conflict. When it comes to settlements thing then no one is argue that the BBC came up with MA being considered as a settlement by the UN. But it does not represent the entire issue and the wording by itself is harsh and not neutral still.--Gilisa (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
This is about policy compliance. We can't have people removing sourced information because the information isn't wearing a hijab or whatever the nothing-to-do-with-policy reason was here. Editors are obliged to edit according to policy. If they are upset by reliable sources saying that Israeli settlements are illegal and editors adding that information to articles there are plenty of other subjects for them to work on. What would happen I wonder if, rather than topic bans and such like, editors who find it difficult to comply with the discretionary sanctions were simply restricted from removing sourced material from articles ? They could add sourced material, reword existing material but not remove it altogether without calmly proceeding to the talk page and making their case. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Another alternative to the standard and clearly ineffective methods currently employed to deal with neutrality-challenged editors might be to require them to swop to 'the other side' of the conflict for a period. This is something I would really like to see happen personally. If an editor wants to blatantly ignore WP:COI, blatantly ignore the 'Editors counseled' section of the sanctions and consistently advocate for a side in a conflict as so many do then maybe there should be a cost to the editor. Perhaps they should have to advocate for 'the other side' too and the benefit should accrue to Wikipedia in the form of improved content and a general reduction in silliness. If an editor is genuinely here to build a better encyclopedia they shouldn't mind adding policy compliant material for a period even if it comes from sources they don't like such as..um..the BBC and even if it makes 'their side' look bad in their eyes. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
When we have highly disruptive editors (as in, those who have been blocked three times already this year) elevating their content disputes to non-actionable complaints, in apparent efforts to further their own POV, we have a wasteful time-suck. Perhaps it's time to consider ways to slow down our most disruptive editors; especially those who gravitate towards controversial areas such as the I-P area. Something that slows down those editors who have already been blocked 3 times in 2010, say, from taking any of various steps that lead to wastes of time for the community at large (ARE, AfD, etc., in the I-P area). In the U.S., felons are prohibited from voting in many elections. And at wikipedia, when articles are controversial, we limit editing to certain editors who we view as more trustworthy -- such as non-IPs. Extending those concepts here might prove beneficial.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Just over a week ago Shuki came of a 3 month 1r restriction (AE result) this doesn't appear to have sunk in as since then:
He just doesn't seem to be here to edit collaboratively and probably requires a topic ban rather than another revert restriction. Misarxist (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Re the admin comments about 'content dispute', obviously there is disagreement about the content, but the complaint is about straight-foward multiple reverts of sourced content without discussion. As I noted above (even with Mbz1's note, yes that's not as simple as I claimed, but the 3r example is undeniable) we are talking about an a know tendentious edit-warrior. There doesn't seem to be any real argument about Shuki being sanctioned again. But the complaints about Nableezey's record (the bulk of the responses here) are not relevant to that. And if Nableezey's conduct is at fault there's going to to need to be evidence cited, the fact that he's in a dispute with a tendentious nationalist editor isn't good enough in itself. Also while the underlying and widespread dispute does need to be dealt with, this simply isn't the right venue. Misarxist (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Since the status of all land that has been conquered in a defensive war is a complex matter and the status of the West Bank finds no consensus among international legal experts, it is POV pushing to write the kind of statement that User:Nableezy is defending. I do not see nableezy questioning the status of the Western Sahara, or of Tibet, or criticizing the recent genocidal attack on the Tamil. He writes on behalf of a political cause dear to his heart. This does not make him a useful colleague. You can, after all, always find newspaper articles making flat assertions about just about anything. this is not scholarship. A simple statement that there is no consensus regarding the legal status of the West Bank would be better and could be well-supported. But I do not expect scholarship or balance from Nableezy. He is a highly contentions editor, the kind that drives moderate, informed editors from Wikipedia. Actually, I have come to believe that it is his goal to make editing so unpleasant that moderate people will go away, leaving the field open to him to use Wikipedia as a battleground to wage a Palestinian proxy war.AMuseo (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Although I wasn't involved in the articles mentioned above, I do feel it necessary to decry Nableezy's disruptive edit habits and intimidation of editors. On the Helen Thomas article while I explained every move I made, he vandalized my edits without any explanation, or with meaningless ones which is even worse. Once, it could have been explained away, but not a pattern of them. Then he had the gall to try to intimidate me by pretending that he is an administrator and admonishing me (for doing what is right) when he should have admonished himself for editing in bad faith. On one edit on July 13 (not pertaining to me) seeing that he can’t have it his way, he then made another controversial edit slanting the lead and explaining it with "all right, you want specifics add specifics, not just one part of the story." He seems to be using Wikipedia to tell the story the way he wants it to be told, as he actually admitted in a moment of truth and exasperation, of if you're getting it your way then I'll get it also my way. He sees everything as "your way" or "my way". I think he is unhelpful and a drain on controversial articles. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that this request is following the usual pattern of people's views on Shuki's conduct being 100% corfrelated with their views on the IP dispute. I regret that I'm conforming to that pattern. Looking at the last edits listed by Nableezy, I see that theis effect is to remove any mention of the status of these settlements under international law. It has to be a notable effect about these places that they are considered illegal by major international institutions that pronounce on and enforce international law. The major institutions I have in mind are such organs ases of the UNSC, the high-contracting parties to the Geneva Conventions, the ICC, ICJ etc. When all those that pronounce on the matter say the settlements are illegal and none dissents, then the fact has to be mentioned in the articles. To remove any such mention is a clear violation of WP:NPOV.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment by Brewcrewer[edit]As this is apparently the place to hang out these days, I feel obliged to chime in lest people forget my existence. Unlike some other editors here who feel this is an content related dispute and should be closed as unactionable, I'm of the position that some action should take place as a result of this report. The editor who filed the report insists that the first three words of any article on an Israeli entity beyond the '48 border should be "illegal settlement". This position has resulted in lots of edit warring. Numerous editors and a RFC later (linked above) have revealed a consensus that although the argument for illegality should clearly be included in an article, it should not be the first three words, per WP:NPOV. Nevertheless, Nableezy still insists that "illegal" be in the opening sentence and any position taken to the contrary is "stupid". Not only is it "stupid", arguing that it does not belong in the first sentence is an ARBCOM violation. Nableezy claims that Shuki wants to remove any mention of illegality of article, but that's blatantly false. Each article linked by Nableezy mentions the illegality issue, some even have an entire section discussing the illegality argument. Thus, what we have here is a blatantly frivolous AE report filed by one of the most prolific AE filers, who should know better. Some sort of action should be taken so that this huge waste of time does not reoccur. Perhaps an AE ban? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Concur with Peter Cohen above on all points. See many examples of Israel saying A and the rest of the world saying B, and some editors pushing A first, then a mention of B, then a rebuttal per A as "neutral." As for the admin suggestion below re: possible concurrent 3-month blocks, excuse my cynicism but I imagine Shuki might agree to "take one for the team" and be blocked if Nableezy were also taken out. There are few topic areas with nearly as much concerted partisan activity as Israel-Palestine. Yes, Nableezy may be biased, but he's also badly outnumbered which makes him sort of stick out in these content disputes. Respectfully, RomaC TALK 14:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
As I understand the AE regarding the I-P articles, one of its purposes was to facilitate a reasonable editing atmosphere in this contentious area. Contributors who exhibited "battleground" mentality and aggressive behaviour were banned or were blocked for a long period of time. In contrast to this purpose, the filing party of this request is engaged for a long time in trying to get the upper hand in content disputes by making considarable efforts to ban his opponents or block them indefinitely. Just one sample illustration of his "battleground mentality" may be found here, where he says: "There were three people who had pushed for my first topic ban. One of those was later blocked as a sock of NoCal100, the one who filed the complaint has now been blocked as a sock of Dajudem/Tundrabuggy, and the last is still taking aim at me." WP is not a battleground nor a venue for shooting ducks as done in Luna Parks. It looks as if the filing party spends most of his energy either to make small controversial edits to push his political views, while violating the fundamental WP:NPOV policy, or in targetting disruptively his opponents, espacially those who dare criticizing or reporting him, until they get out of his way. Content should adhere WP:NPOV not only in the facts and refs, but also in the tone of what is written, and how and where the facts are presented (ie. either in the lead, or as a link to the relevant article where all POVs are presented, or in a separate section in the same article where more views can be presented). accordingly, and for the huge waste of time dealing with this unwarranted request, it seems that the filing party fails to adhere to the purpose of building an encyclopedia, and the I-P AE penalty guidelines may apply to him. Noon (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Stifle, Nableezy has not done anything wrong here, while Shuki has been removing sourced information. Please look at the real issue instead of what other people say here at this enforcement. Every time there is a pro-Israeli editor up for enforcement, the same group of people show up in defense of that editor. Please look at the real issue here instead. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
When evaluating sanctions, prior disciplinary history should be factored in. A look at Shuki’s record reveals two relatively short blocks, the last of which occurred more than a year ago This is an indication that Shuki is adhering to wiki policy and guidelines. By contrast, Nableezy’s block history is a mess, full of lengthy blocks and topic bans[189] In fact, Nableezy has just come off a topic ban. In addition, Nableezy has previously been indefinitely blocked for threatening legal action against Wikipedia. It was lifted when he withdrew his threat but it shows that he has lost sight of reality and can not distinguish between the real and virtual worlds. It is clear from his prior sanction history that this is an editor who takes a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing with a “take no prisoners” mentality. Clearly, under the totality of circumstances, the person who deserves to be permanently banned from the topic area is Nableezy.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
When you are a recidivist, like Nableezy, when your block log history reads like a lengthy rap sheet, like Nableezy’s when you find yourself on these boards on a daily basis, either as a respondent or complainant, like Nableezy, When you come into every I-A article with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, like Nableezy, when an editor loses his grip on reality and threatens to sue Wikipedia, as Nableezy has, it’s time to ask; Is this a productive editor or a disruptive one? I leave it to the admins to decide.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I have not encountered Shuki in the past, although it is clear from the diffs provided that he has a strong POV which is reflected in his edits. On the other side, he is prolific content contributor in the Israel content area, and most of his edits clearly improve the enyclopedia. Regarding Nableezy I have encountered him and again it is clear that his edits reflect his strong POV. That in itself is not necessarily a problem (although usually it is), but when coupled with incivility and combative language ([191], [192] - some recent example, but from cases clearly a pattern), speculations and accusations about the ulterior motives of other editors ([193], [194]) it becomes a problem as it makes collaborative editing difficult to impossible. I am ignoring here the partisan editing of Nableezy and presumably Shuki - it would probably be beyond the scope and my take on it is that we probably need a fully fledged arbcom case to deal with the current detoriation in the Israel-Palestine topic area.
This isn't about Shuki specifically, but the prevalence of arbitration enforcement requests and posts on AN3, ANI, and RFPP, especially as of late, regarding Israel-Palestine articles and articles that only mention something Israel-Palestine-related suggests that it's high time for another ARBCOM case. Either that, or admins need to be more willing to exact serious sanctions against editors that have been shown to be disruptive on these articles. We see the same editors being reported again and again (and the same editors doing the reporting again and again). This is one of today's most persistent and divisive conflicts, and while I appreciate people's willingness to give editors second, third, and fourth chances, the fact of the matter is, those people who edit disruptively in this arena will almost certainly always edit disruptively in this arena. This method of moderate sanctions and warnings that never get followed up on is not working. It's clear that a certain set of editors are testing the community's patience, and if they can't voluntarily move to an area in which they can more constructively edit, they should be forced to do so post-haste. -- tariqabjotu 12:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Unlike the Israeli legal position, which is irrelevant to it, the overwhelming international viewpoint, as embodied in such organisations as the UN, is very staightforward: the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law (see the article on Israeli settlements, such documents as the text of UN Human Rights Council Resolution 7/18 and newspaper articles such as this one from Le Monde Diplomatique). The Wikipedia rules require, as stated by Nableezy, that articles should present the all significant viewpoints and in a proportionate manner. Those on Israeli settlements and outposts, particularly major ones such as Ma'ale_Adumim and Ariel, should reflect the main global point of interest in them (as shown by the context in which they normally appear in sources), their status as illegal settlements in occupied territory and their role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Trying to minimise or suppress the proportionate representation of that viewpoint amounts to point-of-view pushing. That is particularly true when reasons given for reverting edits, rather than being based on the Wikipedia rules, are, as they have been here, where a reason given for reverting was that the status of the settlements is uncertain because it has never been examined in a law court, is based in a particular viewpoint (from the international point of view, the settlements are illegal because that is the ruling of the bodies responsible for making those judgements). The reliablitly of the BBC as a source has been mentioned above. The BBC is far from infallible, but its duty as a public service broadcaster to report neutrally means that its reports are subject to more than normal editorial oversight, which, in Wikipedia terms, is an indication of greater reliability. In 2006, the report produced at the end of an independent review commissioned by the corporation's board of governors was, unlike the internally-produced Balen report, published. The review suggested that the BBC's reporting, if anything, favoured the Israeli side. The review panel recommended that the BBC should make public an abbreviated version of the Israel and Palestine part of its journalists' guide to facts and terminology. In light of the conversation going on here, perhaps the guideline which says, "when writing a story about settlements we can aim, where relevant, to include context to the effect that 'all settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this," which is very similar to the text that Nableezy was trying to introduce, might be seen as of interest. ← ZScarpia 21:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
{Reply to the comment addressed to me by Shuki at 22:29 (UTC) on 21 July 2010} Ideally every involved editor should be co-operating to produce a less single-perspective article. If the lead section were to be written by me, it would start something like:
← ZScarpia 20:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC) In regard to court judgements on the legality of the settlements, in its role as the principal judicial organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice stated the following in an advisory opinion given to the UN General Assembly on the 9 July 2004:
← ZScarpia 02:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC) The addition of statements noting the international view that particular settlements are illegal has a long history and is not, as far as I can see, a breach of established consensus. For example, in the article on Ariel, the first time such a statement was added in April 2005, a year after the article was created, by Doron. ← ZScarpia 15:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
it is the first time that I express my views in such a setting and being inexperienced I will probably be clumsy, please be indulgent. Some have already said things I agree with, no need to repeat them
One of the most destructive tactics to use on Wikipedia is the introduction of hoaxes into articles, and the use of made-up sources. At the Syria article both Nableezy and Supreme Deliciousness wanted to include the sentence "...to defend itself against Israeli shellings into Syria. According to the UN office in Jerusalem from 1955 until 1967 65 of the 69 border flare-ups between Syria and Israel were initiated by Israelis." in the article, cited to "Kamrava, Mehran, The Modern Middle East: A Political History since the First World War, University of California Press; 1 edition, p. 48". I checked the source in the library, neither on this page nor anywhere else in the book is there anything even remotely. You can even check it on Google Books, [196] For me page 48 does not show, but it is clear that this chapters is about the pre-World War I era. You can also search for the numbers 67 and 69, the numbers 67 or 69 are not mentioned anywhere in the book. In short, these editors used a made-up source to bolster their claims and only after being caught red-handed did Supreme Deliciousness remove the fake source (see [197] and [198]). I do not know how one can work collaboratively on this projekt or have trust in Wikipedia articles if we cannot trust our editors to be honest about their sources. This is even more important than civility and conforming to NPOV.
The comments here above from Pantherskin is clearly Assumption of Bad faith. That text was in the article and looked to me as well sourced, Panterskin removed it together with a well sourced Dayan quote and did not say anything about that the Jerusalem office text had a false source. As soon as it was pointed out to me that that specific part about the Jerusalem office had a false source, I removed it myself. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
To me it seems clear that what we have before us is not a content dispute. The dispute may be grounded in the content, but the enforcement request is solidly regarding policy violations. We have had a number of public discussions regarding how sources deal with the illegal settlements; at IPCOLL wikiproject, and across a multitude of talkpages. While there are sources which dispute the 'illegal settlement' moniker, the majority of quality sources support it. For a light primer see fx Daniel C. Kurtzer's article in Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs reprinted here:
I think it is fair to say that these are not fringe views, and they are supported by ECJ and ICJ publications. In light of the supermajority of sources which support the wording that Shuki tendentiously edited to remove I find Nableezys enforcement request entirely reasonable. Unomi (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Clarify the limits[edit]Can you please clarify the limits of this action? Does it basically include; 1) all locality articles in the region, 2) all geography articles (including parks or attractions), 3) talk pages as well?. I made a couple of comments at Talk:List of national parks and nature reserves of Israel today. If they are included in the ban, I will refrain from continuing. --Shuki (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Shuki[edit]
I invite Shuki and Nableezy to show cause why they should not both be topic-banned for 3 months from articles about towns, cities, settlements, and other places or locations in Israel and neighbouring countries. And I request in advance that all comments relating to this request are added here, not at my talk page. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
|