| No action is required. Sandstein 19:14, 22 January 2017 (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 The Rambling Man[edit]
Given the evidence presented, a block is required per the sanctions of 10/13/16 and the final warning given 12/16/16. Taken as a whole, the diffs show that TRM continues to be insulting and combative, creating an unwholesome editing environment at ITN for the discussion of sensitive topics. New editors, and even seasoned ones are discouraged by his ongoing repetitive battling to get his way. TRM has been the subject of countless hours of discussion and remedies that remain ineffective. Enough is enough.
@User:Sandstein I am requesting The Rambling Man be blocked, per the following ArbCom case, as noted specifically above. You appear to request me to copy and paste the sanctions, which are as follows: 4) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors. If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve. If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.
Discussion concerning The Rambling Man[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 The Rambling Man[edit]Statement by Harrias[edit]
Statement by uninvolved Softlavender[edit]I was fully prepared to knot the noose on this one based on Jusdafax's characterization of the affair, but I read the entire thread [1], and then I also did Control+F to highlight TRM's posts, and I have to say this case in my mind is completely trumped up. In my opinion there is no aggression, insulting, gaslighting, refusal to disengage, or personal attack going on in any of TRM's posts. Jusdafax is deliberately misquoting them, mischaracterizing them, quoting them out of context, and quoting phrases out of context. The worst of them is just TRM's opinion, albeit one that I do not agree with. I don't see that any of the posts violate the sanctions, as they are all mildly stated, no aspersions. In spite of all the disagreement between the various parties in that thread (and TRM's posts are hardly the snarkiest), no one is attacking anyone and no one is out of control, despite the emotions engendered by the subject matter. I don't agree with TRM's position (because having seen the end reports on Twitter I think he greatly underestimated the scope of the Women's Marches, for instance), but I defend his right to have and communicate it as he does there, comparing the protests to other protests or group sizes in order to provide what he believes is some perspective. In no way does he try to bully anyone or dominate the conversation. Softlavender (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC) @Jusdafax: Again, you're not seeing or reading or reporting this clearly. Let's just ask Martinevans123, the editor who you say TRM "refused to disengage with", if he felt that TRM was "refusing to disengage". It seems fairly clear to me that you don't know Martinevans123 very well, or how he likes to engage in banter with others (especially fellow members of the British Commonwealth), which is what that side conversation is. Plus you haven't noted some of the odder points of Martin's edits and edit summaries. Softlavender (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jusdafax: Three times so far (twice here in your OP and again here) you have claimed that TRM used the word "obsessive", when he has clearly done no such thing [2], nor did he insult or belittle any editor(s). Your other characterizations of the conversation are in error as well. If I were you I would withdraw this filing before it possibly boomerangs on you. Softlavender (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Statement by
|
| Meritless request. Complainant DrChrissy blocked for one week for topic ban violation and warned of possible further sanctions. Sandstein 08:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Kingofaces43[edit]
Not applicable
Background: Earlier this month at this thread [7], I read that an editor (@Kingofaces43:) was attempting to impose discretionary sanctions from American politics onto an article about a moth (yes – an insect). I find this to be totally absurd and made a comment about wiki-lawyering[8]. Kingofaces43 replied within 14 mins, but rather than limiting themselves to addressing the wiki-lawyering content, they first attempted to poison the well by bringing up my ARBCOM-GMO topic and interaction ban.[9] Two further edits discussing my GMO sanction were made by Kingoaces43. This harassing behaviour is totally unacceptable. My sanctions have absolutely nothing to do with American politics or a moth. Kingofaces43 claims my comment was battleground behaviour being continued from the GMO case, yet I have not edited in the GMO area for 12 months because of my ban. Kingofaces43 has brought up my sanctions clearly to attempt to cast aspersions, attempt to discredit me, and to goad me (I am of course unable to discuss my topic ban to defend myself on the page where Kingofaces43 started their mis-behaviour). Other evidence of recent interaction: Kingofaces43 also states[10] that he and I basically do not interact since my topic ban – again what is the relevance of my topic ban to this thread other than to cast aspersions and as a further attempt to discredit and goad me. Furthermore, Kingofaces43 demonstrates their spectacularly short memory. Less than 30 days ago, I applied at WP:ARCA to have my GMO topic ban lifted.[11] Kingofaces43 made a statement there[12], which they are entitled to do, but to suggest this is not interaction with me is totally misleading, if not a lie. Why have I brought this to ARBCOM? Kingofaces43 is a very experienced editor and well aware that I am unable to even mention my GMO topic ban on article pages or other noticeboards; bringing this to ARBCOM is the only way I know of seeking action against Kingofaces43 to protect me from this harassment and goading without violating my topic ban. But moreover, ARBCOM have made several strong statements against casting aspersions, including in the GMO case. Kingofaces43’c statements are clearly about the ARBCOM-GMO and arose from that case. I suggest therefore Kingofaces43 comments fall under the same considerations, i.e. they should not be casting aspersions and discretionary sanctions can be imposed.
[[13]]
@Sandstein Your statement is self-contradictory. In one sentence, you state you do not understand what arbitration case I want to have enforced and then a couple of sentences later you are calling for sanctions against me in the ARBGMO case - precisely the case I have made it patently clear I want enforced. DrChrissy (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Kingofaces43[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 Kingofaces43[edit]This started with an incident DrChrissy was not involved in. An insect, Neopalpa donaldtrumpi, was named after Donald Trump's hair. I'm an entomologist, so I went to the page to make sure political issues weren't seeping into what should have been a cut and dry scientific description. Unfortunately for avoiding drama, one of the identifying features of this species is size differences of its genitals compared to the other closely related species. This cued comments on Donald Trump's "small hands" and other appendage jokes. This resulted in the AN3 case with the issue of 3RR being broken and these political justifications interfering with talk page content discussion. Because of the latter, I said in the case intro American Politics 2 DS could apply to the situation with no stretch of the imagination (even though it’s completely silly that politics are entering into an insect species page), but said nothing more on that. Cut back to the GMO ArbCom case. DrChrissy received topic bans prior in part due to battleground behavior and following editors into other topics as part of that. The same thing happened in the justification for their topic ban in GMOs and their interaction ban with Jytdog for the same kind of thing going on towards me here. I also patiently dealt with a lot of this behavior, but I opted not to ask for a one-way interaction ban at ArbCom because I expected the GMO topic ban to prevent such behavior from DrChrissy directed at me. Aside from admin boards discussing their sanctions and appeal, we generally haven’t interacted since ArbCom. Skip forward to the AN3 case. A mere 13 minutes after I posted the report, DrChrissy was there accusing me of wikilawyering[14] for saying that the American Politics DS apply in that intersection of topics. I don’t think a reasonable person would say they don’t apply, but it is extremely pointy to accuse someone of wikilawyering that at best. It's basically a continuation of the battleground behavior from DrChrissy in the GMO topics that was now proxied over to the AN3 board (not skirting a ban, but continued behavior that usually leads to such sanctions expanding), especially considering how they jumped in. Instead of escalating to AE, I just cautioned this, but they instead tried to claim I was goading them[15][16] while calling for my head as part of their continued battleground behavior. There was no taking advantage or goading per WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED while trying to caution them as I directly pointed out to them previously,[17][18] but they chose to continue misrepresenting and ignoring those reminders (i.e., WP:ASPERSIONS, a principle even amended at GMO ArbCom). At the end of the day, I think I’m convinced that Sandstein’s one-way interaction ban option is looking like the best option to prevent more of this behavior the way this is escalating. Since I normally don't interact anymore with DrChrissy unless they come into areas I'm working on, and they were pursuing me in this case, this might be a case where it’s viable. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC) Statement by JzG[edit]This is an attempt to crowbar a dispute into an area where there are DS active. The comments by Kingofaces are legitimate in context (they address behaviour that led to prior sanctions, not the sanctions themselves, still less the content area covered by the sanctions). DrChrissy is sanctioned in more than one topic area. [19] finds nearly 70 pages of AN/ANI archives mentioning DrChrissy. My personal impression is that DrChrissy abuses process to try to gain advantage in content disputes. Regardless, there is no AE sanction to apply here. Guy (Help!) 18:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC) Statement by Kyohyi[edit]Not taking a position one way or another on validity, but this appears to be claiming violations of WP: CONDUCTTOBANNED. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC) Statement by Iazyges[edit]I think that as Trump is a well known and very vocal figure, and the moth is explicitly named after him, it does contain a certain amount of political connection. I must agree with JzG that this does appear akin to process abuse. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC) Statement by Tryptofish[edit]I'm tempted to just put a facepalm here, as there clearly is no violation other than the topic ban violation and generally unhelpful complaint by DrChrissy. But per Regentspark, if there is any way to close this with an STFU to DrChrissy instead of a block, perhaps that would be for the better. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Statement by username[edit]Result concerning Kingofaces43[edit]
|
| The appeal of the BLP topic ban is declined. Sandstein 17:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Holanthony[edit]I feel the topic ban was imposed unfairly and rashly without having been given a chance to respond. It originally stems from an unrelated personal/private dispute I have had with an elderly man that uses the username "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" on Wikipedia. He has now chosen to take this matter to a whole different level in a desperate attempt at petty revenge online. I can assure you dead to rights that he will try to protest this appeal with all his might and present further accusations and so-called "evidence", all of which I could easily stave these off had I had the chance to respond and by referring to WP:POTKETTLE, listing the number of violations this user has perpetrated. I will not however, for two reasons, 1. my topic ban would prevents me from discussing BLP related incidents. 2. I'm going to stick withWP:SCWTEGH for now. I also request that this user is disqualified from this discussion as he is an involved editor. By the same token, I also ask that BethNaught also be disqualified as they are no longer uninvolved as per WP:UNINVOLVED. Adding to this, BethNaught has also written on my talk page, accusing me of being a liar and having done various things (that were untrue) and said that they were not "sympathetic" towards me, so I have no reason to expect a fair and objective treatment from them [20]. Having said this, I believe the sanction was too harsh and one-sided and if it is to remain, I request that it be time-limited. Statement by BethNaught[edit]I will try to deal with what Holanthony says in order so I apologise for a lack of eloquence. I certainly did not impose the sanction rashly. HW's request was made at 06:03 10 January and I saw it about an hour later. I handed down the sanction at 14:35 the same day. I did this after several hours of consideration and examination of the evidence presented. I don't think it was unfair that Holanthony wasn't notified before this, because he was warned at ANI on 29 June that further problematic BLP edits would lead to sanctions, and received a DS alert. I did examine all the evidence provided. Some diffs were better or worse than others but I pointed out two serious examples in the sanction and especially in light of the ANI I think the topic ban was reasonable. I do not believe that I was ever WP:INVOLVED as I have only interacted with Holanthony in an administrative capacity (to the best of my recollection). I did accuse Holanthony of lying: his revenge AE request against HW contained the claim: HW was "Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 28 September 2016 by Bjelleklang". That was linked to this diff. Not only is this diff not what it purports to be, but WP:AC/DS/L contains no log of a DS against HW (unless the search function in my browser is broken). Also, the reason I was unsympathetic to Holanthony's unblock request was because of the revenge report, not because of any bias. When considering whether to make the sanction I debated very carefully with myself whether it was proper for me just to make it, instead of referring to AE. I knew that Holanthony might try to paint me as being a lackey of HW or as being used by them. But I did it nevertheless because of Holanthony's egregious behaviour on BLPs. BethNaught (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Statement by involved editor The Big Bad Wolfowitz[edit]@Lankiveil: This came to my attention some days after it was posted, and I don't really have anything new to add to the accurate comments below. I believe the problems with Holanthony's BLP editing are amply demonstrated by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/AE evidence draft, and his failure to appreciate basic elements of the relevant DS is conveyed by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive208#Statement_by_User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Holanthony[edit]
Result of the appeal by Holanthony[edit]
|
| I think there's a clear consensus this isn't going anywhere, and events have overtaken it at any rate. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:40, 1 February 2017 (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 Hijiri88[edit]
Feel free to call it nitpicking, but I have to assume asking a question about Japanese readings of material on the WikiProject Japan talk page qualifies as discussing Japanese culture. If I'm wrong, then having some sort of clear indication to that effect here would be useful, I think.
Notification here. Discussion concerning Hijiri88[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 Hijiri88[edit]Is this a joke? ArbCom explicitly told me I am allowed cite Japanese sources when writing articles about non-Japanese topics, and I asked WikiProject Japan for help in formatting the name of a Japanese ref in an article on a Chinese poet. On top of that, why is John Carter still following my edits? What about the TBAN? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Statement by MjolnirPants[edit]I have to admit that I have a little bit of history with both editors. I've agreed with both at different times, and disagreed with both at different times, the former more often with Hijiri and the latter more often with John. That being said, I'm a little concerned about this request. The edits in question seem to me to be more personally motivated than motivated by any intention to edit in the area of the topic ban, though the latter remains a possibility. However, the fact that this report was filed rather than a warning issued speaks poorly of the OP, who has been in conflict with Hijiri88 in the recent past. Combined with this Arbcom request which was made earlier today, I'm concerned about the possibility of the OP hounding Hijiri. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Statement by 129.9.75.191[edit]Doing a quick perusal of the edits of Hijiri88 at WP:Japan, they were asking about how to stylize an essay title in regards to a poem written by a Chinese Poet. How is this Japanese Culture and how does the ban apply? 129.9.75.191 (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]Just to note: John Carter and Hijiri88 are the subjects of a recently imposed Interaction Ban [22], and I'm not certain that John Carter's filing here is allowed by WP:BANEX. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Beeblebrox[edit]Sigh. So I closed the ANI last week that ended with these two being interaction banned. John Carter asked me on my talk page if filing an arbitration request would be allowed and I said I believed it would be, so that's on me if that isn't the case. I would say that when he said "request for arbitration" I took that in the literal sense of an WP:RFAR and not an enforcement request. Frankly I was hoping he wouldn't do anything at all and just move on, which was kind of the whole point of an interaction ban, but here we are. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Statement by OID[edit]As the admins here are disinclined to boomerange this obvious violation of a community imposed sanction, I have raised this at ANI. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Statement by Sturmgewehr88[edit]Pitching my two cents after the fact, but this is an obvious case of wikilawyering, which John Carter has a history of doing. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Result concerning Hijiri88[edit]
|
| RudiLefkowitz is topic-banned from US politics-related BLPs. Sandstein 08:49, 2 February 2017 (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 RudiLefkowitz[edit]
(see additional comments by editor filing complaint for additional diffs evincing problematic behavior which occurred prior to the imposition of DS.)
Problematic edits prior to the imposition of DS
In addition to the diffs above, Rudi has engaged in forum shopping and canvassing in order to attempt to force the rest of us to accept his views. The source of the problem seems to be a potent case of selective dyslexia. Rudi's tactic throughout this has been to ignore any criticism of his arguments, and simply to repeat those arguments ad nauseum. It has been pointed out to him numerous times that RSes are highly skeptical of Milo's claimed Jewish ancestry, yet Rudi simply presumes that his one source which treats the claims as facts (in a passing mention, no less) must be accurate and ignores the rest. He's never once responded to anyone pointing out that the preponderance of RSes don't take Milo's claim seriously. Instead, he has taken to hinting at antisemitic motives for those of us opposed to his edit.
Furthermore, at the talk page, his level of engagement with others is highly questionable, and his editing style is highly disruptive. For example, after Rudi posted this comment, I attempted to respond multiple times for approximately 20 minutes, only to get an edit conflict every single time. Compare the difference between his initial edit and the current (as of now) version: even if I'd gotten my response posted, it would have been a response to an edit which, substantially, no longer exists. This level of difficulty in responding to him has been the rule since this drama started. It is not unusual for Rudi to continue making numerous minor and major edits to his comments for up to 45 minutes after initially posting them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Responses
@Sir Joseph: Two things: First, you are completely ignoring the fact that numerous RSes have questioned or expressed skepticism as to his claim of having Jewish ancestry in order to create this false impression of the argument being about whether a BLP subject is a sufficiently reliable source for such claims. That's extremely dishonest. The reason for the current content dispute, which has been explained to both of you before, by more than one editor, is that the RSes question this claim. It's not because it came from the subject. Second, even assuming you were absolutely correct, I'd have to ask you to point me to the part of WP policy which states that it's okay to violate policy if you think you're right. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC) @Sandstein: Excluding my responses to other editors here and my signature, and including the list of diffs at the top, the additional comments are only 438 words long. Diff 1 occurred after DS had been imposed, and constituted the 6th problematic edit since Rudi began pushing this issue. There are 6 edits prior to the imposition of DS on this article at the top of this section. I do not consider the first edit to be problematic per se, but useful in establishing the timeline. There is a clear slow edit war going on, here. Furthermore, my comments point out and provide diffs to evidence serious disruption of the talk page, and a threat to make mass pointy edits. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning RudiLefkowitz[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 RudiLefkowitz[edit]Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]It's very hard for me to comment without violating guidelines so I'll be brief. There is ample evidence that Milo's mother and grandmother is Jewish. In addition, Milo stated, "I am a gay Jew." As for the categories, there are two categories in question, one was British Jews and one is British of Jewish descent. Even if you don't want to say Milo is Jewish, he is clearly of Jewish descent since he is descended by his mother. Furthermore, Milo self-identified as being Jewish when he said, "I am a gay Jew." Wikipedia is not the place to judge someone's level of religiousness. I have no comment on the behavior of Rudi other than I took a peek at the userpage and just saw edits and comments, nothing disruptive, he is of course one against many, it's extremely difficult to be right when faced with just so many wrong editors. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Shrike[edit]The notice was given on 29/01 so any edits before it are irrelevant to this request.Is only about 1 diff.--Shrike (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Statement by OID[edit]This is an ongoing issue due to the dual nature of Jewish religion/ethnicity. Essentially the argument boils down to 'Is Milo an ethinic or religious Jew and should we categorise them as such'. Lets get the religious aspect out of the way: Milo is not a religious Jew as he is a self-professed practicing catholic. Therefore no Jewish-religious categories are appropriate regardless of how anyone else feels about it. Is Milo an ethnic Jew/of Jewish descent? This is the more problematic question, Halakha states he is - assuming his statement about his maternal grandmother is correct - and there is plenty of criticism/doubt about this out here - generally along the lines of 'Milo claims a Jewish relative in order to deflect criticism of anti-semitism'. The local consensus has been (in this situation with this specific biography) not to categorise them as such due to the various issues (we dont write articles deferring to a Jewish Religious Law interpretation - Halakha is not even observed by all modern jews (or historically in some areas), we dont have details on his grandmother who may have been religious but not an ethinic Jew, there is substantial doubt even regarding said claims etc etc) and to include where necessary in the prose of the article. This of course infuriates the Jew-taggers who feel the need to tag every celebrity they can as Jews. Even in the above post by Sir Joseph (someone who if you frequent the BLP noticeboards you can see also has strong views on who is/isnt a Jew) he comments on 'Wikipedia is not the place to judge someone's level of religiousness.' - well we dont need to. Milo is 100% not a religious Jew. 'he is clearly of Jewish descent since he is descended by his mother.' - this is a common view of those who do not accept the difference between ethnicity and religion. But to sum up - Rudi's arguments have been listened to and taken into account at the talkpage and rejected. And this disruption is still going on. Categories and infoboxs on biographies of living people are for clear and unambiguous facts, not ambiguous issues (which of course can be explored in the prose) - even more so when it enters core contentious areas like religion, ethnicity (and sexuality although not in this case) Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Bradv[edit]I was asked to contribute here on my talk page. I have no horse in this race—I showed up after a request for a third opinion was posted, which I declined because there were more than two editors involved. That discussion closed (with a consensus not to identify the subject as Jewish), and then RudiLefkowitz promptly opened a new discussion regarding the same/similar thing. I don't think there is a need for ArbCom enforcement here—this is a simple case of one person with a very strong opinion who edits in a I would like to ask RudiLefkowitz if he would agree to abide by the result of an RFC. If he agrees to that, this discussion here would probably be unnecessary. Bradv 18:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Rudi[edit]
Anew: Rudi's statement[edit]
Statement by Ad Orientem[edit]Coming Soon: I have been on the road all day and just returned home. My inbox is overflowing. Give me a few to get caught up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
-Ad Orientem (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by MrX[edit]RudiLefkowitz's unhealthy obsession with the need to describe Yiannopoulos as Jewish has become very disruptive. He has ignored policy-based argument from multiple editors, cited weak-to-poor sources, misrepresented sources, used original research, repeated arguments ad nauseum, threatened to disrupt other articles, edit warred, and forum shopped. Based on my limited involvement with the article, I believe a topic ban of some sort is in order.- MrX 04:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Result concerning RudiLefkowitz[edit]
|
| No action taken. Sandstein 13:43, 7 February 2017 (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 Kuioooooo[edit]
Even before my alert, he has been reverting other users without gaining consensus. Furthermore, this sentence of his, "He has received multiple loans from Israel’s largest bank, Bank Hapoalim, a publicly held banking corporation organized and operating under Israeli law, and subject to comprehensive supervision by the Government of Israel-owned Bank of Israel." seems to me to be just a weasley way to include that Kushner has a loan from Bank Hapoalim. Every bank in the world is under comprehensive supervision of the government of the country they are in. Bank Hapoalim is not a government bank and merely having a loan outstanding from that bank is not a government connection. I have also given the editor a courtesy notice to revert and discuss but that went unheeded. User is a new editor and perhaps doesn't know the rules, but I have tried to engage and judging from his recent posts seems to be pushing an agenda.
Also, the NYTimes source was not in the edit, it was added recently. In addition, I don't appreciate being called a sockpuppet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kuioooooo&oldid=764067119 Discussion concerning Kuioooooo[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 Kuioooooo[edit]I only revert once in 24 hrs, as allowed by the discretionary sanctions, and only reverted Sir Joseph once ever.--Kuioooooo (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC) That said, Sir Joseph removed well-sourced relevant content that have been in the article for sometime, and after getting reverted, they are supposed to get consensus before attempting to remove the extant version again.--Kuioooooo (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC) The whole section was removed earlier by a new account with 17 edits to date, the first 10 being on their own Sandbox [24] That editor was reverted by Jim1138 [25]. I strongly believe some kind of sockpuppetry is going on here.--Kuioooooo (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Also see Talk:Jared Kushner (Government relations section), user Sir Joseph first pretended that they couldn't find the NYTimes source that's been in the article for sometime, then claiming that stating relevant facts as they are, under relevant section, is not right.--Kuioooooo (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Kuioooooo[edit]
|
| Disallowed RfC comment struck, user blocked for a week for personal attacks. Sandstein 17:58, 9 February 2017 (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 Islington Bloor[edit]
I probably don't think any sanction is warranted against a user(though some of the comments of the user raise the question if the user is really new) but I ask that EC protection should be applied on a Talk:Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy till the end of the RFC as new users can't participate in it per language of the restriction " This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc."
Discussion concerning Islington Bloor[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 Islington Bloor[edit]As I said when I restored the comment it's improper for an involved editor to remove someone else's comment. The closing admin can decide for themselves whether to accord my comment less weight becauee I'm a new editor. It's not for Shrike to, using a technicality as a pretext, ynilaterally remove a comment he coincidentally happens to disagree with.
Statement by Iazyges[edit]I don't think this breaks any DS, but I do think it should get sent to either SPI, or ANI. That they commented in an RFC (or even found one) is suspicious for a new user, considering they commented before even creating their own user page. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]I don't think any action is warranted, at this point. We can just strike the comment at the RFC. If the editor continues to unstrike or reinsert the comment, then further action can be taken. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Statement by Exemplo347[edit]This is the 3rd or 4th time I've seen an attempt by someone to get an Arb. Sanction widened because they're having a dispute with someone else. The standard methods of resolving disputes are more than sufficient to deal with comments in an RfC discussion - Dispute Resolution, AIV, SPI, even AN/I - those processes all work very well. Arb Sanctions aren't some secret weapon that can be deployed to shut users down, bypassing the usual processes that the vast majority of editors have to go through. Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Islington Bloor[edit]
|
| No action—incorrect venue. Please use WP:AN/I. --Laser brain (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2017 (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 Asilah1981[edit]
I require enforcement at breach of agreement after a long Incident discussion (see Incident link below) and continuous litigation and irregular editing by the editor in question, as well as successive incremental blocks and eventually an alternative, constructive sanction to a block, 3 month mentoring, that has eventually been equally breached by the editor, as detailed by the mentor User:Irondome [28] and [29]
The editor has changed during mentoring the overall tone of his language. He has also blanked most of his talk page lately [31] for which he is entitled anyway. However, evidence of irregular editing has not change.
Discussion concerning Asilah1981[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Asilah1981[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Asilah1981[edit]
|
| Appeal declined. Establish a solid track record of editing peacefully in unrelated and topic areas, and then try again in 6–12 months. --Laser brain (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by dailey78[edit]I have made numerous useful contributions to the various articles regarding Ancient Egypt. They have enriched the site and made it more encyclopedic. Three years ago, I received a topic ban for editing a highly contentious and controversial article, which is guaranteed to produce disagreement (hence the controversy). After three years, it seems unreasonable and unfair that this ban is still being enforced. Is it a murder conviction? I would like the ban lifted, because my contributions have and continue to enrich the site. In fact, a lot of what you read in various articles on Ancient Egypt, I contributed. Also, without my edits the specific article about the Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy, quickly loses balances and devolves into an article that is not befitting an encyclopedia. If you have not been involved in a topic ban before, I don't think a reasonable person would assume that the ban would last for 3 years. I was made aware of the violation today. I only read the fine print of the ban after Ed Johnston suggested that I reread it today. Yes, it's meant to be taken seriously. I have edited articles on mini dental implants and other dental implants. My primary interest in Wikipedia is history and specifically Egyptian history, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that most of my edits have been around A.E. Some of the articles on A.E. are not contentious and I've made many edits that were helpful and improved the articles without incident. I am essentially being given this multi-year ban for editing an article that is extremely contentious. Everyone that attempts to edit the article ends up in contentious discussions on the Talk page. It is extremely difficult to make any improvement to such a contentious article without offending someone. We've learned to discuss it on the Talk page and move on with our lives. At the end of the day, these articles are in much better shape after I started editing them than before my contributions (speaking as objectively as possible about my own work).Rod (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Laserbrain suggested that I post the following conversation from their Talk page:
(Admin note: Statement exceeding 500 words removed. Sandstein 21:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)) Statement by EdJohnston[edit]Statement by Doug Weller[edit]daily78 writes ": On Feb. 5, 2017 editor [Temple3] edited the article and removed the word "fringe" because it alters the balance and is not NPOV. Following the lead of [Temple3], I removed the word "fringe" three days later from a different sentence. That's two editors agreeing that "fringe" is inappropriate for the article. However, editor Doug Weller reverted us and reintroduced "fringe". What actually happened is that Temple3, with their first edit since 2012-05-21, removed the word fringe. I did not revert that edit or replace that instance of the word fringe. My edit summary clearly says "Reverted to revision 763853201 by Temple3 (talk): Rv edits by topic banned editor." The first bit of that, "Reverted to revision 763853201 by Temple3 (talk)", is of course not something I wrote but is what the software adds. I'm not going to get into the content discussion, but I'm disturbed by the fact that I obviously didn't revert Temple3 but am accused of doing so. All I did was revert the posts of a banned editor. Doug Weller talk 11:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC) Rod, what I would suggest is that you spend six months editing in other areas that interest you. There must be some, and if you can find areas that do have issues that require careful work within our policies where you can show that you understand and can work within them well, I believe an appeal would be successful. Doug Weller talk 21:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by dailey78[edit]Result of the appeal by dailey78[edit]
|
| Blocked for two months for topic ban violations. Sandstein 17:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Neptune's Trident[edit]
There was a brief discussion about potential topic-ban violations here and here, but it doesn't look like anything happened. Pinging @HJ Mitchell: as requested in that last link. @EdJohnston: I can't find a diff of someone directly telling him about the connections, no. He was alerted to a discussion at User talk:zzuuzz where the connection was discussed, but he did not join that conversation. It's entirely possible that he never read the discussion and that he didn't make the connection on any of the articles. That being said, even assuming a great deal of good faith, it's implausible. The articles mention GamerGate, as do Sad Puppies and Milo Yiannopoulos, both of which he edited on 25 October 2016 (SP, MY). On Vox Day, he filled in citation templates on articles that mention GamerGate (1, 2, 3) which suggests he read them, and he edited a paragraph mentioning GamerGate (1). On Mike Cernovich, he added a block of text from a New Yorker article that mentions the connection, which again suggests he read the article. Woodroar (talk) 05:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Neptune's Trident[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Neptune's Trident[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Statement by Kelly[edit]If this user is under a topic ban regarding Gamergate-associated subjects, then the editing on Vox Day can be considered a violation - the article subject's blog contains the Gamergate hashtag in the header. On 25 October 2016, I also warned this editor about adding the category "Alt-right writers" to the BLPs of science fiction authors associated with Sad Puppies, which is also considered by many to be Gamergate associated. (See the Sad Puppies article for refs). These controversial edits to BLPs were frequently made without any reference to reliable sources. Kelly hi! 01:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Result concerning Neptune's Trident[edit]
|
| No action taken. Sandstein 12:04, 13 February 2017 (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 Guccisamsclub[edit]
None
Discussion concerning Guccisamsclub[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 Guccisamsclub[edit]
So who was making the personal attack here? I'm confused.
Before complaining here, why not actually read the damn article from politiFACT, not CO, as I've already told Steve on the talk page. I've implored Steve read the immediately relevant source several times, to no avail. It seems he still hasn't done so.
That was retracted and crossed out as potentially impolite, though arguably accurate. Why didn't he even mention that?
I actually haven't edited the article much at all (!), because I know that several editors will simply revert any edit they find controversial. Under 1RR and Abcom, this means that it's very hard to mount a counter-challenge. So what is actually meant by my "battleground attitude"? Refusing to agree with Steve on the talk page? Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Statement by SPECIFICO[edit]@Sandstein: There have been many instances in which Guccisamsclub appears to have violated the provision of DS that states, “Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion).” For example, he reinserted text reverted by me, @MrX: and @Volunteer Marek:. On Guccisamsclub's talk page, I asked him not to do this, but he declined here. Guccisamsclub appears to deny that these are violations, so as long as he is here at AE, I thought we could ask to have that question adjudicated. In the DS environment, various editors have said that it feels like edit-warring and it feels like he should not be editing in American Politics articles. I expect that I'll now face the customary barrage of off-topic attacks for appearing here, but I will try to step back and let the Admin process work. Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Guccisamsclub[edit]
|