Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive141
Littleolive oil
[edit]| Scope of Littleolive oil's topic ban clarified [1] and logged.[2] Gatoclass (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Littleolive oil[edit]
The editor still believes they were in the right [3] and has, in the past week, started violating the ban unless I am mistaken: The topic ban was set at: 11 September 2013 and is still active. I would ask for Olive to be warned not to violate the topic ban. I don't think me commenting myself would be well receive. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC) @Admins, Yes also I seek is a clarification/warning (as I mention above). I know that if I posted to Olive myself I would receive the same accusations I am getting now of "wikistalking and harassment of Olive" by involved supporters of Olive in the peanut gallery and the clarification would be ignored. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC) @A Quest For Knowledge, yes, I've updated the diff, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Littleolive oil[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Littleolive oil[edit]Oddly enough Wolfie as far as I know it is allowable on Wikipedia have an opinion on a talk page, per your first diff. And that statement was deleted. Why would you dig that up and drag it over here.
"Such a ban may include or exclude corresponding talk pages." I was never notified that the ban included my talk page. If my ban includes my talk page perhaps that could be clarified. I am happy to comply if that is the case.(olive (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC))
Per this clarification of the ban, I've removed the TM related content from my talk page. Thank you.(olive (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)) Comments by A Quest for Knowledge[edit]@IRWolfie-: Your first two diffs are identical. Is that a copy and paste error?
Of all the stalking and hounding that IRWolfie has done to drive and bully Olive from this project, I find this to be one of the most absurd acts I've seen yet. It is now reaching the "creepy" area of obsession, and I think it should be dealt with. What should be looked at here is the behavior of IRWolfie. It would be nice to see an un-involved viewpoint regarding his behavior; because frankly I find it totally unacceptable of a wikipedian. Hopefully a level-headed adult admin. can stop by here and put their foot down on this type of behavior. — ChedZILLA 00:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by Cardamon[edit]As Ched points out, the first edit lined by IRWolfie- was reverted by Olive here. The edit summary was odd, it was true, but still, it was self-reverted. And the second edit linked is the same as the first. (@IRWolfie- Did you mean the second link to be the self-revert?) The final edit linked by IRWolfie- was a slightly vague reply to a notification of an AFD discussion which was posted on Olive's talk page. She probably shouldn't have replied to it at all, but may not have known that. I think that both these edits technically violated Olive's restriction. The first violated it because she edited TM related pages. The last violates it because she was banned from the whole subject of TM, broadly construed, and not just from particular pages. However, there are extenuating circumstances here, and I think she should be given a break, this time, and some guidance on how to handle situations where people post TM related stuff to her talk page. Cardamon (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Montanabw[edit]This is an egregious example of wikistalking by IRWolfie. Per Chedzilla's comment, I concur; I think we really have to look at the behavior of IRWolfie here, who is really starting to act like he has some sort of creepy obsession with Olive. I'm actually quite worried about the vendetta he seems to have going on here. This is one of the first situations where I have ever heard of a restriction so severe that a person can't even discuss an issue on their own talk pages. Olive responded to an automated tag placed BY SOMEONE ELSE on her talk page as a courtesy. The other diff, as far as I can tell, was a cleanup. Truly, show me one other case where this was a factor. My view is that this is harassment and wikistalking of the worst sort. Seraphimblade, you are really condoning bullying by IRWolfie and I have to say that I am very disappointed in your behavior as an admin. This is not what you folks are supposed to be doing. I also am very concerned that there are elements of systemic bias here, targeting Olive as a scapegoat while excusing far more egregious battlefield behavior on the part of her persecutors. Let's all just drop this stick and close this without further drama. Montanabw(talk) 02:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Statement by IRWolfie-[edit]Can someone please warn Montanabw to stop her/his obsessive attacks on me? I have been accused of BLP violations, harassment, throwing tantrums, edit warring and ad hominem attacks by Montanabw, all without any evidence or a single diff ([5], Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive139#Statement_by_.28uninvolved.29_Montanabw, [6]) in multiple places including here. I would ask that someone prohibit or otherwise warn Montanabw from making spurious attacks against me. If I made such spurious attacks against people I think I would quickly find myself unable to edit on wikipedia, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC) @Ched have you actually looked at the original enforcement request before you made your accusations? I am the one who has been subject to abuse and stone walling on the talk page when I interacted with Olive, and now I am the one facing the abuse from people like you and Montanabw who make allegations without evidence because of preconceived ideas you have: Olive has been friendly to you, so you assume she is friendly to everyone, or because she is civil, she can't be POV pushing. Have a look at the diffs presented at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive139#Littleolive_oil. There is a reason Olive was topic banned and the decision was upheld by ArbCom, and it isn't the reason that people like Montanabw might have you believe, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Result concerning Littleolive oil[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Looking at the timeline here, it seems that Olive opened an appeal of her sanction at WP:ARCA on 20 October, adding some diffs from the John Hagelin talk page in evidence.[7] The following day, Legobot archived two threads from the Hagelin talk page which caused Olive's diffs to point to the wrong page,[8] and she attempted to rectify this by a failed attempt to unarchive the two threads,[9] followed by a revert of her failed attempt a few hours later.[10] A few days later, Olive responded to a message about an AFD relating to the topic area from which she is currently topic banned.[11] In her defence Olive states that she was unaware that the ban applied to her own talk page. Though I think all these edits were technical violations of her topic ban, I think we can WP:AGF that they were done in good faith and not with any intention to circumvent the ban, so beyond a clarification of the terms of the ban, I see no further need for action at this point. If there are no objections, I will close this request in 24 hours with a logged clarification as indicated. Gatoclass (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
*Note re the "unarchiving" mess mentioned above: dynamic links to talkpage sections will, of course, cause linkrot when the page is archived, within days if it's a busy page. Please, everybody, use permanent section links, per Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide. It really is quite simple, and saves much grief. Bishonen | talk 10:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC). |
Aprock & Maunus
[edit]| Request withdrawn. Gatoclass (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
Request concerning Aprock & Maunus[edit]
Aprock previously edit warred and removed Dawkins' position from the Race and genetics article 6 times against 4 separate editors.[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] So I tried to work with Aprock in Talk:Race and genetics on an edit he would deem satisfactory. When Aprock refused to assist toward an edit, I filed for a dispute resolution here.[19] Our mediator during Dispute Resolution was User:Guy Macon. He asked us to try to see the debate from the other person's point of view and write what is the best reason for believing the position that opposes yours.[20] I participated in Guy Macon's request while Aprock refused to do so.[21] As Guy Macon couldn't help us come to an agreement, he suggested that we should start a RfC and that the results of the RfC would be final and the losing party has to accept the results.[22] The RfC was started here.[23] When the results of the RfC was beginning to approach WP:SNOW in favor of inclusion of Dawkins, User:Aprock inserted a POV line into the RfC in order to tilt the results and edit warred to keep the POV line in there.[24][25][26][27] EdJohnton warned Aprock that he could face a block if he continued to edit war on the RfC.[28] Despite Aprock's best efforts, the results of the RfC came in overwhelmingly in favor of inclusion of Dawkins with text 'Version B' being selected by consensus as the appropriate text.[29] Yet even after this, Aprock continued on his crusade and made suggestions that Dawkins should be excluded in a related article.[30] After the RfC consensus approved text version was inserted into the article Race and genetics, Aprock proceeded to make major changes to the RfC text approved version.[31] When I try to restore the text 'Version B' that was approved by RfC, Maunus reverts me and writes in edit summary:
Maunus actually tells me to start a NEW RfC for text 'Version B' that's already been selected by consensus by the previous RfC. None of the editors that approved text 'Version B' during RfC raised any concerns regarding the accuracy or content of the text. Both Aprock and Maunus are violating and breaching the results of the RfC and causing disruption. A simple warning to Maunus to honor the results of the RfC would be sufficient. But the repeated and incredibly long history of Aprock's obsession and advocacy over the Dawkins text by removing, hindering, edit warring, and complete disregard to the results of the RfC should warrant a strong action. BlackHades (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Aprock & Maunus[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Aprock[edit]Despite BlackHades claims, I've never had an objection to including Dawkins. Rather, I've objected to taking Dawkins words out of context. The summaries from the "edit warring diffs" that BlackHades presents illustrate this: February 2013:
May 2013:
Likewise my !vote at the RfC is explicit about including sufficient context: "As noted on this talk page and WP:DRN, if Dawkin's views are to be included, a fuller treatment of his views is warranted. Selecting a non-representative subset violates[WP:UNDUE." Handling the misuse of sources[edit]As The Devil's Advocate so cleanly illustrates below, what we have is a content dispute where like minded editors such as The Devil's Advocate and BlackHades would like to use the Dawkins source to serve as a counterweight to Lewontin. This despite the fact that the chapter The Grasshopper's Tale echos the conclusions of Lewontin, explicitly:
Reading the version that BlackHades proposed in the RfC, one might think that Dawkins' thesis and conclusions was contrary to those of Lewontin's, when in fact the opposite is true. That BlackHades is opposed to adding any context to the cherry-picked content that he's pulled from Dawkins is a clear example of attempting to insert POV content. It's not clear to me how to resolve this sort of content dispute, where one block of editors is grossly misrepresenting sources, while simultaneously accusing others of doing the same. It may be that this sort of content dispute is beyond the scope of AE. If that's the case, the the issue probably needs to be escalated to a forum where judgments regarding misrepresentation of sources can be properly handled. Further discussion[edit]BlackHades above: I'm puzzled how Aprock and Maunus can say they are not violating the RfC when they removed the Dawkins' text version that was approved through consensus by the RfC. Doubled it in size, creating NPOV issues, and issues related to length that was a cause of concern by editors in the RfC. Contrary to BlackHades statement, the only editor concerned about size said: "Dawkins' opinion cannot sensibly be reduced further.". The size of the content is fairly spartan as it is, as an entire chapter of a book is being summarized in a short paragraph. It appears that BlackHades is suggesting that it is precisely the current length of the content which create NPOV problems (presumably WP:UNDUE). As best I can tell, this is BlackHades position:
Statement by Maunus[edit]The result of the RfC was that Dawkins should be included, but with sufficient context. Aprock is not violating the RfC because he is not removing Dawkins but in fact adding more context than the original proposal, which is necessary to show that Dawkins in fact explicitly states that the mainstream view is Lewontin's and not his own and Edwards'. The exact wording of the RfC result is of course not sacred, what is sacred is the intention to include Dawkins with context. If Blackhades has a problem with the new wording which respects the result of the previous Rfc, then he should of course start a new RfC. Blackhades has been long trying his best to tendentiously misrepresent Dawkins and the scholarship in general and should be topic banned from the topic of race under the provision against tendentious editing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC) @Devils advocate: Then you are unable to read apparently. The result that you quote clearly says that including Dawkins with context is preferable to exclusion. It does not say that more context cannot be added subsequently. Since noone is trying to exclude Dawkins, or even trying to remove the "fuller and fairer summary of his opinion" at this point then noone is violating the result of the RfC. A new RfC can decide if there is now too much context. The wording Aprock included in no way suggests that Dawkins agrees with Lewontin and not Edwards.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Statement by The Devil's Advocate[edit]I find the claim above by Maunus about Aprock not going against the RfC result to be quite bizarre as the RfC close was pretty clear:
Now, getting discussion on a new version is fine, but tag-team edit-warring in your favored version months after the dispute and telling someone they need an RfC to re-approve the original consensus wording is blatantly tendentious. The wording Aprock has inserted also seems rather tendentious. It went from noting that Dawkins agreed with the criticism raised by Edwards to being mostly about how much Dawkins agreed with Lewontin. This creates the misleading impression that Dawkins was mostly siding with Lewontin against Edwards, when the truth is the opposite. Dawkins and Edwards generally agree with Lewontin's view of race, but both disagree with him on the key point being discussed in the article of whether race has "virtually no taxonomic or genetic significance".--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Statement by WeijiBaikeBianji[edit]The complaint here is completely specious. Aprock and Maunus have each individually been attempting to update articles that have long been under ArbCom discretionary sanctions so that the articles are better sourced. The Dawkins source is at best a minor source on the topic, and talk page space and editor time wasted on how the view of Richard Dawkins should be described in the article would be better spent looking for more sources to further update the articles. I have actually compiled a source list on related topics in user space for the complaining editor here and any other editor to use to look up reliable sources by interlibrary loan or other sources for books. Aprock and Maunus are doing great work on this and other articles—as I can verify by reading the reliable sources myself—and this enforcement request is without merit and contrary to Wikipedia policy. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Result concerning Aprock & Maunus[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. This request isn't submitted in a manner that would allow me to act on it. The template asks users to provide a list of dated diffs and a brief explanation of why each edit violates any rule of conduct. Nothing like this has been submitted. All we have is a lengthy and rather confused mass of text with many undated diffs, many of which may not be relevant. On the merits, the principal allegation seems to be editing contrary to the alleged result of an RfC, but it's not clear to me under which policy this, even if true, would constitute sanctionable misconduct. AE does not resolve content disputes. Edit-warring would be actionable, but the diffs provided at the beginning of the request are from May. Also, we lack diffs of warnings that meet the requirements of WP:AC/DS#Warnings. If the request is not fundamentally amended, I'd close it as not actionable. Sandstein 07:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I was intending to take a close look at the evidence here as first impressions were that BlackHades has indeed misrepresented the Dawkins source, however the situation is admittedly complicated by the fact that there was an RFC over this content which may have led BlackHades to conclude he is justified in rejecting new alternatives. I think that a false conclusion, firstly because the RFC only endorsed a given wording as preferable to one particular alternative, which doesn't mean other alternative wordings must necessarily be invalid; secondly because the recent edits by Maunus and Aprock do not substantively change the wording endorsed in the RFC but rather expand on it; and thirdly because I think Maunus' interpretation that the result of the Rfc was that more context was best is defensible. Regardless, I agree with Sandstein that the edit warring over this content needs to stop; either the parties should come to an agreement about wording on the talk page, or else one of them should open a new RFC to settle the issue. Gatoclass (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
|
MarshalN20
[edit]| Blocked for a month. Sandstein 19:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning MarshalN20[edit]
User MarshalN20 has a long paper trail [41] of conflictive editing in Wikipedia. His behaviour has been analysed with some thoroughness in the cited Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History. One could believe that omitting sanctions would preserve him in the way he is going in the Falklands Islands discussion for now. But our experience in the case of the two barnstars demostrates that santions are the only reason MarshalN20 has come to improve his behaviour and only more pressure will push him across the line to a real change of attitude towards the rules of Wikipedia. (User Darkness Shines is not prosecuted by this request. He has still no topic ban in Latin America history. I suppose that Darkness Shines is getting information and instructions from MarshalN20 in order to represent him in the discusions: [42], [43], [44] )
Discussion concerning MarshalN20[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MarshalN20[edit]Since my actions are the focus of scrutiny, I will focus on explaining them:
And that's about it. I am currently participating in a GA Review for the article Falkland Islands, and I'm also otherwise busy with real life situations. Keysanger's accusations of proxying and other such claims are completely unjustified personal attacks.
Statement by Wee Curry Monster[edit]Whilst Marshall's comments could technically be considered a violation of his topic ban, there is a certain grey area that allows him to intervene where there is vandalism. I consider KS' edits to certainly be borderline vandalism and certain amount of WP:TE in raising a matter settled some time ago. However, in the case of a topic ban, unless a clear case can be made I advised Marshall not to intervene. At my urging Marshall ceased any and all activities. This is a stale report, this occured weeks ago. Action at AE is supposed to be preventative not punitive and there is nothing to prevent in this case. As such the report is without merit and I would suggest this is marked no action and rapidly closed. Nothing to see here folks. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning MarshalN20[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The request has merit. The edits at issue violate the topic ban.They are not exempt from it per WP:BANEX. That provision only excepts "reverting obvious vandalism". In this case, MarshalN20 did not revert the alleged vandalism, but commented on it. Also, the edits they commented on were not vandalism (see WP:NOTVAND), as these edits reflected what appears to be a genuine attempt to improve the content, no matter whether or not that attempt may have been biased, mistaken or otherwise flawed, and they were certainly not obvious vandalism (that would be adding text such as "PENISPENISPENIS"). In addition, the edits are not too stale for enforcement, as they date to two weeks ago. Furthermore, MarshalN20 is currently actively editing pages related to Falkland Islands, including specifically about their history (e.g. on 2 November 2013). Because the Falkland Islands are a point of contention between Argentina and Great Britain (see Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute), content about these islands is "content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed", and MarshalN20's edits related to that topic therefore infringe their topic ban. MarshalN20 was previously warned not to violate their topic ban (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive137#MarshalN20). MarshalN20 has ignored that warning and, in their response, show little understanding of the binding nature of their topic ban; they violate it even in their response by making a content argument about the practice of "repaso". Striking out some of the comments that violated their topic ban does not remedy the violation, because others had already responded to the comments, and the comments remain legible even after the strikethrough. What MarshalN20 means by "I contend to never even have taken part of the discussion" is not clear, as the diff they supply in evidence for this claim is of a comment by MarshalN20 referring to a source about a topic subject to the topic ban. That comment also violates the topic ban. In consideration of this, I've blocked MarshalN20 for a month, the maximum allowed for a first block under the relevant enforcement provision. Sandstein 19:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
|
HouseOfArtaxiad
[edit]| Six-month topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning HouseOfArtaxiad[edit]
Concerning the article of Shusha, HouseOfArtaxiad was warned against edit-warring already on 25 September, but neverthless proceeded further. His editing became a concern once more on 4 November and then again the next day. Now he contributed to a suspicious activity in the Shusha article once more, ignoring the ongoing discussion at the article's talkpage and twice reverting the addition that doesn't suit him. I think a block would be warranted now.
Discussion concerning HouseOfArtaxiad[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by HouseOfArtaxiad[edit]The talk page consensus was that Shushi was founded in 1428 by Armenians. Wiritng it was founded in 1752 by Persians contridicts the entire article, Brand needs to accept that. HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC) If anyone needs to be put under sanctions, it is Grand and Brand for their ill faith edits and obvious attempts to remove the Armenian history from the Shushi article. Grand in particular needs to be blocked for his obsession with creating a personal conflict with me for every edit I make, which violates WP:BATTLEGROUND. --HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC) User:EdJohnston Why does no one else get banned? And why should I get banned for that matter? You're outlook is "He didn't revert 3 times, but oh well. I've tried taking this to the talk and reporting it before anyone else. Fatbob didn't listen and the Admins didn't care. Why should I be punished for everyone else's mistakes? --HouseOfArtaxiad (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC) Statement by Grandmaster[edit]There's a parallel discussion about the conduct of this user at WP:AN: [51] Grandmaster 21:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC) Also, I think the fact that HouseOfArtaxiad claims a consensus at talk when there's clearly none shows that HouseOfArtaxiad does not understand what WP:Consensus means. Grandmaster 21:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC) And I find the rvs cited in this report to be quite disruptive, because HouseOfArtaxiad removed a reference to a source for no apparent reason, and tried to assert as a fact only one of the versions of the foundation of the town (and not the generally accepted one), suppressing the other, in contradiction to WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and a bunch of other rules. Such behavior demonstrates a failure on part of HouseOfArtaxiad to understand the core WP rules, and despite the previous warnings by admins and an ongoing discussion at WP:AN, he continues to make questionable reverts at an arbitration covered article. Grandmaster 21:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC) Statement by Hablabar[edit]It came to my attention that Brandmeister who filed this report was actually sanctioned for edit warring in the same Shusha article where he would be banned from Arm-Az area for two years [52]. His ban was shortened to half a year, and ended in August 2013. I find his report not only disingenuous but also an alternative way to attack his opponent(s) once the article was locked and out of reach for Brand, instead of engaging in consensus-building. Therefore, I recommend to view this reporting as filed with Unclean hands in light of Brand's own most recent and historical misconduct on the Shusha page. Hablabar (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC) Statement by EdJohnston[edit]HouseOfArtaxiad has now edit warred at two articles: List of massacres in Turkey and Nazim Bey. Look at the massacres article first because it's easier to check, even though HOA only reverted twice there:
One of the massacres that he removes is called 'Massacres in the Çoruh River valley', which has an academic source in a book by Robert Gewarth et al. published by Oxford University Press, “War in peace: Paramilitary violence in Europe after the Great War”. This was a massacre where Armenians are said to have participated. Another is Yıldız assassination attempt, which describes an attack carried out by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. It's reasonable to have low tolerance for edit warring on obvious ethnic hot-button articles like this one. The other article where HOA engaged in warring is Nazim Bey.
I didn't look into the claims of edit warring at Shusha, a dispute which has now led to full protection of the article by User:Ymblanter. My recommendation for a sanction is given in the admin section below. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC) Result concerning HouseOfArtaxiad[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The complaint doesn't make clear how these two reverts violate any conduct rule. Two reverts don't constitute edit-warring yet. As submitted, I'd close this as not actionable. In situations like this, tendentious editing is frequently a problem, but it would need a much more thorough evidence submission to establish that. On the other hand, HouseOfArtaxiad, this forum does not resolve content disputes, and therefore making any argument here based on what you think an article should contain is quite beside the point. Sandstein 20:56, 8 November 2013 (UTC) On a purely procedural note, no warning to HouseOfArtaxiad has been logged at WP:ARBAA2.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Based on the summary of his edit warring that I gave above, I recommend a six-month topic ban of User:HouseOfArtaxiad from AA2. I don't perceive that HOA recognizes the slightest problem with his edits. We do tolerate people coming to Wikipedia with a personal POV but we don't like to see it manifested in articles. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
|
Pluto2012
[edit]| It is fairly clear that there is no proven reason, nor consensus, to take any action here. Black Kite (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Pluto2012[edit]
Pluto2012 is cleverly deleting text on the verge of wp:disrupt. Each of his deletion might be considered as a "Petit Crime" only, but the accumulative effect is described as: "Their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive.". His Article contribution seems to have more red color that the black one. i.e more deletion than adding text. During the last months he deleted a lot (perhaps most) of my writing. He follows me and delete my text in articles and subject he has never visited before. The result is that I am busy looking for solution rather than adding content. I know the risk of wp:boomerang (I have received it unexpectedly at the help desk and at wp:drn) , but I hardly have something to lose, since I nearly can't contribute here anyway. notes:
Discussion concerning Pluto2012[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Pluto2012[edit]Disputes with numerous contributors[edit]We are many editors who are tired by Ykantor. You can read here some testimonies about his behaviour. He is not here to contribute to the project of writing a free encyclopaedia complying with WP:V and WP:NPoV. He is here to "correct" the anti-Israeli pov-pushing in the encyclopaedia. His attack here above against user:Zero0000 is another illustration of his behaviour (to be compared with what he wrote to him to get his mind : 1, 2 or 3. I don't feel like losing any more time with him. Pluto2012 (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Frustration[edit]I didn't defend myself but I want to say something about this : "[When Pluto edits] articles he never previously touched, and deletes my well supported sentence. He really works hard.[2nd degree]"...
Going on with the problematic attitude despite a WP:DRN and this WP:A/E[edit]Ykantor is now engaged in provocation. There are already quotes in this article. It is obvious that adding all these, the way he did, with bullet points, is not acceptable and is a provocation given he was already told these quotes were contentious. I also point out that I am the main contributor of this very difficult article and that I transformed it from a "list of massacres" where "editors" fought to add one or remove another to an article gathering most of the scientifical material concerning the massacres and their impact in the '48 war... And since, it has been quiet. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Quotes in citations[edit]The edit here above dating from yesterday is even more problematic given that :
Ykantor refuses to collaborate and performs WP:FORUMSHOPPING until he gets the answers he needs in order to justify his behaviour. Pluto2012 (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000[edit]Ykantor the complainant predicts that I will write "Pluto is excellent While I am horrible". Well, I don't know about horrible; there are worse editors around than Ykantor. Stubborn, opinionated, persistent, energetic and single-minded, but not horrible. Pluto deserves a medal for trying to moderate Ykantor's enthusiasm for rewriting large parts of Wikipedia to conform to a particular national narrative. I honestly don't know how Pluto finds the patience. Zerotalk 06:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I still won't give you "horrible", but I did forget "obsessive". Sometimes, like in your "any form of partition" obsession, I can hardly believe you are serious. You wasted so much of everyone's time on that tiny point, going on and on and on about it. Zerotalk 12:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Nishidani[edit]
Statement by ykantor[edit]
Statement by Keithbob[edit]FYI.... there are two ongoing discussions at WP:DRN that involve User:Ykantor and User:Pluto2012 (and others). These threads contain allegations of misconduct by various parties despite reminders that DRN is a content only forum. If anyone feels the DRN discussions might be relevant to this proceeding they may view them here. [54] [55] -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Pluto2012[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. This complaint is just a long list of edits with which the complainant disagrees. That is what we call a content dispute, and it is outside the scope of arbitration enforcement. Discretionary sanctions are authorized for editors violating "the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process"; nothing like that is alleged in the complaint. I'd close this without action and advise the complainant to follow normal dispute resolution procedures. Sandstein 20:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC) I see no basis for sanctions against Pluto (I didn't go back any further than the October diffs). If anything, I see disruptive editing by Ykantor, e.g., this biased and extroardinary edit already cited above by Pluto.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC) |
Doncram
[edit]| Withdrawn by the submitter Nyttend. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Doncram[edit]
No warning given, but I don't believe that one is needed here, as this case centered around Doncram's actions; it's not like WP:ARBPIA, which is relevant even to people who haven't heard of it before.
These additional comments I've added after filing the complaint. After I notified Doncram, I found that Seraphimblade had left Doncram a warning about the edits in question. Is it okay if I withdraw this request, since the issue's already been handled? Nyttend (talk) 03:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Doncram[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Doncram[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Doncram[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
DXRD
[edit]| DXRD is indefinitely topic-banned from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Sandstein 12:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning DXRD[edit]
DXRD is not a new editor; started 2006. Reminds me of someone, but I'm useless at sock detection. Talk page shows multiple prior complaints for editing misbehavior and personal attacks. In this instance is pushing rubbish into the sensitive article Palestinian people. The idea is that there are no Palestinians, but only interlopers from other places, since some of them have family names that indicate distant origin. It is a standard bleat of the most brainless branch of the anti-Arab right-wing.
Discussion concerning DXRD[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DXRD[edit]Statement by Malik Shabazz[edit]
Statement by AsceticRose[edit]It seems that DXRD has little concern about Wikipedia policies, and there is no indication that he is going to care about them. User:Zero0000 is probably right in smelling a rat here. DXRD's physical behavior is typical that of a sock, although it is a matter of investigation. He frequently calls others racist, and accuses them of anti-semitism in talks and edit-summaries. Just one example: He is a racist. If you don't care that's Wikipedia's problem, afterwards don't look someone to blame when Wikipedia will be criticised for racism/anti-semitism, you could have stopped it. You still can, if you'll block users of this kind.--DXRD (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC). His talk-page shows his other misbehavior and proof of disruptive editings. He has his own POV which seems to be very strong. So an indefinite ARBPIA topic ban can be appropriate. --AsceticRosé 04:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning DXRD[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
@Sandstein: Your block seems appropriate, since without it the reverts would have continued endlessly. In his recent edits DXRD seems to be going out of his way to show how much trouble he can be ("we can play this cat-dog game till you'll give up"). I'd support an indefinite ARBPIA topic ban. If he changes his mind in the future he can ask for it to be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
|
[Announcement] Discretionary sanctions review – draft 2
[edit]The Arbitration Committee is reviewing its discretionary sanctions system. Many administrators active on this noticeboard participated in a recent consultation for this review. The committee has taken into account all comments made in that consultation, and a second draft has now been published at WP:AC/DSR#Draft v2. Please review the new draft, and feel free to comment at WT:AC/DSR#Draft v2. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 23:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Alfonzo Green
[edit]| No actionable evidence submitted. Sandstein 19:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Alfonzo Green[edit]
This request is being brought because the editor in question is belaboring discussion of Rupert Sheldrake in order to push undue claims for Sheldrake's eccentric ideas. Back in October AG attempted to insert a claim that tests had given some measure of verification for Sheldrake's theories, which insertion was repeated several times in the face of opposition from other editors: I think there are a couple of others, but at any rate he ceased editing the article and turned to shopping the discussion around. In particular there was this long NPOV thread in which there was a fairly strong consensus against him. He has also participated in this BLP thread which similarly had not gone in his favor.
Sheldrake's article has been the focus of a lot of fringe promotion, and the burden of policing it is becoming excessive. We are being talked to death in an effort to postpone rejection of this material. I think AG is able to contribute elsewhere, so I think a topic ban would be a sufficient response.
Discussion concerning Alfonzo Green[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Alfonzo Green[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Statement by vzaak[edit]Some background for the uninitiated: since October, off-site canvassing (see here and here) has produced an influx of Sheldrake supporters. AG was involved in another warring incident in which he made edits that misrepresented Richard Wiseman. The already-mentioned NPOV/N complaint is related to this same issue. Since few are expected to read that long thread, I'll rephrase my final comment from there: AG's complaint contradicts bare facts in the interview and in the response paper. It was pointed out to AG that Wiseman says that he and Sheldrake were "addressing two different questions" and "testing two different claims".[59] AG responded by saying that "Wiseman appears to be trying to fudge the issue with his statement that he and Sheldrake were testing different claims".[60] AG was also directed to the response paper which is at odds with AG's conclusions.[61] AG replied saying that Wiseman was disingenuous in the paper.[62] With regard to both the interview and in the paper, AG dismisses statements which run counter to his narrative by claiming that Wiseman is not being truthful. The website AG is using as a source promotes the Wiseman-is-dishonest narrative. The site also promotes energy healing, talking with spirits, alien contact, Sheldrake himself, and related topics. In the above diffs I explained to AG that the site is not a reliable source anyway, which is another reason his edits can't go into the article, but this point also failed to convince AG. vzaak (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC) Statement by Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[edit]I'm in fair agreement with Vzaak (talk · contribs). There are two points to consider:
Let's look at these in more detail:
Specific issues with Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) is that:
I think that the best thing for Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) is that he is placed on a sanction preventing him from editing fringe articles, broadly construed, including talk pages. Violations of this should result in enforcement. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC) Statement by iantresman[edit]Some of the diffs provided seem to contradict, or differ from the allegations being made. For example, the one on 15 Oct seems to accurately note that joint tests with Prof. Rose were made (presumably because he felt they were testable); Rose said the data showed no evidence of morphic resonance, and Sheldrake disagreed. Clearly Alfonzo Green is not pushing one side or the other, and nor does he give Sheldrake undue veracity or credibility. Discussion about Rupert Sheldrake is prolonged. That is not the fault of any one editor, so it seems unfair to pick on Alfonzo Green because other editors disagree with him. Alfonzo Green also appears to have been target in this WP:AE case and he is currently involved in discussions with many editors in this NPOV case. He appears to be polite and assuming good faith, which is more than I can say for some of his critics, whose language appears to be quite emotive (see above for many examples), and whose accusation could just as easily be applied to themselves. --Iantresman (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC) Statement by George Ho[edit]I am an uninvolved editor, and I see nothing more than a content dispute regarding this topic. The fault neither lies on one editor or another. However, addition protection on this article should be encouraged. If "full protection" is too much, what are methods to resolve this issue besides this Arb case? The same content (not by reported editor) was added twice(?): [63][64]. Another content was disputed: [65][66]. And another content: [67][68]. As for the main subject of the enforcement case, he edited just one article this year. How is this case helping the cause? I can see that it would do very little or no effect to warring issue on the page that he worked on. Per WP:Protection policy, level-two "pending changes" is discouraged, especially by RFC 2012. However, if the warring doesn't stop soon, I would hope someone here can ignore consensus and then quickly enable PC2, like Bigg Boss 7. --George Ho (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC) Result concerning Alfonzo Green[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The diffs being reported are of 15 October. They are not actionable any more and predate the warnings. What if any are the current edits that are of concern? Sandstein 12:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
|
Pluto2012
[edit]| No actionable evidence submitted. Sandstein 19:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Pluto2012[edit]
We were discussing the problem in the article talk page in order to achieve a consensus. Among 5 participating users, 3 (me, user:Ykantor and User:Ynhockey,User:Kipa Aduma, Esq.) want this supported and notable sentence to be in the article. user:Huldra (she) was against it and initially deleted the sentence, but later I was in the process of discussing with her what is the context she wanted to add to this sentence. The 5th one is user:Pluto2012 who was busy repeatedly deleting this sentence , and not cooperating in the consensus building process. Note: an administrator user:Zero0000 may join and describe me as "horrible" while Pluto is "excellent". It has helped Pluto a lot in the past, and might help him again. But eventually, people will realize who is really the "bad" guy, and who is the "good" guy.
Discussion concerning Pluto2012[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Pluto2012[edit]Ykantor refuses to see any responsability in his behaviour and will not change this and he goes on with his WP:harassment and WP:Point. This last week :
The core of the problem of Ykantor was identified long ago on his talk page and discussed with him : he refuses to comply with NPoV and to add any information that he would not agree with and that could harm "his side". He is on wikipedia to fight for a cause and not to develop a free encyclopaedia. The attitude of Ykantor is really obsessive towards me and is not acceptable :
Pluto2012 (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000[edit]Note that a complaint by Ykantor against Pluto2012 was made here only 8 days ago and was dismissed, see above. Ykantor (the complainant) is a remarkably obsessive pov-pusher. When he decides that a sentence should be in an article, all the king's horses and all the king's men won't dissuade him. If he can't get his way by reinserting it multiple times, he'll fish for support on noticeboards and then he'll try to get rid of the editor who stands in his way. Ykantor notes that a discussion about the sentence is underway, which is true, but then he claims that the existence of the discussion means that the sentence must be in the article! It is the exact opposite of what WP:BRD advises, and a violation of the policy WP:NOCONSENSUS. His behavior seems to be getting worse day after day. (Incidentally, I have not investigated the sentence in question and don't have an opinion other than that it seems reasonable to debate its inclusion. Anyway, that's a content issue.) Propose. That Ykantor be warned that further use of administrative noticeboards to gain advantage in content disputes will be dealt with very sternly. Zerotalk 03:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Statement by Ykantor[edit]the user:Zero0000 is an administrator, and his claims are supposedly more objective. But he repeatedly saves user:Pluto2012 from troubles, like this occasion, of Pluto's multiple sock puppets accounts. I will not repeat Pluto's previous names since the administrator user:Zero0000 might block me, as he already warned another user, while trying to protect Pluto. In my opinion, Zero's view here are biased toward Pluto.
I call Pluto to stand behind his word: obvious sock - ready for a sacrifice in an edit war. He was aware of his edit warring, and should be treated accordingly Ykantor (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Those DRN are:
None of them ended normally, with a resolution. I wish all of those 6 DRN would have finished. As I already wrote in your talk page on 8 Oct 2013: "In my limited experience WP:Dispute resolution is useless. (sorry for the harsh words)" An on going DRN Already has a verdict in my favor, concerning a sentence ("The Arabs rejected any form of partition"). The resulted compromise is very similar to this sentence. The verdict is in my favor because there are plenty of RS supporting this sentence (or equivalent) while there is not even one RS supporting the other alternative (i.e. The Arabs supported at least one form of partition). The pro Arab editors were against this sentence,(most of the regular editors) including other articles as well . It is important to repeat: The pro Arab editors fought against this sentence although there is not even one RS who supports their view. The conclusion could be either of:
I have listed inaccuracies in 1948 Arab–Israeli War talk page(not full yet), and Plan Dalet talk page, not necessarily Anti Israeli inaccuracies. But there is no way to objectively assess them and insert to the article. It might seem crazy, but I propose to nominate someone to check the systematic anti Israeli bias in those articles. If there will be other consequences, I agree to be banned indefinitely from Wikipedia ( and this is a big sacrifice for me). Ykantor (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC) Statement by Sepsis[edit]I found this edit to be most amusing. I've seen forum shopping but going to the village pump? What's next, article creation - "Pluto is a big jerk"? This account has a few similarities to NoCal, if the account is not indef blocked for being extremely disruptive and for his conduct towards Pluto then an SPI would be appropriate. Sepsis II (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Statement by Huldra[edit]This is getting absurd. Ykantor opened up a similar WP:AE about the same user on the 8 November, it was closed on Nov. 12, with "It is fairly clear that there is no proven reason, nor consensus, to take any action here." Four days later, and Ykantor opens a new WP:AE, providing exactly -one- new "offending" diff from Pluto after the last AE closed. I´m tearing my hairs out in frustration here: can someone please block/stop Ykantor from waisting everybodys time? Huldra (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC) (Ps: I do not think Ykantor is Nocal, but i have a strong suspicion that he gets "info" (emails?) from Nocal, and some of Ykantors actions here are based on that "info". ) Statement by Nishidani[edit]Ykantor. A simple question, which I think bears on the dozen on recourses to various forums in your conflict with editors and particularly Pluto. In geopolitical conflicts where two nationalisms clash, do both sides have a legitimate POV, or is there a higher truth which vindicates the narrative of one side to that conflict? I think this is the key issue at stake here, and would appreciate your explaining precisely your view on it.Nishidani (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Statement by EdJohnston[edit]User:Ykantor has been involved in a number of article disputes since May 2013. The articles I have noticed are: From June through September he was at the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard *six times* about these articles (search results here). Commonly he listed the other parties in the dispute as User:Pluto2012, User:Nishidani and sometimes User:Dailycare. So far as I can tell, none of these filings was ever closed with a verdict in his favor. (Some expired with no action). Repeated filings against the same editors regarding the same articles (with no favorable results) looks like a refusal to drop the WP:STICK. Ykantor has now complained again at WP:AE against Pluto2012 while his previous report is still on the board. I propose that Ykantor offer a plan for how he can behave differently in the future. If he has no plausible suggestion to make, I recommend that he be banned for six months from ARBPIA. Ykantor's us versus them attitude on Arab-Israeli disputes raises questions about his ability to edit neutrally. ("I realized that a lot of my well supported editing is deleted by pro Arab users"). He seems to be acting as a partisan for one of the contending parties. EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC) Statement by an IP[edit]This statement has been removed by an administrator because the IP editor has since been blocked for topic ban evasion. Sandstein 19:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC) Statement by ZScarpia[edit]Could 174.44.174.192 be told that calling other editors faggots, even in edit comments, isn't the done thing, please? ← ZScarpia 14:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Result concerning Pluto2012[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The evidence is not actionable as submitted. Complainants must make clear how the edits at issue violate any Wikipedia conduct rule. "Deletion of a supported and notable sentence" isn't such an explanation. I have deleted many sentences on Wikipedia myself, come to think of it. As to the countercomplaint by Pluto2012, it is far too long and also rather short on evidently actionable evidence. Most other contributions are also not helpful and seem only to want to misuse this board to various other topic-related disputes. If no other admin objects, I'll close this without action. Sandstein 20:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
|
TopGun
[edit]| Darkness Shines and TopGun are given a final warning to deal with one another, and with editing articles in the topic area, appropriately or not at all. Further edit warring or other types of inappropriate behavior will lead to sanctions. This warning will be logged to WP:ARBIP. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning TopGun[edit]
@Seraphimblade: Given this is the first dispute between myself and TG in over a year, using such old actions to impose sanctions is hardly on. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion concerning TopGun[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by TopGun[edit]
--lTopGunl (talk) 12:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I will like to reiterate that I am not the only editor who is reverting DS here (which tells of the consensus). And I don't see why I should be sanctioned when an editor follows me to a new article and then starts reverting in a new version without completing any kind of dispute resolution and then goes on with AE... talking of quick escalation. I have nearly a year, and counting, of edit history to prove that I have stayed away from DS mostly. Also view the admin comment on talk page where DS attempted to get the edit protected version reverted. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC) Moved to user's comment section. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
@Regentspark, this was the exact edit that was denied during protection. Makes it a simple revert by definition, by letter and spirit of editwar. I did explain why that source wasn't to be removed. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Faizan[edit]I agree with TopGun. The user Darkness Shines is moving just without consensus. He has not given time to the article's talk page. The dispute ought to be solved by mutual harmonious discussion. Darkness Shines is edit-warring, this needs to be stopped. I don't see any violation of the Wikipedia's rules by TopGun. The other user ought to discuss the sources which he regards as "BLP Primary". Faizan 15:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Statement by Sitush[edit]@Sandstein. I've not looked at the latest spat being reported here but it does seem overly bureaucratic to suggest that, because of a technicality, one is warned and one has a temporary ban when it is indeed the case that TopGun is familiar with the sanctions that are in force and is not an occasional contributor to the topic area that is subject to the sanctions. Indeed, TopGun has been regularly involved in the fracas and is not unfamiliar with ANI, eg: see this. I wouldn't expect someone to formally warn me of the sanctions in this area, given my past involvement, and I don't really see why TopGun should be any different: they know what they are doing, just as I do. - Sitush (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
@Salvio Giuliano:, I remember that ongoing reporting saga - tedious or what? Given that there has been a gap and given that they are both capable of doings good things, I'd be inclined to treat this report as a final warning. If the pair of them engage in mutual edit warring etc in future then they're both topic banned, broadly construed: no excuses of "well, X started it". Let's see if they can police themselves, as they appear to have done for a while now. - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Statement by RegentsPark[edit]Looking (cursorily) at the request, I think that DS's report was unnecessary and the dispute doesn't really rise to the level necessitating sanctions and, perhaps, all that is required is that DS and TG be told that they need to seek mediation or some sort of dispute resolution. Particularly since the underlying issue seems unclear (for example, the info box and the article are inconsistent). An uneven sanction is likely to be unproductive since the underlying dispute is likely to go unresolved, an outcome that is not in Wikipedia's interests.--regentspark (comment) 18:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
@ Seraphimblade. No sanctions are necessary here. This is a content dispute and should not be handled through sanctions. I suggest, politely, that you merely close this as 'no action required' and we all move on to doing what we're supposed to do - adding content. --regentspark (comment) 18:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC) Statement by Keysanger[edit]User Darkness Shining has a perverse understanding of the Wikipedia rules. Here he recommends to a topic banned user to send intruccions per mail, because posting on his talk page would be break the ban: mailing it to me will not. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 10:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Statement by TParis[edit]@Seraphimblade: Yes, they have been at it for years. The first time I encountered both was here. @Sandstein: Considering that an Arbitrator and two other uninvolved administrators disagree with you on whether or not TopGun is sufficiently warned, I think you should respect that your opinion is in the minority here and either not act on it or act with respect to their opinion --v/r - TP 01:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC) Result concerning TopGun[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. This topic area is subject to discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBIP#Standard discretionary sanctions. The main issue here seems to be an edit-war between Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) and TopGun (talk · contribs) about the article Operation Chengiz Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), concerning a 1971 military engagement between India and Pakistan. Both users have reverted each other multiple times until the article was protected from editing. It is pointless to determine who edit-warred more or who had consensus (if any) on their side; both have contributed to the disruption brought about by the edit war. In principle, this would lead to sanctions for both users. However, only Darkness Shines is listed at Wikipedia:ARBIP#List of editors placed on notice, while we have no diff of a warning to TopGun that meets the formal requirements of WP:AC/DS#Warnings, which forbids us to sanction them at this time. I would therefore ban Darkness Shines from the topic of the India-Pakistan conflict for a month, and warn TopGun. Sandstein 08:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
|
Lecen
[edit]| Lecen is blocked for a month. Sandstein 19:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Lecen[edit]
The violaton of the interaction ban seems clearly obvious. I should point that Lecen only edits articles about XIX century biographies, countries or events; he never made any substancial work in football articles, and there was no risk of MarshalN20 and Lecen finding each other at the articles that caused the clarification request (in fact, they did not). I believe as well that the topic ban and the interaction ban are two different bans, independent from each other, even if caused by the same arbitration case; MarshalN20 clarification request is only about the topic ban. I also think that an interaction ban is a two-way thing with the same rules for both; it shouldn't make any difference who requested it first or if any of both users requested it. But even so, it is incorrect that he asked for an interaction ban against both MarshalN20 and me: as it can be seen at the discussion archived here, he only requested an interaction ban with MarshalN20. It was me who requested the interaction ban between us. Lecen's long text against MarshalN20 and me (which shows that he follows us), and his suggestion that he wants to take part in case either of us appeal the topic ban (something that won't happen until at least half a year... if it happens at all) shows that he is not adhering to the basic idea of the interaction ban: to forget about us and carry on with something else. By the way, what I'm doing here (reporting a violation of an interaction ban by the other party) is clearly included among the ordinary exceptions to a ban. And, as you can see, I'm focusing strictly in the violation of the interaction ban and related information; I don't know what else has Lecen been doing those last months, and I don't care anyway. I will now inform both Lecen and MarshalN20 of this discussion, per the standard procedure, and won't talk about Lecen anymore, unless the arbitrators have questions for me about this or if further violations take place.
Lecen and MarshalN20 Discussion concerning Lecen[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Lecen[edit]By topics:
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Lecen[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. This appears actionable, but isn't misconduct in arbitration fora normally addressed by arbitrators or clerks directly? I'll ask AGK (talk · contribs), the arbitrator who remarked on this incident at WP:ARCA, to comment. Sandstein 17:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
User:Lecen is under a standard interaction ban from MarshalN20. He should not be commenting on the filing opened by User:MarshalN20 at WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Argentine History, which was a request for clarification of MarshaN20's own topic ban. MarshalN20 does not mention Lecen's name in his own post, so Lecen has no right of reply. The exceptions listed at WP:TBAN#Exceptions to limited bans don't include what Lecen is trying to do. Lecen may be able to avoid sanctions if he will strike out his own comment at WP:ARCA. If Lecen won't take this action then I'd go along with the block proposed by Sandstein. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
|