| Franek K. is indefinitely blocked (as a normal admin action) and topic-banned from everything related to Silesia and Silesians. Sandstein 07:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Franek K.[edit]
Personal attacks, insults, battleground mentality, etc.
Claims "consensus", when they are the only person supporting a particular position. Against numerous users:
Franek K. is a WP:SPA who's active on articles related to Silesia and Silesians. Aside from the constant barrage of insults, personal attacks and accusations, discussions with this user always end up fruitless because of their habit of claiming that they have "consensus", even in situations where they are the only person supporting a particular edit, and multiple other editors disagree with them. This invocation of "you must get consensus" (to disagree with me) is a classic way of trying to WP:GAME Wikipedia policy by preventing anyone who Franek K disagrees with from editing articles related to Silesians. There's also a slew of diffs I could supply from the discussions at Silesian language, where it's more of the same - insults, personal attacks, accusations of trolling and POV, and of course, that he has "consensus" (despite the fact nobody agreed with him). It's sort of old stuff though, from Jan-March of this year. That incident led to Franek K. being blocked for 72 hrs by User:Kevin Gorman for "(editwarring and tendentious editing after multiple warnings)". It also led to a discretionary sanctions notification [2] and a comment from Kevin which can be read to say that anyone receiving the notification is on a 1RR restriction on any article relating to Silesians or Silesian language. Of course Franek K. has failed to observed this restriction. It's quite possible that Franek K. is a sockpuppet of this indef banned user LUCPOL as they share the same obsession with Silesian separatism and also the same insult filled approach and insistence that any sources written by Poles or Germans cannot be used. However, that account is stale so SPI/checkuser would be useless.
Discussion concerning Franek K.[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Franek K.[edit]I know that the matter concerns me, however, user Volunteer Marek this constant bickering, very many edit-wars (dozens) against dozens of other users, very many controversial editions in many articles concerning Polish, German, Silesia and related and against dozens of other users, also had many blocks. This is not case: Franek is bad and Marek is prude. I should wear a lawsuit against his actions, but... Returning to the case. My terms of "Polish propaganda" and other similar are not personal attacks. I live in Poland, I am Pole and a teacher at school and I know - most of informations by POlish authors about Silesians and Kashubians is propaganda. You did not even realize the gravity of the situation. Marek also live/lived in Poland and bases its knowledge on propaganda. For typical Poles, Silesia in Polish region (completely in Poland, which is inconsistent with reality), Silesians are Poles (despite the fact that half of Silesians live in Germany and does not even know the Polish language and in Czech Republic and a lot of Silesians declared Silesian nationality) and Silesian language is "gwara" (even not dialect, this is sub-dialect, Polish gwara miejska = English urban sub-dialect). Polish sources are meaningless, mostly based on an works from the communist era (1945-1990), and often against sources by authors from other countries or Silesians. I would like to even recalled that formerly in Wikimedia Meta-Wiki existed page of "How to deal with Poles", officially as humour but there is much evidences that the Poles were taught incorrect information, see also hundreds of edit-wars with Poles in the historical articles. I would like to point out that I also dealing with the Kashubians. I advocate a neutral point of view. User Volunteer Marek push only Polish version, for example: Silesians are Poles and dot. I support neutral version on based on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, for example: according to Polish side, Silesians are Poles, according to Germans, Silesians are Germans, according to many Silesians, Silesians is separate nation. Case of Silesians, Kashubians, Moravians is disputed, Wikipedia must show more reviews, not only Polish. Please see situation, for example Template:Slavic ethnic groups. For a long time there was a version of the article (commonly called a "stable version"). This is not my version, this version was before my coming, see history of changes. One day Volunteer Marek come and change template: very controversial change, changes Silesians in the Poles. Other users - in this case, I - reverted this very controversial change according to the Wikipedia:BRD and Volunteer Marek begin edit-war. Also user Tutelary reverted version by Volunteer Marek. This is only one example. What do I do? Franek K. (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Franek K.[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Based on the ethnicity-based battleground conduct, I think an indefinite block (as a normal admin action) and a topic ban is in order. Sandstein 21:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
|
| No action against Nishidani. MarciulionisHOF is topic-banned indefinitely with provision for review after six months. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Nishidani[edit]
Trailing an AE post I noticed these two from after his topic ban was lifted:
The Anti-Defamation League's view of Comparisons with Nazi Germany: Israel is sometimes compared to Nazi Germany, directly or by allusion", "The Anti-Defamation League considers such comparisons to be anti-Semitic.
Side-note: self reflection I have made many mistakes in my first month on Wikipedia. The point is to learn from mistakes. Own up to them.[3] And move forward striving to raise discourse and content to a higher level. -- MarciulionisHOF @Sandstein: If you believe Nishidani should continue to compare Arab-Israeli matters to the holocaust I will retract this case and ignore past and future use of this allusion. Please let me know. @Sandstein:, seeing "the same comparison", I will also notify Igorp lj of the outcome. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC) Note: In recent disagreement about source use, someone suggested to use RSN (which I accepted). I wasn't sure on the best venue to open the issue of comparisons. As it strongly pertains to Israelis, I've asked input from Wikiproject Israel.[4] MarciulionisHOF (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Note: I've accepted the input is: "complaint about WWII allusions (e.g. Warsaw ghetto, Yad Vashem accounts of the Holocaust) appears to come from my MarciulionisHOF's own 'battleground' (per diff from 2 months ago). I've also notified @Igorp lj, Ykantor, and Ravpapa:. I'll be taking a break from Wikipedia. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC) @Sandstein: Considering the Golda Meir quote in Nishidani's response, I "can see" why everyone thinks I'm the villain POV warrior when I asked him to tone it down and he refused. One of my first diffs on Wikipedia (from two months ago) illustrates it further. Input from others on Wikipedia, asking Nishidani to tone it down -- that's the smoking gun for my removal. I've been doing my best to comply with community input. When someone insults your dead relatives and native language, I believe it ok to say "this is wrong". I guess I was wrong. Good show. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Reply to Nishidani[edit]@Nishidani: Why are Nazi records relevant to Sacco's book?16:35, 21 October 2014 MarciulionisHOF (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Self defense[edit]
Added not: To use Rabbi Shalom Lewis as source for 'genocide' is a wonderful example of what Nishidani does wrong. Best I am aware, Rabbi Shalom Lewis has never been published by Ynet (Israel's biggest online news provider) or Israel Hayom (Israel's biggest circulation daily). A Google search for his name in Hebrew brings ZERO results. This non-notable in Atlanta (US) says something offensive to his small community (not in any mainstream source). Virulent anti-Israeli sources Iran's PressTV and Veteran's Today quote him. Nishidani uses him(?) to justify earlier use of 'genocide' on 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict (article talkpage). (He admits to know it is offensive -- so what is the purpose?) MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Notified: 20:29, 22 October 2014
Discussion concerning Nishidani[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Nishidani[edit]Just a note, Fram. I don't go about on a rhetorical jihad in there, yelling Nazis, Holocaust, at every opportunity. To the contrary. Unfortunately, these resonances of past/present are in the very sources relevant to many pages. If I add the analogies made in Israeli controversies, it upsets people. In other words, while numerous Israeli critics raise this, in regard to Hamas tunnels, the Gaza wars, etc., editors with a clear POV (defense of state honour) get upset. I understand that, but any Palestinian would, I imagine, be equally upset seeing the systematic case being framed into articles recently to corroborate the old hare laid down by Golda Meir that Palestinian hatred of Jews means they are willing to sacrifice their own children to kill the former (We can forgive Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children- We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.”'). For many editors, driving this talk point home at undue length in articles is not problematic. They are right, in the sense that this claim is in RS, and thus must be registered. But you cannot, at the same time, protest if sources we report challenge that meme's implicit Blood Libel, to use an analogy we all understand. I'm for absolute parity in narrative coverage. If I were to respect their sensitives as one widespread in many Israeli constituencies, I would have to disregard many Israeli RS and the constituency it represents. I have had to give up close editing of many articles because there is a reflex tendency by several editors to cancel, erase and revert any mention of what, to any Israeli reader, is a familiar resonance ((1) here (2) here (3) here). I don't play maliciously with such sensitive topics, like a bull in a china shop. I just think WP:NPOV, and WP:RS oblige one to give all sides of an argument if that is in sources. Israeli discourse is, as you would expect in a democracy, very open, and critical. Wikipedia shouldn't suffer from the anxieties of, say, the American mainstream press, that often passes silently over themes it regards as 'sensitive' to some readers' touchy sensibilities. We're global and, despite the immense difficulties of trying to edit this topic area, getting more reliable coverage of both sides than is generally the case out there. I believe we should be held to very stringent standards, of course, and trust that neutral eyes can thresh out, case by case, where NPOV intentions are uppermost (fidelity), and where (at it is often blatant in editors drifting in to argue both POVs) nationalist defensiveness or aggressiveness is evidently at play (zealotry). I have linked to Slavoj Žižek's use of Meir's quote because on p.xiv n.9 he makes that distinction apropos, and it is timely for the problem among editors here. Nishidani (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Statement by Johnuniq[edit]Question: Would a topic ban affect the content of User:MarciulionisHOF? Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Nishidani[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. This looks like a frivolous request. These are talk page comments that do not appear objectionable from a conduct policy point of view, or if they are the complainant does not make clear how. MarciulionisHOF should be either sanctioned or warned for misusing the arbitration enforcement process to, it appears, harass others only because MarciulionisHOF disagrees with their opinions. Sandstein 20:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
|
| No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Luxure[edit]
See
for context, a Request for Closure of RFCs. Luxure archives discussion of Talk: Macedonia (ancient kingdom): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMacedonia_%28ancient_kingdom%29&diff=630339433&oldid=630338122 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)/Archive_7&diff=630340292&oldid=630339385 on 21 October, after Cunard had listed the RFCs for closure. Luxure then deletes most of the archive without an edit summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMacedonia_%28ancient_kingdom%29%2FArchive_7&diff=630340292&oldid=630339385
Notified https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALuxure&diff=626358780&oldid=626229591
Deletion of referenced discussion (after its archival) had the effect of making review of the RFCs nearly impossible. (Deletion has since been reverted.) Editor in question states at WP:AN that the talk page in question was too large to scroll, which has some validity as to why it was archived. However, the deletion of most of the archive page stretches the assumption of good faith. Suggest a topic-ban.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALuxure&diff=630931982&oldid=630888568
Discussion concerning Luxure[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Luxure[edit]Agree with what FPaS said below. I had no clue that I did that as I just wanted to put the {TalkPageArchiveNav} Template into the Archive, and it seems to have deleted a whole bunch text. It was an accident. Luxure (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Statement by Fut.Perf.[edit]So he archived an RfC section that had been opened for two months and had gone completely haywire, bloated up to >200,000 bytes(!) through bickering between trolls and single-purpose accounts, and was clearly unactionable by this point. So what? As for the subsequent deletion inside the archive page, that clearly looks like some technical mistake. Robert McClenon, did you at least ask Luxure why he did that? This is a frivolous complaint; we don't need this kind of busibody behaviour here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Luxure[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
| No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Dr. R.R. Pickles[edit]
Basically the user is not here to build an encyclopedia. It is evident from the user's edit pattern as well as their own admission on the user's page.
The user's arguments on content disputes consist mostly of personal attacks:
I warned the user and invited them to discuss the proposed changes, but it did not happen. The edits consisted of bulk POV pushes done without any form of agreement on the talk page. The user created a list of 22 items that they would like changed. The list was dismissed by a couple of editors, but I The user never got agreement from any editor on the talk page for any of these points, yet they pushed the same edit again on October 26th.
I warned the user about 1RR here. Here and here I attempted to show the user how to be more civil. Comment: when I began editing on the Israel-Palestine subject I did not behave in a very civil manner, so I tried to cut the user some slack. It now seems to me that if by this point the user didn't learn to discuss controversial changes before pushing them in bulk, chances are that this is not the way to teach them. Discussion concerning Dr. R.R. Pickles[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Dr. R.R. Pickles[edit]Statement by WarKosign[edit]@Sandstein: Do I understand correctly that the edits made by the user before I posted a warning on their page are irrelevant to this discussion ? My report is mostly chronological, so most of the edits mentioned after the warning happened after it. All the content of the user's page is also more recent than the warning. “WarKosign” 13:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Dr. R.R. Pickles[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. This doesn't look actionable in DS terms, because the DS alert occurred after the edits at issue. Sandstein 10:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
|
| Moot, indefinitely blocked as a sock of Wlglunight93. Sandstein 22:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Veritnight[edit]
I keep seeing horrors going on in the edit histories of articles related to Israel and Palestine, I thank WarKosign for finally showing me where to file complaints after much delay. Veritnight's edit history is full of horrifically bias edits such as [14] and [15]. It is clear that the editor, along with another hundred editors in the topic area, need to be blocked to stop the propagandizing of wikipedia by this group.
Discussion concerning Veritnight[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Veritnight[edit]Statement by (RolandR)[edit]I have submitted an SPI for this editor, who would appear to be a block-evading puppet of the repeatedly blocked Wlglunight93 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). RolandR (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Veritnight[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Closed as moot following the block. Sandstein 22:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC) |
| User:Piandme is warned not to cite facts about persons to non-RS fansites. He is also warned against disruptive editing and abuse of multiple accounts. Future violations may lead to admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Piandme[edit]
None.
Piandme has so far made 216 edits, and many (or even most?) of them have been to add links to the fansite "watchersonthewall.com" to articles related to the TV series Game of Thrones (e.g., [16], note the misleading edit summary). I and others have repeatedly reverted such additions, and I recently warned Piandme not to do this again. In response, Piandme reverted with apparently disruptive intent two of my own content edits to unrelated articles ( [17] and [18]), made a complaint that was closed without action but in which they wrote that "I understand that the website actually shouldn't be used", and then nonetheless made the edits at issue here referencing that website. I conclude that Piandme is either associated with that website and is trying to spam links to it in high-traffic articles, or that they lack the competence required to contribute to articles about living people, or both. I recommend banning them from BLP content and/or blocking them.
Notified 22:38, 8 November 2014
Discussion concerning Piandme[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Piandme[edit]
Most of my edits have been made to Game of Thrones articles, as I am specialised in taht area from the books, TV series and fandom. I ahve made others though, none of which have references to wotw (which would be vandalism). A ban of any sort would be very disappointing as I don't feel the rules were explained in the correct way, and if they had of been it might not have reached this scenario. The reason I thought it would be OK is that winterisocming,net is frequently refernces in previous season articles. This website was, at the time, owned by the same people wo edit watchersonthewall I'm not sure why that site was fine to include, and this one isn't and I that wa why I tried to argue for its inclusion.(note, now that site is owned by Fansided, who have excutive control of the site, which would obviously make it OK, but at the time it was the same people as Watchers). Believe you me, if I had ever known that it would get a ban for this I would have stopped. I am absolutely devastated by this, which is why my statement is probabky a bit of a ramble.I am not inocent, but have learnt my lesson ( Please also note that I ceased edit warring and sockpuppetry after my previous indiscretiosn).This won't happen again. Thank you. Piandme (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I promise to not do this, and realise why it can't be included (reliability issue)
I have never done this as, and will be very careful not to do this in the future
I'm sorry for undoing these edits, and will not do it again in future at all.
I receiveed a ban for this in Seotember, and regret being involved in such a dispute. I have not abused multiple accounts since, and will continue to not do this in the future. I hope have convonced you of these things. I promise not to do anything at all that is against rules in the future. I understand that if they do so the ban will be very severe, and that I will have no right to appeal as you are giving me this chance, which you don't have to, so thank you# Sorry for the inconvenience this has caused both talk and talk. I will now aim to start fresh, and I will endeavour that I will not cause any problems in the future.Piandme (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Piandme[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
| Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk · contribs) blocked for a week for personal attacks and battleground mentality (independently of this report). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Dr. R.R. Pickles[edit]
The user repeatedly personally attacked me and other editors.
The user was discussed here and lack of DS alert prevented an action. Here is the DS alert. Here is an AE request the user submitted themselves.
Recent edit history of the user consists mainly of edit warring with an IP user over addition of Arabic names to Jewish politicians. User's page declares that the user is not here to write an encyclopedia.
Discussion concerning Dr. R.R. Pickles[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Dr. R.R. Pickles[edit]"Recent edit history of the user consists mainly of edit warring with an IP user over addition of Arabic names to Jewish politicians." -WarKosign This is a fair example of WarKosign's dishonest editing and writing on wikipedia. He doesn't mention that I also "edit warred" to return the Hebrew translation to Arab politicians. He also doesn't mention that they are Israeli politicians. He condemns me for doing the right thing, for making edits that any sane and fair editor would be proud to make. He does not mention the racism I endured from that IP. He does not mention that admins on wikipedia refuse to block the edit warring IPs. I keep "edit warring" with these racist IPs hoping that someone else would notice and would help me. That no one has done so still, proves that wikipedia is a shithole. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by ZScarpia[edit]Some context for the first diff:
← ZScarpia 11:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC) In the fourth diff, the conversation is revolving round the killing of a thirteen-year-old who strayed into an unmarked area in Gaza which runs along the border with Israel in which the IDF automatically shoots anyone who is clearly not Israeli. The shooting was headline news around the world. In the diff, Dr. R.R. Pickles is responding to a comment by WarKosign in which he makes the totally unsupportable suggestion that the victim was deliberately sent into the zone (by Palestinians) to be killed. WarKosign also suggests that the event wouldn't be noteworthy but for attempts to publicise it. That is, he's suggesting that the killing was a cynical plot (by Palestinians) designed to show Israel in a bad light. I and, I should think, quite a few other editors view WarKosign's comments as more than "a bit off" (as well as more than a bit deluded) and, in light of that, Dr. R.R. Pickles's response actually fairly restrained if anything. Besides being unpleasant and far-fetched, WarKosign's comment is also a misuse of the article talkpage, soapboxing specifically. ← ZScarpia 12:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC) A response to WarKosign's (unsigned) comments of 15:02 and 15:25, 10 November 2014:
← ZScarpia 16:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Dr. R.R. Pickles[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. |
| No action taken. Not a personal attack. EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Poeticbent[edit]
A gross personal attack during discussion of economy of Poland, especially troublesome as the original comment user Poeticbent was responding was posted on 22 May 2014. The user uses vulgarism and personal attacks.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Poeticbent was mentioned in ARBEE
Poeticbent was previously warned several times against this type of behavior. It is counter-productive to the spirit of engagement with other editors and I deeply believe such personal attacks shouldn't be used. What troubles me the most that Poeticbent has decided to post such attack months after original comment was made. I believe Poeticbent to be positive contributor in many ways, but he needs to control his language when discussing economy of Poland where he pushes a very one-sided view. I propose a 12 hour block and warning not to use personal attacks such as these and vulgarisms again. Subsequent personal attacks and vulgarisms should result in longer blocks.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Poeticbent[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Poeticbent[edit]User:MyMoloboaccount keeps stabbing in the dark. I was not sanctioned at ARBEE five years ago. However, he was! He was unblocked on condition "to a limit of one revert per page per week". But he keeps on edit-warring now as if his own ARBEE promise did not matter. See: the Economy of Poland, first revert, second revert in one day, etc. The revert-war spilled over to article Poland I recently improved, with a lot of WP:SHOUTING in talk. – A balanced response to a citation from a reliable source is a reasonable expectation. Instead, he replies: "I can give you 100 citations confirming what I stated" ... while giving no citations. MyMoloboaccount makes editing in Wikipedia unpleasant for anyone who disagrees with his negativity. I did not offend him, nor anybody. – This report is frivolous and it goes way beyond what Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines recommend in the spirit of collaboration. Poeticbent talk 14:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC) My final comment. I refuse to be goaded into any further pointless bickering with this user, with irrefutable facts presented by him as false allegations. The link provided above as proof of Molobo's editing restrictions resulting from history of edit-warring originate from the same ARBEE case linked by him. Enough is enough. Poeticbent talk 16:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]Oh please. It's pretty obvious from the context (which MyMoloboaccount fails to provide) that Poeticbent's remark is not addressed at MyMoloboaccount personally but refers to the economic situation of a hypothetical, abstract, person which MyMoloboaccount was first to bring up. No personal attack here. Here is the context of that remark. Poeticbent was responding to a statement by MyMoloboaccount which said: "I am seriously considering removing the Businessweek article.I read it, and it presents such a distorted, completely false image of Poland that I have trouble accepting it as a reliable source.As a person living in Poland all my life, I can assure that you are more likely to see people trying to scavange food from trash cans(in fact I can see them every day in my home town) and lines of people in tattered clothes lining up to unemployment office with despair in their eyes rather than people driving in Ferrari's. This article isn't even a fairy tale, it's complete fantasy." In other words, MyMoloboaccount was saying that he is going to remove text and reliable sources from the article because... it doesn't fit in with his personal experience. MyMoloboaccount has been on Wikipedia for a very long time. They know very well that this would constitute disruptive behavior and violate half a dozen Wikipedia policies. More generally on the article talk page and the article itself they have engaged in tendentious POV pushing which contradicts the sources. Note also that they were the first to try and bring up "scavang(ing) from trash cans". Poeticbent's reference to dumpster diving is obviously a response to that. And that means that what Poeticbent is referring to is a hypothetical person's "sorry ass" not MyMoloboaccount's ... ass, sorry or not, specifically. One can agree or disagree as to whether people who dumpster dive or who are unsatisfied with the economic condition of this (or any other) country are bad or good. One can agree or disagree as to whether the Polish economy has done well or not. But there's no personal attack here, just misrepresentation of the statement and incomplete information (original statement which is being addressed is not provided). Volunteer Marek 00:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Molobo, saying "More generally on the article talk page and the article itself they have engaged in tendentious POV pushing which contradicts the sources" is NOT a "personal attack", it's simply a criticism of your actions. Criticism is not the same as a personal attack, especially when it's well founded. I have not claimed you are "falsifying sources" (this is an accusation *you* have made against others, but failed to back up). What I said is that your edits contradict sources. Not the same thing. And I *have* pointed this out several times on the relevant talk page. BTW, here's a piece of well meaning advice. Before you run to WP:AE and report people (who at some point considered you a friend), as an inappropriate means of getting your way in a content dispute, make sure your own ducks are in a row first. As in, make sure first you haven't been up to sketchy behavior yourself. As in, you haven't been violating restrictions - specifically, your 1RR restriction - left and right. There's been a dozen instances where I could've reported you here in the past few months and easily gotten you sanctioned but I didn't, because I honestly wanted to believe that despite the the recent change in your behavior you were still acting in good, although misguided, faith. The fact that you filed this report over something so stupid and so petty, pretty much establishes that I was wrong. Volunteer Marek 00:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC) It would be interesting to see, as I am not under any 1RR restriction Marek - ah, I see, I guess the restriction was removed here [20] (though that was the removal of the 1RR per week restriction, I though there was also a 1RR per day restriction you were subject to which was never removed but I might be confusing things). That restriction was lifted because you promised that you would, quote, "focus completely on writing and expanding articles and watching for vandalism and blanking. ". Instead, once the restriction had been removed it you used it to engage in edit warring over content disputes and POV pushing - like these right here. The edits under discussion are definitely not "vandalism and blanking". You also promised, quote, "I think that after 5 years I am more serious and completely calm editor, I certainly see my role on Wiki as encyclopedian and disputes or conflicts aren't of interest to me, expanding articles and knowledge is". That last part does not appear to be true. Note that numerous editors supported that restriction provisionally. As in... well, let me quote:
And that's just some of the supports for removing the restriction. I'm not even going to quote the opposes (some of which were completely bogus for reasons unrelated to this dispute). So... should I file an AE report to reinstate your original restriction since you've clearly failed to live up to the promises made when it was lifted? Volunteer Marek 02:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Nymoloboaccount, the problem is that Poeticbent has made no personal attack against you. They were responding to a comment *you* made about "scavenging from dumpsters". They were speaking about a hypothetical scenario *you* presented. And when they made that comment you went running here to AE shopping for a sanction. This was clearly an instance of you acting in bad faith. And it would be bad, even IF you hadn't been sanctioned before. BUT. It IS relevant to point out that when your previous restrictions were lifted, you promised to limit your reverting to "vandalism and blanking" and to "avoid disputes" which you claimed where of "no interest" to you. The fact that you filed this bad faithed report is a clear indication that you have failed to live up to the promises you made when the sanctions were, provisionally, lifted. Anyway, at this point it's probably better to let the admins sort it out. Volunteer Marek 02:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC) that arose when I got out of your off wiki email group - I'm sorry, I know I said it'd be best to let the admins sort it out but... hahahahahahhaaaa, snort, chuckle, hahahahahaha... wait, are you serious? Hahahahahahahahhaha. Pshaw! Lol. Lol. Super lol. Hahahahahahhaha. No, seriously? Ay ay ay. Oi vei! Ok. ok. ok.... Now that I've been able to control myself, I got to say, that honestly, that is the most dishonest thing I've read in a long time. Volunteer Marek 03:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by MyMoloboaccount[edit]Response to Volunteer Marek: Editors should be aware that Volunteer Marek is engaged together with Poeticbent in POV pushing in articles related to Polish economy since a long time, and he is not a neutral party to this dispute.The article in questions was quite shocking to me as a Polish person because it implied Poles are rich beyond belief and their problems consist of what Ferrari to buy, which was quite opposite to reality in my country. Nevertheless I was willing to discuss it first. Volunteer's Marek defense of partner in edits on Economy of Poland is just that, one can see beyond this that Poeticbent comment was directed at me. Also as a person who experiences poverty daily, I feel offended by Marek's abusive comment "One can agree or disagree as to whether people who dumpster dive or who are unsatisfied with the economic condition of this (or any other) country are bad or good", which just demonstrates how difficult it is to debate economic condition in Poland is with him and Poeticbent.Poeticbent's offensive remarks are not appropriate and using vuglarisms should not be allowed at Wikipedia.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC) "More generally on the article talk page and the article itself they have engaged in tendentious POV pushing which contradicts the sources" That is a serious personal attack and I suggest you remove it immediately.All of my edits are backed by reliable and trustworthy sources, for example World Bank reports. If you have a problem with any of the sources I use, bring it up either on article page or on discussion page and I will deal with it straight away. By claiming here that I am falsifying sources you are engaging in serious accusation. If this is correct why haven't you point this out earlier in the article page? Why have you tolerated supposedly falsified sources up to this discussion? It's obviously dubious accusation to divert attention from Poeticbent and his offensive behavior.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC) I see Marek is continuing to try to divert attention away from Poeticibent and continuing to use false accusations and attacks.
"make sure your own ducks are in a row first".
Now shall we focus on Poeticibent uncalled for offensive remarks? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)' My Marek, you found that lifting of restriction real quick-much longer than it took me to find it to be honest when you mentioned it. Of course there is nothing here but continued attempt to try to shift focus from Poeticibent's vulgar and offensive language towards my person(and who knows maybe by you mentioning it I might be put on restriction myself now,but I am sure it isn't your intention or anything your hope for). But if you believe I should be placed on any restrictions, start appropriate debate, and don't use it as ace in your sleeve to protect editors who have acted wrongly. I have seen it all too often, somebody does something wrong, gets called on it, and then discussion is being diverted into attacking the person who brought it up. "So... should I file an AE report to reinstate your original restriction since you've clearly failed to live up to the promises made when it was lifted?" Personal attacks and an open threat now based on month's provision overview two years ago. Dear Marek, if you believe you have material to support you, you are free to start any AE report you like. I am sure it won't be connected to me reporting Poeticibent for his offensive behavior and vulgar behavior.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I personally long time ago came to the belief that it is better on Wikipedia to let administration handle cases of offensive and vulgar remarks, instead of getting into flame wars with users who contribute vulgarisms and personal attacks, it is more efficient and there is less potential for escalation. Poeticbent has clearly acted offensive and incivil.The fact that you are trying to turn this around to defend him and try to sanction person who pointed this out and asked for enforcement is not really something new and original. No, pointing out that somebody is incivil is not something wrong, asking for enforcement is not something wrong. Instead of keeping Wikipedia safe and clean of such behavior, you try to defend somebody at all cost just because he is your "friend"(as you named once me when I agreed with your views and edits) and try to sanction those who try keep an civil and orderly discussion. If you believe there are grounds for AE against me, do it. I have nothing to hide and will gladly defend myself from your accusations and constant incivility(that arose when I got out of your off wiki email group).In fact, do fill the AE report, instead of threatening me. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC) EdJohnston:My apologies, I thought ARBEE is used as sort of general rule that can be invoked to call for enforcement of rules against person acting offensive in topic connected to Eastern Europe. I didn't mean by that any specific issue that was raised at the start of the case.Kind regards.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
It's a false personal attack again, I was never sanctioned during ARBEE, also I didn't say that Poeticbent was sanctioned but that he is aware of sanctions. "He was unblocked on condition "to a limit of one revert per page per week"." This sanction was in 2008(6 years ago!), and lifted long time ago. It wasn't connected to ARBEE. Before you throw baseless and false accussations please research the subject. "But he keeps on edit-warring now as if his own ARBEE promise did not matter" Again a false claim, and shopping for sanctions.Poeticbent's refusal to apologize for rude and incivil behavior and instead attempting to attack others with false accussation is not promising. In regards to Poland article, I have added numerous sources to the article to balance the POV, based on reliable sources such as World Bank, Warsaw Business Journal. All of them are being removed.As a result the information is completely distorted and the section mentions nothing about Polish economy problems in unemployment, debt and wages-despite this being sourced by reliable sources from mainstream publications. Poeticbent and Volunteer Marek are instead pushing a version which presents only alleged positive vision of Polish economy without adding any balance to the article. In fact information about unemployment being problem in Poland was deleted completely by VM under false pretense that this is not discussed on discussion page[21] with added false claims that "this is nonsense", despite the information coming from reliable sources as well as official government sites. Pushing forward articles that present Poland only in positive light is nothing new. VM and Poeticbent have engaged in such activity before. "My final comment. I refuse to be goaded into any further pointless bickering with this user, with irrefutable facts presented by him as false allegations" You realize that you are linking to restriction from 2008? Around 6 years ago? And that there were different restrictions in different situations. All of which have been lifted long time ago.Throughout your whole comment you didn't even once apologize for using offensive and vulgar language towards me and poor people.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by My very best wishes[edit]As a note of order, I previously voted on ANI to lift editing restrictions for Molobo. However, I think that the comment by Poeticbent was obviously insufficient to bring this complaint here, and Molobo suppose to know it very well after his previous experience. Therefore, I suggest to restrict Molobo from commenting on AE in the future or indeed reinstate his previous editing restrictions in EE area. My very best wishes (talk) 04:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Poeticbent[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
| ANI is perfectly capable of dealing with conduct issues at ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Tarc[edit]
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#Tarc_topic-banned Tarc has been sanctioned by the committee before, and has now undergone two sanctions as the result of the committee.
I do not believe discretionary sanctions apply here, but I filled these out in case that I am wrong.
I do sincerely hope that ArbCom simply does not let fragrant violations of its final policies and remedies be justified or even encouraged. Remedies need to be enforced, and Tarc has violated it. Thank you.
Discussion concerning Tarc[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Tarc[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Tarc[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. |
| Closed with no action, but without prejudice against action by ArbCom or clerks, since the alleged misconduct took place on an arbitration request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Titanium Dragon[edit]
Discussion concerning Titanium Dragon[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Titanium Dragon[edit]The arbitration is in regards to administrative enforcement actions on the article in question, as well as the long-term conduct and content disputes which have been raging on the page for months. My presence in the arbitration was requested. It is my understanding per the rules of topic bans that you are allowed to appeal your topic ban, and given that one of the issues which has been brought up is my topic ban, and its relationship to the actions of several users who have been involved in long-term disputes as relates to the page and questionable administrative actions, I think this falls under the category of appealing the ban, given that allegations of abusive use of admin tools at the urging of several users is part of the dispute. This is most appropriately addressed in the arbitration. (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Fut.Perf.[edit][Speaking as the admin who imposed the original sanction, but at the same time as somebody currently named as a party to that same requested arb case:] I've often gone on record saying that I believe Arbcom pages ought not to be treated as a general exemption area where topic-banned editors are given free range to pursue their agendas and keep fighting the same fights they are no longer allowed to fight out elsewhere. If somebody has been topic-banned, it means their participation in a given field of dispute has been deemed to be so deeply counter-productive they ought not to be engaged in that field of dispute at all, anywhere, including Arbcom proceedings. That said, there is of course the necessary exemption that people must be allowed to appeal their sanction, but when doing that, topic-banned editors ought to restrict themselves as much as possible to discussing whatever is narrowly necessary for explaining their appeal; they should not be engaging in general debate about the content matters under dispute, accusations against third parties unrelated to the immediate situation of their own sanction, and so on. In this sense, I do believe that T.D.'s involvement in the current request could, in principle, qualify as a legitimate sanction appeal, but I also believe that the over-long, content-focussed arguments he posted there are very much not what an editor in this situation should do (not to mention that it's really nothing that anybody should do in an Arbcom request anyway.) T.D. should be firmly instructed to shorten his posting to what is immediately pertinent to a proper appeal of his own sanction, and/or a pertinent complaint against the administrator iin question (i.e. me), if that's what he feels necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Masem[edit]While I don't disagree that this seems like a clear violation, part of the issue that I have presented at the ArbCom is that there are established editors that are attempting to control the article, one way through silencing the wiki voices of those that disagree with them such as through bans like this; those editors include those that pushed for TD's topic ban to start with. This does not necessarily excuse TD's BLP violations, or imply the ban was wrong, however, it was also made in the heat of the argument on Gamergate, and as such, I do believe TD has a seat at the current ArbCom case discussion (but nowhere else) if we are talking on the actions of the editors that got them topic banned (obviously not Fut.Perf., they were just following the obvious problem as presented at ANI). --MASEM (t) 17:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Titanium Dragon[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
| Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs) is strongly cautioned to respect the 1RR and behave with the level of decorum expected of editors in controversial topic areas. There is insufficient evidence and insufficient support among admins for any further action, or for any action against third parties, but this closure is without prejudice to a more detailed complaint being filed against Plot Spoiler in the future nor a complaint about any other party whose conduct bears examination. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Plot Spoiler[edit]
Blocked for 1RR violation on October 10 topic banned for 3 months Sept 2013 Warned for unilateral reverts July 2014
Plot Spoiler was previously strongly cautioned that reverting but being unwilling to discuss the revert is unacceptable and disruptive behavior. (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive119#Plot_Spoiler). This removal, when it was first made October 17, was discussed on the talk page (now archived here). Plot Spoiler never made a single comment to support his initial removal. Since then he has twice reverted today, again without making a single comment on the talk page. He was just blocked for violating the 1RR, where he again did not discuss any revert, on October 10.
Cailil, there may well be cause to remove that source, however that cause was never raised. The blog in question, to me, is like any other op-ed, reliable for the author's opinions. The source is not being used for factual material, but Silverstein is a noted commentator, whose opinion pieces can be found in any number of newspapers (Haaretz, The Guardian among others). It is used as an example of a prominent critic's response, no more, and I think it meets the requirements for use, though I admit I may be wrong. But that's something to work out on the talk page, which until after this report PS was completely absent from. As far as tag-teaming, I would think that would require some coordination, of which there is none. But to the point of this, it is not simply that there is a 1RR violation, and there is obviously one. It is additionally that PS continues to revert without discussion, while others vainly request his presence on the talk page. He was warned for this very behavior in the past, and in both this and the last AE he repeatedly reverted without discussing or even feigning interest in coming to a consensus on the talk page. nableezy - 15:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Plot Spoiler[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Plot Spoiler[edit]That's not a revert according to the definition of WP:revert. Watch the WP:boomerang Nableezy and flattered you're so closely following my edits. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Nishidani[edit]Plot Spoiler has long been a major problem, and has been remarkably successful in damaging articles, reporting other editors, and enjoying a certain immunity. I don’t follow his contributions, too busy editing, and only come across him when he reverts me on articles I work, as he has been doing recently. In an earlier case mid this year reporting him, he just disappeared, and 27 June 2014 the case was dropped after he failed to turn up, as promised I pointed out in earlier case this year what the problem is, mass erasure of evidence on spurious policy grounds. He uses WP:RS to wipe out pages dealing with Palestinians, but doesn’t apply the same standards to pages on Israel/is et al. As Sandstein noted at the time, I should have made a separate report, been less discursive (WP:TLDR) and provided time stamps. Fair enough. That evidence is now, I suppose, 'stale'. For the record here it is. Please note that all of these problematica abuses of policy aim to gut pages on Palestinians, while removing anything critical regarding figures from the other side, and took place within just 2 days of his hyperactive editing life here:
In those two days, Plot Spoiler was gutting articles on Palestinians even of known RS, while removing material that might reflect critically on Jewish or Israeli figures. The edit summaries are invariably deceptive, and the intensive POV pushing self-evident. Note also that he almost never 'wastes time' justifying his removalist work on talk pages, whereas most editors think in the I/P area this is obligatory. It's hit and run editing. Nishidani (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Statement by RolandR[edit]Of course these are reverts. The first is a partial reversion of this edit by IjonTichyIjonTichy on 18 October, which itself reverted your previous removal of sourced content; the second, less than an hour later, is a repeat of the first reversion. RolandR (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Statement by ZScarpia[edit]@Cailil, perhaps you're confusing WP:SPS (which says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications") and WP:ABOUTSELF (which says: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves"). In any case, Richard Silverstein's blog is a reliable source for Richard Silverstein's opinion or anything attributed to Richard Silverstein, so Plot Spoiler's stated reason for deletion, interpretted as a belief that the source was not reliable for the information given, was bogus. You mention ArbCom ruling's counsel to editors in this area. Presumably, you're referring to the part about "utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions." However, since the statements in the article were attributed to Richard Silverstein, for whose opinion the blog is a reliable source, the issue becomes not one of source reliability but one of whether what Richard Silverstein had to say was worth reporting, a matter depending on consensus for which Plot Spoiler appears to be in the minority. ← ZScarpia 13:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC) @Cailil, you wrote: "A new talk page thread was opened by Nableezy (on November 2nd) citing WP:SPS ... ." At best, what you wrote is misleading as Nableezy did not mention WP:SPS. He wrote: "It's a primary source, and reliable for its own views. So the objection on RS grounds is spurious as it is only being used for its own view." In my opinion, that was accurate and also recapitulates a common way in which opinion pieces are used in Wikipedia articles. The editor who actually cited WP:SPS was WarKosign who produced a mishmash description of WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF which fails to describe how the former is applied. You appear to have borrowed the phrase "no claims about third parties" from him. The part of WP:SPS which comes closest to that phrasing says: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Note that it mentions "living people" specifically, not "third parties". Presumably, the point is to avoid potential WP:BLP issues. As far as I can see, the Silverstein extract used nowhere mentions any living people. Nor can I see any other way that it falls foul of WP:SPS. ← ZScarpia 22:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC) @Plot Spoiler, you answered RolandR by quoting a sentence from the Lead of the WP:Revert essay. The very next sentence says: "A partial reversion involves reversing only part of a prior edit, while retaining other parts of it." That describes exactly what you did doesn't it? Note that you quoted from an essay rather than Wikipedia policy. See WP:Edit warring for a policy definition of revertion: "A revert means undoing the actions of other editors." From that policy's definition of the 3RR, we can infer the meaning of the 1RR applied to WP:ARBPIA articles: the 1RR says an editor must not perform more than one revert (that is the undoing of an action of another editor), in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Note the "in part" bit. ← ZScarpia 23:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC) @WarKosign: WP:3RR: "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." The edits of mine you've listed are consecutive and therefore count as a single revert. You've also not noticed that the editor I reverted was myself rather than "another user". As to your first comment, WP:ABOUTSELF applies when a non-expert self-published source is being used as a secondary source, WP:SPS applies when an expert self-published source is being used as a secondary source. Silverstein is arguably an expert who is quoted by non-self-published reliable sources, in which case the latter rule would be the one which applied. However, Nableezy's argument is that the blog is not being used as a secondary source at all, but as a primary source for Silverstein's opinion, so that neither WP:ABOUTSELF or WP:SPS apply. ← ZScarpia 09:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC) @WarKosign, 09:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC): The 1RR rule does not apply when IP editors are being reverted, which is the case with the second of the two reverts you've listed. ← ZScarpia 10:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC) A curious feature of the case is that no mention of the reference, directly after those to opinions expressed by Levy, Avnery and Silverstein, to the article by Ross Singer, in which he criticises comparisons made between the IDF and Hamas, has been made. This is curious firstly because the article is a blog piece (albeit a Times of Israel blog). Unlike the three former writers, Ross Singer doesn't appear to be notable (judged by the lack of a Wikipedia article on him), so, on the grounds of removing references to blog pieces, the one to Singer's article should really have been the first to be deleted. The second curiousity is that the article is referred to without mentioning that Singer confirms that Jewish forces did in the 1940s store weapons in the alleged locations and that his objections to comparisons being made between the IDF and Hamas are based on other grounds. ← ZScarpia 14:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC) @HJ Mitchell: Isn't that a bit of a new departure, excusing editors for breaches of policy if they didn't realise that they were breaching policy, either because of ignorance or faulty understanding? And aren't you making a rod for your own back? Perhaps it would be reasonable to give newish editors the benefit of the doubt, but should it be extended to an editor such as Plot Spoiler who has been editing under that name since February 2009 and has in the past been blocked a few times for edit warring, because they've failed to figure out, as in Plot Spoiler's case, that partial reverts count as far as the 1RR restriction on ARBPIA articles is concerned? I understand that blocks are supposed to be preventative and that this case is now a bit old, but when you say, "I don't feel a case has been made yet," do you mean that you don't feel that a case has been made that Plot Spoiler breached the 1RR restriction? ← ZScarpia 12:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by WarKosign[edit]@Cailil and ZScarpia: WP:ABOUTSELF: Bullet #2 says "it does not involve claims about third parties". The statements by Richard Silverstein are 100% about third parties. Bullet #3 says "it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source". Silverstein was born 4 years after the war of independence so he couldn't have participated in it. “WarKosign” 15:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC) @Nomoskedasticity: If a revert is any edit that "undoes another editor's work", any edit can be considered a revert. Replacing a single word could be considered a revert since it removed the old word, correcting a typo would be a revert since it undid another editor's mistake. The only way to define a revert is in term of taking the article to past versions, partially or completely. @ZScarpia: According to your logic you violated 1RR last week:
Defining revert as "undoing another’s work" is unusable. It would cause every correction or attempt at compromise to be seen as a revert war. “WarKosign” 04:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC) @ZScarpia: Indeed, I couldn't find examples in your recent history - you usually make several rapid edits and then leave the article. But if someone happened to make an unrelated edit between any two of your edits it would become an 1RR violation according to your definition, which I see as absurd. BTW, these two are obvious reverts of exactly the same content 10 hours apart, without any nit picking. “WarKosign” 09:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Nomoskedasticity[edit]Plotspoiler's notion (it's only a revert if it restores a previous version) would eviscerate the 1RR rule; indeed it would make a mockery of 3RR. Difficult to imagine that even Plotspoiler doesn't understand this; his trying to push the envelope the envelope this way makes it hard to anticipate proper editing in the future. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by Kingsindian[edit]As someone who has had multiple run-ins with Plot Spoiler, I dislike this use of a technical violation of 1RR (it is indeed a violation). This could easily have been avoided with a short message on PS's talk page asking him to self-revert. I would suggest no action, or the minimum possible "punishment". More important is a reminder to PS to discuss his edits on the talk page. For the rest, Cailil's comments are off-mark and not related to the substance of this request. Even if the Cailil is right about the source, that has no bearing on this matter. As Cailil himself said, it is not permissible to edit-war to uphold standards concerning RS. Rule on the conduct and let the content issue be sorted out on the article talk page. There is no evidence of any coordination which is a prerequisite for tag-teaming. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by IjonTichyIjonTichy[edit]I have not coordinated my actions with anyone and I have not engaged in any tag teaming. Cailil appears to be confusing cooperative editing to improve articles with working as a tag team. The accusation of tag teaming has no substance. I rarely edit in the Israel-Palestine area, especially in the last few months. I edit in a wide range of areas that have nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestine conflict, and my total number of edits in the I-P area constitute a very small portion of my total number of edits. However, I do enjoy discussing books and articles on Nishidani's talk page in an effort to place the I-P conflict in a far larger global historical, social, economic and cultural context. I am a native speaker of Hebrew and read several mainstream Israeli newspapers (online) every day, and almost every day I come across some reliable source containing severe criticism of the Israeli government including the IDF as well as prominent, powerful Israeli persons. But only very rarely have I translated (an extremely small portion of) these articles and cited them in Wikipedia articles. I have spent several hours going over Plot Spoiler's edit history. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind he is gaming the system. His modus operandi is to selectively excise sources and citations that paint the Israeli government (including the IDF) or prominent Israeli figures in a negative light, while leaving intact original research or non-RS-cited or uncited content that paints Palestinians in a negative light, or that paints Israel or Israeli figures in a positive light. His edits make a mockery of the spirit of consensus and Wikipedia policy. Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Plot Spoiler[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. On first sight this didn't look like a 1RR violation until you look at this diff from October 17th[27] its edit summary is a direct reflection of the first revert on November 2nd[28]. So there is a violation of 1RR and obviously a slow edit-war. The latest sanction against Plot Spoiler is not June 2014 its October[29] where they were blocked for 24 hours for breaching 1RR (this also shows his awareness of the case for the purposes of WP:AE/WP:AC/DS). This is a second breach within a month. I'd suggest a 48 hour block as a minimum.
The two edits by Plot Spoiler listed at the top of this report *do* appear to be a 1RR violation so I'd be OK with a block for that. If we were only considering those reverts here, any greater sanction that a short block would be unjustified. It is argued above that the use of blogs and possible tag-teaming could have justified one or more of Plot Spoiler's reverts. I don't find these arguments persuasive. Blogs by qualified experts along with newspaper editorials and the work of opinion columnists are often cited in ARBPIA articles, subject to consensus as to weight and relevance. I don't see how WP:RS can be an argument against the citation of opinion if consensus agrees that the opinion is important enough to be quoted. But the long list of reverts tabulated above by User:Nishidani on November 2 (items 1 through 10) look to be more serious. If someone has time to go through them all carefully they might add up to a case for a topic ban of Plot Spoiler. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm still unclear on whether Silverstein's blog is being used as a source for any matters of fact. There's a lengthy discussion at Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 13#Revert on whether the hiding of weapons in synagagues in the 1948 war deserves mention in this article. That's a problem of weight and balance and doesn't seem to depend on who is correct about facts. Nothing short of consensus would be enough to resolve that, and I agree with Cailil that this thread did not reach a conclusion. Opening an WP:RFC would be one option. Reaching NPOV requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." This AE thread is not the time or place to settle the 1948 matter, but those engaged in the debate need to behave properly. EdJohnston (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
A week has gone by since this was opened and admins have come down on all possible sides. I think may be time to consider closing this with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
|
| Blocked for 48 hours for a 1RR violation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Trahelliven[edit]
Trahelliven is clearly aware of the sanctions given his summary in the second revert (breach of rule of no two reverts in 24 hours)
I don't usually bother filing AE requests on violations, but this one was particularly concerning because Trahelliven seems to think that it's acceptable to violate 1RR if you are reverting another editor who you think (rightly or wrongly) has also violated it. I'm also concerned by the untrue edit summary in the second revert accusing me of violating 1RR - my first edit was a normal edit (this is the summary of changes in Trahelliven's first two edits, and this was my one that followed. As hopefully anyone can see, there is no reversion of anything there). Number 57 17:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Trahelliven[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Trahelliven[edit]Statement by WarKosign[edit]Number 57 changed "Eretz Israel" to "Mandatory Palestine" and then repeated the same edit after 13 hours. Seems to me that Trahelliven is correct in accusing Number 57 of 1RR violation. Of course it does not justify 1RR violation by Trahelliven. “WarKosign” 05:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Nishidani[edit]Number 57's report seems to me quite proper, and I should add that I have some history of otherwise disagreeing with his judgement, but not on this. It's disconcerting to see such confusion over the IR rule. Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Trahelliven[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|