Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive177
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Handpolk
[edit]| Appeal evaluated and declined. NW (Talk) 16:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Handpolk[edit]I am requesting that my topic-ban please be narrowed. Background On June 3rd, I saw Gamergate mentioned on another website, Googled it and landed on Gamergate controversy. I thought the lede could be improved and was prepared to make a bold edit. However based on the warnings I saw when I tried to edit, I presumed my edit would be reverted, so I went to the talk page. This was reverted due to the 30/500 rule that I was unaware of (admittedly, I did not actually read the warnings in the screenshot). I then came to A/E requesting that rule be changed, so that I and editors like me could edit the article. Here, Bosstopher suggested that I take part in WikiProject Wikify to meet the required number of edits (18). I screwed up I followed Bosstopher's link to WikiProject Wikify and I treated it as a game, looking for a way to make a bunch of edits quickly. I saw that List of awards and nominations received by Aamir Khan and List of Tamil films of 1973 had tons of overlinking and decided to remove internal links one at a time. Zad68 asked why I was doing that. I played dumb (19) but also stopped. I reached the remaining edits normally. As a result I was "indefinitely topic-banned from making edits related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate" by Euryalus. Onward I take full responsibility for gaming the system. I should not have done that. However, all I was guilty of was being over-anxious to edit one article. I never had any problems editing the article, nor on any related articles, nor on any other articles covered by the topic ban, nor any other articles at all. I am prevented from editing a huge number of articles I've never demonstrated any problems editing. I find such a far reaching top-ban unwarranted.
During the ANI that led to my topic-ban, I was accused by many editors of being an SPA, a 'Gamergate supporter,' and WP:NOTTHERE. I said then and I maintain now that this is not true. I would like to demonstrate why: My first edit while using an account was to Nick Young (basketball) on July 20th, 2014 (1). Between October, 2014 and January, 2015 I edited:
Then in the first half of 2015 I made many edits to the following articles:
When I think an article is biased, I am motivated to try and fix it. This is precisely what I was doing when I sought to edit Gamergate controversy. I have continued this pattern since the topic-ban:
Thus, I feel that any claims that I am an SPA, WP:NOTTHERE, or a 'Gamergate supporter' -- and that is why I wanted to edit Gamergate controversy -- are a violation of WP:AGF as they are not true and I've done nothing to demonstrate they are true. And I believe the far reaching nature of the topic-ban itself is a violation of WP:AGF. It implicitly assumes that I I am seeking to edit in bad faith. I am eligible to ask that the topic ban be removed entirely however I'm not asking for that. Honestly, I don't think my editing Gamergate controversy at this time would be productive for me or for Wikipedia. There is too much conflict and I'm bad at dealing with conflict. However -- I do not think it is in Wikipedia's best interest for me to be banned from editing other articles. I asked Euryalus to narrow the topic ban by giving me a defined list of articles I can't edit. Euryalus said "unless a topic ban is extremely narrow (for example just the Gamergate controversy article) the entire thing becomes hard to administer" (21). So I would request that my topic ban be reduced to just Gamergate controversy. Some articles that I've wanted to edited but have not due to fear they would be covered by the topic ban:
'Broadly construed' allows that language to potentially be applied to literally thousands and thousands of articles. Only one of which I've had problems on. Lastly, if you review the over 375 edits I've made since my topic ban, you'll see I am making productive contributions. I believe those edits demonstrate very clearly the accusations that were made about me previously (that I'm WP:NOTTHERE, an SPA and a 'Gamergate supporter') are not accurate. I realize this topic area attracted and still attracts many people who those labels may apply to -- but I'm not one of them. And I never was. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 08:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Euryalus[edit]Statement by ForbiddenRocky[edit]Given the contentious nature of GGC and Handpolk's behavior on the Golden State Warriors talk page, I don't think putting the GGC plus Handpolk together is a good idea at this time. (And before someone brings up hounding, GSW are my local team.) ForbiddenRocky (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Statement by MarkBernstein[edit]It appears to me that, at this moment in time. Handpolk is currently the subject of actions at AN/I, AN/3, and SPI, all while his appeal at AE is active. That's pretty impressive. MarkBernstein (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Handpolk[edit]Comment by GoldenRing[edit]@Handpolk:I've reformatted your appeal as an arbitration enforcement appeal per the instructions at the top of this page. Apologies to all that it took me a few goes to get it right. Sometimes copy-paste is a good thing, I guess. Handpolk, I'd counsel you to drop this for now. Go do something productive elsewhere in the encyclopedia for a few months. Uninvolved admins may disagree, of course, but IMO this is still waaaaay too fresh to have any chance of succeeding. Racking up edits very quickly and then coming straight back to have your sanction lifted does not exactly inspire confidence that you intend to constructive build quality articles in line with policy. Do something else for a while. The world will not end if you take a break from editing GamerGate- and gender-related articles for a few months, nor will the encyclopedia fall into wrack and ruin. Go and care about the encyclopedia somewhere else for a bit. And, if you're not here because you care about the encyclopedia, then I guess you're not here because you care about the encyclopedia. GoldenRing (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment by 50.0.136.194[edit]I think it's too early to lift Handpolk's topic ban (those usually run for a few months) but I myself would feel better if there was some kind of clarification from the AE admins that Handpolk's KP edit didn't really breach the topic ban. I've never edited GGC myself (I've avoided even reading the article) but I've made some edits related to Reddit co-founder and departed Wikipedian Aaron Swartz, so seeing Handpolk get blocked over editing Kleiner Perkins because of KP's distant connection with Reddit scares me, even though my edits about Aaronsw long predated Gamergate. Handpolk: in cases of doubt, I believe you're allowed to approach Euryalus (the admin who placed the topic ban) and ask if it covers some specific article you want to edit. If I'm wrong, I hope someone below will correct me. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Comment by Beyond My Ken[edit]Handpolk conveniently neglects to mention his deliberate gaming of the 500/30 system by making multiple very small edits to List of Tamil films of 1973 (154 edits of 4 bytes each in less than an hour) and List of awards and nominations received by Aamir Khan (35 edits in 10 minutes, the vast majority of them of 4 bytes) in order to qualify to edit GamerGate topics, all while disclaiming any interest in GamerGate. Of course, as soon as he had "qualified", he started editing GamerGate articles. A number of admins commented at the time that such behavior warranted an indef block, so Handpolk was lucky to get off with a mere topic ban. Such deceptiveness on Handpolk's part should not be rewarded, and I see no compelling reason in his argument above for the removal or lessening of the topic ban. BMK (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Handpolk[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TripWire
[edit]Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
- Appealing user
- TripWire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)—TripWire talk 20:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
- Log: Topic ban from India-Pakistan conflicts & Pakistani politics, Ban explanation by FPAS.
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Notification of that administrator
- The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, [1]. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.
Statement by TripWire
[edit]I havent made any edits in the past few days and yesterday I find myself banned? This is unfair and is not done with good faith. FPAS has accused me of being an "editor whose presence on Wikipedia is motivated almost entirely to a desire to push a certain national POV", which indeed is not the case. Speaking truly, I dont even know which of my edit exactly made FPAS think that I am here 'to push a certain national POV'? Recently, I was only participating at the talk pages and out of the last 200 plus edits that I have made, only 4-6 are actual edits on a page! All the remaining are comments on talks pages. Out of those 4 or 6 edits 2 were to revert a declared edit-warrior (KnightWarrior25). Had the Admins not taken 2 days to blocked him when he was reported for 3RR here these reverts might not have been made. I dont know why he, after committing 7 x reverts within 24 hrs was allowed to play havoc by editing with impunity?
Moreover, not a single edit of mine in the past has been done without discussion on talk pages, I guess that's how things work at wiki, right? How is that POV pushing when you are only editing after discussion? BTW, most of the edits that I wanted to make are still under discussion and hence not been added to any page. How come then I was able to push a POV when the edits were never even made? Reverting a chronic sock like DarknessShines2, who has like 50 socks, only AFTER it was recently banned is POV Pushing?
As you already know that I am a new user, dont be mistaken that I joined wiki 2 years ago. As can be seen from my edit history, after registering two years ago, I only made 2 or 3 edits and since then I was inactive, I only became active a few weeks back. You cant expect me to start editing every possible article on Wikipedia, ofcourse being a newcomer it is but natural that I will begin by editing pages which interest me and then may be expand my edits to other broader topics.
What bothers me is that I haven't made any significant edit since 23 June and I still get banned for POV pushing?
Please note that I have a clean block log.
I am sorry, buy I have to say this that it seems as if because a large no of sock who were pushing Indian POV at the pages I was interested in were banned/ recently, hence FPAS is just trying to balance the equation by banning editors from the opposite side too. Therefore, I request that my ban is lifted.—TripWire talk 21:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise
[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)
[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)
[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by TripWire
[edit]Result of the appeal by TripWire
[edit]- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
All Rows4
[edit]| The incident did not rise to the level of requiring AE enforcement action. An informal collegiality warning was left with the editor, but no other action is required. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning All Rows4[edit]
None that I can see.
While the last DS notice on the user's talk page is in June 2014, so slightly more than a year ago, his talk page comments indicate that he is familiar with WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions.
Since I am accused of source falsification, I have to go a bit into the content. This is just for clarifying the issue: I am not asking you to adjudicate a content issue. I urge you to read the whole section on the talk page.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsindian (talk • contribs) time, 17:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion concerning All Rows4[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 All Rows4[edit]I stand by the charge that Kingsindian has falsified sources. He added the following statement, into an article covered by WP:ARBPIA: "On 15 September 1982, 63 Palestinian intellectuals, notably lawyers, medical staff and teachers, were individually identified and killed by an Israeli unit called Sayeret Matkal.[1][2]". Immediately after doing so, he explicitly admitted on the talk page that he had not verified either of the sources he used, and in fact, could not do so with regards to at least one of them as he not only has no access to it, but doesn't read French. [2]. For this alone, he should probably be sanctioned, but it is actually worse: In the same edit where he admits to not verifying the 2nd source, he tells us that the first source DOES NOT support the statement that he added: "The other source (Trablousi) mentions Sayeret Matkal going into the camps but not this incident specifically." Another editor subsequently found and translated the French source that Kingsindian did not read, and it turns out that that source, too, does not support the claim. The claim that "63 Palestinian intellectuals, notably lawyers, medical staff and teachers, were individually identified and killed" is nowhere to be found there. As a side note, that 2nd source, which is the sole source for this claim repeated by other sources, is not a reliable source, but as Kingsindian never even read it, and it does not say what the statement he added claims , it does not even matter. If needed, I will dig up from the archives of WP:AE multiple cases where people have been topic banned from this topic area for source misrepresentation far milder than this case. This sanction should be applied here. As one example , see [3] where 3 admins supported a 3 month topic ban for an editor who wrote that a source spoke of "more than 2,100 dead", when in fact the actual source said "more than 2000", and in another place attributed a statement to "Hamas Ministry of Health"" when the source actually said "Palestinian health officials". Incidentally, Kingsindian participated in that AE procedure, so he is quite aware that his misrepresentation are at least equally bad. I do not believe that calling things what they are - in this case a misrepresentation of sources- is a personal attack. Indeed, the archives of WP:AE are full of cases where admins and other editors use this exact terminology to describe very similar cases of using lanaguage not found in sources. I am, however, willing to do this: If Kingsindian acknowledges he was wrong to-reinsert the contested claims without checking the sources , and while knowing that at least one of the sources does not support the specific claim, and agrees to not repeat this behavior, I will change the wording of my claims to "added sources that do not support the claim" instead of "falsified sources". Statement by Rhoark[edit]Both parties seem to be making good-faith efforts to follow policy and verify sources. This acrimony is not helping anything. I suggest everyone redirect from editor behavior back to the content. Rhoark (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by Nishidani[edit]Well, Kingsindian has always, on the rare occasions he comes here, asked for leniency. I think this is more serious than it looks, because All Rows4, after he had read Kingsindian's complaint here where he could not have but noticed the issue of WP:ARBPIA, insisted on repeating his accusation that Kingsindian falsified sources. He didn't. He restored what appear to be 2 reliably published sources removed on dubious grounds by All Rowse. Al Rowse did not indicate whether he had read those sources. His reason in the edit summary was: That is a wholly subjective point of view. There is nothing in itself smacking of an exceptional claim in the idea that Special Forces might have been on the ground after Israel had surrounded and sealed the camp a day before the slaughter. Special forces are always first in, in any combat zone like that. On the face of it Alain Menargues (long time Lebanese correspondent for the French Press) published by Éditions Albin Michel, and Fawwaz Traboulsi (Associate Professor of History and Politics at the Lebanese American University) by Pluto Press are not sources one removes at sight.
It is particularly absurd of him to accuse Kingsindian of falsifying sources (rather than doing what he himself didn't do, i.e. investigate the matter in depth before jumping to conclusions), when he himself falsifies the source, a source he accepts, by removing most of its content. Kingsindian did the right thing. He consulted books, asked for collegial research to be done, which is pulling up further details, and using the talk page, which Al Rowse rarely does, and did rather late in the piece (the 63 number which he fusses about is in Ménargues, as any google search would have discovered. I find it offensive that Al Rowse, a consistent removalist, when checked, has accused a very level-headed, even-handed editor of independent judgement of source falsification, then did it himself, then, told of the complaint which asked him only to strike it out, had the hide to proceed, in full awareness of the Arbpia rules mentioned in the complaint, to repeat the infamy and suggest Kingsindian should be sanctioned. This is just for the record. This wear and tear is extremely tedious and leads nowhere, as usual. Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning All Rows4[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TopGun
[edit]Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
- Appealing user
- TopGun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – lTopGunl (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
- Log: Topic ban from India-Pakistan conflicts & Pakistani politics, Ban explaination by FPAS, Comment after requesting reconsideration (not declined reconsideration but has been made after the request, so I'm choosing to appeal to uninvolved admins).
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Notification of that administrator
- The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, [5]. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.
Statement by TopGun
[edit]The sanction has been made without assuming good faith and with lack of proper judgment and not giving me a chance of explaining - this is quite unfair and punitive. FPAS has accused me of showing gross lack of competence which is not remotely the case. The edit for which I was sanctioned as per the only explanation I got on my talkpage was this [6] saying that it was not reinstating a version better than the one added by that user. In my defense, I had no problem if both got removed... I was infact reverting an SPA who first appeared at Talk:Kargil War in a sock infested RFC with several sock farms in play. I merely reverted this SPA on Indian Army based on his POV pushing. The version it consequently got reverted to (which was the original version beforehand - not my own addition to the article) contained possibly a slight POV which was mostly based around facts. This was removed in the next edit all together by another editor and I was completely fine by that. I did not dispute it, nor did I revert it... that alone showed that my revert to the SPA was a good faith revert on top of the fact that I hardly edit Indian Army. The edit in question is not worth anything more than a talkpage warning at max. It appears that this was an attempt to dish out even handed "punishments" to all involved in the dispute at Talk:Kargil War even though socks were the ones causing the havoc.
I will also note that editors have authority over content (not admins) and as I said to FPAS on my talkpage, I would not have disputed if he had reverted me as an editor - as seen in the removal in next edit of the same - so he has no justification for the sanction in that regard too. There was no pov warring from my side. On the other side (on a related mess), any edits I had made in Talk:Kargil War or the article were either reverting blatantly disruptive editors or obvious socks that any sane editor would revert or strike. The RFC was eventually so much over run by socks that it had to be closed without going forward. In the RFC, after noting my own part in consensus, I started to avoid engaging others and focused on SPI and sock hunting along with trying to stop an editwarring editor (through proper course of action including WP:BRD, talk page discussion and AN3) who was disrupting the same article on an unrelated issue [7]. I edit intermittently, and when I do, I've not been accused or warned by an admin on my talkpage to be heading towards any kind of sanction since the last. What makes this revert such disruptive that it warrants a sanction without warning?
Some background: I have been dealing with a topic area which is highly sock infested. Starting from the abusive sock puppet, Darkness Shines who now returned to troll at this RFC and a few other articles (who I caught and reported along with his sock farm of IPs), there were some other obvious socks too. Dishing out sanctions even handedly is misjudgement and lack of common sense while handling such situations a fact accepted by an admin here with the statement that this is the exact aim of such socks. To cause so much disruption and muddy the waters so much that every one gets some kind of sanction. While this might have been considered something truly beyond control of unaware admins at that point in time, now when all are aware that obscure SPAs along with blatant socks are POV warring, this should not be allowed. Based on this and my block log addendum, working in this content area has earned me a lot of accusations and even admin actions - which were either reverted right then or later when the socks were recognized. My previous AE sanction was also later revealed to be resulted from a long time sock master abusing multiple socks since years and using them all to create fake consensus. I chose not to take this again to a noticeboard and avoid drama, but I'm mentioning this now to show the reviewing admin(s) the extent to which these two editors were socking and hounding my edits. This is relevant here because I suspect, in addition to Darkness Shines, OccultZone socks were also involved in this RFC (although blocked without report). In no way should I have received a sanction, not to mention a sanction escalated 6 month to stale actions that were previously related to / due to baiting of the mentioned sock masters based on FPAS's individual lack of judgment. Instead he should have asked a second opinion or acted impartially while using discretionary sanctions. This would be incompetent use of admin authority if not an abuse while imposing discretionary sanctions on an established editor. Although all my actions including my blocks, sanctions etc (baited or not) are all stale, the sock masters are still active and evidently hounding me and the topic area.
This massive hounding and trolling by socks should have atleast warranted a leeway to revert a (now blocked) nationalist SPA's POV to a last standing version without being sanctioned. Even if my edit was reverting to a POV version, it was not incompetent - the fact that I was catching so many socks is itself proof of competence in handling a POV sensitive, sock infested topic area. It is not an unforgivable offense to make such a revert and esp not one that warrants a quick sanction with no questions asked.
Therefore, I'd request to uninvolved admins that this sanction should be revoked / reverted.
PS. Pakistani politics (a part of the sanction) is an unrelated topic area I seldom edit (I don't know how that came in relation to "India-Pakistan wars and conflicts" disputes). --lTopGunl (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Response to Future Perfect at Sunrise
[edit]Your comment does not address the fact that I did not re-add the statement when it was removed. There was no disruption caused, no editwar (not even a second revert), neither was there any cycle of POV war which you claimed. It was a matter of content which I didn't dispute rather an editor that I considered not Kosher and all his editing in general to be disruptive (such as copy paste complete, exact, comments of IPs into RFC. I was bound to take a look at his editing history to see what other articles he was disrupting. Blanket reverting such SPAs does come in handy at times and the aim is to curb the content they are adding, esp. when dealing with such massive new accounts, out of 10s that I correctly caught to be disruptive and reverted their out right vios, one edit that reverted in bad content in a blanket revert (to another one of those disruptive SPAs) does not qualify as worthy of ban even if considered in context to the whole topic area. At this pace no established editors would be ready to put their hands into this and the socks get what they want (as it happened to the RFC, which got shut down with your WP:SUPERVOTE rather than no result as you ended it to be). I should not be made the scapegoat for what is wrong with the topic area - I'm one of the few editors who are trying to clean it up of socks... of both sides as I face them: [8] [9]). --lTopGunl (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Future Perfect at Sunrise, JzG, so here we are... the editor I reverted has now been confirmed by Bbb23 & NeilN as a sock of the disruptive editor I was reverting else where. My assumption - and approach - was right (although I agree the edit should have been manually reverted with all POVs removed). The same editor was just reverted by Cluebot right before me [10] on the same edit [11]. Cluebot does not revert to itself by design to avoid editwar which is obviously why it was a single revert but I am sure this was not a false positive either - so would you be shutting down the bot as well? This is as far as good faith goes. I reverted a sock and nuking a sock's edits do not mean the reverter endorses previous versions. This topic ban is just unnecessary. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Response to Human3015
[edit]I restored the edit you mentioned on its own merits and I agree with reviewing quality of edits, correct but that does not mean that I am in favour of socking which is evident by my report of the same editor [12]. I don't collaborate with socks or take their opinions into any consideration as you did here to file a report on sock's advise. It only appears the one you are mentioning just came back as soon as he saw you raise his edit and my topic ban [13]. In this case, I was dealing with more socks than a few editors could have dealt with alone. I did what I could - the net result was that many sock farms got detected and blocked (see barnstars on my talk along with diffs above)... there's no need to cherry pick this single mistake (which I did not redo when I saw it was just bad both ways). We don't punish or flog editors on wikipedia. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Human3015, that is pure accusation of bad faith / WP:AOBF, that too not based on action rather inaction of mine towards another sock while I was busy catching a full sock farm. I reported Indian Karate Girl (sock of a banned Pakistani editor) just as it appeared along with its "opponent" sock. Both were done as they happened. Please note that as you chose to comment at this AE appeal, your own actions (esp. the ones here) are also under review. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Human, you're involved... read the criteria on top of this appeal. You've had and have multiple disputes open with me including the one you are mentioning now. I think I've abundantly clarified your concerns that the edit in question was a mistake I accepted / let go long before any admin action. I'll just wait for other admins to comment. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Response to Shrikanthv
[edit]You (re)started the dispute on Kargil war (not me) that eventually lead to an RFC after editors having opinions about both sides had already achieved a consensus that was standing for long... but similar to Battle of Chawinda RFC, my stance in the dispute was correct as per results of Chawinda RFC. Anyway, what you are saying is purely content related. The fact that disputing content brings "turf war" (esp. of socks of banned editors) to an article should not scare away editors and is certainly no reason to ban them. Banned editors should never be allowed to scare away legit editing of an article. Although this has nothing at all to do with the edit that got me topic banned (which I have quite a few times accepted as a blanket revert and an obvious mistake)... I was merely in a content dispute here that was over run by socks (which I did a great effort catching and eventually shutting down). --lTopGunl (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Response to JzG
[edit]JzG, actually my stepping back would only help the socks. Since the time I've been topic banned, all those socks have resurfaced [14] [15] and caused much disruption before getting caught. Although I know my topic ban wouldn't stop me from filing an SPI or reporting a block / ban evasion (as that is illegit itself), however, many of these disruptive socks first appear to be genuine editors and I would really not be able to prevent such disruption with this ban (which I have been preventing before) as I won't be able to raise disputes. As for editwar, If you see most of my reverts don't go above 2 (and never ever above 3RR)... I've never reverted so much as to raise any issues of editwar itself, I also show clear indication by starting a talkpage discussion and stopping to revert that I do not intend to editwar whenever I'm in disputes (unless I'm reverting a WP:DUCK confirmed sock). --lTopGunl (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- The reverts you called editwar (that too not violating 3RR or showing any indication of continuing to revert) are now confirmed to have been to socks, mostly of a single master. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise
[edit]The edit I pointed out to TopGun is, of course, not the only matter at hand here, but it is representative of what's wrong with this entire topic area and with TopGun's own approach to it. TopGun is arguing essentially that because the other editor involved was a POV-pushing SPA, he was justified in blanket-reverting it without looking at the merits of the edit. Well, no, he wasn't justified in doing so. In the present situation on those India-Pakistan topics, where several sock farms and crowds of POV-warriors are fighting with each other, all because each of them (rightly) thinks the other side is POV-pushing and then (wrongly) concludes you have to fight that other side with dirty tricks, the very last thing we need is editors making blanket reverts as a routine reaction. The edit in question did not just contain "possibly a slight POV", as TopGun claims now. It contained the grossly obvious (and ridiculously misplaced) POV editorializing of " which ought to be a part of Pakistan. Therefore Pakistan Army had to step in"; it contained the unsourced and equally POV statement that "people of Kashmir wanted to be a part of Pakistan", plus it contained multiple instances of horribly bad grammar (to be fair, the remaining text around it is still equally full of those, but the alternative text parts Tejas MRCA had inserted instead were noticeably better). Tejas MRCA had provided a clear and informative edit summary [16] explaining that he was undoing an old POV edit by some other account that had slipped through some weeks ago [17]. It took only a minute to check the editing profile of that old account to verify Tejas MRCA's assertion (well, except for the fact that he'd wrongly labelled it as "vandalism", when it was "just" a gross POV edit). TopGun's knee-jerk reaction of reverting to this horribly bad edit, merely because he instinctively distrusted the editor who had removed it, was just the paradigm case of the type of action that keeps these vicious circles of revert-warring moving. A responsible editor would have taken the edit, looked at it, recognized what was wrong with both versions, and tried to reword it into something that did justice to both POVs. If you're not willing or able to do that, you shouldn't be editing this topic area at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Human3015
[edit]I'm Human3015. There is some indirect mention of mine here, the main central article here Indian army was later edited by me, and there was some discussion between TopGun and FPAS on my talk page. I just want to say that, as said by FPAS this sanction on TopGun is not just for this one gross edit, but for his overall attitude. You can see user page of User:TopGun, it have many user templates, one if it is "This user supports unification of Kashmir with Pakistan". We don't have to think that he is hardcore nationalist just because of this one template but this can be just one of evidence. And he claim that he just blanket revert sock it doesn't matters merit of edit, ok, but see deep edit history of article Anti-Pakistan sentiment, Excipient0 who is sock of Nangparbat[18] first time deleted apparently relevant and sourced matter from said article [19], who was later reverted by many [20] including Cluebot NG [21]. But this time TopGun don't think about blanket revert of sock rather he go for merit of edit and lastly Excipient0's version restored by TopGun [22]. Here apparently relevant and sourced edit he feel original research, ok, it can be a original research even if edit war was started by sock still we should go for merit of edit. We should check for quality of edit as said by TopGun in restoring sock's version. But he forgot these point while reverting sensible edits by sock on Indian army. --Human3015 knock knock • 10:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- You reported Indian-Karate-girl only after you got topic banned maybe to show how neutral you are, while you never cared to investigate Excipient0 on Anti-Pakistan sentiment when he was active in edit warring and apparently a sock puppet at that time, maybe because he was pushing your POV. In fact, at last you restored Excipiant0's version. --Human3015 knock knock • 12:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- TopGun, you blamed me for doing this sockpuppet investigation on request of other socks. Ok. First of all I never consider any IP or New User as sock at first place, because I am involved in welcoming many IPs and New Users to Wikipedia by welcome template, so I'm very used to with such IPs or New Users, thats why I never started sock puppet investigation against Excipiant0 because he was new user. Also as our discussion is going on "quality" or "merit" of edit than who posts it, I thought advice of that IP was sensible, as I explained in that sock investigation anyone could have perception that he is sock of TripWire, as we know behavior of TripWire, he is also topic banned, see here in detail. Admin FPAS even called him "harmful" to project and "tendentious nationalist POV editor", these are findings of admin. But I was knowing it since long as we were involved in some articles. So as per my Wikipedia experience, such users do have some sock puppets, so my suspicion was worth and was based on the "merit" it doesn't matters who gave me idea for that. --Human3015 knock knock • 13:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Moreover, TopGun want to shift focus of discussion on me. I'm here actually uninvolved editor, because I have not done any ANI to Topic ban TopGun, or I have not requested FPAS to Topic Ban TopGun, but still TopGun moved my comment from un-involved editor to involved editor[23] maybe in the hope that in case Human3015 will also get topic banned. In the start of my comment I have explained my limited role in this issue. Moreover, since he got topic banned my talk page has received many advices, they want to highlight me also. As soon as TopGun topic banned advice by Nangparbat's sock, Indian Karate Girl, advice by TripWire, advice by TopGun himself, and most recent advice by Faizan. There is one "research" posted by Pro-Indian sock against one allegedly Pro-Pakistani "group" of editors related to "India-Pakistan Conflict" which also includes TopGun,[24] though this research is posted by a sock but as we are going by "merit" of the comment this should be considered. --Human3015 knock knock • 14:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- TopGun you said "we have many disputes open between us". You have to name few. I don't think that we have any pending dispute. As far as Indian Army edit is concerned its not dispute, you accepted current version as of now. On Anti-Pakistan sentiment you reverted me then I just left the topic without reverting you so no dispute is there also. Which dispute you are talking about? As far as detailed research of sock is concerned I have no issue over it. So what dispute we have which makes me involved editor? I have never reported you to any board like "Edit warring","conflict of interest", "DRN", "ANI", "Vandalism" nor you reported me for the same. So what pending disputes we have? And whatever disputes we had in past, that much of disputes you had with many other editors, why you are not involving them here? What makes me special? --Human3015 knock knock • 14:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Shrikanthv
[edit]Eventhough Topgun has contributed greatly to Pakistan related articles, I agree with this topic ban, seems to allways bring up turf war by bringing in controvercial wordings in the article often leading to long RFC'S e.g Battle of chawinda and can be looked here, finally had to inform all the communities involved and took long discussions to close, same ideology was repeated here at Kargil war the wordings change was totally not needed on who is superior to whom and after opening an RFC, we can also see vigorous reverts and strong sentimental tagging and commenting on each responce. as it is only a topic ban, that too related only with INDIA-Pakistan this should be of no great loss to his contribution and also should save lot of future RFC'S which will come if he is left to edit in this topic Shrikanthv (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by TopGun
[edit]- "Indian troops were airlifted to Srinagar, which ought to be a part of Pakistan. Therefore Pakistan Army had to step in"? You're responsible for your edits, regardless of what SPAs or socks are doing. I could buy you were being hasty and reverting more based on who was editing than what the edit was. It would be better to simply acknowledge that mistake than write a wall of text of "socks made me do it". Mntzzr (talk · contribs) needs scrutiny for the original edit. Rhoark (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Rhoark, I agree, it might have been a POV version on par with the one added later, but is it a sanction-able offense while blanket reverting an SPA (not going in and typing in that text)? I don't agree - a note on talkpage would have suffice. I don't mean to say the socks made me do it, simply reverted to whatever version was standing last (my whole statement narrows down to what you are saying; that an editor should be given enough leeway - to make a few mistakes without being cherry picked - based on "who" he is reverting when dealing with explained situation). And as another editor completely removed it, I realized it was better now. Did I even remotely showed signs that I would add that version back after that? No. I think that is plain acceptance even before FPAS ever went through that edit --lTopGunl (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by TopGun
[edit]- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- It seems very much as if TopGun would benefit from a break from this topic. If I were TopGun, I would be very much inclined to walk away, wikignome elsewhere for a couple of months, and return refreshed, at which point an unambiguous record of (a) abiding by what is clearly a defensible restriction and (b) showing commitment to Wikipedia rather than one side in a hotly contested area, will make an appeal more likely to succeed. Or, just wait it out. I do not see any realistic likelihood of success for this appeal since TopGun has indeed been edit-warring from a specific POV, regardless of the merits of any of the edits reverted. Guy (Help!) 20:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Neptune's Trident
[edit]| Neptune's Trident is admonished, and warned that any repetition is likely to lead to an indefinite block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Neptune's Trident[edit]
Editor is in clear violation of the block already imposed on them
Discussion concerning Neptune's Trident[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 Neptune's Trident[edit]If I can be totally honest, the reason I got banned from this topic was because I requested out of good will, (Redacted). This was NOT done out of malice or slander. I simply thought Brianna Wu, listening to her in interviews on NPR and other news outlets (Redacted). I didn't have any reliable sources to back that up so I was pretty much given a 48 hour ban from Wikipedia when I was just trying to improve the article, and my guess is some administrators thought I was being (Redacted) or trying to intentionally slander a subject of a Wikipedia article. I got upset and tried to explain this to the person who gave me the 48 hour ban that I was not trying to slander anyone or (Redacted) or put false information on an already locked Wikipedia article, and that was like red to a bull and another administrator gave me a longer ban on top of that. I wasn't going to respond to this since I'm expecting much the same reaction. I hesitated before adding the link to the Giant Spacekat article on the Gamergate article, thinking, I shouldn't do that, but I just wanted to make the one edit and leave it at that. I admit it, I made a mistake, yet the reasons for me being "banned" from the subject matter were totally unfair in my opinion. I said nothing about the ban since I felt it wouldn't do any good, I was clearly outnumbered, But I foolishly pressed the save button and made the edit on the Gamergate controversy article and here we are. Neptune's Trident (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
You can see how Strongjam changed my statement from before right here: Maybe Strongjam was trying to help yet it didn't seem that way at the time, I could be wrong though. I'm just hoping I get a fair shake here and not just ganged up on by the same people who gave me, what I felt, was an unwarranted ban on this topic, thanks. And what good does it do for me to give a statement and some other editor and come along and redacted or re-edited as THEY WANT it? Isn't it supposed to be my statement? Neptune's Trident (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Strongjam[edit]Just a note that I've redacted some of Neptune's Trident statement. WP:BLP applies here as well and I don't think repeating the exact details of the edit that brought on the topic ban is needed anyway. — Strongjam (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Rhoark[edit]Neptune seems to be a WikiGnome with a strong aversion to talk pages, doing a lot of wikilinks, infoboxes, and company stubs. Most of the links in the section for evidence of awareness are broken, and don't seem to apply to this user. I certainly don't see them mentioned in the ArbCom decision. They were apparently topic banned in March due to a rev del'd edit to Talk:Brianna Wu, which if I had to guess I'd bet was a request to edit the infobox that hit on hot-button MOS:IDENTITY issues. If there's a rhyme or reason to the pages they choose to do their gnome thing, I don't see it. Certainly not any detectable battleground mentality. They may be a field test of IBM Watson, or a Roomba. I suggest a formal admonishment. Rhoark (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by Bosstopher[edit]Given that they went and did it again, I was wondering if anyone explained to Neptune's Trident over email or something exactly why what they're doing is a BLP violation? Their actions seem to be less out of malice and more out of complete failure to understand BLP policy amongst certain other things. Bosstopher (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by Darwinian Ape[edit]I don't know what is the degree of the BLP violation since it was redacted from Neptune's Trident's statement, but reading other editors' statements, I gather it was not a grave one or that it's probably an honest mistake. At least his repeat of the said BLP violation seems to me purely to inform how he got the topic ban and not to actually repeat it. Bad judgement, not bad faith. This topic has been the demise of so many editors left and right, I fear gamergate gods demand blood once again.:) What I would suggest is given that there is evidence this person may be acting in good faith and just ignorant of the law, we should excuse this breach and give him a formal admonishment. I would further suggest his ban to be lifted, if Neptune can agree to stay away from the topic itself and be very very careful not to violate BLP policies any further, so that small and noncontroversial edits of his would not end up in AE. Either way, a block to me seems like punitive rather than preventative. Darwinian Ape talk 05:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by MarkBernstein[edit]If I recall the BLP violation that I came across and reported to Oversight -- and there have been so many of these that I may be confused – it was the sort of thing that has, in other cases, led some people to suicide, and in other cases incited massive lawsuits. Let’s not get carried away with how minor and harmless the violation was; BLP is a fairly bright line. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Neptune's Trident[edit]
|
Arthur Rubin
[edit]This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Arthur Rubin
[edit]- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- HughD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- 5 September 2013 Case Tea Party movement Arthur Rubin topic-baned
- 23 August 2014 Case Tea Party movement Arthur Rubin amendment
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 12:37, 3 July 2015 disruptive edit, removal of NPOV article page hat
- 05:22, 6 July 2015 disruptive edit, restoration of NPOV article page hat
- 05:30, 6 July 2015 solicitation of an editor to evade enforcement
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 5 September 2013 TBan as party to TPM case
- 14 December 2013 blocked for a week
- block log
- 23 August 2014 Amendment request; TBan lifted; indefinite 1RR imposed, with appeal available August 2015
- Editor restrictions summary
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
- Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
- Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 14 December 2013 by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, 23 August 2014.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Respectfully request advice on whether or not a violation of sanctions has occurred here, first time AE filing here, thank you for your patience.
Background context: 5 September 2013 our arbitration committee found that the reported user had repeatedly edit warred and edited combatively, please see WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement#Arthur_Rubin. 23 August 2014 our arbitration committee suspended a topic ban on the the reported user in the area of the Tea Party movement broadly construed, which motion included a proviso that "any uninvolved administrator may as an arbitration enforcement action reinstate the topic ban for failure to follow Wikipedia's standards of conduct in the area," please see Amendment request: Tea Party movement.
Americans for Prosperity is at the intersection of the Tea Party movement, American politics, and climate change. Since March 2015 the article has undergone an extensive collaborative good article drive. The article attracted increased attention as the article approached the completeness required by good article criteria. On and around 22 June the article was subjected to content blanking including section blanking and deletion of numerous reliable source references. 1RR was imposed. Several threads concerning the neutrality of the article were started at article talk, including "NPOV issue," "NPOV tag," and "Koch Brothers and weight in coverage." Discussion was active and involved about a dozen or so editors, including the reported user. An entirely appropriate NPOV article hat was added 30 June, deleted and restored 1 July.
Reported user behavior: On 3 July the reported user removed the NPOV article hat, without discussion, despite the active, multi-thread, multi-editor talk page discussion on the neutrality of the article, and despite in fact of an existing article talk page thread entitled "NPOV tag." The reported user was requested to self-revert the disruptive removal of the NPOV article hat, at article talk and at his user talk. On 5 July, some content was restored not favored by the reported editor, and the reported editor restored the NPOV article hat, again without discussion, and again despite the article talk page thread on "NPOV tag." The reported user then solicited a fellow editor to circumvent the edit restrictions.
I respectfully feel slow edit warring over NPOV hats, soliciting to circumvent edit restrictions, and encouraging less experienced editors in arguing that a local consensus may be used to override our neutrality pillar, were not the type of constructive edits we had in mind when we granted the reported user a relaxation of his topic ban to one revert per week. I am disappointed an administrator is not modelling best behavior at this troubled article, and saddened to have to ask for comments on this behavior less than two months before an appeal is available to the reported user. Thank you for your time and attention on this.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
User talk:Arthur Rubin Discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration. Requests Enforcement Arthur Rubin
Discussion concerning Arthur Rubin
[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Arthur Rubin
[edit]I fail to see removing an {{NPOV}} tag which HughD disruptively added, and then restoring it after another editor reverted to a version just before another {{NPOV}} was added (the discussion after that tag resulted in the resolution of the issue which Hugh brought up), could possibly be disruptive. As for 1RR, one could argue that the "V"'s revert made my first revert moot, but I chose not to do that. My request at Onel5969's talk page did amount to canvassing.
In other words, only the canvassing was even potentially disruptive.
Hugh added the NPOV tag after his attempt to "blackwash" the article was reversed, in response to multiple discussions which resulted in none of his many requests being accepted.
This page differs from most noticeboards in that the reporter cannot be sanctioned. Perhaps something should be done about that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- No offense intended, Onel5969, but I believe I removed the NPOV tag once in your sequence of events. Perhaps HughD added it twice? No, I found it. Just after "HughD promptly reverted", I re-reverved, quoting guidelines (as Hugh's action 1). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- No offense taken. I had meant to put that in. Thanks, I've added it now. Onel5969 TT me 20:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- May I suggest the the reporting editor's failed attempt to get the article talk page consensus reversed on almost every content noticeboard be considered something like canvassing; personally, I consider it worse, as it is mostly edit warriors who monitor the content boards about subjects that they are not particularly interested in. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Onel5969
[edit]- Consensus was reached on the talk page regarding several NPOV issues which were occurring. Of the several editors involved, only HughD was in disagreement.
- HughD has been blocked at least 4 times in the past 4 months for disruptive behavior. In at least two of those instances he unsuccessfully appealed the block.
- HughD began a pattern of forumshopping and campaigning listing discussions regarding this article on at least 8 different venues. A campaign which is beginning to bear fruit, as editors who had previously not worked on the article, have now begun appearing on the talk page, in response to HughD's other posting.
- Even though the article had reached an NPOV by consensus, since HughD did not agree (and at the time, prior to his campaigning, he was the only editor to not agree), he placed an NPOV tag at the top of the page.
- I removed the NPOV tag, stating that consensus did not agree with his tag.
- HughD promptly reverted.
- Arthur Rubin then reverted HughD's revert.
- Another editor then, even though consensus had earlier been reached, and current discussion had not reached a consensus to change that position, reverted the entire article to the original NPOV version - that is the editor who should be blocked from editing on the article.
- Since the article was now back in the NPOV version, Arthur Rubin added the NPOV tag.
- This appears to be just another one of HughD's actions in a pattern of disruptive behavior, and failure to seek consensus, or listen to that consensus once it is arrived at. Onel5969 TT me 20:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Kingsindian
[edit](Uninvolved, except for participating in an RfC, at least I think it is an RfC)
Can someone explain to me this massive 50k-sized edit, claiming consensus on talk page, by someone who hasn't participated much at all there, and never previously made an edit on the article page? This edit was made in between diff 1 and diff 2, which probably explains the diffs. Some very strange things are going on here.
As a point of correction to Arthur Rubin, the reporter can indeed be sanctioned, if you provide evidence. Kingsindian ♝♚ 20:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- No one has addressed it. It should be reverted. I am requesting rollback from an admin. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by HughD
[edit]Yes, user Onel5969 also pointedly removed an entirely appropriate NPOV article hat, while a multi-thread, multi-editor talk page discussion of neutrality was ongoing, but his behavior is not the subject of this report, thank you. Reviewers of this report are respectfully requested to ask commenting editor Onel5969 to kindly identify via a diff the point at which the talk page consensus, or talk page consensus minus one, on the neutrality of the article that he claims was achieved (there wasn't one). Hugh (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC) Further, kindly request links substantiating reprimands or other censure for claims of forum shopping, canvassing, or other. The commenting user has been relentlessly critical of any effort to utilize resources available to all Wikipedians in promoting a collaborative editing environment. Thank you Hugh (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Reviewers of this report are respectfully asked to note that commenting user Onel5069 is the user that the reported user attempted to enlist in a program of team circumvention of edit restrictions, one of many events conspicuously neglected from his chronology, above. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Kingsindian, Thank you for your engagement in this issue. In answer to your question, the edit you mention, was a good faith attempt, by an until recently uninvolved editor Viriditas, to revert the article, to a state prior to the "content blanking including section blanking and deletion of numerous reliable source references on 22 June 2015" mentioned above in the initial statement; by the way for the record please note this blanking was performed by commenting user Onel5969, please see diff 10:59, 23 June 2015 through 23:57, 23 June 2015 , another event conspicuously neglected from his chronology, above. Please let me know if I can help provide additional background on the recent history of this article. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
May I respectfully express to reviewers of this report that the reported user please not be encouraged in his attempt to plead guilty to a lessor charge of canvassing in hopes that his behavior in soliciting another editor to circumvent edit restriction sanctions not be noticed. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Capitalismojo
[edit]I fail to see the difficutly. AR removes a tag, AR restores the same tag. Why are we wasting time here with this? This seems to be merely battlegrounding by the OP. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Champaign Supernova
[edit]Zzzz. OP is having trouble achieving consensus on this article's talk page so he appears to be trying to pick off his perceived adversaries through an overly legalistic interpretation of discretionary sanctions. I interpret AR's edits in good faith and there is no ongoing edit war over the tags so let's all move along now. Champaign Supernova (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Comatmebro
[edit]Agreed, Champaign Supernova. This seems like a little bit dramatic, in my own personal opinion. The edits of AR have not been disruptive nor malicious, and I believe he was solely trying to follow consensus. I don't see a problem here. Thanks to all the editors involved. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 15:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved Beyond My Ken
[edit]FWIW, I bring this AN/I thread to the attention of AE admins. You will have to judge whether it has any relevance to this complaint. BMK (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved DHeyward
[edit]This apparently happened before I started editing. I haven't noticed anything by Arthur Ruben. However I did notice that HughD and MrX are pushing a "Koch brothers" coatrack narrative on what is about the fourth RfC on the same topic in the "Americans for Prosperity" article. The tea party affiliation seems tenuous at best and doesn't appear to be mentioned after 2010 when everything conservative was considered "tea party" and tea party isn't what the listed dispute is about. Both HughD and MrX are pushing to include a Koch brothers funding coatrack material even though it is only sourced to a single article that implies a bunch of feeder organizations give them money from mysterious Koch brothers sources. I can only imagine what kind of closet would be created if this coat rack succeeded. So far, two editing attempts to change the article consensus failed. More recently a "RfC trial balloon" was floated in the form of a "DRAFT rfc" which apparently they didn't want to count as failure number 3. So far, #4 is failing to gain consensus as well. It seems that the tag is intended to note that a few editors have failed to gain to consensus for their preferred version. They won't acknowledge WP:CONSENSUS that states consensus is the edit present on the page when changes to the page fail. The tag, this filing and their attempt to get sanctions from Tea PArty when the complaint doesn't even involve Tea Party material is tendentious and should taken into consideration. This abuse of process by HughD should be dealt with harshly. --DHeyward (talk) 03:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by MrX
[edit]DHeyward is very much involved inasmuch as he has routinely thrown around scary phrases like "pushing a "Koch brothers" coatrack narrative", "COATRACK nightmare", SYNTH and "article consensus", consistently failing to back any of it up with evidence or logic. Repeated requests to both Arthur Rubin and DHeyward to link to any existing consensus have so far yielded nothing but (false) assertions of silent consensus and other similarly irrational evasions. DHeyward seems to be hell-bent on preventing discussion from moving forward so that we can actually determine consensus, going as far as to ignore the RfC protocol by adding threaded rebuttals, and ignoring requests to play by the rules. His further claim that the disputed content is "only sourced to a single article" is plainly false. In fact there are at least four good sources for the material in dispute. Ironically he even complains about my listing the sources here! Finally, he claims that the RfC (the 1st, not the 4th) is failing, when in fact it has an equal number of supports as opposes. He should be reminded that if he wants to be taken seriously by other editors, he should make sure to stick to the truth, and use reason, not hysterics in his arguments.- MrX 03:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Fyddlestix
[edit]I know we're supposed to be focusing on conduct rather than content here, but I think it's very important to note that the preponderance of reliable sources very clearly support Hugh's "side" in the content dispute that prompted both this post and the one at AN/I.
The dispute is over the extent to which the article should discuss the financial and other connections between the Koch brothers and Americans for Prosperity (AFP), and, to a lesser extent, the extent to which AFP should be portrayed as a "Tea Party" group. (DHeyward, for example, has denied that this connection can be made at all, and would be COATRACK:[25][26]). To illustrate that the sources are clearly and unquestionably on HughD's side here, take a look at the version of the page that Arthur Rubin appears to have been happy with (ie, that he removed the NPOV tag on:[27]) Note that the name "Koch" appears in the article text exactly once - simply to note that David Koch chairs the AFP Foundation - but appears twenty-five times just in the titles of the references. Compare that to how the preponderance of reliable sources listed by Aquillion here place the relationship between AFP and the Koch's front-and-center in their coverage. Also compare it to how reliable, academic sources treat the subject.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] (those are just some examples, I could cite a lot more if needed).
HughD has been the most vocal voice on the article's talk page asserting that the article needs to acknowledge and discuss AFP's connection to the Koch brothers in depth. He has often been outnumbered, and he has quite understandably gotten frustrated at times. Just as understandably, the people arguing with him have gotten frustrated with his persistence. There have been regretable statements made on both sides, but honestly, I don't think anyone's behavior or the article rises to the level of requiring admin or AE sanction -- although a warning to some about battleground behavior [28][29][30] and a reminder of what NPOV entails [31][32][33][34][35]) might be in order for some of those involved.
Bottom line: HughD should not be sanctioned for being a lone dissenting voice against a (claimed) local consensus which was incorrect and inconsistent with NPOV. I also hardly think Arthur deserves sanction for adding or removing a NPOV tag (after all, the NPOV of the article was, and is, in dispute). Everyone involved just needs to take a few deep breaths, relax, and refocus on what RS actually say. More generally, the article desperately needs more eyes/input to ensure that NPOV is maintained. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
References
|
|---|
|
References
|
- Thank you for your comments. "a lone dissenting voice against a (claimed) local consensus which was incorrect and inconsistent with NPOV." Americans for Prosperity underwent a substantial, multi-way collaborative good article drive between March and mid June 2015. Thank you to the editors who participated. As the article approached the completeness of coverage of good articles, it attracted new critical attention, specifically content blanking, section blanking, and removal of reliable source references. In late June there was a brief period in which I was in a minority in supporting a fair summarization of the breadth of reliable sources, but in general this is not a one editor against the world story. Thanks again. I agree that no one's behavior rises to the level of requiring new admin or AE sanctions, although with respect to previous sanctions, I filed this report with the understanding that the suspension of the reported user's topic ban was conditional on behaviour. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Result concerning Arthur Rubin
[edit]- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- This diff appears to be evidence of a battleground mentality. Gamaliel (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"
- That said, between this and the ANI and the talk page this is going to take a lot of reading. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Collect
[edit]| Collect's response has clearly failed to impress admins as well as most others. MrX's timeline of events is convincing. I have blocked Collect for a week for what looks like a breaching experiment wrt to his topic ban and also placed a one-way interaction ban with MrX. A one-week block may be more symbolic here, as Collect has indicated that he'll be absent until 19th July, but symbols aren't nothing. Bishonen | talk 11:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC). Added note: scrap the IBAN, as bans can't be issued on the basis of Collect's sanction in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others, only blocks. I've instead issued the same IBAN per the discretionary sanctions authorized for American politics2. Bishonen | talk 20:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC). |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Collect[edit]
Collect was banned by arbcom from "any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace." I believe the above edits violate both the spirit and the letter of that ban. The links making accusations against MrX, in particular, seem to demonstrate Collect's determination to continue his battleground behavior in relation to US politics, in violation of his topic ban. I will say, in all fairness to Collect, that he was pointing out a serious BLP violation on the Koch family article, which has since (quite rightly) been removed. The first diff, however, seems (to me) to be completely out of line, and likely worthy of sanction even if it wasn't a violation of his topic ban.
Discussion concerning Collect[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 Collect[edit]I suggest that if my talk page is not usable by me to point out a case where a person tried connecting living persons to a Nazi War Criminal (asserting that Ilse Koch (a Koch by marriage in Germany) was a direct relative of the US Koch family) - an assertion unrelated to "US Politics" per se - that the topic ban area is too damn broad by half. I have made no political edits at all, no reverts at all, and still I am harassed by the very same folks who harassed me in the past (including an absurd SPI when I was blocked from even replying to the charge!) - and about whom I gave evidence by email to ArbCom members. I suggest the OP be politely told to ignore me, rather than harass me at every opportunity. I note that I was OVERSEAS during a period when I asked for additional time to answer the "charges" and was denied any delay. For what it is worth, my wife had a malignant melanoma operation two weeks ago (her second in six months) where about 800cc of her arm was removed. I am sure someone will snidely comment that this was "convenient" for sure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC) I note the OP admits the first item was not even worthy of a complaint - but he still raised it. The second issue is one of possible COI for one of the complainants in the ArbCom case - and was again not political per se, but addresses a possible and likely all too real problem for Wikipedia. I specifically stated "Note: the fact that a campaign distributes an image from a specific wikipedian may not mean they are aware of that usage, of course." At least I did not mention that one of the prime complainants basically told ArbCom "Too slow, fuck off" in his Diva-quit. Further Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
@MrX - read my posts. I made no claims about you at all. I did not even post your name. Period. Collect (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC) Note I have added the specific statement that you were not aware of the usage of your photo - I trust that clears the air. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC) @StS: The Nazi War Criminal post was on the article talk page for 3 months. No one noted it. And it was not about "US Politics" AFAICT. I am glad to note that you find three months for a clear BLP violation is quite acceptable - your comment that "anyone else could have noted it" fails when clearly no one else did note it. Collect (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC) BTW, StS is an "involved administrator" as we have had a significant number of editorial disputes in the past. Collect (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by Tony Sidaway[edit]The topic ban is explicitly "in any userspace". Collect is obviously not disengaging from US politics but is instead exploring the boundaries of his topic ban. Note also that the arbitration case that ended in May was the second case in recent years in which he was sanctioned. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement, September 2013. --TS 20:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by MrX[edit]Am I to understand that I have been accused by innuendo of being a partisan campaign worker because a Facebook group used one of my Commons photos and attributed it to me, as they are legally obligated to do? This is a new low. For the record, I don't associate in any way with any political organization whatsoever, nor am I a member of any political party, not that it's anyone's business but my own.- MrX 17:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Jbhunley[edit]"...one type of BLP issue I am not permitted to even discuss."[36] then he should not be discussing it. The backhanded attack on Mr X shows continued grudge holding and battleground behavior. There was no legitimate reason to bring up either of those topics other than to stir the pot a couple hours before 'leaving' again to duck the storm. This propensity to game the system is the same type of behavior we saw at ArbCom where Collect spent two weeks stating repeatedly he would not participate in the Arbitration case then on the last day asks for a multi week extension then on return complains he was "overseas and could not participate" ignoring the two weeks he spent taking a 'principled stand'. It is past time for lengthy blocks to be imposed. JbhTalk 19:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by Viriditas[edit]I would just like to point out two things: 1) Collect is still making false claims of "harassment" against many different editors, while engaging in harassment against users like MrX, and 2) Collect seems to invariably disappear whenever he is brought before the community, either for a medical procedure of some kind or a vacation to a remote part of the world. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by Rich Farmbrough[edit]Eleven minutes seems like a relatively short space of time to either retract/clarify an indirect statement. Had Collect had a suitable "Gooogle mail recall" set up for Wikipeidia edits we would not even be aware of it. I suggest that everyone assume good faith on that part of the story. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC). Statement by Writegeist[edit]I note support for Collect from two users with whom he’s quite cosy already. @ Rich Farmbrough in particular: the suggestion of assuming good faith re. Collect’s story would be more persuasive if the storyteller were a user with a different history (yes, context is significant); All that said, rather than tightening the screws this time I think it would suffice to (1) tell Collect he’s a Very Naughty Boy (just to underline what he already knows—I mean, he may make stupid comments but surely he isn’t actually stupid?), and (2) let him go unsanctioned. This merciful response also allows him to save face. As we’ve seen from his past reactions to humiliating sanctions, saving face is super important to him. And anyway, whether or not one buys the stories of ill-health and travel, he’s very obviously stressed. Give him a break this time and he might no longer feel the need to be naughty—which is surely all that anyone here wants. I believe in second chances; lots of them. Writegeist (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Collect[edit]
|
This page had a very unusual discretionary sanction imposed on it four years ago. Time has moved on and this should at the very least be changed to WP:Standard discretionary sanctions which WP:ARBEE now falls under.
The edit-notice Template:Editnotices/Page/Mass killings under Communist regimes, and the talk page Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes should be updated.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC).
- Obviously, not all Communist regimes fall under WP:ARBEE: China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, and Cuba for instance. BMK (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Rich Farmbrough: Do you just mean linking it to the current discretionary sanction remedy or something else? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- At least reducing it to standard DS. Ideally the page should be unprotected too. I have not followed the activity on the talk-page closely, but now does not seem to be the perfect time to remove sanctions altogether, although standard DS can be re-imposed at the drop of a hat, so it would likely be harmless.
- Consideration should be given to un-protecting, or semi-protecting the article too.
- When we introduced page protection, it was on the understanding that it would only be used on very few pages, and not for long.
- All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC).
- Subject to others' opinions, I'd be open to lifting these restrictions for a trial period and seeing if the editing environment has improved from a few years ago. I'm frankly not sure whether it will have, but if not, the sanctions can be quickly reimposed if needed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Roscelese
[edit]| Generally no appetite to do anything beyond a reminder. Whether the remedy at issue should apply to vandalism reverts at all is at ARCA. Nothing else to do here. T. Canens (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Roscelese[edit]
Discussion concerning Roscelese[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 Roscelese[edit]
Statement by Black Kite[edit]
Statement by MrX[edit]There may be some strict literal interpretation that would allow for this to be viewed as a technical breach of the restrictions placed on Roscelese, but I fail to believe that Arbcom intended to prevent clear vandalism from simply being reverted without an accompanying explanation of the obvious. If they did, then it is inconsistent with the findings of fact which specifically show examples of unexplained reverts being used in the context of a content dispute. This is not the first time that Lanbooi has blanked the same content. They have ignored a warning placed on their talk page in March and, from what I can tell, have not made any other constructive edits. - MrX 21:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by EvergreenFir[edit]Seems like clear vandalism by Lanbooi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to me. Blanking sections is a type of vandalism. To quote:
Statement by Rhoark[edit]Just stroll over to the talk page and write "reverted some obvious vandalism". This is a useless "gotcha" filing, but we don't need any wrangling about how to define justifiable exceptions to the restriction; its dead simple to just comply with it. Rhoark (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by Ryk72[edit]I concur with Rhoark on both the ease of compliance, and outcome of this filing. It is easy to include a reason in the edit summary, and to add a note to the Talk page; both of which should have been done. The breach, however, does not seem to warrant further sanction beyond a reminder & instruction on better compliance. As a side matter, I am not certain that the reverted edit is entirely vandalism. Some of the material removed appears to relate to persons who, while notably homosexual, are only coincidentally Catholic. A review by uninvolved editors may be advised. Support closing with a reminder to comply with the restrictions. Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Roscelese[edit]
|
Eric Corbett
[edit]| Blocked for 1 month for knowingly violating his civility restrictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keilana (talk • contribs) . Amended to 72 hours per letter of restriction. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Eric Corbett[edit]
Discussion concerning Eric Corbett[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 Eric Corbett[edit]Point of order by Thryduulf[edit]The ongoing arbitration case is not against Eric. The case is about the actions other people took in response to Eric's comment, not about Eric's comment. The case therefore should be ignored when determining what, if any, action Eric's comment deserves. Thryduulf (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Eric Corbett[edit]
|