| PainMan is cautioned not to engage in edit-warring or any other edit that may be framed as disruptive. Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2020 (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 PainMan[edit]
Already subject to discretionary sanctions, see above section.
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Standard discretionary sanctions makes it clear it isn't just limited to articles relating to The Troubles, but covering Irish nationalism in general.
Since this report has been made PainMan has made this edit (changing "Dáil Éireann" to "Dáil Éireann (Irish parliament)" and this edit (changing "Taoiseach" to "Taoiseach (prime minister)". That would appear to me to a continuation of the disruptive behaviour from before, albeit with a slight variation. FDW777 (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning PainMan[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 PainMan[edit](Given the large amount of verbiage here, I hope going past the 500 word limit is acceptable; lot of ground to cover here.) Apparently I stumbled in to a minefield completely unintentionally. I realize now what I should have done. I shouldn't have removed Taoseach (please forgive spelling errors) or Dail Eiriann. I should have added (Prime Minister of Ireland) and (Parliament of Ireland). What I did not realize was this: On the other hand, edits such as translating common Irish terminology could be interpreted as pushing an anti-Irish/pro-British pov. It simply never occurred to me. So I guess that's on me. I had no intention of stirring up or participating in any sectarian nonsense. If you could see my last name, you'd see that it's an ancient Celtic name that can be traced to 5th Century Ireland. My direct paternal ancestors left Dublin in 1845. Genetically I'm Scots-Irish and Catholic Irish. I am literally the biological product of the ancient struggle. That having been said, I had NO agenda whatsoever other than simplifying reading the article for readers not steeped in Irish history. 99.999% of English readers couldn't tell the Irish name of the Prime Minister if ya held a gun to their heads. The term is obscure outside the island itself and the occasional BBC/British media story. So I apparently caused a minor sh#tstorm unintentionally. I object to the Topic Ban because it's utterly unwarranted. I am a VERY long time editor here. I have never vandalized or defaced a page. I've made a strenuous attempts to avoid getting into Revert Wars or other kinds of controversy. I had some negative experiences when I first started on Wikipedia. Encountering the people I call Page Commandos; they sit on the page like Spanish Inquisitors waiting to pounce. That's not what wikipedia is about for me so I rarely involve myself in it. I don't really want to push it any further than that. To conclude it was never my intention to start a crap storm - let alone about a subject as contentious, tendentious and fractious as The Troubles (or the last 300 years of Irish history in general) Most harmless, and indeed useful, e.g. adding wikilinks etc. I've made thousands of edits by now, 95% of them involved no changes in facts, but correcting typos, grammar and rewriting badly written sentences and sections. I gave several articles on Chilean history this treatment; they'd been clearly written by a non-native speaker and it showed. I was even thanked by two people for my efforts. I love wikipedia and I want to make it as good as it can be. I have no interest in ridiculous social media wars. And although not relevant to the scope of the request—but for the record—it's my opinion that PainMan's repeated refusal to comment here is damned rude if nothing else. Rudeness wasn't my intention; it was ignorance of the process. So I apologize for giving the impression of rudeness. Since I've never been involved in the complaint/appeal process (whatever the formal name), I honestly didn't know where I was supposed to reply. One place I did so I found my contribution reverted into deletion. I hope this entry isn't in the wrong place either. To recap, I regret my part in causing this nonsensical affair. And I hope the heartburn doesn't linger. Addendum 1.) Ok, waded through every entry. Some of this seems to fall under, to put politely, arcana. when I changed the phrasing to the The Earle Erne that's because that's his proper title. He's not the Earl of Erne. To refer to him as "Earl Erne" would indicate - in Peerage Protocol - that it is a courtesy title and thus not the substantive title. I changed it and added the link to the 3rd Earl's article. Absent his connection with the land agent in question, the 3rd Earl would most likely be totally obscure. Thus printing his exact identity seemed superfluous. I am frankly baffled why this would be reverted unless it was just a case of being angry with me over the whole silly situation. Finally - I apologize for causing a big ruckus. Was never my intention. I should have engaged with the editor who did the first reversion. Getting my back up as if it were a Face Book argument was dumb on my part. Getting in a revert was was also stupid. I avoided it for years. Don't know why I decided to do over this. None-the-less, I own my part of the dispute and following, ah, trouble. 2.) I feel that I am a positive asset to Wikipedia and I've added much of value to it. This includes three articles I authored (Ferrant Martinez and the Agri Decumates). I accept the nickname WikiGnome. It seems to fit my modus operandi.
4.) I have a lot of trouble with the mobile app despite uninstalling/reinstalling multiple time. I've seen exactly ONE notification from an admin. Also, routinely, despite telling me "EDIT PUBLISHED" it often doesn't not show up despite many reloadings of the page. PainMan (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC) Comment from SN54129[edit]Wrt to the nature of the edits. Most harmless, and indeed useful, e.g. adding wikilinks etc. On the other hand, edits such as translating common Irish terminology could be interpreted as pushing an anti-Irish/pro-British pov, which is very much at the core of DS:THE TROUBLES. As we know, PainMan holds strong views on things Troubles-related (and language is very much at the forefront of the ideological struggle, on both sides). So on the one hand, they are clearly capable of making helpful and useful edits, but on the other hand allow themselves to drift close to the TBan. the former is to be encouraged, the latter of course discouraged; can the TBan be tweaked (not necessarilly expanded a great deal) to encourage the fomer and act as a deterence from the latter?Easier said than done, I know; perhaps just add Irish language to the scope?And although not relevant to the scope of the request—but for the record—it's my opinion that PainMan's repeated refusal to comment here is damned rude if nothing else. ——SN54129 14:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Levivich (PainMan)[edit]Swarm is right. This report was filed on Mar 19 based on four diffs. Diff #1 changed the incorrect plural "were" to the correct singular "was", in an article about a guy who died in 1848, over 100 years before The Troubles began. Diff #2, in the same article, changed the incorrect statement "The grand jury was called on to find against" to "The grand jury was called on to indict" (grand juries "indict", meaning they find there's enough grounds for a trial to proceed; grand juries do not make "findings against" the accused, so this is changing incorrect verbiage to correct verbiage). Diff #3 changed the beginning of a sentence from "1848..." to "The year 1848..." in accordance with MOS:NUMNOTES, in an article about an event in 1848. Diff #4 was piping a redirect in an article about an event that occurred in 1879–1923. These are all constructive edits, outside the TBAN topic, and for this reason, this report should have been closed as "no violation" on the day it was filed. The "Taoiseach (prime minister)" edit (Diff #6) happened on Mar 21, after this report was filed. This edit is not the same as the edits for which PainMan was TBANed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive262#PainMan. That report was based on edits where PM was piping "[[Taoiseach]]" as "[[Taoiseach|prime minister]]", which, for the reader, changes "Taoiseach" to "prime minister". By contrast, the Mar 21 edit adds "(prime minister)" after "Taoiseach". It does not replace "Taoiseach". Also, PM did not edit war over this. The other Mar 21 edit (Diff #5) also adds an English explanation of an Irish term, but does not replace that term, and there was no edit warring. Neither of the Mar 21 edits were on articles within the scope of the TBAN. So, no violation in the Mar 21 edits, either. There is no violation in any diffs presented in this report. Also, there is no rule requiring an editor to participate in an AE report against them, so it wouldn't be kosher to sanction an editor for "ignoring" an AE report, especially if the report is based on diffs of constructive edits outside the TBAN topic. Finally, does PainMan have an IDHT problem? Does he continue to make the same types of edits, in the same topic area, that led to the TBAN? NO! The editor is making different edits, which are constructive, to articles outside the Troubles. Compliance with a TBAN cannot be a violation of the TBAN! I understand the filer's explanation that they thought those edits were within the TBAN topic, but they weren't. "The Troubles" is a 20th-century event, and PM isn't TBANed from everything Irish. As such, this report should be closed now as no violation. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
If this report is closed with a warning ... a warning from what? "Do not add '(prime minister)' after 'Taoiseach'"? "Do not correct grammar on 19th-century Irish articles"? Obviously not. So... what are we warning him about? May I suggest a WP:NOTBURO and WP:COMMONSENSE approach? PM only got TBANed last time because he didn't participate. If he had posted what he just posted on the last report, no way that would have ended in a TBAN. Editors don't normally get TBANed for first-time edit wars. So I suggest that what happens is that this report gets considered to be the continuation of the last report, and it gets closed as follows: (1) lift the TBAN from The Troubles, since that topic area isn't germane to the problems at hand; and (2) close with a warning for the actual mistakes: (a) don't edit war, engage in discussion and dispute resolution instead, and (b) remember to be civil and collegial in edit summaries and communications with colleagues. That's really how the last report should have ended, and this report should not have been brought, so let's just set everything in its right place and move forward. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 04:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]The only question that you have to ask is if the edits are a violation of the TBAN. It's clear that consensus is that the edits aren't. So it seems rather unfair and out of scope to now seek to expand a TBAN for edits that were never in TBAN territory. And that should be the end of this AE action. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Girth Summit[edit]Just a note in response to Sir Joseph's assertion that
Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz[edit]This should be treated as a straightforward case with no action against PainMan being appropriate. The Arbitration Committee's ruling treated The Troubles, a late-20th dispute as a subject distinct from more general ones, even though it authorized discretionary sanctions in all three areas. The sanctions placed against PainMan expressly applied only to The Troubles. It would have been extremely simple for the admin placing the sanctions to quote the broader language found in the ArbCom ruling. Painman is entitled to rely on the unambiguous language of the sanction, to believe that the sanctioning admin meant what they said. Imposing a penalty on him for nondisruptive edits which did not violate the clear terms of the sanction placed on him would be unfair. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by Buffs[edit]Swarm and The Big Bad Wolfowitz summed it up nicely. The idea that "broadly construed" in ArbCom decisions is somehow helpful is absurd. Anyone can claim that MANY articles are "broadly construed". I was once blocked based on an admin saying that anything having to do with America that was contentious in any way was eligible for discretionary sanctions under American Politics. "Broadly construed" so grey that someone should at LEAST receive a warning prior to a block and be allowed to challenge that assessment prior to being blocked. This is so vague that borders need to be more clearly defined. I'm not seeing any disruptive behavior here (disagreement is NOT necessarily disruption) nor a violation of the TBAN. Buffs (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Username[edit]Result concerning PainMan[edit]
|
| Varun2048 blocked for 1 month for TBAN violations and warned that any further problematic editing will likely result in an indefinite block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:16, 13 April 2020 (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 Varun2048[edit]
The following are all topic ban violations:
The above diffs show 13 topic ban violations. Varun2048 had previously been warned for violating their topic ban on their talk page at Special:Permalink/950666674 § Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction on 13 March, with another comment on 17 March. Varun2048 acknowledged the warning, which contained a suggestion to I am also concerned about the prevalence of canvassing in the India topic area, which (in my opinion) is not being adequately addressed by discretionary sanctions. Varun2048's 5 March and 14 March comments on Talk:2020 Delhi riots were both solicited by other editors who selectively pinged users to the discussion:
Discussion concerning Varun2048[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 Varun2048[edit]I do not deny the charges against me. I am new to Wikipedia and I feel I was handed a 1 year ban unfairly. However, I have not appealed the ban as I have not understood properly the right method to appeal the ban. I have decided to stay low honoring the ban and 5 edits after explanation of terms of ban were explained to me were harmless minor edits. Some were arguing in talk page(I was/am not aware the ban extends to voicing opinion on talk page). I understand I have not been proper in following the policy of Wikipedia and I leave it to the wisdom of the administrations to take whatever decision they deem right. Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Varun2048[edit]
|
| User:Wikieditor19920 is reminded to focus on article content, not editor conduct, in content disputes. ~Awilley (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2020 (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 Wikieditor19920[edit]
I haven't been very involved with the Bernie Sanders article: in fact I made just three edits there before April 10. (Now four.) Specifically, I made a minor copy-edit to Bernie Sanders on 27 Feb [9], changed the portrait on 9 March [10], and removed several sentences regarding Sanders' comments on Cuba on 13 March [11]. After the revert I received a thanks notification from one contributor and support at the talk page from another, TFD. I made no more edits over roughly the next month when, on April 10, Wikieditor19920 suddenly came to my talk page to accuse me of "selective POV" because of that ONE revert on March 13: "This strongly resembles POV pushing and attempted whitewashing. I suggest you stop." [12]. Despite three out of five editors so far involved in the discussion at Talk:Bernie Sanders#Cuba disagreeing with him, he has continued to accuse us (mostly myself) of pushing a POV. I asked him to not personalize and focus on the content. He persists. Wikieditor19920 was previously warned by admin Bishonen, who wrote below the DS alert
Maybe that's the appropriate remedy. I've had much more luck working productively with other people, and have never before dealt with someone whose every talk page reply includes an accusation of "selective POV" or "POV pushing" or "whitewashing" against another editor (diffs show over 10 attacks or accusations in just two days, some are minutes apart). That does not facilitate a content-focused discussion, and indicates a battleground mentality. I previously told him that any concerns about others' conduct belong at an administrator noticeboard, and explicitly encouraged him to seek that review if he found it necessary. [14] I don't want to eliminate Wikieditor19920 as some kind of content opponent - he has a right to his views. But I would suggest at least some kind of further warning to Wikieditor19920 to avoid making any more personal accusations of POV pushing or similar (as in his latest talk page edit [15]), with the understanding that he will be blocked or topic banned if he continues his attacks. I am not interested in seeing a WP:BATTLEGROUND or personal attacks over disputed content. Comment in response to Wikieditor19920's statement: Wikieditor19920 paints me as accepting one standard for "critical sources" about Biden and another for Sanders. Nope. I accept reliable sources for any article. The difference I see is the issue of WP:BALASP: in fact I supported excluding another controversy from the Biden article per WP:BALASP, and I already explained that to Wikieditor19920: [16]. Now three other participants at Talk:Bernie Sanders share the same view on Sanders (so 4 out of 6 participants), but even if I were a biased editor with different standards the article talk page would not be the venue to launch barrages like this. Further comment: At Talk:Joe Biden, my comments were made in the context of how many reliable sources are needed to include an allegation. In that context I argued multiple RS are enough as per WP:BLP, coverage in specific sources like The NY Times not necessary. Some argued about the due weight of the sources, but not the due weight of an allegation of assault. No one raised WP:BALASP except in the section concerning Biden's high-school sit in, where I argued for not including a different controversy per WP:BALASP concerns. If I correctly understood the arguments, no one considered Reade's allegation as too minor of an event to include in Joe Biden's biography - some (e.g., TFD) argued it was too minor in terms of reliable source coverage, and I replied accordingly. At Talk:Bernie Sanders the principal objection to inclusion has not been insufficient coverage in WP:RS but WP:BALASP - in that case editors feel the controversy itself was too minor of a controversy to include in the article, despite multiple sources covering it. I happen to consider an allegation of assault more biographically significant than Sanders' remark about Cuba; in the first case, I think an allegation of sexual assault in itself is so significant to someone's biography that its coverage in multiple reliable sources merits inclusion. In the case of a controversial remark on 60 Minutes, I do not think that is biographically significant despite ephemeral coverage. I don't think that's a hypocritical position to hold, and I don't think it indicates "POV pushing" or "whitewashing" as Wikieditor19920 believes. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Response to Buffs: Actually, contrary to your statement, I wasn't very involved on the Bernie Sanders talk page before April 10 either. I had made only a few comments there, one when I made the revert on March 13. Notably, Wikieditor19920 did not joint the discussion there until April 10, when I asked him to use the article talk page. Instead he first came to my user talk page with an aggressive accusation of POV pushing. By the way, Wikieditor19920 recently made a better talk page contribution in response to a comment by Gandydancer. I am starting to appreciate his perspective better now that he's made that substantive comment and I'm rethinking my own, but that would have been much easier to do without the barrage of bad-faith accusations he's launched at me (and a few others) in the last three days.
Discussion concerning Wikieditor19920[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 Wikieditor19920[edit]Zloyvolsheb is a regular at Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders and shows a clear double standard editing controversies at both pages.
Additional diffs
Zloyvolsheb suggests I attacked other editors. That wasn't my intent; I was critical of arguments that I saw as reflecting a POV at that page, and I believe this is borne out by the diffs. Zloyvolsheb claims they are not looking for a warning, but brought an AE report on our first interaction and demanded I not post on his talk page when I raised the above concerns with him. I might attribute Zloyvolsheb's arguments at Sanders to a lack of familiarity with policy, but his strongly argued points at Biden tell me that they know better. (Shortened from original.) Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC) Reply to Objective3000, Black Kite, Guerillero The suggestion that I "attacked" other editors is false and disproven by the diffs; I was clearly critical of arguments giving inconsistent and sometimes inappropriate reasons for removing reliably sourced content. Objective3000's accusations suffer from a similar lack of evidence, but this is an editor with an axe to grind who I've warned for stalking after apparently following me to discussions I have been involved in across WP to disagree with/criticize me (as he's doing here). Guerillero, I'd urge you to reconsider striking your comment. Zloyvolsheb claims that they do not intend to "eliminate an opponent," but they brought an AE on our first interaction, for what everyone here so far has agreed had little basis. Now threatened with BOOMERANG, user suddenly says they "appreciate my perspective," but this, too, strikes me as disingenuous. Look at the disparity in arguments between Biden and Sanders for this user. User lists a host of conditions at Sanders[22] for including a simple controversy over remarks, which user argues meeting would make it "too long" and then therefore unsuited for the article. This was for a two-sentence explanation. At Biden, user sets a far lower standard for the most sensitive BLP content.[23] Zloyvolsheb is reacting, retributively, to the fact that I correctly noted a bias on their end and called out their political arguments as inappropriate. This is a misuse of AE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC) @Objective3000: Do not accuse me of making assertions about behavior, which is any editor's right to do (and which you are doing here), lightly. It's a fact I presented evidence on your talk page and raised a concern about WP:STALK previously. However, I'm not going to debate it with you further here or get baited into a petty back-and-forth with you, since we've been here before. @Buffs: Appreciate the careful consideration of the talk page; I agree that sometimes inappropriate arguments aren't worth responding to. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
@Newslinger: I just want to clarify that Zloyvolsheb and I do not disagree on how to handle the Biden sexual assault info. Our disagreement was at the Bernie Sanders page; I noted their contributions because I believe they illustrate that this user is applying a double standard. I also find their arguments at Sanders to be tendentious. But I will accept your feedback and try to reframe my arguments as you suggest. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC) Request I'd politely request that anyone reviewing this report also consider what I have provided evidence of here: evidence that Zloyvolsheb is indeed engaged in editing to further a POV, as shown by efforts to remove reference to controversies at the BS page with tendentious arguments and fervently advocating for inclusion of controversies at Joe Biden with policy arguments that they do not follow at the former. I will no longer call attention to these at the Bernie Sanders talk page, since I've been encouraged to focus on content not editors. I do believe this is an issue with this user warranting AE review. I will not open a separate report because I've already made my case here. This is not because I agree or disagree with them at either page: Indeed, while I disagree with them at Sanders, I agree with them at Biden. This is because I believe it's obvious that this user chooses to apply wholly different standards at these two pages and makes political, not policy based, arguments.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by Objective3000[edit]Wikieditor19920 has been accusing other editors of POV pushing on multiple pages for some time. They have threatened to report multiple editors to admins -- five or six times for me alone. Their attempts at such have all failed. IMO, a warning might result in a more pleasant atmosphere. O3000 (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Buffs[edit]Request that Wikieditor19920's be directed to shorten his reply to the required 500 words...he's way over. Buffs (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC) WP:Boomerang on the Zloyvolsheb. I'm seeing appropriate warnings here and dialogue here. It's also misleading to say he's only made 4 edits on the Bernie Sanders page and ignores his talk page contributions. From what I see here, he's attempting to use WP:ARBAP as a club to silence dissent. He's well-aware of the implications of the WP:DS and should be censured accordingly. Buffs (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Wikieditor19920[edit]
|
Topic ban from EE for one year, broadly construed. Further misconduct, including but not limited to aspersions, will be met with more severe sanctions — probably an indefinite block. I'll note for the benefit of Janj9088, that WP:SPI is the only venue to make claims of socking, anywhere else it is a personal attack. El_C 20:27, 29 April 2020 (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 Janj9088[edit]
The above restrictions are clearly visible when you try to edit the article in question.
Anyone editing the page is alerted about discretionary sanctions, there is a huge wall of text that opens up stating You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article. You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article. You are required to abide by a civility restriction Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers. English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. Anyone found to be misrepresenting a source, either in the article or on the talk page, will be subject to escalating topic bans, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page. An administrator has applied the restriction above to this page. This is due to an arbitration decision which authorised discretionary sanctions for edits and pages relating to Eastern Europe or the Balkans. If you breach the restriction on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. Please edit carefully. Discretionary sanctions have been used by an administrator to place restrictions on all edits to this page. Discretionary sanctions can also be used against individual editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any Wikipedia policy and editorial norm. Before you make any more edits to pages in this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system and the applicable arbitration decision. Also worrying is the fact that immediately another account was created to reinsert the edits[26]
Discussion concerning Janj9088[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 Janj9088[edit](user is blocked for 31h for sockpuppetry) Statement by Piotrus[edit]Setting aside the fact that the user reported here is in violation of discretionary sanctions visible on article's talk page and in the edit mode but also in violation of the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations I also find it very suspicious that this account Fireslow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created, first to revert at the affected article, then apparently to stalk my edits. I think some quick blocks are in order as I think it is apparent that Fireslow is a sock that is not here to build encyclopedia, but to create mischief. If there is a CU around they could check if there is an obvious connection to the other account, but it is also possible it is a different troll who has been infesting this topic area recently and is just playing around. Hopefully when I wake up tomorrow this will be dealt with with a semi on article and a block on the obvious troll sock accounts... here's hoping. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by Buffs[edit]Why are we even here? Cannot someone apply WP:DS? Likewise, I'm loathed to enact a block of someone while they are unable to respond. Buffs (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by Kyohyi[edit]Procedural comment only: Awareness requirements as specified on WP: AC/DS were not met prior to this filing. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Janj9088[edit]
|
| There is consensus here for an indefinite topic ban from climate change. Also noting that, as this is the user's first sanction, an appeal that recognizes the problem and commits to fixing it, combined with constructive editing elsewhere, should be granted. ~Awilley (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2020 (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 Yae4[edit]
In Yae4's view many articles have been "FUBAR'd by climate change alarmists". Climate change alarmist is a pejorative used to dismiss mainstream views on climate change (and "a particularly infantile smear considering what is at stake" according to that linked article). Holding a fringe POV is theoretically fine, Wikipedia does not require ideological groupthink, but his POV comes across in disruptive article edits and talk space activism promoting idiosyncratic and non-mainstream views in a contentious area at a time of heightened political tension, and that is not fine. I believe that a restriction from at least mainspace editing related to climate change is justified. Explaining reality-based policies such as WP:FRINGE to editors who reject the mainstream view is a source of tension and burnout, and, bluntly, wasted time. Guy (help!) 14:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Yae4[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 Yae4[edit]
JzG/Guy's Climate change alarmist quote source is a 404 (and bad archive link). Details matter. Kerry_Emanuel starts the paragraph: Dividing the entire field of climate research into “believers,” “skeptics,” “deniers,” and so on is a particularly egregious tactic deployed by those who wish to discredit climate research. Science is not about belief, it is about evidence. Projections of climate change by the IPCC are deeply skeptical, and there is no attempt to hide the large uncertainty of climate forecasts. The possible outcomes, as far as we have been able to discern, range from benign to catastrophic.
-- Yae4 (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by PaleoNeonate[edit]I would also like to point at "Note the usual recruiting of huge anti-fans here" at the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Ambler discussion. And to this related NPOVN thread: WP:NPOVN § Non-NPOV at Climate Feedback (and budding edit war, poor sources, and more). At the AfD, voters are disparate, as can be expected, especially that the discussion is actually about the subject's notability. As for "anti-fans", shouldn't Wikipedia simply reflect the scientific and academic consensus? The prevention of undue promotion in relation to climate-change denial is part of normal editor duties and not activism. I didn't have the time to dig for diffs yet, but have noticed slow edit wars on various articles. I might post some examples later. An eventual topic ban seems unevitable. —PaleoNeonate – 23:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
JFG: You do not appear to realize that persistent civil POV pushing in relation to various articles, with the promotion of unreliable sources, is disruptive and wasting the community's precious time. The report is not about a content dispute. —PaleoNeonate – 08:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by Jlevi[edit]The user does not tend to follow core editing policies on climate-related pages, operating in a manner that make it difficult to engage constructively. I will highlight some WP:RS and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution problems that occurred over a long span of time. Note that these diffs occurred on WP:BLP pages. - diff from 21 January 2020 Non-RS sources restated on the talk page without any RS-related arguments after removal from a BLP entry (diff Jan 19). - diff from 23 January 2020 Unwillingness to discuss issues and focus on content. - diff from 23 January 2020 More ref-bombing without consideration for source quality.
- diff from 20 April 2020 Ref-bombing with demonstrated lack of understanding of WP:RS and WP:N guidelines. These sources were largely present in the article when Yae4 moved it into mainspace (article at that time). - diff from 20 April 2020 Unwillingness to 1) discuss further, or 2) to consolidate sources. - diff from 23 April 2020 Collapsing another editor's comments outside the WP:COLLAPSENO talkpage behavioral guideline. Edit: I reverted to Yae4's collapse under the good-faith assumption that they were correctly conducting their behavior, but a review of the relevant guideline makes clear that this wasn't the case. Thus, this provides one example of acting without knowledge or instinct for behavioral guidelines. Jlevi (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC) Please note that all the interactions above come from my personal interactions with the editor, so I am not an outside observer. However, I think I have provided a reasonable analysis of the diffs in questions, as well as of the lack of movement on these issues. On quick inspection, it seems like the user's handling of policy outside of the climate domain appears more accurate. This suggests that this may be a domain-specific problem, though I have not engaged with the user extensively outside of the climate domain and hesitate to speak about quality of edits in technology- and company-related articles. 15:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC) Edit: Added mainspace examples. Jlevi (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC) To be clear, I to a large extent take Springee's points. Yae4 brings a lot of enthusiasm, and that's worth supporting. If it were tempered with some judiciousness in the future, then all the better. I'm somewhat more bearish than Springee on the probability of reform, given that article deletions would probably result in reappraisal of one's actions for most (and Yae4 will soon have a third deletion due to lack of awareness of policy), but a permanent topic ban would probably be excessive. Jlevi (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by Buffs[edit]If this person is such a problem, why have they not been blocked for any length of time? [30]. It seems that this should have been done prior to WP:AE. DS already gives that authority. Shouldn't we try something else first? Buffs (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by PackMecEng[edit]El_C & Bishonen How can we be past warning if they have never been warned or sanctioned? PackMecEng (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC) @El C: Correct it is not required. That is not what I was saying though. Why go straight to a sanction when no warnings, sanctions, or issues have occurred before this point? Generally they get a chance to correct problematic behavior before a restriction. If this is something that has been going on this long I would expect to see something, anything in fact before this. PackMecEng (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Statement by JFG[edit]I don't see much more than disagreement about content here, and the accused editor has replied cogently to accusations. The matter could be settled by a reminder to tread lightly in a DS subject matter, and strictly adhere to RS sourcing. Sanctions such as a TBAN would look punitive rather than preventive at this time. — JFG talk 06:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by Atsme[edit]Appears to be a case of a new editor needing a mentor rather than a t-ban or a block right out of the box. Lighten up - let's not run-off all of our newbie editors. Remove your dentures and gum 'em first, especially those who just need a little guidance. It's a learning process. If your ban hammer trigger finger itches, go fight some vandals...j/s. Atsme Talk 📧 18:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by Springee[edit]Seems like a new editor who probably can contribute once they get the hang of things. A knock upside the head followed by some guidance, not removal from the island, is probably the correct remedy here. I would start with telling Yae4 the fact that you are here and admins are discussing some form of possible sanctions is a good sign that you dune messed up. But that doesn't nessicarily mean you are a lost cause or can't be fixed. Here are some generally true things that many new editors miss. 1. Not everyone who disagrees with you or reverts your edits s a POV pusher. When you are new, much like a teen you know you are right and those who object are cleraly wrong. That is often not the case. Often it's because you aren't following accepted practices that often aren't obvious to new editors. Things like getting consensus before making changes when edits have been rejected, asking for help if you are certain you are right but, dang it, editors just arnen't hearing you. Sometimes it's good to look back at article histories and see how/why people were able to get consensus for changes. Sometimes it's understanding that you just aren't going to succeed if its you vs several editors. Anyway, when new and enthusiastic it's easy to cross invisible lines then end up here. 2. Pay attention to the diffs above. Try to understand why they are being used as evidence against you. At the same time, for anyone who posed a diff, please be willing to explain why it's wrong so Yae4 will have the knowledge needed to avoid similar mistakes in the future. As for the appropriate "knock", perhaps a warning or perhaps a short term tban (say 1 month). As this is the first official anything I would suggest something other than an indef. Give the editor some rope. Hopefully they will use it to build a bridge not a noose. Springee (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC) @Awilley, Bishonen, and RexxS:, could I offer an alternative suggestion. Several times I've suggested what I have called a soft-indef tban. The idea is that the editor is tbanned until they can show they understand the issue. The idea is that as soon as the editor understands what they did wrong and stops doing those things, the tban becomes punative rather than protection. So in a case like this where there is no prior warning history the tban is indef but also understood that the bar to lift it is light. So they can appeal almost right away (I would suggest waiting at least a week) and if they can explain what bad behaviors they will avoid in the future it gets lifted. The worst case scenario is the ban is put back in place. The best case is that we didn't needlessly tban an editor who was going to make a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by OID[edit]To those above saying 'Oh they are a new editor'. Check the editing history, despite only starting in August 2019, they are by no means anything close to what a new editor would be. Quack Quack. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Yae4[edit]
|
| There is consensus here for an indefinite topic ban from post-1932 American politics and related people. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 3 May 2020 (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 Eternal Father[edit]
There are plenty more where those came from.
Eternal Father came to my notice as a result of promtional editing of Mike Cernovich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where he argued (unsuccessfully) to classify Cernovich as a journalist, based on WP:SYN (see my analysis of the propoosed sources at permalink). He has since then received warnings and advice from many experienced Wikipedians including Calton, Doug Weller, Muboshgu and MelanieN. Bluntly, I don't think he's getting it. Case in point: Draft:Hoaxed (2019 Film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was declined on 15 April and 19 April, by different reviewers, but Eternal Father created it by copy-paste into mainspace anyway at Hoaxed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), leading to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoaxed with attendant canvassing (e.g. [32]). It seems clear that Eternal Father is a fan of Mike Cernovich's work, which is a red flag in itself given that Cernovich is pretty much universally described as a right-wing provocateur or troll. He's also a fan of Project Veritas. This likely explains the recurrent problem of failure to understand what constitutes reliable sourcing on Wikipedia, as exemplified in the Hoaxed article, and what constitutes OR/SYN, per the Cernovich article. In order to reduce drama, I think Eternal Father should have a 12 month topic ban from AP2, to give him time to learn Wikipedia's sourcing and content policies in areas less prone to strife. Guy (help!) 09:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
[ diff]
Discussion concerning Eternal Father[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 Wikieditor19920[edit]I definitely had a big problem with this user's addition at the Joe Biden article. It strings together information to suggest guilt in a way that sources do not explicitly do, and some sources have taken active efforts to avoid, namely conflating the Biden inappropriate touching with the sexual assault allegation. Whether this on its own warrants a ban, I don't know. I've seen a lot of concerning behavior at Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden and I doubt all of it will be sanctioned. I don't think that revert on its own warrants a ban rather than a warning. However, if it's part of an overall pattern of POV editing as JzG suggests, a ban might be appropriate. Will leave that for others to decide. @Eternal Father: WP:SYNTH. The content you added is in a reliable source, but presented to imply a conclusion not stated by the source. And please place your replies in the appropriate section: yours. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC) (Edit) I've moved EF's reply to his section, since he chose to reply directly under my statement. This is after I asked him to do so himself here and on his talk page. This user does not follow rules even when asked to do so. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by Eternal Father[edit]Note: more information can be found on the talk pages of those articles Several users have consistently reverted edits, a pattern which may indicate political bias on their part, if not for assumed good faith. None of the edits have been found to be factually untrue and fall under subjective and matters of opinion, like how reliable sources, like Bloomberg and Fox News consider Cernovich to be a journalist, it seems multiple editors "oppose" this because they don't like his work. From my perspective, simply adding basic facts (backed by RS) is considered "promotion" by those that simply don't like Cernovich or other figures. As for BRD, I've seen plenty of B (bold), R (revisions), but not, however, much discussion on the talk pages by those that have make the revisions. Why do the articles on Steve Bannon and Sean Spicer get to include an infobox module of their military record, but not Cernovich or Posobiec (whose article calls him an "internet troll" and has multiple instances of neutrality violations)? That doesn't make much sense to me. The Mike Cernovich article, along with others, does not currently have a neutral point of view. He filed several motions, which are public record and have been substantially reported on. To deny this is to deny fact, which is against the spirit of Wikipedia. 1. The Michael Flynn source may include opinion, but the supplemental court filing is fact, and the statement from his attorney indicated that exculpatory evidence ("Brady Disclosure") was produced. Once those documents are made available to the public, this will be expounded upon further. 2. The same content is in the main Joe Biden article, and should be in the allegation article, as his other instances of confirmed inappropriate behaviour are relevant. 3. A simple analysis of the diff logs will show that JzG was the one who first "editorialized" the Seder section of the Cernovich article, under the deceptive guise of "removing unreliable sources".
Overall, this seems to be a matter of the accuser's narrative, not facts, as those have not been disputed. Eternal Father (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC) References
user:wikieditor19920 See statement below. The content in the Joe Biden Allegation article is also in the main Joe Biden article. Why have you not challenged or removed it from there as well? Eternal Father (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Statement by Buffs[edit]Am I the only one seeing a pattern of issues being brought to WP:AE by JzG that a) are at least partly frivolous in nature b) should simply be handled by Admins via DS (if warranted) and c) seem to be targeting conservatives? The first piece of evidence seems to be that he added a sourced addition to an article. Buffs (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof[edit]Buffs, if you think that an opinion column written by a noted conspiracy theorist is ever a usable source for anything other than the columnist's attributed opinion, you may wish to review WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:DUE. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]Buffs, once you finish reviewing those core policies, you might want to read NorthBySouthBaranof's comment again, since nowhere there does NbSB say anything even close to "I don't like conservative opinions," or even imply it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Rusf10[edit]Another frivolous filing by the biased administrator JZG. I don't see anything more than a content dispute here. If you want to know how out of mainstream JZG's views are, just read his essay User:JzG/Politics. He describes the Democratic Party as "a centre-right party". Sure, I've heard people describe it as center-left or even centrist, but center-right is ridiculous, and it must mean he views Republicans (or anyone that would usually be considered conservative in the United States) as far-right. But he doesn't stop there he goes a step further by accusing the Republican party of voter fraud (isn't that a conspiracy theory???) and it compares to the Conservative Party which is run by "white nationalists" and "people who want to go back to the 1950s, when it was fine to be racist". Someone with extremist views like this should at the very least not have any administrative duties in the area of politics.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC) Result concerning Eternal Father[edit]
|
| Indefed as an admin action by Bishonen --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:29, 4 May 2020 (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 Venue9[edit]
None
This account is only a few days old, but the user has devoted the majority of his 70-odd edits to claiming that the Indian political leader Sonia Gandhi's "original name" is "Antonia Maino" (or something related). He is the third largest contributor to Talk:Sonia Gandhi! The majority of the discussion can be found at Talk:Sonia Gandhi#Birth name controversy and the subsection #Alleged sources. After investigating it for a day, I came to the conclusion that the claim is WP:HOAX generated by the political opponents of Sonia Gandhi to underscore her Italian origin, and then popularised by Wikipedia. The Wikipedia information seems to have been copied by a number of Indian news sources and now even appears on Encyclopedia Britannica. (So it hasn't been an easy issue to decide). The user's contribution was to supply three citations that appeared before 2004, which he later admitted he just copied from the Catalan Wikipedia. When asked for page numbers and quotations, he produced random page numbers and made-up quotations. When challenged on these, he started revising his earlier statements. Meanwhile, having gotten convinced that this was a HOAX, Akhiljaxxn submitted the redirects for Antonia Maino etc. for discussion. The user showed up there and started claiming that I had agreed this was not a hoax. When quizzed by me as well as other users, he continues to persist with this ridiculous claim. Essentially, the charges are source misrepresentation, gaslighting, obsession with FAKE information, and possibly a politically-driven agenda. Casting aspersions, which happened before he received the ARBIPA alert, is no less of a concern. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Notified - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Discussion concerning Venue9[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 Venue9[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Venue9[edit]
|