Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive159
Keramiton
[edit]| Blocked as a sockpuppet. Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2014 (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 Keramiton[edit]
If it is considered that the comments below have accumulated an excessive length, please hat them. The purport of them is that:
← ZScarpia 19:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
The material added by Keramiton relates to a recent incident which is not yet covered well by reliable news sources. Blumenthal and David Sheen, an Israeli journalist, were invited to speak about Israel-Palestine at the Bundestag and a Berlin theatre by a number of Die Linke party politicians. After action by a number of politicians including Gregor Gysi, the leader of the Die Linke party, the invitation to speak at the theatre was withdrawn, but Gregor Gysi, who was ignored by his party members, failed to have the meeting at the Bundestag cancelled. Afterwards, Blumenthal and Sheen attempted to confront Gysi about "why he had endorsed the smear campaign against them." They followed Gysi down a corridor and into what turned out to be a toilet, where Gysi attempted to lock himself into a cubicle. Later, Blumenthal and Sheen were "banned from entering the German parliament in the future." The statement giving notice of the ban issued by the Bundestag chamber’s president, Norbert Lammert, said: "Every attempt to exert pressure on members of parliament, to physically threaten them and thus endanger the parliamentary process is intolerable and must be prevented." I think that it is obvious that the material added by Keramiton falls within the remit of the ARBPIA case. Keramiton cited this, Bloomberg article as a source. The text he added, though short, misrepresented the source, or was otherwise misleading, in a number of ways:
As stated above, currently very few reliable English-language news sources cover the incident. From what is available, though, I would say that Keramiton, as well as failing to represent the source, failed to neutrally represent the incident. Some of what Sheen and Blumenthal had to say about the incident is supplied in the follwing blog pieces: [2][3]. Judging by another blog piece, the Bloomberg article itself appears to be error. Blumenthal and Sheen's complaint was not that Gysi had called them anti-Semites.
After his breach of 1RR restriction, I opened a new section on Keramiton's talkpage and gave him the opportunity to undo his last revert, which, in his response, he ignored. ← ZScarpia 20:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Notification given. ← ZScarpia 17:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Keramiton[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 Keramiton[edit]I didn't know that Max Blumenthal, an American journalist, is considered to be part of the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area (therefore included in the 1RR). If that's the case, I apologise.--Keramiton (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Statement by RolandR[edit]This editor looks very like yet another sock of Wlglunight93. I am currently preparing an SPI report, which I will post later this evening. RolandR (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Huldra[edit]Keramiton is one of the more disruptive editors during these last 2-3 weeks in the I/P area. Keramiton have been reverted by half a dozen different other editors, yet will not disclose if they had previous accounts. As I noted earlier earlier, Keramiton "know all the revert -words...like POV-pushing, undue and cherry-picking....as I said, what a vocabulary for a newbie!" Draw your own conclusions. Huldra (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Keramiton is already blocked as a sock. Can someone please archive this discussion? Thanks, Huldra (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000[edit]Keramiton edits in a disruptive manner with a consistent contempt for NPOV. A perfect summary of what Keramiton brings to Wikipedia is this edit which claims that an Arab being shot in the head (causing critical injuries) is as trivial as for a Jew to have a windscreen broken. I have also asked Keramiton about former accounts without reply. Since Keramiton's edits to Max Blumenthal include Blumenthal's alleged characterisation of Israeli soldiers, Keramiton's claim that that it didn't know the article wasn't under ARPBIA is hard to believe. Keramiton was there in order to add something negative about Blumenthal because Blumenthal is a prominent critic of Israel; that is entirely obvious. Statement by AcidSnow[edit]Support this motion per statements by Zero0000. AcidSnow (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Result concerning Keramiton[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Blocked as a sockpuppet of Wlglunight93 by HJ Mitchell. Discussion here is now moot. Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC) |
Wlglunight93
[edit]| Blocked for one year (as an AE block) and indefinitely (as an ordinary admin action) for repeated socking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:45, 19 November 2014 (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 Wlglunight93[edit]
This editor was blocked for one month on 19 October for repeated 1RR breaches (their fifth block in less than a month), the block was extended to two months on 29 October for sockpuppetry, then to three months on 6 November for further sockpuppetry. Despite this, a further block-evading and topic ban-evading sock has been blocked today.
Discussion concerning Wlglunight93[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 Wlglunight93[edit]Statement by AcidSnow[edit]Seeing how they failed to acknowledge that they are still socking and that this is the third time, it's highly likely that they we continue to do so. As such the only solution is a permanent block. AcidSnow (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by DePiep[edit]As Wlglunight93 is a sockpuppet (-master), why not simply block indef because of that? (Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Blocking). -DePiep (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC) Result concerning Wlglunight93[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. |
Oncenawhile
[edit]| Oncenawhile and Galassi were blocked 48 hours for 1RR violation on Jewish refugees. No other action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Oncenawhile[edit]
Oncenawhile is an experienced editor on wikipedia, whom i have encountered a number of times in the past on various topics, most notably Mandatory Palestine and Kingdom of Iraq - in one case we even had a positive collaboration despite initial disputes. In the past year, however, Oncenawhile has initiated a wide-scale editing campaign of several pages, associated with the Arab-Israeli conflict, driving a very specific agenda, which may well be interpreted as POV. Following an incident on the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries in January 2014, Oncenawhile was warned of ARBPIA (as well as myself) due to slow-rate edit-warring. At that point i proposed him to retire from that article in line with myself; however he continued to aggressively edit Jewish exodus and several related articles, getting a much more serious warning in July 2014, after edit-warring user:Plot Spoiler over 1950–1951 Baghdad bombings. It seems that Oncenawhile has edit-warred since with several more users including user:Ykantor and user:Wlglunight93 on Jewish exodus through September (6 reverts) and later October (3 reverts in October [5],[6],[7], the second of which is not far from breaching 1RR). Considering the currently reported edit-warring on Jewish refugees, i herewith raise the concern that Oncenawhile may lack the ability to properly advocate his position, and despite previous warnings shows an aggressive behaviour, most of which is merely destructive in terms of content and community collaboration for the highly disputed topic of ARBPIA and more specifically Jewish exodus and Jewish refugees.GreyShark (dibra) 23:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Oncenawhile[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 Oncenawhile[edit]I'll respond to Greyshark's accusations as I am hoping to clear the air with him. While I prepare that, could someone kindly point me to where the rules for these AE or edit-warring discussions are written? I feel quite poorly treated, having been summarily blocked within just over an hour of Greyshark's submission without an opportunity to provide any context or other input. So I would like to try to build consensus in the rules on this to ensure no other experienced editors are treated like this in future. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Huldra[edit]It is noted that Onceinawhile edit-warred with User:Wlglunight93. Note that Wlglunight93 was a serial sock-pupeteer, now blocked. The two last reports here were about this very disruptive sock. I don´t know about the rest of Onceinawhile´s behaviour, but edit-warring with Wlglunight93 should surely not count in his dis-favour. Huldra (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by ZScarpia[edit]In the content dispute between Oncenawhile and Galassi, the statement that Oncenawhile was seeking to remove, and Galassi to re-insert, was not cited to any source. It really shouldn't have been re-inserted without giving a citation. ← ZScarpia 18:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Greyshark09 (editor filing complaint)[edit]It is my duty to clarify that the issue here is a complaint on alleged systematic violation of ARBPIA by Oncenawhile, which is justified by recent edit-warring with Galassi. The reason i complained on Oncenawhile alone and not on Galassi is because of the 2 recent ARBPIA warnings issued for Oncenawhile (Galassi has not received any warnings on ARBPIA so far, so he should first be notified). Since the administrators consider it rather a simple case of edit-warring and not a systematic abuse of a topic by Oncenawhile, i support the actions and request the users involved to refrain from edit-warring. On my behalf i'm not participating in editing ARBPIA related pages intensively, but i do watch certain pages and topics and will continue doing so for the better of the community. Regards and wishing positive editing experiences for everyone.GreyShark (dibra) 16:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Oncenawhile[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. This appears to me to be a content dispute between Oncenawhile and Galassi, who have been going back and forth for a few days. As such, I've locked both for 48 hours for edit-warring (as an ordinary admin action, as Galassi had not, until now, had a formal notification of the discretionary sanctions and the article and its talk page did not contain the relevant notices). I'm a little concerned that the filer would report one part to an edit war in an attempt to have them sanctioned under arbitration remedies, while informing the other party in a way that (to me) smacks of canvassing and certainly taking sides, if not outright tag-teaming. I'm open to persuasion that there are wider issues with Oncenawhile's editing in the topic area, but I'not convinced by the evidence that's been presented thus far. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
|
Asilah1981
[edit]| Asilah1981 is warned to observe the ARBPIA 1RR rule. No other action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Asilah1981[edit]
Newly registered editor who shows no interest in following the 1RR on some of the most contentious articles on the Israel/Palestine area. Have been given opportunity to self-revert, but refuse to do so. Huldra (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Asilah1981[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 Asilah1981 (1)[edit]Hi guys. Contrary to the users who have reported me, I am not an activist user on the Israel/Palestine debate (I have and never will edit articles related to Palestine and Israel - unless they directly make mention to this topic). My focus is ensuring that sentences in the article say exactly what the quoted source say. Obviously if all available sources says that 82 jews were killed in one of the worse anti-jewish massacres in the Middle East, I find it insane and overtly POV that certain activist users wish to change the sentence to "both arabs and jews were killed in clashes in Aden" (PLEASE check sources on this before forming an opinion). I'm not sure how Wikipedia deals with users manipulating and overtly lying about information provided in sources, but I hope there is a mechanism to control them beyond the 1 revert rule. My edits and contributions over the past years have largely been in non-controversial issues (mainly arabic dialectology and other languages I know) so Im not very acquainted with activist users. I happen to have stumbled upon this massive campaign to delegitimize ethnic cleansing involving user Oncenawhile and others, which I see the worst offender is already being dealt with above. I see those who have reported me evidently belong to this group of people who are trying to conceal historical fact provided in reputable sources using illogical arguments: "out of scope" etc... Here are a couple of examples btw: Denying religious persecution and massacre in Yemen: [8] Illogically removing sourced sentence on jews escaping to Europe and Americas because it goes contrary to POV being pushed (that they were all leaving voluntarily out of love for Israel and were never persecuted/persecution is a "zionist lie"). [9] I am assuming that the reaction would have been much swifter if we were dealing with the European holocaust and any campaign to deligitimize or deny it (a criminal offence in Germany and France, I believe) on the basis of Middle East conflict, so I hope there is no double standard and that North African and Middle Eastern Jews and their plight is treated with the same care by wikipedia community. Anyways, thank you for allowing me a chance to provide my position. Regards. (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Asilah1981 (2)[edit]Not sure if Im allowed to comment again, but a conversation seems to be going on here, so I assume that I am. I think we are missing the point. Those editors who have reporting me and supporting this case notably Zero000, seem to be using as an argument that I have misquoted Reuben Ahroni's book by stating the number of jews killed during the Pogrom (82, I think). Through his edits, Zero000 is using this source to claim there was no massacre of jews as such, just riots which killed arabs and jews. This is all the more surreal considering Reuben Ahroni's baby brother was murdered in this pogrom and no reputable source (let alone Reuben himself) deny that the violence was directed at jews, that at least 82 jews died and the vast majority of those killed were jews. Here is a source on this (see page 1) [10]. It is as insane as quoting Ana Frank to deny the holocaust, and in my frank opinion this type of concealed POV pushing using fake sources should be the focus of this discussion, not whether I have or have not got the pages wrong during citation. The entire book is written on the premise of my sourced statement, it mentions it on various pages, including the first one, and not one page of it denies it. Thanks again. Asilah1981 (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Actually I have just gone through my contentious edits and note I made one mistake, in one of my edits I mistakenly quoted Parfitt instead of Ahroni and therefore gave the wrong page numbers. Zero000 was adamant on ensuring information which he knew was true to be excluded from the article and repeatedly reverted to the denialist version. In any case, Parfitt refers to the pogrom on numerous pages in the book and uses this term (at least part ot it is available in Google Books so this can be verified). Denying racially or religiously motivated massacres and ethnic cleansing on wikipedia is an ugly hobby, Zero0000.Asilah1981 (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC) @Nishidani: Where did I erase highly precise page numbers for specific claims? I do not recall doing that at any point, and I don't see it in the evidence brought against me. I have only rewritten unsourced fantasy statements. No doubt I have broken the 1RR, I don't deny that, but I had never come across it before. Btw, the second half of your statement, regarding an indian muslim which was "probably" killed by a jewish sniper is frankly sick. What the hell? What do you want, all the bodies to have their noses measured to call it a pogrom? Some people, really... Asilah1981 (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Asilah1981 (3)[edit]@Oncenawhile: As you know, I have a strong issue with the line you are pursuing while editing many articles related to the Jewish exodus. I didn't like the disclaimers added in the introductory section nor the way you give prime importance to arguments regarding the "utiliziation as pro-Israel propaganda" and "role of Zionist agents", One Million Plan and "False flag operations". I find your line of editing morally reprehensible. I also never understood why you have outlawed the term refugee for people who under all definitions were refugees. You refused to engage in discussion with me on Talk pages, even though I concede I was a bit aggressive in the way I engaged you. While the term "refugee" is used close to 50 times on the article on the Palestinian Nakba which you regularly edit, you carry out edits like this [11] on basis of neutral voice! In any case, I am not the kind of editor who will delete reputable sources because I find them objectionable. Even arguments provided by Hamas on "how jews brought the expulsion on themselves" expressed as a legitimate argument on the relevant section of Palestinian Nakba article, I did not delete (although I did ask about it - with evidently no response)[12]. So someone please at least tell me. Where am I deleting sources?? So far I have only, at least consciously, added sources!Asilah1981 (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000[edit]Here we see Asilah1981 removing sourced information with a false claim about what the source contains, and here we see Asilah1981 adding entirely fake page numbers for it. (The pages given do not mention the events they are cited for.) Editors who lie about sources are more dangerous to the encyclopedia than common vandals. Zerotalk 22:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Note that Asilah1981's reply ignored the charges of repeated 1RR violation, and also ignored my specific charges of lying about sources. I'm happy to provide a copy of the source to any admin who wants to check—just send me email. Zerotalk 10:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC) @WarKosign: that link supports my charges. Zerotalk 13:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC) @Nishidani: The page numbers she added were 85–124. They contain two chapters on Law, Customs and Economy, and the first page of a chapter on 1930–1939. Nothing about the violent events of 1947–1949. Zerotalk 13:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC) @Asilah1981: You are now claiming "I mistakenly quoted Parfitt instead of Ahroni and therefore gave the wrong page numbers". Did you think nobody would look at Ahroni's book to see if the page numbers 85–124 make any sense there? Of course they don't; no sense at all. You need to give a better reason for adding those page numbers because the only explanation on the table so far is that you just made them up. Zerotalk 23:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by WarKosign[edit]@Zero0000: Here is the claim. The page number is off (maybe it's a different edition of the book), but there is a big difference between mistake in citing and lying. WP:AGF. “WarKosign” 11:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Nishidani[edit]WasrKoSign. That sows confusion, and you have totally missed Zero's point. Zero's diffs show it is the same edition (Brill 1996). The first diff shows Asilah1981 replacing Zero's edit which cites Parfitt twice for 2 distinct facts, deaths (p.167) and accusations re two Muslim girls' death, with arrests (pp.187-91), with a rewriting of the text, and the erasure of those page numbers. The second diff by Asilah1981 shows her supplying pages from Parfitt, but the page range is indefinite, unspecific (pp. In sum Asilah1981 erased highly precise page numbers for each claim, then rewrote the text without page citation, then came back with a vague page ref that fudges. There can be no justification for editing like that: it just wastes time for people who actually read books, and cite them exactly. One cannot edit these pages with a monocular ethnic eye, eliding as Asilah1981 did the specific indication that 33 Arabs died in the clashes (these events are complex: we ignore the 4 Indian Muslims and a Somali killed, that a Jewish sniper probably shot dead an Indian Moslem doctor and a 'Levy' soldier on 4 December, and the crucial fact that many Jews killed were not simply killed by local Aden 'Arabs', but by local levied troops under British command, who abused their functions by acting on their own). People who write off the top of their heads, and edit to shape an ideological reading of history, who erase precise data and replace it with unverified, vague source assertions are a bane that rots the work of the few people who take this encyclopedia's ambitions seriously.Nishidani (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Cptnono[edit][14] or SPI. Waste of everyone's time here.Cptnono (talk) 12:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Oncenawhile[edit]Whilst Asilah1981's heart may be in the right place, (s)he needs to learn to WP:AGF, as her various talk page and edit comments show. Another example of this is at this talk page. Asilah1981's passion tells me they could be a good contributor, but they need to begin to trust others here, learn to collaborate, and learn to read existing sources properly. So far Asilah's edits have been almost exclusively destructive, because they are not using sources properly. Apart from the point Zero brings above, it is the deletion of existing well sourced scholarly text which I find most disturbing - for example [15]. I suspect Asilah1981 has simply not read the sources they are deleting, for which there really is no excuse. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Result concerning Asilah1981[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Mooretwin
[edit]| Appeal declined. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2014 (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 Mooretwin[edit]I have abided by the topic ban for nearly three years now, and I would like it to be lifted. That is a long time during which to reflect and I think the period demonstrates my patience and acceptance of the sanction. I have not been involved in any disputes, edit wars, incivility or any other misdemeanours during that time. While in the period up to about five years ago I was involved in a number of such disputes, I had not been involved in any in the two years prior to the incident that led to this ban. That incident was in the "heat of the moment" and, I argued at the time and still do, was the result of extreme provocation. I should like to think, given the conduct in the two years previous and the nearly three years since, that it would be accepted that the incident does not represent a fair reflection of my contributions to Wikipedia, and thus that an indefinite ban is no longer a reasonable sanction. At the time of my first appeal, editors sought evidence of collaborative editing. However, I made the point that my inability to edit articles in the only real area of my expertise (Northern Ireland) meant that I was unable to edit collaboratively. This remains the case, although recently, for example, I have engaged constructively at WP:CRICKET in relation to achieving consensus for a new notability criterion.
Statement by T. Canens[edit]Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Mooretwin[edit]AFAIK, you've had no problems in other areas during the 2+ years, thus a demonstration of your new approach. IMHO, your topic-ban should be lifted. Afterall, it was placed as a preventative measure & since there's nothing to prevent anymore.....? :) GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC) If Mooretwin's appeal is denied on the basis of his not having caused problems, because his sanctions worked. Would that not be like saying "we want you to proove you can behave without your handcuffs, but we want you to do this while wearing your handcuffs"? GoodDay (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC) I am very troubled by Cailil's comments below, especially the implication that because there has been no trouble from Mooretwin in the past couple of years, it means that the restriction must therefore be working, and that in itself is a reason for the restriction to stay in place. That is not the purpose of placing a restriction on any editor, and is an abuse of the restriction process in general. In good faith, an absence of comments on Talk pages might mean that Mooretwin recognizes that this is a potentially troublesome area for him and stays away and that is exactly the behaviour we should applaud. Enough time has passed in Mooretwin's case to lift the restrictions and let him, and everyone else, reassess his involvement with the project. If his behaviour should prove troublesome in the future, then we have lots of mechanisms and processes by which to take further action. -- HighKing++ 15:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
IMHO, Mooretwin has the ability to reform his behaviour in the area he's restricted from. Give him the chance to proove himself. Should he mess up again? then merely re-instate his restriction. What's the harm in placing him on probation? PS: Anyways, that's all I've left to say, here. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC) I wonder if it might be possible, probably with the consent of T. Canens and the applicant, to institute some sort of discretionary sanctions on the editor in the relevant fields for at least a given period of time instead? Such discretionary sanctions might be able to expire after a given period of time if there are no substantive issues during a predetermined time period, and might, at least potentially, allow for the replacement of the topic ban if during that period of time the concerns seem to resurface. John Carter (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
With respect to Cailil, his analogy with the pubs is kind of like suggesting that someone who's been barred from a pub should head off and prove that they can behave in a knitting circle, even though they've no interest in the latter. Mooretwin has edited other pages, mostly on sports, without any obvious issues. The vast majority of editors on this project will have specialist areas which interest them. Besides sports, Mooretwin's is obviously Northern Ireland related, so they do seem to be in a bit of a Catch-22. There has to be a more practical way of doing this. Putting Mooretwin on probation and only allowing them to edit talk pages at first, followed by a 0RR on articles, would be a more practical way of dealing with this. Valenciano (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Mooretwin[edit]
|
BoboMeowCat
[edit]| BoboMeowCat has agreed to make no article edits at Becky Bell until 1 May 2015. She may still participate on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning BoboMeowCat[edit]
This request concerns tendentious editing by BoboMeowCat at Becky Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article about a teenager "who died in 1988 from a botched abortion because she was afraid to get her parents' consent, as the state law required." Bell's parents subsequently became highly visible critics of parental-notification laws.
In a nutshell, this editor a) denies that Bell had an illegal abortion after b) conveniently removing a huge number of reliable sources attesting that she had an illegal abortion. This is both poor editing (in that there is no justification given for removing numerous reliable sources) and cynically tendentious gamesmanship, in that she's removing sources in order to advance her personal viewpoint more easily. In light of this editor's prior history of edit-warring in this topic area, I am requesting a topic ban for tendentious editing.
Discussion concerning BoboMeowCat[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 BoboMeowCat[edit]I don’t have a lot of time to respond right now, but would appreciate any advice and any input from uninvolved admins/editors on how or where I have made error editing this article and any input on what would be a better editing approach in future. I'm a little confused by this complaint, because I’ve only edited Becky Bell one time in the past 7 months. That one edit was to revert to an earlier version by editor GodBlessYou2, who the complaining editor, MastCell, appears to be involved in a slow longterm edit war with. I found GodBlessYou2’s arguments regarding the neutrality of his version convincing on the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Becky_Bell#More_Neutral_Introduction and it appeared to me GodBlessYou2 had talk page support for his version being supported on talk page by 131.109.225.24. Regarding removal of sources, for that revert, I actually used the undo button to restore to the version by GodBlessYou2, and was doing so based on the neutrality of the text. I had no intention to remove any sources. I can understand a complaint regarding unintentional removal of sources, and will certainly be more careful to look at references, as well as text, when using the undo button in future. Regarding my block on Becky Bell 7 months ago, that was the result of a content dispute with MastCell on that same article. I was blocked for violating 1RR. I was a new editor at the time, and I honestly did not understand that when content is being disputed, and you are leaving that disputed content completely alone, and there is other dubious content (regarding allegations of attempted murder which does not seem properly referenced) [24], that you have to wait 24 hours to delete that different content, if the article is under 1RR sanctions. MastCell reported me to the edit warring noticeboard for this, and I was blocked. I was actually very confused by this block and the revert rules in general and sought out advice and clarification at the teahouse as a new editor and on EdJohnston’s talk page was educated on what counts as a revert and have not since made the same mistake on abortion related or any other articles. [25] Additional statement by MastCell[edit]Your justification seems to be that you didn't look at the content of the edit you were reverting, and didn't realize you were removing a bunch of reliable sources (all of which happened to contradict the argument you were making on the talkpage). Even if true, that seems like an aggravating rather than mitigating factor, because it suggests that you're reverting just for the sake of reverting, without actually considering the content or sources. Your responsibility for your edits is just as great, if not greater, when reverting another editor as when making a de novo edit. You don't get a free pass on the substance of your edit just because you used the "undo" button. MastCell Talk 17:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Additional statement by BoboMeowCat[edit]The version I reverted to one time by GodBlessYou2 contained reliable sources saying that Bell died of an illegal abortion. It's not true that I removed all of the sources that state Bell had illegal abortion, although I readily admit that removing any RS references was a careless error on my part, which I will be vigilant to avoid making in the future. I reverted based on the article text comparison between the two versions, with GodBlessYou2's text seeming more neutral and also based on what seemed to me to be compelling talk page arguments by GodBlessYou2 and what appeared to me to be talk page consensus, which MastCell seemed to be reverting against. I have previously asked uninvolved editors to advise above on a better courses of action for future editing, and would like to ask again here. Please refer to talk page discussion here: [26]. Also, please note that MastCell’s comment about adding additional references was made after my one and only edit during this content dispute. To further clarify what occurred, I've had this page on my watch list for several months and have noticed a slow back and forth edit war between GodBlessYou2 and MastCell on the Becky Bell article. Talk page indicated GodBlessYou2 said he was trying to make article more neutral and had concerns that reliable sourcing that argued it was possible that Bell had a natural miscarriage were not being neutrally represented and that there remains debate that parental consent laws caused Bell’s death. I found these arguments by GodBlessYou2 particularly compelling [27] [28] [29] Additionally, I noticed that 131.109.225.24 indicated agreement with GodBlessYou2 and that he was concerned that MastCell was purposely adding misleading information to the article. [30] [31] [32] I then contacted GodBlesYou2 on his talk page to provide him with an additional reference for this article. [33] For a bit of back story, several months ago, Auric pinged me regarding a reference for an additional reliable source on case from the Cleveland Plain Dealer which apparently reported Bell's best friend, Heather Clark, indicated Bell did not have an illegal abortion, saying the two of them had actually made plans to obtain a legal abortion in Kentucky (where no parental consent was needed) but Bell became ill and died before that occurred. Auric provided me with the full reference for this article from the Cleveland Plain Dealer by referring me to this website [34](relevant content about 1/4 of the way down). The article in question is old (1990) and not available online and would require trip to library and I haven't gotten around to getting it as I said I would, so I left a note on GodBlessYou2's talk page, passing on the information regarding the Cleveland Plain Dealer article, in case he had time or interest in pursuing it. GodBlessYou2 replied that his concern mainly was that the 60 minutes reference was not being adequately represented. [35] I then carefully read the talk page and the text of the two versions and reverted one time and one time only, which I admit carelessly resulted in removal of references. I have no intention to continue to remove references, I am committed to editing more carefully when using undo button and would like advice on how best to proceed from here as there is currently a content dispute on that article. I have previously brought content dispute concerns from other articles to the NPOV noticeboard, but have had limited luck because of limited outside input (seems involved parties often just follow to noticeboard with little to no outside input) I’ve never used formal dispute resolution and am not entirely clear how it works and if it would be a good avenue in this case. Any outside advice would be appreciated.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Statement by 131.109.225.24[edit]This is an example of the arrogant bullying and intimidation of a relatively new editor by a cliquish and highly biased, but well-connected administrator. If any participant in this article should be a candidate for punishment by discretionary sanctions it should be MastCell. Here on the Talk page [36] she made a far from comprehensive response to points brought up in the discussion. Eleven minutes later [37] she substantially changed the articles wording (to the "stable" earlier version) "per talk" as if her preferred version had been reached by consensus. She then has the monumental chutzpah to recommend BoboMeowCat for punitive sanctions because he had the common sense to revert her massive changes pending further discussion. Bobo should get one of those barnstars I see, instead. As for MastCell, at the very least, a well earned rest from administrative duties. 131.109.225.24 (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Statement by ArtifexMayhem[edit]The editor does not seem to understand (or possibly doesn't agree with) our policies on reliable sources, neutral point of view, and notability (film). For example,
This is very similar to the type of conduct[44][45] that led to topic bans[46][47] in the ARBCOM case. I second MastCell's request for a topic ban per the above, and based on the intent of the principles, findings, and remedies given in the original case. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Statement by Maunus[edit]I am in the mood to make a statement so I will: I have absolutely no knowledge about this case, but would like to add that I just watched a 1971 debate between Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault and it seems to me that FOucault was right in arguing that there is no basis for claims about a universal morality. Nonetheless, morality is contingent on social forces and power relations, which means that a consensus on wikipedia does have its own moral force that it can bring to bear on any wikipedia user. So this means that this online kangaroo court can validly claim jurisdiction over any matters related to wikipedia editing, including the antics of users by the name of BoboMeowCat.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Statement by NE Ent[edit]BoboMeowCat asked Drmies for protocol regarding AE filings [48]. Drmies pinged me. Reviewing the editor's contribution history I'm seeing a green editor perhaps a little too eager to work in controversial areas given their experience level. I followed up on their talk page [49]. They've agreed not to edit the article talk but confine their activities to the talk page. This hopefully adequately address MastCell's concerns and will allow Wikipedia to further develop a new editor without requiring formal action on part of reviewing administrators. NE Ent 02:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Statement by GodBlessYou2[edit]I'm only commenting because I saw a notification/alert/red flag at the top of my page stating my username had been mentioned in an Arbitration incident. When I checked into it, I see that MastCell is trying to get BoboMeowCat sanctioned?? As far as I know, BoboMeowCat has not even been editing the Becky Bell article . . . at least not lately. I tried to correct some information a bit ago, but I ran into MastCell declaring that his slant on the article was more accurate than the facts represented in the sources. (See for example his insistence on using "unsafe abortion" in the lead though the medical term used in the autopsy was "septic abortion." He does not dispute that the official cause of death was septic abortion but he continues to revert my correction of the lead, bringing into conformity with the official cause of death, simply because he prefers the term unsafe abortion...or, possibly, because he may prefer to drive readers to the unsafe abortion link rather than the septic abortion link.) It is my experience that MastCell has been uncooperative and has been policing this article to preserve his preferred slant. Actually, I was surprised to see a comment from BoboMeowCat "congratulating" me after I made my first attempt to clarify the article. Perhaps he should instead have warned me that this was a contentious article which was being policed to enforce certain editor(s) slant. After respectfully making my edits and moving to the talk page to discuss, MastCell said he wanted to bring in outside opinions. Fine. But now I see he's trying to actually exclude an outside opinion, BoboMeowCat, precisely because that editor agrees with my recommendations for improving the article. Talk about protectionism! I don't know any details about BoboMeowCat's other activities or past activities, but he has not been a problem on the Becky Bell page since I tried to contribute to it. In my view, MastCell is the one trying to dominate the page rather than work toward edits which are clearly supported by the sources -- and one which properly identifies the persons whose opinions are being stated, rather than elevating opinions to factual statements. That isn't too much to ask. GodBlessYou2 (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Additional statement by BoboMeowCat[edit]In a conversation with NE Ent, I have stated that I would willingly not edit the Becky Bell article for six months. The removal of sources was a one time accident, that I am committed to not repeating. I have a history of learning from and not repeating mistakes. I have not repeated my previous new editor error of violating 1RR, due to not understanding what counts as a revert, which I made 7 months ago. I do not feel that I require a formal ban, and would like to continue to participate on the talk page. I edit a wide variety of articles on WP, but I am particularly interested in the challenge of presenting complicated issues in a neutral and encyclopedic way. I agree with NE Ent that participating on the Becky Bell talk page would be a valuable experience to help further my skills as a new editor.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Result concerning BoboMeowCat[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
William M. Connolley
[edit]| Closed with no action--Cailil talk 17:32, 19 December 2014 (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 William M. Connolley[edit]
Basically all in place and alerts have been given. Serten II (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The draft has been available for months and its been well known and stated that I have been working on the draft [51]. If WMC might have had any concerns, he might have uttered them before. Point is, an article about the actual consensus making process of the IPCC and its wide discussion in the social science field has not been written before and is of a certain interest. The current entries (Scientific opinion on climate change, the IPCC entry itself and others) use part of the IPCC assessments but do not describe the actual science (with various peer reviewed papers and high ranking scholars included) about it. In so far the Process per se is not being described properly. To disallow for such an article by a sort of "cold AfD" is rather disruptive. If Connolley has something to say, he shall go via the talk page or a regular AFD, the current procedure is not acceptable.
Discussion concerning William_M._Connolley[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 William M. Connolley[edit]Statement by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs)[edit]This page is clearly a personal essay that had somehow been moved into article space. In his edit summary, William Connolley is apparently drawing attention to the fact that it's an opinion piece largely based on a single source. I would probably have tagged it for summary deletion, but replacing it with a redirect works just as well. I see no credible evidence of a ban violation in this instance. --23:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs)[edit]A. No compliant notice on wmc's talk page NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Point of information[edit]WP:RFC/U has been discontinued. NE Ent 00:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Interesting claims by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) and NewsAndEventsGuy, still need an idea which of the current 58 sources are a single one. Actually, NewsAndEventsGuy added no POF/FORK, see talk page. He and others started to work cooperatively on the article, till WMS's disruptive edit. Then he went shopping for support to install a POV/Fork. Funny coincidence. Since then, various links to the article have been reverted, based on sometimes ridiculous reasoning, compare [52] . I have reverted once and contributed to various talk pages. Serten II (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
IPCC+consensus =42.000 scjolar entries In 2010 e.g. 'creating, defending and communicating ... consensus' has been part of the 2010 external review (via the IAC) of the IPCC itself, a major change of policy, the outcome of which and the article refering to it has been ignored so far within the enWP. Questions? WMC is prohibited from editing relating to any living person in the field for good reasons. He erased an 60 references strong article with a laconic "(The "literature" section said it all") comment, offending and abusing scholars of the rank of Reiner Grundmann and Nico Stehr and interrupts an previously ongoing constructive discussion and improvement. Thats why I am here. Point is, that going back to userspace is being required here, (instead of discussing a major disruptive edit), the message is "don't write articles based on scholarly sources we don't like". Thats not what Wikipedia is about. I currently have to defend the article both from people, that come up with popular sceptisism and those try to have primary sources and a self description of the IPCC ideals being inserted. Neither is my interest. My point is to use scholarly third party sources that describe the actual process of IPCC consensus making and its challenges. An interesting side effect is that this is applicable as well to WP itself, if I guess right, User:Jeangoodwin wrote papers on the WP and the IPCC ;) She may have a point on that ;) Serten II (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC) With regard to User:Callaneccs comment, I might agree with the notion, than a once revert to a redirect might not infringe the ban and still be inline with the conversation tone deemed as normal in the climate realm. Its however way beyound WP:civil, rather disruptive and poisoned the athmosphere. Connolley has not been active on any talk page or bothered to appear here. To close the case, I ask for a reminder of basic rules for him and to keep the article under surveillance. Serten II (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC) PS.: Reason to keep an eye on it Statement by dave souza (talk · contribs)[edit]The diff given by Serten II for "The draft has been available for months and its been well known and stated that I have been working on the draft"[53] shows that NAEG was aware of the draft at User:Serten/IPCC consensus but gives no indication that it was advertised: I do some editing in the topic area and was completely unaware of it. Even if I had been, that doesn't give it immunity from the usual editing process in mainspace. At 19:49, 16 December 2014 Serten II "moved page User:Serten/IPCC consensus to IPCC consensus: done so far". Unfortunately the article is still incoherent, and even lacks a definition of the title or any indication that "IPCC consensus" exists as a term in English. The use of sources is idiosyncratic and questionable. For example, "The IPCC science assessment of Global warming as such itself, similar to Evolution as a mainstay of biology since the 19th century, is being deemed acknowledged and of less basic controversies." is sourced to an NCSE critique which notes that the creationist book Explore Evolution "equates alleged controversy about evolution with controversies over plate tectonics, climate change, and string theory". but only uses the phrase "IPCC consensus" after defining that specifically as the 2001 consensus that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations," and subsequently calls the same thing "the IPCC assessment". The article just isn't ready for mainspace, and its topic needs a clear definition. It was therefore reasonable for William M. Connolley (WMC) to make it a redirect until it's sorted out. Unfortunately, Serten II's response was "Bullshit revert by WMC You have had all time to comment on my draft, if you come now and revert valid content, youre just disrupting stuff. Start a discussion or get lost. Serten II (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)" followed rather quickly with this AE request. Serten II is clearly aware of the WP:ARBCC ruling, but seems to have missed Principle 2.1.5 Wikipedia is not a battleground. Serten II needs to slow down, take care to represent sources accurately, and move the draft back into userspace until it makes sense and has a defined topic which is not a POV fork. . dave souza, talk 02:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC) William's action is clearly correct per policy, as the article has numerous problems (as expected for any monograph by an editors with a strong opinion) so I moved it back to User:Serten II/IPCC consensus for now. Hopefully Serten II will have the good sense to get others to help tone it down and make it less of a POV fork before trying to move it back to mainspace, because the alternative is yet another drama-laden AfD with the usual partisans chucking bricks at each other and I don't think anyone needs that. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Result concerning William M. Connolley[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Closed with no action--Cailil talk 17:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC) |
Pigsonthewing
[edit]| Both admonished (as normal admin action) and amendment request filed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:11, 20 December 2014 (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 Pigsonthewing[edit]
As I noted from a previous remedy imposed on the user,
Discussion concerning Pigsonthewing[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 Pigsonthewing[edit]Statement by Harry Mitchell[edit]Andy is a personal fried IRL, so I won't be commenting as an uninvolved admin. Sigh. The remedy is atrociously drafted (note to arbs: draft proper remedies or they come back to bite you). But it applies to discussing the addition or removal of infoboxes from articles. Andy's participation at TfD was never in question in the arbitration case, and does not in any way violate the remedy. This should be closed quickly with no action (again) as it has repeatedly been used as a stick with which to beat Andy. I don't fault Wes for misinterpreting the remedy, for the record, I fault ArbCom for the cack-handed drafting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC) Statement by Thryduulf[edit]I don't see any of this as a violation of either the letter or spirit of the arbitration restrictions regarding infoboxes, which relate to adding or removing infoboxes from articles. Previous AE consensuses and the discussion that led to Andy being unblocked this month both support this interpretation. The TfD discussions are about whether one type of infobox should be replaced with and/or merged with a different type of infobox, the effect on an article would be like changing {{infobox foo}} to {{infobox bar}}. This is even less of a significant change than that discussed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Request for Clarification (July 2014) where the arbitrators found that there was no breach of the restriction. Note I am commenting here from the position of an admin who is involved in the topic area but not in the specific instances discussed here, not as an arbitrator. Thryduulf (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Statement by NE Ent[edit]If a template which is an infobox is deleted, that removes it from an article, right? Rather than wikilawyer over the perceived quality of Arbcom's 2013 wording, wouldn't it be simpler to page ban from Tfds on infoboxes per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Pigsonthewing_placed_on_probation? NE Ent ~ 19:20, 18 December 2014 Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Pigsonthewing[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Factchecker_atyourservice
[edit]| Users Factchecker_atyourservice, Myopia123, Cwobeel and Brianhe are formally warned for conduct incompatible with WP:BATTLE on WP:BLP related talk pages. They are reminded that casting unfounded aspersions about other editors or misrepresenting their communications is unhelpful. All 4 users are strongly advised to avoid making any personal remarks about other editors, speculating on their intentions or making value judgments about their contributions. Factchecker_atyourservice is singled out for incivility and warned not to make personalized comments about other editors--Cailil talk 13:07, 27 December 2014 (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 Factchecker_atyourservice[edit]
The following diffs consist of personal attacks: Note: Diffs 13-22 added 22:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Factchecker_atyourservice has been making repeated personal attacks against other editors to the detriment of collaboration. He was warned about discretionary sanctions in October, and was also warned at least once about the consequences of personal attacks last week [76]. This has not abated his use of personal attacks, even when an editor he's attacking has left discussion of the topic under sanctions. His conduct is therefore disruptive.
@Collect and Cailil: I didn't provide context for the case, which was my fault, so I'll clarify that now. Myopia brought up the idea of applying After that incident, Cwobeel and FCAYS got into a dispute about a bad paraphrase of a NYT article (the article said Brown was found to be unarmed, whereas the paraphrase implied it was known that he was unarmed). Cwobeel defended the paraphrase (diff 20), and FCAYS responded as he did in diff 3. Cwobeel responded by refactoring the PA and posting the source material (diff 21), after which FCAYS responded as he did in diff 5. After some more back and forth resulting in 6 and 7, I decided to intervene (diff 21), FCAYS responded in diff 8, saying Cwobeel was defaming McCulloch with no solution to the conflict. I didn't find anything that defamed McCulloch directly and asked for clarification (diff 22). In diff 9 he blamed me for not finding the relevant text, saying I was being careless. That discussion fizzled out, and then FCAYS went on to make the PAs in diffs 10-12 with no relevance to talk page discussion. I might have organized this poorly, but I don't think the case is as weak as Collect thinks. Myopia was genuinely trying to contribute and FCAYS decided to forget AGF is a guideline even after it was clear other editors weren't antagonistic. Not only that, but his PAs and incivility made it difficult to figure out what was the actual content problem in the second dispute. I understand where FCAYS was coming from, but that wasn't a good reason to be uncivil then, and given the follow-up attacks in 10-12 I still don't think he gets how disruptive he's been in being that. --RAN1 (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
@Cailil: None of the diffs I posted are prior to December or from The Federalist's talk page. It was Brianhe who brought that up. --RAN1 (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Factchecker_atyourservice[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 Factchecker_atyourservice[edit]I'm traveling for the holidays and I don't expect I would get a chance to respond at length before Jan. 1. Thanks to all who have spoken in my defense. That said, probably most of what I would say in my own defense, if I had the time, would revolve around the proposition that Cwobeel's approach to editing and willingness to twist, abuse, and even ignore policy, and to ignore stark facts about sources even after they are pointed out to him, and to argue and Wikilawyer and threaten even after it becomes clear policy and sources are not on his side, represent a new low in WP editing. He gives WP the appearance of dishonesty. Things like this make my blood boil. Cwobeel's not the only person I've snarked at or called a name recently, but his (IMO) awful, agenda-driven editing and ignorant combativeness have given me reason to doubt the future of the project, and that is why my behavior has changed. So assuming you're going to dispose of this before I get back, I would just say: if you're going to enforce civility policy here, and do it with sanctions, I would sure appreciate it if you'd also kick up your enforcing-content-policies game a few notches. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Brianhe[edit]I reminded FCAYS in October that he was violating the terms of a "final warning" issued by TParis at the closure of a May ANI case with his continued disruption and incivility [80], providing diffs to his statements "I, also, give zero fucks about what you think", "you're in fact colossally bad at editing WP and understanding its policies", and "shut the hell up" directed at other editors. I again warned him in December that he was in danger of of discretionary sanctions for incivility at Shooting of Michael Brown-related pages [81]. — Brianhe (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Chrisgualtieri[edit]These "personal attacks" are pretty weak. The 1st is a well-known Iain Banks quote, "Empathize with stupidity and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." This is not a personal attack, but it is sharp criticism. What is its purpose? It follows Myopia123's accusation that Wikipedia editors are racist and do not even know it (hidden racism). Factchecker is basically, and without proper context, saying that you should not be empathize or legitimize the opinions of someone who just called you a racist. Coupled with the "core issue is racism" editors should WP:DENY unsupported accusations that they are hidden racists. Which takes care of the other Myopia issues - by an editor, ironically - using a term for nearsightedness as their name. The others, concerning Cwobeel are more complex. And that's why I expected Cwobeel to be here and not Factchecker. Why? The editor does not understand WP:IRS to WP:BLP and just about everything in between. This is despite walls of text and a week of trying to help correct the issue. This addition alone would beg a warning and this reinsertion includes an additional criminal accusation following a good-faith removal of a BLP claim. Those are not all, or even the most problematic ones - just a sizable chunk of entirely negative material copy and pasted across pages.
Cwobeel says "I am very well informed on WP:BLP", but a well-informed user would not add a wall of negative quotations dedicated to portray the subject as deceptive, manipulative and biased light like this. Factchecker has civility issues when he is upset over some of these BLP issues. The case, however, is not a strong one when context is given the situations. I believe that it would be best to remind Factchecker of WP:CIVILITY. If punishment is "required" place him on a probation of 1 month against personal attacks or incivility. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Statement by Mandruss[edit]Once again, we use "they deserved it" as an excuse for verbal abuse, and wonder why we have a severe civility problem. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 06:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Statement by Cwobeel[edit]It should be obvious by now, that FCAYS derives a certain pleasure from being an enfant terrible, and no matter how much feedback he gets about it, it is unlikely that he will change. The question is: his FCAYS making a useful contribution to the project or is he here just to raise heckles? If the former is correct, then we could just ignore his incivility, otherwise we should not. As for the accusations of BLP violations made by ChrisGaultieri (btw, he never pinged me about this thread in which he is leveling accusations against me), just read what he quoted me saying, and let me know if my understanding of our core content policies is flawed. Given the contentious nature of the article in question , and the fact that I have been heavily involved on editing it, and having made substantial content additions to the article over the past four months, I declared yesterday my withdrawal from editing that article for a while, to allow new editors to help improve the article by taking a fresh look. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC) After re-reading Gualteri's comments, please note that the diffs he provided which he described as "criminal accusations" [82] are all impeccably sourced to CNN, USA Today, Fox News, St.Louis Post-Dispatch, Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times. Furthermore, after discussions in talk page related to WP:UNDUE,[83] I trimmed that section considerably [84]. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC) @Collect: I wonder if you will be so accommodating if you were the target of personal attacks; I would be surprised if that would be the case. I have a thick skin, but there is a limit. And whatever your accommodation may be, you have to accept the fact that such behavior can't be excused, no matter what the excuse is. If an editor is violating WP:BLP we don't have to disparage them or use foul language. We have a number of noticeboards to avail ourselves of assistance, and there is always WP:DR. Collaboration is hard work, and compromise is even harder, but that does not mean that we should allow editors to abuse others just because they think they are right and the target of their attacks, wrong. That approach is unacceptable, if we keep in mind the aims of the project. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC) @Cailil: I fail to see how the diff you provided [85] is either a personal attack or a mirror of FCAYS's. Care to explain? In any case I will gladly accept an interaction ban, as it will avoid any further escalation. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC) @Cailil: Yes, that was a vulgar comment, whack me for it, and I'd accept it humbly. But that was not a personal attack, but rather my response after being abused non-stop in that talk page. As I said, I will be more than happy to accept an interaction ban, as it will spare me the aggravation. Happy holidays. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Statement by Gaijin42[edit]FCAYS and ChrisGualtieri have some legitimate complaints with the current state of the article. Some of that state can be explained by editor bias, but some of it is also explained by the flow of the case - witnesses and evidence that tend to support Wilson were not available until much later, when the bulk of the article had already been written. Since the newer information has come out, editors have been working to integrate the newer information. This process has not been perfect, there has been some resistance to changes that affect the overall narrative of the story away from the original popular interpretation. However, FCAYS has some issues in the way they go about working towards improvements. They seem to have some issues with battleground and personalization of issues, as well as some issues with the common interpretations of WP:OR and WP:BLP. Their actions recently have been disruptive, but not meritless. IF they can reign it in, or be reigned in by some more less severe sanction, I think they can be an asset to the area. But there is a legitimate risk that they cannot be brought into the fold as well. In some of the diffs listed above, FCAYS is clearly out of line. In some of them he is making legitimate complaints about the use of a source and the way what the source says was twisted into what the wiki said. He was right, but also made his point in an unnecessarily combative way. (This is a problem that is not restricted to FCAYS, nor is it restricted to editors on any particular "side" of the POV). I will now end this wishy-washy statement. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC) statement by Collect[edit]A mélange of quite weak arguments, including use of a well-known quotation, and assertions of crypto-racism of some sort. Diffs clearly show deliberate examination and searching through weeks of FCAYS edits, seeking anything remotely objectionable, most of which simply fail to rise to any major level in the first place. A look at AndyTheGrump for one week or less will show far more animus than a month's worth here of FCAYS could. Nor has any sign that FCAYS has violated or sought to violate BLP policy been shown here - which is the basis under which apparently a sanction is being sought. The BLP at issue is rather a mess of allegations and rumours being given equal weight with facts determined through the legal system. Anyone seeking to add allegations and rumours in such articles, IMHO, is far more culpable of BLP violations than is FCAYS. I would also point out that sanctioning people on a "variable basis" for being uncivil is a major issue on Wikipedia, and one which should be quite avoided in the case at hand. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC) @BH - the issue of civility enforcement in general is iffy at best - I suggest you read the recent discussions thereon. The issues you raise, found by thorough examination of every edit by FCAYS (including his use of a well-known adage) do not rise to the level needed here for sanctions, and I fear the ones who are abusing BLP are not FCAYS. Let us use BLP sanctions for those who actually abuse BLPs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC) @CW - I most have assuredly been the subject of stalkers, snide and snarky attacks, and disparagement. I advise folks to avoid the "drama boards" as a matter of course, and to recognize that there are always those who seem to want to have "enemy lists" of some sort or another (my bêtes-noires were "Inclusionist/TravB/manyothernames" and "Ratel/manyothernames") - and that doing such is a sign of weakness and insecurity as to the positions one takes. I offer you the exact same advice. And if you wish to "enforce civility" note that it took me over two years to get the infamous "DICK" essay emended at Meta.Collect (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Factchecker_atyourservice[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Brianhe - you say above your only talk page interaction with FCAYS is in May 2014 (if so then how could you have reminded him of TParis's in October?). You have in fact been in talk page (not just user talk pages) interaction with FACYS this month at Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown (your comments are a direct reply to FCAYS[90]). Cwobeel Diff corrected. If you can't see how your comment[91] is being mirrored here[92] by FCAYS's vulgarity |