Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive201: Difference between revisions
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement) (bot |
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement) (bot |
||
Line 403: | Line 403: | ||
*'''Blocked without reference to discretionary sanctions.''' I agree with Mandruss. Also, to post a discretionary sanctions alert on the user and then take them to this board a mere 15 minutes later is not ideal, [[User:EvergreenFir|EvergreenFir]]. Therefore, I have given Wecarlisle an ordinary block, which does not invoke discretionary sanctions, for 72 hours for disruptive editing and edit warring. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 10:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC). |
*'''Blocked without reference to discretionary sanctions.''' I agree with Mandruss. Also, to post a discretionary sanctions alert on the user and then take them to this board a mere 15 minutes later is not ideal, [[User:EvergreenFir|EvergreenFir]]. Therefore, I have given Wecarlisle an ordinary block, which does not invoke discretionary sanctions, for 72 hours for disruptive editing and edit warring. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 10:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC). |
||
* |
* |
||
{{hab}} |
|||
==EtienneDolet== |
|||
{{hat|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. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 13:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)}} |
|||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
|||
===Request concerning EtienneDolet=== |
|||
; 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}} |
|||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[WP:ARBAA2]], [[WP:NOTHERE]], [[WP:HOUNDING]], [[WP:GAME]] : |
|||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
|||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> |
|||
This'll suffice for a start in this section; |
|||
<u>Reinstating material by a CU blocked sockmaster + his sockpuppets on a ''definite'' structural basis</u> |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Zakarids-Mkhargrzeli&action=history] ([[User:Hyrudagon|Hyrudagon]] is Steverci's CU blocked sockpuppet here) |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pharasmanes_I_of_Iberia&action=history] (idem) |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pharnavazid_dynasty&action=history] (idem) |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bagrationi_dynasty&action=history] (idem) |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jean_Schmidt&action=history] ([[User:Lasort101|Lasort101]] is Steverci's CU blocked sockpuppet here) |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ay%C5%9Fe_Kulin&action=history] (idem) |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Guba_Genocide_Memorial_Complex&action=history] (idem) |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bruce_Fein&action=history] (idem) |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Erdin%C3%A7_Sa%C3%A7an&action=history] (idem) |
|||
<u>Wikihouding</u> |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Orontes_I&diff=prev&oldid=744533322] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Yervand&diff=prev&oldid=744534423] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Artasyrus&diff=prev&oldid=744534950] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Orontid_Dynasty&action=history] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bruce_Fein&diff=744893963&oldid=743711083] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ay%C5%9Fe_Kulin&action=history] |
|||
<u>Blatantly removing sources + quotes + sourced content</u> |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Orontid_Dynasty&diff=744893719&oldid=741728630] (sources removed; Babaie, Grigor (2015), Allsen, Thomas T. (2011), Sartre, Maurice (2015), Garsoian (2005) |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Zakarids-Mkhargrzeli&diff=729723974&oldid=726364025] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Zakarids-Mkhargrzeli&diff=729729615&oldid=729729383] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Iranian_Armenians&diff=723374294&oldid=723237458] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Iranian_Armenians&diff=723383473&oldid=723381392] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Armenian_language&diff=702052502&oldid=702036334] |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
|||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> |
|||
#As far as I can see, no previous sanctions, but numerous warnings were given by numerous editors for his editorial pattern throughout the time. |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]): |
|||
Apparantly hasn't (?) received one in the past 12 months, but he posted one himself on someone else's talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Resnjari&diff=prev&oldid=744896621 just some days ago], so I ''believe'' that he's still aware of them. |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
::The merits are thus mainly based on, but not limited to; |
|||
* '''The EtienneDolet - Steverci alliance.''' -- EtienneDolet has a well-recorded history of backing up and protecting [[User:Steverci|Steverci]] (CU blocked sockmaster) and his numerous (eventually) CU blocked socks on articles falling under [[WP:ARBAA2]] This is well recorded. Above, one can see a fraction of it. <u>None</u> of the articles in question had ever been edited by EtienneDolet before the sockmaster/sock made his edits. If I were to link every diff, it'd be a much larger and moreso cluttering list. Further examples of coordinated protection can be seen here at other locations, such as on '''talk pages''',[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Justin_McCarthy_(American_historian)#UNDUE_material], or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive167#Statement_by_EtienneDolet in an AE report against the sockmaster] itself, amongst others. I believe that anyone with two pair of at least "nominally" working eyes can see that this all is <u>'''clear'''</u>, [[WP:NOTHERE]] editing by EtienneDolet. <u>Regardless</u> of how "good" or "bad" the edits by the sockmaster + socks in question are. |
|||
* '''Wikihouding'''. After I questioned [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Implementation_of_WP:NCGN a WP at VillagePump], which EtienneDolet seemed/seems ''very'' particularly fond of to cite every single time in order to get the lede revision he wants, and ''solely'' in Armenia-related articles mind you,[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Erivan_Khanate&diff=744103773&oldid=744103475][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Urartu#Armenian_transliteration][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Erivan_Khanate&diff=744103164&oldid=743142380][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Erivan_Khanate#WP:NCGN_problems_at_the_lead][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Erzurum&diff=744107850&oldid=741341780] <u>'''no less than 10 out of the 12 edits he made '''on''' articles afterwards were to revert various edits of mine.'''</u>[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Orontes_I&diff=prev&oldid=744533322][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Yervand&diff=prev&oldid=744534423][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Artasyrus&diff=prev&oldid=744534950][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Artasyrus&diff=744535398&oldid=744534950][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Orontid_Dynasty&action=history][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bruce_Fein&diff=744893963&oldid=743711083][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Guba_Genocide_Memorial_Complex&action=history][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ay%C5%9Fe_Kulin&action=history][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jean_Schmidt&action=history][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Orontes_I&diff=744897039&oldid=744543604] Notice furthermore that out of ''all'' these articles, literally '''<u>none</u>''' were never even touched (!) by EtienneDolet before, in the span of all these years that his account is registered on Wikipedia. And as one can see, most of these WP:Wikihound edits were complete reinstatements of edits made by, once again Steverci (!). More Wikihouding "sprees" can be seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Armenian_language&diff=prev&oldid=702052502 here], on 28 January 2016, where he wrongly accused me of making "copyright violations" and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Armenians&diff=prev&oldid=702053078 here] a few minutes later, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Old_Persian&diff=702058327&oldid=697112330 here] a few hours later as well. The so-called "source" EtienneDolet linked in these three edit summaries, from which I "supposedly" copied from, is in fact [https://books.google.nl/books?id=TsoJhzc426cC&pg=PA548&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false a Wikipedia mirror]. |
|||
* Blatantly removing sourced content, or simply removing clear [[WP:RS]] sources in general (often with unjustified edit summaries). See above. |
|||
* More [[WP:GAME]]ing by EtienneDolet, such as misusing WP's, amongst which [[WP:NCGN]] (#2), on a structural basis,[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Erivan_Khanate&diff=744103773&oldid=744103475][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Urartu#Armenian_transliteration][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Erivan_Khanate&diff=744103164&oldid=743142380][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Erivan_Khanate#WP:NCGN_problems_at_the_lead][https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Erzurum&diff=744107850&oldid=741341780] in order to back up this [[WP:TENDENTIOUS|tendentious editing]] in his ''niche'', namely Armenia-related articles. That even though the WP literally states that"; "These are advice, intended to guide, not force, consensus; but they are the consensus of actual experience in move discussions."[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#General_guidelines] |
|||
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. - [[User:LouisAragon|LouisAragon]] ([[User talk:LouisAragon|talk]]) 15:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EtienneDolet#Reported_as_well] |
|||
:"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."<br> |
|||
:-- Yet there's substantial evidence that you've been backing him up on plenty of talk pages, in AE cases against him, and have been fully reinstating many of his edits (even by the means of edit-warring, e.g.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Zakarids-Mkhargrzeli&action=history]). |
|||
:"A lot of these diffs are really old"<br> |
|||
:-- The vast majority of them are just several months old, and are of the year 2016. Furthermore, just for a comparison, I didn't see you bothering about "old diffs" in the case above this one, where you posted numerous diffs of matters of the year 2015, and/or matters that were already dealt with. |
|||
:"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."<br> |
|||
:-- Yeah, that'd be a believable story, if only any of the articles where you reinstated this sockmasters' edits actually had been edited by you in the past...<u>nine years</u> that your account is registrated here. Before the sockmaster + his ''legio'' socks edited them, that is. - [[User:LouisAragon|LouisAragon]] ([[User talk:LouisAragon|talk]]) 01:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
===Discussion concerning EtienneDolet=== |
|||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
|||
====Statement by EtienneDolet==== |
|||
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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bruce_Fein&diff=732774204&oldid=732171569 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bruce_Fein&diff=744893963&oldid=743711083 reverted] Louis. There's many other similar examples including [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ay%C5%9Fe_Kulin&diff=732774242&oldid=729397572 this] where the [[Armenian Genocide]] Wikilink was replaced with [[Armenian deportation]]. Or the restoring of [[WP:SCAREQUOTES]] around the word "Genocide" in this [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jean_Schmidt&diff=732774348&oldid=730232144 edit]. I even pointed this out in my edit-summary [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jean_Schmidt&diff=744896326&oldid=743400318 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. [[User:EtienneDolet|Étienne Dolet]] ([[User talk:EtienneDolet|talk]]) 17:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield==== |
|||
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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Erdin%C3%A7_Sa%C3%A7an&type=revision&diff=732774165&oldid=729397612]. 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pharasmanes_I_of_Iberia&diff=prev&oldid=725029847] 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pharasmanes_I_of_Iberia&diff=next&oldid=725029847] 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. [[User:Tiptoethrutheminefield|Tiptoethrutheminefield]] ([[User talk:Tiptoethrutheminefield|talk]]) 18:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Drmies, no wrong name was typed. You are on record as saying that following another editor's edits and from that information then editing an article they have edited equates to wikihounding. You did it on my own talk page, so I should know. No such behavior is actually cited as equating to wikihounding on WP:hounding, so your viewpoint is a distortion of the definition of wikihounding. [[User:Tiptoethrutheminefield|Tiptoethrutheminefield]] ([[User talk:Tiptoethrutheminefield|talk]]) 02:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Athenean==== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
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. [[User:Athenean|Athenean]] ([[User talk:Athenean|talk]]) 00:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
===Result concerning EtienneDolet=== |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
|||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
|||
*{{U| Tiptoethrutheminefield}}, eh? Are you sure you didn't type in the wrong name? If not, you want to reread NPA and stuff like that. Just a thought. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 22:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
**Well, a. that's a lie or at the very least a distortion and b. that has nothing to do with any of this. You thought you could get a shot in but you're only devaluing your statements here. But I see now where this comes from: your block log, which features such beauties as blocks for harassment and edit warring. No wonder you are trying to devalue these alleged offenses: it makes you look better. I had totally forgotten about that, but I guess you haven't. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 17:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Md iet== |
|||
{{hat|Topic ban modified by EdJohnston. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 17:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)}} |
|||
<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. <p>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]]).''</small> |
|||
; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Md iet}} – [[User:Md iet|Md iet]] ([[User talk:Md iet|talk]]) 04:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
; Sanction being appealed : Topic ban from the subject of Dawoodi Bohra, imposed at [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=635986731#User:Md_iet_reported_by_User:PolenCelestial_.28Result:_Topic_ban_from_Dawoodi_Bohra_.29 this WP:AN3 complaint]. |
|||
; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|EdJohnston}} |
|||
; Notification of that administrator : ''The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a [[WP:DIFF|diff]] of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.'' |
|||
===Statement by Md iet=== |
|||
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. |
|||
: The articles mentioned by Adamfinmo are general articles covering all Islam/ Taiyabi Ismaili. During discussion of lifting my block it was clearly mentioned that banning me of general Islam topics would be impropriate. Please analyze the specific edit mentioned. These are not affecting any status cu of Dawoodi Bohra topics rather than helping Wikipedia users get properly directed/not get mislead. Information corrected was misleading in one case. The person [[Mohammad Burhanuddin]] already dead was presented as live. This I felt not proper of Wikipedia. In the second case, it was just like spelling correction, only [[..]] bracket was added to felicitate reader further. --[[User:Md iet|Md iet]] ([[User talk:Md iet|talk]]) 03:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:: Thanks [[User:EdJohnston]], for your support helping my intentions contribute Wikipedia. Declaring one of the claimants victorious was one of the case because of which I got banned. This was the case of not understanding difference between actual correct v/s encyclopedic correct. I feel after this long episode I have better understanding and in position to assure nonrepeating similar blunders. --[[User:Md iet|Md iet]] ([[User talk:Md iet|talk]]) 03:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
===Statement by EdJohnston=== |
|||
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. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 00:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Per the encouragement by others in the Result section, I am now modifying [[User:Md iet]]'s ban as shown in the [[WP:DSLOG]] to say that it is only from *articles* regarding the [[Dawoodi Bohra]]. From now on he can edit any other pages that mention Dawoodi Bohra, including talk pages. I trust this will allow another admin to close this appeal with no further action. I can't close it myself since it's an appeal of my ban. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 20:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
===Statement by Adamfinmo=== |
|||
It is worth noting that [[user:Md iet|Md iet]], has edited in on the topic of Dawoodi Bohra at least twice recently, that I could see. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Islam_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=742016591#Dawoodi_Bohra diff], [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Taiyabi_Ismaili&diff=prev&oldid=740918065 diff].--[[User:Adamfinmo|Adam in MO]]<small> [[User talk:Adamfinmo|Talk]]</small> 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Md_iet#Unblocked 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Islam_in_India&action=history repeated edits to the Islam in India] article. --[[User:Adamfinmo|Adam in MO]]<small> [[User talk:Adamfinmo|Talk]]</small> 21:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
===Statement by (involved editor 2)=== |
|||
===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Md iet === |
|||
===Result of the appeal by Md iet=== |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
|||
<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the discretionary sanctions log below where their sanctions is logged. --> |
|||
*Since the sanctioning admin {{u|EdJohnston}} is in favor of another chance, I think we ought to give one. Theoretically, he could just relax the sanction himself, since he imposed it, and I certainly see no reason to override his judgment. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 02:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*Concur with the above and with EdJohnston's terms. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい</font>]]) 21:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*I have no issue with EdJohnston's suggestion, but the two diffs showing he has actually broken the ban at least twice, albeit with small edits, should be noted. The topic ban on ''articles'' still stands, and if he edits another article directly this way, he will be fully banned again. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 22:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*This is getting stale. I recommend {{u|EdJohnston}} modify the sanction himself. This doesn't require consensus or consent at AE but he has it. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 11:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*{{u|EdJohnston}}, if you don't mind, just go for it--I agree with the others. There's always something satisfying about modifying/lessening something one imposed; it confirms a kind of optimism. Thanks, [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 15:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
{{hab}} |
Revision as of 03:00, 6 November 2016
DerAnsager
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
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 DerAnsagerStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DerAnsagerStatement by DebresserThe 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)Result concerning DerAnsager
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by WaunaKeegan11
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"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 Ks0stmOriginal, Revert 1, Revert 2. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by WaunaKeegan11Result of the appeal by WaunaKeegan11
|
Anythingyouwant 2
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
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 AnythingyouwantStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AnythingyouwantWill 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 MrXOf 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 TiptoethrutheminefieldThis 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 FyddlestixJust 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 SPECIFICOAnythingyouwant 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 MasemI'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 wishesHere 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. LambdenI'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 TataralAs 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"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 JFGThroughout 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 ErnieThere 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. FleischmanI 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 DeucesI 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)???? 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 BorisGiven 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 WordsmithI 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
Statement by AwilleyThis 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
|
Wecarlisle
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
Repeated violation of 1RR by adding info that's being discussed on an RFC with serious BLP concerns.
Discussion concerning WecarlisleStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by WecarlisleStatement by (username)Statement by MandrussI 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
|
EtienneDolet
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
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 EtienneDoletStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by EtienneDoletSteverci 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 TiptoethrutheminefieldI 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 AtheneanI 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
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Md iet
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 ietDue 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 EdJohnstonI 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 AdamfinmoIt 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)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Md ietResult of the appeal by Md iet
|