Revision as of 22:15, 19 March 2011 editPaul Siebert (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers26,740 edits →Comments by others about the request concerning Tentontunic← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:45, 22 January 2025 edit undoSmallangryplanet (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,197 edits →Request concerning שלומית ליר: Add additional comments by editor filing complaint (2025-01-22)Tag: 2017 wikitext editor | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:AE| |
<noinclude>{{Redirect|WP:AE||WP:AE (disambiguation)}} | ||
__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!-- | |||
<includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}Requests for enforcement=</includeonly> | |||
--><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}]=</includeonly> | |||
<noinclude>{{editabuselinks|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}{{shortcut|WP:AE}} | |||
<noinclude>{{Noticeboard links|style=width:100%; border:2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin:2px 0;|groupstyle=background-color:#CAE1FF;}}<!-- | |||
</noinclude> | |||
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}} | |||
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
<noinclude>{{TOC limit}}</noinclude> | |||
|counter =347 | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}} | |||
|maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
|counter = 85 | |||
|minthreadsleft = 0 | |minthreadsleft = 0 | ||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(14d) | ||
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d | ||
}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}} | |||
}} | |||
<!--PLEASE PLACE NEW REQUESTS BELOW THIS NOTICE --> | |||
==שלומית ליר== | |||
== Jacurek == | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
===Request concerning שלומית ליר=== | |||
{{hat|1=Jacurek, Volunteer Marek, Dr. Dan and Lokyz are sanctioned as described in this thread; M.K is warned. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)}} | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Smallangryplanet}} 17:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===Request concerning Jacurek=== | |||
; User requesting enforcement : ] ] 09:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks| |
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|שלומית ליר}}<p>{{ds/log|שלומית ליר}}</p> | ||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
; ] 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: | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
Jacurek, who has a long history of disruption and sanctions relating to eastern European topics, after coming back from a ban, has focussed his editing almost entirely on lame edit-warring over the inclusion of Polish, German or Lithuanian geographical terms in the leads of various articles. | |||
*2014 to 2016: no edits. | |||
*On ]: | |||
*2017 to 2019: 1 edit per year. None related to PIA. | |||
*On ]: | |||
*2022: 7 edits. Mostly in their userspace. | |||
*On ]: (in the usual old tag-teams, with {{user|Volunteer Marek}} (aka Radeksz) against {{user|Dr. Dan}}, {{user|M.K}} and {{user|Lokyz}}). Also possible IP sock: <small>(Notice: that this IP is not any of the editors discussed here. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC))</small> | |||
*2023: 21 edits. Again, mostly in their userspace. Made two edits in the talk page of ] complaining about its content and calling it . | |||
*On ]: | |||
* 2024: Started editing after a 10 month break at the end of October. | |||
*On ]: | |||
**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 ] article where they with an unclear image with a dubious caption, and without providing a reason why. | |||
**They also edited the ] article, with a caption not supported by the source (replaced by yet with a contextless caption when the previous image was removed) and WP:UNDUE content . | |||
**they also in the second AfD for ] 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 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 . I think that someone with this clear POV agenda shouldn't be near the topic. | |||
He also made the obvious ] move of removing the German name from ] , explicitly in retaliation, and in blatant breach of the long-standing Gdansk rules. | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
More edit-warring just under 3RR elsewhere: on ], | |||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> | |||
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on and re-iterated on (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 by {{admin|Femke}}. | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
One thing that's troubling is that the same old cliques and tag-teams known from the ] days are still showing up together on the same articles regularly in many of these cases. | |||
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 , , , and . They've also been . 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 ) isn't a clear cut case of canvassing, I don't know what is. ] (]) 20:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): | |||
not applicable, has long history of Digwuren and EEML sanctions | |||
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : renewed revert restriction at the least, preferably full topic ban from geographical naming issues, or full ban | |||
Adding some more comments on 2025-01-22: The user in question says that they have been on[REDACTED] for years – and so surely aware of what does and does not count as canvassing. As recently as last month they were , as well as I've already mentioned. I understand that we are always meant to ], but we are looking at a situation in which a user (1) has extensive experience with Misplaced Pages and (2) is encouraging people, subtly and not so subtly to do things that are against our policies. ] (]) 19:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : I would take action myself here, as I have done before, if not for the fact that in one of the contentious naming issues cited above I gave my own editorial opinion earlier. ] ] 09:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:: Re. to Piotrus' comment below: asking "who gave me the diffs" is a pretty serious assumption of bad faith all by itself. I'm perfectly able to collect diffs myself. I saw something light up on Jacurek's talkpage (which happened to be still on my watchlist from time immemorial), and out of curiousity took a look at what he had been up to. ] ] 16:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
===Discussion concerning Jacurek=== | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
====Statement by Jacurek==== | |||
Recently, I focused my work on adding missing alternative names to the articles related to shared Lithuanian, Polish, Jewish, Belorussian or Ukrainian history and heritage following general naming policy . | |||
I have beed editing without violating any standards of behaviour and in line with normal editorial process. All my edits/reverts presented here are spread out over time, discussed by me , , | |||
, , or in line with discussion I followed and ALL are supported by the ]. I stated in my edit summaries why I'm doing such edits and the polices I followed | |||
===Discussion concerning שלומית ליר=== | |||
I was adding alternative names in various languages: | |||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by שלומית ליר==== | |||
*German names to Polish places: | |||
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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 01:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Thebiguglyalien==== | |||
*Polish names to Belorussian places: | |||
This is the first ARBPIA report since the proposed decision ] and it's specifically a matter of POV pushing, responding admins should be aware of the "]" 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. ] (]) 05:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-03-29/Special_report | |||
====Statement by Selfstudier==== | |||
*Yiddish, Belorussian, Ethnic Kashubian and Ukrainian names to Polish places: | |||
To the extent that it is relevant, the WJC report was discussed at ]. ] (]) 11:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by starship.paint (2)==== | |||
*Polish, Yiddish and Russian names to Ukrainian places: | |||
I would to like to raise at ], where there had been an existing unsourced paragraph ({{tq|On the morning of October 7, a tour minibus...}}) that שלומית ליר added to ( / ) from the ]. '''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 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. '''] (] / ])''' 13:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*Lithuanian names to Polish places: | |||
====Statement by xDanielx==== | |||
*Latvian, Belorussian, Russian to Lithianian palces: | |||
{{yo|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 , 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. ] attempted to demonstrate, rather than mere opinion-driven editing which applies to the vast majority of CTOP editors. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>\<sup>]</sup> 03:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*...and '''finally''' Polish names to the Lithuanian places: | |||
Here however, all my edits were immediately '''reverted''' by {{user|Dr. Dan}}, {{user|M.K}} and {{user|Lokyz}}) | |||
'''I was called Dyslexic''' , '''amusing''', '''a troll''' , '''a nationalistic troll''' '''chauvinist playing games''' etc. | |||
Disrespect, taunting and incivility was also directed at other people by mentioned editors: '''ex-admin RPG player is trying to make a project of Misplaced Pages a playground of his own''' | |||
Please note that one was warned by administrator because of these incivil remarks and another complained about . | |||
==== Statement by Hemiauchenia ==== | |||
Here are just few diff's as an examples of the name removals by mentioned editors: | |||
This user has engaged in off-wiki canvassing regarding the IP conflict. Take the following recent tweet from the 12 January | |||
For posterity in case it is deleted it contains the following remarks: {{quote|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 ]. 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. ] (]) 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 (). 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 . ] (]) 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 () in response to a question of if Misplaced Pages can be "saved". -- ] (]) 23:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Sean.hoyland==== | |||
*As far as removing a German name from the lead of the ] article I reverted my own edits ] ] from December in line with this discussion and linked this talk page in my edit summary . This edit was NOT to make any point. | |||
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. ] (]) 09:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Vice regent==== | |||
*As far as ], each two edit are different and this one is not even mine | |||
I'm satisfied by שלומית ליר's above explanation regarding canvassing. People with bad canvassing intentions don't reveal their identity. ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 04:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by (username)==== | |||
*As far as IP sock: - this is not me and I wonder why FP can so easily and without any proof accuse people of using socks? | |||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your 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.'' | |||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
*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 is UNDUE is not within AE's purview, as long as it is supported by the source. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] I would consider something more stringent. ] (]) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* While I understand {{u|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. ] places an obligation to {{xtn|Within contentious topics,… edit carefully and constructively… and… adhere to the ]}}. The linked page provides that {{xtn|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. ] 20:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:: Assessing the topic area contributions of the respondent (שלומית ליר) since they became extended-confirmed {{logid|166341641|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: | |||
::* ]. | |||
::* ]. | |||
::* ] which was perhaps casting doubt on the relevant section, ''Massacre of pensioners'', and ]. | |||
::* ], therefore giving greater weight to the claims, in a context where the claims were already described at considerable length; ]; ]. | |||
::* ], then ], both to the first line of the article. | |||
::* ] and ]. | |||
::* On the talk pages, there has been a ] 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 ]: ]; ]. At ], there is then an expansion, again of the article lead, ] (]). | |||
:: 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. ] 20:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::: {{re|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 ]. 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 ]. ] 08:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*The offwiki canvassing is a problem...{{u|שלומית ליר}}, you're fairly inexperienced here. Were you aware ] is not allowed? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*I take it that per {{u|Barkeep49}}'s brief oversighting of potentially-sensitive content in this report (]), and then restoration of the same (]), concerns of outing have been investigated and the report can proceed on its merits? <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 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. ] (]) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*It's not for AE to decide content disputes, and that's mostly what this looks like. We can handle things like flagrant misrepresentation of sources, but how ''best'' to represent them is a matter for consensus discussion, not us to decide here. The canvassing was a cause for concern, but it looks like it was rather unintended and had little if any actual effect, and they've agreed to stop that going forward. (Note that doesn't mean anyone must stop criticizing Misplaced Pages or what happens on it; do all of that you like. Just don't encourage people to take particular actions based on that.) I don't see any further action as necessary at this point. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:+1 ] (]) 18:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
==Luganchanka== | |||
Why was I singled out and accused of violating the polices by Future Perfect at Sunrise? EXACTLY the same report could have been filed by him on user {{user|Dr. Dan}}, {{user|M.K}} or {{user|Lokyz}}: | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
===Request concerning Luganchanka=== | |||
*On ]: ,, ,, , | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Hemiauchenia}} 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*On ]: , , , , | |||
*On ]: , , , , , , , , , , , | |||
*On ]: , , , | |||
*On ]: , , , , | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Luganchanka}}<p>{{ds/log|Luganchanka}}</p> | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
The bottom line is that I was following normal editorial process, watching revert count limitations and all my edits were supported by the ]. | |||
We really have an opportunity now to resolve ongoing problem of removal by some Lithuanian editors all Polish names from the articles related to the Polish-Lithuanian heritage and reach the agreement thanks to discussion here . I echo this comment '''%100'''. Please Sandstain, look outside the AE box this only time and the problem will gone.--] (]) 02:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
<s>'''MISSED FROM MY GDANSK SECTION-PLEASE ADD''' - please do not classify me together with editors who remove one language names for nationalistic reasons. I was editing names in various languages (German, Polish, Russian, Lithuanian, Yiddish, Latvian, Latvian and Byelorussian) - Refer to my edit history. | |||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> | |||
- (adding German) | |||
# 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. | |||
then correcting to follow standards --] (]) 21:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks for correcting--] (]) 21:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)</s> | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
===Third opinion of an uninvolved administrator=== | |||
BLP CTOP warning given | |||
As per permission of the reviewing administrators third opinion has been requested Thank you all for patience.--] (]) 02:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
====Comments by others about the request concerning Jacurek ==== | |||
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. ]. Luganchanka has been persistently edit warring against this apparent consensus. For which he has been warned by {{Ping|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 ], 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. ] (]) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
: Luganchanka's response is disingenuous and misleading. Look at the ] 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. ] (]) 20:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:: RfC opened ]. ] (]) 16:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
===Discussion concerning Luganchanka=== | |||
===Comment by Volunteer Marek=== | |||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by Luganchanka==== | |||
There's an ongoing discussion about the proper way of handling alternative names here . The underlying problem is complete disregard for naming policy on the part of Dr. Dan/Lokyz/MK. This is compounded by the fact that there is some confusion over what the actual policy is. Hence the discussion. | |||
The intro on the ] 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 ], 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.] (]) 20:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Jacurek's edits at Gdansk where a response - and in line with - to the discussion as it was occurring at Naming conventions (the diff above), with comments provided by a third opinion (which I requested) at Vilnius university , and are in agreement with views expressed by such individuals like ] and ] who are about as far as humanely and even super-humanely possible from being "same old cliques and tag-teams known from the WP:EEML days." As such Jacurek's edits are part of the standard BRD cycle, are not edit warring, and none of them are in any way a breach of policy. | |||
Please see the ], 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.] (]) 20:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Throughout Jacurek has remained calm and civil despite several provocations. In particular, Dr. Dan has made several personal attacks against various users: | |||
* Dr. Dan calling editors "nationalist trolls" | |||
* Dr. Dan calling editors "nationalist trolls" | |||
* Dr. Dan taunting Piotrus, shortly after coming off an interaction ban with him: ("It's nice to have you back editing after your ]. It must have been an unpleasant experience. ") | |||
* Dr. Dan implies that editors are "nationalistic, chauvinistic" | |||
: Thank you to @] and @] for your feedback. If you see the ], discussions - {{tq|14 August - Vandalism by removing all reference entirely to Ritter being a "Convicted Sex Offender"}} and {{tq|First 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.] (]) 06:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
At the naming conventions discussion Deacon of Pndapetzim, who I think can fairly be characterized as an "opponent" of people who used to be on the Eastern European mailing list has stated: | |||
''Without wishing to offend anyone, my experience of other language names in leads is that they function in practice as nationalist scent markings.'' | |||
Jacurek's edits were completely in line with this sentiment. | |||
:: Thank you for this ], I really do appreciate your feedback and advice here!!] (]) 16:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC) <small>(moved from ] — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC))</small> | |||
Additionally Deacon stated, in reference to inclusion of German names in ledes of articles on Polish places: | |||
''Can't say I approve of most of those edits.'' - again, in line with Jacurek's above edits. | |||
:: As per ]'s comments: | |||
Likewise, Deacon said: ''in those cases this should be in the main text with citations not just in brackets at the lead, where it looks like simple nationalist scent-marking and is thus provocative. '' | |||
{{tq|"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."}} | |||
At ], user Novickas, who can also be seen as usually on the other side of the issue stated: | |||
''Yes, I think all articles ought to follow WP:Lead, which emphasizes concision and readability, but leaves room for an entity's multiple names by way of a dedicated name section.'' - again in reference to the inclusion of German names in Polish places. | |||
https://casetext.com/case/ritter-v-tuttle | |||
As such Jacurek's edits are not in any way a way of making a POINT but rather a response to what people are saying the policy is. | |||
] (]) 18:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Did I mention that none of Jacurek's edits in any way violated any kind of policy what so ever? | |||
====Statement by NatGertler==== | |||
Finally, let me point out that a discussion on the subject is actually ongoing and amazingly, for like the first time in a long while it is actually civil, calm and is even starting to look productive, people who previously have very strongly disagreed with each other in the past might actually be able to work something out and '''about the last freakin thing that is going to help here''' is a completely pointless and baseless AE report such as this one which good money says will do nothing but attract the usual infighting, bickering and sniping. | |||
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 ]), 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. -- ] (]) 21:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by (username)==== | |||
What is the point of this AE report? How is it not counter productive? Why do you find it necessary to sabotage a potentially productive discussion?] (]) 10:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
===Result concerning Luganchanka=== | |||
'''Response to Sandstein's suggestion and Ed Johnston''' | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
*<!-- | |||
--> | |||
:@]: 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. ] (]/]) 20:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::I've blocked the user for 48h for violating 3RR based on the report at ].--] (]) 23:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* @], 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 ]whiyou 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. ] (]) 16:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:@], if you really believe those two sections -- senior editors, indeed, ] 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 ] 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. ] (]) 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 ] seems appropriate. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 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 ] 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 {{tq|whitewash}} before writing this off as time-served. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 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. — ] <sub>]</sub> 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. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 15:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::::I am not at all comforted by the fact that Luganchanka has proceeded to make ]. The cited BBC source does not state {{tq| masturbated and ejaculated on camera}}, saying only {{tq|graphic sex act}}. As written, this is essentially another BLP violation, building a case that a ban from this topic is needed. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 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. {{u|Luganchanka}}, in light of this clarification, can you please address your decision to include the claims as you initially wrote them? <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 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. — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:::::::Seeing ] here and ], ] at ], 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. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 18:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:::::::{{yo|Luganchanka}} | |||
*:::::::] calls upon users to {{tq|{{strong|{{em|not}}}} use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person}}. There are some narrow exceptions (when {{tq|primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it {{em|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 ]. | |||
*:::::::— ] <sub>]</sub> 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*{{yo|Luganchanka}} Would you please provide a direct link to the talk page section you are referring to when you say {{tq|there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior[REDACTED] editors}} regarding the lead? — ] <sub>]</sub> 01:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:{{yo|Luganchanka|Hemiauchenia}} | |||
*:It does seem that the discussion at ] does indicate some support for that language i.e. ({{tq|convicted child sex offender}}) in the lead, with some general lean against putting it in the first sentence. So, while {{tq|There 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 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 <s>]</s>two 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. , which is cited in the ''body'' of the article (but not the lead), does state that Ritter {{tq|was convicted unlawful contact with minors and other charges}} in the state of PA (the PA statute is ; "unlawful contact with minors" is the verbatim name of the crime). When dealing with a sting operation, PA treats it as {{tq|an 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 ] on the article's talk page for what the lead should look like is probably the best way to go forward here. | |||
*:— ] <sub>]</sub> 15:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::RTH, are you objecting to a p-block from the article? ] (]) 13:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:::Ping to @] ] (]) 18:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*Luganchanka has been blocked for a week by ] for BLP violations and personal attacks. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 18:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:Just noting that this was a regular admin action and I wasn't aware this was before AE. ] (]) 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. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
==BabbleOnto== | |||
You can't judge/sanction editors based on whether they're "engaged in a campaign of mass removal or mass addition" if the editor involved is following established naming guidelines. For comparison look at ]'s edits (and I wish to be 100% clear that this is no way a criticism of Herkus), particularly all the edits with the edit summary "lang-de" which in the recent past have comprised the majority of Herkus' editing on Misplaced Pages. Jacurek's edits are no different than Herkus' and neither editor did anything wrong. The only difference is that when Herkus "engages in his campaign of mass addition" he IS NOT immediately reverted by tag teams of Polish editors who also refuse to discuss the issue meaningfully and some of whom engage in personal attacks - but this does happen with addition of Polish names to places with shared Polish and Lithuanian history. Unlike Jacurek, Herkus is left alone, because he is more or less following current naming policy (again, if that is the appropriate policy is another question) - just like Jacurek was.] (]) 16:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
===Request concerning BabbleOnto=== | |||
:We're not examining mass additions or removals per se, but edit wars. Whether the reverts conform with any naming policy or guideline is irrelevant for the purpose of this request, because the ] does not exempt such reverts. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|ජපස}} 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|BabbleOnto}}<p>{{ds/log|BabbleOnto}}</p> | |||
::I understand perfectly well that AE is not about judging compliance of edits with the naming policy. However it is also the case that in one instance you get edit wars because a group of editors does not wish to comply with naming policy, whereas in the other case - which involves exactly the same kinds of edits - you don't get edit wars because, well, because the editors on both sides are more reasonable and have no problem with following policy. As such, punishing Jacurek in this case, even if he reverted others is tantamount to rewarding the battleground behavior of those who purposefully ignore this naming policy. If the purpose of this board is to prevent conflicts from continuing in this area then encouraging this kind of behavior is obviously not the way to further that goal. A bit of common sense is needed here.] (]) 19:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
'''Response to this "list" business''' | |||
Uhh, not sure what this list is supposed to be or what it is supposed to accomplish (in fact, it's a bad idea to begin with) but for what it's worth: | |||
#I've never edited ] or ]. | |||
#I made one edit to ] '''back in August''' (so 5+ months ago) after Lokyz removed the name with an edit summary that made no sense, but I didn't make any further edits even after he blind reverted me literally within minutes (, , ) (btw, please note that "Suvalkų kraštas", the Lithuanian term, has been in the article on the ] for something like 3 years straight and no Polish editor ever tried to remove it - which is quite telling when you compare it to the situation at ]). | |||
#On ], after observing the blind reverts by Lokyz , , I started a discussion on talk on March 5th without making any edits myself. Please note that Lokyz's edit summary justification for his revert was: ''PLease use talk page before starting edit war.'' (on an edit war he started) - however, once I started a discussion on talk he didn't even bother to reply or actually discuss. Hence, '''four days later''' on March 9th, I made the change to the article - this was my single edit to the article. Of course it got reverted within minutes (again - well, actually this time it took him two hours) . At that point I requested a third opinion , still not making any edits to the article myself. Novickas at this time edited the article by expanding the names section which is fine with me. Note the pattern here: Lokyz, Dr. Dan and MK blind revert, while at the same time admonishing users to "discuss on talk" or claiming that there is "no consensus" yet, they then don't even bother discussing things when a discussion is initiated. If they do discuss the discussion is very quickly derailed by irrelevant strawmen (like discussion of whether the article on ] should have the Polish "kot" in it , even though no one has ever proposed that - you can also ask Kotniski about how productive these "discussions" tend to be and why that is). | |||
#On ] I was also the one who initiated the discussion on talk in the first place, way back in October (though note previous personal attacks by Lokyz, who calls Jacurek dyslexic and says '''"Dyslexic people are amusing"''' which is extremely offensive in its own right, no matter who it is directed at). Jacurek likewise tried to engage in good faithed discussion (note also Dr. Dan's mocking of Kotniski in response to with the "Er,..." parody of Kotniski's statement - seriously how is meaningful discussion possible in such circumstances?). Since the talk page consensus appeared to be for the inclusion of the name, and since Lokyz and Dr.Dan ceased participating in the discussion, I '''made one edit''' to the article restoring the name (my edits in November where just a standard expansion of the article) on March 7th, or '''three months after I initiated discussion'''). The edit was again reverted within minutes by Lokyz with an edit summary in which he purposefully used my previous name (in what I took to be a form of harassment), despite the fact that I had previously asked him specifically not to do that and to which he agreed. I made no further edits to the article after that but instead brought the matter to talk again. Here's the sad/ironic thing - recently through a joint Polish-Lithuanian effort the cemetery was restored as a symbol of Polish-Lithuanian friendship and joint history, and the Lithuanian government funded a sign with the Polish name at the entrance to the cemetery - since generally public signs written in Polish are banned in Lithuania this was a "big deal". But apparantly, some editors are more nationalistic than the Lithuanian government. | |||
#On ] I made '''a single edit''' because the article already has a section which discusses the name in much detail and I was just being told by Novickas and Deacon that policy says that in such cases there's no need for a separate inclusion of the name in the lede. I did not edit war here and don't even try to freakin' pretend that I did. This is total nonsense. | |||
Bottom line: I made '''one edit''' at ] long time ago which was reverted within minutes and I made no subsequent edits. I made '''one edit''' at ] and when it was reverted, within less than three hours, asked for third opinion. At ] I initiated discussion on talk and only after it seemed like an agreement was reached for inclusion, and having given it enough time (3 months) did I make '''one edit''' and add the name. This too was reverted within minutes and I didn't edit the article any further. I think the picture that emerges here is crystal clear. | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
I also got to ask why you are limiting this to just these articles? MK regularly edit wars with Belorussians editors over similar matters . Herkus adds German names to Polish places all the time - but never gets reverted <s>because Polish editors, unlike Lithuanian ones, actually follow policy</s>. Why isn't that relevant?] (]) 20:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
:The list is currently limited to the articles named in the request and the editors who have been making language-related reverts on them. If there are similar problems with other articles or other editors, I recommend that you make a separate AE request about them. If the same editors have also made similar reverts in other articles, or other editors have made similar reverts in the same articles, you can mention them here so that we may consider including them in the list. I should note that I think that your above, "Polish editors, unlike Lithuanian ones, actually follow policy", is extremely problematic, as it indicates nationalist prejudice on your part, and I will take it into account in the decision. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
::Oh for Christ sake! My comment that "Polish editors, unlike Lithuanian ones, actually follow policy" obviously is in reference to the editors involved in this request - Lokyz, MK and Dr.Dan and then Jacurek and myself. There's no prejudice in it and it is factually verifiable as noted above. The whole request is about the fact that Lokyz, MK and DD have been purposefully ignoring naming policy. Why am I getting the sense that you are purposefully looking for any kind of excuse to railroad me into a sanction? First you put me in that little list of yours for no reason, and now you come up with this nonsense.] (]) 21:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> | |||
# Sealioning | |||
# Refusal to ] | |||
# Personalizing an argument. | |||
# Railroading the discussion. | |||
This is all after I warned them about ] sanctions, and . Very nearly a ] on the subject. I see no reason to continue tolerating this kind of obstinate ]. Additional diffs available on request from admins, but looking at the user history should suffice to indicate the problem is obvious, I hope. | |||
::I can see that the choice of words wasn't the best one and what I should have said was that "because I follow naming policy, unlike Dr. Dan, MK and Lokyz". Apologies. However, my temper at the moment is running extremely high because of the ridiculous insinuations that you (Sandstein) are making against me and the waste of my time that you are forcing me into - I just wasted an hour and a half of my life writing a response, instead of doing real life work, spending time with my kid, or even working on some Misplaced Pages article. As a result I wrote quickly and unclearly. I'm striking it above.] (]) 21:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | |||
:::Thank you for this clarification, which I accept on a good faith basis. You must be extremely careful what you write, because statements that vilipend whole groups of editors on the basis of their nationality are completely unacceptable, especially in a ] context, and if you repeat such statements you may be sanctioned for them without further warning. I normally assume that people mean exactly what they write. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
::And if you want to see a previous discussion which is relevant here which says the same thing look here and here . Why not go after Kotniski here too? Why not include him in the "list"?] (]) 22:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> | |||
:::These diffs do not show that Kotniski added or removed languages to the articles at issue here. They cannot therefore be included in the list. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on (see the system log linked to above). | |||
::::The diffs are not presented to show that Kotniski added or removed languages, but rather as a response to your threat to "take it (my hastily written statement) into account in the decision." Please address the relevant point, not a completely different point.] (]) 22:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
This is completly wrong: | |||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> | |||
''Edit-warring to add or remove a language from any one article does not necessarily reflect bias, as there may be policy-based grounds for such reverts (even if these do not excuse edit-warring). But a pattern of consistently adding or removing the same language from multiple articles cannot be reasonably explained on guideline grounds, since the guideline makes reference to the use of names in English-language literature, which differs from topic to topic. Such a pattern of editing, therefore, can only be explained by a desire to put nationalist bias ahead of Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. This makes such a pattern incompatible with WP:NPOV and, consequently, grounds for sanctions.'' | |||
This is a ] with respect to the topic and their ] surrounding it has been subject to at least one ] thread that remains active: ]. The hope was that they would ] and move on from this, but it seems they either will not or cannot. ] (]) 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
Specifically: | |||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> | |||
''But a pattern of consistently adding or removing the same language from multiple articles cannot be reasonably explained on guideline grounds'' - no, but it can be explained by the fact that editors will add the language '''which they are familiar with''' to a topic '''which they are familiar with'''. I'd happily add relevant names to articles on ] but I have no idea what these may be. | |||
''Such a pattern of editing, therefore, can only be explained by a desire to put nationalist bias'' - no, it can be explained by the fact that editors edit topics they are familiar with. | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
''This makes such a pattern incompatible with WP:NPOV'' - since when is AE in the business of adjudicating content disputes, which is what WP:NPOV involves? To quote Sandstein himself: ''compliance with this guideline is a content issue, because it requires editorial judgment, and cannot therefore be reviewed in an arbitration context.'' | |||
===Discussion concerning BabbleOnto=== | |||
The above statement appears to be nothing but an attempt to find a flimsy excuse to sanction people who did nothing wrong. It is railroading plain and simple.] (]) 21:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by BabbleOnto==== | |||
'''Add in light of Sandstein's insinuation of "nationalist editing''' | |||
I would first like to begin by point out the person filing this complaint . They have frequently left "warnings" which read more like threats on and for people who disagree with them. Nor would I be the . | |||
I should also add that in the past I have | |||
#defended ]'s addition of German names to Polish articles (within reason) (placeholder for diff here - gimme time to find it, wasting more of my time), and have done so recently at the naming conventions discussion and elsewhere. I've generally have had an amicable relationship with Herkus (at least I think so) so why not ask HIM if he regards my revert of him as good faithed or as sanction-worthy? He's certainly not the person who brought this whole mess to AE. If he's not complaining why are YOU including it here? | |||
#Added Yiddish names to Poland and Lithuania related articles | |||
#Added Lithuanian names to Polish related articles. | |||
To be honest I'm not entirely sure what it is I'm being charged with doing. | |||
Thus, Sandstein's charge/insinuation of "nationalist bias" is highly inflammatory, insulting, and essentially a personal attack. None of the provided diffs substantiate it and it is exactly the kind of statement that he himself regularly tries to sanction other editors for. Since the same rules apply to Sandstein in this respect as they do to other editors, I ask him to strike that portion of his statement.] (]) 22:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Declined. Whether your edits (like those of the other editors) reflect nationalist bias is a matter under investigation in this request. My concern in this respect, above, was accompanied by a . If you disagree with the eventual outcome of the request you can appeal against it. Assumptions of bad faith are unlikely to help your case. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::There has been no evidence provided of "nationalist bias" so far and you should not make such charges against editors without substantiating them FIRST. Not a "they might or might not be substantiated later". You do sanction others exactly for such behavior hence you should not engage in it yourself. I am not assuming bad faith. I do question your judgment however.] (]) 22:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
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 , I've that were clarified to be wrong, I've , at times and work together. And when those editors , I didn't provoke any further. | |||
'''Response to Deacon''' | |||
I now address the specific edits in the complaint: | |||
Your comments at the naming conventions discussion did indeed imply that. But the point here is that after they were made Jacurek STOPPED adding names to the articles since it became clear that the policy itself was under dispute. His subsequent edits which are being dredged up here as "evidence" are completely in line with your view of the matter.] (]) 22:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
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. | |||
'''Response to Ed Johnston's comments''' | |||
(copied from his talk) | |||
''This ban would be applied to all editors listed below who have previously been sanctioned under any Eastern European cases'' - Ed, can you please explain to me why you are including me in this group? It appears you are doing so only because Sandstein included me there. But if you actually look at the list and read the comments, then you will notice that out of the six articles listed by Sandstein, two I've never edited in my life, and on the other four I made a '''single edit''', sometimes long time ago (I have over 20k edits, I've even forgotten some of these) and when I was reverted, I '''ceased making any further edits'''. | |||
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?" | |||
There's no way that making a single edit on an article can be in any way construed as "edit warring" or anything else. I have also supported the inclusion of German names in Polish articles (within reason), and have added Lithuanian names to Polish articles as well as Yiddish and Hebrew names to Polish articles (like I said, I got over 20k edits and I'm not going to waste my time going back and looking for the odd diff or so, but they're there). I've consistently applied ] policy, regardless of the places involved. Of course I've mostly edited Poland related articles - I don't speak ], ] or ]! At no point have I edit warred and in fact I asked for third opinion and discussed things on talk, and am currently in process of working on naming conventions guideline in order to sort out this mess. Can you explain at all what would justify your proposal to sanction me?] (]) 16:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
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 , perhaps you can see I lose my cool sometimes too. | |||
'''Comment on Sandstein and Deacon's discussion of BRD''' | |||
*Deacon: ''Why should anyone be punished for following it (BRD)?'' - yes, exactly. | |||
*Sandstein: ''WP:BRD involves stopping after a single revert.'' - yes, exactly. And that is precisely what I did. In each of these cases I ceased editing the relevant article as soon as I got reverted. | |||
*Deacon: ''BRD means that if you are bold, and you get reverted ... you discuss it. '' - did that too. Asked for third opinion, discussed things on talk, '''without making any further edits to the articles themselves''' | |||
*Deacon: ''It doesn't mean that if you revert a controversial edit you have to simply accept the edit if the other editor or a friend just doesn't feel like respecting BRD himself.'' - this is true and in fact allows for more reverts then I actually made, provided discussion is under way. I, in fact, did "accept the edit" and made no further changes to the articles. | |||
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. | |||
The parts I disagree with: | |||
*Deacon: ''The editors placing the alternate names ..., know their edits will be opposed but apparently think it worth the fight.'' - No. The editors placing in the names are simply following policy at ]. Now, you might disagree with the policy as she is written, but that's why we're having a discussion about it at present. It is the editors who are removing the names that are acting against policy and being disruptive. | |||
Likewise | |||
*Deacon: ''we should be predisposed to be sceptical towards the addition of these names, which in practice is usually nothing more than nationalist scent-marking; inserting them in knowledge of their controversy is the behaviour that is disruptive and violates our conduct policies; removing such inclusions follows our conduct policies.'' - Maybe we should be skeptical, but then that should be in the policy itself. As I said at the discussion repeatedly my main concern is that the situation is not treated consistently. There's no edit wars on insertion of German names into Polish places (sometimes extremely small villages) and that's supposed to be fine. Same for insertion of Lithuanian names into Polish places. But if a Polish name (or for that matter Belorussian) gets put into a Lithuanian place the three editors mentioned above (Dr. Dan, Lokyz and MK) converge on the article and edit war to keep it removed and all hell breaks loose. If we're going to be skeptical in one case, we need to be skeptical in other cases as well. Otherwise you're singling out a particular group/country for special treatment (whether good or bad) and that can't be justified, either on policy or ethical grounds. | |||
:Additionally, saying that inserting names is nothing "more than nationalist scent-marking" is an unverifiable assertion (since you can't observe people's motives) and is potentially offensive to boot. Are these edits (population 404), , (population 282), (population 27!!!), , , (population 273), (population 13!!!!!!!), , , (population 16!!!), , , (huge metropolis, population 280), , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , "nationalist scent-marking"? And that's just since March 1st! | |||
:Jacurek didn't do anything more than what Herkus is doing. He just had the misfortune of running into Dr. Dan, Lokyz and MK. He shouldn't be punished for that. And let's have Sandstein apply his own words, quote: ''" But a pattern of consistently adding or removing <u>the same language</u> from <u>multiple articles</u> cannot be reasonably explained on guideline grounds"''. Whose more consistently adding the same language to multiple articles? Herkus? Or Jacurek, who also added German names to Polish places, Lithuanian names to Polish places, etc.. Again, I don't think Herkus is doing anything wrong here, but neither is Jacurek.] (]) 17:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::These diffs are by another user, {{user|HerkusMonte}}. That user is not involved in the edit wars that are at issue in this request, and so their edits are not reviewed here. They can be made the subject of a separate AE request if they are believed to be sanctionable. <p>For the benefit of anybody reading this, I believe the discussion alluded to above is ] (). It explains why, in my view, an editor is also engaged in (and therefore sanctionable for) edit-warring if they contribute a single revert to an edit war that is otherwise carried on mainly by others. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::Yes, they are by another user who is not subject of this report but they are illustrative of the situation. For one thing they clearly show that your own condition that ''a pattern of consistently adding or removing <u>the same language</u> from <u>multiple articles</u> cannot be reasonably explained on guideline grounds'' - does not apply to Jacurek, neither in relative or absolute terms. | |||
:::And the reason why the above edits are not subject to an AE report are that | |||
:::#the point is that Herkus wasn't doing anything wrong and neither was Jacurek. Since I don't think Herkus is doing anything wrong, why in the world would I want to file an AE report on him? I'm basically saying "editor A is not at fault - for comparison see editor B who does the same thing and is also not at fault". And Sandstein replies with "you can take editor B to court if you want to" - what's the logic here? | |||
:::#the reason Herkus didn't get into any edit wars is simply because he didn't have to contend with a "Dr. Dan" or a "Lokyz" or a "MK" (he does revert when reverted). But that's neither Herkus' nor Jacurek's fault. If somebody DID actually go and remove those massive name additions, what do you think would have happened? People shouldn't be punished for being reasonable. | |||
:::#Future Perfect at Sunrise for some reason decided to single out and pick on Jacurek.] (]) 18:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::: | |||
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. ] (]) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===Comment by Piotrus=== | |||
*:Edited. ] (]) 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
I am rather disappointed by FPS here. | |||
*: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. | |||
First, I'd like to ask: who gave you those diffs and requested that you post to AE on their behalf? It's not like you have edited any of the articles in question, nor have you been a participant to any talk page discussions, as far as I am aware. | |||
*:Yes, I will. I intend on taking an extended break from wikipedia, as well. ] (]) 17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC) <small> Moved from uninvolved admin section; you can answer questions, make comments, discuss, but all your input needs to be in your own section. ] (]) 17:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
**::{{TQ|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:{{tq|no, you don't have to agree. You just have to accept and move on.}} | |||
Second, I really hoped that the established editors with no axes to grind, in particular, respected admins (and I do respect FPS), would not use the "specter of EEML" ] argument. Instead of concentrating on editors who are creating the battleground through baiting and incivility (see VM post above), let's just go for the good, old EEML members, because, well, they are EEML, hence evil, hence the source of all problems, right? Somebody is being incivil to them? They surely deserved it. There is an edit war? Surely, they are the only guilty party. | |||
***::: 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. | |||
====Statement by ProcrastinatingReader==== | |||
Third, Jacurek has not violated any policy. Has 3RR been violated, even once? No. Has CIV been violated, even once? No. Regarding , this edit is in line with ], and the implication of this for Gdansk rule need to be discussed; I recently raised this on talk there. As things stand, however, NCGN explicitly suggests moving of alt. names from lead to a dedicated section and states they should not be restored, and Jacurek was acting within NCGN to the letter (now, I started a discussion on talk to discuss whether this letter is correct and benefits Misplaced Pages, but this is hardly an AE issue). Lastly, yes, there has been a slow edit war at some articles, but in most if not all cases, Jacurek is enforcing NCGN, where other editors, propagating battleground and disruption, are attempting to go against policies on those articles. NCGN supports foreign name in articles as long as they are significant (and NCGN has nice, simple check for significance - 10% of English google sources). On ] (talk) I've shown NCGN applies, yet Jacurek's opponents have not bothered to discuss it - they just revert him. Ditto for ]. Nobody has done an analysis for ], but I expect NCGN applies as well. On two other articles, in Vilnius University the nameing section was ''just'' expanded enough to warrant an end to inclusion of the name in lead. I'd have to look at Suvalkija more closely. ] seems totally unrelated to that and I'll have to review it more closely again. | |||
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. ] (]) 21:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Bottom line, Jacurek seems not to have violated any policies, most of his reverts are policy-supported (whereas most of those by his opponents are not), so how about the admins here focus on incivil, baiting editors and give the rest of us some breathing ground? | |||
====Statement by Newimpartial==== | |||
All that said, 1RR for everyone would be a good ''voluntary'' rule to declare. I hereby do so for my self, for the next month on all naming-affected articles, and I would strongly suggest everyone else follows suit. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 15:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
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, . | |||
1. BabbleOnto is now doubling down on the claim that I {{tq|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 . 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 ] with pure ]. | |||
:Responce to FSP: Thank you for clarifying my question, and I apologize if the tone was too aggressive. I would still appreciate an explanation why you singled Jacurek for the report. | |||
2. On this they say, now, that {{tq|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 ]. | |||
:Comments for Sandstein and EdJohnston: I appreciate that you are willing to look further than just one side of the conflict. I would appreciate if you could tell me why did you decide to include Volunteer Marek in your analysis, with his 4 reverts total, each on a separate article, compared to Jacurek (19 reverts), MK (12 reverts), Dr Dan (14 reverts) and Lokyz (16 reverts). The last time I check, adhering to ] and ] was ''the right thing to do''... ] explicitly notes the need for ''repetetive'' reverts, so I am having trouble seeing why a user adhering to 1RR (or, even more clearly, making a single revert to an article in the space of many weeks or months) can be included in a discussion of edit warring. I also note that two of his reverts you cite specifically mention no responses for days or longer to discussion on talk. <s>I would also appreciate clarification whether an editor reverting following a policy like NCGN and another reverting against it are to be treated as "equal"?</s> Lastly, I would like to ask if you will be looking at incivility (which I think is at least as problematic as reverts), or just reverts. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 04:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
3. BabbleOnto is now justifying an edit where they said to me, {{tq|You have a habit of inserting small lies into everything you say}} and {{tq|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 {{tq|a basic failure in reading comprehension}} '''''two hours later'''''. This seems like a time travel paradox. | |||
:Policy interpretation question at ]: I raised a question related to interpretation of EW/BRD ]. I would suggest that admins hold of on applying sanctions to VM till consensus is reached on that particular interpretation (this does not concern sanctions against other editors, IMHO). --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 18:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
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 {{tq|said a material lie}}, and that I {{tq|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 ] again; even in responding to this filing BabbleOnto is still insisting I did things that I quite obviously didn't do. | |||
===Comment by Kotniski=== | |||
Echoing most of what Piotrus says, I note that this issue will ''never'' be sorted out by applying unilateral sanctions against a randomly chosen editor or two on one side of the debate. It's been going on for years; somehow those who consistently remove non-Lithuanian names from Lithuania-related articles seem to be exempted from any kind of rebuke or sanction (which of course in no way justifies the pointy removal of non-Polish names from Poland-related articles) - but in any case, it's necessary to resolve the underlying issues, through some kind of mediation or preferably involvement from the community at large, to work out the best ways to present this kind of important information to readers without being dictated to by those on various sides who are clearly driven mainly by irrational nationalist sentiment. --] (]) 16:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:AE is not really equipped procedurally for broad reviews covering many editors and their whole editing history. That would need a request for an arbitration case. But I suspect that after ] and ] the Committee is so fed up with this whole ensemble of editors and their obscure historical grievances that it would just indef topic-ban them all and throw away the key. And I suspect that we are coming to a point at AE where we'll come to the same conclusion eventually, one editor at a time. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::My point is that we need to stop focusing on ''editors'' and their "editing history" (whether one, two or many) and address the substantial issues of disagreement. You're right that AE (and indeed ArbCom generally) is not equipped procedurally for anything except the same old types of editor-focused action which are already known not to work; which is why we need to start thinking outside the AE box here.--] (]) 16:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::: Well, if people are trying to reach some new agreement at the geographical names guideline, that's great and I'm all for it. But Jacurek's editing was not directed towards creating such an agreement. He was just edit-warring. His talk page contributions are few, and all seem to be focussed merely on asserting his own position, which is rather overtly of the type "treat geographical names as symbolic badges of recognition of historical national claims of possesion". And it is precisely this mentality that is the problem here. Whatever eventual solution there may be for these questions, Jacurek's editing has been persistently part not of the solution but of the problem. ] ] 16:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::Absolutely not true. I was just discussing the issue trying to reach agreement here ] for example and on countess other talk pages. I was adding alternative names in various languages, your accusation of me trying to claim a "national possession" is ABSOLUTELY not true. FP - Can you please wait for my statement before posting more accusations? I should find some time this weekend to respond.--] (]) 16:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::FP, as I said earlier, I do respect you, and I think you are ''partially'' right here. Jacurek ''was'' doing quite a few reverts. However, as I, VM and he himself pointed out, 1) he was not alone and 2) most if not all of his edits were in line with the policies (unlike those of his opponents). I wish he had used the talk more and reverted less, but he is less guilty than many others, and unlike some, he has been civil, and he has been following the NCGN policy more often then not. I don't understand why you have singled him out in this report? Saying this, I'd also strongly urge Jacurek to follow my advice and declare that he will voluntarily restrict himself to 1RR on articles with disputed naming (and I urge others to follow mine and hopefully, his suit in this). I'd also suggest that the admins here try to be more creative than blocks and topic bans (lot of good have they done in the past, as we can see) and instead impose a bunch of 1RR restriction on a number of editors who focus on reverting (1RR restriction is the correct scalpel-level solution for revert warring, although I know that some people prefer to nuke anything nail shaped instead...I hope this mentality will not be seen in this discussion). For those who promise to voluntarily restrain themselves but are later shown they didn't keep the word, I'd of course suggest harsher penalties in the future (community patience is not unlimited). I will end by saying that if the outcome of this AE will be punishing only one of the edit warring editors, and at that one who was mostly in line with NCGN and who was, unlike some of the others, civil, it will send a pretty bad message out. It would also be nice if people would stop dredging the "EEML specter", poisoning the well with "if an involved editor was a party to the EEML case, 100% of the problem lies with him" argument (intentionally or not, this is the effect I am seeing). --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 05:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::I have no problem with voluntarily restricting myself to 1RR on articles with disputed naming, please consider this comment as my commitment. However my commitment alone will not eliminate the problem of removal by few Lithuanian editors all Polish names from the articles that share common Polish-Lithuanian heritage. There is hope that this amazingly constructive discussion that is going on here will result in new rules being drafted and the issue will be resolved. --] (]) 10:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Actually most of bigger Lithuanian cities have Polish names in the name section be it ], ] or ], as does ], and it is according to the WP:NCGN section that suggests the names not to be returend to lead after such section is created. It was an agreement that was reached, and that was and still is violated by an editor who has opinion of his own. So there is no conspiracy to remove one nation names from other nations cities articles, as one is trying to persuade others.--] (]) 12:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Lokyz, you kept removing Polish names from the articles given by you as examples and all others summarizing your reverts with "what's the Polish etymology of the name?"which shows that the problem for you was not the place where alternative names should be included but existence of the Polish name itself. The name section has been created later because of the pressure applied by several editors. --] (]) 10:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::::: ''and it is according to the WP:NCGN section that suggests the names not to be returend to lead after such section is created''Obviously this is not a view shared by all editors as seen here where a German editor returns the Germanized name of a Polish city to the lead, this needs to be clarified. Personally I support the view, to remove names from lead, but if this is not accepted than there should be no double standards.--] (]) 14:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::I just want to remind Jacurek, taht on ] there was a discusssion, which finaly led to solution and compromise suitable for many users and many towns. I do also see a difference between a "Name" and translation of the object's description like it was noted on ], and after this discussion the article remained stable for a long time, so I was thinking the compromise was reached.--] (]) 17:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
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. ] (]) 03:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===Comment by uninvolved Hodja Nasreddin=== | |||
I followed several AE cases to understand what must be done by someone who wants to edit conflict-free, especially in the area of discretionary sanctions. Surprisingly, this boils down to a very simple rule: ''do not edit war under any circumstances''. Even if you revert once a week, someone will bring you to AE. It goes like that: no reverts -> no conflicts -> no sanctions. This apply to all sides and almost all AE cases.] (]) 15:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
=== |
====Statement by Objective3000==== | ||
Just a quick aside to Valereee's aside: {{TQ|Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn....}} ] currently has posts from 19 editors lacking the edits for extended confirmed. ] (]) 20:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Don't understand why my comments at ] were mentioned. In the comments Volunteer Marek/Radek was referring to, I expressed my opinion that we ought to be weighted against having alternate culture names in leads (in order to avoid nationalist wars). As it appears this AE request was brought against Jakurek for going around inserting such names into leads, I'm very confused as to why my comments are claimed to support his case? ] (<small>]</small>) 22:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:@], 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. ] (]) 21:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Note: ] 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. ] (]) 12:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by JoelleJay==== | |||
;Punishing users for following BRD ... good idea? | |||
At the very least, can we get more admin involvement on the lab leak page so trolling like ] doesn't disrupt things even more? ] (]) 07:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Add: As I and others have argued at ], we should be predisposed to be sceptical towards the addition of these names, which in practice is usually nothing more than nationalist scent-marking; inserting them in knowledge of their controversy is the behaviour that is disruptive and violates our conduct policies; removing such inclusions follows our conduct policies. I'm concerned about the level of actions being taken against certain users merely because, over a few years, they've reverted inclusion of alternate language versions of place-names. As placing these names (and indeed removing stable ones) is inherently controversial in these area, why does ] not apply? Why should anyone be punished for following it? I also find the idea that you can get sanction for some reverts of various warring IPs over a couple of years quite ghastly. This is simply punishing users for having an account: not a good idea. ] (<small>]</small>) 16:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by IntrepidContributor==== | |||
::] involves stopping after a single revert. The names at issue have been added and removed more than once. Also, edit-warring is forbidden no matter whether one reverts IPs or users with an account. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
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 (). | |||
:::BRD means that if you are bold, and you get reverted ... you discuss it. It doesn't mean that if you revert a controversial edit you have to simply accept the edit if the other editor or a friend just doesn't feel like respecting BRD himself. The editors placing the alternate names, esp. in the last few years (the Piotrus 1 extends amnesty to edits preceding the case), know their edits will be opposed but apparently think it worth the fight. This is the disruptive behavior. Whether or not the disruptive behaviour causes an edit war depends on whether or the inserting users fight to keep their controversial edit; reverting any reverts of a controversial edit is the only way other users can practically adhere to the spirit of BRD. The way to solve this is not by punishing the users who are reacting to the controversial edits via BRD, but by adjusting our tolerance of such controversial edits in the first place. ] (<small>]</small>) 16:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
One need only cross-reference names from , 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. | |||
Surprisingly, I am in (rough) agreement with Deacon here. At least one proposed sanction (on VM, who made no more than 1 revert to each article in question, and participated extensively in talk discussions) seems to say that "following BRD can still get you in trouble". Is this really a message we want to send to the community? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 17:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
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. | |||
===Comment by Mymolobaccount=== | |||
Proposing topic bans to all editors who are actively working on solving the naming dispute so they won't be able to achieve solution to the issue? That's[REDACTED] at its finest. Sandstein's behaviour here and proposals are one of the most counterproductive to Misplaced Pages and cooperation between editors from opposed POV's that I have seen. Two opposite sites are sitting down to talk and solve the issue, Sandstein comes in and proposes to ban active participants instead of letting them work out a solution on which they are working in good faith and in civil manner. | |||
--] (]) 00:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 14:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===Comment by Vecrumba=== | |||
For the most part I have pretty good relations with editor on both sides of the fence, generally being "pro-" both sides. I would be happy to assist in mediating, anything is better than more draconian measures which breed nothing but bad blood. Unless someone proposing <u>'''any solution'''</u> is <u>intimately aware</u> of the historical conflicts underlying naming disputes, any action they take (hello admins!) will make things worse, not better. ]<small> ►]</small> 01:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
=== Statement by TarnishedPath === | |||
:Yes, I believe these are excessive sanctions. If they edit warred over naming conventions, they should be either placed on 1RR per week restriction or banned from editing names. ] (]) 03:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
Please see ] where BabbleOnto edited ] restoring previously reverted content and ] using a shit source after they'd been told by multiple other editors in discussions ] and ] that the source was shit. Notably in the edit summary they wrote "{{tq|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 ] 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. '']''<sup>]</sup> 04:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Noting the editor's continued behaviour at ]. Refer to ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===Comment by M.K.=== | |||
::and again at ] '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===Statement by berchanhimez=== | |||
*Diffs which supposedly should show my “nationalistic” revert warring with IP from 2008-2009 time frame lacks background. That IP is full time abusive revert warrior, I complained about abusive nature of that IP and his various IPs farm , , . Community offered little interest in those cases during that time, but surprise surprise '''Radeksz aka Volunteer Marek was the first who attacked me back then''' . The same IP range reappearing in those articles again now of course supporting EEML group as usual. Of cause none of current admins looking into these IP again. | |||
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 ]. ''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 | ] | ] 03:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* From relevant time frame I made two reverts with 10 hour time gap on the listed article. I'm surprised that it could cause offense and '''I am sorry''' for that and whatever damage you think this might caused. I was frustrated that community is not willing to help nor do they care about, as I saw the case with disruptive IP case or the EEML case itself, when one of the most notorious groups are enabled to operate in old habits again as if EEML revelation never happened. For instance: | |||
user: Volunteer Marek '''constantly stalking editors again''': | |||
*'''''' | |||
*'''''' | |||
*'''''' | |||
*'''''' and so on… And again for some reason no action on this individual regarding these continues stalking. Question Why? | |||
*Additionally those edits supply growing conclusion that Volunteer Marek mislead arbcom with topic ban lifting. Volunteer Marek claimed "was unable to assess and improve articles which tangentially might have to do with Eastern Europe and Poland - for example article on the famous Polish economist Michal Kalecki", "if any disputes arise in the future, I will be careful to observe high standards of conduct", "Somebody's got to make a show of good faith however", "it shouldn't be controversial", so Arbcom lifted saying "With the understanding that any relapse is likely to be poorly received.". Volunteer Marek just went back to EEML agenda . | |||
*On sanctions: | |||
**Conventional sanctions would yield little result as those individuals may recruit sockpuptes or proxies as they did in the past, as we have grim examples (yet main Jacurek account is still free). | |||
**Volunteer Marek, jacurek promised countless times to behave and they failed to keep up their promises. | |||
** Imposing name ban - as advocated here too - on remaining Lithuanian editors alongside with those individuals because they outnumber everyone. When last revert sanctions were proposed Piotrus recommended on EEML too that single-purpose socks should take care of reverting.] (]) 11:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
*P.S. please allow additional 24 h for finalizing my report as I am terribly busy. ] (]) 11:44, 15 March 2011 (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 ]) 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 (]). Just my 2 cents.— ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 22:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
I would recomment to admins to err on the side of caution. If there are clear and ''persistent'' patterns of disruption (e.g. edit warring), sanctions may be called for. However without a ''persistent'' pattern, a warning is enough. Also if disruption is caused in a very niche area like this naming saga, sanctions should only apply to this activity. Topic banning editors for niche violations is throwing productive editors with the bathwater. | |||
====Statement by (username)==== | |||
I would also suggest that admins give a strong warning to all involved editors NOT to use the AE page as a battleground. - ] (]) 17:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
===Result concerning BabbleOnto=== | |||
: Thank you for that uninvolved perspective. The sooner AE is closed down as a forum for content control—specifically, not entertaining charges of disruption unless there are <u>'''clear and repeated'''</u> violations of 3RR, sockpuppetry, et al.—the sooner editors will be forced to deal with each other. ]<small> ►]</small> 18:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
*<!-- | |||
--> | |||
*{{u|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 {{tq|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. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 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 ] 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 ]. 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 ]. 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. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 01:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::{{u|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. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 21:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* I have to agree, this looks like sealioning. {{u|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. | |||
: One area where I would sanction draconian measures is perma-banning anyone who sockpuppets in an area of conflict. There's no excuse for that. Unfortunately, in the Wikiworld, that would only result in immediate charges of sockpuppetry, for example, where multiple editors might attend the same university. The moral is, the more draconian the enforcement, the larger the carrot being held out to those seeking to control content. For now, those editors control content the most effectively who have mastered the art of the unintended consequences of enforcement. ]<small> ►]</small> 19:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:<small>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.</small> ] (]) 18:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===Comment by Novickas=== | |||
{{collapse top|title=Tangential}} | |||
I'm really sorry to see that we haven't been working towards compromise and consensus on the alternate names issue. Not surprised; there's a lot of long-standing bad blood. But I think the problem would be better addressed by more discussion at the guideline pages and more participation by outsiders at the individual articles. (I don't think they need to be experts in the area.) I'd rather see a 1RR per week/per editor for renaming (in Sandstein's intepretation of renaming) at all Eastern European articles. Because the admins here will be wanting to keep clear of voicing their opinions at these articles, could we agree on a separate venue to discuss them? Pick some previously-uninvolved editor out of the pool of mediators, say? ] (]) 00:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::@], hm, yes, and ] also has 37 archives, and even with archiving at 21 days, 20 sections. Do you think an ECR is something that talk page needs? That's not part of the authorized restrictions an individual admin can place...hm, and I'm not sure of the policy w/re most efficiently getting that done and wasting the fewest people's time. @]? ] (]) 21:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===Result concerning Jacurek=== | |||
:::I would object to ECPing the talk page. COVID-19 ], though this specific ''article'' is protected. The purpose of protecting the page (in this case) is to push newer users to the talk page, where they can discuss changes they want made (such as by edit requests) and contribute towards consensus-building while not edit warring. Protecting talk pages is truly, ''truly'' a last resort. Ordinary good faith people would be entirely shut out and silenced—we'd not even get edit requests—and I frankly don't see anything near the level of disruption/LTA abuse that would justify jumping straight to ]. — ] <sub>]</sub> 01:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' | |||
::::@], not ECP. ECR: non-EC are restricted from anything but making edit requests. ] (]) 14:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
:::::I see. In any case, ECR is the sort of remedy that should be reserved for more or less when all else fails—it’s still ''super'' restrictive. If new users/inexperienced users are trying to contribute towards consensus-building on the talk page (or even if they’re doing ordinary confused new editor things), and aren’t edit warring, I don’t think we’d actually be ] by enforcing ECR. | |||
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> | |||
:::::Suppose someone in good-faith sees “anyone can edit”, and they want to edit something topical. But then they see that the page that they want to edit is protected. They read the explanation that appears after clicking the “view source” tab. They then read that they can discuss this page with others, click on the first blue link, and then make a section using the “add topic” button in order to start a discussion. | |||
:::::“OK”, the newbie thinks, “maybe I will find someone else who agrees with me, or I’ll at least get some answer as to why the article is this way”. They leave their computer and come back in an hour. They then discover that their question has been removed by some random editor with edit summary “] violation, user not ]; malformed edit request” and find a contentious topics notice on their own user talk page, all because they don’t make a properly formatted edit request (i.e. “please change X to Y”). Or maybe they wont navigate the talk page history and they’ll angrily post that their earlier comment was deleted. Or maybe they just won’t come back. To top it off, nothing at any point in this process was obvious to them that such a requirement existed—there is no edit notice that says so, and so they couldn’t know. | |||
:::::] is ]y. It dissuades new voices from joining conversations, and it makes it somewhat hostile to true newbies. In particular, it dissuades people who, for example: | |||
:::::#Are Not hardcore/insane enough to deal with intense wiki-bureaucracy; | |||
:::::#Are unable to cope with handling unfamiliar wikitext markup when making edit requests for anything that is not a trivial word change, or who have abstract changes in mind more than concrete ones; | |||
:::::#Do not want to spend an hour of their time to figure out how to say the magic words to summon another editor to fix a typo. | |||
:::::The chief way that ECR works is by making LTAs/sockmasters have to put on a lot of effort or make a lot of edits. This raises the (time) cost of socking, and it has the benefit of possibly exposing tells along the way. But that also means that we’re imposing the same thing on good-faith newbies. | |||
:::::When deciding whether or not to impose ECR, we have to balance that it is extremely BITEy to good-faith newbies against its ability to prevent disruption. There are times where we are basically left to throw our hands up because of LTA/sockmaster abuse, and conclude that the tradeoff is worth it; the ArbCom has done this for certain contentious topics. But, the ArbCom had the wisdom to not enable ECR as a page sanction across all contentious topic areas—there is a very real tradeoff that needs to be really carefully considered. And I don’t the tradeoff leans towards embracing ECR ''here''. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">] <sub>]</sub></span> 15:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::I'm don't think we need to have this discussion here and now, but I don't disagree it's bitey and needs to be used only where necessary. I was just asking the question of someone who is working at that article: is this an article talk where it's necessary? ] (]) 17:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
{{collapse bottom}} | |||
*{{u|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? ] (]) 13:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
I encourage editors to make only comments directly pertinent to the request, because "the usual infighting, bickering and sniping", as Volunteer Marek puts it, is likely to ] in the form of sanctions. Fut. Perf., I agree that the request looks actionable at first glance, but without a ] notification diff, we are forbidden to act on it. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:53, 12 March 2011 (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. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 17:22, 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. | |||
*:@], I'd support a tban, but is AP2 enough? It seems like COVID and fringe science need to be included? ] (]) 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? <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 17:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:@], re:{{xt|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. ] (]) 23:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*I think {{u|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 ]. 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. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 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. ] (]) 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). ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 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. | |||
*:::@], do you understand what we're talking about when we describe your participation at talk pages as ], 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? ] (]) 20:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
==Marlarkey== | |||
: Jacurek has been sanctioned (and, through each sanction, obviously, also warned) under DIGWUREN half a dozen times. Just look at the log. ] ] 16:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
{{hat|Marlarkey p-blocked from ] and formally warned to be more mindful of policies, guidelines and best practices when editing CTOPs, particularly PIA <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 19:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
===Request concerning Marlarkey=== | |||
::But we still need a diff of a valid warning for the record. should do, and I recommend that you complete the request with it. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|WeatherWriter}} 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::: Indeed, will do, and, with all due respect, demanding that I also paste it somewhere up there now that you've already seen it is taking bureaucratic process-wonkery to an unprecedented extreme. No, I won't. ] ] 16:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Marlarkey}}<p>{{ds/log|Marlarkey}}</p> | |||
OK, as a preliminary opinion, I think that there is actionable evidence that several editors have engaged in edit-warring to remove or add names from the leads of the articles named by Fut.Perf. and Jacurek, as can be seen in the history of e.g. {{la|Bernardine Cemetery}}. I suggest that we compile a consolidated list of reverts by editor and decide on that basis whether to sanction anybody, after requesting the involved editors to comment. If not other admin disagrees, I'm going to start compiling such a list. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
I believe that any campaigns of mass removal or mass addition of alternate-language names should be looked into. Sandstein's idea of making a consolidated list of reverts sounds good. ] (]) 13:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I've started the list below; all admins are welcome to help complement it. We should try to cover all previously EE-warned editors and recent edit wars. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Before we start discussing sanctions against individuals, I submit the following principles for administrator discussion: | |||
::*Whether the reverts complied with the ] is irrelevant, as such edits are not exempt from ]. Also, compliance with this guideline is a content issue, because it requires editorial judgment, and cannot therefore be reviewed in an arbitration context. | |||
::*Reverts from earlier years are relevant insofar as they are part of a continued edit war involving the same editors, or as part of a pattern of adding or removing the same language (see below). | |||
::*Edit-warring to add or remove a language from <u>any one article</u> does not necessarily reflect bias, as there may be policy-based grounds for such reverts (even if these do not excuse edit-warring). But a pattern of consistently adding or removing <u>the same language</u> from <u>multiple articles</u> cannot be reasonably explained on guideline grounds, since ] makes reference to the use of names in English-language literature, which differs from topic to topic. Such a pattern of editing, therefore, can only be explained by a desire to put nationalist bias ahead of Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. This makes such a pattern incompatible with ] and, consequently, grounds for sanctions. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
====Further admin comments about the Result concerning Jacurek==== | |||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
*I've made a new sub-heading to clarify that this is where admin comments can continue. Move this section below if you prefer. I'm glad Sandstein has collected the evidence on these articles because it helps narrow the issue. I see that other participants have also been notified, and we await their responses. Among the possible actions we might take, we could consider a ban on adding or removing any alternate names for articles. This ban would be applied to all editors listed below who have previously been sanctioned under any Eastern European cases. This would mean renaming bans for all the editors below except M.K., who could be notified of the discretionary sanctions and warned. Banned editors could still argue on the talk pages for changing the alternate names. | |||
*This assumes that the discussion here reaches a conclusion on which of these changes in alternate names exceed the limits of good-faith editing. Sandstein's argument is that consistent changes to promote the same ethnicity are usually in bad faith. I see the logic of that, especially for people who were previously sanctioned. (These aren't newcomers who are unfamiliar with our customs). ] (]) 05:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:*A renaming ban is a good idea for (at least some of) the editors discussed here. But I'm not convinced it that it is sensible to extend it to all editors under EE sanctions. We have no evidence that this is a widespread problem in this topic area (although I wouldn't be surprised if it were) or with most previously sanctioned editors. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::*My proposal is to consider a renaming ban only for the editors named in your table below who are also under EE sanctions. Perusal of the dates of these reverts of the alternate names shows that a good number of the reverts have occurred since 1 March. If there is a recent upsurge, and if the editors below are the main ones doing the reverting, that is a reason why they should come to our attention. It distinguishes them from the other sanctioned EE editors. ] (]) 22:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::Right, I agree; I misread you. I'm proposing an editor-by-editor analysis and sanctions below, based on the principles submitted above and the evidence collected below. | |||
:::*Jacurek has engaged in nationalist edit-warring about names, violating ] and ]. He has a very long history of EE sanctions, up to a 6 months topic ban, so his "last chance" moment has already passed. Proposed sanction: indefinite EE topic ban. | |||
:::*Volunteer Marek has made individual reverts in support of and in conjunction with Jacurek's nationalist edit-warring about names. He has a moderate history of EE sanctions, and notably a past sanction for covert coordination of edits with Jacurek (]). Proposed sanction: six months renaming ban as described below; warning for expressing what sounds like nationalist prejudice on this page (). | |||
:::*M.K has participated in nationalist edit-warring about names. They have not previously been warned about arbitration sanctions, so none can be imposed here. Proposed consequence: warning. | |||
:::*Dr. Dan has participated in nationalist edit-warring about names. He has also made mild personal attacks (, ). He has a moderate history of EE sanctions. Proposed sanctions: indefinite renaming ban, three months topic ban. | |||
:::*Lokyz has participated in nationalist edit-warring about names. He has also made slightly more serious personal attacks (, ). He has a limited history of EE sanctions. Proposed sanctions: indefinite renaming ban, three months topic ban. | |||
:::A renaming ban mans that the editor is banned from changing, removing or adding names (including translations) in a Eastern European language with respect to a subject that the same article already designates with a name in another Eastern European language. This notably also covers anything that appears as part of the article (such as categories, images or templates), and moving pages. For the purpose of this ban, "Eastern European language" includes German. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::@Sandstein: I support all the bans you've recommended above. I suggest keeping this open for at least another 24 hours to see if more admins will comment. ] (]) 00:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::::Considering that the principles and sanctions proposed above have not been opposed by an administrator after two and a half days; that no other administrator (or uninvolved user) has commented here a day after a at ], that I have discussed the application of ] to this case in more detail , that the arguments advanced by the users at issue (to the extent that they have made a statement at all) are unpersuasive; based on the considerations above and the evidence below, in application and enforcement of ], the sanctions proposed above are enacted. They are notified to the users and logged at ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
====Name-changing reverts in the EE topic area==== | |||
=====Jacurek===== | |||
{{userlinks|Jacurek}} (), partially copied from the request | |||
*On ]: (adding Polish) | |||
*On ]: (adding Polish) | |||
*On ]: (adding Polish) | |||
*On ]: (adding Polish) | |||
*On ]: (adding Polish) | |||
*On ]: (adding German), (removing German) | |||
Previous sanctions: many blocks up to 3 months for topic-related misconduct; ] 1RR restriction (2009) and (2010); ] and ] (6 months in Dec 2009) | |||
=====Volunteer Marek===== | |||
{{userlinks|Volunteer Marek}}, previously editing as {{u|Radeksz}} () | |||
*On ]: (adding Polish) | |||
*On ]: none | |||
*On ]: (adding Polish) | |||
*On ]: none | |||
*On ]: (adding Polish) | |||
*On ]: (removing German) | |||
Previous sanctions: Three non-overturned topic-related blocks; ] and ] (rescinded in June 2010) | |||
=====M.K===== | |||
{{userlinks|M.K}} () (no warning found) | |||
*On ]: none | |||
*On ]: , (removing Belarusian, Polish) | |||
*On ]: , , , , , , , , , (removing Polish) | |||
*On ]: none | |||
*On ]: none | |||
*On ]: none | |||
Previous sanctions: none | |||
=====Dr. Dan===== | |||
{{userlinks|Dr. Dan}} () () | |||
*On ]: , , , (removing Belorusian, Polish) | |||
*On ]: (removing Polish) | |||
*On ]: , , , , , , (removing Polish) | |||
*On ]: (removing Polish) | |||
*On ]: none | |||
*On ]: none | |||
Previous sanctions: 2 incivility blocks, ] interaction ban for 3 months in 2010 | |||
=====Lokyz===== | |||
{{userlinks|Lokyz}} () () | |||
*On ]: , , , , (removing Polish and English) | |||
*On ]: , (removing Polish) | |||
*On ]: , , (removing Polish) | |||
*On ]: , (removing Polish) | |||
*On ]: , , , (removing Polish) | |||
*On ]: none | |||
Previous sanctions: One non-overturned AE block; ] and restricted for edit-warring (2008) | |||
{{hab}} | |||
== Jalapenos do exist == | |||
{{hat|1=Jalapenos do exist is warned not to misrepresent sources. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)}} | |||
===Request concerning Jalapenos do exist=== | |||
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 10:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Jalapenos do exist}} | |||
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> | |||
# . Reversion of edit. With diff #2 below: Violation of global 1RR restriction on I-P articles. Violation of Jalapenos' 1RR per day ban on I-P articles. | |||
# . Reversion of edit. With diff #1 above: Violation of global 1RR restriction on I-P articles. Violation of Jalapenos' 1RR per day ban on I-P articles. | |||
# Gross violation of ] through the creation of another heavily biased article from this user. See further explanation below. | |||
'''''' | |||
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): | |||
# |
# - Mainspace PIA edit prior to EC status. | ||
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request and acknowledgement of aforementioned edit. | |||
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. | |||
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Accused another editor of vandalism. | |||
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Says, "I don't give a stuff about what you or Israel say about the declaration." | |||
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary. | |||
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary. | |||
'''''' | |||
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : | |||
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. | |||
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. | |||
# - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request..."''Someone has reverted my removal of Israel - Hamas *AGAIN* so I've taken it out *AGAIN*.''" | |||
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. | |||
# - Self-revert of direct previous mainspace reversion that was prior to EC status. | |||
# - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status...Made while this enforcement request was being typed up. This reversion by Marlarkey is of an edit with the direct edit summary of "Per ]". User is 100% disregarding CT requirements. | |||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : N/A. No previous blocks or topic bans. | |||
Topic ban. | |||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): at 15:29, 21 November 2024. | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
On December 20 last year, Jalapenos do exist was banned from making more than one global revert per day on I-P related articles, for a period of three months. This came on top of the 1RR restriction that was imposed on all editors in the I-P topic area. The first two diffs in the evidence section above demonstrate that Jalapenos has violated both restrictions by making two clear reverts on the same article only 8 hours apart. | |||
User has been on Misplaced Pages (on and off) since at least January 2010. It seems there is a ]-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 ]''' (] 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*One of the edits by Marlarkey listed above from 13 January 2025 has been by {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}} for Marlarkey not being ECR logged. '''The ]''' (] 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:*{{ping|Marlarkey}} I want to ], so I wanted to let you know that ] is what we call "broadly constructed". If you read ], it says, "{{tq|These are the current arbitration remedies applicable to any pages and edits that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.}}" The edit you are attempting to me is ''related'' to the Arab-Israel conflict. The page itself does not have to be entirely about the war to be covered under the restrictions. Any edit that is at least, even slightly related to the conflict is covered under the restrictions. While the page is about declarations of war throughout history, the specific edit is related to whether the Israel-Hamas war was a declaration of war. That is obviously related to the conflict, given it specifically is in regard to the ]. That is why the edits were reverted and why this violation report was filed. Hopefully that makes sense. Also, just a quick side-note, accusing other editors of vandalism is ] and is not really how Misplaced Pages operates. You should always ]. '''The ]''' (] 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::*{{ping|Marlarkey}} We are all working together to create a better encyclopedia. No one is against you and we do wish for all to edit Misplaced Pages. The ArbCom restrictions require that you have (1) at least an account of 30 days old and (2) at least 500 edits, to be able to edit content anywhere on Misplaced Pages regarding the Israel-Hamas war. At the time of all the edits linked above, you did not have 500 edits on Misplaced Pages. You were roughly at 490. At the time of this, you now have over 500 edits, which means you could now edit content regarding the Israel-Hamas war. That said, this report was made because of the several edits you made prior to reaching the 500 edit requirement. | |||
:::Please understand this is for the edits that you made which were in clear violation of the policy, which requires you to have 500 edits prior to editing anything even remotely related to the conflict. This report was not that you are incorrect with your removal of the content. Not at all. This report is because you removed the content before you were allowed to (i.e. the 500-edit mark). Please understand we all are on the same-side here and no one is vandalizing anything. Once this is resolved, I would be more than happy to calmly discuss the content changes with you. I hope you can understand that this report is specifically because you made the changes before you were allowed to and not at all regarding the content in those changes. '''The ]''' (] 00:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
The third diff above, represents the state of the article as Jalapenos created it before others started to make substantial edits to it. I submit that the article he created represents a gross violation of NPOV, for several reasons: | |||
*{{ping|Rosguill}} After my last reply, I realized I went 105 words over the 500-word limit. I would like to request that 105-word extension (so I do not have to reword or remove the last reply I made). I do not plan to reply again as I think everything I needed to say and link to has been said and linked to. '''The ]''' (] 00:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* As with other I-P articles Jalapenos has created, this article completely omitted any statements from Palestinian moderates, presenting only extreme or hardline points of view. Thus, we learn in the intro that Palestinians in Rafah celebrated in the streets, but nowhere in the article was it mentioned that Palestinian residents of Awarta condemned the attack. We learned that Al-Aqsa called the attack "heroic" and Hamas justified it, but not that the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority condemned it. Nor did the article mention that the attack may have been carried out in retaliation for the killing of two Palestinian teenagers from Awarta last year. I was able to find all this information in five minutes from the sources that Jalapenos himself provided: Jalapenos must have read them, but he has chosen to simply omit any information that might detract from his one-sided presentation of Palestinians as bloodthirsty and vengeful. | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
* Jalapenos included not one, but ''three'' horrific images of bodies of the victims. All three images were quickly deleted from Commons by an admin, but not before J. had reverted the removal of only ''one'' of them by another user (see diff #1 above). Note that J. gave no reason for his revert. | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
* Jalapenos restored the information about Palestinians in Rafah celebrating the killings after I had removed it as ] in the lead (see diff #2 above). He gave no explanation for his revert, in common with his usual practice. Nor did he leave any explanation on the talk page. At the moment he reverted it, he must have been aware that the residents of Awarta had had an opposite response, calling the killings bestial, but for Jalapenos only the response of the Rafahns merits inclusion in the intro. | |||
===Discussion concerning Marlarkey=== | |||
Jalapenos has a long history of creating heavily biased content on this encyclopedia, as a look at his editing history will demonstrate. I'd like to think the user is capable of reform but I'm afraid I see no evidence of it with this latest series of edits. I am therefore requesting a topic ban for this user. ] (]) 11:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by Marlarkey==== | |||
; Response to Jalapenos | |||
{{userlinks|WeatherWriter}} 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. {{userlinks|WeatherWriter}} 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. | |||
J. states that he was merely responding to a request to move the picture, but Biosketch's comment on the talk page included the comment: ''please consider that plastering photos of the victims all over the article is nonconstructive editing''. Clearly, he felt that the addition of three pictures was excessive. Jalapenos ignored this concern in restoring the image. | |||
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." | |||
Regardless, the condition of the article before others made substantial changes was demonstrably one-sided, to a degree that I think ought to be considered unacceptable. Excluding all but the most extreme Palestinian viewpoints and plastering the article with graphic images of "dead babies", to quote User:Y, should surely be evidence enough of that. ] (]) 15:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
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. | |||
: I'm withdrawing the violation of 1RR charge. I missed the fact that Jalapenos had restored the image to a different section, and that he might have believed that by doing so he was responding to Biosketch's main concern. He still could, I think, have asked for clarification, but I think this can no longer be described as a clearcut revert. My apologies to Jalapenos and the adjudicating admins for the error. | |||
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. | |||
: In regards to the other part of the case, I will probably have more to say tomorrow. ] (]) 18:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
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 | |||
; Request downgrade | |||
On reflection, though I believe the article created by Jalapenos was blatantly POV, I probably would not have brought this request on that evidence alone, it was that in combination with the 1RR violation, since withdrawn, that persuaded me to file it. Though Jalapenos has in my experience made some highly questionable edits at times, and in my opinion added some marginal content, I'm not entirely sure a sanction is warranted at this point. In the absence of further evidence from other users, therefore, and in the interests of collegiality, I am downgrading my enforcement request from a topic ban to a warning. ] (]) 14:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
The reference by Weatherwriter to 21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Is only a partial quote - what I actually said was "I don't give a stuff about what you or Israel say about the declaration. I care about whether it is in the scope of this page." | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
The key is the final point - the scope of this article and whether the edits are validly cited in accordance with the topic of the article...namely a list of declarations of war. | |||
* | |||
Weatherwriter reversions of my edits serve to support a political opinion on a page which is about facts. | |||
===Discussion concerning ]=== | |||
====Statement by Jalapenos do exist==== | |||
I create a pretty good article almost single handedly, and instead of getting thanked, first I get hit with a frivolous AfD (snow kept), and now this bullshit. | |||
'''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 | |||
In edit #1, a user had removed an image of a victim from the Reactions section with the statement "inappropriately situated, no connection to Reactions"; I agreed, so I restored the image to the Victims section, explaining what I did and why. A very mundane edit in the course of upkeep on an article I created, and by no means a revert. So much for the 1RR allegation. | |||
] (]) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
The NPOV allegation is nonsense. I really don't feel like going through all the falsehoods and carefully constructed half-truths, but if you just look at this article and my other articles, you can see that they are not biased, and many editors have said as much. I'm proud of the fact that I've received compliments from editors with declared sympathies on both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict. | |||
Please take a good, long look at Gatoclass' editing and complaint history. What's going on here is that Gatoclass has a strong partisan POV regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, he seeks to imprint his POV on any he article he can (typically articles where someone else did the real work), he relentlessly bullies anyone who gets in his way, and he attempts to manipulate the AE process for this purpose. Of course, people who share his partisan POV will support these attempts, and people who oppose it will oppose them. You guys can either find a way to put a stop to this behavior, or you can let your time get wasted with drama and watch as sensible editors continue to disappear from this area out of frustration. ] (]) 14:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
On another point, following me reviewing the information in this complaint by WeatherWriter... | |||
=====Response to Gatoclass===== | |||
"If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)" The complainant cites a link to information which I have JUST accessed and have never seen before just now. I was NOT aware of this information so it is false to suggest that this constitutes evidence that I was aware. | |||
Having apparently abandoned the 2RR allegation, Gatoclass is now clutching at the idea that I ignored Biosketch's concerns when restoring a photo to the Victims section. Not exactly an issue for AE, but in any case Biosketch has explicitly stated "I support displaying one photo in the Victims section, as a relevant document illustrating the event with which the article is concerned". My position is similar, and we editors who are actually writing the article are, at this very moment, having a civil and rather nuanced discussion on what to do with the photos. Cptnono, NortyNort and Biosketch essentially agree with me, and Robofish essentially agrees with Y, who unilaterally deleted all the photos by invoking ]. I agree with Biosketch that meanwhile the deletion "should be reverted pending a more articulate explanation", and you might say that our concern is being ignored, but I am bound by 1RR. Meanwhile, Gatoclass, who has contributed nothing to the article except a short series of POV-serving edits, has simply not participated in the discussion. And why should he, when he can circumvent the normal consensus-building procedures and just force his partisan position on the article by gaming AE? I guess that he will soon receive assistance from Mkativerata, who has not sullied himself with actual discussion on the talk page either. That's how it goes. ] (]) 17:33, 13 March 2011 (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 | |||
=====Response to Sandstein regarding Fatah and sources===== | |||
] (]) 00:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
I originally wrote in the lead: ''Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, the military wing of Palestinian Fatah, claimed responsibility for the attack, calling it a "heroic operation"'' This was based on the cited '']'' article, which wrote: ''The al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the armed wing of Fatah, the dominant political faction in the West Bank, said it had carried out the "heroic operation … ".'' Word for word. | |||
*:I give up... I'm being accused and being told off for responding to the accusation. I don't know anything about this procedure, have never seen this page before and know nothing about how this works because its new to me. | |||
*:But I get it - I'm not part of the club that decides things... so I'll let you get on with that. ] (]) 00:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::<small>(Moved from WeatherWriter's section</small> I get it - you'd rather call me out by this procedure than have an accurate encyclopaedia article. You've made accusations against me and put me through this over restrictions that I knew nothing about and policies I knew nothing about. I simply came across something inaccurate and followed what I understood to be WP principles and made an objectively accurate edit. | |||
::::So now the end result is that an inaccurate article containing a politically biased assertion is going to stay live. ] (]) 02:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===Result concerning Marlarkey=== | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
*<!-- | |||
--> | |||
{{u|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. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 00:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::{{u|Weather Event Writer}}, extension granted as that's essentially what Marlarkey has already taken. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 01:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
I also wrote in the body: ''Fatah, the group that controls the Palestinian National Authority, released a statement by its militia, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, in which it claimed responsibility for the killings. The statement said the "heroic" operation was a "natural response to massacres committed by the occupation against our people in the Gaza Strip and West Bank."'' This was based on the cited '']'' source, which wrote: ''"PA officials in Ramallah expressed skepticism over a statement released by Fatah’s militia, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades, in which it claimed responsibility for the killings. The statement said the “heroic” operation was a “natural response to massacres committed by the occupation against our people in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.”'' Again, word for word. (See also ElComandantChe's briefer statement on this.) | |||
Ok, having now reviewed ]'s page history, its talk page discussion, and Marlarkey's contributions more generally, I find that: | |||
Both cited sources state that Fatah's militia/the armed wing of Fatah, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, claimed responsibility for the attack. As do my statements. Neither source attributes any responsibility to the PA, nor do either of my statements. The Guardian source notes the commonly known fact that Fatah dominates the PA, as does my second statement. Everything in both statements is in one or both of the sources, though the ''second'' statement has a short explanatory clause that's only stated explicitly in the ''first'' source. | |||
:* Marlarkey has repeatedly violated ] at ] since having received a CTOP notice | |||
:*Irrespective of whether it is correct or not to include the Israel-Hamas war, Israel-Hezbollah war, or wars between states and non-state entities more broadly, WeatherWriter's edits to the page are plainly not ], which has a specific (and serious) meaning on Misplaced Pages | |||
:*It appears to be a long-term status quo to include non-state entities provided that there is a citation to some sort of formal declaration of war, and the page's inclusion of conflicts involving non-states ] and ] do not appear to have been challenged at any point. | |||
:*Marlarkey is incorrect to assert that their edit is {{tq|objectively accurate}}. Whether the edit is accurate is subject to community consensus, and the talk page arguments in favor of inclusion base themselves on RS reporting which is a valid, policy-compliant argument. Marlarkey's arguments that a declaration of war can only occur be between two states do not make any reference to a reliable source stating this; while that text is currently in the lead of the article, it does not have a citation nor is it clear that any citation in the article directly backs this. | |||
:*In light of discussion at ], which at this point shows multiple editors in favor of keeping the Hamas and Hezbollah wars, only Marlarkey firmly for removing them, and one other editor calling for discussion as of December 31st, Marlarkey's edits to unilaterally remove the entries in January amount to slow-motion edit warring | |||
:*Given that Marlarkey has had an account for well over a decade, has edited a wide variety of topics, hit 500 edits while this was happening, does not appear to have otherwise shown interest in Israel/Palestine topics, and that the edits at Declaration of war don't fit into any clear POV-warrior pattern, I don't think that pulling extended-confirmed or issuing a PIA topic ban would help. | |||
I'm thus inclined to suggest an indefinite partial block from ] (but not its talk page) as a regular admin action for edit warring, and a logged warning to be mindful of CTOP standards. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC | |||
*As Marlarkey stated that they were unaware of CT, I wanted to confirm that I double checked and found that the CT notice was properly left in November. If Marlarkey chose not to read it, well, that's rather on him—we can only leave messages, we can't force people to read them. I would otherwise agree with Rosguill's assessment. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 12:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*I entirely endorse Rosguill's reading of this. I am not happy about Marlarkey's approach to our restrictions, but I don't see this as EC gaming, and I can't see how pulling EC rights could be justified at this stage. As such I endorse the proposed page block and logged warning. Marlarkey, you seem to believe that because you are right on the substance you can ignore process and guidelines - that simply isn't true. The arbitration committee has consistently held that ]; you need to be able to edit within the scope of our policies. ] (]) 17:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* Pretty much everything Rosquill said. {{u|Marlarkey}}, it doesn't look like you have a huge amount of experience working in ]s. I'm sorry you're finding this upsetting, but CTOPs are a whole 'nother world, and you're either going to have to learn how to nonproblematically work there, or not work there. ] (]) 18:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:FWIW, the CTOP warning was ]. You've got your archiving set so aggressively that you may be missing a lot of messages, and it's completely plausible that you missed this one, which was only on your talk for two days, and after it was left you didn't edit for a month. However, we do assume that if you've got your archiving set that aggressively, you're keeping on top of anything important by checking your notifications to make sure you didn't miss anything. | |||
*:You can probably prevent this happening in future by having your talk page archive ''no more frequently than you typically go between editing sessions'', leaving maybe the five most recent messages unarchived, and/or being sure to check your notifications when logging back in. Any one of those three and you've have likely seen the notification. ] (]) 18:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
{{hatb}} | |||
==DanielVizago== | |||
Mkateriva deleted the second statement entirely with the edit summary ''rm statement that falsifies and exaggerates source and throws in a copyright violation for good measure''. I've already shown that the edit summary is at least partially false. I'm not sure what he meant by "throws in a copyright violation". He then proceeded to remove the first statement entirely, with the edit summary ''rm claim contradicted by http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=211909'' This edit summary is also false (though it might have been an innocent mistake), because Mkateriva's second Jpost article does not contradict my Guardian and first Jpost articles; it merely notes that '']'' published a contradictory report, and it neither endorses nor challenges this report. '']'' is owned by a prince of Saudi Arabia, a regime not known for allowing a robust independent press. While it would nevertheless be perfectly fine to include both statements side by side, there is no justification for simply deleting a statement agreed on by both The Guardian and The Jerusalem Post because it is contradicted by Al Hayat, an inferior source in both quantity and quality. | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
===Request concerning DanielVizago=== | |||
In short, my statements did not misrepresent the sources in any way, and Mkateriva selectively removed them under flimsy and partially false pretexts. It is entirely obvious that he was uncomfortable with the claim of responsibility by Fatah's armed wing, reported by two mainstream reliable sources, and chose to deal with this discomfort by simply deleting them. What this episode illustrates is that with a strong enough commitment to deception and sophistry, ''any'' edit - any edit whatsoever - can be portrayed as sinister, and any selective removal of material, no matter how biased and egregious, can be gotten away with by using AE as a distractive. The logical conclusion of this type of behavior is Unomi's long missive which basically boils down to "there are things in the sources that JDE didn't use!" How true, and how tragic, since I would be going back to use the sources more thoroughly, thereby improving the article and Misplaced Pages, if only I weren't stuck here responding to spurious accusations. The question is whether people who act like this have to pay any price for it, or if they can just go on freely slinging their mud hoping that some of it will stick while they continue with their bad editing. ] (]) 00:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Schazjmd}} 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|DanielVizago}}<p>{{ds/log|DanielVizago}}</p> | |||
=====Response to Sandstein regarding Hamas and sources===== | |||
The main issue here is that the source has been changed since I used it. The is titled ''Palestinian takes revenge, kills 5 settlers''. This is where I got ''but stated that the incident was a Palestinian "revenge" attack on Israelis''. That the whole thing is a statement by Hamas is simple: the source is a Hamas website. The Hamas statement acknowledges that the attack occurred but, notably, does not claim responsibility. That Hamas denied responsibility has been stated ''explicitly'' in that same primary source and in mainstream secondary sources, e.g. , but I was using the first source anyway and its indication by silence was sufficient to source the point. My summary of Hamas's position was accurate and representative of the source in every element. ] (]) 00:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Mkativerata==== | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
In addition to the substantial evidence filed above, a few other issues demonstrate the relentless POV-pushing of JdE on this article: | |||
*''Falsified linking of the attack to Fatah and the Palestinian Authority''. was the article before anyone else really touched it. It said ''Fatah, the group that controls the Palestinian National Authority, released a statement by its militia, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, in which it claimed responsibility for the killings.'' Plainly, this statement is designed to push a POV that Fatah, and thus the PA, is linked to the attacks. The statement falsifies the . The source says nothing of Fatah releasing a statement. Absolutely nothing. The source ''actually'' says that the PA (controlled by Fatah) was "sceptical" of a statement supposedly released by the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. Of course, the main content of the source is to show that Fatah and the PA condemened the attacks. But JdE's article makes no mention of the PA's condemnation, instead choosing to falsify the source to implicate Fatah. The fact that JdE's content also violated the copyright of the source cited demonstrates the extreme rush in which this hatchet job of an article was prepared. | |||
*Of course, we later found out that in fact the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades denied having anything to do with the attack. In I added a more up-to-date source saying that al-Aqsa denied involvement, and that the "statement" claiming responsibility was issued by a random splinter group that uses al-Aqsa's name. But despite the evidence to the contrary, JdE in restoring the perjorative links to Fatah despite the source used being obviously out of date and overtaken by more accurate sources (I'd edit the article again... but 1RR). | |||
*As per Gatoclass, the article took great pains to mention anything that could reflect badly on the Palestinian administration. But JdE conspicuously ignored information ''from the same sources'' that could provide a more balanced view, such as the condemnations by PA, the reaction of residents of Awarta. | |||
Breaches of 1RR are forgivable, and it seems there weren't any here. But POV-pushing by source falsification and selective inclusion of perjorative material cannot be tolerated. This is exactly what topic bans were designed for. --] (]) 19:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:On the first point. The source says ''"PA officials in Ramallah expressed skepticism over a '''statement released by Fatah’s militia, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades, in which it claimed responsibility for the killings'''"'', i.e. JDE representation of the source is quite accurate. No comments on credibility of both JPost articles mentioned above. --] (]) 22:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::On what basis does "Fatah's militia" = "Fatah"? That link is plainly a falsification, especially when (a) the same sentence says that the PNA (controlled by Fatah) expressed scepticism about the statement; and (b) it is well established that the description of AAMB as "Fatah's militia" is dubious and controversial. JdE has deliberately set out to mispresent the source to tie the attacks not only to AAMB but to Fatah. --] (]) 22:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
@Sandstein: Just a couple of points: (1) Unomi has presented more evidence of source falsification below (see the Hamas "revenge" issue). (2) A dispute about POV on a particular article is a content issue; an accusation that a user is pushing POV in his or her article work is a conduct issue. Pushing POV falls within the scope of ARBPIA sanctions as conduct that "seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". AE admins here aren't being asked to adjudicate on a content dispute (the content dispute at the article has pretty much settled down); they're being asked to sanction an editor for pushing POV. Accordingly, I think the POV accusations against JdE are actionable as an AE request. --] (]) 22:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Agreed, POV-pushing is sanctionable, but normally not on the basis of writing a single (even if possibly deficient) article. We'd need evidence for a ''pattern'' of non-neutral conduct. The previous AE request cited below may be relevant, though. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Actually, on further review and in fairness to JdE, the Hamas/revenge/attribution issue may be due to an earlier version of the source that was linked. It seems an earlier version of the Al Qassam article said in its headline, "Palestinian takes revenge, kills 5 settlers". Al Qassam is linked to Hamas, so perhaps the attribution of the "revenge" quote to Hamas can be explained on that basis. An earlier version of the source is copy/pasted at . --] (]) 23:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
As another example of the POV-pushing in ], JdE included ] as a "See also" link. That article is a controversial article essentially claiming a concerted effort by Palestinian factions to use violence to derail the peace process in 2010. Including a see also link in ] was none other than a brazen attempt, unsupported by any reliable sources, to suggest that these murders were a cynical part of that so-called militancy campaign. It should come as no surprise that JdE is one of the principal authors of ]. --] (]) 23:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
@JdE's recent lengthy post, as it questions my own edits: | |||
: The phrase "It added that the perpetrator managed to return safely to his base." is a word-for-word copyright violation of . | |||
:The suggestion that ] is an unreliable source in these matters is completely spurious. A read of our own WP article on the newspaper will show that. The fact that the Jerusalem Post reported Al-Hayat's reports verbatim indicates that it is accepted for its reliability across the spectrum of reasonable I/P views. New York Times article is a good read. It was abundantly clear by the time of my edit (and remains clear now) that early news reports attributing the attack to the AAMB were completely wrong, and I make no apology for correcting it. --] (]) 00:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by unomi==== | |||
Misplaced Pages is a collaborative effort, neither its selection of articles nor individual articles will ever be 'finished', we work together, sometimes competitively and at best cooperatively to continually improve presentation of the material available - in light of this we shouldn't hold any one editor responsible for 'perfecting' an article. I believe that this holds true when looking at the broad selection of sources available for any given subject, however, when an editor chooses to selectively include material from a source - and indeed materially misrepresent the content of the sources - then we have a problem. | |||
JDE was fairly recently sanctioned at AE, see , where uninvolved admins stated: "I do, however, see other problematic editing, including apparent single-purpose, POV-driven editing affecting multiple articles, including article creation, ..." and "... we caution him that future misconduct on these articles can result in him being excluded from the topic area, blocked from editing, or otherwise restricted.". | |||
Did JDE fail to represent the sources he used adequately? | |||
Looking at indicated by Mkativerata above, starting from the bottom up. | |||
1. Hamas, the group that governs the Gaza Strip, did not claim responsibility, but stated that the incident was a Palestinian "revenge" attack on Israelis and argued that Palestinian factions "have the full right... to use all tools and means of resistance" against Israel. | |||
* The only thing regarding the perpetrator and motivation stated there is: "Israeli media claimed that angry Palestinian attacked a home in the illegal settlement of Itamar near Nablus and killed Five settlers from one family before he escapes." I would also note that the passage regarding armed resistance is edited to remove any mention of international law, the occupation and changes 'Israeli occupation forces and the armed Israeli settlers' to simply 'Israel'. | |||
* Also note that the page shows related stories, one bearing the headline: "Hamas denies responsibility for Itamar incident" and contains: "Al-Rashak confirmed that harming children is not part of Hamas' policy, nor is it the policy of the resistance factions." | |||
2. Fatah, the group that controls the Palestinian National Authority, released a statement by its militia, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, in which it claimed responsibility for the killings. The statement said the "heroic" operation was a "natural response to massacres committed by the occupation against our people in the Gaza Strip and West Bank." It added that the perpetrator managed to return safely to his base. | |||
* The source article as a whole is somewhat confusing to be honest, personally I would probably look for a more authoritative source regarding just who claimed responsibility for what. A quick google search quickly brings into to question the quality of the assertion: ''A previously unknown group, the Imad Mughniyah Cell of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack Saturday, but an unnamed Israeli officer told Haaretz daily that this was "nonsense."'' | |||
* The source does however repeatedly state that the PNA condemned “any act that targets civilians, regardless of their identity.” the entire first 1/3 of the source article is dedicated to the PNA condemning the killings, yet none, not one bit of that is mentioned under Palestinian reactions, not just a little. That the PNA condemned the killings is repeated in just about every source that was in use at that time. | |||
3. is used 3 times, mostly for details that in some cases are contradicted by sources closer to the event, such as the 2 unharmed children were hiding rather than sleeping. But much information in the source is ignored such as: | |||
* ''Israeli authorities suspect that the killings, the deadliest attack inside a settlement in several years, were either a strike by Palestinian militants or a revenge attack by residents of the West Bank village of Awarta, where two Palestinian teenagers were shot to death a year ago as they collected garbage near Itamar.'' | |||
* ''Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad also criticized the killings. "As we have always rejected violence against our people, we reject it against others and we condemn it."'' | |||
* ''Tensions between settlers and Palestinian villagers have been escalating for weeks. Founded in 1984, the Itamar settlement sits on land that was once controlled by the village of Awarta, said Awarta Mayor Qais Awwad.'' | |||
* ''In recent weeks, Palestinians have accused settlers in the area of chopping down hundreds of olive trees, burning Palestinians' cars and shooting at villagers. Last week, Israeli soldiers were accused of using live gunfire to quell one clash, injuring 10 Palestinians and one settler.'' | |||
* ''Itamar's settlers are considered among the most fervent, believing Israel has a historic and religious right to absorb the West Bank, which Israel seized during the 1967 Middle East War. Most of the international community, however, views Israel's settlements as illegal and has called for Israel to end the occupation by allowing Palestinians to build their own state on the land.'' | |||
* ''Israeli soldiers appeared to be focusing their efforts on family members of the two Palestinians killed last March. At the time, Palestinians had complained that the unarmed youths were killed by settlers from Itamar, although Israeli soldiers said they shot the teens. A military investigation was opened into the incident. Several male relatives in the family were arrested Saturday and their home remained surrounded by Israeli soldiers.'' | |||
I can reach no other conclusion than JDE deliberately excluded information which would be of value to an encyclopedic article but might run counter to his intentions with wikipedia. | |||
We aren't talking about just not doing diligent research in finding appropriate sources, we are talking about intentional and consistent omissions from numerous sources that he had read. It is this kind of editing which is most problematic in terms of editor friction and is an impediment to a collaborative editing atmosphere, not to mention being just plain manipulative of[REDACTED] readers. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]]]</i> 21:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
;Comment to Sandstein | |||
Regarding: "Whether the article as a whole conformed to WP:NPOV when it was created, or whether relevant information was omitted, is probably a content dispute that cannot be decided in an arbitration context" | |||
I have to echo the sentiment of Mkativerata above. The I/P discretionary sanctions state that this type of behavior is falls under the purview of AE: ''that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the '''purpose of Misplaced Pages''', any expected standards of behavior, or any '''normal editorial process'''.'' it also explicitly mentions ]: ''Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Misplaced Pages's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, '''neutral point of view''', no original research and verifiability) in their editing''. ] has as its first line: ''Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means '''representing fairly''', proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, '''all significant views''' that have been published by reliable sources.'' - it may be that this should be followed in ''theory'' but that in practice it rarely happens (especially in contentious areas), but that is more than anything the fault of those who should be enforcing the policy. One could argue that omitting material that speaks to possible motives, such as carried by the LA Times, might potentially be a content issue, but surely not that the PNA had condemned the attacks when half of the article is about 'reactions' and when the sources are brimming with the PNA reactions. It strikes me that intentionally omitting that the PNA had condemned the attacks, and even going so far as intimating that it was linked to them is such a gross violation when you consider that just about every single source JDE used carried the information that the PNA had condemned them. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]]]</i> 23:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
;Response to JDE's comment | |||
Regarding: "The logical conclusion of this type of behavior is Unomi's long missive which basically boils down to "there are things in the sources that JDE didn't use!" How true, and how tragic, since I would be going back to use the sources more thoroughly, thereby improving the article and Misplaced Pages, if only I weren't stuck here responding to spurious accusations." | |||
:Let me be Frank, Shirley you must be joking. In light of your previous AE where you also forwarded this very same mix of mild outrage, denial of any wrong-doing and deflection of core issues I find myself yet again amazed at the credulity that you attribute to your fellow editors. I do however welcome your tacit acknowledgement that you did not reflect the weight of contents in the sources that you used. That you ''would have, if only..'' rings mightily hollow however; you managed to add the responses of the UN, France, Germany, US, 'quartet on the Middle East', Perez and Netanyahu - replete with flags in most cases, yet the Palestinian reactions are 1. giving out candy, 2. military wing of fatah claiming responsibility calling it 'heroic', 3. Hamas calling it an act of revenge - yet failed to mention what is stated in ''just about each source that you use'' - The Palestinian National Authority condemning the attacks. Sorry, but the contention that you somehow didn't have the time to mention that is laughable. The conscious and willful omission of what is given weight in the sources is a blatant ] violation, and attempting to reduce that to "there are things in the sources that JDE didn't use!" is brazen, but brings us back to the same situation as in the previous AE - assume bad faith or assume no clue. | |||
Regarding: "The question is whether people who act like this have to pay any price for it, or if they can just go on freely slinging their mud hoping that some of it will stick while they continue with their bad editing." | |||
:Indeed. | |||
:<i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]]]</i> 02:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
;Comment regarding the downgrade request by Gatoclass | |||
I never expected more to come of this than a warning and would find that a satisfactory conclusion to this request as well. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]]]</i> 14:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
====Comments by others about the request concerning ]==== | |||
I was heavily involved in the ] article yesterday and also, albeit to a much lesser extent, with the ] article that split off of it. My immediately following comments may therefore be considered, and may indeed be, biased. On the matter of Revert #1, in all fairness it ought not to be classified as a Revert. I removed a photo placed in the Reactions sections, feeling that that was not an appropriate place for it; whereupon ] proceeded to restore the photo in the Victims section – which, at least in relative terms, was a more appropriate place for it (or less ''in''appropriate, depending on how you want to construe it). | |||
I can sympathize with ]' remark about the article taking on what could be considered, and indeed may have been, a biased character. I commented to that effect on the Discussion page with regard to the omission of Prime Minister Fayyad's formal condemnation and with regard to the (spurious, in my view) attribution of responsibility to the Fatah party. The ''Jerusalem Post'' article that was the source for the first paragraph of the Palestinian reaction did include information to the effect that Fayyad condemned the massacre, but the editor(s) elected not to include it in the article. It also explained that Fatah did not directly claim responsibility for the massacre but rather that a faction of Fatah's al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade did – but this comment too went unaddressed. | |||
However, I would not be as hasty as ] in concluding that ]'s edits deliberately left out information. One must keep in mind the fact that this was a clear case of aggressor and victim. Oftentimes that relationship is not so sharply defined in the ongoing cycle of violence between Israel and the Palestinians but, given the circumstances, in this case it is only natural to frame it in those terms. Furthermore, specifically with regard to the Fatah point, ] may simply not have been informed enough as an editor on the dynamics of the Palestinian's quasi-political/quasi-paramilitary leadership structures. That is to say, he may candidly have been unaware of the distinction between Fatah and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. | |||
I'm not one to draw clear conclusions one way or the other, but these observations are what I have to contribute to the discussion for the benefit of those that will ultimately ''need'' to draw them.—] (]) 17:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
;Comment by Cptnono | |||
Since the concern over edit warring has been withdrawn this is only a case of POV pushing. I agree that JDE created a article that was overly emotional. It is an overtly emotional subject. We cannot punish an editor for writing about a dead baby. If he was not edit warring then he did nothing many editors would not do. So if he was not edit warring he was simply adding a POV that any rationale editor should understand. He did not edit war over it and instead let other editors counter the expected POV. When babies do not die then editors will not have to mirror the sources. Next time he should try harder but if an admin can honestly say they see a problem with an editor writing an article about an emotional subject then they need to go check out the new page patrol page. Gatoclass should accept that he made a request for enforcement on partially false pretenses and drop it. JDE should try harder to write less emotionally even when it deals with dead babies. Dead babies die in Gaza City so this statement could be reversed to apply to POV pushers on the other side. No edit warring? What is the problem Gatoclass? ] (]) 07:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
;Cooment by BorisG | |||
I agree with Biosketch. If an article appears one-sided (as this one arguably did), the right thing to do is to correct or remove the bias and include missing info, not to file an AE request. Since there was no attempt by JDE to dispute or disrupt such changes, there is no justfification for any sanction (perhaps a warning). And both sides will do well by assuming good faith and avoiding gross incivility expressed in some comments above. | |||
On a more general point, I think admins should consider discouraging any ''future'' AE requests by editors involved in disputes. Why? Because this page itself has become a battleground. I think this should apply to both sides. Don't know how practical this is, just an idea. Cheers. - ] (]) 14:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
- ] (]) 14:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
===Result concerning Jalapenos do exist=== | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' | |||
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> | |||
*After a brief review, the only potentially actionable problem I see is the accusation that Jalapenos do exist may have misrepresented the source when he that "Fatah, the group that controls the Palestinian National Authority, released a statement by its militia", whereas the source reads: "PA officials in Ramallah expressed skepticism over a statement released by Fatah’s militia ..." This does appear to attribute responsibility to the PA and Fatah in a way that the source does not. I'd appreciate a comment by Jalapenos do exist on this matter. <p>The other accusations have been withdrawn (1RR) or do not seem actionable to me: Whether the article as a whole conformed to ] when it was created, or whether relevant information was omitted, is probably a content dispute that cannot be decided in an arbitration context. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
*<s>The first point raised by Unomi is also potentially problematic. Jalapenos do exist wrote in the article that "Hamas, the group that governs the Gaza Strip, did not claim responsibility, but stated that the incident was a Palestinian "revenge" attack on Israelis", citation marks in the original. This text is sourced to . Nowhere does this source contain the words "Hamas" or "revenge", or the assertion that Hamas did not claim responsibility, or even the assertion that Palestinians did it. That claim is attributed to "Israeli media" in the source: "Israeli media claimed that angry Palestinian attacked ...". This looks like another potential source misrepresentation. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)</s> Apparently the source has changed in the interim. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:*I am unconvinced by Jalapenos do exist's explanation concerning the PA/Fatah source misrepresentation issue. I've taken note that the requesting editor now only asks for a warning. Given that '']'' does not apply to AE requests, we are not bound by that request to "downgrade" the sanction. Nonetheless, under these circumstances, closing the request with a warning may be prudent so as not to unnecessarily inflame tempers, and if no admin disagrees, I will do so. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::*Without objection, so closed. Jalapenos do exist is warned not to misrepresent sources when contributing content to Misplaced Pages. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 16:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
{{hab}} | |||
== Tentontunic == | |||
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' | |||
===Request concerning Tentontunic=== | |||
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 02:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Tentontunic}} | |||
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ||
# Added ] 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, {{tq|This category is for issues relating to misandry. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly misandrist.}}); | |||
Violation of 1RR: | |||
# and Removing sourced content from ] that states misandry is not a major an issue as misogyny; | |||
# 8:30, 16 March. 2011 | |||
# Changing content in ] to emphasize misandry (reverted by another editor with edit summary {{tq|rv, poorly sourced (sources supplemented by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH), earlier version was better, closer to sources}}); | |||
# 23:11, 16 March, 2011 | |||
# |
# Added "bimisandry" to ], citing 4 sources, none of which include that term; | ||
# 14 Jan 2025, weird edits adding ] with piped names to unrelated articles, then those names directly to the category page; | |||
# 23:51, 17 March, 2011 | |||
# restored the "bimisandry" edit to ], then a 5th ref that includes the term but is just a blog; I left a 4th-level warning on talk page; | |||
# (after final warning) adds <nowiki>] and ]</nowiki> to ]; 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 {{tq|articles of female individuals who have been convicted of rape in a court of law.}} | |||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | |||
(2 & 3 are adding new material - 1 & 4 are deleting material.) | |||
*None | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
*'''Reply to T. Canens''' (1) 1. is re-writing the section " Western perspectives on terrorism committed by groups claiming adherence to Communist ideology/Usage of the term" and removal of a synthesis tag. 2. is new material - Tentontunic had added similar material to ], and I confused the articles. 3. is insertion of text at the beginning of a section that changes the emphasis - the section originally began by saying that "Communist terrorism" was "a term used by the Nazi Party as part of a propaganda effort". It now begins "one of the features of was the use of terrorism". 4. is deletion of the section "Usage of the term. Tentontunic set up an RfC which is still on-going to consider changes because "no clear consensus has been reached". (2) A request for clarification determined that this article comes under Eastern European articles and 1RR was imposed under Digwuren sanctions. ] (]) 12:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
*I alerted them on | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
Personal attacks on other editors: | |||
Above diffs are all edits ''after'' the CTOP notification was provided. Before then, DanielVizago misapplied ] to 46 articles, which is what caught my attention. Their attempts to add "bimisandry" to ] started . On 28 Dec 2024, DanielVizago added a lot of content to ] about misandry, which another editor with edit summary {{tq|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 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. ] ] 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
And Jonathan is wrong, it really ought to surprise me that you would restore a BIAS tag on this article, yet on left wing terrorism you remove one within a few hours. You argue on communist terrorism to no end, you appear to be tendentious in your approach to articles which may be critical of communism in fact. Did you not just get warned for just this behavior? We have here an article, about mass killings which happened under communist regimes, it does not matter how many died under capitalism, or democracy, or the rule of the evil overlords of the mole people. What matters on this article is how many died under Communist Regimes. Tentontunic (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
Then why do I require yours? Should you try and add your proposal to the article you will require consensus, just as I do. What you have written above is little more than propaganda, and an entire waste of time. You say you wish to see a NPOV article, then please try and write in a NPOV manner. Tentontunic (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
* | |||
I added my proposed content above today, the proposal had two editors who agreed with the inclusion, P Siebert reverted this with the edit summary, no consensus. But then proceeded to add content only he himself has agreed to. I fully intend to remove this as it is nothing more than a propaganda piece. And I should like Paul Siebert to explain why he feels justified adding content with no consensus, but removing content which at least had two people agree to and only him objecting. Tentontunic (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
So what your saying is, I need consensus, and you do not? As stated, what you have written is pure propaganda, there is no other way to describe it. You have basically written "these are not communists" You have given undue weight to a fringe uncited paper, you have made an entire hash of it. It`s junk and needs to be excised, at least what I had written was mainstream and neutral. Tentontunic (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): | |||
# Warning by {{user|The Four Deuces}} | |||
# Warning by {{user|Paul Siebert}} 20:03, 17 March, 2011 | |||
===Discussion concerning DanielVizago=== | |||
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Block or warning | |||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by DanielVizago==== | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : <Your text> | |||
====Statement by caeciliusinhorto==== | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
Since this report was opened, DanielVizago has continued to make questionable edits adding articles to ]. | |||
* , categorising a living person who has been accused (but not charged, let alone convicted) of sexual assault as a rapist (cf. ]) | |||
===Discussion concerning Tentontunic=== | |||
* 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 | |||
* and edit categorise two sexually-motivated murderers as rapists despite no evidence that they ever raped anyone in the article (cf. ]) | |||
] (]) 10:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Tentontunic==== | |||
====Statement by Simonm223==== | |||
====Comments by others about the request concerning Tentontunic ==== | |||
Upon reading the TFD's request I realised that some comments are needed, because the way TFD represented the issue is somewhat confusing, and for an uninvolved person it is almost impossible to understand the underlying conflict. I personally believe that this request is somewhat premature, however, as far as it has been filed, we have to continue with that.<br>This story starts with this Tentontunic proposal made on Feb 26, which was an absolutely correct step from the procedural point of view. <br>This proposal lead to long debates, and eventually I asked Tentontunic's permission to take this text as a base and to modify it, a proposal he totally agreed with . <br>I have made some changes (considerable changes), which, in my opinion, fixed accuracy and POV issues of the proposed text , and from this moment the things started to develop in a wrong way. <br>Firstly, Tentontunic initially declared that the text is awful and requested for references .<br> My request to explain what concretely is wrong with the text was rejected , and I had to do some time consuming job to collect needed references to address Tentontunic's request .<br>When the needed references have been provided, Tentontunic stopped to respond. <br>However, immediately after the article became unprotected, he added his own (initial) version of his text into the article , totally ignoring my modifications, sources and arguments.<br> I added the modified version (which, in my opinion, was quite a natural step, because by abstaining from discussion Tentontunic implicitly recognised that he had no counter-arguments), and this my edit was reverted back under a pretext that there is no consensus for either proposal.<br>In connection to that, I have to say that Tentontunic's understanding of the consensus policy is deeply flawed, because he believes that unsupported claims like: "''] '' are sufficient to remove a properly referenced text from the article. I recommend to read the discussion in the ] section to get a more complete impression about this story. <br>My conclusion is that, since Tentontunic is a relatively unexperienced user, it would be possibly premature to speak about serious sanctions, however he has to be seriously warned about the need to observe WP policy.--] (]) 04:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
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. ] (]) 18:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
AE is to be used for complaints related in ''some way'' to the arbitration result for Digwren. In the case at hand, this is a case of TFD using WP as a personal battleground. His actions about Tentontunic are not based on seeking NPOV on WP, but on silencing a voice he sees as opposing his. Including but limited to a remarkable series of AfDs and an egregious example (really - read this one as a sparkling example of ]!) where the only way he would have ever found the articles is by looking at Tentontunic's edit history and not by actually randomly seeking out articles in any specific group or for any specific rationale otherwise. AE requests by TFD against Tentontunic at , edit war complaints made at , SPI report made at showing an ongoing battleground which, properly examined, should not be held against Tentontunic. In point of fact, while Digwuren has little to do with any of this, I suggest that whoever examines this (noting Paul's rather unique view of this, and his similar views on many pages including one where he asserted that I must hold a specifc view on pseudoscience becasue I disagree with him on whether ] is a proper topic for WP) examine the use of noticeboards repeatedly for ] acts. Examples of Paul's acts in this include: wherein he asserts that I was not "uninvolved" with regard to pseudoscience issues because "'' L2 and Collect have been extensively involved in disputes on several Communism related WP pages, such as Communist terrorism and Mass killings under Communist regimes. It is not a secret that the users working in this area frequently display more or less pronounced partisan behaviour, and, taking into account that Collect and L2 definitely belong to the opposing camps, Collect can hardly be considered as a neutral uninvolved party in a discussion about the L2 block. ... For sake of objectivity, I believe I have to explain that, since I myself also frequently participate in Communism related disputes, and since L2 and I belong to the same camp, I cannot be considered as an uninvolved party."'' Paul is clearly acting here as a battleground ally, and admits it as such when he improperly accused me of taking sides on a what he considered a pseudoscience issue, and where my position may be read by any arbitrator or admin. ] (]) 07:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:@ T. Canaens: They are not, and are not. And have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of Digwuren sanctions. Note the ] at play. ] (]) 11:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by (username)==== | |||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
===Result concerning DanielVizago=== | |||
@ T. Canaens: Re your #2. This article is under 1RR applied per the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Digwuren case. Frankly speaking, I have no idea why the broad Communism topic has been connected to the Eastern Europe, however, that is a decision of administrators, who seem to bee seek and tired of the constant edit war over this article. One way or the another, since all editors working in this area appeared to be restricted with 1RR per the Digwuren case, the reports of the case when this system is gamed should be filed here.<br>Re your #1. As I already wrote, I see no ''formal'' violation of the 1RR in this case, so this report seems somewhat premature. However, the spirit of the policy is definitely violated, because the user removed the text that was written in full accordance with ], ] and ] policies under a laughable pretext that it is a piece of propaganda (without providing any support for that claim), and introduced ''another'' text where the same events were represented in a quite different way to push quite opposite POV. Concretely, this text , which was removed by Tentontunic, states that "'' this term ''("Communist terrorism" PS)'' has been applied by the US administration to the actions of Communist partisans during ] to affect both the domestic and South Vietnamese public opinion and to justify the actions of the US army as "counterterrorist" measures.''", and this text, which was added by him, presents Vietnamese "Communist terrorism" as a broadly accepted term without any reference to its origin from the US war propaganda. This is definitely a revert, and this revert is not supported by the users, and importantly by what the sources say (see, for instance, a discussion there ). However, the most important thing here is that Tentontunic believes that he can revert any edit without providing serious evidences for that. That is not what the policy states, because the neutral text, which is supported by reliable sources and contains no synthesis cannot be removed simply because some users believe it is a propaganda.--] (]) 14:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:''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. ] (]) 12:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
@ Sandstein. The 1RR restriction has been applied per the ] authorized in the ]. Therefore, if these sanction are in effect, then the article does have a connection with the EE topic (where the term "Eastern Europe" is defined broadly). However, if the topic has just a tangential relation to the EE issue (the point I fully agree with, unless the definition of "Eastern Europe" includes the whole Earth), then 1RR restrictions should be removed, because the Digwuren case is applicable to the EE issues only.--] (]) 22:14, 19 March 2011 (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. ] (] • 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. ] (]) 13:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
*<!-- | |||
--> | |||
] | |||
====Comment by Volunteer Marek==== | |||
This report is just another piece of evidence for the fact that WP:AE is just another weapon in the battleground toolbox, nothing more. It <u>is</u> the battleground, it <u>creates</u> battlegrounds, it makes existing battlegrounds <u>worse</u>, not better. You make blocks and sanctions cheap, ] for blocks and sanctions goes up. And so you get endless frivolous reports which just waste everyone's time, and embitter editors against each other.] (]) 07:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Marek, unfortunately, although the report is premature, it hardly is "frivolous". The editor refused to discuss the proposed text, removed it under a pretext that it is "propaganda" (without providing any evidences that the text written based on western scholarly articles and containing no synthesis can be a piece propaganda), and introduced his own text ''without any attempt to discuss it on the talk page''. All these steps could be simply reverted per normal rules, however, since the article is under 1RR, this step may lead to sanctions against a user who will do that. Therefore, we simply have no choice other than to go to this page.--] (]) 14:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
==Ekdalian== | |||
::Sandstein: ''Recommending closure with a warning to Tentontunic not to make invalid AE requests.'' - ummm, Tentontunic is not the one who made this invalid AE request. TFD did. And he might have already been warned before about making invalid AE requests (I can't remember whether this was "official warning" or just people telling him to chill out with these - I'd have to go back and look through the archives).] (]) 21:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
===Request concerning Ekdalian=== | |||
:::Thanks for pointing out that I miscopied the username; that has been corrected. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NXcrypto}} 03:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Ekdalian}}<p>{{ds/log|Ekdalian}}</p> | |||
====Comment by Martintg==== | |||
We all seem to agree this report is premature. Looking at the diffs presented by TFD there are no reverts. The only revert I see in the edit history is the one by TFD. I have to agree with the others that this report appears to be an attempt by TFD to wikilawyer a sanction via AE to get the upper hand in a content discussion, this kind of ] antics is just as disruptive as any real edit warring. Therefore I think ] should apply. --] (]) 00:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
===Result concerning Tentontunic=== | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' | |||
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> | |||
*Can someone explain (1) why is each of the 4 diffs supplied a revert and (2) how the revert is related to Eastern Europe? ] (]) 10:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
**Assuming '']'' that the entire article is under a validly imposed 1RR, I'm not seeing a 1RR violation here based on those diffs. 1RR is one revert per day, not one edit per day. ] (]) 00:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
*The request is not very helpful because it does not show what the diffs are supposed to be reverts of. I can't see a 1RR violation at first glance. Nothing of what <s>Tentontunic</s> The Four Deuces writes makes this issue more clear. And like Timotheus Canens I am not sure how the article is in the EE topic area anyway. Recommending closure with a warning to <s>Tentontunic</s> The Four Deuces not to make invalid AE requests. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
== ZjarriRrethues == | |||
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' | |||
===Request concerning ZjarriRrethues=== | |||
; User requesting enforcement : ] (]) 02:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|ZjarriRrethues}} | |||
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] | |||
] | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | ||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> | |||
ZjarriRrethues is an editor that frequently edits Greece-related topics in a persistently tendentious, incivil manner, misusing sources and engaging in other forms of intellectual dishonesty, lately exhibiting strong signs of ] and ] behavior and engaging in personal vendettas. Specifically: | |||
# - Restoring recently added disputed content, contrary to ] | |||
# - Casting unsubstantiated aspersions and poisoning the well against another editor. | |||
# - Poisoning the well against another user without any evidence of misconduct. | |||
# - Restoring recently added disputed content again and essentially asking to get consensus for it, contrary to ]. | |||
# - Performs a blanket revert in order to make a ], just because their previous edit was reverted, despite it being the version that was arrived upon by a month long discussion on , 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 | |||
# - Same as above but edit warring | |||
# - Edit warring and casting aspersions saying that reverting editor is acting like the blocked sock {{noping|Nobita456}} "stop behaving like Nobita please" | |||
# - 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! " | |||
# - 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 | |||
# - calling a ] edit as vandalism and issues final warning for vandalism | |||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : | |||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> | |||
# Explanation | |||
# Explanation | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
;Deliberate, extensive, systematic manipulation of sources: | |||
*Has a <nowiki>{{Ds/aware|ipa}}</nowiki> template for the area of conflict on their own talk page. and notified of WP:ARBIPA by Dennis Brown in 2022 | |||
ZjarriRrethues has become an expert at gaming Misplaced Pages's sourcing requirement to push his POV. He does so by using a variety of means, such as quoting snippets from Google Books out of context ("snippet abuse"), distorting the wording so as to completely change the meaning, selectively quoting from his own sources, and so forth. | |||
* A crystal-clear, recent example can be seen here , when it turns out that in fact the ''exact'' opposite is true . Incidentally, ZjarriRrethues frequently rails that M. Sakellariou is an unreliable Greek nationalist source , however, when it suits his purpose, as here, he has no problem using him. | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
* Though this is the most recent instance of source fraud, it is part of a persistent, long-established pattern. Another excellent example is here , when again the exact opposite is true . | |||
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 , 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 {{noping|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 {{ping|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 ] 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. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 03:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* Also here , as pointed out here . | |||
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 ]. ] <small><small>]</small></small> 07:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* Quite brazen is also this instance here , as illustrated here . The claim that the prefecture was predominantly Albanian and Bulgarian is nowhere to be found in the source. | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
* Falsely adding "According to Greek media", when in fact one of the main sources used in the article is The Balkan Chronicle , which is not Greek . Piqued that he can't have his way, he then starts tagging the article in revenge (where he sees "peacockery" is beyond me). | |||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
* Another crystal-clear example is here , when he adds that only the ''town'' of ] is predominantly ethnic Greek, even though the source used clearly says that the entire ''district'' of Himara is such. When I point this out in the talkpage , he changes tack, attacking the source though it meets ]. | |||
===Discussion concerning Ekdalian=== | |||
* Another manifestation of egregious intellectual dishonesty is removal of sources he doesn't like on the flimsiest of grounds, for example here , even though if the Greek tribes lived south of the Zeta valley in Montenegro, that would automatically imply they lived in Albania as well. On the other hand, he doesn't mind mentioning Montenegro in the same article when it suits him . | |||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by Ekdalian==== | |||
* Again, this isn't an isolated incident, but part of a long established pattern, e.g. here (removing the source on the grounds that it is "offline", and again here , where he removes a perfectly reliable, peer reviewed academic publication on the spurious grounds that it is "fringe, POV, and biased" (after having first removed that the region of Himara is predominantly Greek , which is what the source supports - under the bogus edit-summary of "precise"). | |||
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. ] (]) 06:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* Yet more tendentious editing and spurious source removal can be seen here (removing "bilingual" without explanation, even though many sources in the article attest to that). I think the point is clear by now. Months later he comes back again , apparently unable to let it rest (and again note the misleading edit summary, as he removed "bilingual" but makes no mention of that in the edit summary). | |||
: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. ] (]) 06:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Nxcrypto, it is a clear case of vandalism. The user intends to misrepresent and project their caste as ] (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. ] (]) 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 {{u|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. ] (]) 12:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* Quoting from sources in a highly selective manner is another favorite tactic, clearly shown in this new article he recently created , where for instance he makes sure to omit that source #1 includes the organization among organizations that are "ethno-nationalist" in nature, and also makes sure to omit information such as ''"However, the combination of the recent change in approach towards minority issues, together with High Court's reversing of a previous restriction on the operation of the the Turkish Union of Xanthi has served to alleviate the tension in this area"'' , which is critical in influencing the reader's perception. The article in general is highly POV, something which I will return to in this report. | |||
*:{{u|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. ] (]) 06:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:{{ping|Bishonen}} I have clearly mentioned that I am not sure! But, {{u|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. ] (]) 06:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by Orientls==== | |||
* Again, such behavior is nothing new, as can be seen here , where he makes sure to "omit" the rest of the relevant info from the source . | |||
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. | |||
* Other examples of tendentious editing can be seen here (highly POV re-write of the lede), here (without so much as an edit-summary), (removing the word "Greek" from an ancient Greek city in Albania that was the political center of one the local ancient Greek tribes, the ], even though the sources clearly describe it as such), (describing an extremist nationalist organization (even by the standards of the region) as "liberal nationalist" under the misleading edit summary of "precise" - by now, whenever I see an edit by Zjarri-Rrethues with the summary of "precise", I assume something's up), and it goes on (speaks for itself), and on (the source says exactly that ). | |||
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. | |||
;Incivility, threats, assumptions of bad faith, contempt for others | |||
* Incivility and assumptions of bad faith ("...as always...", "...like always..." note that "or deductions" and "oring" is Zjarri's self-made jargon for ]). Here he is taking it upon himself to remove another user's comments on the spurious grounds of ] , when in fact this is not the case. Here he is calling another editor a meatpuppet without any evidence or basis whatsoever . | |||
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. | |||
* In discussions involving content disputes, ZjarriRrethues routinely threatens other users with "I will seek admin intervention", "I will go to ANI", etc.. , in a clear attempt to intimidate other users. This has a chilling effect on discussions, and goes against the very heart of the principle of decorum. | |||
{{ping|Bishonen}} While the filer himself made it clear that he is not "seeking any topic bans", Ekdalian deserves a topic ban following this . 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. ] (]) 03:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* When backed into an intellectual corner, he immediately starts accusations of personal attacks ("npa comments" in his own self-made jargon for ]), again in an attempt to intimidate. | |||
====Statement by (username)==== | |||
* Condescension, contempt for others: . Even simple, politely put questions are met with contemptuous sarcasm . | |||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
===Result concerning Ekdalian=== | |||
The above diffs are bad enough. But what made me file this report was a recent incident, where after being unable to have his way on ], ZjarriRrethues explicitly expressed an intention to retaliate by pushing a pro-Turkish POV on various articles (that's what the gist of the "too few Turkish editors" part). This shows a clearly vindictive and spiteful intent, and above all ] mentality. | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
True to his word, he creates the following highly unbalanced, POV article (for the reasons mentioned above, i.e. quoting from his sources in a highly selective manner). That the article is highly POV and unbalanced is plainly obvious (a litany of negativity), and is clearly solely intended to portray Greece in as negative a light as possible as a way of spiting Greek users. In 6k+ edits, he has hitherto never shown the ''slightest'' interest in the ], and now this, after his stated declaration to push a pro-Turkish POV. He has also concurrently engaged in other highly ]y behavior, where, after I objected fact that practically every single sentence in ] begins with "According to..." , he threatens to "retaliate" on ] , just to make a point. | |||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
True to form, he does just that . This is pure ]: He has ''never'' shown the slightest interest in that article up until now, he is merely using the article to make the point that since ] is used as a source in ] without the qualifier "According to", then I shouldn't object to him being used with the qualifier in the Greco-Turkish War article. Inane, petty, and POINTy. | |||
*I will point out that I was ] 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. ] | ] 10:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC). | |||
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): | |||
==Alex 19041== | |||
User has been warned of ARBMAC sanctions in the past, and sanctioned as well . | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Topic ban from anything to do with Greece, Greeks, Greek editors, etc... | |||
=== Request concerning Alex 19041 === | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : ZjarriRrethues is the classic example of a national POV advocate who has found ways of gaming the[REDACTED] environment so as to largely avoid sanction. Yet, while in perhaps isolation most of the above diffs may not be deserving of a topic ban, the overall picture is one of a user who has engaged in persistent, systematic disruption and abuse of the system. His incivility and contempt for other makes it impossible to collaborate with him. There are many users I have had disagreements with, but none so implacably hostile and impossible to work with as ZjarriRrethues. His persistent gaming of the sourcing requirement is particularly insidious, as it is difficult to detect and even more difficult to point out. But the recent POINTy, vindictive behavior goes beyond any past disruption and raises the disruption to the next level. I have lived with ZjarriRrethues' POV-pushing for over a year now, and I have never before taken him to AE, partly because I understand that we are all human and have our national backgrounds and POVs. To push one's national POV is bad enough. But to want to retaliate against users of a certain nationality by explicitly stating an intention to push a particular POV that he ''knows'' would annoy them is the epitome of a spiteful, vindictive, disposition and is a sanctionable instance of ] behavior and breach of decorum. This user has shown some capability of being productive in topics that have no relation to Greece or Greeks, but I am convinced that, for whatever reason, he has an axe to grind with that particular country. | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement: {{userlinks|Est. 2021}} 16:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested: {{userlinks|Alex 19041}}<p>{{ds/log|Alex 19041}}</p> | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
;Reply to ZjarriRrethues | |||
* The allegation that I have been "making constant reports" regarding ZjarriRrethues is both severe and false. ''Constant'' reports? Hardly. | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] & ] | |||
* With the exception of ], ] and ] all the other Greece related articles are about ], Albanian villages, Albanian commissioned churches, so on. This user is very keen on "proving" that this or that place in Greece, or some individual was in fact Albanian. As for the Sagudates and Belegezites, I suspect the interest there stems from the ] POV he has expressed . | |||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it: | |||
* The only formal action I have taken regarding ZjarriRrethues are two SPIs long ago, the claims that I reported him "some other times to admins" and that all the reports contain the phrase "spiting Greek users" are again false. I should note that it was for making false statements at WP:AE that ZjarriRrethues was sanctioned with an interaction ban against me . This is the first time I report him to AE, while he already filed 3 non-actionable AE reports on me since September (filed the same report twice after it was ignored the first time). | |||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> | |||
# | |||
;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]): | |||
* Regarding Hellenic Nomarchy, there remains the question that since according to you Sakellariou is such an unreliable nationalist source, why use him at all? Is it because in this particular instance he appeared to portray ] in a positive light? | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: | |||
* Regarding ], this claim is nowhere to be found in the source, which in fact says this , which was corroborated by another user (and I think it's about the city rather than the prefecture anyway). This is the problem with using snippets. | |||
* ] | |||
===Discussion concerning Alex 19041=== | |||
* Regarding the antiquity of the Albanian ethnic identity, why did you essentially negate my change here to this , which implies that the references to "Arbon" and "Albanoi" in Polybius (2nd century BC) and Ptolemy (2nd century AD) refer to Albanians rather than peoples of uncertain ethnic identity, which is the case? | |||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by Alex 19041==== | |||
* As far as Phoenice goes, the explanation for this is completely inadequate. You didn't add "Roman", you just removed "Greek", when in fact the town was founded by Greeks (the ]), who are moreover the earliest recorded inhabitants of the place. Not only that, but Phoenice never ceased to be inhabited by them, nor is there any evidence of substantial Roman or Illyrian settlement in the town. Even to this day, the nearby settlement of ] is ethnic Greek. If we follow your logic that "Greek" should be removed because it was conquered by Rome, then we should apply the same to every single ancient Greek city out there. Furthermore, this is also completely false. The Illyrians never stayed there for even a year. | |||
====Statement by (username)==== | |||
* The Byzantine Empire ''was'' predominantly Greek-speaking, and that is blindingly obvious. In fact the entire Eastern Mediterranean basin was part of the ]-speaking world since even before the Roman conquest, while Greek became official sometime in the 7 century, i.e. for most of the Empire's history. The Empire was even referred to by its contemporaries as the "Empire of the Greeks". | |||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
===Result concerning Alex 19041=== | |||
* Regarding ], the addition which you removed on the grounds that it was OR ''clearly'' says that it entered Albanian via Ottoman Turkish, ''not'' that entered Albanian via Arabic. I don't see how much clearer that could be. | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | |||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
<!-- | |||
--><span id="Est._2021:1737475502593:WikipediaFTTCLNArbitration/Requests/Enforcement" class="FTTCmt"></span> | |||
*To recap what's already been said at the initial hearing this got ], 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). <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 16:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* As for the Turkish Union of Xanthi, why did you leave out important bits from source #1 that could influence the reader's perception ? Where does this sudden interest in the ] come from? ] (]) 17:29, 18 March 2011 (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.] (]) 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 ] 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. ] ] 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
==]-related pages== | |||
* What do you mean ] is only "once attested as a polis"? If it's attested once, it's attested, period. Doesn't matter if it's attested once, twice, or thrice. Moreover, it is listed in the ''Inventory of archaic and classical poleis'' here . | |||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> | |||
===Request concerning ]-related pages=== | |||
* From ], the article never said that it was "Greek", but "Greek-speaking", which even the source you have provided here supports . | |||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Beeblebrox}} 22:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|]-related pages}}<p>{{ds/log|]-related pages}}</p> | |||
;Reply to Sandstein | |||
You are correct that the tone I have used in this report may be overly confrontational. I regret that but I cannot undo it, however I will adopt a less confrontational tone henceforth. | |||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
* ]: I don't think this meets ]. He's not ''really'' admitting fault. There is also the question of why use Sakellariou in the first place, since the user has gone on the record that he considers him a Greek nationalist and hence unreliable. | |||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] | |||
* ]: The point here is in Cplakidas' edit summary , not so much the edit itself. It is my impression that ZjarriRrethues was less interested in actually improving the article, than in finding an opportunity to make the point that ] was predominantly Albanian. Yet, as Cplakidas makes clear, if he had actually read the entire source, he would have realized that the opposite is true. Also note that an interest in Albanian demographics is a recurring thread throughout the evidence of this report. | |||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> | |||
I ''think'' this is the right place to ask for this? Requesting an expansion of ] to cover all articles related to ], 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". | |||
* ]: The problem here is that while perhaps individual sources aren't grossly misrepresented (though they are stretched as you say), they do not support the rather serious claim of "Collaboration" with the Nazis, which was the title of the section. Going by the sources, the claim of collaboration simply does not add up. If the material from the sources had been added in the main text ''without'' being part of a "Collaboration" section it might have been acceptable, but to create a "Collaboration" section on the basis of these sources is not. | |||
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. ] was probably hit hardest, but ] got some too, as has ], which is explicitly not even part of the executive order. I wouldn't be surprised if the same issue is happening in ] related articles, but haven't checked for myself. ] ] 22:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* ]: Ok, my bad. I should have been more careful. | |||
:Yeah, just checked Gulf of Mexico. 28 new talk page sections in the past day, was already ECP protected two weeks ago per ]. | |||
* ]: When I alleged falsification because of this (his removal of region), the very first source of the article clearly says that the district of Himara is predominantly Greek. True, at the location where he removed "region", both sources only mention the town, but since he went over the sources so meticulously, I find it hard to believe that he would have missed the fact that the very first source used in the article says "the district". | |||
:I kinda think a single admin could do this, but I am editorially involved and probably slightly too infuriated to be objective. ] ] 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. ] ] 22:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : | |||
* Regarding the what I allege to examples of tendentious editing, I mean just that, not that they are misrepresentation of sources. In ], he removed one of the alternate names because it was Greek, removed that it was a Greek city , stated that it was a settlement of the Taulantii without a source, changed it "was a city in modern Albania" which just sounds odd and so forth. He is basically trying to portray the city as "Illyrian" as possible and minimize it's "Greekness" as much as possible. He does so without any sourcing. Regarding ], again, I do not allege source falsification here, but this edit is tendentious : He removes sourced information without so much as an edit summary, while here he removes that ] was a Greek city without adequate justification: The town was founded by Greeks (the ]), who are moreover the earliest recorded inhabitants of the place. Not only that, but Phoenice never ceased to be inhabited by them, nor is there any evidence of substantial Roman or Illyrian settlement in the town. Even to this day, the nearby settlement of ] is ethnic Greek. If we follow his logic that "Greek" should be removed because it was conquered by Rome, then we should apply the same to every single ancient Greek city out there. There is clearly a pattern whereby he tries to remove the word "Greek" from the description of ancient cities in Albania. This description of a nationalist organization as "liberal nationalist couldn't be further from the truth , and he also used a misleading edit summary ("precise") while tagging it as minor. Removing something as well-known that the Byzantine Empire was Greek-speaking is tedious, as that is one of the salient, and well-known features of said Empire. | |||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> | |||
* Regarding the Kanun, I am not so much alleging source falsification, as a dishonest removal using a misleading edit summary. There is absolutely no ] in this instance. ZjarriRrethues is moreover quite fluent in English, I do not buy that he misunderstood the source. The source says ''in turn via Arabic'', i.e. it entered Turkish via Arabic, not that it ''also'' entered'' via Arabic (which makes no sense - how can a word enter via two different languages?) | |||
* As far as the statements of intending to go to AN/I and seeking admin intervention, he in fact not once went through with it. This leads me to believe that he never actually intendended to do so, but was merely using it as a rhetorical device because he knew it would intimidate other users (how could it not?). | |||
* Regarding Kastoria prefecture, I had included the wrong diff, which I have now fixed. I think the misuse of the source is quite clear. | |||
;Clarification | |||
I am getting the impression that Sandstein thinks that everything I allege falls under "misrepresntation of sources". However, that is not true. Some does, but some falls under simple tendentious editing, e.g. his removal from ] under a false edit summary of ]. | |||
;Reply to Future Perfect at Sunrise | |||
You are correct when you say that there is a complete breakdown of trust between the various parties. I'm not sure I agree with your 60/40 assessment or for the need for bans all around. Then there is also the question of this , which as far as I'm concerned marks an unprecedented low by ZjarriRrethues, and is the core of this report. | |||
===Discussion concerning ZjarriRrethues=== | |||
====Statement by ZjarriRrethues==== | |||
*I don't see any violation of any policy by any of my edits. I have written many good articles, some of which are related to WikiProject Greece and they were featured on DYK. I've written DYK content that is related to WikiProject Greece, while the user who reported me has been following my edits since the time I signed up to[REDACTED] and making constant reports regarding me. | |||
*My contributions to Greece-related articles include: | |||
#] | |||
#] | |||
#] | |||
#] | |||
#] | |||
#] | |||
#] | |||
#] | |||
#] | |||
#] | |||
#] | |||
#] | |||
*I received an interaction ban in the past because I reported Athenean i.e my ban wasn't edit-related. Athenean has reported me twice to SPI, some other times to admins and now to AE. All the reports contain phrases like the ''spiting Greek users'' one and many attributions of nationalist motives to me. If I was a nationalist I wouldn't refute sources that say that Albanians became emperors of the Byzantine Empire in the 4-5th century AD(i.e prove the existence of a concrete Albanian ethnic identity), while they were first attested in the 11th century AD in historical records. What kind of nationalist wouldn't want to prove that his nation is half a millenium older? | |||
*Athenean says that my article ] is highly POV(although it did pass the DYK review by a much more experienced user with 31k edits), so the verdict on the article's ''pov'' is on that and if someone wants to add that it's a nationalist or any other kind of organization he should add it. Btw Athenean saying that the article is ''solely intended to portray Greece in as negative a light as possible as a way of spiting Greek users'' is excessively inappropriate. I wrote the ] and I also wrote ]. Does the ] article also show that grossly negative intention that is being attributed to me constantly by Athenean? | |||
*Regarding the ] issue I made a mistake that I couldn't predict because the google search result doesn't show the whole quote . Of course after it was proven that I was mistaken I accepted it. I only quoted Sakellariou in order to not quote a ] and yes I have many times said that he is a nationalist source because that is how other scholars label his works | |||
*Regarding the ], which Athenean labels as an ''excellent example of source fraud'': This is the quote from the source and this is my edit , which is a precise quote from the work, so the verdict is on the comparison. Regarding the National Republican League a Greek user claimed that one of the sources shouldn't be used because it was connected with the Communist resistance groups and I accepted it, however the part that isn't related to that(collaboration of Athens branch) is undisputed and other Greek users accepted it . | |||
*Regarding ]: This is entirely ] because the edits I made use as sources also Greek authors and there's no misuse . Athenean says that the source says nothing about the prefecture, but my edit also doesn't say anything about the prefecture i.e I didn't make deductions about it. | |||
*Regarding the ] isn't ] when Athenean the creator of the articles wrote sentences like ''The death sent shockwaves through the ethnic Greek community of Albania'' of course I added such tags. In Himarë one of the sources that I removed as offline then was indeed offline since you had to buy the book to verify it and it didn't even have snippet view option, while the source that among others says that there were Albanian emperors of the Byzantine Empire in the 4-5th century AD is unreliable and fringe since Albanians were attested for the first time many centuries later. If I was an Albanian nationalism pov-pushing user, why would I support its unreliability instead of using it to prove the existence of an Albanian identity many centuries before the current[REDACTED] version? | |||
*Regarding the Zeta valley issue deductions like ''that implies automatically...'' are ] i.e Athenean should find a source that says ''ancient Greek tribes lived in northern Albania along the Shkoder lake opposite to the Zeta valley, instead of assuming that ''it is automatically implied...'' | |||
*] was for some centuries an important city of the Chaonians, but in the 3rd century AD it was conquered by Rome and it became a Roman city and remained such until the end of its existence in the 6th century AD. Would you label as an ''ancient Greek city'' a settlement that belonged to such tribes from the 5th to 3rd century and for the next 700-800 years it belonged to the Roman and after the 4th century AD to the Eastern Roman Empire? | |||
*Regarding the ]: Was the Byzantine Empire a predominantly Greek-speaking empire(similar to saying Was the Roman Empire a predominantly Latin-speaking Empire?)? It wasn't a predominantly Greek-speaking Empire, because although coine Greek became official at some point the native language of the majority of its citizens wasn't coine Greek. Btw that didn't even have a source, so of course it was ]. | |||
*Regarding ] it's a word that entered Albanian dictionary via Ottoman Turkish, which acquired from Arabic i.e not ''via'' Arabic but via Turkish. | |||
*Regarding my comments about Turkey-related articles Athenean says that I ''expressed an intention for Turkish pov-pushing'', which I didn't express. | |||
*When some users ] any kind of argument, it's obvious that you have to start RfCs, ask admin intervention, go to relevant boards i.e that's not attempt to intimidate other users as Athenean says. | |||
:'''Replies''' | |||
*Regarding ]: the NEA newspaper is a Greek one as well as in.gr and that's why I changed eyewitnesses to Greek media. | |||
*Regarding Kastoria Prefecture: This is the quote I was using and I also added on the talkpage , but when I added it I didn't add the full link quote and because many users were editing/reverting each other at the same time eventually Dianna reverted a revert that wasn't even mine.. | |||
*Kanun: The text I reverted says '''and in turn via Arabic'', which isn't even correct. In Albanian it entered via Turkish not ''also'' via Arabic. | |||
*Regarding Apollonia: My edit(about the Illyrian settlement) is sourced by Wilkes, while some of the rest are parts of other sections of the articles and I just added a brief summary of them on the lead. I also removed the ''Greek city'' because it became a city of the Ardiean Kingdom and then the Romans captured it from them, while the two names kat'Epidamno and pros Epidamno aren't an actual name but just a description(pros Epidamno means near Epidamnos). Athenean claims that I , but I added Wilkes as a source . | |||
*Regarding Byllis: I removed the polis attribution, because as I added below it is only once attested as polis(only once it was described as a polis by ] in the 6th century AD, which by that time had the meaning of an early medieval township or commune/an actual ancient ], but it's not labeled by none of the contemporary or later scholars as a polis, whatever Stephanus meant i.e the lead shouldn't say ''was an ancient polis located in Illyria'') since it's only once labeled as such by someone who lived many centuries after the era, in which a settlement could be a ]) and I also removed the Pyrrhus as a founder theory, because it was actually conquered by him and I added the source. The city being the settlement of the Bylliones was already a part of the article. | |||
*Regarding the ]: Greek language at some point became its official language and lingua france but the empire was a multiethnic empire and in no way the majority of its people were ''Greek-speaking''(i.e people whose mother tongue was Greek) | |||
Regarding ]: I explained that because there were no official statistics about ethnicity in the Ottoman empire, all views should be attributed to the scholars, which was also accepted in a ECCN discussion I started | |||
. However, Greek users were trying to not attribute to each scholar his own view, but add it as a fact. I also started a RfC, in which the only person who replied agreed with the Ottoman censi issues and the Greek views. Athenean had also agreed about the Ottoman censi, but later changed his comment and supported the non-inclusion of the fact that Sakellariou's work is a Greek view(he has been labeled as a standard nationalist on various subjects) | |||
*I agree with many parts of FutureP's comment and I appreciate his honesty. I may have a solution regarding. Sandstein's assessment has shown that although there were a few ambiguous cases and even less, in which I did misrepresent sources, many of the ones so far assessed don't represent intellectual dishonesty or misuse of sources. Many times during these disputes I have to repeat myself and always find my arguments get ] as a response. For example in the Zeta plain dispute I explained many times to the user, who added it that it's not backed up by the source and yet the misrepresantion of sources continued with reverts and more source misuse, while Athenean included my edit in this report and labeled it as an example of a ''manifestation of egregious intellectual dishonesty'', which was retracted only after Sandstein's and FutureP's assessments. Usually during these disputes I have to start a RfC, in which most people don't reply because the same users that were part of the dispute, continue the discussion on the RfC section and it soon becomes too long. Other times I go directly to FutureP's talkpage and ask for his opinion, which isn't given in many disputes, however, in the very few disputes that he actually decides to intervene all cases are almost immediately resolved. Which brings me to my proposal. If in any of these disputes there was a quick assessment of the situation by someone like FutureP or Sandstein, there wouldn't be any long-drawn and trivial discussions or misrepresentation of sources and eventually no edits like the one regarding the Zeta valley would be reported to AE.--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 08:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
====Comments by others about the request concerning ZjarriRrethues ==== | |||
=====Evaluation of the evidence by Sandstein===== | |||
This request makes very severe allegations in a very confrontative tone, so looking at the conduct of both users appears necessary. If the evidence holds up, sanctions against ZjarriRrethues appear unavoidable, but if much of it does not, the same applies to Athenean for making this kind of request. I'll use the space below to examine some of the claims made in the request. | |||
*] (March 2011): | |||
:Athenean claims: | |||
::"ZjarriRrethues has become an expert at gaming Misplaced Pages's sourcing requirement to push his POV. He does so by using a variety of means, such as quoting snippets from Google Books out of context ("snippet abuse"), distorting the wording so as to completely change the meaning, selectively quoting from his own sources, and so forth. A crystal-clear, recent example can be seen here , when it turns out that in fact the ''exact'' opposite is true ." | |||
:ZjarriRrethues later admitted (, ) that his citation was incorrect. | |||
:'''My assessment:''' {{cross}}/{{tick}} This item of evidence proves an improper use of sources by ZjarriRrethues, but not necessarily out of bad faith rather than mere carelessness. After all, ZjarriRrethues was quick to admit his mistake, which Athenean does not mention. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
*] (June 2010): | |||
:Athenean claims: | |||
::"Though this is the most recent instance of source fraud, it is part of a persistent, long-established pattern. Another excellent example is here , when again the exact opposite is true ." | |||
:ZjarriRrethues : | |||
::"The surrender of ], a predominantly Albanian town by the Ottoman empire to the Kingdom of Greece is regarded as more of a loss for Albanians because it would have secured the southern end of the Albanian state in the same that ] secured its northern border." | |||
:The that Athenean claims is true was made by {{u|Cplakidas}}, and reads: | |||
::"The surrender of ] secured Greek control of southern Epirus and the Ionian coast, whilst denying it to the newly-formed Albanian state." | |||
:The cited source, Hall p. 95, reads: <small>(Link can be found via Google, but probably not copyright-kosher, so not linked here)</small> | |||
::"The Greeks took Janina at relatively little cost to themselves. They demonstrated that they did possess a competent military, capable of functioning in difficult conditions. They also acquired a location that guaranteed them control of an Ionian hinterland stretching from the Gulf of Arta to Corfu. The real losers here were not the Ottomans, but the Albanians. Janina, a predominantly Albanian town, could have secured the southern end of the new state in the same way that Scutari would anchor the north." | |||
:'''My assessment:''' {{cross}} No misrepresentation of sources by ZjarriRrethues. What ZjarriRrethues wrote matches the cited source. In contrast, what Cplakidas wrote (and Athenean claims is true) does not, as "southern Epirus and the Ionian coast" are not mentioned on p. 95 by Hall. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:: I wouldn't say that Cplakidas/Athenean's version would have been wrong. ''"outhern Epirus and the Ionian coast"'' is a reasonable paraphrase of ''"an Ionian hinterland stretching from the Gulf of Arta to Corfu"''. But I also can't see much wrong with Zjarri's version. Both versions simply emphasise different aspects of the sourced passage. I agree with you about your analysis of the "Hellenic Nomarchy" incident. ] ] 11:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
*] (June 2010): | |||
:Athenean alleges that ZjarriRrethues misused sources "Also here , as pointed out here ." | |||
:ZjarriRrethues wrote: | |||
::In various towns and villages EDES members were aiding members ] organizations.<ref name="Saraphēs1980" group="NGL"/> During the operations of the ] in the area of ] EDES members acted as guides on mountain paths.<ref name="Saraphēs1980" group="NGL">{{cite book|last=Saraphes|first=Stephanos G.|title=ELAS: Greek resistance army|url=http://books.google.com/books?ei=sIG5TKG4N8vEswaw0bWvDQ&ct=result&id=3e9mAAAAMAAJ&dq=EDES+%2B+collaborationist&q=In+the+towns+and+villages+EDES+members+were+openly+aiding+members+of+the+various+collaborationist+organizations,+and+in+the+mopping-up+operations+on+Helicon,+EDES+men+even+acted+as+guides+to+the+Germans+on+the+mountain+paths.#search_anchor|accessdate=16 October 2010|year=1980|publisher=Merlin|page=194}}</ref> Along with the British government the German authorities in Greece provided covert assistance to EDES, which increased the quality of the armament of the group.<ref name="ThomasAbbott1983" group="NGL">{{cite book|last1=Thomas|first1=Nigel|last2=Abbott|first2=Peter|title=Partisan warfare 1941-45|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=z1CNJitx5RkC&pg=PA26-IA7|accessdate=16 October 2010|year=1983|publisher=Osprey Publishing|isbn=9780850455137|page=26}}</ref> Since autumn 1943 EDES and the ] of Nazi Germany had important connections, which led to an armistice and a collaboration pact against the other major resistance group of Greece, the ] in February 1944.<ref group="NGL">{{cite book|last=Kretsi|first=Georgia|title=Ethnologia Balkanica|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=-ebpDLhkVWcC&pg=PA182|series=Ethnologia Balkanica|volume=6|year=2002|publisher=LIT Verlag Münster|location=Berlin|page=182}}</ref> In 1948 ] reported that accusations regarding collaboration of EDES with German and quisling authorities had damaged its reputation.<ref name="FundSmothers1948" group="NGL">{{cite book|last=Smothers|first=Frank Albert|title=Report on the Greeks: findings of a Twentieth Century Fund team which surveyed conditions in Greece in 1947|url=http://books.google.com/books?ei=Xo25TO6yKInFswbhn6zLDQ&ct=result&id=eEdoAAAAMAAJ&dq=the+major+resistance+movement+and+in+collusion+with+collaborationists+of+Athens)+had+damaged+the+reputation+of+EDES&q=Accusations+of+collaboration+with+the+enemy+and+with+the+quisling+Security+Battalions+(in+action+against+the+major+resistance+movement+and+in+collusion+with+collaborationists|accessdate=16 October 2010|year=1948|publisher=Twentieth Century Funds|page=31}}</ref> After World War II, Zervas the leader of EDES participated in ]' cabinet as Minister without Portfolio from 24 January to 23 February 1947, and afterwards as ] until 29 August 1947.<ref group="NGL">{{cite web | publisher=General Secretariat of the Government | url=http://www.ggk.gov.gr/ggk_old/goverments-54910.php.html|title=ΚΥΒΕΡΝΗΣΙΣ ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΥ ΜΑΞΙΜΟΥ - Από 24.1.1947 έως 29.8.1947 | language=Greek |accessdate=2010-07-13}}</ref> The ] and the ] opposed his appointment suspecting him of collaboration with ] during WWII and dictatorial ambitions.<ref name="iatrides" group="NGL">{{cite book|last1=Iatrides|first1=John|last2=Wrigley|first2=Linda|title=Greece at the crossroads: the Civil War and its legacy|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Vv1t3D_3vjkC&pg=PA137&dq=Napoleon+Zervas+collaboration&hl=en&ei=FqVQTNeGINSisQaX5KTWBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Napoleon%20Zervas%20collaboration&f=false|year=1995|publisher=Penn State Press|isbn=0271014113|page=137}}</ref> | |||
{{reflist|group="NGL"}} | |||
:'''My assessment:''' Looking at the sources , I find: | |||
:*NGL 1: {{cross}}/{{tick}} ZjarriRrethues cites , but this seems to be a Google-related error, because reads "... organizations, and in the mopping-up operations on Helicon, EDES men even acted as guides to the Germans on the mountain paths", and so supports at least the second part of what ZjarriRrethues wrote. On this basis I cannot find that there has been misrepresentation of sources. What is problematic, though, is that ZjarriRrethues does not make clear that the author, ], was a leading officer in ELAS, the enemies of EDES at the time, which draws his reliability into doubt. On the other hand, ZjarriRrethues later . | |||
:*NGL 2: {{cross}} ZjarriRrethues writes: | |||
:::"Along with the British government the German authorities in Greece provided covert assistance to EDES, which increased the quality of the armament of the group." | |||
::The cited source reads: | |||
:::"... but because it received rather more British aid (and also some covert German assistance) it was better armed and more conventional in structure." | |||
::This basically supports ZjarriRrethues's text, even though the paraphrasing omits the "some" qualifier. I do not find misrepresentation of sources here. | |||
:*NGL 3: {{cross}} ZjarriRrethues writes: | |||
:::"Since autumn 1943 EDES and the ] of Nazi Germany had important connections, which led to an armistice and a collaboration pact against the other major resistance group of Greece, the ] in February 1944." | |||
::The cited source, Kretsi at p. 182, footnote 42, reads: | |||
:::"Since autumn 1943, there was an important connection between EDES units in north-west Greece and the 12th mountain army corps and in early February 1944 led to an armistice and a pact of mutual assistance against ELAS". | |||
::ZjarriRrethues's text fairly represents the cited source. It is a bit a stretch to render "a pact of mutual assistance" as "collaboration pact", but the basic meaning seems to be the same. I find no misrepresentation of sources here. | |||
:*NGL 4: {{cross}} ZjarriRrethues cites , but it appears that he meant to cite , which shows the relevant text. He writes: | |||
:::"In 1948 ] reported that accusations regarding collaboration of EDES with German and quisling authorities had damaged its reputation." | |||
::The snippet reads: | |||
:::"Accusations of collaboration with the enemy and with the quisling Security Battallions (in action against the major resistance movement and in collusion with the collaborationists of Athens) had damaged the reputation of EDES." | |||
::ZjarriRrethues's text matches that of the source; there is no misrepresentation. "In 1948 The Century Foundation reported ..." simply means that the Foundation reported that such accusations were made; it does not mean, as per the in which Athenean joins, that the Foundation ''made'' these accusations themselves. | |||
:*{{cross}} The in which Athenean joins also addresses something concerning one "Gonatas" in a by one McNeill, but a reference to either is not found in the text by ZjarriRrethues, reproduced above, cited as evidence by Athenean. This means I can't find a problem here either. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
*] (January 2011): | |||
:Athenean claims: | |||
::"Falsely adding "According to Greek media", when in fact one of the main sources used in the article is The Balkan Chronicle , which is not Greek . | |||
:At , ZjarriRrethues removed a reference to "eyewitnesses" and replaced that word by "Greek media", writing: | |||
::"According to <s>eyewitnesses</s> Greek media the death occurred after an altercation in Goumas' store," and "... demanded that he not speak to them in Greek according to <s>eyewitnesses</s> Greek media.]" | |||
:'''My assessment:''' {{tick}} The source cited here, () does not say anything about "Greek media", but it does say "eyewitnesses". I find that by making this edit ZjarriRrethues did misrepresent the cited source. | |||
:Athenean claims further: | |||
::"Piqued that he can't have his way, he then starts tagging the article in revenge (where he sees "peacockery" is beyond me)." | |||
:The given by ZjarriRrethues for this is unpersuasive. He writes: | |||
::"isn't ] when Athenean the creator of the articles wrote sentences like The death sent shockwaves through the ethnic Greek community of Albania of course I added such tags." | |||
:But ] refers to "peacock terms" as promotional terms such as "legendary, great, eminent, visionary, outstanding...". Nothing like that can be found in the article. It is therefore incomprehensible, and I find it disruptive, that ZjarriRrethues tagged the article as "peacock", "overcoverage" and "inappropriate tone" without any explanation. | |||
:I find it likewise disruptive, though, that Athenean uses emotional terms such as "piqued" and "revenge" to characterize these mistaggings, without providing any evidence for these characterizations. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:: Not sure I agree about the "eyewitness"/"Greek media" thing. Of course, the "Ta Nea" source ''says'' "eyewitnesses", but that source and the next one ''are'' in fact "Greek media" (the only non-Greek one, to which Athenean refers, is "Balkan Chronicle", whose status as a RS may be in doubt; I can see no indication that they have the potential for much independent journalistic research.) Whether and in what cases it is legitimate to hedge the validity of a source by a qualifier such as noting its nationality is a difficult editorial issue, but doing so is not "falsifying" the source. ] ] 12:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
*] (July 2010): | |||
:Athenean claims: | |||
::"Another crystal-clear example is here , when he adds that only the ''town'' of ] is predominantly ethnic Greek, even though the source used clearly says that the entire ''district'' of Himara is such. When I point this out in the talkpage , he changes tack, attacking the source though it meets ]." | |||
:In the following text, ZjarriRrethues added the underlined words "The town of": | |||
::"<u>The town of</u> Himara is predominantly populated by an ethnic Greek<small> </small> community. | |||
:'''My assessment:''' {{tick}} This change is not supported by the source given in the same sentence, as the citation provided in the reference shows. ZjarriRrethues has therefore misrepresentated this source. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:: Yes, apparently a mistake in not changing/updating the source. It seems the jury is still out on whether the edit was actually factually correct. I notice that in its present state the relevant section of the article claims that "''the ethnic composition of both the town and region predominantly Greek''", with two references that don't support the second part of the assertion either, so, somebody else must also have been falsifying sources in a similar way. ] ] 15:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
*] (March 2011): | |||
:Athenean claims: | |||
::"Another manifestation of egregious intellectual dishonesty is removal of sources he doesn't like on the flimsiest of grounds, for example here , even though if the Greek tribes lived south of the Zeta valley in Montenegro, that would automatically imply they lived in Albania as well. On the other hand, he doesn't mind mentioning Montenegro in the same article when it suits him ." | |||
:'''My assessment:''' {{cross}} This is a content dispute about who lived in which valley and does not establish source misrepresentation. As ZjarriRrethues notes in reply, the statement that "the Greek tribes lived south of the Zeta valley in Montenegro, that would automatically imply they lived in Albania as well" is original research unless backed by sources. It's also not clear why it would be dishonest to mention at that certain finds in Albania are similar to certain other finds in Montenegro. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:: I'd go even further and say the source misrepresentation was in the other version, which Zjarri removed. The source quite clearly does ''not'' state Greek presence reached up to a place where they bordered on the tribes of the Zeta valley, but only that they may ''at some point during the Bronze age'' have bordered on those tribes which ''in classical times'' were near the Drin valley, but which may have been "southernmost outliers" of those near the Zeta. The ] is a lot further south than the ]. The removal was clearly justified. ] ] 15:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
*] (25 July 2010) | |||
:Athenean claims: | |||
::"Again, this isn't an isolated incident, but part of a long established pattern, e.g. here (removing the source on the grounds that it is "offline", and again here , where he removes a perfectly reliable, peer reviewed academic publication on the spurious grounds that it is "fringe, POV, and biased" (after having first removed that the region of Himara is predominantly Greek , which is what the source supports - under the bogus edit-summary of "precise")." | |||
:'''My assessment:''' | |||
:*{{tick}} It is indeed not clear why at ZjarriRrethues removed the source with the edit summary "the source is offline". The source is, in fact, a book, which is offline by nature, as represented at ], which has been very much online for years. It is true that the cited page 187 is not shown in Google's preview, but that does not invalidate the reference to the book: at the most, the URL could have been removed, not the whole citation. Moreover, ZjarriRrethues tagged the edit as ], which it is clearly not. This edit was disruptive. | |||
:*{{cross}}Whether ZjarriRrethues was justified to a as "fringe, pov, biased" is a content dispute that can't be adjudicated here. At any rate, the source looks like it is self-published, so there may well be policy-based grounds for its removal. | |||
:*{{cross}} At ZjarriRrethues removed the words "and region" from the text "The ethnic composition of both the town <s>and region</s> is predominantly Greek", which is sourced to p. 39 of the same . The relevant text on p. 39 reads: "In the mountain town of Himara, where the population predominantly consists of members of the ethnic Greek minority ...". This means that ZjarriRrethues's edit correctly changed the article to reflect what the source says: the town has a Greek majority, but nothing is said about the region. Athenean's statement to the contrary is false. ZjarriRrethues again mistagged the edit as minor, but was also so mislabeled. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 15:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
*] (25 August 2010): | |||
:{{cross}} The content removals at and may or may not have been correct or a good idea, but that is a content dispute that has nothing to do with "deliberate, extensive, systematic manipulation of sources", under which header this evidence is submitted. | |||
*] (March 2011) and Himarë again (26 December 2010): | |||
:{{cross}} Athenean objects that the articles or edited by ZjarriRrethues omits certain information, allegedly present in the sources, that would present the organization in a less positive manner. But that, too, has nothing to do with "manipulation of sources". Choosing what to include, and what to exclude, in an article is a necessary exercise of editorial judgment, and disagreements about it are content disputes. Selective use of sources is not a misrepresentation of sources, as long as all content that is referenced to sources correctly represents what these sources say. | |||
*{{cross}} The many edits given as "other examples of tendentious editing" seem to reflect content disputes as well. It is not clear from the evidence, nor from looking at the edits, how ZjarriRrethues might have misrepresented sources by making these edits. There is one case that warrants a closer look: | |||
:At ] on 1 July 2010, ZjarriRrethues the following text: | |||
::"It entered ] via ] (and in turn via ]) and was used by the Ottomans to describe local self-governance customs throughout the empire." | |||
:He did so with the edit summary "] not supported by the source(no reference to the word entering Albanian via Arabic))". The says on p. 111: | |||
::"The term ''Kanun'', etymologically related to Greek canon, 'pole', 'rule' and transported through Arab into early Turkish, derives from Ottoman administrative concepts of indirect rule and self-governing ..." | |||
:In his statement, ZjarriRrethues explains that "it's a word that entered Albanian dictionary via Ottoman Turkish, which acquired from Arabic i.e not via Arabic but via Turkish". That is indeed what the source says, and that is probably what whoever wrote the article text meant to say as well, but did not clearly express. I am assuming in good faith that ZjarriRrethues misunderstood the text "(and in turn via ])" to mean that the Albanian word was directly derived from Arabic. Even so, he should not have deleted the text outright, but should have tried to make more clear what the source says. Still, this deletion, even if arguably detrimental to the article, is not a misrepresentation of sources, because what's left still correctly represents what the source says (even if not all of it). <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
*Under the header "Incivility, threats, assumptions of bad faith, contempt for others", Athenean claims: | |||
::"Incivility and assumptions of bad faith ("...as always...", "...like always..." note that "or deductions" and "oring" is Zjarri's self-made jargon for ]). Here he is taking it upon himself to remove another user's comments on the spurious grounds of ] , when in fact this is not the case. Here he is calling another editor a meatpuppet without any evidence or basis whatsoever ." | |||
:'''My assessment:''' {{tick}}/{{cross}} I agree that some of these edits are problematic with respect to the "you're always..." attitude, but not severely so. Only one edit is really problematic: "only RfC or RSN will make you not revert everything that doesn't support Greek nationalist theories" (, January 2011). | |||
* Moreover, Athenean claims: | |||
::"In discussions involving content disputes, ZjarriRrethues routinely threatens other users with "I will seek admin intervention", "I will go to ANI", etc.. , in a clear attempt to intimidate other users. This has a chilling effect on discussions, and goes against the very heart of the principle of decorum." | |||
:'''My assessment:''' {{cross}} I don't feel intimidated by another editor announcing that they will seek admin intervention. If the request for admin intervention is well-founded, it is unobjectionable. If it is not well-founded, then the admin will say so. Such announcements, therefore, are not disruptive, even if they are not very helpful either. They may be a breach of decorum, but not one requiring sanctions. | |||
* Athenean goes on to state: | |||
::"When backed into an intellectual corner, he immediately starts accusations of personal attacks ("npa comments" in his own self-made jargon for ]), again in an attempt to intimidate." | |||
:'''My assessment:''' {{tick}}/{{cross}} Making accusations of personal attacks that appear to be unfounded (as or ) is clearly not good talk page protocol. But in one case cited in the evidence, , the reference to ] was appropriate, as the other editor did make such personal attacks as "the albo that trolls most greek articles..skanderbeg is 'albanian' but bouboulina isnt 'greek'? why dont you clean your national myth infested house of an article zjarri before coming over here...?" (). <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
*Furthermore, Athenean says: | |||
::"Condescension, contempt for others: . Even simple, politely put questions are met with contemptuous sarcasm ." | |||
:'''My assessment:''' {{tick}} These comments ''are'' incivil: | |||
:*"Alexikoua it seems that you can't even understand basic geography of the Balkans" () | |||
:*"you can't even understand basic English phrases" () | |||
:*"Antid. I was going to write that article, so please move that draft piece you started on your sandbox or csd it. Btw please read ]." (, apparently relating to , which is not ''prima facie'' incompetently written) | |||
:*"Antid. please csd your article as it is of a very low quality like the ], ] etc. FutureP has told you not to deal with subjects, about which you don't possess the necessary knowledge." () | |||
*Athenean says that what motivated him to make this request: | |||
::"was a recent incident, where after being unable to have his way on ], ZjarriRrethues explicitly expressed an intention to retaliate by pushing a pro-Turkish POV on various articles (that's what the gist of the "too few Turkish editors" part). This shows a clearly vindictive and spiteful intent, and above all ] mentality." | |||
:Athenean refers to by ZjarriRrethues: | |||
::"Btw I should edit some of those Turkish-related articles, because it seems that although it's such a large country too few Turkish users edit topics related to their own state." | |||
:'''My assessment:''' {{cross}} That statement can only be interpreted as an announcement of POV-pushing if one assumes ], which we don't. Also, complained about is not "plainly obviously" unbalanced. For a reader unfamiliar with the topic, such as I, there is nothing obviously negative or biased in the article. | |||
*Finally, Athenean says: | |||
::"He has also concurrently engaged in other highly ]y behavior, where, after I objected fact that practically every single sentence in ] begins with "According to..." , he threatens to "retaliate" on ] , just to make a point. True to form, he does just that . This is pure ]: He has ''never'' shown the slightest interest in that article up until now, he is merely using the article to make the point that since ] is used as a source in ] without the qualifier "According to", then I shouldn't object to him being used with the qualifier in the Greco-Turkish War article. Inane, petty, and POINTy." | |||
:'''My assessment:''' {{cross}}/{{tick}} That interaction looks pretty poor . <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
=====General comment by Fut.Perf.===== | |||
What we have here is a long-standing situation of a "travelling circus", with three users ({{user|Athenean}} and {{user|Alexikoua}} on the one side versus {{user|ZjarriRrethues}} on the other) following each other into countless disputes, often leaving yesterday's dispute half-resolved while getting embroiled in the next. None of the three is acting in bad faith, and all three ''could'' have something constructive to offer, but there are two factors that have made the situation unbearable. | |||
The first is the mutual, deeply entrenched, tendency of evaluating each and every edit under the single perspective of emphasizing the historical role of one's own ethnic group and de-emphasizing that of the other, making the one side look historically good and the other bad. Each and every topic, be it ever so trivial, is (mis-)used to serve this agenda – from ancient etymologies through the genealogies of medieval personalities through the roles of this or that political group during the wars of the 20th century, to the demographics of minorities today. It's an obsession, there's no other word for it. It's extremely tedious, and often extremely silly. | |||
The second factor is the equally mutual, equally deeply entrenched feeling of distrust that has evidently taken possession of both parties, and which regularly leads to talk page discussions breaking down. People on both sides regularly lack the patience of spelling out their arguments in concrete terms, dealing out accusations instead. They're so engrossed in their permanent disputes that they've in fact developed their own private dispute jargon that only they can understand. All of them act opportunistically when it comes to asserting or dismissing the reliability of sources, depending on whether they can offer an opportunity for scoring points in their ethnic tug-of-war; all of them are quick to point out the failures of correct sourcing in the other side while being prepared to resort to the same kinds of sloppiness themselves the next day. | |||
In terms of talk page behaviour and quality of source work, it is my personal, quite subjective impression that Athenean is slightly better than Zjarri, and Zjarri is a good deal better than Alexikoua; while in terms of content merits Zjarri is more right than wrong in about 60% of the time, and more wrong than right in the remaining 40%. Needless to say, these subjective impressions are impossible to prove with diffs. | |||
All three of them know I've gone on record repeatedly with exasperated calls for having the lot of them banned. But somehow that would be a pity too. I really don't know what else to do about them. ] ] 19:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Very broadly speaking, I get the same kind of feeling from what I have reviewed of the evidence so far. I'll continue reviewing it, but should I come to agree with your assessment, we will have to consider how to stop this circus. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
===Result concerning ZjarriRrethues=== | |||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' | |||
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> | |||
After reviewing the evidence, I conclude: | |||
*The evidence establishes multiple incidents of misconduct by ZjarriRrethues, including source misrepresentation, incivility and personal attacks, as well as substandard compliance with referencing and other editorial standards. | |||
*But most of the evidence does not hold up under review. This makes most of the request not actionable. In particular, Athenean has failed to support many of his very severe and wide-ranging accusations against ZjarriRrethues, including "an expert at gaming Misplaced Pages's sourcing requirement to push his POV", "distorting the wording so as to completely change the meaning", "a user who has engaged in persistent, systematic disruption and abuse of the system" or "the epitome of a spiteful, vindictive, disposition". This, in and of itself, is problematic conduct on the part of Athenean. | |||
*The incidents cited in the evidence and the tone of the AE request give credence, '']'', to Future Perfect at Sunrise's theory that both editors "have a mutual, deeply entrenched, tendency of evaluating each and every edit under the single perspective of emphasizing the historical role of one's own ethnic group" and an "equally mutual, equally deeply entrenched feeling of distrust ... which regularly leads to talk page discussions breaking down". | |||
I see two options how we could proceed here: | |||
*We could determine which sanctions are appropriate for both editors on the basis of the present evidence. | |||
*Or, and I tend to prefer this option, we could engage in a broader review of the editing of at least Athenean and ZjarriRrethues, and possibly other members of the "traveling circus", and if we find that it confirms Future Perfect at Sunrise's view, indefinitely topic-ban all of them (as it seems evident that little useful editing can occur under such circumstances). | |||
*ZjarriRrethues's proposal that administrators mediate individual disputes does not appear workable, as this is not the job of admins, and I do not think that one would find many volunteers for such duties. | |||
What do other admins think about how to proceed? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
== The Sham == | |||
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' | |||
===Request concerning The Sham=== | |||
; User requesting enforcement : ] ] 18:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|The Sham}} | |||
;Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ] - Breaking 1RR and also NPOV/OR | |||
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : | |||
# Revert of Cptnono's work | |||
# Reverted my work - the first two are consecutive so they are one revert | |||
# Reverted Golgofrinchian's revert of The Sham's revert. | |||
# ... | |||
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): | |||
# Warning by {{admin|HJ Mitchell}}-not a warning but proof he was blocked for breaking 1RR on the same article. | |||
# Warning by {{admin|HJ Mitchell}} - made aware of ARBPIA. | |||
# ... | |||
;Enforcement action requested (], ] or ]) : Article ban, but if his behaviour continues elsewhere, quickly expand ban | |||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> | |||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : The Sham pretty well only edits this one article, I always though he was a sock, but his actions are poor enough to be blocked regardless of socking. The reverts were not only bad for being reverts, but also because they reintroduced POV problems, UNDUE, and made accusations as fact in wikipedias voice. | |||
===Discussion concerning ]-related pages=== | |||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> | |||
====Statement by ]-related pages==== | |||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : | |||
=== |
====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 {{u|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. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by |
====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. ] (]) 23:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:100+ edits today on the article, which is EC protected. I feel like that's a lot. ] (]) 23:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
====Comments by others about the request concerning The Sham ==== | |||
The sham continues to make edits to the concerned page without making any reply here, maybe action should be taken wihout waiting for a reply from the sham. ] ] 20:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
====Statement by (username)==== | |||
;Comment from Cptnono | |||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> | |||
*I came to this page after Passionless brought up labels and how to address "riots" v "protests" at AN. He was right. There was POV from both angles. And 1/rr is 1/rr.] (]) 20:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
===Result concerning |
===Result concerning ]-related pages=== | ||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the |
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' | ||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> | |||
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||
*<!-- | |||
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> | |||
:I'd like to hear from others before implementing anything, but I think Passionless' suggestion of an article ban might be a good idea. It would seem more effective than another short-term block. ] | ] 18:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Agreed. and no reaction to this request (indeed little communication of any kind) is not a good sign. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
--><span id="Est._2021:1737475502593:WikipediaFTTCLNArbitration/Requests/Enforcement" class="FTTCmt">— ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 16:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)</span> | |||
:@]: 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. ] (]/]) 22:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Also, ] is already ECP and ] has semi-protection. There's no protection on ], but I'm not seeing anything in the page history that would justify it.l ] (]/]) 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. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 19:45, 22 January 2025
"WP:AE" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:AE (disambiguation).Noticeboards | |
---|---|
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
General | |
Articles, content | |
Page handling | |
User conduct | |
Other | |
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards |
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)
Adding some more comments on 2025-01-22: The user in question says that they have been on[REDACTED] for years – and so surely aware of what does and does not count as canvassing. As recently as last month they were advising users on Hebrew Misplaced Pages as to how best to get their edit counts up, as well as promoting the "most biased articles" survey I've already mentioned. I understand that we are always meant to WP:AGF, but we are looking at a situation in which a user (1) has extensive experience with Misplaced Pages and (2) is encouraging people, subtly and not so subtly to do things that are against our policies. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:45, 22 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)
- It's not for AE to decide content disputes, and that's mostly what this looks like. We can handle things like flagrant misrepresentation of sources, but how best to represent them is a matter for consensus discussion, not us to decide here. The canvassing was a cause for concern, but it looks like it was rather unintended and had little if any actual effect, and they've agreed to stop that going forward. (Note that doesn't mean anyone must stop criticizing Misplaced Pages or what happens on it; do all of that you like. Just don't encourage people to take particular actions based on that.) I don't see any further action as necessary at this point. Seraphimblade 16:08, 22 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)
- Ping to @Red-tailed hawk Valereee (talk) 18:14, 22 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)