| Revision as of 13:08, 10 January 2008 view sourceCla68 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers48,127 edits →Involved parties: added Jayjg← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:40, 31 January 2023 view source AmandaNP (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators45,707 edits What the actual fuckTags: Replaced Undo | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description|Wikimedia project page}} | |||
| {{/Header}} <!-- frontmatter of this page --> | |||
| <noinclude>{{pp-protected|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{/Header}} | |||
| {{/Case}} | |||
| {{/Clarification and Amendment}} | |||
| {{/Motions}} | |||
| {{/Enforcement}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| == Current requests == | |||
| === Waterboarding === | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' <strong>]<small>•]</small></strong> '''at''' 11:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Involved parties ==== | |||
| *{{admin|henrik}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Lawrence Cohen}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Blue Tie}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Neutral Good}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Badagnani}} | |||
| *{{admin|Jehochman}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|OtterSmith}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Shibumi2}} | |||
| *{{admin|Black Kite}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Neon_white}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Ka-Ping Yee}} | |||
| *{{admin|Walton_One}} | |||
| *{{admin|MZMcBride}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Hypnosadist}} | |||
| *{{admin|Raymond Arritt}} | |||
| *68.x.x.x (Various Sprint wireless IPs, usually signing comments as Bob) | |||
| *{{IPvandal|209.221.240.193}} | |||
| <!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. If desired, wording such as "(initiating party)" may be added. Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a party is an administrator. --> | |||
| ; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
| ; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| <!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitation --> | |||
| * RfC: ] | |||
| * Fringe theories noticeboard: ], ] | |||
| * AN and AN/I threads: ], ], ], ], ], ] | |||
| :* (All of these are from December 26 to today, I did not include earlier discussions) | |||
| ==== Statement by Henrik ==== | |||
| The battle that has been going on is growing beyond the ability of the community to handle. Several admins, myself included, have attempted to bring order to the discussion only to be dragged into the ]. The basic content dispute the question of whether there is a significant dispute that ] is/is not torture, and what weight that should be given to the various positions. There has has been an unwillingess for the parties to make compromises and talk to each other, and as a result the page has been , almost since the begining of november. Multiple warnings and blocks, an RFC, and an attempt at community article probation have failed. There have been cases of sock puppetry, disruptive argumentation, the atmosphere is generally unproductive, and a group of students at Harvard attempting to participate in a Misplaced Pages debate got bitten. I would welcome ArbCom input on how to move forward, to get this article back to constructive editing. | |||
| ==== Statement by Neutral Good ==== | |||
| I am one of the so-called "SPAs" on this account. I openly admit that I have a single purpose: it's called NPOV. The ] article represents one of the great moral dilemmas of the early 21st Century and it's "In The News," so it is attracting a lot of attention from observers at all points of the political spectrum. The first six words of the article pretend that "waterboarding is torture" is not disputed by anyone, despite the fact that such prominent legal experts as ] (former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, possibly the next president of the United States) and ] (former assistant US attorney for SDNY, now director of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism) have said that in some cases, waterboarding may not be torture. The "waterboarding is torture" advocates have gone so far as to extend this pretension to a section header for the section of the article that focuses on the very real dispute, expunging the word "dispute" from that section header. Administrative process has been persistently abused by one side in an attempt to ] the article; for every sockpuppet accusation that was accurate, there have been at least three resulting in findings of {{unrelated}} or {{declined}}, my User Talk page has been blanketed by warnings, and there have been no less than three separate threads started at ] by the same person. They have violated ] and ] during brief periods of semi-protection, they have an SPA of their own created at the end of October that mysteriously agrees with everything they say, and there have been absolutely zero consequences for them. Someone needs to take action to make the first six words of the article NPOV. | |||
| ==== Initial statement by admin Black Kite ==== | |||
| I came to this article as uninvolved; whilst there are undoubtedly good-faith editors involved in the "not torture" side of the dispute, the majority of the problems are almost certainly caused by an organised campaign of POV-pushing by numerous accounts and IPs (see ]). | |||
| Results of my initial investigations are as follows. | |||
| <b>{{vandal|Shibumi2}}</b> | |||
| * Recently confirmed as a sockmaster warring on this article by CU (]) and blocked for 2 weeks. | |||
| * Account was created on 7 January 2007, one day after ] was blocked for two weeks (and later indefinitely). Note that BryanFromPalatine, as the name suggests, hailed from Palatine, Illinois. | |||
| * Both Shibumi2 and BryanFromPalatine share an major interest in the article ]. | |||
| <b>{{IPvandal|209.221.240.193}}</b> | |||
| * Previously confirmed by CU as sock of ], though never blocked. | |||
| <b>{{vandal|Neutral Good}}</b> | |||
| * SPA account created 22/12/2007, This diff after he forgot to log in, reveals an IP address which resolves to Illinois as well. | |||
| <b>Other IPs which supported the "not torture" side of the dispute</b><br> | |||
| {{IPvandal|68.29.174.61}} | |||
| * Supported "not torture" proposal on talk page. Resolves to Sprint, as does Shibumi2. | |||
| {{IPvandal|70.9.150.106}} | |||
| * Supported "not torture" proposal on talk page. Resolves to Sprint. | |||
| {{IPvandal|68.31.220.221}} "Bob" | |||
| * accused other editors of being POV warriors. Only other edit was related to ]. Resolves to Sprint. | |||
| I will expand this section after further investigation. | |||
| ====Statement by uninvolved HiDrNick==== | |||
| I think that this case is premature, and hope that the committee will choose to not hear it at this time. There are some community-based remedies being discussed that, if adopted, would certainly reduce the amount of tendentious editing on the page. Failing that, mediation as a next step would be reasonable. | |||
| ====Statement by Walton One==== | |||
| This is a content dispute, so I expect the ArbCom will turn it down. | |||
| I am also not sure why I have been named as a party. I have been involved in a couple of discussions on the talk page in the last two days, but I have not edit-warred. Indeed I have made a grand total of ''one'' edit to the article itself - namely , which consisted of adding a closing square bracket. Hardly wildly controversial. | |||
| I happen to have a viewpoint on the content issue in question which largely coincides with that of Neutral Good, but I have no idea whether he's behaved inappropriately, and I have no further comment to make on this matter. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Clerk notes ==== | |||
| : (This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.) | |||
| ==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) ==== | |||
| * | |||
| ---- | |||
| === ] === | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 03:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Involved parties ==== | |||
| *{{userlinks|kingofmann}} (Initiating Party) | |||
| *{{admin|Hu12}} | |||
| *{{admin|Jmlk17}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Newguy34}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Heraldic}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Wjhonson}} | |||
| ; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| ; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| In an attempt to resolve this issue with user Newguy34 and having researched for several hours his edits as well as many others, based on the discussions of several editors on my biography's talk page at ] with those attempting to edit to Misplaced Pages's policies, I do not feel that this issue is easily resolved and it does suggest that there is a group effort to edit to the negative with three of the parties involved as well as other anonymous editors not cited using various USENET groups as a base for orchestrating their efforts. See ] citing user Wjhonson | |||
| involvement. See ] illustrating user Hearldic's participation in a USENET group with a long list of libelous claims against me. | |||
| ==== Statement by Kingofmann ==== | |||
| I am David Howe, the subject of a Misplaced Pages Biography. | |||
| My initial dispute had to do with the inclusion of a business that I own, that has nothing to do with my notability, on a biography page about me. I requested to Admin Hu12 that he aid me with the removal on his talk page and I cited ] as the reason why. I eventually deleted the material I felt violated my privacy and stated why on my talk page. User Newguy34 reverted it twice and that is when I requested page protection which was issued. | |||
| In response to what seemed like several editors of my biography page, namely Newguy34, Heraldic, Wjhonson and some anonymous users involvement in what seems to be an orchestrated effort to circumvent ] and present a negative point of view see ], Admin Hu12 on his talk page as well as my biography's talk page stated, "The Media bias is evident in many of the sources, which are attributable and doesn't surprise me since its rooted in forms of Cultural biass. The subject of David Howe is no doubt a Political one to many, however lets keep these biases out of the article space." His request has had no effect. | |||
| There are numerous examples on the biography's talk page that show the well telegraphed intent of some editors. Just a few are as follows: | |||
| December 27, 2007, editor Newguy34 was an advocate for the Misplaced Pages blacklisted site that has since be revised several times to appear less libelous. ] Despite the fact the site isn't a reliable third-party source, addressing another editor's objection to the site he stated, "Your bias appears clear, namely to advance Howe's claims. The author of the website is well respected in genealogy circles and has fully cited and referenced his "opinions."" In fact none of these things are true. The author of the site at the bottom of the first page describes himself, as of January 9, 2008, "an accountant with a keen amateur interest in history and genealogy." | |||
| Heraldic and Wjhonson advocating for including libelous blacklisted site see ] and then attempting to get it removed from the blacklist See ]. Here it was also revealed that Wjhonson had conspired with the author of the blacklisted site to misuse Misplaced Pages. | |||
| ====Statement by Wjhonson==== | |||
| When a person has achieved that level of notability that a biography is acceptable, all known facts about the person have an equal chance of being represented. The person, short of pointing out libelous statements, has no special prerogative to exclude certain details. We do not allow this priviledge to ], we do not allow it to ], we allow it to nobody. It is a red-herring argument that only issues *related* to notability are included. We include a biography based on notability, but once included, each statement does not need to pass notability to be included. | |||
| Contrary to the claim that I was involved in "...circumvent WP:BLP and present a negative point of view see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008#Unreal_Royal...." I submit that all of my edits have quite plainly adhered to ]. The issue regarding what I perceive as an out-of-process blacklisting is a seperate issue to this article. That the http: //www.unrealroyal.com site was blacklisted as an "attack site", when IMHO it is a "criticism" site of a *public figure* as the King of Man is most clearly. If the King of Man were not himself a public figure, than pointed criticism might be a valid reason for blacklisting a site which criticizes a Wikipedian. The fact that he is a *public figure* puts him outside that purview and he is then fair-game just as surely as ] is himself. We do not blacklist sites critical of Bush, and if Bush became a Wikipedian we would not blacklist sites critical of Bush. | |||
| Contary to the assertion that "The author of the website is well respected in genealogy circles and has fully cited and referenced his "opinions."" In fact none of these things are true.", I submit that indeed the author is well-respected in genealogy circles, and his fair-and-even criticism of David Howe is fully cited and referenced. | |||
| Contary to the assertion that the site is "...libelous..." is my assertion that it in fact engages in well-reasoned and pointed criticism of a public figure. | |||
| Contrary to the assertion that "...Wjhonson had conspired with the author of the blacklisted site to misuse Misplaced Pages." is my assertion that outside Misplaced Pages, in particular on the soc.genealogy.medieval newsgroup, I know the author of the website. My agreeing with his perception that his website was unfairly blacklisted, is not a conspiracy. | |||
| ====Statement by Newguy34==== | |||
| I am disappointed that this has reached the ArbCom, and am not sure quite where to start in this unfortunate episode. | |||
| First, either Mr. Howe is notable as an individual (for which information such as his primary business venture is relevant) or he is notable for only a single event (namely his claim) and the ] should be merged with another article. I think a ] of Mr. Howe is unwarranted. As it relates to WP guidelines, a person is generally notable if a) the person has received significant recognized awards or honors, or b) the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. | |||
| Further, when a person is associated with only one event, such as an unsubstantiated claim to be related to ancient royalty, consideration should be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted. | |||
| And from ], if reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy, which is exactly the situation we are facing in this matter. I fail to see how Mr. Howe has achieved any notability other than through this singular claim, and the recent coverage of it. In spite of this, a single user Lazydown has made the majority of edits in support of Mr. Howe's claim, while several editors (including those involved in this arbitration matter) have been consistent in attempting to achieve a balance and neutrality to the article, Lazydown's (and now Howe's) protestations that we are somehow violating ] aside. The support for this assertion is contained on the article's talk page and the edit history, and is clear for anyone to read. | |||
| As to the information I seek to have included, I believe the inclusion of Mr. Howe's business is relevant information, which is entirely permissible and standard for a ]. I cited the information from a verifiable, reliable source in accordance with WP policies. The fact that he owns a Glass Doctor franchise in Frederick is a matter of public record and comes from press releases penned by (or authorized by) him. I can not see how it now should be excluded (in its present form) from a ''biographical article'' on claimed grounds of privacy, especially given that '''it was Mr. Howe who first put this information in the public domain'''. That Mr. Howe does not like the relevant information he has placed in the public domain being used in a ] article about himself is insufficient support for its exclusion under privacy concerns. | |||
| '''I attempted to reach consensus with Mr. Howe on the issue''' (as evidenced on his talk page), but he refuses to discuss the matter further and instead has made a very serious threat of legal action against me (and possibly Misplaced Pages) see http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kingofmann. A threat which I take very seriously, and for which I believe he should be admonished. He has not engaged in dispute resolution. These are indisputable facts, evidenced in various talk pages. | |||
| Mr. Howe's assertion that there are several editors involved in "an orchestrated effort to circumvent ] and present a negative point of view" is a ''gross'' misrepresentation of the facts and represents libel. I have never met any of the other editors. My edits have been to retain ] after numerous attempts by Lazydown to edit the article in a light most advantageous to Mr. Howe and his claim. Lazydown's edits are typically accompanied by accusations that the editors involved in this arbitration are violating ] and other WP policies. I have posted that I believe we are involved in a content dispute. '''I have attempted to reach consensus on the issue with Lazydown''', but he too refuses to discuss the matter. Instead, he posts accusations of a number of us on the talk pages of several administrators, namely Hu12. As such, I believe that Lazydown has not been exhibiting good faith, and am curious why Lazydown is not also a subject of this arbitration action given the inordinate number of edits he has made. | |||
| I also take strong personal offense to Mr. Howe's implication that the edits of myself and others amount to a "well telegraphed intent" on our part. Again, I have never met the other editors in question, and there is ''no'' evidence or factual basis to support this latest assertion. Contrary to Mr. Howe's assertion, I was not an advocate for the now-blacklisted site, but rather sought to understand the objections of Lazydown in that matter. It is important to note that at the time of my posts on the matter, the website in question was not blacklisted. It is also important to note that the criticism of Mr. Howe on the website in question is fully cited and is fully referenced. The occupation of the website author is not relevant to his recognized expertise in the matters the website discusses. I, too, believe the blacklisting of the website is inappropriate and uncalled for. | |||
| In summary, I believe this is a very disturbing series of events, filled with red herring arguments, selective adherence to WP policies, inappropriate ] on the part of Howe, and an exercise of bad faith on the part of Howe and user Lazydown. I welcome the consideration of these matters by ArbCom, but as one who believes in the Misplaced Pages project, I am disappointed that it has come to this. ] (]) 06:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by Heraldic==== | |||
| Firstly, I should say that I have been on steep learning curve when it comes to the Misplaced Pages way of doing things. Hopefully I am not repeating any of my earlier procedural errors. | |||
| Given the nature of Mr Howe’s claims it is understandable that they would come under considerable scrutiny. I do not think that it is in Misplaced Pages’s interest to allow the Howe article to be perceived in any way as an endorsement of his claims. To that end I have attempted to provide a balance to the Howe article, clarifying certain broad statements or citing references that reflect that all is not as clear cut as Howe may wish. | |||
| With regard to the unrealroyal site; whilst the observations of the author may not meet Misplaced Pages guidelines (as I now understand), I do believe the factual content is worthy of note. It was for the latter reason I questioned its blacklisting. As for its reinstatement, you will see that I stated that if it was to remain blacklisted it should be for its content not because Wjhonson chose to query the blacklisting. I do not believe that simply disagreeing with an admin is a misuse of Misplaced Pages. | |||
| As part of this arbitration process, I hope that the administrators will also look into the relevant issue of sockpuppets. The dedication shown by users Theisles and Lazydown in the editing the article to reflect Howe’s case and the rigid application of Wiki procedures when it comes to the exclusion of any material that is critical of Howe has given rise to the suspicion that they are either Howe himself or a close associate. The most recent example can be found at ] .Clarification of their status will go along way to calming things down. | |||
| For the record, I am not the owner, author or webmaster of the unrealroyal website. Nor have I had contact with any of the editors here to listed other than through Misplaced Pages public talk pages.--Heraldic 09:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Clerk notes ==== | |||
| : (This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.) | |||
| ==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) ==== | |||
| * | |||
| ---- | |||
| === ] === | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 22:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Involved parties ==== | |||
| *{{admin|SirFozzie}} (Initiating Party) | |||
| *{{admin|Alison}} | |||
| *{{admin|R. fiend}} | |||
| <!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. If desired, wording such as "(initiating party)" may be added. Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a party is an administrator. --> | |||
| ; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| ; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| Two threads at ANI, as well as current RfC at ] | |||
| <!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitation --> | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| R. fiend has been accused of using his administrator powers in numerous inappropriate ways. Among the incidents of questionable adminstrator rights brought up in the RfC: | |||
| A) Reverting to a preferred version in the ] page, and then immediately semi-protecting the page to prevent the IP addresses that he was edit-warring against from editing the page. Then, having "won" the edit war, left the page semi-protected indefinitely for almost six months. , | |||
| B) Continual insertion of questionably-sourced information about a person' (that would violate ] if the person in question was living). R. fiend again semi-protected the page (without any message as to reason) to "lock out" the anonymous IP editor from editing the page. . When the anonymous editor in question requested the page unprotection, two administrators asked R. fiend for the rationale for the protection. He stated that his edits were per the talk page's consensus ], but when asked for a link to show this consensus, he did not reply. | |||
| C) R. fiend blocked ] in an apparent error in October, leaving no block summary. ] unblocked Ed nine hours later in the absence of any communication. When questioned on it on his talk page by a three other admins,<sup></sup>, he replied, ''"Hmmm. Looks like a mistake. Oh well. No harm done."''.<sup></sup> When it was suggested by ] that he apologize, R. fiend just walked away and never approached ] on the matter again. (). When this matter was brought up as part of the RfC, he apologized stating that he must have been drunk or high while he edited, which he stated he did infrequently. Ed Poor has asked that the block be expunged from his record. | |||
| D)R. fiend has been involved in a content dispute with ] over the ] article.<sup></sup>. He then went on to block Domer48 for ] violation on the same article, even though he was in dispute and editing there. Nor had R. fiend approached Domer48 at any time before the block. While it is fairly well understood that Domer48 was at least at 3 Reverts (and may have broken 3RR), R. fiend, as a participant in the dispute should ''NOT'' have been the one to carry out the block. After Domer48 was blocked, uninvolved admins, ] and ] and other editors voiced their concerns.<sup></sup> R. fiend replied that he didn't see any problem with being a participant in the dispute and blocking Domer, stating "If I didn't block him, someone else would have" <sup></sup> Luna Santin questioned that comment, saying that it could be considered an abuse of admin privileges, that besides the obvious conflict of interest in the block, it could have a chilling effect on future editors who found themselves in dispute with R. fiend.'<sup></sup>. R. fiend chose not to reply, instead refused to unblock and got more irate<sup></sup> when questioned by myself .<sup></sup> | |||
| In the interests of brevity, I will not list several other incidents that R. fiend was involved in, however, should ArbCom wish to review this additional information, I invite them to review the evidence posted at the] Throughout, R. fiend has refused to acknowledge that he had done anything wrong in most of the incidents above, stating that he thought folks were whining, and that most of his actions were fundamentally correct. He also says that he is a self-admitted "Snide Bastard" and that folks knew what they were getting when they passed his RfA, therefore this allows his behavior. | |||
| ArbCom should accept this case, review the incivility and use of his administrator rights and privileges, and determine if at least a temporary suspension of these rights, if not a permanent revocation of his administrator rights, is called for. | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| ... to follow later today. | |||
| ====Statement by ] ==== | |||
| First off, I want to say that the recent spate of free time I've recently had that has allowed to me spent large amounts of time to editing and discussions at Misplaced Pages is drawing to a close, so I won't be able to devote as much time to this as I have to other things recently, nor will I be editing as regularly in general, for reasons not associated with AN/I, RfC or Arbcom. | |||
| Basically, I just want to say this. At the RfC, I clearly stated that I would refrain from obnoxious comments, show more restraint in article protection, and be more careful when blocking people. Other editors seem to have decided ahead of time that I am not going to do theses things. I just think it would make sense to put off an Arbcom until we see if they are right. | |||
| Thank you. That is all. -] (]) 00:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by uninvolved Aatomic1 ==== | |||
| Item C Above | |||
| At least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. I cannot see evidence of this at ]. Indeed I can also see evidence that no one noticed. | |||
| ] (]) 23:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, there are three users who certified the RFC, and 24 more who agreed with the summation. ''']''' <small>]</small> 23:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by Padraig==== | |||
| I'am disappointed that this has reached Arbcom, but giving R. fiend attitude in the RfC, I see no other way that this can now be resolved.--] (]) 23:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I'd just like to mention that it really is unfortunate that Arbitration has been requested, as we (myself and several others) have tried to resolve these matters elsewhere (ANI and RFC/U as mentioned above), however the lack of consideration and effort by R. fiend to resolve these issues leaves no other alternative. - ] (]) 00:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by ]==== | |||
| I'm sure this has mainly already been said; this matter has gone from talk page → AN/I → RfC → and now ArbCom. I really didn't see any progress whatsoever until the RfC, and even so I don't think there was much. I think it is unfortunate it had to go this far, but it is probably the best way to go if this matter will ever be resolved. In the RfC, Brownhairgirl made a statement proposing R. fiend voluntarily remove his admin status and go back to RfA if he chooses; 16 users accepted the statement. I do not know whether that is the best course of action, but I think it ''is'' an option. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 01:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by ]==== | |||
| A number of Administrators have gone out of their way on the RfC to advise and encourage R. fiend to engage constructively to prevent this escalation. With such support being offered, R. fiend’s attitude unfortunately left no other alternative open other than this final step. --] (]) 10:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Clerk notes ==== | |||
| : (This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.) | |||
| ==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/0/0/0) ==== | |||
| * Accept. ] 22:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Accept. It appears that there are some concerns that need to be addressed. -- ] - <small>]</small> 23:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| ===Principality of Sealand=== | |||
| '''Initiated by''' ] (]) '''at''' 19:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Involved parties ==== | |||
| *{{userlinks|Onecanadasquarebishopsgate}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Gene Poole}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Warlordjohncarter}} | |||
| <!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. If desired, wording such as "(initiating party)" may be added. Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a party is an administrator. --> | |||
| ; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
| ; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| <!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitation --> | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| ==== Statement by Onecanadasquarebishopsgate ==== | |||
| What began as a simple debate eventually became an argumentative dispute that eventually led to the dispute resolution process. I used Third opinion and Request for Comment - but Gene Poole would not cooperate, as can be seen . After progress was made with the Request for Comment (which Gene Poole did not take part in), Gene Poole returned arguing that Sealand is a micronation. Other editors within the discussion page of Principality of Sealand consider Sealand a micronation, but Gene Poole is the only one that does not cooperate with dispute resolution. | |||
| It was clear now that because Gene Poole considers Sealand a micronation and I consider Sealand a sovereign state, there was, and still is, a dispute. But Gene poole became less and less cooperative. After the Third Opinion and Request for Comment, I decided to write on his discussion page (after he thought that I was a sockpuppet): | |||
| "<i>On the same day as the above was posted I suggested using a solution that has been used for the past week with success (Note: this solution is to have a similar first pargraph to Empire of Atlantium). Maybe this could solve the problem?</i>" | |||
| Gene Poole would not reply and after reminding him of the statement I wrote he deleted the reminders and called them trolling. He then wrote on ]: | |||
| "<i>There is no dispute about Sealand's legal status. A single-purpose editor is currently attempting to insinuate an unreferenced, strong pro-sovereignty position into a range of Sealand-related articles, and this appears to be one of them.</i>" | |||
| After that the dispute continued , where he questioned my comprehension of the subject and my linguistic ability. I then decided to use Request for Mediation and placed this notice on his discussion page: | |||
| "<i>Rather than continue with this absurd to-and-fro, perhaps you would agree to mediation. | |||
| I would like to see this dispute resolved, why not in a NPOV way?</i>" | |||
| Gene Poole replied with this on my discussion page: | |||
| "<i>The matter has only one possible resolution: you must comply fully and immediately with WP content policies by ceasing to promote a POV that is unsupported by either reliable third party sources or consensus. There is nothing to mediate, and nothing further to discuss.</i>" | |||
| He has refused to cooperate with dispute resolution, and another user () is not pleased: | |||
| "<i>I am not pleased that this person is not cooperating in dispute resolution.</i>" | |||
| This dispute needs to be resolved, but the purpose of this statement is for the following to happen: | |||
| *Gene Poole needs to cooperate with the dispute resolution process so that a solution can be found. | |||
| *Gene Poole needs to stop attacking user's opinions in an argument (particularly the Sealand is a sovereign state opinion), and instead support his own opinions in a debate. | |||
| *Gene Poole needs to stop commenting on the contributor. | |||
| His history of sockpuppetry and attacking rather than discussing opinions have caused enough problems and this dispute '''needs''' to be resolved. ] (]) 19:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by {party 2} ==== | |||
| ==== Clerk notes ==== | |||
| : (This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.) | |||
| ==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/1) ==== | |||
| * I'm wavering on this at the moment because it's clearly a longrunning problem with editor misbehaviour, but Gene Poole's labelling good faith communications as vandalism or trolling and rejection of mediation is edging him close to the point at which it becomes obvious that he is unable to work with others. In other words, if Gene Poole makes further disruptive edits, an uninvolved admin should consider warning him, and restrict his editing so as to prevent future disruption, with no need to open an arbitration case. Gene Poole may be able to convince me that there is more to be considered but I'm inclined to reject at the moment. ] (]) 12:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| === Extraordinary rendition by the United States === | |||
| '''Ccson ''' ] (]) '''at''' 20:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Involved parties ==== | |||
| *{{userlinks|Ccson}} | |||
| *{{admin|Swatjester}} | |||
| <!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. If desired, wording such as "(initiating party)" may be added. Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a party is an administrator. --> | |||
| ; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
| ; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| <!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitation --> | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| ==== Statement by Ccson ==== | |||
| I have inserted text within the article and cited the ] as the source for the statements and their opinion. User Swatjester continues to remove the text because he feels the source is unreliable. I have shown the WPC is associated with a university, the WPC seek the advice of experts when needed, and I have consensus from other editors that the source is reliable for their opinion. I attempted cabal mediation, however, the user declined mediation and reverted again. | |||
| The opinion presented is the agreement of 9 persons whose background include a Senator, U.S. Ambassadors, U.S. Congressmen, College Presidents, Leaders of Churches and Foundations, and a professor at Ivy league universities. | |||
| Each person is highly regarded for their individual opinions and an agreement of the nine should be regarded more highly as a reliable source within wikipedia. | |||
| I hope the committee will accept this case and determine that the World Policy Council is a reliable source to cite within Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :I wasn't aware that I was "forum shopping". I was following the suggested steps for dispute resolution. I'm surprised that Swatjester says that no time was given to develop this since he refused mediation so I interpreted this action that he didn't want to reach a truce even with the help of a neutral party. His response on the RSN board seems more like a scolding for the editors who decided the WPC was a reliable source. Becauuse Swatjester is an admin, I thought he woud respect the ] policy, however, the diffs shows that he restates his objections then reverts. I would also like to note that Swatjester has provided no reliable source for his continuing to revert other than his own personal knowledge of Alpha Phi Alpha and that he lives 3 blocks from Howard University where the World Policy Council was founded and based. I will wait to see if other users post on the RSN and seek the other options suggested such as 3rd opinion and RFC. thanks for your response.--] (]) 03:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by Kendrick7 ==== | |||
| Current use of this source fails ] because no third party source is given which attests to the ]otability of this group's opinion. | |||
| This is a content dispute, and premature prior to filing a ] | |||
| ==== Statement by Swatjester ==== | |||
| Content dispute. Excessively rapid escalation with no time to develop. Mountain. Molehill. ]] ] 01:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Clerk notes ==== | |||
| : (This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.) | |||
| ==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0) ==== | |||
| * Decline. Arbitration is the last step in ]. The ] focuses primarily on user conduct disputes and generally does not decide article-content issues, such as whether a given organization's work-product is sufficiently reliable to be used as a source. The filing party acted responsibly by seeking assistance from the Mediation Cabal, but there are other dispute resolution avenues that can be pursued, including seeking a ] or filing an article-content ]. Please pursue these avenues toward obtaining consensus on the issue raised. ] (]) 21:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Decline. This is a fairly routine content dispute and the debate on the ] has barely begun. I would advise the filer that, in order to avoid charges of 'forum-shopping', he may want to concentrate on that avenue for the moment. There appears to be no associated editor misconduct. ] (]) 00:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Decline as it is very premature. Newyorkbrad and Sam clearly explain what should be done, and how. -- ] - <small>]</small> 03:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Reject as well stated by Newyorkbrad and Sam Blacketer. ] (]) 16:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Decline; premature. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| === Palestine-Israel articles === | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] '''at''' 17:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Involved parties ==== | |||
| *{{Admin|Ryan Postlethwaite}} (initiating party) | |||
| *{{userlinks|Jaakobou}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|PalestineRemembered}} | |||
| *{{Userlinks|Tiamut}} | |||
| *{{Userlinks|Eleland}} | |||
| *{{Userlinks|Pedro Gonnet}} | |||
| *{{Userlinks|ThuranX}} | |||
| *{{Userlinks|Suladna}} | |||
| *{{Userlinks|CJCurrie}} | |||
| *{{Userlinks|RolandR}} | |||
| *{{Userlinks|Chesdovi}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Armon}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|G-Dett}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Itzse}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Tewfik}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Jayjg}} | |||
| ; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
| , , , , , , , , , , , , , . | |||
| ] | |||
| ; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| ==== Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite ==== | |||
| The ] that are going on at Palestine/Israel articles are now getting out of hand and the community is no longer able to handle them. is an ideal example of the problems we’re faced with here. Despite there being discussion on talk pages, the parties insist on edit warring with Jaakobou continually changing the article to his version – despite it being arguably a BLP violation (Jaakobou has basically been trying to label Erekat a liar). Other articles paint a similar picture (, , , , , , , , , (Note:This is not an exhaustive list)). What it boils down to is severe ownership issues from certain members of the dispute, and an unwillingness for parties to make compromises and stick with consensus. I realise there are no user RfC’s in this dispute, the problem is, who to create an RfC for? We’ve had many previous threads on AN/I about this, a ] which was closed without action and now all parties seem resigned to getting their point across through edit warring and other disruption. A quick look at the block logs of a number of the participants show that they have no respect for some of our editing policies and guidelines. Any further efforts at attempting to stop the dispute other than arbitration are simply going to add gasoline to the fire and will act solely as a stepping stone to arbitration at a later date. I hope the arbitrators will accept this case to look at remedies including editing restrictions and/or article/topic probations. ] 17:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by PalestineRemembered ==== | |||
| *Nobody need be intimidated by this case, because it's not really so complex. In my humble opinon, all the problems come down to just <s>two</s> three factors: | |||
| #One or two semi-literate editors, who cannot process the information in front of them properly. | |||
| #Occasional cases of straight-forward cheating, deliberate insertion of falsehoods - or removing good material on frivolous grounds, to the severe aggravation of scholarly editors. | |||
| #"Disciplinary cases" that have been poisoned by malice aimed at witnesses, and evidence been interfered with. A severe chill has been induced by an expectation of victimising. | |||
| *These problems will not be difficult to identify and score/judge. Unless we need barristers to demand answers for straightforward questions like this: | |||
| *'''Question to Jaakobou''' - have you ever operated any sock-puppet accounts, and, if so, have you operated them abusively? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 19:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by Sm8900 ==== | |||
| Hi. this is Sm8900. I would like to add my input. i have been a frequent contributor to many discussions in these articles. sorry , but i do somewhat question the need for this arbitration. this request makes no specific statements as to what actually needs to be done or addressed. it's my understanding that Arbcom proceedings exist mainly to sanction other users. I have a concern about the wholesale nature of this proceeding. I would like to see more details about what needs to be addressed here. | |||
| I am concerned that starting a case like this might actually create greater conflict than the discussions which it would supposedly address. Sorry, I disagree with statements in the request; I feel that this community ''has'' been manifestly able to frequently have positive discussions. There are some articles where that has not been the case, but I feel that those should be addressed ''individually'', not wholesale in a manner which invites the most minute problems and individual flaws to end up taking up most of the time and energy. --] (]) 17:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''Reply to PR''' | |||
| :(please note, everyone; we are permitted to make customary subheadings like this for readability within our OWN text sections here. ) | |||
| :Hi PR. sorry if my text was incovenient. everything is fine with me in regard to this case, so please feel free to remove my comments if you wish. thanks very much for the helpful sentiment which you expressed. --] (]) 19:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::By the way, if anyone wishes to discuss this case informally, they may do so by going ]. thanks. --] (]) 19:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''General comment.''' | |||
| I am greatly disturbed by the tone which is already emerging here. Since no specific article is the focus here, editors are already piling on allegations and counter-allegations of various misconduct. this is sort of inevitable, since ArbCom does not address content disputes, and can only address user conduct. | |||
| i would suggest that a slightly better route might be to focus on disputed articles individually, on a case by case basis. Going on this current route will only lead us into fuirther acrimony, and furthermore we may also find that ''nobody'' ends up with a useful resolution, because ''everybody'' is so involved in making allegations and counter-allegations. --] (]) 19:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by GRBerry ==== | |||
| I strongly encourage the committee to review editing patterns across a broad spectrum of articles here. We have factionalized editing occurring, and also individually problematic editors from both factions. I haven't been interested enough, nor willing enough to suffer the inevitable personal attacks consequent upon acting, to take a wholistic view and determine which editors Misplaced Pages would be better off without, if any, nor what other solutions would work. I believe there is a pattern of "edit war, page protected, change page to war over, don't discuss the original edit war" occurring. Some of this is a natural consequence of attending to a watchlist, some seems to reflect users who don't want to collaborate and/or create a NPOV article. As an example of the sorts of problems that are encountered routinely consider the following sets of protections on Nov 29 and Dec 5. | |||
| :''At the time I made the comments here, the named parties ended with Chesdovi'' | |||
| ;November 29, 2007 | |||
| * ] due to edit warring involving ] and ] of the named parties, as well as others. Discussion on talk page. | |||
| * ] and ] due to move and edit warring involving ], ] and ] of the named parties, as well as others. Discussion attempted by Tiamut, without reply by other participants. | |||
| ;December 5, 2007 | |||
| * ] due to move warring involving ] and ] of the named parties. Pedro raised discussion on Jaakobou's talk page, later copied to article talk page. | |||
| * ] due to edit warring by ] and ]. No discussion until Dec. 9, when both discussed it. ] 18:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I don't edit in this topic area as much as I used to; I hardly recognize the names of half the listed parties. But, I agree with ] that this could quickly devolve into a witch hunt which won't be good for anyone involved. | |||
| Insomuch as I can answer ]'s question, the situation in ] is more or less the same as every other part of the Misplaced Pages trying to cover an ]. There is always a slow influx of zealous new editors on both sides, and either they learn the ropes in a few months or they don't. If they remain problematic -- and I admit to cringing a little when I saw Jaakobou had installed Twinkle -- then an RFC is a better first step. Meanwhile, occasionally an article gets enough neutral editors going on it at once, as I recall occurring lately with ] for example, and the quality of the category does slowly improve. | |||
| Update: Ah, I am now caught up per the AN/I thread and ]. Glad I wasn't the only one cringing. | |||
| Reply to ]: The thinking is correct as there are two sides to this little ] game, and instead of an RFC on the behavior of particular editors individually, bringing this to ArbCom puts all the pieces into play. The ] comments regarding ] forebode the likely attempt by one side to ] one editor in exchange for an editor of greater value on the other side. | |||
| Reply to ]: Yes, I also don't understand why you'd be a party here; Ryan seems to have listed just a lot of people who commented in the AN/I. | |||
| Reply to ]: I concur that other dispute resolution would be a better first step; the examples Ryan give above are either rather ancient or ongoing or not even ] per se. P.S. You shouldn't get upset at G-Dett's little poke in your belly -- it just wouldn't be a cabal without you! | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| This probably ought to go to ArbCom since there are real problems here, and no admin who values his residual sanity would get involved in trying to resolve them given the prevailing atmosphere and history. The only suggestion I have is that, if this goes to Arbitration, an uninvolved party (clerk or Arbitrator) seriously needs to ride shotgun over the Workshop and discussion pages to prevent them from turning into yet another front on the ]field. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I urge ArbCom to accept this request. While it stems primarily from good-faith content disputes, the manner in which these disputes have been conducted has been seriously disruptive across literally dozens of Misplaced Pages articles. Admins recognize the problem and the problem users, but generally don't go beyond brief 3RR blocks because the subject matter is so touchy, and they don't want to be seen as favouring one side. Actually, that's the problem here; we're clearly thinking in terms of sides. Normal dispute resolution has succeeded occasionally (the lists of ], ''finally'' removed from their politicized context as an Israeli-only ], being a case in point) but more commonly failed miserably (], the never-resolved ] slugfest, etc, etc.) The buck has to stop somewhere, and ArbCom is it. <]/]]> 19:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh, in addition, there may be some parties who ought to be named additionally. Offhand: | |||
| :{{userlinks|Armon}} | |||
| :{{userlinks|G-Dett}} | |||
| :{{userlinks|Itzse}} | |||
| :{{userlinks|Tewfik}} | |||
| :And surely others. <]/]]> 20:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I also strongly urge the Arbitration Committee to examine this case. Resolving this issue, or at least issuing remedies related to it, would go a long way to defusing the minefield that is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles and Middle East articles in general. I have not assessed the full situation, but every time my actions intersect with these articles, I see what appears to be an attitude a lá "I'm right, everyone else is wrong; thus, my edit-warring is okay (or actually not edit-warring at all) and everyone else is a disruptive POV warrior". Not good, to say the least. -- ''']''' 21:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :P.S. I know I'm being pedantic here, but can we please reorder the entities in the name of this case, from "Palestine-Israel conflict" to "Israeli-Palestinian conflict", if/when it gets opened? The latter arrangement seems more customary both here on Misplaced Pages and elsewhere, and the former sounds awkward. -- ''']''' 21:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::P.P.S. I don't believe {{user|ThuranX}} and {{user|Chesdovi}} should be involved in this case. I'm also unsure about the involvement of {{user|G-Dett}}, {{user|Itzse}}, {{user|Suladna}}, and {{user|Tewfik}}. -- ''']''' 21:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I would like to remind everyone that this is an RfArb on just the Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles. Please be cautious about adding new editors; ensure that their involvement is specifically in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict articles and not primarily in regard to disruption on other Middle Eastern articles (or elsewhere). Also, I do not believe every single person that has edited an article related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict needs to be dragged into this arbitration case. Please use some discretion. -- ''']''' 12:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| Not really sure why I'm considered an involved party. I watch AN/I and I like reading through some of the cases and chiming in when I think that wider community input is useful, or the opinion of a third party editor can help. I've got all of three article space edits to any of the relevant articles (two to The Palestinian Fedayeen, one to the definitions of Palestinian). I'm not particularly into edit warring about these articles, but I have acted in these few instances when I think I can help. One was corrected (the Def. of Palest-ine/ian), and the other two probably got lost in the edit warring there fast. For me, wider involvement in Misplaced Pages, via AN/I, has just been a way of expanding my awareness here, by getting me into new subject areas. Although it's possible some here think I've got a 'side' going because i happen to be Jewish, not the case. I've been reading the cases and reviewing them, and anyone who looks at my contribs to AN/I will see I kibbitz in lots of cases, sometimes to some particular help, other times, it goes silently ignored. Either way, fine by me. I've got no particular interest in this entire situation beyond being frustrated watching the project resources being squandered on the cyclical fighting, and in noting who I think has been responsible for violations of policy and creating problems. Do I have opinions about the topic? yes. I keep them out of the cited facts, because frankly, I suspect most of the editors of these articles write more from personal assumptions and POV, and I'd rather see cited facts I disagree with than not. Cited facts make me rethink my own attitudes.) Do I have opinions about who is at fault here? Yes, and they're already stated in the relevant AN/I threads about Jaakobou and Eleland. In summary, no clue why I'm here, not an edit warrior on here, just an uninvolved third party. ] (]) 21:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by uninvolved ] ==== | |||
| Jaakobou has undertaken mentorship with me. This mentorship regards Misplaced Pages policies only, not the related content dispute. He tells me he wishes to pursue other dispute resolution at this time. Arbitration in general is a last resort, and I ask in good faith for the other parties to consider whether a brokered solution would be feasible. | |||
| I am neutral regarding the underlying conflict and, I hope, sufficiently respectful of both sides. About two years ago I started a short article on a Judaism-related topic and at present I'm doing a little bit of editing that relates to uncontroversial parts of Palestinian social history. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :<s>G-Dett, please strikethrough that insinuation regaring me. It's very bad faith and treads on the margins of a personal attack.</s> <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 23:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yikes, Durova! I'm not sure how the wires got crossed, but...that was a straight suggestion, not a sarcastic insinuation. Sure, we've clashed briefly a couple of times, but I regard you as very even-handed on ME pages and related issues. There was a mediation way back about whether Misplaced Pages should report with a straight face something that Juan Cole said about himself in wry self-deprecation, and two partisan editors were locked in what appeared to be mortal combat, and if I remember right you were stern and effective. I was trying to think who would be a good foil to HG on my proposed 'cabal', someone who could be bad cop if necessary but had no ideological dog in the fight, and I thought of you.--] (]) 00:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Apologies, I misunderstood. Please bear in mind that pretty much everyone in this dispute understands the content side in much greater depth than I do. So while I'd gladly interact with anyone as a neutral party regarding wiki policies and practices, I'm also reticent to scale up my involvement more than it already is. I'm posting here to affirm that Jaakobou is taking proactive steps and endeavoring to adapt to site standards. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 05:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by G-Dett ==== | |||
| I'm glad this has been brought forward; many thanks to Ryan for doing so. Two other editors who might be included here are 6SJ7 and of course Jayjg. | |||
| I have two suggestions and will keep them both brief. One is that ] be included somehow. He is a very unusual editor in that he's widely trusted by both sides. I'm sure he has real-life views but they are no more detectable in his Misplaced Pages presence than is his body odor. He seems to be drawn to resolving intractable debates, as if they were 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzles and he some kind of savant. | |||
| Ideally we could have a mini-cabal but frankly I don't know who else would be on it (Durova?). Part of HG's success has been that he never tells anyone they're talking balderdash, even when they are; he's more of a facilitator of mildly Socratic dialogue. There are many other intelligent and non-aligned editors, who however through very occasional and understandable flashes of intellectual impatience have been branded partisan. | |||
| My second suggestion is that we have some sort of moderated ME-related forum where ''inter-article'' balance issues could be discussed as they arise, and loose working principles formulated. There are certain policy-interpretation memes that come up regularly in editing disputes, and even when they're semi-resolved there's no take-away. I know "other stuff" isn't supposed to exist on Misplaced Pages, but it certainly ''does'' exist on ME pages, and the fact that we're not supposed to talk about it has just forced it underground into "strategy," often of a passive-aggressive sort.--] (]) 22:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by CJCurrie ==== | |||
| Arbcomm intervention on this file is long overdue. The controversies on pages having to do with Israel/Palestine can no longer be described as simply "content disputes"; many of these pages have become completely dysfunctional, due in large part to the reasons identified by Ryan and others. | |||
| Further comments: | |||
| :*The list of involved participants seems to have been chosen in an arbitrary fashion. ] strikes me the most noteworthy omission, though I'm certain that others have been left out as well. | |||
| :*I would recommend that this ArbComm case be restructured so as to encompass pages that do not ''specifically'' address the Israel/Palestine conflict, but rather address related matters and involve many of the same participants. ] strikes me as a particularly relevant example, in light of ongoing discussions on its ]. | |||
| :*I do not accept Ryan's assertion that "all parties seem resigned to getting their point across through edit warring and other disruption". While it's undeniably true that both "sides" in this dispute are guilty of edit-warring, there are some participants who have tried to persuade "the other side" with rational arguments ... the difficulty is that this approach seldom leads to discernable results. | |||
| :*While it may prove necessary to admonish or sanction certain editors for their behaviour on these pages, this will not solve the underlying problem. '''It could even be counter-productive, if editors who are not sanctioned (or like-minded editors who are not named in this particular RfA) continue the larger pattern of tendentious editing once arbitration is finished.''' Misplaced Pages's articles on Israel/Palestine have been an embarrassment for some time, in no small part because meaningful debate on substantive editing issues has become almost impossible. We need is method of ensuring that future disputes can be resolved in an open and civil manner -- anything short of this will just be window dressing on one of the project's most serious problems. (The suggestion of appointing an ] has its advantages, though I wonder if this task could prove too large for any one editor to take.) | |||
| ] (]) 00:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC), with 02:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please allow me to reiterate my view that this RfA '''should''' be expanded to address relevant articles that do not specifically address the Israel/Palestine conflict, and '''should''' address the larger problem of a poisoned atmosphere on all of these pages. | |||
| :::If this RfA only addresses issues of behaviour on a small number of pages, I'm quite concerned that it could (i) selectively punish some participants while allowing equally culpable parties in the larger dispute to escape sanction, (ii) further poison the atmosphere on these pages by creating the ''appearance'' of selective prosecution, and (iii) do nothing to resolve the larger and more pressing problem of factionalism on these pages. | |||
| :::By the way, I think 6SJ7 has raised an interesting point regarding the time frame. I'm a bit concerned that this RfA could have the ''unintended consequence'' of allowing tendentious editors who've kept a low profile in recent months, but were prominently involved in past POV disputes, to re-emerge if and when restrictions are placed on their "opponents". I don't believe this (plausible, if remote) turn of events would create either the appearance or reality of fairness. | |||
| :::To improve the quality of these pages, this RfA must take a ''proactive'' role in establishing terms of behaviour for articles on Middle East issues. We don't need to examine every dispute, but we most certainly ''do'' need to ensure the situation on these pages improves. User:Sm8900's "general comment" was well-intentioned, but I fear it his/her remedy would take this process in entirely the wrong direction, and focus on minutiae rather than the bigger picture. ] (]) 23:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I strongly support this request for arbitration. I only rarely edit Middle Eastern-related articles, for exactly the reasons that MastCell alludes to in his statement above. However, I've kept an eye on a number of editors and articles for some time, and I can confirm that there is indeed a serious and systematic problem in this topic area. I'd like to offer a few observations for the arbitrators: | |||
| * The class of affected articles is potentially very large - essentially ''all'' Middle Eastern articles, plus those on Jewish and Muslim-related topics, though I should emphasize that the number of articles being disputed at any one time is much more limited. | |||
| * The problem has its roots in the behaviour of a relatively small number of editors whose primary interest is in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Action against some of these editors (which will likely require topic or site bans) will help in part, but the topic areas are also likely to need placing under ] (cf. Macedonia, Armenia-Azerbaijan). I suggest that parties should look to ] for relevant precedent in proposing remedies. A number of editors have been involved in straightforward violations of editing and conduct policies - for instance, episodes such as Jaakobou's recent edit warring to re-insert properly removed BLP violations, abuse of editing tools and other willful policy violations that led to this arbitration request in the first place. Such misconduct is relatively easy to identify and should result in those responsible being sanctioned. | |||
| * The harder question is what to do about the underlying problem in this topic area - the existence of blocs of partisan editors who use Misplaced Pages as a battlefield to campaign for their causes. The problem with Middle Eastern articles isn't only a matter of misconduct by individual editors; it has its roots in mutual hostilities that exist off-wiki and have been transported here en masse. The result is a poisonous atmosphere characterised by antagonism, aggressive behaviour and mutual distrust. There needs to be a change in editing ''culture'' on these articles, not just ''conduct''. -- ] (]) 01:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I am listed as a party to the edit-war on ]. My last edit to the page () or to the talk page () predate the page-protection by 12 and 14 days respectively, which makes me an unlikely candidate for that war (I am, however, involved in ], where a nice solution was found, and on ], which went stale). The discussions on that ] (the wildest one is regarding the use of the term "occupied" when referring to the ]) are symptomatic of the way ] work: insert POV/unsourced/tendentious material or delete sourced material, start a revert war, call for an RfC, flame anybody who participates in it, drop out of the discussion and when a compromise is reached between other editors, block and/or ignore it. | |||
| As I have mentioned on the ] thread, this is not about ''a'' content dispute, but about the willingness to start literally ''hundreds'' of content disputes based on bogus material, simply to deadlock or seriously degrade most -- if not all -- articles related to the ]. The ] are not interested in ], ], avoiding ] and such, but in inserting their own, generally anti-Palestinian ] at any cost. For ] , there is ''never'' a compromise, ''never'' a mutually agreed solution and as such, ''never'' an end to an edit-war. | |||
| As you may have guessed, my main problem is with ], with whom I have locked horns on several occasions. I have yet to see him end an edit-war, accept a compromise or back down from any of his positions or edits. This is not about tough discussions -- I have had many with ] and ] and in most cases reached a solution and/or compromise, of which I am somewhat proud -- but about fruitless discussions being used as a mere pretext to drag an issue on an wear out all participants. This kind of behaviour is ''extremely'' disruptive, time-consuming and just plain annoying -- and does not contribute to the encyclopaedia. | |||
| Please, accept this RfA so that we can all get back to ''normal'' editing. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']''' - 09.01.2008 08:02</small> | |||
| ====Statement by Uninvolved ]==== | |||
| While happily I'm not named above! - and this is NOT my primary area of editing interest (except last couple days!) - I have observed the problems on some of the pages mentioned above, as well as on ] (where there is an absurd on going editing war I don't much get involved in); on ] (where any attempt to mention the controversial things said about the Samson Option by Israel leaders and supporters was repeatedly deleted, no matter how well sourced, even when placed in a "controversies" section); and on ] (refusal to allow there to be ANY mention of NON-antisemitic use of the phrase Jewish Lobby, even though many prominent uses of the phrase are by Jews and/or mainstream publications and/or are NOT antisemitic). | |||
| Having just started intensely editing in last 6-8 months, I confess I have sometimes lost my temper and ranted and even made a couple personal attacks, but I'm learning how to use to the process instead! :-) Yes, it has taken me longer than it should to really read and re-read and understand the ''Wiki Pillars, but the more I understand them, the more outraged I become at the behavior of these editors.'' See my most recent complaining entry ]. At the end of it I list multiple violations of ] from the tutorial. | |||
| Besides whatever steps Arbitrators might take, I really think[REDACTED] needs a neutral AND courageous '''] just for the Israel-Palestine and related issues''' to keep people in line with the[REDACTED] process. | |||
| An additional idea: I noticed that ] has manuals of styles for several nations. Maybe there should be a "Israel-Palestine" manual of style, or maybe one on Arab/Muslim/Jewish issues, to set up some guidelines -though there'd be a massive debate on creating that! | |||
| Also, I agree that ] should be added to the list of problematic editors on this topic. | |||
| Carol Moore 02:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)] ] | |||
| ====Statement by ]==== | |||
| I am relieved to see that this issue is being addressed. I was happily contributing in many areas of Wiki until I tried to edit a picture caption at ] and came across a stubbornly persistent ]. I am currently working to add recently-released casualty figures to the ] article, and again I see what seems a coordinated effort by some editors to control content, with open talk about "sides," referring not to the subjects of the article, but to the editors themselves. This is a serious threat to Wiki. I would suggest interested parties also consider looking at some of the activity in our little ], I know ] for one has already studied the problem and made an interesting exposition on his ]. Good luck! ] (]) 03:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by ]==== | |||
| Sigh of relief, I am happy, ecstatic, naively optimistic and very much appreciate the decision to accept. You will need the wisdom of Solomon and I wish you luck. It is long overdue; much longer that I have been around Misplaced Pages or on the Internet (Sept07). That said, I have already been labled as being on one of the ‘sides’, but only on the talkpages, not on edits (largely because I’m still learning to ]. My POV is '''Pro-MidEast Peace''', although a good friend of mine termed it the ultimate oxymoron, and even I consider that it is pushing the limits of the ]. I look at the I-P conflict situation from a civil/human rights perspective and, therefore '''my bias''' tends to be pro-Palestinian, but my support for Israel is based on, well, Biblical proportions. The admins will decide what they decide and I hope to be helpful along the way, but that is well over my head. Most of the heavily involved users with whom I am familiar are included above, although I could name a few more, if asked. | |||
| As pointed out in other’s statements above, I too feel that a broad range of topics with content disputes should be included and an ombudsman might be helpfull. I also believe for Misplaced Pages to gain more credibility, the ] with respect to this subject must be addressed. More critically for Misplaced Pages viability is to address the issues noted ] and to that I’ll add ] and it’s multitude of talk-alikes, ] and, for those computer literate types ]. The import of these on ] should not be discounted. ] (]) 08:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC) <s>So, why is it Red?</s> | |||
| ====Statement by ]==== | |||
| I welcome the fact that ArbCom is to look at this area, and I hope that they will come up with some helpful guidelines. In particular, I support the suggestion by ] above for a style guide or naming convention. As ] notes, there is constant dispute over the use of the term "occupied" to describe the territories which came under Israeli rule in 1967. There are also disputes over the term "guerilla"/"terrorist", over the placing of an "Antisemitism" category tag on many articles, and other similar issues. This could all usefully be addressed. | |||
| However, I question my own inclusion, and indeed that of most editors named above (including some with whom I have clashed in the past), on this list. The problem is not, in most cases, the individual editors, but the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict and the absence of clear guidelines here. Some of us may have been guilty of occasional ], and there is one editor above whom I have recently accused of ]; but these are issues which can be -- and indeed are being -- dealt with by regular procedures. They do not amount to ], and do not in themselves require the involvement of ArbCom. | |||
| If there is to be a named list of editors to be looked at by ArbCom, then there are several more who should be included. For a start: | |||
| :{{userlinks|Amoruso}} | |||
| :{{userlinks|Andyvphil}} | |||
| :{{userlinks|Screen stalker}} | |||
| :{{userlinks|Zeq}} | |||
| :{{userlinks|Hertz1888}} | |||
| :{{userlinks|6SJ7}} | |||
| and I'm sure there are many more. If ] was not currently under a one-year topic ban, he also would be included. In short, it is invidious to pick out just the editors named above, since there are countless others acting in a very similar manner. | |||
| Having said that, I do think that there should be a specific inquiry into the behaviour of ], identified by several editors above and elsewhere as a particularly problematic and uncooperative editor. My history with him includes regarding his use of racist language and following his posting of libellous comments about me on a talk page. On that occasion, Jaakobou so thoroughly angered other editors (not previously involved in this area) that he was extremely lucky to avoid a lengthy community block. ] (]) 11:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by uninvited ]==== | |||
| I would also strongly urge the arbitration committee to look at this case. As possibly the largest single contributor to articles on Israeli politics, I have come across almost all the editors listed in this case (hence listing myself as uninvited rather than uninvolved), and I am thoroughly sick of the endless disputes which a number of them create and prolong. Unfortunately for the project, whenever an edit by at least five of the editors listed above comes up on any of the 500+ articles on my watchlist, I know that in the vast majority of cases (for two of the editors the figure is 100%) that edit will not conform to ]. | |||
| Unfortunately my past attempts to diffuse situations and correct POV have led to me being labelled as a POV pusher by both sides, but particularly by the pro-Israelis (possibly because I tend to stick to articles on domestic Israeli topics rather than Israeli-Palestinian ones, and pro-Palestinian editors are not common in that sphere). This has meant that despite being well-placed to do so, I am now effectively hamstrung from carrying out administrative actions against the numerous violations of policy carried out by many of the editors listed above. I hope that a thorough investigation may allow me more room to take prompt action against both sides in the future. | |||
| In addition, I would also support adding ] and ] to this case, as they are both involved in reverting on some of the articles listed above. ] ]] 11:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by ]==== | |||
| My own conduct hasn't been ideal, I realize and I took upon myself to change my editing habits since my recent block (arguing on a number of articles and 3RR breach on one of them) and have obtained mentorship to address that and help diffuse problematic cases. | |||
| I ask the committee to defer arbitration at this time in favor of some communal observation resolutions/declaration of intent. | |||
| I also believe there is a serious need for formal mediation on ] and ]. | |||
| I believe full blown arbitration should always be a last resort and that my suggestions will help everyone involved to improve their policy understanding and conduct and will also open the door for new editors who'd be kicked out in the current state of affairs. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 11:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :If the Committee does decide to accept this case, then I request that the following names be added to the list - Nishidani, Stingray86, NSH001, Sanguinalis, Gatoclass, Timeshifter, Ian Pitchford, Nickhh, ChrisO, Abu_Ali, Paul kuiper NL, Timb0h, RomaC, Editor54321, JaapBoBo, Burgas00, Bless sins, Liftarn, and 70.109.223.188, who are certainly involved in these conflicts as much as anyone else, and some moreso than the listed or suggested parties. | |||
| :My apologies if I forgot someone. <b><font face="Arial" color="teal">]</font><font color="1F860E"><sup>'']''</sup></font></b> 18:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by ]==== | |||
| First off, I would like to thank Ryan Postlewaithe for being bringing this case to the attention of Arbcomm. The problems besetting Palestine-Israel articles are chronic, long-term problems that have not received the attention required to resolve them. | |||
| I second Number 57's suggestion that {{user|Beit Or}} be added to the list and the suggestion of other editors above that {{user|Jayjg}} also be included. The former has a habit of pile-on reverting and even wikistalked me to five different articles one day, just to revert my additions. (See related discussion , , and ). The latter, while having taken a brief sabbatical between August and November, was (and still is) deeply involved in editing Palestine-Israel articles, and as an admin, set the example to many of us on how to approach editing at such articles (for better or worse - arbcomm can decide that). Though his involvement is recent, I would also add {{user|Eternalsleeper}} here as well, since he jumped into the dispute at ] to drive-by revert twice, before even engaging in any discussion. | |||
| Having learned a lot over the last year and half about Misplaced Pages policies, I like to think that the quality of my editing contributions and my ability to work with others with vastly differing viewpoints has greatly improved. This is of course not true across the board. There are some editors who engage in tendentious and disruptive editing with whom I have not been able to construct a satisfactory, collaborative editing relationship. I often get the sense that the goal of these editors is simply to disrupt a page where sourced edits representing a viewpoint they don't like are being added, until the page is protected and no further additions can be made. | |||
| Regarding my own block log, I have been blocked four times for 3RR. The first block was placed {{user|SlimVirgin}} for editing at ], where in the midst of multi-participant edit war over how (or for some whether) to include a piece of sourced information regarding the status of Palestinians in Israel as an "indigenous people", involving many of the editors listed here, Isarig reported me for 3RR and I was blocked. Many fellow editors took issue with the block, which they believed was unfair, given my involvement in discussion in the talk page and the attempt in my edits to find alternate phraseology acceptable to everyone. The subsequent two blocks were placed after reports filed (again) by Isarig (who in all three cases was edit-warring with me at the time, but was not himself sanctioned). These two were lifted before they expired after Isarig's own history of edit-warring was brought to the attention of admins by other editors. It was around this time that I began to see how detrimental edit warring was to the project. I am certainly not making excuses for my behaviour, only outlining an evolution. The last block was placed by {{user|Tariqabjotu}} after I filed a report against {{user|Egyegy}}. While I had not violated 3RR and had not lowered myself to responding to Egygey uncivil and personal attacks on me, I admit that I was edit warring, and Tariqabjotu blocked me for a lengthy period. The block was overturned by {{user|Mangojuice}} long before it expired after I recognized that fact. (Note that Tariqabjotu refused to lift the block when I requested that he do so by email). That was my last block (in September 2007) and I have had no blocks since. | |||
| I do try to avoid edit-warring. It is however, deeply challenging. Particularly when you spend days working to add reliable sourced and relevant scholarly material to an article, only to have someone come by and mass blank your additions, and then have someone else come and drive-by revert them away again after they are restored by you or others. I think Arbcomm needs to know that this is not about a content dispute. It's about a style of editing that centers on disruption to do away with facts that cannot argued away. It's about some editors letting ] be the key determinant to whether an addition remains in an article, rather than adibing by core Wiki policies like ] and ]. I don't think I am one of those editors. Though I do have a strong POV on the issues which no doubt influences what information I add to these articles, I do try to be self-conscious about it and I don't delete relevant reliably sourced information representing opposing viewpoints, even when I think it's a total load of crap. | |||
| I think the arbcomm should focus on identifying specific behaviours that are unhelpful here (e.g. drive-by reverting to delete sourced material without sufficient engagement in talk) and the editors who use them. Without a specific work agenda here, this arbcomm is likely to end up unfocused and end without resolving anything (as did the previous one on ]). ] 12:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :PS. Regarding Tariqabjotu's statement that {{user|Tewfik}} (among others) shouldn't be lsited in this case, I have to disagree (about tewfik specificially). Tewfik regularly engages in the kind of behaviour I have described above. His mass blanking of material ] after one version enjoyed stability for two weeks, prompted a series of edit wars that led to the page being protected. In my opinion and that of other editors at the page, he did not sufficiently explain these edits. ] 12:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by ]==== | |||
| I have to agree with Sm8900's "General Comment." There may be something for the ArbComm to accept in Ryan's initial "example", in which he specifies what a few specific editors did in a few specific articles. After that, Ryan identifies a few other articles, but with no specifics about what events concerning those articles might require arbitration. And in the comments of some subsequent editors, this potential arbitration case has taken on a life of its own. It would not be a particularly happy life, either for the parties, potential parties, the arbitrators or anyone else. If the committee accepts this case without specifically limiting what the case is about, the case is potentially going to be about every dispute that has occurred among dozens of editors on dozens of articles. I wouldn't be surprised if 150 or more editors are "named" before this is all over. And how far back does this go? All Israel- or Palestinian-related articles (and antisemitism-related articles? and other religion-related articles?) for the past six months? A year? Three years? Five years? And what kind of disputes are we talking about? I have already seen mentions of articles that would involve the ArbComm in content disputes, but I know that the ArbComm does not accept those. I hope that the arbitrators, if they accept this case, will tell the rest of us what it is about. Otherwise, this is going to become one big, ugly, nasty, confused and contentious scene, and it isn't going to produce anything good for anyone. ] (]) 20:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by uninvolved ]==== | |||
| General comment. Now that the case has been accepted I urge the arbitrators to look for a broad solution to this. AN/I threads like ] will keep appearing if ArbCom does not come up with some sort of centralized solution to these disputes. The number of articles and the number of participants in these disputes would otherwise make it very difficult for the arbitrators and those enforcing the remedies to keep this from reappearing here. ] (]) 11:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Clerk notes ==== | |||
| Parties, please don't edit each others' sections. Dialog is usually less effective than making a clear and concise presentation of why Arbitration is needed to handle this dispute. PalestineRemembered, you may add additional parties by adding their names above, notifying them on their talk page, and putting a diff of the notification in the confirmation section. ] 18:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Four votes to open noted. Will be opened late January 10 (UTC). ] (]) 02:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0) ==== | |||
| * Accept, primarily to consider the overall situation in this topic area. ] 17:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Accept per Kirill. -- ] - <small>]</small> 17:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Accept to look out the best way to handle heated conflicts related to this topic and examine involved parties disruptive conduct. ] (]) 16:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Accept. There's no doubt this case must be accepted but the scope needs to be kept fairly tightly defined and this case has already started to sprawl. The decision is not going to have any effect on the balance of views present in articles about the Israel/Palestine conflict. The committee will only be looking at user conduct issues. The wide number of users involved is likely either to make this case among the most protracted ever seen, or to a deliberate decision to pass enforcement to uninvolved admins. The latter is the more likely. Can I make a plea for brevity in the evidence? Generally the pithier a submission, the more impact it makes. ] (]) 20:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| === Elvis Presley / Onefortyone === | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 16:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Involved parties ==== | |||
| * {{Userlinks|Steve Pastor}} - (initiating party) | |||
| * {{userlinks|Rikstar}} | |||
| * {{userlinks| Northmeister}} | |||
| * {{userlinks| LaraLove}} | |||
| * {{userlinks| Maria202}} | |||
| * {{userlinks|Jaye9}} | |||
| * {{Userlinks|Onefortyone}} | |||
| ; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
| Onefortyone | |||
| Rikstar | |||
| Northmeister | |||
| LaraLove | |||
| Maria202 | |||
| Jaye9 | |||
| ; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| Several editors have made heroic attempts to work with OneFortyOne. All editors who have tried to do this have thrown their hands up in frustration, as can be noted by the comments of the editors who have joined in this request. | |||
| ==== Statement by Steve Pastor==== | |||
| Comments by the combined editors of the Elvis Presley article should suffice to substantiate the following request | |||
| : that user OneFortyOne be permanently banned from editing the Elvis Presley article, including the Discussion page. Furthermore I request that OneFortyOne be banned from editing any article with a mention of Elvis Presley, including, but not limited to, the Milton Berle Show, Steve Allen, The Steve Allen Show, Ed Sullivan, and The Ed Sullivan Show articles. | |||
| This has been a long term pernicious problem. As Rikstar has written, 141 "knows how to play the edit warring game without getting into obvious trouble, his posts beg to be answered ... and this has been as tiresome as it has been unproductive". It should be noted that 141 brings up the same previously rejected arguments and material over and over again. | |||
| OneForty One has been banned previously. You may wish to review the following pages: , | |||
| , | |||
| . | |||
| The following are remarks are from on the Discussion page of the Elvis Presley article: | |||
| Disruptive editing. 141 continues to edit this article unilaterally, making little or no effort to co-operate with others. 141 was asked to leave my last edits for others to consider and comment on. He did not. 141 was asked to justify his accusations of fan bias in later sections on these pages first. He did not, and has gone ahead and made changes. It was explained in detail above that 141's edits regarding guitar playing didn't work and that the citation was incomplete. He reverted the changes I subsequently made and it remains a poor read and poorly cited. 141 has been asked if his intention is to make this an article of GA or FA status: no comment. 141 is refusing to allow any of his precious edits to be removed, inspite of article length, and the good will of others in removing or allowing the removal of their own contributions. Rikstar 12:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :We've approached a point where regardless of efforts to include onefortyones edits within the summary style of Misplaced Pages, and despite concessions to him; this editor continues to spoil any effort to bring improvement to the article so that it may become among the best at Misplaced Pages and receive feature status. Numerous editors thus far including yourself and tireless Rikstar have improve this article substantially. I would hate to see it all ruined by one editor who is not getting the point of our efforts nor Misplaced Pages WP:Point. It is time this matter is resolved by outside parties. --Northmeister 01:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| This article has been degraded enough. Too much time and hard work has gone to waste. This article has great potential to be an FA. Currently, it can't even keep GA. It's time to fix the issues that ail this article. Lara❤Love 17:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It pains me to see what one user, 141, has done to this article. I watched many others work very hard on getting it to FA status. Maria202 (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| So much of the "current controversy" occurs because one particular user (guess) keeps trying to own this article, and the Talk Page. I'm in favor of taking it to arbitration, or even having him banned for his behavior in and about this article and Talk. It's a shame that this user has made such a mess of this page with his obsessive blather that the page is sinking into a swamp of user despair. Hoserjoe (talk) 00:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| To Steve Pastor add me to your list, please.--Jaye9 (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I will add my own comments: | |||
| If I thought it would make a difference to 141, I would go through the archeives and repeat the arguments that have been made by other editors as to why this material does not belong in this article. Since 141 has been unable or unwilling to understand, or accept any other viewpoints on this subject, that exercise would be pointless. Steve Pastor (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Rikstar has by far put the most effort into this article, and provided these additional comments. | |||
| I posted my worries about improving the Elvis article on Dec. 8, 2006 - my comment is still in the summary of FA/GA submissions. My concerns actually referred to the involvement of one user, Onefortyone, though I did not mention him by name. His history already indicated that he had an alarming and persistent preoccupation with negative and sexually biased material, something not reflected in other encyclopedic articles. I noted he had at times been banned/committed violations. | |||
| By May, 2007, I was being actively encouraged by user Northmeister to edit (he has since given up) because of other editors' concerns about the state of the article; the lack of progress seemed tied to article length, trivia, fan bias, structure and to 141's continued involvement. In the last 6 months, I have tried to improve the article but I have felt regularly frustrated by 141's talk, edits, reverts, ignoring consensus and general tactics that lead me to seriously believe he has some kind of agenda to be disruptive and/or to have his POV included at any cost. His posting of a list of miswritten lyrics implying Presley was gay was as perplexing as it was disturbing. Responding to his claims, new submissions, etc. has taken up more time and effort than with any other user, and the payback has been negligible. | |||
| 141 is shrewd: he knows how to play the edit warring game without getting into obvious trouble, his posts beg to be answered if only not to give his claims undue weight, and this has been as tiresome as it has been unproductive. I hope that my own posts on the talk pages will give sufficient details about the specific objections I and others have had to 141's editing behavior, and that they will be seen as fair and as objective as possible. It should be noted however that the frustration over many hours of discussion/arguing with 141 alone has pushed me to the point where I have felt physically repelled at the thought of doing any more editing, period. I have stretched my patience to its limit trying to negotiate with/accommodate/tolerate 141, to ignore his rehashing of stale tactics/arguments. However, the evidence is there, I think, that this and other articles will never improve as they should with his continued involvement. I also believe he has scared off too many people who could help make this a featured article. And I may well be another casuality. Rikstar (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ====Additional statement by Onefortyone concerning false claims by Steve Pastor==== | |||
| Here are some false claims made by Steve Pastor in his statement above: | |||
| *"141 continues to edit this article unilaterally, making little or no effort to co-operate with others." | |||
| ::This is not true, as the discussion page shows and my efforts in order to shorten longer versions of specific paragraphs previously written by me prove. See , . See also and , , . However, if some users removed entire, well-sourced paragraphs, I did not agree, which I hope is understandable. In these cases I tried to reinclude the deleted material in the original form or, alternatively, in revised, abridged form. It should be noted that others also reverted such edits. See , , , . | |||
| *"141 was asked to justify his accusations of fan bias in later sections on these pages first. He did not..." | |||
| ::I did. See , , , , etc. | |||
| *"It was explained in detail above that 141's edits regarding guitar playing didn't work and that the citation was incomplete. He reverted the changes I subsequently made and it remains a poor read and poorly cited." | |||
| ::For my response, see , where I have demonstrated that Steve Pastor's edits regarding guitar playing "suggests that Elvis's music was accepted from the beginning by the majority of listeners. But this isn't true," as the sources I have provided show. The said passage has been reworded by me and Rikstar several weeks ago and it is now a good read. | |||
| *"141 has been asked if his intention is to make this an article of GA or FA status: no comment." | |||
| ::This is also a false claim. For my statements that I am willing to help to make ] an article of GA or FA status, see , , . | |||
| *141 is refusing to allow any of his precious edits to be removed. | |||
| ::This is not true. For example, when Rikstar shortened , I did not revert it to the previous, much longer version written by me. In many other cases, I accepted edits by others, as the contribution history of the Elvis article clearly shows. | |||
| So much for Steve Pastor's false claims. | |||
| ==== Statement by Onefortyone ==== | |||
| It's interesting that ] requests a ban in view of his biased removals of well-sourced, critical information and inclusion of fan-oriented material in Elvis-related articles. | |||
| To my mind, the whole thing is simply a content dispute concerning Elvis-related topics. Pastor seems to be primarily interested in removing critical information and including material mentioning "that some of Elvis's greatest assets were his youth and good looks." And he adds, "I have several sources (my favorite is a BB King statement, which can be seen on dvd) that he tought Elvis would be popular whether he could sing or not." See . | |||
| It should be further noted that most editors who have joined in Steve Pastor's request are acknowledged fans of Elvis Presley. | |||
| *Northmeister says on his user page, "I've been a lifelong fan of Elvis Presley even though he passed away in my very early years." See . | |||
| *LaraLove says, "I ''am'' an Elvis fan, but of his music and look, not so much his life and how he lived it." See . | |||
| *Jaye9 says, "Oh by the way 141, I am an Elvis Fan..." See . This could suggest that they may be interested in excluding more critical material from the Elvis article. | |||
| See also these four edits by Pastor of May 2007: , , , . Furthermore, which contributions to ] are more encyclopedic? and by Steve Pastor or and by Onefortyone? | |||
| In the past, ] repeatedly removed content he didn't like from the Elvis page. See , , , , , , , , , , , , , etc. etc. | |||
| What is more, Steve Pastor frequently includes references to specific fan sites and DVDs in Misplaced Pages articles. See , , , , , , , , , , , , . | |||
| Other users had also a suspicion that the hyperlinks Steve Pastor prefers seem "designed primarily to sell CDs." See , . This inclusion of references to Elvis fan sites, DVDs etc., which is not in line with Misplaced Pages policies, may indicate that Pastor is part of an Elvis fan group and may therefore be an ]. | |||
| Concerning the well-sourced material I have used for my contributions, Steve Pastor writes: | |||
| *I think we need to keep in mind that many of the people who wrote about Elvis were writing books. Much of what they write is opinion and doesn't need to be repeated here. See . | |||
| * We no longer have to rely on second hand accounts of many things. We also no longer have to rely on someone elses account of what the music sounds like with the availablity of samples. See | |||
| Third-party users seem to agree with my edits: | |||
| *"The article seems a bit too fan influenced. I wish that some of the input by Onefortyone (biased though he may or may not be) got more air time. Elvis was wonderful, but an encyclopedia article, especially a[REDACTED] article should be brutally honest." See . | |||
| *"Elvis was a controversial figure. His sexuality, drug taking, divorce, eating disorders etc etc all attract differing points of view. To some he was a god; to others a fat bloke who died on the toilet. For many aspects of his life there is no definitive answer. ... To attempt to compromise, this article needs to show both sides with suitable references and let the reader decide." See . | |||
| *"Onefortyone presents well documented information on a lot of negative aspects of Elvis` life and it gets continually edited out. Let the truth be heard, you inane fanboys." See . | |||
| Here are some other commentaries concerning my contributions: | |||
| *... If the Presley article is so POV and controlled by biased Elvis fans as you claim, then feel free to make all the edits you like. They seem to wasted just appearing on the talk page. You are obviously intelligent, erudite and can write excellent prose that is unimpeachably cited. Other people are freely editing the article, so why don't you? See | |||
| *I like your recent compromise. It shows we can work together and that you understand my concerns. I moved the later material to 1968 comeback to fit better in the article. In this way we can work towards your concerns. See | |||
| *A Resilient Barnstar for learning and improving from criticisms, and not letting mistakes or blunders impede your growth as Wikipedian. I'm really impressed. See | |||
| As far as I can see, I am the only editor who frequently cites his sources, among them mainstream Elvis biographies, essays by reputed Elvis experts, books by people who knew Elvis and peer-reviewed studies published by university presses. For the many sources I have used for my contributions, see . | |||
| Significantly, my opponents now endeavor to remove exactly the same sourced information that my former opponents had removed, who are banned by former arbcom decisions. To my mind, Steve Pastor and some new sockpuppets of are still edit warring with me, as multiple hardbanned ] alias ] and banned ] did in the past. ] (]) 22:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| =====Reply to Jehochman===== | |||
| You have claimed, "Onefortyone appears to have been in persistent conflict since at least May 2007..." and "I believe Onefortyone has significantly impeded development of the article, based on the statements of involved parties." If you look at the contribution history, you will find that I didn't touch the Elvis article between May 19 and August 27, 2007. As there was a permanent edit war in the past, I didn't revert any removals by other users for months in order to show good faith. This means that there was plenty of time for my opponents to develop the article, and they changed a lot. However, there was a discussion on the talk page, as my opponents frequently removed sourced content that was not in line with their personal opinion. In August, Rikstar said on the talk page, "...feel free to make all the edits you like. They seem to wasted just appearing on the talk page. You are obviously intelligent, erudite and can write excellent prose that is unimpeachably cited. Other people are freely editing the article, so why don't you?" See . So I returned. The edit war started again with by Northmeister, who, as usual, removed well-sourced information from the article page. Furthermore, if you look at the ] in its present state from a neutral point of view, is it really such a mess as my opponents claim? ] (]) 01:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| =====Reply to LaraLove===== | |||
| I think I have shown on the talk page that the claims by Jaye9, perhaps a newly created sockpuppet of one of my former opponents (see his ), are unjustified. Jaye9 even made false claims concerning Elvis's father, Vernon, and his stepmother, Dee Presley, on the talk page similar to the claims made by banned user Lochdale, who even added this false information to the Elvis article. See and . ] (]) 01:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by Jehochman==== | |||
| I direct the Committee's attention to ]. I am concerned that the current remedies against Onefortyone may be entirely insufficient to deal with the level of disruption that seems to be going on. I urge the committee to accept this matter for review to help resolve a long running controversy that the community has been unable to handle. Onefortyone appears to have been in persistent conflict since at least May 2007 and probably much longer. I remain concerned about the possibility of disruptive sock puppetry, and of false allegations against other editors. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I do not feel comfortable applying the existing probation remedy because it is too narrowly written. I believe Onefortyone has significantly impeded development of the article, based on the statements of involved parties. Additionally, Sam Blacketer has stated that he thinks Onefortyone's editing has been acceptable. It seems that there is a conflict amongst administrators how to handle this problem. The status quo since at least May 2007 has been paralysis resulting in valued contributors becoming frustrated to the point that they abandon the article. I think an expedited review of editing since the last case and a decision to remove, alter, or sustain the existing remedy would be helpful. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by LaraLove==== | |||
| In the months I have been working on this article, I have found Onefortyone to be a consistent obstacle in article improvement. My involvement started after the article was improperly promoted to GA status in August 2007. It's my opinion that every attempt to bring this article to GA standards is halted by Onefortyone. Evidence has been shown on ] that brings Onefortyone's sourced additions into question, as it appears as though he has selectively pulled information in order to push his preferred POV. He refuses to allow information to be removed in order to bring the article down to a manageable, readable length, which is why his latest additions remain. I created ] in hopes of being able to get more attention on the article, however, it's no further along now than it was when it began a month and a half ago. Something has to change in this situation because no progress is being made and every other editor that consistently works on this article is ready to give up, which is not in the best interest of the project. ''']''']''']''' 18:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by Egghead06==== | |||
| There is so much about the life of Elvis that is unknown. Since his death much rumour and gossip have grown-up around the man. How can anyone give a definitive view? They can't! What they can do is offer data which differs from the norm. As long as this is given with good references this can only help to provide a fuller picture. How can you ban someone who does that? | |||
| There appears to be a drive here to only have one view point - put them all as long as they are referenced and let the reader decide. | |||
| There also appears to be a drive to keep the article short so as to acheive some internal star or pat-on-the back. Brevity and accuracy do not always go hand-in-hand. This is not an encyclopedia for goldfish. Surely people can keep their span of attention long enough to grasp all the possibilities. | |||
| This user may not toe the line but banning is too heavy handed. | |||
| --] (]) 08:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Clerk notes ==== | |||
| : There appear to be two reports in the enforcement archives, see ] and ] and the ]. ] 17:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/2) ==== | |||
| * The situation is troubling, but I am not certain that a new case is necessary. It appears that the problem could be addressed through enforcement of the existing remedies through a report to ]. That page is used where an editor fails to abide by a rule in a prior arbitration case(s) and enforcement of remedies under the prior ruling are sufficient to resolve the issue. Could the parties kindly address whether the problem could be addressed more efficiently in this way. If arbitration enforcement is insufficient to address the problem then I lean toward acceptance, subject to Onefortyone's statement and possibly as a Review of editing since the prior decisions rather than a whole new case. ] (]) 17:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Decline. Onefortyone is a restrained editor of the actual article on ] and his more recent additions appear to be reliably sourced and have stayed in the article. While the talk page can get heated at times, I am very reluctant to sanction an editor merely because they happen to be in a minority. Discussion and debate is working. The current sanctions are in my view sufficient. ] (]) 11:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Decline for now as per Newyorkbrad. -- ] - <small>]</small> 17:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * I do not want to reject a case that can not be handled by past remedies or the community, but I do not see evidence for a case now. I need to see more specific evidence that we need to be involved before I can accept. ] (]) 18:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| === Anti-Dominicanism === | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 19:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Involved parties ==== | |||
| *{{userlinks|Zenwhat}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|UnclePaco}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|67.101.248.187}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|XLR8TION}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Nishkid64}} | |||
| <!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. If desired, wording such as "(initiating party)" may be added. Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a party is an administrator. --> | |||
| ; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| <!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. --> | |||
| ; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| {{User|XLR8TION}} was banned for a week by {{User|Nishkid64}} Also, see the see Wikiquette alert. | |||
| <!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitation --> | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| To begin with, I was completely outside of this dispute but happened to come across it while surfing ]. ] has been pushing anti-Dominican and anti-black racism, including ] about Dominican racial heritage. These include denying that modern Dominicans have any genetic relation to the native tribes that preceded them , claiming that such native tribes were wiped out entirely , and Dominicans today are mostly of "African roots," not of Hispanic or Native origin. And he characterized a Dominican politician as supporting "reverse discrimination" by appealing to black Dominicans and that black Dominicans maintain "political supremacy." Recently, he has attempted to associate the Dominican Day Parade with crime. And he has used homophobic epithets. He posted a video critical of black Dominican basketball player, Felipe López and black NBA star, Amare Stoudemire, whose status as a Dominican cannot be confirmed, but he is from Florida. | |||
| Aside from the above obvious POV-pushing, this is an overall pattern of behavior, where some of his edits seem to be made with the ''subtle'' intent of supporting racism, such as by uploading the mugshot of the black dominican involved in the alleged plot to attack St. John's University and trying to create an article to push POV about that event. | |||
| He has engaged in ] in order to push his POV. Recently, he reported {{User|XLR8TION}} for violating the ] on ] and for bad ettiquette. by being accused of speaking English as a second language. | |||
| After noting on ] that his ] report was unfounded, an anonymous user suddenly made baseless accusations against me, of harassment and stalking. An RFCU will likely confirm this is UnclePaco, who has been making edits while not logged in, possibly in order to hide his identity. | |||
| He's also engaged in edit wars over long periods of time, attempting to insert two objectionable photos of his into various articles on Dominicans. See his contributions list to see the reverts. | |||
| XLR8TION's accusation that UnclePaco speaks english as as second language was rude, however, given UnclePaco's name and the fact that he ''does'' often use broken english , this is a reasonable criticism. A one-week ban seems particularly extreme and XLR8TION's violation of the ] doesn't apply, because UnclePaco is editing in bad faith. | |||
| <s>I request that XLR8TION be unblocked, that UnclePaco be blocked for a time determined by the arbitrator, and that he be investigated for sockpuppetry, per the edits by the anonymous user above.</s> | |||
| Although there's been no RFCU, It's pretty much been confirmed that the anonymous IP isn't UnclePaco, UnclePaco's ban is now over, and I wasn't aware of XLR8TION'S block log, so these comments no longer apply. However, I do request that some arbitration ruling be made about the "violence section," on ], because of its contentious edit history, as admin Sam Blacketer suggests below. ] (]) 06:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| =====Reply to Zenwhat===== | |||
| XLR8TION reverted other editors over the "white nationalism" reference and claimed he was being accuse of racism. He also told B to stop making ignorant accusations. This matter could have easily been resolved, had XLR8TION asked the other editors what they were referring to. There was no need to make personal attacks or continuing the edit war. Also, XLR8TION may not have a history of being a "white nationalist troll", but he certainly has a history of violating 3RR, making personal attacks and being uncivil on Dominican-related articles. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 23:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| UnclePaco a 3RR report against XLR8TION on January 1, 2008. The two users had been edit warring over , which highlights the incidents of crime at the ] in 2007. B found that both users had violated ] on ], but they were currently engaging in discussion in the talk page, so he felt blocks were not necessary. Hours later, UnclePaco at the 3RR report board about from XLR8TION. XLR8TION's comment on ] were uncivil, as he justified removing UnclePaco's additions because they brought the article to a "standard that is low and unreliable." Next, he claimed that from UnclePaco's edits, it was apparent that English was not his first language. XLR8TION states that since he is a native speaker, it is his "duty to maintain proper grammar and structure in articles." Afterwards, XLR8TION and UnclePaco continued to edit war on ], and XLR8TION began an edit war on ], which included admin {{user|B}} and IP users. On Puerto Rican Day Parade, XLR8TION added a reference from a "white nationalist" message board. 67.87.197.9 the reference. XLR8TION reverted the edit with the edit summary: "''Revert, there is nothing mentions White power here''". Another IP removed the reference, and XLR8TION reverted the editor, stating that the removal of sourced information can be labeled as vandalism. Admin {{user|B}} came to the article and removed the reference with the edit summary: "Completely unacceptable source (white power message board), no position on the rest of it." XLR8TION promptly reverted B, and left a threatening edit summary, in which he told B to "refrain from ignorant accusations" and that his next revert would lead to "corrective action." B reverted and left an edit summary: ''"You're joking, right? It's a message board (bad) with a big logo in the upper left corner that says 'white proud'"'' Meanwhile, on ], an IP re-inserted the material previously added by UnclePaco. XLR8TION promptly reverted. Shortly after, B went back to the 3RR board, where he requested a review of the previous 3RR report by an uninvolved administrator. Two minutes later, XLR8TION reverted B's edit on Puerto Rican Day Parade and told him to once again refrain from ignorant language. | |||
| I saw the report and evaluated XLR8TION's contributions. As I was reviewing his contributions, he at ], in which he accused B of making racist and uncivil accusations of "white power" against him. 15 minutes later, I blocked XLR8TION for one week, due to edit warring, incivility and personal attacks. Within the hour, I received an e-mail from XLR8TION about the block. He felt the block was unfair, and claimed that he was being accused of "white power" propaganda. We sent over a dozen e-mails back and forth, in which I explained the reasons for the block. He claimed he did not know the message board he was adding as a reference was a "white nationalist" website. He stated that his firewall at blocked parts of the page, so he did not see the banners indicative of the site's purpose. He believed that this firewall should be taken into consideration. He repeatedly asked what I was going to do about UnclePaco. He advocated for a block, but I felt it was unnecessary. Finally, I told him I would look into the matter. When I went back on Misplaced Pages hours later, I saw UnclePaco was edit warring on ] and ]. I then blocked UnclePaco for 24 hours due to edit warring. | |||
| A few points of clarification from ZenWhat's statement and the entire case, itself: | |||
| *No dispute resolution | |||
| *I blocked, not ''banned'' XLR8TION for one week. I have been in contact via e-mail regarding his block | |||
| *Sandstein declined the unblock request on XLR8TION's talk page | |||
| *XLR8TION's 3RR report was not unfounded; {{user|B}} found both UnclePaco and XLR8TION had violated ], but he chose not to block the users at the time | |||
| =====Reply to Nishkid64===== | |||
| ::I received an email from XLR8TION, where he claimed that he did not realize Stormfront.org was a "white power" site, and feels embarrassed about the matter, because his ISP has a firewall his blocks certain objectionable content (I assume he means a word filter, he could explain better than I). A copy of the email can be found here: Because he does NOT have an history of contributions supporting white nationalism, per ], I see no reason to disbelieve him. Although I admit the edit war was a bad idea and I would like to hear more specifics about his ISP's firewall. ] (]) 22:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, I received e-mails from XLR8TION as well. The issue is not about "white nationalism", but about the edit warring and personal attacks he made on ]. A firewall is no excuse for inappropriate incivility and edit warring. <span style="background:#E0FFFF;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] (])</span> 18:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] replied on January 7, 2008 ==== | |||
| *Amare Stoudamire isn't hispanic at all. He's black. I posted an article that spoke about him and summarized it. . What you wrote is a strech of the imagination and simply trying to find things to bury me on. | |||
| *The felipe lopez article. This was his last college game. How is it critical of him? http://youtube.com/watch?v=vdmf9l6b8Bc Again, trying to find something to bury me on. Why don't you look at the video! | |||
| * the alleged homophobia comment. In the context of the article we discussed how allegations with no substance can still make it into articles, such as personal life. http://en.wikipedia.org/Rock_Hudson#Personal_life. We discussed the Patriot Act, Habeous Corpus, Guilty until proven innocent (i.e. Rock Hudsons personal life). To which he stated Gay not being a crime, and that depends on what nation you're at. AT no point did I make homophobic remarks. If someone chooses to live a certain lifestyle that is on them. I'm indifferent. | |||
| *Dominican Day Parade crime section. I created a section similiar to two other articles in New York about parades that had similiar sections. http://en.wikipedia.org/Labor_Day_Carnival#Violence and http://en.wikipedia.org/Puerto_Rican_Day_Parade#Controversy . I placed in verified information NY Times, NY Sun, NY Daily News, NY Post to illustrate this. Why is it ok for the Labor Day Carnival to have a violence section and the Puerto Rican Day Parade to have a controversy section, but the Dominican Day Parade not to have one? I have brought this up on talk pages. | |||
| *The black supremacy section, well I did reinsert the trivia section . I simply didn't read the whole thing. It was originally inserted in Dec 2005 way before I became a member. I saw it was deleted and saw the first couple of sentences and it looked good to me. | |||
| *Dominican racial identity is simply up for debate. There are numerous articles that state that DR is simply african and spaniard. Also that the native indians died off. | |||
| http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/amholocaust-5.html http://pine3.info/Barbecue%20Heritage.htm http://forests.org/archive/general/columbus.htm http://forests.org/archive/general/columbus.htm | |||
| http://www.websteruniv.edu/~corbetre/haiti/history/precolumbian/tainospring.htm | |||
| http://www.delhey.de/content-00/en/reports/domrep.htm | |||
| www.dominican-rep.com/history.html | |||
| http://www.icumedia.com/santodomingo/sd-history.shtml | |||
| http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096409671 | |||
| http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/IndianGenocide.html | |||
| to easily name a few. | |||
| *Xlr8tion was blocked for posting sources from white power websites before anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Puerto_Rican_Day_Parade&diff=182022544&oldid=182019533 | |||
| *My being accused of being ] by ] and ] can be resolved rather quickly. Just do a quick ip check. It'll show that it isn't me. I won't even ask for an apology on that one. Admint B noted here http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WQA#B.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29 that there have been previous accusations of using IP address by users and made teh statement "His claim that I am the IP users is nonsense - a quick whois reveals that two of them are from New York and one is from Florida. Anyone who knows me knows that I hail from Virginia Tech."] (]) 20:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *ok this one was almost comical. a black dominican who wanted to attack st john's university. http://www.intellnet.org/resources/american_terrorism/IndianGenocide.html this was originally an article that i had created that went up for deletion review and ended up being userfied . The alleged black dominican is actually nigerian http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Mugshot.JPG and this was an actual event not at St. John's University but at ]. Now at what point did i say dominican anywhere in the article? If anyone is interested in learning more about that particular incident feel free to read here. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-25-ill-campus-threat_N.htm . | |||
| * | |||
| '''There does seem to be some kind of relationship between Zenwhat and XLR8TION. For a period they seem to have a similiar writing style and utilization of edits or accusation that has no true source. Look at the ] article and what I was accused of for example. How could that even remotely be considered to be anti-dominican or racism. | |||
| Zenwhat below states that he wants us to ] for XlR8TION (for posting racist message boards, and stating that english isn't my first language ; which I might add is someting that individuals who are on those sites tend to do (white message boards). They tell people to speak english or mock peoples english skills), but is going for the throat with me with outlandish accusation.''' ] (]) 18:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I have interacted with all of these editors over the last few days on two separate occasions while patrolling ] and I will make an effort to give some background. | |||
| {{User|UnclePaco}} reported {{user|XLR8TION}} for 3RR on ]. (See for the thread.) Both users were in violation, but appeared to be talking it out on the talk page. I felt it would be appropriate to simply warn them, rather than block them. After that, XLR8TION resumed edit warring and repeatedly adding a link to a thread on a white power message board to ]. I removed it for obvious reasons and he reverted the removal twice. I realized my prior conclusion that the disruptive editing had stopped was incorrect and, though I would have been justified in making the block myself, in order to maintain transparency I posted a request at 3RR that another admin review my previous decision and consider making a block. Nishkid64 decided, based on the continued edit warring, incivility, and inappropriate external link, to block XLR8TION for one week. I concur with this block. During the interim before the block was made, XLR8TION opened a frivolous WQA alert concerning my removal of the inappropriate external link. | |||
| UnclePaco has repeatedly added to ] the comment "with Manuel Vargas being deemed the ring leader." That statement is supported by the source, although not knowing the issue, I can't see a reason why this matters - no foundation is given - who is he? He has also edit warred on ]. Again, I don't know anything about the issue to conclude a right or wrong, only that it is a disruption. <s>{{User|67.101.248.187}} seems to almost certainly be UnclePaco editing while logged out.</s> <small>UnclePaco says on his talk page that he isn't the IP, and it's completely moot to everything else I typed - I just assumed it was him based on seeing the same edit summary in the same article, this wasn't meant to be an accusation. --] (]) 22:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)</small> | |||
| I obviously feel that overturning XLR8TION's block would be a bad idea. UnclePaco's editing is somewhat tenuous and if it continues, it can be dealt with, but arbitration is premature. --] (]) 20:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Having read the above, I have serious doubts about the technical likelihood of this selective firewall. "Stormfront White Nationalist Community" is the top level forum of this message board and it is printed in plain text (not an image) in the same HTML file (not overlayed by a javascript). The "White Pride World Wide" image is on the same domain (www.stormfront.org) as the rest of the site. The alt text is "Return to Stormfront White Pride World Wide Main Page". This particular sub-forum is the "América Latina White Nationalists in Latin America." There is enough racist nonsense on that message board that I feel sick in my stomach from just looking at it. I am often told that I have a poor imagination, but I have a difficult time imagining someone taking more than a cursory glance at this site and not realizing what it is. --] (]) 22:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::The blatant obviousness of Stormfront as a white nationalist site is precisely ''why'' I believe XLR8TION's claim that Stormfront's material is partially blocked. Even a legitimately white nationalist troll is probably not going to be stupid enough to cite Stormfront.org, with "White Nationalist" plastered all over it, then claim in his edit summaries that it isn't white nationalist, and engage in an edit war over it. It's not effective trolling. It's the same reason there isn't a "White Nationalist" usebox. Per ] and because XLR8TION doesn't have a suspicious edit history, as all white nationalist trolls ''should'', I think we should reserve judgment on the issue until XLR8TION can explain his claim more in detail and name his specific ISP. If he does both, we could easily confirm or deny the claim. XLR8TION seems genuinely concerned that his reputation has been severely tarnished by being branded a racist. If this matter ''isn't'' cleared up, it may affect the credibility of his future edits. It wouldn't require hardly any effort to confirm or deny and, if it turns out that I'm right, it's a particularly important detail for the arbitrators to consider. ] (]) 23:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Please move your comments to your section. If you want, you can make subsections like ===Reply to B=== or something, but you should not edit another person's section. If the site was "partially blocked", exactly what part wasn't blocked? It doesn't make any sense. There's no mindreading software that can selectively cleanse the page of the racist material and leave whatever it was being used to source. But if he is really seeing something else, he can take a screenshot of what he is seeing (alt+printscreen), paste it into ], save it, and upload it to somewhere like flickr or webshots and post the link here. --] (]) 23:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by uninvolved ] ==== | |||
| As one of the primary responders to the ], I would like to point out a few things. The block was '''not''' for this incident, but for something else that occurred. Check the and the : | |||
| ::''Block Log:'' 21:41, 3 January 2008 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) blocked "XLR8TION (Talk | contribs)" | |||
| ::''WP:WQA:'' 22:50, 3 January 2008 UnclePaco (Talk | contribs) (185,592 bytes) (XLR8TION) (undo) | |||
| As for the WP:SKILL issue, it doesn't matter if UnclePaco is the worst editor in history, WP:SKILL still applies. And "but he really ''is'' bad at English" is not a valid defense, nor is "but he's not a good contributor." There may be merit in considering UnclePaco's contributions, because they were certainly dubious. But XLR8TION is responsible for his actions and they can't be excused based on the quality of UnclePaco's contributions. He has a history of being warned and blocked for incivility, personal attacks, and edit warring in this exact way (read: he should know better), and his block seems to be self-evidently appropriate (several instances of totally incivility during edit wars). His appeal was declined because his defense was the same one coming up here: UnclePaco ''is'' bad at English, and he's a bad contributor. That's not relevant, especially since he's being blocked for an incident prior to it. The prior incident, by the way, was also reported at the WQA ], where you can confirm that the block is not related to the incident involving UnclePaco - not that ''another'' round of incivility doesn't support the validity of the block anyway. --] (]) 20:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ''Addendum'': After seeing a more thorough account, it seems that all of these incidents are loosely related. However, there is still a misunderstanding that UnclePaco reported XLR8TION at the WQA, and then he gets blocked, and then UnclePaco is the winner. There was a similar issue when XLR8TION asserted that UnclePaco had not been warned for 3RR, when he ''had'' (and has, in fact, been blocked too). Like I said, UnclePaco's POV and content issues merit examination (although perhaps not here). Unblocking XLR8TION is not related to that, and does not seem warranted. --] (]) 20:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ''One more consideration'': As for the edit warring over the Stormfront message board "reference" - XLR8TION's explanation about some sort of partial firewall seems dubious, but I'm willing to accept that as an explanation for his having used such an obviously inappropriate source. Once. When someone says "your source is a white nationalist messageboard, and is thus inappropriate," then you just found out what all your "partial firewall" or whatever was blocking on that page (although I can't imagine it wasn't obviously ''some'' kind of forum, which should be enough). Edit warring and breaching WP:CIVIL in order to reinsert a source that he has admitted to at least being unable to assess the reliability of - that's not appropriate and is not excused by anything others might have done. I think XLR8TION even jumped to the odd conclusion that "the reference you are citing is a white power messageboard" means the same as "you are a white supremacist." --] (]) 08:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by trying to be funny ]==== | |||
| Looks like a ] plot to me. Oh, wait -- wrong anti-]ism. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 22:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Clerk notes ==== | |||
| : | |||
| ==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/6/0/0) ==== | |||
| *Decline. Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution; there is no evidence that earlier steps have been attempted. If there is serious concern about the one-week block, the matter can be raised at ] for input by other admins and editors. ] (]) 20:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Reject, per Newyorkbrad. ] 23:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Reject, premature. I agree with Brad's comments. I would also add that this seems suitable for mediation, should other methods of dispute resolution not be productive. --] (]) 10:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Decline. Nothing in this request suggests that ] or ] would not be better venues at this point in time. Or indeed, ]. Either content or conduct RFC would perhaps be especially valuable; conduct RFC by both parties particulary since it has a tendency to clarify conflicting claims about behavior and approaches such as described above, and users can often get good commonsense on the conflict issues and how the community and its norms see them. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 12:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * I would myself accept this case because the edit history of ] does show a long history of disputes involving misconduct and because the accusations made in the case are serious enough to merit arbitration even though previous dispute resolution has been minimal. ] (]) 21:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Reject, I think that editor conduct issue exist but I am hopeful that through further community action that an arbitration case can be avoided. ] (]) 17:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Decline''' as premature. ] ] 18:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| === Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 === | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] '''at''' 17:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Involved parties ==== | |||
| * {{userlinks|White Cat}} - (initiating party) | |||
| * {{userlinks|Moreschi}} - mediator (I think) | |||
| * {{userlinks|Andranikpasha}} | |||
| * {{userlinks|Ehud Lesar}} | |||
| * {{userlinks|Eupator}} | |||
| * {{userlinks|Fedayee}} | |||
| * {{userlinks|Folantin}} | |||
| * {{userlinks|Grandmaster}} | |||
| * {{userlinks|Parishan}} | |||
| * {{userlinks|TigranTheGreat}} | |||
| * {{userlinks|VartanM}} | |||
| * Anybody that is involved that I had forgotten. This can be added by anybody. | |||
| <!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. If desired, wording such as "(initiating party)" may be added. Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a party is an administrator. --> | |||
| ; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request | |||
| * (Mediator) | |||
| * , , , , , , , , | |||
| ; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| The dispute hasn't been resolved and has been continuing on as if the previous arbitration cases didn't happen. A good number of involved parties on the previous cases continue to post inflammatory comments, game the system, and other such acts of disruption. Current remedies had been ineffective in preventing the disruption nor in resolving the disputes. On some occasions the remedies had been used to game the system. | |||
| Although I believe arbcom is fully aware of it, Arbitration enforcement ], ], and etc is full of flame wars and related material. | |||
| I have been uninvolved from the most part. The parties came and started revert waring in ] and removing sources. Even governmental sources seem to be unacceptable. That has been the entirety of my involvement with this case. | |||
| --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 17:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| For the sake of argument, lets just say I have been overall disruptive. Had not the contribution of Andranikpasha, Eupator, and VartanM perhaps had a hint of disruption? Why am I the only one receiving the ? | |||
| ''Reply to Moreschi''. "Requests for arbitration" is a poor place to "forum shop". Who am I shopping for? Arbitrators? That accusation is false. If Arbcom rules that the entire Azerbaijan-Armenian war had been my fault, sure. Then such a ban would be warranted. | |||
| --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 18:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Several people had been banned by arbcom. The fear of sockpuppetary has led to situations where bad behaviour is overlooked over sockpuppetary fears. | |||
| {{cquote|Good for you, but you are wrong. This is not a secret, it's common knowledge. The Turkish governments attitude towards Armenians in general is not far from the Third Reichs attitude towards the Jews mildly put.}} | |||
| :::::::from ] | |||
| Inflammatory ethnic comments (such as the one above) are merely not recommended, I would hope that such is supposed to be outlawed. The example above is mild in comparaison to other nonsense. | |||
| --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 22:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I also am weary of the Armenia-Azerbaijan rfars. Relatively good users such as myself are given the boot on sight while behaviour of people who have been involved on both RfArs are overlooked. Moreschi's attitude on an unofficial IRC discussion was rather unpleasant for example. His treatment of me is also apparent on this very page. | |||
| I do not believe Armenia-Azerbaijan thing will be resolved with the current remedies. While I do understand that spelling out what is disruptive gives disruptive users a mean to avoid the remedies. That is why the boundaries of the Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute were loosely defined. However loosely defined boundaries may be also giving admins too much power. | |||
| --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 22:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ''Reply to John Vandenberg:'' Thats a big fat lie and you know it. All attacks in question with the Exception of two of them are cross sourced by MIPT which establishes the ASALA connection clearly. The two exceptions were covered by the two sources that are removed. | |||
| ASALA is mentioned numerous times. On some occasions Tr.Gov didn't state who was responsible but they do agree that an attack happened. Therefore referencing them for this purpose is perfectly legitemate. The tone on the tr.gov source isn't exactly neutral. The material covered is of course partisan. As is US gov partisan on Al-Quida and etc. Partisan websites are not banned. Since the material used from the partisan source is not in dispute, their use is not an actual problem. No one raised any objections on the content in the article. | |||
| If a North Korean related organization starts shooting US employees such as ambassadors, embassy employees and such can't I use the US government as a source? Why the double standard? | |||
| ASALA is mentioned numerous times. One of the attacks ASALA connection is only mentioned on ATMG.org. MIPT has nothing on that attack MIPT is rather incomplete for 1975 and prior. ATMG has more of a diplomatic tone. Presents information in a more neutral way. It does not delude into pre WW2 issues that are irrelevant to ASALA. I do not know nor care about their information on non-ASALA related matters. That has no bearing or relevance to the article on ASALA attacks. | |||
| I removed www.atmg.org as a compromise but that wasn't enough. Both links had to go. My only fault was restoring sources. | |||
| All VartanM and Andranikpasha did was revert war. Was this their first time? Hardly! Just check their recent contribution history. Many examples. Were they on revert parole when they started removing sources from the ASALA article? No. has a Christal clear block log. So does despite frequently revert waring. | |||
| If I am going to be damned at least damn me for what I have done not what others have done. How the heck am I "sparking off" a dispute on an article that VartanM and Andranikpasha had no edits whatsoever prior to November 2007. | |||
| There is a very serious problem here if I am the one accused. I will edit[REDACTED] ''normally'' if a bunch of Azerbaijanis, Armenians, Turks, or any other group of ethnicities in dispute do not like it, though luck. No admin threatening me for hardly doing anything (I merely restored sources) will change that. | |||
| If we are in the business of banning people for adding sources, you have bigger problems in your hands than you think. | |||
| --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 07:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| This is ridiculous. White Cat's just forum-shopping here (see ANI .) Two options. Either take this case, rename it and ban White Cat from anything related to ] (see my comments on ANI and ]). Or chuck it out, because the remedies from AA2 ''are'' working as much as they are able, insofar as long-term peace and harmony in this area is very unlikely. ] <sup> ]</sup> 18:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ) | |||
| :I also endorse the statements of Folantin, Thatcher, and John Vandenburg. I've applied the ArbCom remedies piecemeal, letting the punishment fit the crime (revert-warring, even done politely, is rewarded by revert limitation only: that is, being a tad rouge), but it would be nice to have official permission to actually do so. I sent a few emails to the ArbCom mailing list on this subject recently, which I know at least a few people read. This could more usefully be handled by an open vote on this page, however, or perhaps via a review. | |||
| :That's all that needs doing, and I speak as an admin who's been highly active in dealing with the Armenia-Azeri disputes. Unless, of course, you want to deal with the problem of White Cat's relentless Turk-nationalist agenda advocacy, largely consisting of ] denial. ] <sup> ]</sup> 12:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| Unforunately the real life, politics has its influence also to Misplaced Pages and I think the AA2 remedies are doing maximum (maybe more than needed due to the lack of sockpuppetry) in this situation. And surely White Cat needes an admin involvement to stop his "source" pushing to Armenia-related articles. ] (]) 18:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I second what Moreschi says. White Cat is just forum-shopping over a content dispute. List of attacks by the ASALA is related to Armenian and Turkish issues, but not directly to Armenia-Azerbaijan. The main argument between Armenians and Azeris is only tangentially relevant to this matter (it's mostly concerned with ] and has little or nothing to do with the ASALA) and it is currently being dealt with at Arbitration Enforcement. Admins are having some success in calming the main Armenian-Azeri dispute down. This latest move by White Cat simply inflames matters and is completely unhelpful. What's the point of dragging users into another ArbCom because White Cat wants to use a particular (unreliable) source? White Cat has a history of trouble-making on Armenian issues and I second the suggestion he be restricted from editing in this topic area. --] (]) 18:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''Update''' I completely concur with John Vandenberg's statement below. This is just another example of White Cat going forum-shopping because he can't get consensus to use a dubious source on the talk page. He went to ANI over a similar issue on the same page in March 2007 when he want to use an extremist hate site, Tallarmeniantale, as a "reliable source" for the ASALA attacks . This is simply White Cat ] to get his own way. Unsurprising behaviour from a user who once put ] up for deletion to make a point . --] (]) 08:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I don't think another arbcom case is really necessary right now. What we actually need is proper application of the existing remedies and maybe better definition of the terms of the remedies to avoid troublemakers getting away because of minor technical issues. ] (]) 19:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I agree with Thatcher that endless arguments on ] became annoying. In my opinion, reporting rules should be modified to put an end to this. I think that regular users should not be allowed to post responses to reports, except for the reported party, which should be allowed to post a brief explanation of its actions. Only admins should be allowed to post responses to the reports. That would end the mess the AE board has become. ] (]) 14:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by ]==== | |||
| '''Response to Newyorkbrad:''' In my view, the effectiveness of the prior remedy would be greatly improved by allowing uninvolved admins to place editors on restriction (probation, revert parole and civility probation) on a discretionary basis, as the current language requires incivility, making it impossible (or at least more difficult) to impose restrictions on POV edit warriors who are polite . | |||
| {{cquote|The remedies of revert limitations (formerly revert parole), including the limitation of 1 revert per week, civility supervision (formerly civility parole) and supervised editing (formerly probation) that were put in place at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan shall apply to any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner ''marked by incivility''.}} | |||
| The alternative is an absolute topic ban. The editors here are certainly immovable in their convictions, and seem largely unable to agree on compromise language that respects all points of view. However, enforcement so far seems to have focused on the 1RR limit, rather than topic bans (which are permitted under the probation) so it might be premature to issue broad topic bans (not to mention the problem of sockpuppetry that would likely arise). | |||
| The other problem is one of vexatious litigation, in which certain parties report each other over the most minor perceived infractions, and argue at length on WP:AE. I suspect this can be handled by more aggressive refactoring. ] 19:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by ]==== | |||
| I believe arbitrators can help and a review could be helpful for clarifications and few changes, but not a new case. First, Ehud Lesar, who many are convinced is Adil Baguirov, second to wave the condition of incivility as a condition to include members in the revert restriction. I think every person who regularly edits articles related to the region should be required to justify their edits in the talkpage. I also believe that arbitrators should put conditions as to what is a justification in a talkpage, with conditions. Some members have been abusing it by adding a irrelevant sentence or two as a justification to their reverts. | |||
| I believe there are more things that should be done, but I'm not including those, I presented things which are general and that both parties would find it helpful to deal with. I also agree with Thatcher, on the baseless reports on the enforcement page. So, I think the review could deal with those who have abusively reported members for enforcement, and if there is evidence to such abuse they could be restricted to report others there. I think Atabek's behavior should also be reviewed, but that would be opening a can of worms and having to do with evidences and counter evidences. ] (]) 21:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I think Atabek should be the one assuming good faith. Both Fadix and Fedayee start with an F, I had the link of the evidences on a word document and posted the wrong one. If Atabek even bothered to check the evidence he would see that it didn't have anything to do with Azerbaijani members but White Cat in 2005. It's also easy to lie about members who could not defend themselves. As when he claims that Fadix has used several socks, he is probably mistaking him with AdilBaguirov. The two socks (not several) Fadix created didn't disrupt and were self exposed by Fadix himself. ] (]) 21:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by ]==== | |||
| I am responding per ]'s commment below as I have recently been active on the arb enforcement page in an admin role. It seems to me the issues here are pretty much the same as before, therefore, opening a new case would simply be a rehash and hence a waste of time. The views by Thatcher and Moreschi make the most sense to me. In summation, we need to more actively and forcefully use the tools already in hand and/or bring in more stringent enforcement methods. <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — ] • ] • </span> 22:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by ]==== | |||
| Concur with Thatcher in that the remedies probably need reworking, but a new case isn't necessary. I recently dealt with VartanM whose only point was that he wasn't uncivil (in which his edits were quite contrary to that). - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 01:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I agree with Thatcher and VartanM that the existing remedies could use tweaking to help prevent people who insist on being difficult while being (barely) civil, but the issue of sources on ASALA is being blown out of proportion by White Cat, who is the only one wanting to include a Turkish government source on the article. On close inspection, that Turkish government webpage was being used as a source for attacks that are not even mentioned on the webpage, and for attacks that the website doesnt attribute to ASALA. If there is a case here, it is that White Cat was edit warring and is now looking to spark off a third round of an unrelated dispute because prior attempts at gaining wider support, on user talk pages, AN/AE and AN/I, didnt have the desired result. ] (]) 06:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by ]==== | |||
| I think it would be a good idea to have stricter rules on baseless accussations, such as those above made by Vartan. If a user is proven to be not a sockpuppet after continuosly accussed of being one, it should be made clear once and for all for the accussing parties to stop harrassment campaigns. Moreover, these parties should be demanded official apologies ] (]) 21:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Brief comment by EconomicsGuy==== | |||
| This case may not be the right place or time for this debate but it is going to need ArbCom's attention again sooner rather than later. I urge the arbitrators to read the archives of ] just month back. The arbitrators only have one issue they need to consider: are these people here for the encyclopedia or not? As will be obvious to the arbitrators once they review the debates (flame wars) of the last month or so the remedies are being used as entitlements to disrupt as long as they are being civil on the surface at least. Is this the sort of disrespect for the purpose of 2 past ArbCom cases and endless waste of time that we should accept? I sincerely hope not for the sake of Misplaced Pages as a project and I hope that the arbitrators will look at this again with more realistic ambitions and expectations and draw the inevitable conclusion that needs to be drawn here. ] (]) 08:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment by Lar==== | |||
| This ] crosswiki CU case may or may not have some bearing. If I can answer any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. ++]: ]/] 15:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Brief comment by Atabek==== | |||
| If I may ask, why is ] assuming bad faith against me again above and reciting my name, when I am not even involved in this particular case raised by White Cat? And using the evidence of a banned ], caught with several socks, to bring more groundless accusations against another ] that he was in conflict with? And didn't the last ArbCom principle prohibit contributors from doing ? And wasn't VartanM assigned to mentor Andranikpasha, on whom new evidence of violations is being presented all over various language Wikis? And what is with repeated violations of ] in regards to John Vandenberg? How many users have to be the subject of attacks by VartanM, before he is finally explained that he needs to calm down and assume good faith in his interactions with other contributors? ] (]) 07:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Clerk notes ==== | |||
| : (This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.) | |||
| ==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/5/0/0) ==== | |||
| *'''Comment'''. We are expecting to look again at all the 'general sanctions' cases, including Armenia-Azerbaijan, once we new arbitrators have settled in. ] (]) 18:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **Switched to decline, because I do not think we need a new case. ] (]) 12:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Comment: I would appreciate input from the administrators active on ] as to whether a new case would play a useful role here in potentially honing the remedies available, or whether it would only compound the disruption and bitterness that already exist. ] (]) 19:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Based on input above, '''decline''' as a new case, but agree that the committee should revisit the issue of remedies available. I invite the admins familiar with this matter to present a proposed motion in the "requests for clarification" section of this page, with the earnest request that editors keep responses to any such proposal as brief and non-argumentative as possible. ] (]) 14:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm going to say '''reject''' for now; we do expect to look at this again, as Sam mentions, but since this situation essentially revolves around enforcement issues, it can best be dealt with by motion in the earlier case. --] (]) 11:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * This series of disputes has gone on a long time. There have been persistent comments that the previous remedies are not as well drafted as they might be, echoed by comments above by experienced administrators that they are having to flex the wording somewhat and would like not to have to do so. Other administrators have commented similarly that using the remedies is a bit problematic. However no claim is being made that the principles or findings of fact were misplaced in prior cases. The sole persistent issue raised is that 4 months after AA2, enforcers are seeking better remedies for use on the same problem. I'm prepared to believe this is a reflection of a genuine (slight) mismatch of drafting to the needs of the dispute. '''Accept''' (with limited scope) at this point, or as an extension of remedy, purely to hear evidence of any disruptive behaviors where the remedies are not fully helping, and to consider whether we can provide the disputants with reworked remedies, in light of current experience. We can do that quickly without duplicating our future work on the cases themselves. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 13:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Reject''' I see more harm than benefit from re-examining the case in whole. Prefer to look at this in a limited manner and tweak enforcement remedies. ] (]) 17:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Decline'''. ] ] 17:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| == Requests for clarification == | |||
| ''Place requests for clarification on matters related to past Arbitration cases in this section. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at ]. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the ]. '''Place new requests at the top'''.'' | |||
| ===Request for procedural clarificaton re: === | |||
| The Digwuren general restriction states that ''Any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator'' and then goes on to describe the terms of the restriction. Some questions have been raised, however, as to whether an administrator should apply this restriction to a first-time offender who has not yet been made aware of the existence of this special clause relating to EE pages, or whether it would be more appropriate to warn the alleged offender first. | |||
| The question arose in relation to my own case whereby I have been placed under the restriction for making a single comment that one administrator, ], construed as "disparaging editors by their status in a group" and a "bad faith assumption" on my part (both of which charges I repudiate). Two users, ] and ], have also appeared to question Thatcher's judgement in this case in regards to whether the sanction should have been immediately applied to a first-time (alleged) offender like myself with no prior knowledge of the restriction. | |||
| So I think it would be appropriate for the arbcom to clarify this matter, if not in relation to my own case specifically, then at least in regards to the general case. The discussion, BTW, can be read at Thatcher's talk page under the headings and . Thanks, ] (]) 07:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Appeal regarding ]=== | |||
| Some of the restrictions imposed on me by the Arbitration Committee in stages between November 2005 and July 2006 expired in November 2007; however, according to former arbitrator ], I am still subject to two of the restrictions—remedy "X" from the original November 2005 ruling, and remedy 4 from the July 2006 amended ruling—and they will remain in effect indefinitely, until lifted by the ArbCom. (I don't know if the rest of the ArbCom agrees that they are still in effect, but the only arbitrator who has spoken about it says they are in effect, and therefore I must assume they are until or unless the other arbitrators say otherwise.) I am not concerned about falling afoul of these rulings, and have no intention to ever do the things they prohibit, but by remaining in place these remedies act as a "scarlet letter" impeding my participation on Misplaced Pages, enabling people to ignore, dismiss or insult me because I am "not a user in good standing", and rendering it almost hopeless for me to attempt to regain my adminship through RfA, which was taken from me by the ArbCom in 2006 for an issue unrelated to the case in question. I think these remedies accomplish nothing except to marginalize me and should be lifted. ] (]) 21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The committee has seen a fairly large number of aggrieved parties to previous arbitration hearings present appeals immediately after the changeover in membership, so please accept our apologies for not responding immediately. The term "in good standing" is an imprecise one capable of being taken strictly or loosely. Could you help us by pointing to recent examples where you feel you have been suffering through the presumed continuation of these remedies? ] (]) 16:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Raul654 on behalf of the committee on November 14 that one of the remedies against Everyking (parole on music articles) was being suspended for 3 months, but would automatically go back into effect 90 days later unless otherwise decided by the committee. This means that we will need to review Everyking's recent editing in early February so we can make this decision by February 12. For the sake of efficiency, I suggest that we review this request for relief from the remaining sanctions at the same time. | |||
| ::For those of us who were not active at the time of the prior decisions, the history of these cases (including even locating "Remedy 4" and "Remedy X") is a little bit difficult to follow. Either now or when this request is renewed in February, could either Everyking or a Clerk please provide a more complete set of links and a quick summary of the history? Thank you. ] (]) 16:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Brad's suggestion of hearing everything together in February is all right by me, although of course I would prefer if it was heard now—these sanctions have been in place for an extraordinarily long time. My editing on pop music articles has varied very little over quite a long span of time and I don't see how it could be expected to be any different in February, so I see no reason that issue could not be conclusively decided at the present time as well. | |||
| :::The key issue concerning the effect my arbitration sanctions have on me is that very many people simply will not vote for someone with ongoing sanctions in an RfA. Some of those opposing said that they would be willing to vote for me when the sanctions expired, which was understood to be in Nov. 2007, but as it turned out the ruling was interpreted (at least by Raul) to mean that certain aspects of it remained in place even after that point. I don't have many other clear examples, although I think there is a widespread subtle effect; because I have stayed out of disputes for so long there have been few occasions for people to blatantly batter me with reminders of my low status. In October, after some articles were deleted purely because the person who wrote them was believed to be a banned user (I believe that content should be judged on its merits and not based on its author), I requested that ] provide me with copies of the articles so that I could determine if they were suitable and potentially vouch for them, or at least put them through WP:DRV, and he told me that he would not because I was not a "user in good standing". I never obtained the copies and as far as I know the articles are still deleted. ] (]) 21:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Responding to your last point, the circumstances surrounding the particular banned user are exceptional, as I believe you are aware. As someone who generally supports giving second chances to users, I strongly advise that you would probably be better served by not using your interchange with Lar as an example of something that the remedies have prevented you from doing. ] (]) 23:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::OK, well, if we're going to get into a discussion of strategy here: I thought about not mentioning that because some people have particular feelings about the issue, but it was the best example I could think of in recent memory, and he asked for specific examples. ] (]) 00:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| My appeal request was removed by somebody "per arbitrator request" (nobody notified me; I had to dig through the history to figure out what happened) although no arbitrators ever voted on it and the two who commented on it did so in such a way as to not indicate any clear viewpoint. The arbitrators should either accept my request or reject it, not silently sweep it under the rug. I am thus restoring it and ask that the arbitrators actually address it in some form or another. I am a Wikipedian, I have been working continuously on this project under their restrictions, and I think I deserve something more than this silent, unexplained form of rejection. ] (]) 23:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I had suggested that this be archived for now because I thought you had accepted (albeit reluctantly) that we could deal with all asoects of the restrictions continuing or not next month. Sorry about any confusion. ] (]) 12:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Request for extension of restrictions at ]=== | |||
| I am requesting an extension of sanctions against DreamGuy, to add restrictions on abusive sockpuppetry and edit-warring, along with the civility restrictions from the October 2007 ArbCom case. | |||
| {{user5|DreamGuy}} has been systematically using anon sockpuppets in an abusive manner, to avoid scrutiny and sanctions. This is a violation of ]: ''It is a violation of this policy to create alternate accounts — or to edit anonymously without logging in to your account — in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.'' | |||
| It is therefore my request that the sanctions should be extended to cover: | |||
| * Abusive sockpuppetry, meaning that the editing restriction should be extended to state that DreamGuy is to make all of his edits under the DreamGuy account. | |||
| * Edit-warring. During various incidents since the October 2007 ruling, there have been multiple examples of DreamGuy edit-warring (see ]), but a block was not issued, because the ArbCom sanctions did not specifically include edit-warring. I would therefore like to see the sanctions extended to cover this, such as to put him on a limit of one revert per article per day. | |||
| For further details, please see: ] | |||
| --]]] 01:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Given the level of IP usage by DreamGuy, I would suggest that remedies are extended, limiting DreamGuy to using only his one account and no editing through IP's - his edits often go undetected for a while and make blocks punitive. Likewise I see edit warring from the account and a motion to include edit warring looks to be a good idea. ] 01:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would support this, just so long as the restrictions specifically state that he is not to edit from IPs as well. ] 02:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :<s>Did something happen recently? It's difficult to tell from the above. If not, why fix what isn't broken? ]</s> 03:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I still don't see how he violated his restrictions, specifically. Eloka's report suffers from inaccuracies. And isn't there ''a priori'' bad blood? ] 03:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: (edit conflict) Yes, yet another Checkuser was filed by yet another user, which alerted me to the fact that DreamGuy is using yet another anon to avoid sanctions, despite multiple admins telling him in the past that he has to stop doing this. DreamGuy keeps repeating, "There's no rule that says you have to login." And yet, ] says exactly that, that you ''do'' have to login if other editors have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. DreamGuy didn't just "forget" to login once or twice, he's been avoiding his DreamGuy account, and has been systematically using an anon for weeks. See my report at ] for details. --]]] 03:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::That dosen't answer the question about bad blood, so I'll pose for the third time. As for the login-in requirement — so long as there's no troubles from those ips, I don't think that sockpuppet clause can be invoked, as much as some may take an interest in his contributions, he has a right to edit without login-in. I asked you about these troubles and you said: "bad faith and uncivil comments. Just look at his contribs." I don't really have time to review these in their totality, so again, please provide diffs. Thx. ] 03:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::He's using IP's to evade transparency in his editing. He's under arbitration restrictions, and by using IP's, he stops the possibility of having his contribs looked at. ] 12:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't understand El C's point. Is he saying that an editor engaged in a revert war can use up his 3RR allowance in his registered identity and then be granted an extra 3 reverts unregistered (and then go back to the registered identity ad infinitum thus having a six for the price of three revert allowance). Is that legal or not? I am a complete duffer when it comes to wikilawyering and would like some clarification on that point! If the same person is using a registered and unregistered identity in tandem is that classed as one user or as two users on the 3RR rule? ] (]) 16:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::This is a red herring. Of course nobody can violate 3RR by signing out and using an IP address. That's not at issue here. I am not using a registered account and an IP address in tandem and am not violating any policy. There are no 3RR violations, attempts to pretend to be another party to confuse people, or anything else. ] (]) 20:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| This is simply ridiculous. Elonka has been making false accusations of sockpuppeting for years as part of her longstanding grudge against me, which came to a head recently when she was up for admin (in which Ryan Postlethewaite was her biggest supporter, accusing me of lying about harassing emails Elonka sent, etc.). In fact, her history of falsely accusing me of sockpuppets to try to get her way was in discussion as part of her admin application, and, whattya know, now that she's an admin right away she's continuing on with it. Her accusations here are nothing more than a major violation of ] -- In effect, she wants me punished or restricted in some way because she assumes, without any evidence, that I am up to no good. The bottom line here is that there are no rules here that I or people in general here HAVE to edit signed on if they have an account, and considering that it's all too easy to end up not signed in anymore after you change browsers or the cookie expires or whatever, is a good thing. None of my edits on IP address has violated any sanctions or indeed any policy on Misplaced Pages whatsoever... This is just a desperate attempt by Elonka to find any excuse she can come up with to harass me some more. Please note also how Elonka assisted Jack1957 in filing the false sockpuppet report this time around. She really needs to demonstrate some of that good faith and letting go of personal conflicts she promised, and if she is unwilling to do that she needs to be told to stop making false accusations and trying to invent trouble.. ] (]) 20:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : No, I had nothing to do with Jack1956 ], he did that completely on his own. The first I heard of it, or your latest anon, was when I saw that the Checkuser page had been updated. I did advise Jack1956, after he filed that report, that he should probably inform the affected editors. I have also informed him about this extension request, since his name is ]. But that's the extent of it. So no, I'm not "behind" this latest checkuser, I'm just reporting what I'm seeing, and recommending that the sanctions be extended to prevent further evasion. --]]] 20:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Can I just confirm that no one has 'put me up' to filing a sockpuppet report concerning Dreamguy. I did it entirely myself after noticing what I recognised as Dreamguy's editing style coming out of another anon. account. As this anonymous editing had been going on for days while Dreamguy's regular account was dormant raised suspicions in my mind, valid or otherwise. I do not accept that some one 'forgets' to log in for days on end. I ''can'' accept that it happens from time to time, but not consistently in this manner. ] (]) 21:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Dreamguy consistently "forgets" to log in and continues causing problems in the editwarring/civility departments until someone notices the IP is him. He's been asked not to do it multiple times and doesn't seem to want to do so voluntarily. Since he is already under ArbCom restrictions, it seems incredibly reasonable to ask him not to avoid scrutiny in this manner. Lets get past this "you can't sanction me because Elonka and I don't get along" nonsense once and for all. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *I would point out as well, that the last time this occurred (immediately prior to his last ArbCom enforcement ), he had been editing anonymously - ''and then supported them as DreamGuy'' (posting within 15 minutes as first the and then as , supporting the anon user's edits). He of course denied ever using the IP account, despite having been asked about it. The fact that he evaded answering the pointed inquiries as to his usage of the account ''clearly'' indicate that he is well aware of the sticky issues regarding editing anonymously. And since this isn't the first or even third time this specific problem has occurred, it might seem like the proper time to perhaps deliver a stronger message that this is not going to be tolerated by users in Misplaced Pages, and is certainly not going to be tolerated by users currently under behavioral restriction. editing anonymously allows DG to act as he will (and again, its indicated that this anon activity has ''yet again'' been uncivil), specifically thumbing his nose at the ArbCom restrictions. I don't care how good an editor he is - if we allow his behavior to continue, what do we say to other editors who contribute less and act as poorly when they point to the non-enforcement of behavioral restrictions? - ] ] 05:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::''(as per a request for clarification as to the socking and other events, I have provided diffs and links for the things I've pointed out.'' - ] ] 06:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)) | |||
| These efforts in support of Elonka's attempt to extend DG's sanctions appear spurious and needlessly longwinded. It is also, blatantly, a punitive one, unless the ip/s can be demonstrated to have been abusive, ''recently''. Her subpage looks dated, poorly organized, and convoluted. ] 06:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I have to disagree here, if you edit anonymously in the same way that caused you to be sanctioned by Arbcom in the first place, that's a clear case of evasion/circumvention of the penalties. Unless the policy is in dispute (or the facts are in error) it's pretty clear: "Evading sanctions ''will'' cause the timer to restart, and ''may'' lengthen the duration of the sanctions." (italics mine) . ] (]) 09:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Now all we need is proof that DG "edit anonymously in the same way that caused to be sanctioned." Any recent diff will do. ] 09:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Without prejudice, "recent" is an additional qualifier not found in policy. All that would need to be shown is that the violation was made during the same time period as the sanction. The point of socking is usually to avoid detection, that one does it successfully for a while does not earn exemption (or a cookie). ] (]) 10:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC) (add: lest anyone think I'm here to keep arguing this will most likely be my last post on this topic -] (])) | |||
| ::::If there hasn't been any violation in months, then we can, and should, assume good faith about conduct having been refomred. ] 10:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Okay, while I think that it has been pointed out that the behavior under the anon wasn't very civil, it seems clear that El_C thinks we should AGF with DreamGuy yet again. I think that anything else that pops up ont he radar about DG should be directed immediately to El_C or Dmcdevit, so they can act on the matter quickly enough that. As a matter of timely action repeatedly seems to be the deciding factor in this matter, let's all stay on our toes and be sure to report anything that occurs right away. Satisfactory? - | |||
| ::::::What about your behaviuor? I keep asking for evidence, you keep responding with , and round & round we go. ] 10:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If DG lost his patient due to this sort of tendentious conduct, I can't blame him. ] 10:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * He has within the last few days ''twice'' reverted my sourced and referenced edits on ], once as Dreamguy and once as the anon. user, putting in unsourced and unreferenced material instead. ] (]) 11:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :*That's not proof of a violation, or anything. He is allowed to revert "twice within a few days." It looks like he argued that you were presenting the "sourced and referenced" additions as ].<sup></sup> It's a content dispute. ] 11:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::At ] Dreamguy has appeared in three different identities (two unregistered numbers and his registered Dreamguy name) between 3rd and the 9th of Jan. of this year. As I know nothing about wikilawyering I am not saying that this is right or wrong, but, for what its worth, it's a fact. He has used each of the identities to revert one other editor's (not me) contributions. This might confuse some editors who might assume that they are dealing with a majority three editors against one editorial conflict, wheras it is just one against one. ] (]) 11:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::One could always ask the two ips if they are him: assuming good faith and focusing on the contributors not the contributor/s. People are permitted to edit when from ips, and some people edit from different places. ] 11:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Okay, I will ask him. I assume thay are the same as Dreamguy from past experience as an editor on the wikipedia: they both use the same confrontational language and both revert stuff without talking about it on the talk page. But that is not really my point. My point is that neophyte editors might assume that there is a concensus against their edit if they see three seemingly different editors reverting their stuff. Therefore swapping between registered and unregistered gives one an advantage in an edit war if the other editor doesn't know that the three are one and the same person. The neophyte editor might think: 'The concensus is against me: I will withdraw my obnoxious edit!' That seems to me unfair: but once again I must state that I'm not a wikilawyer and if it is permissable to use three different identities in the space of 6 days engaged in the same revert war then I'm fine with that! ] (]) 11:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I don't think that that incident counts as a revert war,; and ] is a very negative term here. ] 11:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| I presented lengthy evidence documenting possible sock puppetry during this case, . Since a ] has just established Asgardian has edited using an ip address in a manner violation of the arbitration ruling, does this mean new sanctions need to be considered, or should we stick to the prohibitions listed in the case outcome? ] <small>] </small> 21:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC) <edited to add link to checkuser request and clarify a point, ] <small>] </small> 21:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)> | |||
| :Any uninvolved administrator can take action against an editor who sockpuppets to avoid an ArbCom restriction. Reports of infractions should be posted to ]. ] (]) 01:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Remedy extension in ]=== | |||
| Per the discussion regarding a new case for Armenia-Azerbaijan articles, I'd like to make a proposed remedy extension for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case. We're at the point now where it's clear the the previous remedies do not go far enough and administrators should be given greater authority to deal with the disruption in articles relating to this case. It's important that the committee make it clear that any form of disruption (not just limited to incivility '''with''' edit warring) will no longer be permitted on these articles. My proposal is as follows; | |||
| :''To address the disruptive editing that has taken place on Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles, any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing (including, but not limited to ] or ]) on these or related articles may be placed on ] by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to either cases, or any other user after a warning has been given. The administrator shall notify the user on his or her talkpage and make an entry on ]. Users placed under probation are limited to one revert, <s>per page,</s> per week and any revert (except for obvious vandalism) should be accompanied by an explanation on the article talk page. They are also required to be civilised in all discussions and in edit or log summaries. Any uninvolved administrator may place an article ban on a user that breaks the terms of their probation, or block the user for a period of up to one week. After five such blocks or bans, the maximum length of a block is increased to one year. All bans and block are to be logged at ].'' | |||
| ] 18:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :This would be a welcome improvement to address the fact that these editors have learnt to edit war civilly, however it does not address the core of the problem: they edit war as a united front, so attempts to reform individuals result in anon edits, socks, renames and other clued up approaches to keep the admins hands tied in frustrating ways. ] (]) 18:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I do appreciate all these concerns, but I'm not really sure what remedies could cover this - many of these issues are out of the scope of the ArbCom, and probably even the scope of the community. CheckUser of users couldn't be done at random, but obviously if there's clear sockpuppetry that could be dealt with via the usual channels. I've struck through, one revert, '''per page,''' per week - obviously we need to limit the disruption here, and one revert per week stops the users moving around every article uinder the scope of the decision and reverting it once. ] 18:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The "no speeding" sign of ''one revert per week'' is a good idea. The wording of the rest of it is also acceptable provided it is clearly understood that this remedy is applicable to any anon or freshly minted user that steps into an existing debate or rekindles an old one. In order to avoid throw away accounts being used to do reverts, it would be advisable for the uninvolved admin to also revert when this occurs. Due to past experience, it would also be helpful if it was made clear that ] and ] does not apply to Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles. ] (]) 20:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *I think it would be best to stick as closely as possible to the original wording, just without the incivility clause: | |||
| {{cquote|Any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner may be placed on revert limitation, civility supervision, and supervised editing by any uninvolved administrator, such restrictions to take effect after a notice has been placed on the editor's talk page and logged at ].}} | |||
| :Civility supervision, revert limitation, and supervised editing have been described previously in the case and at ]. This allows maximum flexibility. So far we have made little use of the supervised editing restriction (allowing an admin to ban an editor from an article or topic for a period of time or indefinitely) but I think we need to start moving away from mechanical 1RR limits that encourage vexatious litigation ("his rationale was insufficient") and toward broader more permanent sanctions. ] 06:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| === Request for increased enforcement ] === | |||
| A previous request by ] was declined ] in April however the the pattern of disruption has continued, has been experienced by non-affiliated editors, and evidence of the disruption being due to the same editor using a succession of different accounts has been built up. Yes, the article has improved substantially due the input of editors with no association with the article subject, however the disruption is something the article, and other editors, could well do without. Relevant sockpuppet reports are . | |||
| The pattern of disruption usually involves editing with contempt for consensus, edit waring, taunting other editors based on their affiliation, incivility and ranting against the article subject. Strong enforcement of ], ], ] and ] would effectively screen out the disruption. | |||
| I have tried using normal dispute resolution methods but this is getting tiring for me, other editors who have dropped by to help and also the admins that have to deal with the constant requests for help. Regards ] (]) 13:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :'''I suggest that there has been little to no "disruption" at all and this is just another preemptive strike by an individual that admits to be part of the organization in question, a new religious movements' called the ], own Internet PR Team; and is acting in accordance with the organization's PR aims. An individual that has invested a huge amount of time, effort and admins' energy in attempt to control the topic for his affiliated organization.''' | |||
| :To state this for the sake of new admins coming to this issue is hardly "taunting". It is a statement of fact. I hope that eventually the Misplaced Pages admins will appreciate this for what it is. Simon has become incredibly skilled in his manipulation of Misplaced Pages admins and constructing accusations. | |||
| :Let's look at the timing of this and the collusion of yet another BKWSU contributor, ]. Bksimonb requests an early unprotection, ] reverts and accuses vandalism, attacks etc. Both complain to admins etc. Bksimonb puts RfA. | |||
| :Putting aside the loaded and hysterical language, the seemingly endless accusations and complaints, if we look at the differences between the BKWSU's chosen version, the main differences are really; | |||
| :* the removal of weblink to an informed independent website that makes public and openly discusses the BKWSU's core teachings, the only independent website about the organization and one that the BKWSU's USA trust spent considerable amount of money attempting to recent silence via legal action and failed to do so. | |||
| :* the attempt to play down the centrality of channelling and mediumship to its practises. The channelling and mediumship of a spirit guide its followers are told is God and a centrality which illfits with its public face and political ambitions. | |||
| :* the instant removal and erasure of considerable time and effort made making neutral and beneficial formatting ... etc the 65 edits, here;. | |||
| : Personally, I just want to get on and contribute to the Misplaced Pages. I am sick of being the target of these people. I know the subjects I edit on. I add form, content and provide citations. It gives me no pleasure to be continually subjected to wasting admin's time and constantly tripping over the stumbling blocks these people are persistently using in an attempt to exclude me. | |||
| : I am happy to discuss this in detail and supply all the diffs that illustrate just exactly what Simon and the BKWSU are up to if required. but, frankly, the Misplaced Pages admins cannot see this for what it is by looking at nature and amount of complaints this individual has made, then I am afraid that I would wasting my time. | |||
| : References; | |||
| * Suspected sock puppet | |||
| * BKWSU IT violation | |||
| * ] pattern | |||
| * Long term use of affiliation to discredit | |||
| * {{user5|1=Bksimonb}} | |||
| * {{user5|1= 76.79.146.8}} | |||
| : --] (]) 18:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::As a remedy I am asking for strong enforcement of Misplaced Pages's policies. If this causes a problem then it is clear where that problem lies. I am not asking for unilateral enforcement. I am happy for the same rules to apply to me and other editors. It is clear from the above post that there is a strong bias against the ] and a rather obvious attempt to discredit me and other editors based on our affiliation and non-agreement with the the above editor's own views. In the above post alone I am being accused, as if it were some indisputable fact, of "collusion", "PR", "preemptive strike", "manipulation" and censorship. In fact, I am most grateful for the above post as it clearly illustrates the problem. Regards ] (]) 05:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with the need for enforcement of Misplaced Pages's policies. In particular ] where it states; | |||
| :::'''" Editing in the interests of public relations is particularly frowned upon. This includes, but is not limited to, edits made by public relations departments of corporations; or of other public or private for-profit or not-for-profit organizations; or by professional editors paid to edit a Misplaced Pages article with the sole intent of improving that organization's image."''' | |||
| :::BK Simon B is a member, if not leader, of the ] Internet PR team. In fact, I think the correct title is "core Internet PR team". The Internet PR team of the organization in question. If Simon choses to deny this, here, then I am happy to provide evidence to support this assertion. He is and has been supported by other BK followers (BK is the title followers given themselves) and they also work together to suppress other internet source, e.g. they (Simon and other BK Misplaced Pages editors) recently acted in a failed attempt to close down an independent website via a domain name dispute. This is the same domain that BK Simon and the other BK contributors keep removing from the article; http://www.brahmakumaris.info. | |||
| :::I do not think it is fair that the Misplaced Pages's admins have their time used up protecting the PR interests of a new religious movement but that it is only in this context can we understand what is going on here. | |||
| :::The BKWSU has invests a considerable amount of money on its public face and generally keeps hidden from newcomers the more extreme elements of its beliefs, e.g. | |||
| :::* the practise of mediumship or channelling of a spirit they claim is God himself via their mediums at the Indian headquarters | |||
| :::* the belief is a 5,000 year Cycle of time that repeats identically | |||
| :::* numerous failed predictions of the End of the World in which 6 Billion are meant to die so that 900,000 of their faithful followers will inherit a Golden Age heaven on earth (all, of course, backed up by independent, academic sources). | |||
| :::* their historical revision and superiority as God's chosen religion | |||
| :::The last year or more has been one long war of attrition in which the BK followers, with varying degrees of finesse and investment in gaming the Misplaced Pages system, have attempt to distort the topic to hide these core, identifying elements to bring the topic inline with the 'vanilla' version presented on their websites. This gaming continues with a barrage of complaints, accusations, unfounded vituperative depending each time on some new admin or contributor not knowing the history and not knowing the organization. | |||
| :::I think it is wrong that the Misplaced Pages allows this waste of volunteers resources. I think this individual has made a disproportionate amount of complaints underling his and his organization's single intent ... which is to break the spirit of any informed, independent contributor and push their PR agenda. Even the Scientology article includes independent websites and external links. --] (]) 08:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Just an outside view from a regular user, but the article is on probation and adding unnecessarily positive or negative stuff without ] seems to be against the terms of this. The remedy reads, "Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee", which both sides appear to have done in the section above. Also in Principles: "Users with a deep personal involvement with a subject who edit in a disruptive, aggressive biased manner may be banned from editing the affected article or articles, per ]." ] has a self-declared conflict of interest, and per ] as cited in the arbitration, needs to consider whether the edits are promoting his organisation, or promoting the ]. I can't tell exactly what has been added by the user, but I made a of Lucy's revert which gives some clue as to what matters are under dispute. The article was reverted to the pre-Lucy version and immediately full-protected by ] on ] ]. I am unsure at this stage whether ] also has a conflict of interest in the opposite direction - user commenced editing on 21 December 2007 and, strangely, their main edits have not been focused on this article. However, their reference to the BKWSU Internet Team in their very first edit to the page suggests they may be a historic participant in the dispute. ] 08:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm going to have a go at trying to get this one on track - it does seem to have rather gone off the rails. If Misplaced Pages policies were strictly enforced here it would be necessary to ban everybody involved, which while resulting in peace and a complete end to edit warring on the article, would certainly not be a desirable outcome. Strict enforcement of the rules before has led to a situation where it appears the article overly favours one side, is far from encyclopaedic and needs a lot of sourcing. I'm acting purely as a content editor and negotiator with no past history and no particular views on the subject, and am quite happy to defer to arbitrators on any matter. ] 09:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Hi ]. Although I obviously find some of your initial assessment challenging the important thing for me is that you are prepared to work with us, and I really appreciate that. As far as COI issues are concerned I have tried my best to act within limits and leave the most drastic edits to outside editors who have dropped by. I appreciate that it probably doesn't look that way without a detailed analysis of the article history and talk archives. I don't expect you to do that so I'll just take it all on the nose for now knowing that everything will transpire in it's own time if you stick around. Regards ] (]) 12:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I would have to disagree with you ], the article is, or at least has been prior to the BKs revision, very highly sourced. It lists all the major and many minor BK sources. One of the problem it has suffered is the BKs team persistently removing not just references and citations but also perfectly good copy and formatting edits. This is not bitching, the history demonstrates it and it worth studying. The purpose has surely been the same as all the admin complaints; a bad will disincentive for any informed non-BKWSU contributors. | |||
| :::::::'''I am sorry but although I have been cautioned to let this go, I must ask for action to be taken on the obvious ] by the Internet PR team'''. Fine, a Christian editing a page on Christianity, that is acceptable. But the representative of the "Core Internet PR Team" of the organization warring on the organizations own topic, I am afraid that really is too much given all the illwill. | |||
| :::::::Whilst doing my laundry, I made a spreadsheet of this individual; {{user5|1=Bksimonb}} | |||
| :::::::Of 1266 edits only a handful were not related to the BKWSU. Going by the summaries alone (approximately ... my attention to detail has some limits) | |||
| :::::::*103 were Administrator requests related to the BKWSU (including 26 "Reports" and 50 re "enforcement") | |||
| :::::::*76 were "Suspicions", e.g. "Suspected" complaints related to the BKWSU, | |||
| :::::::*76 Revision of non-BKWSU contributors | |||
| :::::::*88 related to Sockpuppets accusations related to the BKWSU | |||
| :::::::*69 Related directed to Adminstrators noticeboard related to the BKWSU protection | |||
| :::::::*13 checkusers complaints related to the BKWSU | |||
| :::::::*13 POVs related to the BKWSU | |||
| :::::::*3 were page delete requests related to the BKWSU | |||
| :::::::'''This equals approximately 428 non-constructive edits, or a third of the total. These are then mirrored by the other BKs such {{user5|1=Appledell}}. I suggest this is disproportionate to the value to the Misplaced Pages, the time and efforts of other volunteers.''' I think I can find 4 time he actually added a reference, the rest are just passing judgement on or removing other's work. | |||
| :::::::In his original arbcom statement he writes, "we (] Internet PR Team have no problem with critical websites". But then in reality, he and other members of the BKWSU team both persistently remove all independent websites links from the article under a variety of guises and work together on a failed legal attack to silence the leading one. As I state before, even the Scientologists are mature enough to allow criticism and critical links on their topic. | |||
| :::::::Surely it would be naive of us not to consider that "creating a problem" is in order to achieve an end result within which even uninformed inaccuracies are better than referenced precision. --] (]) 13:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Comment''' Certainly there are some pro-BK or BK-affiliated editors working here. There are also some people committed to "exposing the truth" about BK. Interestingly, brand new editor {{user|Lucyintheskywithdada}} is making exactly the same arguments as a number of previous editors, including the editor who used 195.82.106.244 and was banned for making personal attacks. The "truth" about BK often comes from alleged internal BK documents that are in the possession of former members, and which do not meet the reliable source guidelines, although I understand there has been improvement in this area. Ultimately, the ] that passed had unique wording that makes it unenforceable except by the Arbitration committee. What is needed therefore is a review by the Committee to determine whether the current disputes are within the normal scope of the dispute resolution process (thus directing the parties to RFC, mediation etc.) or whether the disruption is sufficient to adopt a more muscular remedy. ] 02:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd like to make a factual correction here. | |||
| ::The "internal BK documents" that have been referred to as such by the BK editors, or debate with regards to this topic, are the channeled messages believed to be God speaking through their mediums called the Murlis. It was discovered that some at least had been published with an ISBN number after all but, in principle, it is accepted that the main body are disallowed. Other early sources of literature, including Indian ones are all taken from publicly sources are equally held by the BKWSU. So there can be no controversy over these. | |||
| ::There is some inconsistency towards the use of BKWSU produced materials, e.g. the BK editors refusing certain publications but then using other publication or their websites to support their own claims, e.g. that charity projects are theirs, where the documentation appears to support they are not BK ventures. The debate has really be about "who" gets to use and chose them, i.e. whether they are a BK or not; what is a "contentious" citation or not and the guiding principle being whether or not it matches their current publicity or not. | |||
| ::We are dealing with a very specific and narrow topic here with relatively little literature. Any contributor coming forward is going to rely on the same sources and references. I would suggest that there would be no contention at all if Bksimonb and the other BKs were not pursuing their policy of total reversion over even utterly neutral edits (typos, formatting etc) ... and ] by way of killing the message. | |||
| ::''I think what the topic needs is a chance to develop without persistent and personalised BKWSU censorship before motives are assigned. To that end, I am asking the committee to extend some trust and allow us to do so.'' | |||
| ::I also think the article needs to be split into a number of others to allow each aspect to be covered in detail, again something the BKs keep disallowing. Part of the problem is a simple dispute caused by the artificial constraint imposed by insisting it all fits onto one page. | |||
| ::I am not a new editor. I joined as {{user5|1=Lwachowski}} but forgot my password, I rejoined and immediate drew admin attention to this as AWachowski attempting to recover my original account. My diffs are here if they are to be criticised . Please do. | |||
| ::Despite making clear the change of name, these were reported by Bksimonb and disallowed with any chance of comment because they were either too similar (of course, they were meant to be!) or the name of a real person (Wachowski is a fair common name in Poland) forcing me to register another name {{user5|Creationcreator}}. | |||
| ::Creationcreator was then contrived to be a sockpuppet account by Bksimonb and reported again on two separate occasions using the L/AWachowski change of name despite his knowing clearly that I had lost a password and made efforts to have it official changed. No checkuser was made other alleged accounts. None of these have ever been used consecutively. | |||
| ::I am happy to use one account IF I can be left alone without an obvious policy of exclusion by the BKWSU PR guy Simonb ... and if it can be recognised what is going on. Please note again the collusion; . | |||
| ::I am being open here in trust and good faith, with all the attendant risks. I make no effort to hide this. This not sockpuppetry. --] (]) 10:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Could the parties and/or administrators with the relevant background please clarify whether this is a request for enforcement of the existing remedies from the prior arbitrator, or whether the committee is being asked to clarify the remedies or enact new ones? If the latter, please clarify exactly what is being proposed or requested. Thank you. ] (]) 16:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The existing ] states only that the parties may ask for a review; it does not have the usual enforcement provisions such as allowing admins to issue topic bans for disruptive editing. Bksimonb appears to be asking that the article be placed on standard article probation so that admins could hand out topic bans and so forth. I have not reviewed the content or recent contribs/talk page to see whether Bksimonb is correct in his assessment that certain editors are disruptive (as opposed to merely disagreeing with him). ] 16:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would appreciate input from administrators active on Arbitration Enforcement (including Thatcher) regarding whether a Review case is warranted and/or whether a motion to add the standard enforcement provisions to the decision should be adopted. ] (]) 17:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I apologise for asking this but I would appreciate if the arbcom would look at enacting new remedy with regards to the "core BKWSU Internet PR team" and ]. I also have posted recently on the talk page noting the involvement of ; ]/]/]. I have been cautioned about persisting in the use of the above term but it is the organization's official term for the group, under the BKWSU USA leadership, which ] represents. --] (]) 15:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I request that ] and all relevant incarnations he admits to above be blocked for persistent violation of WP:NPA and WP:OWN. | |||
| :::::I am an outside editor trying to work in good faith on the article and each time I ask a question for clarification, suggest that he create a sandbox, or otherwise engage in in consensus building, he reverts to personal attacks or WP:Own. I've gone to a great deal of effort to research the articles and most recently acquired a copy of the book that Lucy suggested getting (Walliss's book) yet he continues his relentless attacks. | |||
| :::::For example of violation of WP:NPA, scroll to the end of this entry . | |||
| :::::, , and are clear examples of ]. | |||
| :::::::From ]: ''"An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the revert altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it."'' | |||
| :::::Lucy's repeated diversionary tactics (including filing checkusers, reports here, etc.) and disruptive talk page edits demonstrate his unwillingness to discuss substance and build consensus in good faith. He is violating arbcomm's ruling that current and former associates refrain from personal attacks and aggressive edits. Please block. ] (]) 17:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| There appears to be a lot of allegations, accusations etc flying around, and that's actually the main problem at present - I think the content issues have all but faded into the background while each of them accuse each other of various violations of policy and/or being sockpuppets. If the parties can set that aside and work together, there would not be a need for a review. If they are unable to, it's probably the only option. I don't think an encyclopaedic article is impossible from the people and sources available. ] 00:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : In response to NYB's request - the review request seems to have been made as part of a campaign by one side of the dispute against the other side of the dispute, a continuance of a pattern which extends back some months. Said other side has come in and made allegations/launched processes in response. Past enforcement of the ArbCom, whose decision was a broadly sensible one, by admins viewing individual / out-of-context requests (without criticising any of them, as it took me days to determine where things were at) has sadly been narrow in focus and has been gamed somewhat by involved editors, particularly those on the BK side. The response of course has been the other party turning to increasing degrees of shrillness, which we're seeing above in the bolding of paragraphs and bizarre allegations. The unfortunate reality is that this article is a mess, one needs to be something of a subject expert to wade through it and improve it (I've actually read a lot of source documents in recent days), and the few here who have that expertise are small in number and have a history of conflict with each other. ] 03:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: I would appreciate a more thorough investigation. I can't really go along with some of the above assessment. Firstly the "shrillness", bolding of paragraphs, presumptions of bad faith, soapboxing and bizarre allegations are something I encountered right from the very first time I posted . What you call "gaming" is just what happens when help is requested and there is no response. One naturally tries escalating the issue. I've always tried to be as reasonable as possible but when in the absence of any feedback at all when I've signaled an issue, I can't really be expected to know how to proceed or what, if anything, I was doing wrong at the time. Regards ] (]) 17:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I should add that I have no complaint regarding arbcom and arbcom enforcement. The problem is in finding any useful feedback or response with lower forms of dispute resolution. For example, should any editor have to spend a year and a half being constantly harassed regarding their affiliation ? Regards ] (]) 18:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I should note I'm not in ArbCom, am not a clerk, etc, so my "investigation" carries the weight only of my own opinion, as much as that may be regarded or ridiculed in some quarters - I'm an admin, I've been a user for almost two years, and I'm trying to use my experience to end a dispute in a good-faith manner, however impossible a task that seems. I come from outside the dispute and until 30 December had no exposure to any of the disputants. My concern is simply that most of the action reports which have led to actions being taken have been initiated by yourself. Then you point to those actions as evidence that the community is acting on your concerns, and use your own reports as justifications for other reports. When you are in a position of an identified conflict of interest regarding the article, and all your reports are about people who disagree with you, while people who agree with you appear to have gotten off, you can understand the problem for Misplaced Pages and the community in trusting the soundness of these reports and actions. In addition it appears that these actions on your part may have assisted in escalating the dispute which has continued for well over a year now and shows few if any signs of ending soon. ] 22:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I appreciate your efforts to end the dispute. However I must protest that I have never reported someone simply because they disagreed with me. I report editors who blatantly ignore consensus, constantly make crazy accusations against other contributers and the article subject, use the talk page as a soapbox for propaganda, use anonymous IPs (probably proxies) and other accounts abusively and taunt editors on their talk pages and in edit comments. Is this really a normal part of the editing process we should be expected to live with? I would have thought that editors who behave in such a way have effectively forfeited any right to be a part of any editing process. It's kind of disheartening. It's like my house constantly gets burgled and when I complain to the police they say I am part of the problem because I complain so much. Nice. Regards ] (]) 05:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Did BKSimon ever put in a complaint against BKWSU editors who did the same, e.g. Riveros ? Why so few citations in comparison to blocks, bans, and reversions? I am sorry but we have to see all this talk of "consensus" for what it is; media control. | |||
| :::::: The organization has considerable personal and material resources and yet throughout the history of the topic has done, basically nothing to add value (by which I mean citations and references) whilst engaging in cover up. Please allow us the chance to develop the topic without the organization's own censorship. | |||
| :::::: This is why, following the involvement of ] I would like a checkuser to be allowed on ]. | |||
| :::::: I suspect they are {{user5|1=Reneeholle}} as the edits patterns match and our experience is similar to that on the ] and related admin complaints. | |||
| :::::: Personally, I would just like some peace of mind that it is not {{user5|1=IPSOS}} or {{user5|1=Riveros11}} back again under another guise. I am not asking for a punitive results, just a commitment to openness and straightforwardness. --] (]) 07:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| === Requested motions to ] === | |||
| I request that the Committee consider the following motions. It is not clear where request for motions in a prior cases ought be placed, so could the clerks move this to the right spot if this is not it. Thanks. ] (]) 18:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :<small>'''Clerk note''': I have moved these requests to the "requests for clarifications" section as probably the best place for them. I agree with Marting that it is not clear from the instructions where a request for relief from a prior decision should be posted. ] (]) 21:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)</small> | |||
| The Committee will be discussing these motions soon-ish. They have move toward the top of our To-do-list. ] (]) 22:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Suspension of bans for both ] and ] ==== | |||
| It is now obvious, after an initial bit of confusion and subsequent clarification, that the remedy 11 ] will be most effective in combating incivility, which was the core issue of this case. No one was calling for year long bans for either party in the original case, in fact most involved and uninvolved were explicitly against any ban, as ] succinctly argued here and seconded by many others including ] and ] in ]. Note too that Digwuren did make a reflective and conciliatory statement aplogising to those he had wronged and forgiving those who had wronged him ]. Compare this to the ], where there was a clear concensus for a ban and he was defiant and un-remorseful to the end. | |||
| :While a year is a long time, and shortening it may be useful, I'd like to see those users expressing remorse, telling us what they have learned and promising not to continue behavior that led to their ban before any shortening or suspension of a ban is considered.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 18:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I see no point in banning these editors, especially Petri, who unlike Digwuren, even sincerely apologized long before the case and was still punished for his actions taken prior to the apology, unlike Digwuren who continued to create "occupation" badwagons, revert war and bait contributors even while his arbitration was ongoing. Still, as far as Digwuren is concerned, I neither proposed nor supported a year-long ban. I have a very thick skin towards incivility and this aspect of his conduct did not bother me much. But if he is unblocked, he must be on the short leash regarding the number of reverts and ]. | |||
| Overall, I think that case needs a new hearing in light of how editors see it now in the retrospect and by the hopefully wisened up ArbCom as well. Also, there were several new developments, chiefly, editors using the "editing restrictions" to blockshop and vigorously "investigate" each other. This whole matter needs a fresh look, perhaps by a renewed Arbcom after the election which is almost over. | |||
| I would object to selective reversals of the original decision. The case was handled badly in a hands-off-by-ArbCom-type way during the entire precedings. Selective return of Digwuren and doing nothing else would just make matters worse. Rehashing that decision overall may be a good thing and hearing all parties in an orderly way by the arbitrators who actually listned and engage would be a good thing though. --] 19:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I think most of the involved parties had findings of fact regarding revert warring. The differentiating aspect for Digwuren and Petri Krohn was using Misplaced Pages as a battleground. Note that the root cause of this battle was the Bronze soldier controversy, which has now largely resolved itself, the threat for further battling has significantly diminished. Also given that bans are in principle intended to stop further damage to Misplaced Pages, rather for retribution and punishment for its own sake, and they have already served some months of this ban, I see no reason to continue this ban, particularly since there seems a concensus against a ban in the first place, the parties have shown remorse as I have linked above and the Bronze soldier issues have dissipated. I am not asking for selective reversals, just a suspension. ] (]) 20:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Indeed, I would support suspension of the ban of Digwuren and Petri. It would make sense to match it with some sort of the revert parole and/or topic bans ] (]) 02:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I have to re-confirm my opinion since it has been mentioned above. Yes, I support the suspension of the ban of Digwuren and Petri since they are highly productive editors. The ban could be replaced by a restriction on the number of reverts per week if necessary.] (]) 20:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Strike ], ] and ] from the Involved parties list ==== | |||
| These people were offline long before the case even started, never participated in the case, and continue to be offline to this day. No or little evidence was presented against them and no finding of fact either. In fact they had absolutely no involvement in the issues of this case and were only mentioned because they were included in an earlier checkuser case. Note however it is a finding of fact that Petri Krohn used Misplaced Pages as a battleground, and the checkuser case against these and other Estonian users was a part of that warfare. We don't want to perpetuate this wrong against these three editors. | |||
| Therefore I ask ArbCom to amend the case such that their names are struck from the list of involved parties and thus the notices removed from their talk pages. In fact I made a similar motion to this effect ] during the case and it was seconded by the clerk ] at the time. I know it is a minor issue, but it is an important gesture that ArbCom ought to do to further heal the hurts and encourage them to return, particularly ] who has been an editor of good standing since 2005. | |||
| ==== Expand definition of "uninvolved admin" in ] ==== | |||
| The principle of involved admins not being permitted to issue blocks is founded on the issue of conflict of interest and that trust should be maintained in the impartiality of the blocking admin. Generally "involved" means personal involvement in the immediate issue or article. However, given that the span of this general restriction covers all of Eastern Europe, and the principle that trust should be maintained in the blocking admin's impartiality, and that political issues (the role of the Soviet Union and communism) is the basis for much of the conflict on Eastern Europe; the definition of "involved" should be expanded for this remedy to include admins with overt and obvious political view points or past significant involvment in content disputes within Eastern Europe | |||
| The recent episode concerning blocks issued by ] illustrates this problem. An admin with a "]" consisting of figures associated with communist oppression and terrorism wades into a dispute involving Eastern Europe, not only is this highly provocative, but alarm bells start ringing as to the impartiality of this admin. Note that this is same admin saw no problem with the behaviour of the ], uncivilly branding those who brought the complaint as "ethno-nationalist editors". This fact of questionable impartiality and lack of trust only served to inflame the situation resulting a commited and significant editor and wikiproject coordinator ] to leave the project. | |||
| While one must endeavour to assume good faith, never the less, there would be an issue of trust in the judgement of an admin if, to illustrate with an example, they had a vanity page consisting of images of Osama bin Ladin and Hezbollah on their user page wading in and handing out blocks in a dispute regarding Israeli related topic. Common sense dictates that controversial admins of questionable partiality should not be involved enforcing this remedy. | |||
| :Good point, but it all boils down to the issue of anonymity. El C at least declares some of his POV on his user page. I, for example, declare quite a few more things. Would you prefer to trust a user who declares nothing? How can we be sure if such declarations are truthful, and not ironic or simply deceptive? Looking back at the ] I still think all admins should be required to reveal their identity, education, and POVs... but I am well aware this will not fly. I think "uninvolved admin" should be one that is accepted by the parties; but of course that creates a possibility for the parties to evade judgment by refusing to accept any admin as uninvolved. Perhaps to avoid that but deal with the problem you outlined, we should have a procedure parties can lodge complains about admin's involvement, where this could be reviewed by other admins and if involvement is determined (something like CoI), the admin's action is reverted and warning issued? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 19:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Note that I am one of the most sought-after admins by both the Armenian and Azerbaijani factions. They never cared what is on my user page, they just care that I'm fair, and indeed I have such a record dating back years. Conversely, I've had pro-Palestinian groups or extreme-right Europeans refuse to have me as an uninvolved admin because I am fluent in Hebrew, requests which I always denied. ] 15:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :In this particluar case, I fear the problem isn't actual conflict of interest so much as ''perceived'' lack of impartiality. While people knowing ] may very well feel quite comfortable that he does not let his political leanings influence his judgment, the fact that they are very visible nonetheless will give the impression that he might be siding with one side of a debate, or "overcompensate" for the other. This does not mean that other editors with less visible politics would do a better job, but giving such ammo for complaints is probably a relatively bad idea. — ] <sup>]</sup> 17:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's important to assume good faith. You are not calling to ban people who exhibit the flag of Israel on their userpage from admin actions on Israeli-Palestinian issue, so why this? Both Azerbaijan and Armenia were former Soviet republics, why are editors there acting differently than editors here? The reason, I think, has more to do with a perceived <sup></sup> ''personal'' dispute than political (see for example the attempt by the user above to delete Bishzilla <sup>]</sup>). Anyway, I would gladly delete my user page, but such ruling need to be applied consistently, anticommunism should not be getting a priority because of easy targets. ] 20:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I tried to specifically make the point that I didn't feel your impartiality was at issue, and I'm sorry if you understood this differently. My point is that ''perception'' is the key here and that leaving the enforcement to another admin would not be so much more trouble. And, personally, yes I would expect someone who displayed an Israeli flag on their userpage to also avoid admin action in Israeli-Palestinian issue — not because I think them unable to act fairly and impartially, but because the ''appearance'' of impropriety is a probable source of heat. — ] <sup>]</sup> 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::], but I'll answer. Appearances do count (for example, I never edited the Communism article even once), but ''this'' is far from it. What about someone displaying the American flag in relation to articles about 911 or modern Iraq? Some would have me cease enforcing Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute which I have been doing for years, even though both factions seek this, due to abstract appearance of political correctness. It's a red herring (pun intended), anyway; Misplaced Pages is not a ].<sup></sup> ] 02:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I support the proposal by Piotrus to have a review procedure for such cases. The reviewrs have to decide if the blocking admin is indeed an impartial side. If there are any doubts about that, the block should be lifted immediately.] (]) 20:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Motions in prior cases== | |||
| <!-- Do not remove this transclusion --> | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Motions}} | |||
| <!-- Interwiki links and categories are up at top of page --> | |||
Latest revision as of 03:40, 31 January 2023
Wikimedia project page
ArbitrationCommittee
| Dispute resolution (Requests) |
|---|
| Tips |
| Content disputes |
| Conduct disputes |
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.
To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.
This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.
Please make your request in the appropriate section:
- Request a new arbitration case
- Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
- This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
- Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
- Arbitrator motions
- Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open cases| Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requests| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: American politics 2 | none | (orig. case) | 15 January 2025 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Requests for arbitration
| Shortcuts
About this page Use this section to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
Requests for clarification and amendment
Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).
Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)
- Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
- Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
- Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
- If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use
{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}}to do this. - Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.
Guidance on participation and word limits
Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
- Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
- In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
- Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
- Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l
lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
- Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
- Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
- Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using
~~~~). - Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
- Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
- Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.
General guidance
- Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
- Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
- Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
- Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
- WP:ARCA
- WP:ARA
- WP:A/R/C&A
- WP:A/R/CL
- WP:A/R/A
- WP:A/R/CA
- Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and .../Amendment
| Clarification and Amendment archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment request: American politics 2
Initiated by Interstellarity at 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Interstellarity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Information about amendment request
- Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Contentious_topic_designation
- Request to push the year of the contentious topic designation to be later.
Statement by Interstellarity
I would like to request that the designated year of the contentious topic designation to be pushed somewhat later. The year 1992 was decided as the best compromise at the time. I feel that enough time has passed and we can possibly push it later and get an idea of how the cutoff is working. Four years ago, we only considered election years, but I think it would be better in this discussion to consider any year, regardless of whether it was an election year or not. I would like to throw some ideas on what the new cutoff could be.
- 1. Everything 2000 and after - Most of the disruptive editing on American politics has been after Obama left office and I would strongly oppose moving the cutoff anywhere after 2017 since Trump is the incoming president and was president before. Other than the 9/11 attacks, I don't antipate much disruption during this period.
- 2. A cutoff that automatically moves every year - say we choose 20 or 25 years (2005 or 2000) as our moving cutoff, the next year it would 2001 or 2006. That's basically the gist of it.
- 3. Everything 2009 and after - Another possibility that's somewhere in the middle of the road between the broad 2000 and the restrictive 2017.
- 4. Everything 2017 and after - this is the strictest cutoff I would support especially since the incoming president was president during this period and the disruptive editing is at its highest.
I hope the arbitrators, with community input, can see the changing needs of Misplaced Pages and act accordingly to acknowledge as time passes. Interstellarity (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: OK, that's an interesting point. On the topic of sanctions between 1992 and 1999, I haven't checked the number of sanctions for that period, but my guess would be some low number. If the disruptive editing is very minimal during this time period, it could be covered by our normal disruptive editing policy. If there are specific topic areas of that period that deserve sanctions stronger than the disruptive editing policy, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. Interstellarity (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment by GoodDay
2015, would likely be the appropriate cutoff year, if we're not going to go along with a U.S. presidential election year. Otherwise, 2016. The automatic date readjustment idea, is acceptable too. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Rosguill
I think periodically revisiting the cutoff date is reasonable. Looking through 2024's page protections, the overwhelming majority concern then-ongoing political events or individuals, with a handful of pages concerning events 2016-2022, and only one page about a historical event prior (9/11). User sanctions are obviously much more difficult to retroactively map onto a temporal range of history, but they're also a minority of logged AE actions for AP2. On that basis, moving the cutoff to 2016 seems reasonable. signed, Rosguill 22:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Izno
This is essentially ArbCom shopping: The previous amendment was barely two years ago, which moved the date from the 1930s to 1992, for which there was pretty strong evidence to show that the 60 year bump was more or less reasonable. Before that adjustment this topic had been a contentious topic for the better part of a decade by itself (with earlier designations specifically for September 11 among others). I see no reason to consider bumping this further for, say, another decade, when we might have actual evidence to indicate events in whatever period haven't remained of general contention. That this designation has been used for events that would no longer qualify in the past 2 years suggests that the designation is doing its job. Izno (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Kenneth Kho
The lack of editors being sanctioned for pre-2015 AMPOL suggests the extent of disruption while present does not need CTOP. The article on September 11 attacks was restricted only because "sporadic edit warring" and the consensus required restriction does not appear to generate significant talk page activity either. Kenneth Kho (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by TarnishedPath
Per Izno, it's only a couple of years ago that the cut-off was pushed from 1930 to 1992. 1992 is just prior to the start of the Clinton term and I think that's when the conservatives really started going feral. If we moved the cut-off to after Clinton's term then we risk tendentious editors POV pushing on anything connected to Clinton. I think questions like this are probably best left until the next time there is a full case, particularly because as mentioned it was only two years ago that the cut-off was pushed forward 62 years. TarnishedPath 02:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Vanamonde
It doesn't look like any revision is going to happen here, but I want to specifically note that a rolling cutoff seems to me to be an administrative nightmare, and I would strongly advise against it. I believe the scope is fine as is - I don't see evidence of a burden to editors or administrators - but I'd much rather the scope be narrowed all at once, if at all, than gradually shifted. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Aquillion
Here is the previous request that led to the 1992 cutoff, for the curious. I'm going to repeat something I said in that discussion: It's important that the cutoff be intuitive, since everyone has to remember it and new users ought to be able to reasonably anticipate it. I don't think that an automatically-moving cutoff is viable, partially for that reason and partially because how long individual events and public figures and so on remain flashpoints for disruption doesn't really follow any set pattern but instead maps to the sometimes unpredictable political careers of major figures, as well as where news coverage, social media, talking heads and so on choose to focus. --Aquillion (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
American politics 2: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion
- @Interstellarity: I guess the question I would have is: of the AP2 sanctions imposed in 2023 and 2024, how many wouldn't fall under post–2000 American politics, broadly construed? If the answer to that is 0 or some very low number, then I could see narrowing the topic area. (If there's a user sanction that partially relies on edits in the 1992–1999 politics area, I would count that too.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- The following actions were taken in 2024 under AP2 regarding pre-2015 topics:
- Cloward–Piven strategy indef pending changes
- September 11 attacks indef consensus required restriction
- The Right Brothers indef semi
- All other actions taken there are pretty clearly due to post-2015 developments, and would be acceptable with a cutoff of 2015. Inclined to support such an amendment. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mildly curious how Cloward–Piven qualifies under the current regime... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, Obama. Apparently. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mildly curious how Cloward–Piven qualifies under the current regime... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- My initial gut feeling is that 1992 was the beginning of the end of... regular? politics in the US, so it makes sense as a starting point. If articles about that time period aren't causing a problem then I wouldn't be opposed to shifting it. I would be hesitant to go much past 2000, since I've seen that some articles from that era still being fairly contentious. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Without a very compelling reason I'd hesitate to consider making it any date after "post-2000 American politics" because articles like September 11 attacks still have recurring issues. - Aoidh (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Having seen the post by Izno, I must agree (though with the slight correction that it was almost exactly four years ago); a rolling begin period was not even put forward as a motion at that time, nor were later dates; what has changed so much in three years, and why is this update necessary so (relatively) soon after the last one? Primefac (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- A quick look down 2024 and 2023 enforcement actions in the AP area, it doesn't look like many (any?) are for articles that would be excluded if the start year was moved from 1992 to 2000. I am opposed to a rolling start year given the administrative workload it would cause, per comments by Vanamonde and Aquillion. Keen to see an answer to Primefac's question immediately above. Daniel (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- The quantitative question: What's the breakdown of AE actions by subject-year?
- The qualitative question: What's the logical point to switch to? I've been trying to think of alternatives and all fall within Clinton's presidency. 9/11 touches on Al-Qaeda → Embassy bombings, 1998. Decline of bipartisanship → Gingrich's speakership... Cabayi (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've thought about this quite a lot and I think that this is slightly premature: the second Trump presidency has only just begun. A change in administration will bring a change in contentious articles. Based on my understanding of American politics, it seems like the current, most relevant era started in 2016. That being said, I think that the "modern" era of American polarization ramps up with the 1994 Republican Revolution, which the post-1992 cut-off covers. There are decent arguments for each of the proposed cut-offs, though: 2000 covers Bush v. Gore and the War on Terror, while 2008 covers the election of Obama and the Tea Party movement. I am not a huge fan of the rolling window, mainly because not all years are equal in terms of significance in American politics.History aside, however, I think that if the evidence really does show that political articles post-1992 have become less contentious, I am open to amending the window later in the year. We move with the evidence. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Motions
 | Shortcuts
This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. Make a motion (Arbitrators only) You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment. |
Requests for enforcement
Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
| Important informationShortcuts
Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
שלומית ליר
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 שלומית ליר
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Smallangryplanet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- שלומית ליר (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
- WP:ARBPIA
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation of how these edits violate it
ShlomitLir (שלומית ליר) created their account back in 2014. The breakdown of their edits is as follows:
- 2014 to 2016: no edits.
- 2017 to 2019: 1 edit per year. None related to PIA.
- 2022: 7 edits. Mostly in their userspace.
- 2023: 21 edits. Again, mostly in their userspace. Made two edits in the talk page of Palestinian genocide accusation complaining about its content and calling it “blatant pro-Hamas propaganda”.
- 2024: Started editing after a 10 month break at the end of October.
- Made 51 edits in October and 81 edits in November (copyedits, adding links, minor edits).
- In December, that number rose up to almost 400, including 116 in December 6 alone and 98 in December 7. Became ECR that day.
- Immediately switched to editing in PIA, namely in the Battle of Sderot article where they changed the infobox picture with an unclear image with a dubious caption, and removed a template without providing a reason why.
- They also edited the Use of human shields by Hamas article, adding another image with a caption not supported by the source (replaced by yet another image with a contextless caption when the previous image was removed) and WP:UNDUE content in the lead.
- they also voted in the second AfD for Calls for the destruction of Israel despite never having interacted with that article or its previous AfD. They have barely surpassed 500 edits, but the gaming is obvious, highlighted by the sudden switch to editing in PIA.
More importantly, there's the issue of POV pushing. I came across this article authored by them on Ynet, once again complaining about what they perceive as an anti Israeli bias on Misplaced Pages. They have also authored a report for the World Jewish Congress covering the same topic. The report can be seen in full here. I think that someone with this clear POV agenda shouldn't be near the topic.
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 2023-04-05 and re-iterated on 2024-11-25 (see the system log linked to above).
- Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 2024-12-18 by Femke (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Adding some additional comments on 2025-01-16: On top of POV issues, the user has a number of tweets that appear to be a clear admission of gaming, implicit canvassing, creating and sharing lists of potential "most biased articles", and clearly calling for specific edits. They've also been cited as coordinating an off-wiki coordination hub for editing Misplaced Pages. If this - combined with the tweets, the forms, the op-ed and the report to the WJC, all under this user's name (that they also use to edit Misplaced Pages - this is not outing) isn't a clear cut case of canvassing, I don't know what is. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- Notification diff
Discussion concerning שלומית ליר
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 שלומית ליר
I believe contents of this filing to be in clear policy violation and have reached out to the arbitration committee for further clarification before commenting further.שלומית ליר (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was given clarification from an admin regarding my concerns and will now be drafting a response. Thank you for your patience. שלומית ליר (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
First and foremost, I value accuracy and transparency and am fully prepared to address any verified errors or missteps. My contributions are made in good faith, with only the intention of supporting Misplaced Pages’s mission. I am a veteran editor on Hebrew wiki, yet am learning to appreciate the sometimes stark differences in rules in this section, so am doing my very best to keep up to speed and abide fully as I edit further here.
As a longtime editor on another wiki who finally decided this year to match pace on English wiki, I strenuously reject any accusations of EC gaming when a passing glance on my global log will confirm I have not radically altered my editing pace nor article focus. In regards to NPOV concerns, I will defer to the numerous comments below affirming that there is no policy violation by having an opinion, onsite or off, and must register mild complaint that NPOV accusations are being leveled here without any policy violation having been affirmed on any of these individual contributions.
While contributions observed superficially (and without clear context of edit conversation and interaction with other editors) may appear to be agenda oriented, if I were granted more word counts, I would happily highlight the context of most edits made to make clear I was pushing back against previous bias efforts (past and present) by editors (including a number on the precipice of sanction in PIA5). Perhaps it would have been wiser to report what I felt was POV editing behavior instead of pushing back, but I only believed my efforts were to restore and preserve article balance, not disrupt it.
I am grateful for the admin guidance received so far and appreciate being better informed about certain grey areas. I meant no intention to remotely approach anything resembling canvassing and believed the commentary was allowable (most especially since it was on a proceeding I was neither participating in, nor linking out to). I understand now that this may be perceived as “call to action” which was not remotely the intent, most especially to an audience that is mostly academic and, to the best of my knowledge, does not edit Misplaced Pages. (I also humbly must point out that no report was made indicating any increase in activity to suggest editors had been canvassed). I have now been well appraised and will take great care and caution to ensure no further off-site commentary remotely approaches such this territory of concern. If there are any questions or doubts in the future, I will seek future guidance from admins before venturing into potentially questionable territory. שלומית ליר (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Thebiguglyalien
This is the first ARBPIA report since the proposed decision was posted at ARBPIA5 and it's specifically a matter of POV pushing, responding admins should be aware of the "AE topic bans" remedy. The committee is discussing whether to implement a remedy stating that admins at AE are "empowered and encouraged to consider a topic ban" purely for biased editing. So far, the argument against is that it's redundant because AE admins are already supposed to do this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-03-29/Special_report
Statement by Selfstudier
To the extent that it is relevant, the WJC report was discussed at Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-03-29/Special report. Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by starship.paint (2)
I would to like to raise this 9 December 2024 edit at Battle of Sderot, where there had been an existing unsourced paragraph (On the morning of October 7, a tour minibus...
) that שלומית ליר added a reference to (archive 1 / archive 2) from the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation. The reference is relevant, but I believe it may not verify every detail in the Battle of Sderot paragraph (e.g. "Netivot", "Holocaust survivors"). The reference contains a short paragraph of text and a video that is 4:21 long. I can't watch the video in the reference, but I believe it is this same YouTube video that is 4:20 long which contains the same screenshot as the reference, on the same topic. Most of the video is an interview of the daughter of a dead victim who was on the bus (the daughter had been on the phone with the victim), except for 1:58 to 2:13 which appears to be a quote from the bus driver. The publisher themselves do not have too much reporting in their own voice (on the video), yet this reference was used to cite a paragraph entirely stated in Wikivoice. No attribution was made to the relative or the bus driver, or to the publisher. I can't be totally sure though, due to unfamiliarity with Hebrew. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by xDanielx
@Arcticocean: I don't really see how NPOV can be read as requiring edits which support both sides of a controversy. Our content policies don't impose any positive duties; they only tell us what not to do. The text of the policy doesn't support the notion that a pattern of edits could be in violation, even if no particular edit is in violation.
In principle, such a pattern of edits could violate the UCoC policy, but I don't believe this board has ever enforced it. If it were to be enforced, I think it should be for more serious violations like the double standards that e.g. this attempted to demonstrate, rather than mere opinion-driven editing which applies to the vast majority of CTOP editors. — xDanielx /C\ 03:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Hemiauchenia
This user has engaged in off-wiki canvassing regarding the IP conflict. Take the following recent tweet from the 12 January permanent archive
For posterity in case it is deleted it contains the following remarks:
If you can't handle the facts, just delete them Propaganda on @Misplaced Pages includes targeting Israel, demonizing it, and erasing inconvenient truths, from falsifying war outcomes to deleting Israeli inventions and attempting to erase the reality of Palestinian suicide bombers.
Along with this is a screenshot of the current AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Palestinian suicide attacks. People are of course allowed to be caustic about Misplaced Pages off-wiki, but calling out a specific AfD with highly charged rhetoric, essentially inciting canvassing seems out of line. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- For those concerned that this might be outing, שלומית ליר is very open about their real life identity on their userpage. See (archived). If you reveal your real identity on Misplaced Pages, your tweets about Misplaced Pages on your Twitter account connected to your real-life identity are fair game to mention. There's also reverse confirmation in this tweet . Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Cdjp1
As we seem to be ok to pull evidence from the statements of the editor in question, they have also commented more recently about running interference on Misplaced Pages (archive) in response to a question of if Misplaced Pages can be "saved". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Sean.hoyland
It has been several days. Perhaps שלומית ליר could clarify whether their belief about the way Misplaced Pages works turned out to be a true belief or a false belief so that this report can progress. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Vice regent
I'm satisfied by שלומית ליר's above explanation regarding canvassing. People with bad canvassing intentions don't reveal their identity. VR (Please ping on reply) 04:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning שלומית ליר
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Users are allowed to have a POV - it's a rare user indeed who edits a contentious topic without having some strong opinions about it. For conduct to be actionable at AE it needs to be an actual policy violation. The misleading use of images doesn't rise to the level of AE action in my view, and judging whether an addition like this is UNDUE is not within AE's purview, as long as it is supported by the source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The PIA5 remedy hasn't passed yet, and its interpretation is as yet unclear to me: but in my view we are already empowered to deal with biased editing, in the sense of editing that violates NPOV. What I'm not willing to do is sanction on the basis of someone's opinions alone; they have to be shown to have let their opinions get in the way of following our PAGs. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see some evidence - based on Arcticocean's digging below - that שלומית ליר is using images without sufficient care, but I don't see that rising to the level of a sanction. As to the rest, xDanielx is correct - nowhere do our policies require treating both sides of a conflict equally - indeed our PAGs discourage false balance. Those diffs could be actionable if they individually or collectively violate policy, but I have yet to see evidence of that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The off-wiki canvassing is a problem. It merits a warning at least, I don't know if the formality thereof matters. If there was evidence that שלומית ליר was aware of WP:CANVAS I would consider something more stringent. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see some evidence - based on Arcticocean's digging below - that שלומית ליר is using images without sufficient care, but I don't see that rising to the level of a sanction. As to the rest, xDanielx is correct - nowhere do our policies require treating both sides of a conflict equally - indeed our PAGs discourage false balance. Those diffs could be actionable if they individually or collectively violate policy, but I have yet to see evidence of that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The PIA5 remedy hasn't passed yet, and its interpretation is as yet unclear to me: but in my view we are already empowered to deal with biased editing, in the sense of editing that violates NPOV. What I'm not willing to do is sanction on the basis of someone's opinions alone; they have to be shown to have let their opinions get in the way of following our PAGs. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- While I understand Vanamonde93's concerns, I think that we are required to assess the totality of the user's contributions. Contentious topic editors are required to uphold NPOV. Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics#Guidance for editors places an obligation to Within contentious topics,… edit carefully and constructively… and… adhere to the purposes of Misplaced Pages. The linked page provides that Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view… We strive for articles with an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. If an editor is only adding content that significantly favours one or the other side to the conflict, this is incompatible with their contentious topic obligation. That is because an editor making only one-sided edits will simply not be taking the necessary steps to ensure that the whole article is written from a neutral point of view. As their number of one-sided edits increases, the likelihood decreases that the editor is ensuring our content is neutral and impartial. Once we reach the point of being sure that they are not attempting to ensure neutrality of content, we can conclude the editor is not meeting their contentious topics obligations and we can issue a sanction. This can only be assessed with hindsight and by looking at the editor's contributions as a whole. arcticocean ■ 20:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Assessing the topic area contributions of the respondent (שלומית ליר) since they became extended-confirmed at 17:33, 8 December 2024, there is cause for concern. I counted 19 edits to the area conflict. Taken together, they significantly skew the articles negatively against the opposing side of the conflict:
- Adding a citation for a claim that Hamas terrorists shot dead a group of Israeli tourists.
- Replacing map with a photograph of victims of violence.
- Removing an outdated maintenance tag which was perhaps casting doubt on the relevant section, Massacre of pensioners, and again.
- Adding specification to claims of the use of human shield (specifying who has made the claims), therefore giving greater weight to the claims, in a context where the claims were already described at considerable length; adding another reference to that claim; and adding another.
- Adding an image contentiously captioned 'Weapons Found in a Mosque', then again Rockets hidden at a house, both to the first line of the article.
- Adding, without sufficient context, an assertion that a philosopher has determined that one side of the conflict is culpable and expanding other coverage of culpability of that side.
- On the talk pages, there has been a tinge of failure to AGF although I would be prepared to look past that (it was like meeting like). I am skipping a few further and insignificant talk page comments.
- There are then edits to LGBTQ rights in the State of Palestine: inserting a reference to execution into the first sentence of the lead; adding more references to news coverage of executions of LGBT+ people by the other side of the conflict. At Houthi movement, there is then an expansion, again of the article lead, to add references to terrorist attacks (with follow-up).
- Assessing the edits as a whole, it is difficult not to conclude that the respondent user is failing to meet their contentious topics obligation to edit neutrally in this topic area. As the number of edits is so far limited, if a sanction is imposed, it could justifiably be light-touch. arcticocean ■ 20:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- @XDanielx: Thanks for commenting. Most of the edits do not have a neutral, encyclopedic POV. There is an effort to influence our articles away from neutrally describing the subject without taking sides, contrary to WP:NPOV. Even if each edit in isolation is insufficient for sanctioning, taken as a whole the edits show an inability or unwillingness to edit neutrally. One non-neutral edit shouldn't be sanctioned; twenty is a different story. This is not about the percentage of biased edits but about the weight or amount of them. Therefore, the assessment wouldn't really change even had the editor made some 'neutral' edits along the way. I'm happy to concede that editors cannot be compelled to balance edits of one bias with edits of another, but I don't think that comes into it. In a nutshell, this is about Misplaced Pages:Advocacy. arcticocean ■ 08:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Assessing the topic area contributions of the respondent (שלומית ליר) since they became extended-confirmed at 17:33, 8 December 2024, there is cause for concern. I counted 19 edits to the area conflict. Taken together, they significantly skew the articles negatively against the opposing side of the conflict:
- The offwiki canvassing is a problem...שלומית ליר, you're fairly inexperienced here. Were you aware WP:canvassing is not allowed? Valereee (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- For transparency, שלומית ליר reached out to me, and I explained multiple policy and advised her to go ahead and respond here without waiting for individual feedback from her email to arbcom, which may or may not happen. Valereee (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I take it that per Barkeep49's brief oversighting of potentially-sensitive content in this report (Special:Diff/1269845558), and then restoration of the same (Special:Diff/1269848988), concerns of outing have been investigated and the report can proceed on its merits? signed, Rosguill 19:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's correct. I got a request, I didn't really feel it was OUTING, but as I indicated in my edit summary OS is a tool of first resort. I consulted with the OS listserv and received some responses quickly agreeing with me and so I unsuppressed and restored the material. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Luganchanka
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 Luganchanka
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Luganchanka (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
- Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 19:55, 12 January 2025 Reversion to version of article where the article says "He is a child sex offender" in the second sentence despite consensus at BLPN discussion that this is problematic because Ritter never actually interacted with a real child.
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
18:28, 12 January 2025 BLP CTOP warning given
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
At BLPN, there has been consensus that the version of the article describing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the second sentence of the article is problematic, as he did not actually have sexual contact with a child, only a police officer impersonating one. Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Scott_Ritter_Biography_-_Noncompliance_with_MOS_and_BLP_Guidelines. Luganchanka has been persistently edit warring against this apparent consensus. For which he has been warned by @NatGertler: , which he subequently blanked There has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article going back to at least August Talk:Scott_Ritter#First_sentence, but Luganchanka persistently cites a "consensus" for its inclusion that as far as I can tell does not seem to exist, with Luganchanka aggressively editing to enforce its inclusion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Luganchanka's response is disingenuous and misleading. Look at the Talk:Scott_Ritter#First_sentence discussion I linked above. Nobody other than Luganchanka thinks that Ritter should be described as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article. The dispute isn't about whether or not the convictions should be mentioned in the lead at all or not, it's specifically about the use of the phrase "child sex offender", and there is no consensus to include that as far as I can tell, despite Luganchanka's vociferous claims to the contrary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Luganchanka
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 Luganchanka
The intro on the Scott Ritter page had remained largely the same for several months, as you will see on the talkpage it is an intro approved, and reverted to, by multiple senior editors. There has been a recent flurry of activity / edits. While I WP: assume good faith, it does look like those edits are attempting to downplay / whitewash Ritter's sexual offence conviction(s). I have not been 'aggressive' at all, rather I have simply referred contentious edits to the talkpage to build consensus, attempting to do my duty as a good Misplaced Pages editor.Luganchanka (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Please see the Talk:Scott_Ritter, where there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior[REDACTED] editors, that Ritter's sexual offence conviction should be included in the lead to the article. My edits have simply been aimed at ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article.Luganchanka (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you to @Valereee and @Red-tailed hawk for your feedback. If you see the Talk:Scott_Ritter, discussions -
14 August - Vandalism by removing all reference entirely to Ritter being a "Convicted Sex Offender"
andFirst sentence
. The latter discussion ended on 26th September, and resulted in the intro we had until a flurry of edits the other day, trying to move information on Ritter's sexual offence conviction, downplay it, whitewash it etc. My edits were aimed at restoring the edit reached by consensus, which had been in place for several months until the recent raft of edits with the clear aim of moving / downplaying Ritter's sexual offence conviction.Luganchanka (talk) 06:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for this (nest), I really do appreciate your feedback and advice here!!Luganchanka (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC) (moved from admin-only section — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC))
- As per Rosguill's comments:
"Unfazed by "Emily's" age, Ritter asked "Emily," "you want to see it finish?" Ritter then turned on the webcam and ejaculated in front of the camera for "Emily." Detective Venneman then notified Ritter of his undercover status and the undercover operation and directed Ritter to call the police station."
https://casetext.com/case/ritter-v-tuttle
Luganchanka (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by NatGertler
Editor's edits today focused on trying to main a negative descriptor of what subject believed, despite it not being in the three sources that were listed (nor in the old version they ultimately reverted to.) Efforts were first trying to simply restate the claim, then trying to source it to an opinion piece (problem) from the Washington Examiner (also a bit of a problem, per WP:RSP), then trying to state as a fact what had merely been stated in a non-prime article as an accusation. BLP concern was pointed out repeatedly via edit summary and on Talk page. Removal of unsourced contentious BLP claims and even false claims is not "whitewashing" despite how editor wishes to depict it, it is in accord with our practices. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Luganchanka
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- @Luganchanka: whether you're correct or not, you were edit warring. I believe an indef block from the article and/or a temporary site block would be an appropriate sanction here. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've blocked the user for 48h for violating 3RR based on the report at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Luganchanka, edit-warring to remove negative content at a BLP is an exemption to 3RR. I see that NatGertler mentioned this in their edit summaries and at talk. As voorts points out, it doesn't matter whether you're right when you're reverting an edit that is being claimed as an exemption, even if you believe Rosguillwhiyou are "ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article". The solution is to go to talk, discuss, and get consensus. If you'd like to respond, ping me to your response at your talk and I'll post it here. Valereee (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Luganchanka, if you really believe those two sections -- senior editors, indeed, this one was between someone with 13 edits and somcoen who wasn't ECR, for heaven's sake -- somehow prove consensus was strong, and you think that means you can ignore all the later ones -- at one of which you didn't even respond to a ping, where people were objecting -- then this is maybe looking like a WP:CIR issue.
- But even if you had been somehow editing to support a consensus you believed was settled, you cannot edit-war contentious material into a BLP when others are objecting to it. The solution, always, is to go to talk, discuss, and reconfirm consensus. There is zero urgency to have this information in the article. Including something negative in a BLP is not something you should ever edit war over. Valereee (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Luganchanka's reading of the state of consensus on the talk page as supporting their edits is so far off base that it borders on being a CIR issue if it's sincere. Indef block from Scott Ritter seems appropriate. signed, Rosguill 22:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see RTH's point about the "First sentence" section in isolation. I'd note that the link to WP:FORUMSHOP isn't really appropriate here, as bringing the discussion to BLP/N was an appropriate action (if it was then brought to NPOVN, NORN, etc., that would be forumshopping). I'd like to see some actual contrition around the edit warring and frivolous accusations of
whitewash
before writing this off as time-served. signed, Rosguill 15:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- That's fair; I'll strike the link. My point in including it was that, when conversations fragment, we sometimes get these sorts of chaotic incidents. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Understood, I think that meaning was clear for us here in the admin section, but I could easily see a new editor misinterpreting it unintentionally. signed, Rosguill 15:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am not at all comforted by the fact that Luganchanka has proceeded to make Special:Diff/1269831044. The cited BBC source does not state
masturbated and ejaculated on camera
, saying onlygraphic sex act
. As written, this is essentially another BLP violation, building a case that a ban from this topic is needed. signed, Rosguill 16:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- Having reviewed the other sources, reliable sources do confirm the masturbation claim (, ) but not ejaculation, which appears to be supported only by New York Post, a generally unreliable source. Luganchanka, in light of this clarification, can you please address your decision to include the claims as you initially wrote them? signed, Rosguill 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The detail is in the record of Ritter v. Tuttle (case No. 3:15cv1235 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2018)), so it isn't completely made up. But I would also like to hear from the user on this point as to whether there was secondary sourcing here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seeing Special:Diff/1269853673 here and Special:Diff/1269853955, Special:Diff/1269845272 at Talk:Scott Ritter, I see no comprehension of the use of primary vs. secondary sources, nor any reflection of their past errors in engaging with this topic. I believe that a block from the page is needed to prevent further BLP violations as they have shown no understanding of the relevant policies even after being given several warnings, reminders and opportunities to revise their position. signed, Rosguill 18:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Luganchanka:
- WP:BLPPRIMARY calls upon users to
not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person
. There are some narrow exceptions (whenprimary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source
), but adding material to the article not found in reliable secondary sources is... suboptimal at best under our biographies of living persons policy. - — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The detail is in the record of Ritter v. Tuttle (case No. 3:15cv1235 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2018)), so it isn't completely made up. But I would also like to hear from the user on this point as to whether there was secondary sourcing here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Having reviewed the other sources, reliable sources do confirm the masturbation claim (, ) but not ejaculation, which appears to be supported only by New York Post, a generally unreliable source. Luganchanka, in light of this clarification, can you please address your decision to include the claims as you initially wrote them? signed, Rosguill 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am not at all comforted by the fact that Luganchanka has proceeded to make Special:Diff/1269831044. The cited BBC source does not state
- Understood, I think that meaning was clear for us here in the admin section, but I could easily see a new editor misinterpreting it unintentionally. signed, Rosguill 15:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's fair; I'll strike the link. My point in including it was that, when conversations fragment, we sometimes get these sorts of chaotic incidents. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see RTH's point about the "First sentence" section in isolation. I'd note that the link to WP:FORUMSHOP isn't really appropriate here, as bringing the discussion to BLP/N was an appropriate action (if it was then brought to NPOVN, NORN, etc., that would be forumshopping). I'd like to see some actual contrition around the edit warring and frivolous accusations of
- @Luganchanka: Would you please provide a direct link to the talk page section you are referring to when you say
there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior[REDACTED] editors
regarding the lead? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)- @Luganchanka and Hemiauchenia:
- It does seem that the discussion at Talk:Scott Ritter#First sentence does indicate some support for that language i.e. (
convicted child sex offender
) in the lead, with some general lean against putting it in the first sentence. So, whileThere has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences
is true if it means the literal first sentence, I do see a rough consensus to include the material in the lead section in some way in that discussion. - That being said, the BLPN discussion had a bit of different tone and tenor from the discussion on the talk page. There was notification about a BLPN discussion on the article's talk page, but Luganchanka, despite having been pretty vocal about this subject in the past, hadn't participated in that BLPN discussion. They instead grounded their edits in the argument that the article's talk page had consensus for the current content, and nothing on the article's talk page had changed that consensus. And that much was true. In any case, we've got
two different forums with two different answerstwo different forums with two different answers here, which appears to be what's leading to the whole kerfluffle. - Then the analysis comes to whether or not the label is a straightforward BLP violation, requiring us to read the sourcing in the article. This NY Times piece, which is cited in the body of the article (but not the lead), does state that Ritter
was convicted unlawful contact with minors and other charges
in the state of PA (the PA statute is here; "unlawful contact with minors" is the verbatim name of the crime). When dealing with a sting operation, PA treats it asan offense of the same grade and degree
as if the criminal had actually contacted a child (unless it's a lesser crime than a third-degree felony, in which case it becomes a third-degree felony). This is an extremely common practice in the United States (there are lots of philosophical questions regarding mens rea and actus reus here, but that's not really relevant here). In any case, labeling this to be a child sex offense (or, alternatively, to simply use the name of the crime in the article) does not appear to be straightforward malice/POV-pushing/libel, and a reasonably informed individual might shorten it in this way. Whether or not that is wise or optimal to shorten it is the proper subject for content discussion. - Aside from the edit warring (which was not acceptable, and was aptly handled by a block), this looks like a content dispute. A heated one involving a living person, sure, but a content dispute nonetheless. I see good-faith—albeit passionate—disagreement. If the editors were to come together and engage in one forum (such as the article's talk page, where this has been discussed a bunch), rather than splitting the discussion over multiple pages, I feel like we might have our best shot at attaining a consensus going forward.
- In short, it looks like the conversation fragmented, and consensus-building broke down. Edit warring ensued, which was bad, but we've already blocked for that in order to dissuade it going forward. A Request for Comment on the article's talk page for what the lead should look like is probably the best way to go forward here.
- — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- RTH, are you objecting to a p-block from the article? Valereee (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Luganchanka has been blocked for a week by User:ScottishFinnishRadish for BLP violations and personal attacks. Liz 18:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just noting that this was a regular admin action and I wasn't aware this was before AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- With this in mind, I think we should wait to hear from RTH but otherwise expect to move forward to an indef p-block on top of SFR's stopgap action, as we haven't seen anything coming close to an adequate recognition of the relevant policies and practices from Luganchanka and after several second chances and nudges, I don't see reason to expect them to change course. signed, Rosguill 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just noting that this was a regular admin action and I wasn't aware this was before AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
BabbleOnto
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 BabbleOnto
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- BabbleOnto (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
- Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19#Contentious_topic_designation
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 11 January 2025 Sealioning
- 11 January 2025 Refusal to get the message
- 11 January 2025 Personalizing an argument.
- 11 January 2025 Railroading the discussion.
This is all after I warned them about WP:AE sanctions, and they dismissed my warning out of hand. Very nearly a WP:SPA on the subject. I see no reason to continue tolerating this kind of obstinate tendetiousness. Additional diffs available on request from admins, but looking at the user history should suffice to indicate the problem is obvious, I hope.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 9 Dec 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This is a WP:SPA with respect to the topic and their disruption surrounding it has been subject to at least one WP:FTN thread that remains active: Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Gain_of_function_research. The hope was that they would WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on from this, but it seems they either will not or cannot. jps (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning BabbleOnto
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 BabbleOnto
I would first like to begin by point out the person filing this complaint is involved in the content disputes at issue. They have frequently left "warnings" which read more like threats on my talk page and others' talk pages for people who disagree with them. Nor would I be the first person who would they would get banned from this topic for disagreeing with them.
To be honest I'm not entirely sure what it is I'm being charged with doing.
I think in general the user is alleging I've been uncivil, unhelpful, and, in their words, obstinate and tendentious. I know when someone disagrees with you it may feel like they're getting in your way and acting in bad-faith, but that's not always true. I've never tried to be disruptive or uncivil. I've admitted when I was wrong, I've dropped arguments that were clarified to be wrong, I've tried to find compromise, at times begging people to provide their sources and work together. And when those editors refused to, I didn't provoke any further.
I now address the specific edits in the complaint:
1. I don't see how this is sea-lioning. The user misquoted the article. I pointed out the misquotation, then addressed a accusation against me that I was second-guessing the sources (A claim which was never substantiated). I then said any source would have to support that actual claim which was in the article. I don't know what this violates.
2. I don't see how this is refusing to get the message (IDHT). The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it. I replied with what I actually said. What part of that interaction is saying "I didn't hear that?"
3. Admittedly probably the strongest of the four allegations. I'm not pretending I was perfect in all of my comments. I should have kept my criticism strictly to their argument. I ask you to read it in context and keep in mind you're viewing a hand-picked assortment of my worst edits, and this is the worst they could find. Also consider that conversation accused me of having a basic reading comprehension problem, perhaps you can see I lose my cool sometimes too.
4. I'm not even really sure what "railroading the discussion" means. Thus, to keep this section short and to save words, I don't know what I'm being accused of doing wrong here.
All of this has stemmed out of arguments over two sources. I have tried to find compromise, I have tried to negotiate, I have tried to build consensus. I've been going through the proper channels, I've been participating in the RfC, I've been discussing it on the ANI, I source every claim I make, for a month now I've been trying to constructively explain my side and defend my argument against challenges. It's incredibly frustrating to now be facing an Arbitration Enforcement on grounds that I'm not working with others. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Edited. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, the sub-header for this section says that only admins can edit this section, I didn't realize I was allowed to reply here.
- Yes, I will. I intend on taking an extended break from wikipedia, as well. BabbleOnto (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC) Moved from uninvolved admin section; you can answer questions, make comments, discuss, but all your input needs to be in your own section. Valereee (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
an extended break doesn't solve the issues around understanding policy. An extended break from contentious topics -- while you edit in other topics and learn policy -- would be more helpful all around.
- What I meant was that I'm willing to respect the consensus and not make any further edits or argue any more contrary to what the consensus decided. It seems to me that saying I have "Issues around understanding policy" and asking me to "learn policy" has subtext that says "Until you agree with this consensus, and you won't be allowed to edit at all." Is respectful disagreement with this consensus allowed? I'm afraid if in order to avoid a ban I have to personally agree with the consensus, beyond just respecting it, then there's nothing I can do. I still do disagree with the consensus's result. Nonetheless, I'm not going to edit or argue further, I'll respect it as a legitimate.
- Re:
no, you don't have to agree. You just have to accept and move on.
- Then I accept the consensus. I'm not going to argue in those discussions any further, though I still personally disagree, I understand a consensus has been reached which is other than my opinion. Nor will I edit disruptively or against the consensus. I appreciate the admin who noted I largely kept my disagreement in the talk pages, not editing the articles themselves. I plan on staying away from the topic in general for quite a while.
- Re:
Statement by ProcrastinatingReader
I've interacted with BabbleOnto in several threads. There's a few problems, but ultimately, I think they have a certain opinion on what the article should say, and will debate endlessly to get the article changed to their position. I mean, sure, reasonable people disagree on how to interpret sources and apply policy, but I don't think BabbleOnto is actually interested in faithful application of policies to write high quality articles based on good sources.
That's not terribly problematic by itself, but most discussions with BabbleOnto are exhausting. Rather than actually trying to understand someone's argument in good faith, I think BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible, and making a superficially reasonable response ad nauseam. They reply endlessly in this manner. As well as misrepresentation of opponents' arguments, on multiple occassions BabbleOnto has either misrepresented sources or hasn't read their own sources. I can't think of a single thread where BabbleOnto didn't have the last word, or a single thread where it seemed like BabbleOnto was actually trying to understand the arguments of other editors in a charitable way. As such, I think it's very difficult to work collaborately with BabbleOnto on the lab leak theory and related articles. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Newimpartial
As the editor to whom BabbleOnto was responding in the diffs of the filing, I feel compelled to comment now that they have defended (to varying degrees) their first three diffs. I will reply as briefly as I know how to their defense of the diffs, as revised.
1. BabbleOnto is now doubling down on the claim that I misquoted the article
. I didn't "misquote" the article - I didn't quote the article, and I explained what my comment meant in the rest of the (now collapsed) thread that ends here. Also, I provided a clear explanation of why I thought they were second-guessing sources later in the thread, but BabbleOnto never responded to that explanation. They are now responding to the accusation of WP:CPUSH with pure WP:IDONTHEARTHAT.
2. On this they say, now, that The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it.
This is repeating a misreading they made in the original thread, where they mistook a statement I made about another editor's comment as if it were about theirs. In this "defense", I see no attempt to read thoughtfully what other editors say in reply to them and revise their understanding accordingly; all I see is zero-sum mentality and WP:IDHT.
3. BabbleOnto is now justifying an edit where they said to me, You have a habit of inserting small lies into everything you say
and You're not adding anything constructive. You're just refusing to explain anything and saying conclusory statements, or lying about what you said
- all this based on a misreading of what I had actually written - because I was going to refer to a basic failure in reading comprehension
two hours later. This seems like a time travel paradox.
4. They don't bother defending themselves on this one, but just to point out the actual issue with the diff, they doubled down on their accusations that I said a material lie
, and that I lied when said that quoted the article out of context. Pointing out being caught lying
and then proceeded to STRAWMAN the rest of my comment to which they were replying. If they had read my prior comment with a reasonable level of attention, they would have understood that there were no "lies", just a misunderstanding or two in each direction. But WP:IDHT again; even in responding to this filing BabbleOnto is still insisting I did things that I quite obviously didn't do.
It is exhausting to deal with this kind of quasi-CPUSH (not quite civil, but certainly push) behaviour. The Talk page in question has seen a recent influx of single-purpose or nearly single-purpose POV accounts, and in terms of editor energy, this one certainly seems not to be a net positive for Misplaced Pages as a project. Perhaps if they edited away from Covid and US politics, their track record might improve. Newimpartial (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Objective3000
Just a quick aside to Valereee's aside: Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn....
Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory currently has posts from 19 editors lacking the edits for extended confirmed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Valereee, this is also a problem at other CTOPs, and is likely to become more problematic. I assume due to off-Wiki forums. ECR might just produce more users gaming EC. I thought it would be useful to put your aside into the CTOP template at the top of CTOP TPs. But that assumes folks read it. Walt Kelly said something along the lines of: “If only I could write, I’d write a letter to the mayor, if only he could read." This discussion is likely better off elsewhere. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: IntrepidContributor was just TBanned from the topic of COVID-19 and indef blocked until the accusations of off-wiki coordination made by them at ANI are retracted. Those accusations are like their suggestion made in their statement in this filing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by JoelleJay
At the very least, can we get more admin involvement on the lab leak page so trolling like this doesn't disrupt things even more? JoelleJay (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by IntrepidContributor
I have been observing BabbleOnto and while there are valid concerns about bludgeoning, I think the proposed sanctions are too much. His engagement in the Covid lab leak topic is driven by commitment to WP:NPOV, which our articles fail to adhere to, and he made the mistake of arguing with editors who were never going to listen (resulting in what looks like sealioning on his part). He's not only editor to raise issues in the topic and engage in good faith discussion, only to find themselves pulled to AN or AE disputes after staying out of the seasoning traps and refusing to capitulate to threats. In a parallel AN case concerning another editor in same topic, I suggest there may be possible off-wiki coordination , but it can also be on-wiki ().
One need only cross-reference names from Feb 2021 RfC, checking those that voted for labeling COVID-19 lab leak as conspiracy, with the names of complainants here. Contrast all these old timers with the steady stream of tens if not hundreds of regular editors complaining that our article fails NPOV, and see that their gentle approach doesn't work . Our chief complainant is already preparing his next case , and this might not be his first.
I suggest that administrators consider a 1 to 2 month topic ban for BabbleOnto to provide opportunity for him to correct his approach, while staying alert to the tactics of POV editors trying to draw them into content debates to influence outcomes.
IntrepidContributor (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by TarnishedPath
Please see this edit where BabbleOnto edited Gain of function research restoring previously reverted content and WP:POVPUSH using a shit source after they'd been told by multiple other editors in discussions here and here that the source was shit. Notably in the edit summary they wrote "Read discussion page. Manual revert. No serious challenge has been made to these changes. Methinks an admin needs to get involved...
" despite them being in a WP:1AM situation. If a clue is not gotten by the editor fast I'd suggest TBANs from both COVID and AP2 is warranted in order to cease their disruption. TarnishedPath 04:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Noting the editor's continued behaviour at Talk:Gain-of-function research. Refer to Special:Diff/1270316266. TarnishedPath 01:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by berchanhimez
This user was given no less than 4 chances on the talk page to stop talking about bans/other editors and start talking about the content. They have continued crying about how they're scared of getting banned... yet they continue blabbing about other editors getting banned for their bad behavior rather than refocusing on the content as requested. At a minimum a partial block from the talk page(s) in question is warranted, and it would be beneficial for a topic ban from the origins of COVID-19, broadly construed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Shibbolethink
I am heavily involved in this overall dispute as someone who has gone back and forth with BabbleOnto. I wanted to add that, in general, my feeling from interacting with this user is that they could be a good contributor to this site, and absolutely could follow the PAGs. They have shown an ability to be courteous . I think the issue is that in FRINGE and other contentious areas like COVID-19 origins, they have shown a tendancy to become "hot-headed" when tensions rise, and to reference an us vs them mentality (and numerous examples from others above). It seems they have also been egged-on, and made more combative from other PROFRINGE users (and probably some anti-FRINGE users as well who do admittedly WP:BITE) in that topic space (e.g. )
We are told often to use narrowest possible restriction to protect the project. In this case, I think that would be a COVID-19 origins TBAN, where most of the disruption has been. The user states they have learned what to do when consensus is against them. If they fail to show that lesson in AP2 articles more than just the 10 or so edits they've made in those articles, an AP2 TBAN would be appropriate at that time (WP:ROPE). Just my 2 cents.— Shibbolethink 22:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning BabbleOnto
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- BabbleOnto, please edit your statement down further to fit within the restriction. This also serves as an opportunity to rephrase your defense, which currently is not convincing at first glance. ProcrastinatingReader's description of the situation seems quite apt, particularly
BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible
, which is currently a pretty fitting description of your response to them here, given that you zeroed in on the "superficially reasonable" part and ignored the much more serious parts of the testimony. signed, Rosguill 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)- Ok, having read through nearly every edit that BabbleOnto has made, I agree with the complainants that not only does BabbleOnto engage in sealioning, it appears to be almost exclusively what they do. The discussion at Talk:Brian Thompson (businessman)/Archive 2 exhibits perhaps even more concerning argumentation than the diffs provided in the initial report. Throughout these discussions, BabbleOnto tends to demand a standard of stating the obvious (with respect to the context of said sources) that is absurd, and continues to lawyer for such standards even when the situation becomes WP:1AM. When criticizing sources' ability to account for basic claims, I can find no examples of BabbleOnto themselves attempting to find sources that would resolve the issues they identify--this is uncollaborative behavior. There is a clear pattern of engaging in this behavior across recent US politics topics consistent with the scope of Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics/American politics. The only saving grace to BabbleOnto's track record is that none of this has translated into disruptive editing of actual articles, just unproductive engagement on talk pages. I am currently in favor of a topic ban from post-1992 American politics; if they are actually here to build an encyclopedia and not to provide a punching bag for debate club, they can use this opportunity to learn more constructive patterns of editing in topics that they are less personally invested in. signed, Rosguill 01:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Valereee in line with their follow-up response, I take Objective3000's comments as potentially a basis for community discussion rather than a call for protective action on the lab leak talk page right now. signed, Rosguill 21:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, having read through nearly every edit that BabbleOnto has made, I agree with the complainants that not only does BabbleOnto engage in sealioning, it appears to be almost exclusively what they do. The discussion at Talk:Brian Thompson (businessman)/Archive 2 exhibits perhaps even more concerning argumentation than the diffs provided in the initial report. Throughout these discussions, BabbleOnto tends to demand a standard of stating the obvious (with respect to the context of said sources) that is absurd, and continues to lawyer for such standards even when the situation becomes WP:1AM. When criticizing sources' ability to account for basic claims, I can find no examples of BabbleOnto themselves attempting to find sources that would resolve the issues they identify--this is uncollaborative behavior. There is a clear pattern of engaging in this behavior across recent US politics topics consistent with the scope of Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics/American politics. The only saving grace to BabbleOnto's track record is that none of this has translated into disruptive editing of actual articles, just unproductive engagement on talk pages. I am currently in favor of a topic ban from post-1992 American politics; if they are actually here to build an encyclopedia and not to provide a punching bag for debate club, they can use this opportunity to learn more constructive patterns of editing in topics that they are less personally invested in. signed, Rosguill 01:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have to agree, this looks like sealioning. BabbleOnto, you're new here, and I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt about your ability to learn to collaborate. WP works on collaboration and consensus, and sometimes consensus goes your way, sometimes it doesn't. You have to be willing to shrug, walk away, and go work on something else when consensus is against you. And you absolutely must not insist everyone else keep answering you until you're satisfied with their answers. I've seen editors at both the Thompson and the lab leak talks tell you they don't actually owe you an answer to your satisfaction.
- Do you think you can learn to do that? Because if you don't think you can, this may not be the right hobby for you.
- As an aside, I'm going to recommend what I always recommend to new editors who end up here: Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn. Go edit in noncontentious topics, where other editors are a lot less exhausted and have the energy to be more patient with new editors. Valereee (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
| Tangential |
|---|
|
- BabbleOnto, are you planning to answer my questions above? Do you think you're able/willing to shrug, walk away, and go work on something else when consensus is against you? Are you able/willing to stop insisting everyone else keep answering you until you're satisfied with their answers? Valereee (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- BabbleOnto's response understanding this as a suggestion to take a break from Misplaced Pages as a whole isn't quite what I was hoping to see. signed, Rosguill 17:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @BabbleOnto, an extended break doesn't solve the issues around understanding policy. An extended break from contentious topics -- while you edit in other topics and learn policy -- would be more helpful all around.
- @Rosguill, I'd support a tban, but is AP2 enough? It seems like COVID and fringe science need to be included? Valereee (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- AP2 + COVID? I see the same behavior at the Brian Thompson article and Havana Syndrome, so COVID alone doesn't seem adequate. Oddly, the intersection of "medicine and politics" would appear to cover all affected topics but maybe that's too bespoke? signed, Rosguill 17:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @BabbleOnto, re:It seems to me that saying I have "Issues around understanding policy" and asking me to "learn policy" has subtext that says "Until you agree with this consensus, and you won't be allowed to edit at all." Is respectful disagreement with this consensus allowed? I'm afraid if in order to avoid a ban I have to personally agree with the consensus, beyond just respecting it, no, you don't have to agree. You just have to accept and move on. Valereee (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think BabbleOnto is actually getting the right idea. You do not have to agree with consensus. There are some consensus positions here I don't agree with, and some I think are rather silly. But, until and unless they change, I respect and abide by them all the same. If I try to challenge them, and it becomes clear that such a challenge was unsuccessful, there comes a time to just shrug, realize you can't win 'em all, and move on. Since they seem to have gotten that point, I think maybe see how things go, and if they return to disruption, I think they're quite clear on what the results of that will be. Seraphimblade 14:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- In my experience sealioning is a habit editors have an extremely difficult time breaking. I was going to agree with Rosguill re: a tban from AP2 + COVID, maybe appealable after 3 months and 500 productive and unproblematic edits. This editor is basically ONLY editing in CTOPs, they're doing it disruptively -- we're talking about an editor with only 177 whom other editors are describing as exhausting to interact with! -- and the specific kind of disruption is both frustrating and tedious to prove and frustrating to try to get attention to because who you need so many diffs to prove it. That plus the apparent difficulty in breaking that habit, which btw they were continuing during this case...I dunno. Valereee (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I certainly understand your point. I am a little hesitant to sanction for "sealioning", as often it is difficult to tell where enthusiasm ends and disruptive tendentiousness begins, and I certainly do not want to have a project where people are afraid to advocate viewpoints contrary to a current consensus. That said, if everyone else feels sanctions are warranted, I won't object terribly strongly; I just generally prefer someone to get a chance to show if they've gotten the point (or in some cases, to conclusively demonstrate that they have not). Seraphimblade 20:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Generally I'm with you. Let people show they've dealt with the issue. Reblocking is pretty easy in most cases. But sealioning...well, it's such a difficult issue to prove/assess, and there are so many people doing it who don't even have the self-awareness to fix the problem that I kind of feel like it needs a tougher approach than I'd normally argue for. Not a hill I'm going to die on, but if the editor is back here or at ANI for the same issue, I am going to be extremely unhappy with them.
- @BabbleOnto, do you understand what we're talking about when we describe your participation at talk pages as WP:sealioning, and why we think it's such a problem, particularly in contentious topics? Do you think you can avoid participating in that way at article talk pages? Valereee (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I certainly understand your point. I am a little hesitant to sanction for "sealioning", as often it is difficult to tell where enthusiasm ends and disruptive tendentiousness begins, and I certainly do not want to have a project where people are afraid to advocate viewpoints contrary to a current consensus. That said, if everyone else feels sanctions are warranted, I won't object terribly strongly; I just generally prefer someone to get a chance to show if they've gotten the point (or in some cases, to conclusively demonstrate that they have not). Seraphimblade 20:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- In my experience sealioning is a habit editors have an extremely difficult time breaking. I was going to agree with Rosguill re: a tban from AP2 + COVID, maybe appealable after 3 months and 500 productive and unproblematic edits. This editor is basically ONLY editing in CTOPs, they're doing it disruptively -- we're talking about an editor with only 177 whom other editors are describing as exhausting to interact with! -- and the specific kind of disruption is both frustrating and tedious to prove and frustrating to try to get attention to because who you need so many diffs to prove it. That plus the apparent difficulty in breaking that habit, which btw they were continuing during this case...I dunno. Valereee (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Marlarkey
| Marlarkey p-blocked from Declaration of war and formally warned to be more mindful of policies, guidelines and best practices when editing CTOPs, particularly PIA signed, Rosguill 19:54, 16 January 2025 (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 Marlarkey
User has been on Misplaced Pages (on and off) since at least January 2010. It seems there is a WP:CIR-related issue on ArbCom PIA/Contentious topics, given the very clear lack of ignorance of the ArbCom Notification and subsequent edit summary arguments. I do not necessarily believe a block will be of use in this case, due to this editor's on-and-off Misplaced Pages editing status (less than 500 edits since January 2010). Either a topic ban and/or a 1,000 EC status requirement (i.e. EC-status requirement is something higher than 500 edits) is being requested. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning MarlarkeyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MarlarkeyWeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly reverting edits which are removing information outside the scope of the page in question. My edits are validly citated within the scope of the page. WeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has cited WP:ARBPIA but that is not relevant to THIS article which is not a Palestine-Israel article. This article is not a contentious topic - it is factual. My edits are WP:NPOV. This article is about declarations of war - the opening statement states "A declaration of war is a formal act by which one state announces existing or impending war activity against another." 1. Hamas is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hamas should not be included in the article 2. Hezbollah is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hezbollah should not be included in the article 3. Russia vs Ukraine are both nation states - the question then is whether there has been a declaration of war. In the case 1 & 2, the removal of these two entries is WP:NPOV and the inclusion or otherwise in this article is in no way a comment on the conflict in question - only whether they constitute a declaration of war by one nation state on another. Which they do not because they are nation states. In the case of 3, the inclusion of Russia vs Ukraine only relies on whether there has been a declaration of war. The citation I gave is documented evidence of Russia announcing that a state of war exists between Russia and Ukraine. I suggest that by taking the action they have that the complainant is the one acting in a that asserts a political opinion about the conflict
Weatherwriter reversions of my edits serve to support a political opinion on a page which is about facts. I'm pretty angry about being accused in this way when MY edits were factually based and neutral point of view, whereas by reverting my edits it does precisely the opposite, allowing contentious and politically biased information to infect the page. GRRRRRRrrr Marlarkey (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Again this makes me angry at the accusations being made against me. If you don't want people editing and contributing to[REDACTED] then please just say so. GRRR Marlarkey (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Result concerning Marlarkey
Marlarkey, you have gone a bit over your 500 word allotment for responses. Please do not comment further unless directly asked to. I will remove an additional reply that was both over your limit and in the wrong section. signed, Rosguill 00:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm thus inclined to suggest an indefinite partial block from Declaration of war (but not its talk page) as a regular admin action for edit warring, and a logged warning to be mindful of CTOP standards. signed, Rosguill 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC
|
DanielVizago
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 DanielVizago
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Schazjmd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- DanielVizago (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
- Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_and_sexuality#Final_decision
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 29 Dec 2024 Added Category:Misandry to a BLP, after CTOP notification and several talk page messages notifying DanielVizago that the category is not to be applied to articles about individuals (per category description,
This category is for issues relating to misandry. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly misandrist.
); - 4 Jan 2025 and 5 Jan 2025 Removing sourced content from Misogyny that states misandry is not a major an issue as misogyny;
- 5 Jan 2025 Changing content in Male privilege to emphasize misandry (reverted by another editor with edit summary
rv, poorly sourced (sources supplemented by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH), earlier version was better, closer to sources
); - 13 Jan 2025 Added "bimisandry" to Biphobia, citing 4 sources, none of which include that term;
- 14 Jan 2025, weird edits adding Category:Female rapists with piped names to unrelated articles, then added those names directly to the category page;
- 14 Jan 2025 restored the "bimisandry" edit to Biphobia, then added a 5th ref that includes the term but is just a blog; I left a 4th-level warning on talk page;
- 14 Jan 2025 (after final warning) adds ] and ] to Hurtcore; those two individuals don't have articles and there is no mention in this article of their charges or convictions, even though the category solely consists of
articles of female individuals who have been convicted of rape in a court of law.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- None
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- I alerted them on 28 Dec 2024
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Above diffs are all edits after the CTOP notification was provided. Before then, DanielVizago misapplied Category:Misandry to 46 articles, which is what caught my attention. Their attempts to add "bimisandry" to Biphobia started 16 Dec 2024. On 28 Dec 2024, DanielVizago added a lot of content to Supremacism about misandry, which another editor reverted with edit summary remove recently added pro-fringe section and put back the excerpt
. Most of their 122 edits have been reverted by multiple editors.
Before the level 4 warning, I tried guiding DanielVizago away from CTOP; they don't engage on their talk page. (They've posted there once, to say "thanks" in response to a warning.) With their refusal to communicate, poor sourcing, and non-NPOV edits, I don't think they should be editing in this topic area. Schazjmd (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning DanielVizago
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 DanielVizago
Statement by caeciliusinhorto
Since this report was opened, DanielVizago has continued to make questionable edits adding articles to Category:Female rapists.
- Possibly the worst edit, categorising a living person who has been accused (but not charged, let alone convicted) of sexual assault as a rapist (cf. WP:BLPCRIMINAL)
- This edit adds the category to a disambiguation page on the basis of one of the people listed on that page, who had in fact been convicted not of rape but of sexual activity with a minor
- this and this edit categorise two sexually-motivated murderers as rapists despite no evidence that they ever raped anyone in the article (cf. WP:CATV)
Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Simonm223
Might be wise, as long as doing so wouldn't interfere with evidence, to get a revision deletion on some of the diffs presented above that make unfounded statements about BLPs. Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning DanielVizago
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I've p-blocked from article space to see if we can get this editor communicating. Valereee (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I want to hear what they have to say, but I'm going to need a fairly convincing explanation as to how they're here to build an encyclopedia and not to POV-push men's rights activism content where it doesn't belong. The IDHT and spammy behavior and the BLP vios on top of that aren't super encouraging, either, but if they decide to communicate, I'm happy to reassess. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd like to hear what they have to say, too, but I'm also not averse to letting this archive with no further action since the p-block is an indef. I've left another message at their talk. Valereee (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
]
Ekdalian
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 Ekdalian
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- NXcrypto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Ekdalian (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
- WP:ARBIPA
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 12:51, 11 January 2025 - Restoring recently added disputed content, contrary to WP:ONUS
- 21:55, 11 January 2025 - Casting unsubstantiated aspersions and poisoning the well against another editor.
- 12:01, 13 January 2025 - Poisoning the well against another user without any evidence of misconduct.
- 19:11, 15 January 2025 - Restoring recently added disputed content again and essentially asking to get consensus for it, contrary to WP:ONUS.
- 15:05, 16 January 2025 - Performs a blanket revert in order to make a WP:POINT, just because their previous edit was reverted, despite it being the version that was arrived upon by a month long discussion on the talkpage, also saying "LE also wants to discuss and revisit the content proposed by the sock" , LukeEmily later elaborated that they are okay with the version that Ekdalian was actually reverting
- 17:42, 16 January 2025 - Same as above but edit warring
- 19:42, 16 January 2025 - Edit warring and casting aspersions saying that reverting editor is acting like the blocked sock Nobita456 "stop behaving like Nobita please"
- 14:31, 18 January 2025 - Attacks and tries to poison the well against another editor also says that "WP:ONUS doesn't mean you need to achieve consensus with editors condemned by admins for persistent POV pushing! "
- 18:47, 18 January 2025 - Restores the aforementioned attack saying "Related to the content only, related to WP:CONSENSUS to be precise; accept the truth, I don't want to report minor incidents" when told to focus on content
- 18:29, 19 January 2025 - calling a WP:NOTVANDAL edit as vandalism and issues final warning for vandalism
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Has a {{Ds/aware|ipa}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page. and notified of WP:ARBIPA by Dennis Brown in 2022
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I also note that Ekdalian has a history of aggressive edit warring in the contentious topic as a part of slow running edit war.On Bengali Kayastha, many of their most recent edits have been reverts to prevent content addition as well. It has gotten to the point where experienced users like Sitush have called them out for it because they usually misrepresent the consensus or comments by editors such as Sitush to claim that consensus already exists when there is none, they do not provide diffs when asked to substantiate their claims either. They have been reprimanded in past over similar conduct about misrepresentation and exaggeration by @Dennis Brown: on this venue as well. They have a history of attacking other users and trying to poison the well against them instead of focusing on the content as diffs above prove.
I am not seeking any topic bans but Ekdalian should be at least told not to misuse the talk page for adding more fuel into heated disputes, and use the revert button only when it is necessary. Nxcrypto Message 03:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm unimpressed by your defence of #10, it was an unsourced change, sure disruptive but not vandalism (which has a very specific meaning). Please refer to WP:NOTVANDAL. Nxcrypto Message 07:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Ekdalian
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 Ekdalian
I have nothing to say as such! I have been serving Misplaced Pages since 2013, particularly related to contentious caste articles, fighting against caste promotion, POV pushing and vandalism. Heated debates are common in the contentious topics. I have neither violated 3RR, nor abused any editor! Yes, in case someone has been topic banned and condemned by admins, I do mention the same so that NPOV is not violated. Many admins are aware of my activities including SPI, anti-disruption and anti-vandalism. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Action (warning) may be taken against NXcrypto for being unable to identify vandalism (refer to point number 10), and wasting the time of our admins! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nxcrypto, it is a clear case of vandalism. The user intends to misrepresent and project their caste as Kulin Kayastha (higher status among Bengali Kayasthas) by intentionally changing Eastern (Bengal) to Western! Moreover, the user has done similar vandalism in multiple articles only in order to promote Western Bengali Guhas. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- In response to Bishonen's comments, I would like to inform here that Sitush is referring to my response at a time when Nobita456's sock was driving a discussion and I had filed an SPI! Therefore, I was delaying the discussion in order to eliminate the sock from the same. Sitush has been quoted out of context! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Orientls, the user has already been blocked for vandalism; I have years of experience in this area and quite sure of what I have mentioned! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Bishonen: I have clearly mentioned that I am not sure! But, Orientls seems to be so sure that they have stated that I am 'falsely' accusing him of meatpuppetry! How can you be so sure that there has been no mail exchanges? Orientls, do you think you are God? Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Orientls
I find this comment by Ekdalian unpalatable: "The user intends to misrepresent and project their caste as Kulin Kayastha." How are you so sure of their caste? I don’t see where they have self-identified as such, and you also accuse them of attempting to project "their caste'" with another one by "vandalising" Misplaced Pages, which is a serious accusation against a new editor. I think an editor of your tenure should be able to recognize what constitutes vandalism because those edits are not vandalism, you should also refrain from speculating about the caste of editors.
This reasoning seems odd, especially when Sitush himself states: "CharlesWain began this discussion. They are not a sock, are they?" , implying that you were opposing changes proposed by an editor who was not a sock by misrepresenting Sitush's comments. I also think canvassing was inappropriate, particularly with its problematic heading, "Kind attention: Bishonen and admins active here." It sounds as if you are trying to recruit people to back you up here.
Honestly, I’m not surprised by the diffs cited in the report, especially if your conduct at ARE is like this where your edits are under scrutiny.
@Bishonen: While the filer himself made it clear that he is not "seeking any topic bans", Ekdalian deserves a topic ban following this new message. By calling an editor with almost 4k edits a "comparatively new user" and falsely accusing him of "meatpuppetry", Ekdalian has proven he is not capable of editing here without poisoning the well and making personal attacks. Orientls (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Ekdalian
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I will point out that I was canvassed to this discussion by Ekdalian. That said, I'll state that I don't think NXcrypto's diffs are anything much; it's surely a stretch to call them "casting apersions" and "poisoning the well" and the like, especially in the IPA area where the tone is often sharp. The comments by Sitush are a little more concerning, though. Bishonen | tålk 10:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC).
Alex 19041
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 Alex 19041
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Est. 2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Alex 19041 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Alex 19041
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 Alex 19041
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Alex 19041
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- To recap what's already been said at the initial hearing this got at ARBCOM, it has been identified that Alex19041 is not extended-confirmed, has now been made aware of the 30/500 editing restriction for PIA, has acknowledged that they should not make any edits to the topic, but has not quite acknowledged that they also should not make comments relating to the topic outside of article space. If they can acknowledge that, an IBAN would be unnecessary as they will not be engaging further with the discussion at-issue for some time. If they can't acknowledge that, we'd likely need to escalate to blocks, as there's no reason to expect the IBAN to be observed. Some concern was also raised that Est. 2021's replies to Alex 19041 included personal attacks, although it should be noted that Est. 2021 has made an effort to remove potentially-problematic statements from their prior comments at ARBCOM (sections on their talk page containing similar language have been removed entirely, which is within their purview on a user talk page). signed, Rosguill 16:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- (came here from the ill-fated ArbCom case request). I agree with Rosguill. Some assurance from Alex 19041 and from Est. 2021 that they will leave the problematic edits behind would be good.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that the reported user needs to show some understanding that as a non-EC user, they need to leave this CTOP alone across all namespaces. However, sanctions are for serious, ongoing problems, three unwelcome talk page posts made over the course of an hour does not strike me as sufficient cause for a formal iban. If there's more to it than that, it needs to be made clear, with diffs. Beeblebrox 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Denali-related pages
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 Denali-related pages
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- ] (] · ] · ] · ] · filter log · ] · block log)
Search CT alerts: • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:CT/AP
I think this is the right place to ask for this? Requesting an expansion of WP:CT/AP to cover all articles related to Denali, as it has unfortunately become a political hot-button issue as the POTUS made it a prioroty on his first day back in office to sign an executive order to revert the name of the mountain back to "Mt. McKinley".
In the past twenty-four hours there has been heavy editing/disruption in articles and on related talk pages and protection has been needed at several. Denali was probably hit hardest, but Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute got some too, as has Denali National Park and Preserve, which is explicitly not even part of the executive order. I wouldn't be surprised if the same issue is happening in Gulf of Mexico related articles, but haven't checked for myself. Beeblebrox 22:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, just checked Gulf of Mexico. 28 new talk page sections in the past day, was already ECP protected two weeks ago per WP:CT/AP.
- I kinda think a single admin could do this, but I am editorially involved and probably slightly too infuriated to be objective. Beeblebrox 22:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the replies, that's kind of what I thought, but again didn't want to act on it as I'm editorially involved. Beeblebrox 22:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Discussion concerning Denali-related pages
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 Denali-related pages
Statement by Isabelle
Since I've protected Denali's talk page, I will comment here. I agree that we will be seeing serious issues in the coming month, considering all the shit the new president is throwing at the wall, but I believe the administrators are well equip to deal with this at the moment. I believe Valereee has protected the Gulf of Mexico's talk page, and I've dealt with Mount Denali's. We might need to apply more extensive protection during this coming month to stop the vandals, but current tools will do just fine. Isabelle Belato 23:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Valereee
Pinged here: yes, I've semi'd Talk:Gulf of Mexico, yesterday for 24 hours, today for another 31. I dislike protecting a talk, but it was a burden for editors working there. Valereee (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- 100+ edits today on the article, which is EC protected. I feel like that's a lot. Valereee (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Denali-related pages
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- @Beeblebrox: AMPOL already covers "Post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed". I think that "broadly construed" would include Denali and Gulf of Mexico in the current moment. In any event, I think you'd want to go to ARCA, not here, for an amendment. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, Denali is already ECP and Denali National Park and Preserve has semi-protection. There's no protection on Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute, but I'm not seeing anything in the page history that would justify it.l voorts (talk/contributions) 22:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- AE couldn't expand the scope of an existing CT designation; only ArbCom could do that. But I don't think we need to. If the disruption is related to a current American politics controversy, that's clearly related to "post-1992 politics of the United States", and so is already in scope of the existing CT designation. So, I'd say just treat it as such. Seraphimblade 22:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)