Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive201: Difference between revisions
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NorthBySouthBaranof}} 18:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC) |
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|NorthBySouthBaranof}} 18:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC) |
||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|DerAnsager}}<p>{{ds/log|DerAnsager}} |
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|DerAnsager}}<p>{{ds/log|DerAnsager}}</p> |
||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
||
| Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Volunteer Marek}} 06:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC) |
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Volunteer Marek}} 06:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC) |
||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Anythingyouwant}}<p>{{ds/log|Anythingyouwant}} |
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Anythingyouwant}}<p>{{ds/log|Anythingyouwant}}</p> |
||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
||
| Line 355: | Line 355: | ||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|EvergreenFir}} 04:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC) |
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|EvergreenFir}} 04:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC) |
||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Wecarlisle}}<p>{{ds/log|Wecarlisle}} |
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Wecarlisle}}<p>{{ds/log|Wecarlisle}}</p> |
||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
||
| Line 412: | Line 412: | ||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|LouisAragon}} 12:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC) |
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|LouisAragon}} 12:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC) |
||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|EtienneDolet}}<p>{{ds/log|EtienneDolet}} |
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|EtienneDolet}}<p>{{ds/log|EtienneDolet}}</p> |
||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
||
| Line 560: | Line 560: | ||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|EtienneDolet}} 04:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC) |
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|EtienneDolet}} 04:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC) |
||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|LouisAragon}}<p>{{ds/log|LouisAragon}} |
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|LouisAragon}}<p>{{ds/log|LouisAragon}}</p> |
||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[WP:AA2]] |
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[WP:AA2]] |
||
Latest revision as of 18:31, 20 March 2023
DerAnsager
[edit]| Being handled as a conventional behavioral issue for now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:08, 24 October 2016 (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 DerAnsager[edit]
Notified of discretionary sanctions here, with several previous non-template discussions of policy and advice to examine sourcing requirements.
User is persistently inserting poorly-sources, highly-negative claims about a living person (Markus Gabriel) into their biography - to wit, assertions that the subject has commited plagiarism. The only source cited for this claim is the personal homepage of the accuser and a letter from Markus Gabriel's university stating that an investigation found the claims to be groundless. Clearly, without a reliable secondary source commenting on the issue, it does not belong in the biography. Myself and other users have attempted to discuss sourcing requirements and policies repeatedly with his user, and are met with nothing but flat denials and blind reverts. The user has very few edits outside the topic area and seems to be on a personal mission to push these claims against policy and good sense. A topic ban seems warranted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning DerAnsager[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 DerAnsager[edit]Statement by Debresser[edit]The user is active on the German Wikipedia. So he understands the principles of community editing. I see absolutely no reason or justification for blocking or banning people for behavior related to a what is basically a content issue on a single article. I am confident that a bit of explanation is all that is needed here. Talk about overkill. Debresser (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning DerAnsager[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by WaunaKeegan11
[edit]| Appeal denied. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:32, 25 October 2016 (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 WaunaKeegan11[edit]"The consensus clearly states that anyone with access to 270 electoral votes or above is allowed in the infobox and a block is unjustified to fix this." Statement by Ks0stm[edit]Original, Revert 1, Revert 2. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by WaunaKeegan11[edit]Result of the appeal by WaunaKeegan11[edit]
|
Anythingyouwant 2
[edit]| Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs) is banned from the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, broadly construed, until the 2016 US presidential election is complete and the losing candidate has conceded, or until December 1, whichever is earlier. Vanamonde (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Anythingyouwant[edit]
That's four reverts on an article under 1RR restriction.
I am filing this per User:Seraphimblade's comment in closing the above AE request [9] Any other issues should be brought up as separate issues rather than being rolled into this one.. While I agree with the closure of the above request, and that THOSE two edits were justified on BLP grounds, THESE FOUR reverts are not. This appears to be a case of Anythingyouwant running wild and interpreting favorable comments on the previous issue as a carte blanche to revert at will. In this particular case, the edits being reverted are NOT a BLP violation as they are strongly sourced AND there is consensus for the wording on talk [10] (note that because Anythingyouwant started to move other people's comments around some of the flow of the conversation got compromised) This comment Anythingyouwant clearly indicates that they are aware that "sexual assault" is a potentially valid and sourced way to describe what happened - forcible groping and kissing is "sexual assault" (and ATW agrees). So EVEN IF Anythingyouwant prefers a different description they cannot invoke BLP to make the change. The fact that they did so indicates they are acting in bad faith and making attempts at WP:GAMEing policy. It seems that Anythingyouwant is trying to use the fact that they were correct in ONE PARTICULAR instance as some kind of twisted mandate to exempt themselves from 1RR... or even 3RR. And seriously, starting another edit war, and making four reverts on a 1RR article WHILE there's an open AE request on you for the very thing is just... uh, bad form. Or it's a brazen flaunting of the rules. Tiptoe, Masem, you're trying to argue about content as a way to derail the discussion. But the problem is the 4 (or is it now 5?) reverts in 24hrs on a 1RR article done under a false pretext. You can discuss the issue on talk page if you want. The question here is simply did these edits violate 1RR. Which of course they did.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Just a quick comment on people who are saying something along the lines of "both sides should be sanctioned or neither". No. Yes, there are two sides, and there is disagreement. But disagreement by itself is not sanctionable. What is sanctionable is making 5 reverts on an article under 1RR. And ONLY ONE person has done that. Anythingyouwant. Come on! Shortly before he went on his edit warring spree Anything was agitating for other editors to be sanctioned for making a SINGLE EDIT! Not five, one. And it, unlike Anything's reverts, had consensus too. If that's not WP:BATTLEGROUND I don't know what is. Same goes for several of his supportive commentators.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Anythingyouwant[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 Anythingyouwant[edit]Will deal with this tomorrow, gotta get sleep.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Might I suggest tweaking the top-level header to distinguish it from the other identical header? I probably won't get to this until late tonight (it's now 1:46 PM where I am). In the mean time, please note that an almost identical complaint was brought up yesterday toward the end of the other Anythingyouwant section, and I wrote some responsive material there,[11] and that section was closed with this statement:
So, when I respond to the present issues tonight, I assume that the originally reported edits presented in this current section are what I need to justify or defend (not separate issues that may be subsequently raised here).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I won’t repeat what I already said about this accusation when it was first made in the previous section here at AE, but I will add to what I already said (as briefly as possible). It is amusing that Marek has the chutzpah to bring this action after trying to get the word "rape" into the lead.[13] As noted above, that attempt was rightly deemed a BLP violation here at AE, though Marek somehow escaped sanctions. Someone else clamoring for sanctions against me here is My very best wishes who likewise sought to violate WP:BLP by jamming "child rape" into the lead of this BLP.[14] He somehow escaped sanctions too. Isn't it amazing? But I still hold out some hope, and therefore request boomerangs against them both.
We recently had a decision at AE confirming that explicit discussion of "rape" and "child rape" is not currently suitable for this lead, per WP:BLP. My contention is that insinuating or suggesting rape fails the same test, for basically the same reasons. Vaguely saying that Trump is accused of "sexual assault" obviously suggests that he may be accused of rape or attempted rape. That’s why I have urged being specific, and have urged saying that he has been accused of forcible kissing and groping, in the lead. I do not rule out use of the term "sexual assault" in the lead, but it has to be used carefully (like I did here), in such a way as to not suggest or insinuate allegations of rape. Anyway, I stopped pressing this point via BLP edits before this AE section was even started, and will continue to let these POV-pushers have their way until a decision is made here at AE, because I do not relish the prospect of a further bogus topic ban. And that's all I have to say for now. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
@Admins, "While sexual assault is usually seen as rape, state statutes generally include any unwanted sexual contact...." Paludi, Michele. Campus Action Against Sexual Assault, p. 56 (ABC-CLIO, 2016). No one here has offered any evidence suggesting that "sexual assault" is not usually seen as rape. By putting "sexual assault" in this lead without elaboration, we would be defying the vast majority of reliable sources regarding the allegations against Trump (which do clarify the form of alleged sexual assault) and suggesting to readers that the allegations involve (or at least may involve) rape. This is a clear and obvious BLP violation, not to mention horrifyingly bad writing. If that's what you want, then please by all means give me a topic ban and proceed as you wish. My conscience is clear. As administrator Lankiveil says, my position is defensible, and I don't think you should be dishing out topic-bans for defensible positions, while letting all the indefensible insertions of the explicit word "rape" into the lead go completely unaddressed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Statement by MrX[edit]Of the four diffs listed by Marek, at least three are unambiguous reverts within a 24 hour period. Doing so under the shelter of the WP:BLP policy is blatant gaming. Regarding this edit, numerous reliable sources have characterized the allegations against Trump's as "sexual assault".[20][21][22][23][24] In this revert (5th; not in the above list) Anythingyouwant claiming that material must be restored to an article because of WP:BLP. WP:NOT3RR#EX7 does not afford any such 1RR exemption. In addition to edit warring and abusing the WP:BLP policy, Anythingyouwant continues to try to WP:GAME the system to gain an advantage in content disputes on Donald Trump-related articles:
Anythingyouwant also seems intent on polishing Donald Trump's reputation, in violation of WP:NPOV, by first formulating material that whitewashes plain facts, and then finding one or two outlier sources to support that formulation.
Apparently, Anythingyouwant has been emboldened by escaping sanctions in the previous two AE cases in which his behavior was scrutinized. At his point, I think a 6 month topic ban should be considered. I don't think a block for edit warring would have a lasting effect, nor would it address the totality of the concerns.- MrX 15:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield[edit]This case follows on almost immediately after a near identical case [27] that was also raised against Anythingyouwant. The initiators of each are attempting to misuse the American Politics 2 discretionary sanctions in order to usurp our common obligation to obey BLP requirements. As in the earlier case, the content deleted by Anythingyouwant violated BLP policies and required removal. He cannot be sanctioned under subject specific sanctions for doing this. MrX claims, above, that Anythingyouwant "escaped sanctions" in that earlier case, weasely insinuating a lucky escape by a guilty party. The reality was the exact opposite: the idea that Anythingyouwant had violated sanctions was conclusively dismissed and everyone agreed that the material he removed was violating BLP requirements. The nastiness and general slimyness seen in the Donald Trump article content is getting out of hand, and I think Volunteer Markek and his ever-present sidekick My very best wishes want that state of affairs to continue. The misrepresentation and distortion of sources is blatant - I have pointed out one example of it here: [28]. Does Fyddlestix, in his definitions of "sexual assault" given below, consider shaking hands with a fully clothed 15 year old counts as "sexual assault"? The article as it is currently worded does. Here is another example: obviously off-topic detail about Mike Tyson's 1992 rape conviction added and then editorialized into being linked to his 2016 endorsement of Trump, editorialising done for no other reason I am sure than to blatantly imply guilt by association - [29]. And this stuff is actually placed in a section of the article dealing with Trump's business interests! At best, the part dealing with Tyson's 2016 endorsement could be on Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 as part of a listing of celebrity endorsements. I also think this here [30] is a bad faith implied threat intended to be seen by all editors working on the article - article talk pages are about content discussions and are not for notices about cases raised against individual editors. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Fyddlestix[edit]Just commenting to note that the suggestion that "sexual assault" is a BLP violation (Anythingyouwant's stated reason for the removals linked above) is wholly inaccurate. The term does not imply an accusation of rape by any stretch of the imagination. It is variously defined by some of the most authoritative sources imaginable as:
In short, this is precisely what Trump has been accused of. There are also a very large number of reliable sources that document those accusations, and which specifically apply the term "sexual assault" to Trump's case. I listed some (one example from each major American news outlet) here, but there are dozens (very likely hundreds) or RS that apply the term to Trump. So please don't give the claim of a BLP exemption any credence here, it's demonstrably false. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Statement by SPECIFICO[edit]Anythingyouwant is evading her TBAN from abortion-related articles through a campaign of disruptive edits to articles on the US election, where the future of the Supreme Court and abortion-related law is at stake. She bludgeons discussion threads with a broad spectrum of artful, passive-aggressive deflections, equivocations, and denials to hog-tie neutral policy-based editing. I doubt she is as incompetent as her words would suggest, so I interpret this behavior to be willful (or at least uncontrollable) disruption. She's been amply warned on her talk page and on the article talk pages, but she knows most editors will not take the time and effort to file complaints such as this one. In my opinion, most editors react not by pursuing Enforcement but simply by walking away from the articles. I can't believe that Arbcom Enforcement Admin's wish to validate the disruptive editing strategy of this consummate Wikilawyer and allow her to hound ever more editors off of these abortion-related election articles. The current revert-warring has nothing in common with the one in the previous complaint, where the use of the word "rape" was not well-supported by RS and was undue and was arguably a BLP violation. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Anythingyouwant recently ignored warnings from several editors. Here is mine, on her talk page: [31] SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC) @Masem: BLP above all, but it's been amply demonstrated that BLP does not justify Anythingyouwant's reverts. Not even plausibly. Public figure, hundreds of RS, accurately represented. SPECIFICO talk 21:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC) You're going on at length about perceived systemic bias on WP and other general concerns, but my point is that this is a complaint about specific behavior of one editor under clearly defined circumstances and the violation is verifiable and proven. Larger issues belong elsewhere. SPECIFICO talk 21:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC) Admins, you have a tough job. But you're here voluntarily and the community is counting on you. Even if it's facetious, the suggestion of rounding up active editors (I'm not one of them) and TBANning the whole carload is appalling. This is a simple case of a Anything, a deft and experienced wikilawyer, gaming the system to violate her Abortion Topic Ban -- a ban she openly renounces as illegitimate at every opportunity. Because she's so careful not to be overtly hostile or uncivil, she will not come up for any really draconian penalties, no matter how much of other editors' time she wastes. If the glove don't fit, you must acquit, but in this case it's more like "if the shoe fits, wear it." She needs to have her Abortion-related TBAN extended to American Politics, where her disruptive editing and obstruction is an obvious evasion of her existing TBAN. T-t-t-that's all folks! SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Masem[edit]I'd echo the statement of Tiptoethrutheminefield above - while it may be true that these are accusations put against him, they have no business to be highlighted to that great a detail in the lede. I've been finding more and more that some editors seem to want to vilify any BLP that is right-leaning to the greatest extent they can by reliable sources (which are broadly left-leaning, making it easy to find material to pin on the BLP) in the lede, where instead WP:BLP advices dispassionate and impartial writing. Accusations of crimes may have a place in the lede, but if they are only accusations, they should not be given undue focus (though can be explained out in the body as allowed for by BLP). --MASEM (t) 16:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
To several more recent comments, while one could argue this is a content situation since we are talking about material that is reliably sourced and that I do agree belong somewhere on WP (certainly in the article(s) about the specific presidential campaigns since the accusations are influencing the election to a degree), fundamentally these accusations (neither proven nor have led to any charges) are rumors and BLP is very specific about giving undue weight to rumormongering on BLP pages (Other policy like NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM also comes to mind). They shouldn't be mentioned in the lede at all at this point, but there's a certain callousness by several editors here that give the impression "oh, but reliable sources reign over BLP", which should not be happening here, otherwise we as Wikipedia are engaging in the external problem. We need to be better than the sources when it comes to impartiality and tone. To that point, the edits tagged above by Anythingyouwant are just as problematic as the edits undoing those, since they are retaining the core problematic BLP, but they are at least de-sensationalizing the newer additions. The fact that multiple editors appeared to have restored it shows that there's a larger problem than one person involved here. The suggestion of short-term topic ban for all involved until after the election makes sense to this point, because most of this appears centered on this developing issue, but I still believe we're not solving the long-term problems with this solution, but solving that is well beyond the remit of ArbCom. --MASEM (t) 23:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by My very best wishes[edit]Here is edit by Anythingyouwant made in violation of 1RR rule on the page. This edit does not fix any BLP violations because (a) the material in question is well-sourced and included on the page itself [32] and other pages [33],[34] and (b) the material remains in the lede even after the edit by Anythingyouwant but became less visible (note that only poorly sourced materials are exempt from 1RR rule [35]). Actually, no one disputed that the information itself was well-sourced, and must be included on the page. The dispute was about including this info in lede. Moreover, Anythingyouwant made revert of material that is currently under discussion in an RfC and was warned not make this edit in advance [36], but still did it. My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Statement by James J. Lambden[edit]I'd like one of the editors accusing AnythingYouWant to point to the discussion showing consensus for the edits she reverted. Steeletrap for example, makes no attempt to gain consensus for this latest edit. The sequence as I see it here is:
Instead of talk page discussion we have edit-warring and enforcement requests. Can we require admin approval for changes, with consensus required for admin approval? I don't think that's unreasonable for the two candidates' BLPs in the weeks leading up to the election. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC) While I understand administrators reluctance to involve themselves, by my quick-and-dirty math about a million people viewed the Donald Trump article with dubious accusations of "child sexual abuse" or "child rape" in the lede. That should warrant serious action in any BLP. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC) @Drmies: The talk page lists 3 active arbitration remedies. You support (I think) sanctioning Anythingyouwant for violating the 2nd, which limits reverts to one every 24 hours, but say nothing about the filer and others who violated the 1st:
Is the 1st less important or does the warning at the top of this page, which tells filers:
not apply? James J. Lambden (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
That same phrasing (sexual assault) was reinstated by MrX (diff), SPECIFICO (diff) and My very best wishes (diff) who all presented evidence against Anythingyouwant. At the time of their edits, as now, the RFC favors exclusion from the lede or a brief mention, with no consensus to include "sexual assault", so each of these reinstatements violated the arbitration remedy that editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion) In sanctioning Anythingyouwant you'd allow the filer and several supporters to unambiguously violate a remedy, while sanctioning Anythingyouwant for violating another in reverting their violation - in a high profile BLP, regarding "sexual assault." I find it hard to believe not a single admin is concerned by that. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Tataral[edit]As pointed out by others, Anythingyouwant is "indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed" (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion). One of the main issues for Donald Trump and his party in this election, as one could expect, is abortion (often in connection with appointments to the supreme court), which was one of the key issues debated, for instance, in the most recent presidential debate, in which Trump said "I am pro life and I will be appointing pro life judges" and even more polemically that under current abortion law in the US "You can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month, on the final day".[37] The fact that abortion is one of the main issues for the Republican Party in presidential elections is very well known, and Trump has made it clear for a long time, and well before the edits in question, that he is an anti-abortion political candidate who uses strong anti-abortion language and who will appoint "pro life judges". It seems quite clear that the Trump article is within the scope of a topic ban covering "abortion-related pages, broadly construed." --Tataral (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Dervorguilla[edit]"sexual assault. 1. Sexual intercourse with another person who does not consent. 2. Offensive sexual contact with another person, exclusive of rape." (Black's Law Dictionary, 10th ed.) In some states, sexual assault is understood to mean "forcible fondling" and the like. In other states, it's understood to mean "rape". An editor living in a conservative state may legitimately see a BLP violation where one living in a progressive state does not. (Note: The AP says that any statement "capable of conveying a defamatory meaning" is defamatory.) In a Wikipedia article, you can fairly and ethically say that a suspect is accused of "sexual assault" if you make clear whether the allegator accused him of (1) rape or (2) forcible fondling. Which was not the case here. It accordingly appears to me that Anythingyouwant did no wrong. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC) I've read the statements by The Blade of the Northern Lights and Lankiveil, who are "almost of the view that the top 10 editors of the article ... in the past month should be banned until after the election is out of its misery" and "would not object at all to a topic ban for a number of editors on both 'sides' of this dispute until at least November 10". I'm Editor No. 8, and I support any such bilateral ban. I'd like to see how the article evolves if we let the less-invested editors take over for a few weeks. I think you could feasibly implement an informal ban by asking all top-ten editors to voluntarily withdraw from editing the article for the duration. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC) 07:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by JFG[edit]Throughout the election campaign, it has proven very hard to conduct a level-headed discussion towards building consensus. Discretionary sanctions are effective against simple trolls and relatively inexperienced editors, however experienced editors have both demonstrated uncanny capacity to skirt the rules or stonewall the process. Irrespective of political inclinations, AGF and BLP should prevail over attempts to smear a candidate or exonerate the other. This case looks like a sanctions war between two experienced editors who seem to be both exasperated by the "other side". Either we give them both a slap on the wrist in the form of a week block or we TBAN them from political topics for a few months to cut the drama. I would not condone any unilateral sanctions against one side who happened to have a slightly different reading of BLP defense than the other side. We are facing a good-faith attempt at maintaining balance, not a sneaky attempt to game the DS. Several other editors have switched the lead one way or the other, this fact alone shows there is no consensus about keeping sexual assault accusations in the lead; my personal opinion is they should be left out until the RfC concludes, but I'd rather stay uninvolved on contents here. The issue of imbalance between the way Trump and Clinton's bios are treated by the wikipedian community and journalistic sources is out of scope of this particular AE request but certainly needs to be kept in mind as background context in evaluating appropriate sanctions. — JFG talk 16:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Irony: A couple months ago, when discussing whether to mention Trump's campaign lies in his bio, I warned that the lead would soon read "Trump is a notorious racist bigot child molester who is very likely to start World War III over a tweet." We're getting there, BLP be damned… Sad! — JFG talk 23:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Mr Ernie[edit]There are many editors in that topic area intent on using any and all sources and tidbits of information that portray Trump in a negative light. There are also many editors who are keen to oppose this approach. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Dr. Fleischman[edit]I have no opinions to share about Anythingyouwant, but I would like to say that I trust that The Blade of the Northern Lights and Lankiveil's comments on the subject here and here were made in partial jest, and that if sanctions were to go beyond Anythingyouwant then evidence would be presented and those accused would get a chance to respond. I certainly agree that there's been a lot of POV pushing at Donald Trump recently, but I certainly wouldn't want to find myself the subject of arbitrary sanctions simply for contributing to a very controversial article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by The Four Deuces[edit]I note Anythingyouwant changed "sexual assault" to "forcibly kissing and groping." The BLP issue seems to have some validity. A reader could be left with the impression that these were accusations of rape or similar felonies. I note that many news sources to refer to the allegations as "sexual assault," but they also clarify what the specific claims are. The version of the lead with "sexual assault" does not do that. While Anythingyouwant has explained their reasons for changing the wording, I would ask the administrators examining this complaint to read the edit summaries and arguments against the change. Basically they are that by definition, it constitutes sexual assault, reliable sources use the term and there is consensus to keep it. As I mentioned above, sources that use the term clarify the specific claims. But none of them explain how it improves the article. TFD (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by (Markbassett)[edit]???? What is listed seems clearly not 4 reverts (maybe too late but here's my $0.02) The first two cited here and here have the same text 'Late in Trump's campaign', so show one revert to put his prior edit back in place. (The note on both mention reverting so maybe two reverts. The next two there and there do not have the same text, so are not reverts of that prior item. They are also not the same between themselves -- it looks like Any changed "accusing him of varying degrees of assault" to "groping or forcible kissing by him" under note assault would mean rape; then when someone reinstated prior language a few (?) revs later he puts in a note "reverting to Dr. Fleischman' which edits an earlier part of the same line -- not to his third edit, it's undoing whoever reverted multiple intervening edits. Not a revert to his own language apparently, for whatever mitigation that may be. Again here what's shown is a mention of revert. I didn't go thru the history to see if I could confirm that they are actually reverts or not, but if that makes 3 it seems a bit mitigated that he was being self-reporting. It's a bit of sidenote - but there's a lot of thrash over 'bragging' vs 'reported as bragging' vs 'talked' and whether it's about 'sexual misconduct' vs 'capability for' vs 'sexual assault' -- plus whether 'sexual assault' should be viewed as saying the felony 'rape'. Markbassett (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris[edit]Given the unprecedented goings-on in the current U.S. presidential election it may be wise for any sanctions to continue until the outcome of the election is no longer a matter of significant dispute, or similar wording. The possibility of a drawn-out, acrimonious state-by-state legal challenge to the validity of the election is presently being discussed in high-end reliable sources.[38] These are strange times. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by The Wordsmith[edit]I am Recused from 2016 election-related articles, as usual. However as an editor, I would tend to largely agree with Dennis Brown here. Sexual assault and rape are not the same thing, however in many areas sexual assault is a euphemism for rape. The issue is not one of definition, but connotation. And having watched the discussions on that article for some time, good faith is failing and I have little doubt that the connotation wasn't absolutely intentional. It may not be a BLP vio by the literal text, but it definitely is by implication. I believe an admonishment is appropriate here, and after the election I predict that this topic area will be much quieter without the need for bans. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by SashiRolls[edit]
Statement by Awilley[edit]This is a tough case for me. I think that Anythingyouwant's reverts were good in that they were on the right side of BLP, and were in line with the relevant discussion on the talk page. But I'm not convinced it was the kind of clear-cut BLP violation that warrants an exemption to 1RR. I think the Trump article needs experienced editors to counter the folks who want, say, an entire paragraph in the Lead devoted to sexual assault allegations. Anythingyouwant has certainly been that, but in the process has been engaging in long term borderline behavior, knowing that it would eventually lead to a topic ban. (I can provide diffs if requested.) In short, I think a topic ban is overdue, but it bugs me that this particular issue is the last straw. ~Awilley (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Anythingyouwant[edit]
|
Wecarlisle
[edit]| Premature for AE. Handled as a conventional administrative issue, short block issued by Bishonen. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:01, 28 October 2016 (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 Wecarlisle[edit]
Repeated violation of 1RR by adding info that's being discussed on an RFC with serious BLP concerns.
Discussion concerning Wecarlisle[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 Wecarlisle[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Statement by Mandruss[edit]I posted this on their user talk page 47 minutes before item 2 above. Seems very straightforward. WP:CIR, especially in this situation. If this wasn't a case for a quick DS block, I don't know what would be. So I don't why we're here instead of WP:ANI. Still learning. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC) Result concerning Wecarlisle[edit]
|
EtienneDolet
[edit]| Not actionable. Recycling valuable edits from a sockpuppet isn't a sanctionable offense, and that seems to be a large portion of the claims here. While we often revert socks, it isn't required. Removing article content in good faith is part of editing. The wikihounding claims are not proven by virtue of you both editing the same content. Lastly, admin are asked to please stay on topic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:43, 29 October 2016 (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 EtienneDolet[edit]
This'll suffice for a start in this section; Reinstating material by a CU blocked sockmaster + his sockpuppets on a definite structural basis
Wikihouding Blatantly removing sources + quotes + sourced content
Apparantly hasn't (?) received one in the past 12 months, but he posted one himself on someone else's talk page just some days ago, so I believe that he's still aware of them.
It is very easy to make good edits on low-profile articles, as they say. It is also very easy to make bad ones, to POV-push deliberately, to knowingly follow an "unjust" agenda (e.g. protecting socks, removing sources by illegitimate means). I think the Steverci-EtienneDolet alliance™, as illustrated above, speaks on itself. Imagine you combine such a pattern with "nice words", a pretty polite overal behaviour as well, and write in proper English; you can actually get quite far and remain unnoticed. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning EtienneDolet[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 EtienneDolet[edit]Steverci was a disruptive user and his/her socks have continued that path. I would never advocate replicating that user's behavior on this project. However, I believe some of the edits that the socks have made actually improved these articles. A lot of these diffs are really old, so I will comment upon some of the recent stuff. LouisAragon's recent diffs involves him restoring text that uses the word "terrorist group" to describe ASALA. Now, I do believe that LouisAragaon made this edit in good faith when dealing with a sock, but the sock was right in removing that word (per WP:TERRORIST). That is why I reverted Louis. There's many other similar examples including this where the Armenian Genocide Wikilink was replaced with Armenian deportation. Or the restoring of WP:SCAREQUOTES around the word "Genocide" in this edit. I even pointed this out in my edit-summary here and mentioned that I do not question LouisAragon's good faith in reverting such a disruptive sock. So there's times that these articles show up on my watchlist and I do revert to more neutral and improved versions, whether or not they are disruptive socks. But this is far from an "alliance". As for the other edits, they're really old and involved removing copyright material. That issue has long been handled at the talk page of those corresponding articles. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield[edit]I think it is unfortunate that these two editors, who I have found contribute a lot of valuable content to articles, edit neutrally, and who actually know about the subjects they edit, have come into conflict in this way - I urge them to think whether there are really differences substantial enough for these two cases to be here. I wonder if the basis of the conflict is that they each actually know too much about the subjects they are editing and are suspecting the other of the sort of pov motives that they know is widespread in those subject areas. Any editor can take ownership of a blocked editor's deleted posts by reinstating them. It is not a sanctionable act. I do not support the removal of posts made by socks just because they were made by socks. I think the actual value of the material needs to be examined first. Looking back, I find many of Steverci's edits, and those of his presumed socks Oatitonimly, etc., to be reasonable - so it is not unexpected that another editor would reinstate them if the only reason they were removed was for SP reasons. LouisAragon definitely has been deleting content for SP reasons alone, resulting in good content being deleted and seriously bad content being restored, such as here [85]. There is no inverted commas Armenian Genocide controversy, and such terminology is an inadmissible euphemism for denial of the Armenian Genocide. I fully support EtienneDolet's edit there and I would have done exactly the same. This edit removed an edit by SP Hyrudagon [86] but the removal added a load of nonsense. Pharasmanes I was not a king of Georgia, there is no such thing as "Georgian paganism", Iberia is not Georgia, and the writings of Tacitius are not equivalent to those of modern-era historians when deciding on events. I fully support EtienneDolet's edit there [87] and I would have done exactly the same. I am also no fan of a flippant claiming of wikihounding; it distorts the actual meaning of Wikihounding. Both these editors edit in the same subject areas so they can be expected to come into contact. Despite the views of Drmies (who has encouraged and even prompted such distortions), there is nothing wrong in looking at editing histories to see where active editing is going on, and then going there. Doing it is not wikihounding. Every now and again I look at the editing histories of both LouisAragon and EtienneDolet - which is why I know about this case. Editing histories are public - anyone who doesn't like that shouldn't edit. I don't think anything EtienneDolet has done comes anywhere even close to the definitions or characteristics of Wikihounding. In other words, two out of the three diff sections set down by LouisAragon in his complaint are listing edits that actually did not break any policies. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Athenean[edit]I agree with Tiptoe's assessment of the situation. I don't see anything objectionable in the diffs. A certain amount of contact is to be expected between editors whose interests overlap, but EtienneDolet is careful not to edit-war. Moreover the diffs are stale and the issues raised have been dealt in the past. On the other hand, I find an admin taunting someone they have blocked in the past about their block extremely unbecoming. Made worse that it is done at a WP:AE case. Athenean (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Result concerning EtienneDolet[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Md iet
[edit]| Topic ban modified by EdJohnston. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2016 (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 Md iet[edit]Due to above ban I indirectly helped others on the subject and got blocked indefinitely. I realized my fault later and pardoned(Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive278#Standard_offer_unblock_request_from_Md_iet, User talk:Md iet#Unblocked) as I understood the harm caused to Wikipedia unknowingly and pledged to rectify myself. Now request further to lift topic ban related with Dawoodi Bohra considering my attitude and actions shown after this unblock. I think by now I understand WP:Neutral point of view, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:Original research better.
Statement by EdJohnston[edit]I would support relaxing the ban to allow User:Md iet to participate on *talk pages* regarding the Dawoodi Bohra, but not regarding articles. If you check Talk:India/Archive 39#Alternate name Bharat you'll see him advocating changing our India article to refer to the country, in the opening sentence, as 'India that is Bharat' rather than 'India'. His knowledge of English seems too limited for us to expect that he can create well-written prose especially in disputed articles like those that concern the Dawoodi Bohra. His statements in that thread also suggest a weak grasp of consensus, since the name of India has been extensively discussed in the talk archives. The topic on which Md iet has been (in the past) unable to edit neutrally is the 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra). Md iet was editing to declare that one of the claimants had been victorious in the dispute, prior to mainstream media having agreed on that. EdJohnston (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Adamfinmo[edit]It is worth noting that Md iet, has edited in on the topic of Dawoodi Bohra at least twice recently, that I could see. diff, diff.--Adam in MO Talk 02:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC) I'm not an administrator, nor am I involved in any way with this editor or the topic space. I'm concerned that this editor has repeatedly edited in direct violation of their topic ban, multiple times, and very recently. The were explicitly instructed: "You will not edit any articles which relate to Dawoodi Bohra, even distantly." They acknowledged that they understood this and still made repeated edits to the Islam in India article. --Adam in MO Talk 21:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Md iet[edit]Result of the appeal by Md iet[edit]
|
LouisAragon
[edit]| Premature given lack of substantive effots at resolving the content dispute at its core. Guy (Help!) 00:53, 31 October 2016 (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 LouisAragon[edit]
LouisAragon has been pushing a Persian nationalist POV for quite some time now. When editing Armenian articles, LouisAragon often removes the Armenian foreign language alternate name and replaces it with Persian. When he simply can't do that, he places Armenian as the last language mentioned. When it comes to Iran's neighborhood, it is Iran that comes first, even if there's not much relevance to Iranian culture today. Take for example the edits at Urartu. LouisAragon removes the Armenian name, replaces it with Persian, even though there's absolutely no indication in the article about Urartu's significance to modern day Iranian culture and identity. Yet, on the other hand, there's entire sections devoted to Urartu's notable role in the development of Armenian culture, language, kingdoms, and its identity at large. Yet, it's Armenian that gets removed. This is a repeated pattern in almost every Armenian article he touches. I must also add that it's not limited to Armenia. Azerbaijani and Kurdish (as far as I can see) articles suffer a similar fate. Stuff like this is deeply concerning (i.e. removing the Kurdish alternate name of a province named Kurdistan). I mean, in other words, if we are to leave LouisAragon to his own devices, I'm afraid articles pertaining to countries that neighbor Iran or have a shared history with Iranians would be forced to conform to the will of this user's apparent pro-Iranian POV. I must add that this pattern is an old one. His edits on AA2 articles prior to his warning show a clear resemblance to his edits above, such as the removal of any mention of Armenians as European ([90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97]) and attempting to turn Armenian kings into Iranian ([98][99][100][101][102][103]), the latter being reminiscent of his recent edits on Armenian king articles. LouisAragon had also made several tongue in cheek personal insults such as Incompetent pov pushers, fanboy, POV pusher, incompetent people, and ignorant. It's an all too familiar pattern that shouldn't be ignored anymore. I think strictures are necessary.
Discussion concerning LouisAragon[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 LouisAragon[edit]1) "removes Armenian language name claiming it wasn't part of ancient Armenia, even though the article says it was historically inhabited by Armenians" 2) "removes Armenian language and background from dynasty that ruled Armenia, along with source for it" 3) "removes relevant Armenian category for no given reason" 4) "removes links to Armenians article with no talk or consensus"
5) "Stuff like this is deeply concerning (i.e. removing the Kurdish alternate name of a province named Kurdistan)." 6) "Take for example the edits at Urartu. LouisAragon removes the Armenian name, replaces it with Persian." 7) "places the Persian name first. Pretty nasty edit-summary too." 8) "removes Armenian name and replaces it with Persian, even though it's located in Armenia." 9) " removes all those named Yervand (Armenian version of Orontes) at the Yervand article." 10) "removes Armenian language name and any mention of Armenia from lead" 11) "removes an academic source saying dynasty origins are unknown and could be Armenian and/or Iranian, then nitpicks a source that says only Iranian, then deleting the rest" 16 July 2016 (before I edited that part); "Little is known about the origins of the Orontid dynasty.[5] Some historians believe that the Orontid kings were of Urartian origin.[6][failed verification] Other historians, however, believe the dynasty may have been of Iranian origin.[7]" 18 October 2016 (what EtienneDolet changed it to, and removed numerous of its sources, and added numerous new/other sources to it); "Little is known about the origins of the Orontid dynasty.[4][5][6] Some historians believe that the Orontid kings were of Armenian or Urartian origin.[4][7][6] In addition, historians believe the dynasty may have had Iranian origin through a possible relation to the Achaemenids, either through marriage or blood.[4][8]" 12) "removes Armenian language and Armenian name" 13) "edit-warring over moving the Armenian name to the end. Edit-wars to maintain his edit and doesn't go to the TP" 14) "Indefinitely blocked twice previously, despite getting unblocked per WP:ROPE the first time" 15) [120] 15) [121] 16) [122] 17) [123] 18) [124] 19) "and attempting to turn Armenian kings into Iranian"
Regarding these diffs (Incompetent pov pushers, fanboy, POV pusher, incompetent people, and ignorant), they were perhaps a tad over the top as a referral, I will admit, and it was definetely not correct of me. However, the first four were directed towards a CheckUser blocked serial sock abuser, who is severely disrupting this project for a long period of time,[127][128] and, not meant to justify my own acts, but its not as if I'm the only editor who has ever made such referrals to sockpuppets/sockmasters. By far in fact. I can link several diffs of admins as well who have made such kind of referrals. The last referral pertained to another editor who I linked some time ago, and who even though I made a section on his own talk page to settle the dispute, as well as on the talk page of the template in question, ignored both, yet continued to revert/edit-war.
Statement by Kouhi[edit]As an uninvolved editor, I believe LouiseAragon is fully right and those spellings were unrelated to the articles and they should be removed again. Unfortunately, many Armenian, Azerbaijani and Kurdish nationalists add unrelated spellings to the articles and this is only for propaganda/political reasons. These spellings are useless and unimportant from an encyclopedic/historical point of view and are pretty much useless for readers. For example, in the Urartu article, Modern Armenian spelling is fully irrelevant and useless, because first, they didn't use Modern Armenian alphabet to write their names, and second, the name is not supported by any primary source, most likely Armenians themselves borrowed that name from English, thus, Armenian spelling is insignificant from a historical POV, the same way Japanese spelling is insignificant for that article. But Old Persian spelling is relevant and could be mentioned in the article, because Old Persian name is mentioned in Behistun inscription and it is very important and significant from a historical/encyclopedic point of view and many scholars/readers need to know about the Old Persian spelling. Armenian, Azerbaijani and Kurdish nationalists try their bests to add these unrelated spellings to those articles because they want to connect themselves with those civilizations/kingdoms. Those users are using Wikipedia just for nationalist propaganda and everybody should fight with those users. For example, in the Seljuk Empire article, there's a long history of adding unrelated Turkish spelling, while Seljuks 1) didn't speak Modern Turkish language 2) didn't write their names with Latin alphabet 3) Modern Turkish spelling is not mentioned in any primary source and it is completely a made-up spelling. Same goes to Modern Persian spelling with Perso-Arabic alphabet and Sasanian Empire and Parthian Empire articles, those empires didn't use Perso-Arabic alphabet and Modern Persian spelling is irrelevant to those articles. But Greek spelling is relevant to Parthian Empire for example, because it was their official language. LouiseAragon is a very helpful in fighting with those nationalist/disruptive users who try to misuse Wikipedia for their propaganda. -- Kouhi (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield[edit]I want to say exactly the same here as for the EtienneDolet case. I think it is unfortunate that these two editors, who I have found contribute a lot of valuable content to articles, edit neutrally, and who actually know about the subjects they edit, have come into conflict in this way - I urge them to think whether there are really differences substantial enough for these two cases to be here. I don't see justification for a claim that "LouisAragon has been pushing a Persian nationalist POV for quite some time now". In fact I would find it hard to believe accusations of sustained deliberate pov editing aims against either editor, and am disturbed that either editor would seriously want the other sanctioned. BTW, here is an example of LouisAragon doing the exact opposite of what a "Persian nationalist POV" would perhaps want [[131]], deleting material that argues to mention populations outside of Persia. I wish the issue of alternative names was clearer in Wikipedia article policies, it's going to always be a conflict-initiating issue until it is made clearer. I think both editors have become a bit careless with their editing and their reverting and their lack of use of talk on articles that they both know attract pov edit warring - they can get away with doing this when it just concerns pov editors, but not when it involves the two of them because each would naturally expect more consideration and respect. For example, EtienneDolet brings up the issue of LouisAragon's edit here [132], LouisAragon, in his point 9, says he did not contest its revert and essentially says he did the original edit without properly reading the content. It shows carelessness, and the result of that carelessness was edit warring by pov IP editors who continued to repeat [133], [134], [135] the edit made by LouisAragon. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Cplakidas[edit]I second Tiptoethrutheminefield's comments and sentiment. I have worked with both editors involved, and at no point did I get the impression I was dealing with hardened POV-warriors. LouisAragon in particular, with whom I have interacted the most, is interested in Iranian history, but bases his edits on sources and takes care to follow WP:VERIFY and WP:OR. I am inclined to believe that this is simply a case where bad motives have been attributed to him simply because these topic areas are indeed bedeviled by users and IPs who act out of bad faith. I cannot fault LouisAragon's reasoning, as he explained it, on the removal of Armenian names in the cases above; indeed this is often used as a sort of "tagging" of articles and "claiming" them for a specific modern nation, and I too have been forced to remove such cases, e.g. in Basil I. From the evidence above, I can fault LouisAragon for the edit war the Erivan Khanate, where he did not follow WP:BRD, but EtienneDolet did not do so either, and I suspect most editors are "guilty" of such behaviour now and then. Also, I don't see any evidence of attempts at discussing these edits beforehand, either at an article talk page or at the user's own talk page, before going to the nuclear option of WP:AE. Summing up, both sides to this need to calm down and start talking to each other, rather than throwing AE block requests at one another. Constantine ✍ 07:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by Kansas Bear[edit]
Yet LouisAragon has on numerous occasions posted on my talk page for my opinion on sources, reliability, wording, etc. Not exactly the actions of a "Persian nationalist". As for the "several tongue in cheek personal insults", lets look at the facts:
I am curious. What is this really about? Restoring Steverci's(including socks) edits? Getting revenge for LA's comments about Steverci? It would appear to be more about Steverci's edits, LouisAragon's opinion of Steverci, and the continuing the edit warring POV Steverci and his sockpuppets started. Just an FYI, on the usage of non-historians(Todd B. Krause, John A.C. Greppin, and Jonathan Slocum are linguists not historians) to push a POV, isn't this exactly what EtienneDolet is accusing LouisAragon of doing?[139] Sorry, but why should 3 linguists be given more weight than N. Garosian(Phd. Medieval history) and Richard G. Hovannisian(Phd History, professor emeritus at the University of California), and then call it "Restoring neutral version. Many historians emphasize that the origins of the Orontid dynasty is unclear."? Such editing is quite disingenuous. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning LouisAragon[edit]
|