MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Robot: Archiving 1 thread (older than 4d) to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive133. |
No edit summary |
||
Line 502: | Line 502: | ||
===Result concerning Galassi=== |
===Result concerning Galassi=== |
||
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.--> |
|||
<small>''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''</small> |
|||
==Dicklyon== |
|||
<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 Dicklyon=== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : [[User:Apteva|Apteva]] ([[User talk:Apteva|talk]]) 07:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Dicklyon}} |
|||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#All parties reminded]] |
|||
<!--- 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 You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> |
|||
#{{diff|Wikipedia talk:Naming_conventions (music)|552835059|552815426|30 April 2013}} Have you (twice) |
|||
#{{diff|Wikipedia talk:Naming_conventions (music)|552753722|552752110|29 April 2013}} named editor, discussion directed at and about editor, not content |
|||
#{{diff|Talk:Manifest destiny|552667126|552385255|29 April 2013}} "you're wrong" |
|||
#{{diff|Talk:Suicide of Kelly Yeomans|552658140|552656480|29 April 2013}} "you mis-parse it" |
|||
#{{diff|Talk:Suicide of Kelly Yeomans|552641333|552638893|28 April 2013}} you, your ... agenda |
|||
#{{diff|Talk:Random variable|552592353|552591776|28 April 2013}} you |
|||
#{{diff|Talk:Frame (beehive)|552351779|552351179|27 April 2013}} named editor, failure to assume good faith (I am of course he or she also) |
|||
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) : |
|||
<!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. --> |
|||
This is an editor who has been warned countless times not to personalize discussions, and insists on continuing. |
|||
#Warned on {{diff|User talk:Dicklyon|552332104|552184188|26 April 2013}} by {{user|Apteva}} |
|||
#Warned on {{diff|User talk:Dicklyon|552335678|552333631|26 April 2013}} by {{user|Apteva}} |
|||
#Warned on {{diff|User talk:Dicklyon|552814797|552508333|30 April 2013}} by {{user|Apteva}} |
|||
#Warned on {{diff|User talk:Dicklyon|531211648|531137165|4 January 2013}} by {{user|Apteva}} |
|||
#Warned on {{diff|User talk:Dicklyon|531137165|530724137|3 January 2013}} by {{user|Born2cycle}} |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> |
|||
This creates a very toxic editing environment that does not encourage and welcome participation. |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
===Discussion concerning Dicklyon=== |
|||
<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 Dicklyon==== |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
===Result concerning Dicklyon=== |
|||
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.--> |
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.--> |
||
<small>''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''</small> |
<small>''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''</small> |
Revision as of 07:01, 30 April 2013
Bobrayner
Evlekis blocked 2 weeks, indef topic banned, placed on 1RR; Bobrayner warned; FkpCascais advised. Gatoclass (talk) 09:06, 29 April 2013 (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 Bobrayner
Just over two weeks ago, I completed an AN/I grievance against the user with this edit. The full scale of this editor's disruptive behaviour is explained there though I didn't realise that AN/I was both the wrong place and the manner was inappropriate. To synopsise, we have had two peaceful weeks with no issues on ARBMAC subjects whilst Bobrayner was absent. No sooner did he return than he immediately embarked on a rampage to make gross POV-pushing and policy-contravening reverts/fresh edits and all hiding behind the irrelevant and stale "sources" argument. The most notable change involves naming conventions on Kosovan subjects. The user is aware that we observe historical accuracy for providing names of settlements according to how they were known at the time in question and this is consistent with the language of the contemporary state. The user is also aware of WP:AT yet has chosen to take every opportunity he could find to switch English language names of towns for their controversial Albanian translation - controversial because Kosovo's status is subject to dispute and all good faith editors tread very carefully to use neutral wording which acknowlegdes the situation and neither leans one way or the other. The user dismisses this as "synthesis" and "wiesel wording" and proceeds to stylise the article 100% in the direction of Kosovan independence, Albanian as language having monopoly over WP:AT and common English; furthermore the user is known for edit-warring[12] and he adds lies to articles, namely anything to do with the Kosovo War in which he outright denies that the belligerent against whom the Albanian KLA waged war was the Military of Serbia and Montenegro, known as the Army of Yugoslavia which comprised two republics - Bobrayner prefers "Serb military", "Armed Forces of Serbia"[13] and anything denigrating the Serbian nation despite them not having had an independent army - only police and paramilitary units. He justifies this depredation with a template summary, "let's stick to what the sources say" despite having been shown that publications are selective simplifications which use "Serb" over "Yugoslav" and he has been given examples where this is so on matters where it is known Yugoslav is correct and Serb is wrong (eg. Milošević wrongly labelled Serb president in reliable source when position was held by Milutinović; Milošević was actually Yugoslav president at time of publication). In addition, a full explanation was spelt out black and white fresh from a source which he was using[14], the text explained the full Yugoslav/Serb scenario. On top of that, the rest of the WP community to edit on the Balkans observe a consensus which favours precision over press-style simplification thus dismissing the idea that "sources" trump facts.
Sandstein, you must forgive me for never having filled out an AE request and not knowing the exact procedures. Concerning remedy I don't know what to put because I was merely hoping to see Bobrayner receive a topic ban. To ensure this does not turn into Dramafest, please note the following which will not contain citations unless requested. For every accusation made against my revisions on matters of AT, English usage over Albanian, Yugoslav troops over Serbian, alleged stalking, I can justify each edit one by one. Where I was named in the summary for sections I did not concoct stands correct: I was simply reverting a batch of consecutive edits in which I spotted about 90% of information was false/contrived to mislead. To that end, what remained showed no signs of vandalism so I felt I should clear the section. I even provided the revisions where those points were first inserted on Rayner's talk. Be that as it may, I did later correct that section though none of this has stopped Bobrayner edit-warring to restore his own version. Quite where User:Neutral Fair Guy is supposed to come into this I don't know, what we do know about him however is that he has not only made 53 edits, but thousands as it is confirmed who he is, User:Sinbad Barron. Rayner alo fails to realise that the Sinbad Barron franchise makes edits PRO-Bobrayner, not against. Rayner in turn has never reverted a Sinbad account, or had words with him. And if User:Keithstanton is another incarnation (it's 50/50), Rayner has even endorsed that editor's revisions by reverting to them. Exceeding revert restrictions is one thing, self-reverting is another. Besides, he did the same thing at List of massacres in the Kosovo War. For the time I made an unlogged edit, I was warned. I deny any such editing after that time and if anybody believes I have been responsible for the edit-warring at Cinema of Kosovo, I invite that admin to carry out a CU. Having read Joy's remarks, the second time BOOMERANG has been mentioned, I have come to the conclusion that there is a protection racket here. I stand by my edits 100%, and mentioning this to WhiteWriter is a far cry from canvassing. If you name editors in these talks there is even a requirement to alert them, not the same thing as sending out messages to allies when you are proposing AfD or a page move. Concerning "stalking", naturally when you clock half a dozen nonconstructive edits by a user it is reasonable to follow up and see what he has been doing elsewhere. Several of Rayner's edits since his break are in tact, each one that isn't concern removals of large sourced chucks, some of the time it was not even Rayner's first attempt at doing so and it had been more seasoned editors reverting him originally. On the subject of stalking, I am very interested as to how Rayner managed to find Hiking in Kosovo, Climate of Kosovo and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanislava Pak Stanković. If the admins involved wish to turn the table on my account and turn me into the accused party. I have no fears. By the same token, I have no expectation that Rayner will be sanctioned here so I might just have to drop this case. But before I do I'll say one thing, it is striking that editors such as User:Keithstanton and others get banned from editing when making Rayner-esque edits. He survives without a blotch. Editors who go overboard in producing pro-Serbian NPOV violations receive topic bans. Curiously, the fact that this is all dismissed as a mere "content dispute" with Rayner continuing battleground editing contrary to consensus and with opposition from a host of good editors (none of whom I have alrted to this talk), the very fact that this has gone on for over six months speaks for itself. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 13:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC) PS for Edjohnson. I have to be honest, I am on 1RR, a sanction by which I am debilitated. Nothing for which I raised this talk concerns violations on an actual 1RR article. Just thought you should know. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 13:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Issue to be taken into accountAs regards Sandstein's proposal evidently influenced by his interpretation of the evidence submitted, I feel I should mention that I have kept this as short as possible with the basis for the talk being what he has done since his return from a two-week absence. Rayner's disruption, battleground editing and gross POV pushing goes back six months on these issues alone and he has made many enemies, not just this one. To this end it is only right that before a decision be reached, specific misgivings must be addressed and this time, I will be giving citations.
Stalking
Asides Climate of Kosovo which I dated 8 April, please observe these examples:
next came Climate of Kosovo listed above
1hr 5mins, nine articles - achieved either by scanning down the contributions by Evlekis or by astronomical coincidence. 84.74.30.129If I am supposed to have edited from this account, I'd be world famous for the time it took me to hop so quickly from Britain where I live to Switzerland where the IP is based[20]. Whilst we are on the subject, I am rather curious about this pattern: This account has a special interest in Albania–Yugoslav border incident, as does indeed this account which I suspect is the same person. All of the edits to that page are consistent with this from Rayner, plus [21]. Rita OraRather than cherry-picking, try reading the whole section to place this matter is perspective. "Pig ignorant" is a cliche in which pig is an intensifier and the partnering remark "biased towards her nation's mindset" is my response to an editor who comments that the woman's personality is clear from her statements. It was initially taken as an attack on the editor in question but was eventually cleared up and I assured the relevant persons that I would not make comments in that fashion again ad such I haven't. Rayner's accusation that this is me allegedly denying genocide is neither here nor there, however, for the record, in 1990 when it was reported that Ora's parents came to Britian, there was not a single gunshot fired yet in that province. Serbian Army
Comments from Joy
FinallyI have breached 1RR four times. The first time I admit was on purpose logged out, a known case, for which I was warned and have not done it again. The second, third and fourth occasions were different. Each time it was in error: two very different revisions I submitted on Koriša bombing and it was not brought to my attention until it was too late. Rayner had reverted nine minutes after I had taken out "Serb" a second time. It was one obscure feature I genuinely missed. For the other two, I self-reverted and was only caught out because of the distortion of UTC and my local time. That said, on neither occasion did I "game the system" by re-reverting after time, such as right now[26]. To this end, I contend that since I too base my edits on sourced information, facts, consensus, and have proven unequivocally that I can operate within 1RR; with evidence that I am not editing from other machines logged out, I am in no greater need of a block, a topic ban or any other "more comprehensive" sanction than the antagonist and subject of this discussion, Bobrayner. If any other apologists for Rayner would like to present further cases of his "innocence", please produce them so I may refute them one by one. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 02:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC) 24/04/13: brief message for Joy before I sumbit evidence of neutral editsI'd like to draw your attention to two things. If I were wrong about WP:AT forming an overriding basis on how we present names of settlements then I accept that. As such, I have made changes to the Demographics of Kosovo municipality list which I hope will in some way be accepted as a compromise and a step towards resolution. As it took me a few edits to complete, have a look at the end result, a new table with names given in every known variation - article title remains first, but I have placed Albanian before Serbian in the list and we can say that A comes before S in the alphabet to justify it. Of course this is one of many places that such measures may help. If the community is happy with it, I'll do the same on all related articles I find. If users are unhappy and believe that only the name per Albanian source should be reported, I believe it only right that they explain themselves. Also, you mention that that I did not respond to Rayner's comment on Talk:Hiking in Kosovo. The fact is that I have spoken about this with him time and time again, and not just me, other users too have had words with him on this subject. Naming on the Hiking in Kosovo pages is nothing we haven't seen in many places before. As for discussion, I have addressed Rayner here, here and here. Also if you care to inspect Talk:Climate of Kosovo, you'll see that it is more or less exactly what Talk:Hiking in Kosovo is except I am the one to have launched a discussion to which Rayner had not replied at the time of me writing this. Basically, I am exhausted with the same old rhetoric, going round and round in circles. That's why I opted not to satisfy Rayner on Talk:Hiking in Kosovo. Furthermore, it may be of interest to you that there are two other reason I felt I never needed to communicate in that space: firstly, my name was not mentioned, secondly, at the time of this edit, the revision stood as Rayner left it whereas I have not set foot on that page since before then. The second thing is trivial but needs clearing up. No part of my grievance mentions Republika Srpska and the edit-warring there. You managed to locate it easily because Rayner's list of disruptive incidents is as long as your arm. Those involving me constitute a mere fraction. Now putting aside his first bold blanking edit, this contribution preceded this talk page edit so the suggestion that he used discussion first and even reverted after remains a misjudgement. I am now going to spend the next hour or so locating pages which prove I have edited neutrally and where it may not immediately seem to be the case, I shall explain why and how the neutrality of the contribution is unequivocal. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Proof of good faith editing pursuant to Sandstein's instruction at Talk:EvlekisKosovo's declaration of independence is a highly controversial subject and forms part of the wider Serbian-Albanian conflict. So well documented is this that it has spawned many articles: Kosovo–Serbia relations, Republic of Kosovo, International Recognition of Kosovo, 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence, the list is endless. As editors, we have a requirement to edit very carefully in this sensitive area and any contributions which hint at Kosovan independence status with no regard for its wealth of opposition, or which allege Kosovo remains a de jure provice of Serbia is evidently tendentious. However, there is a third position, a neutral position, and when this neutral factor takes over and one side is left battling that neutral factor, the absence of a genuine lobby arguing an opposing case can very easily project the objective editor to be representing the opposing arguments. To this end, I contend that editing on Kosovo-related subjects can be very difficult when something has to go one way or the other. The way around it can be to produce extremely long passages, but atleast they represent every angle. For other cases where the Kosovan region needs to be listed, there is Template:Kosovo-note which I have helped take form. Note however that extra words given to explain the Kosovo situation can often be dismissed as "weasel words" by editors reverting them when restoring their one-sided versions, just as the consensus-based template and other notifications may be dismissed by those same editors as "disclaimers" in summaries when pushing their POV revisions. I declare my position is neither on the side of Serbian integrity nor on Kosovan sovereignty as the following examples illustrate:
This is a brief list per Sandstein's request. If more is required, or if any other edit I have made needs answers, please inform me and I shall explain them. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Discussion concerning BobraynerStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by BobraynerI have, for some time, been trying to bring our articles on Balkan topics closer in line with what sources say. Unfortunately, Evlekis disagrees very strongly with the wording used by sources on a wide variety of Balkan topics, and this has led to something of a feud; the endless reverts make my progress much slower. This AE filing appears to be another attempt at revenge. I'll try to address each of Evlekis' diffs:
Meanwhile:
How much longer must the encyclopædia suffer this campaign of civil pov-pushing, repeated evasion of editing restrictions, canvassing, bullying, abuse of sources, and so on? Can we get a boomerang here - in which case I'll add a wider range of evidence - or is a fresh AE request needed? bobrayner (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I would argue that viewing things in terms of "the other side" is part of our problem in the Balkans, not part of the solution. Nonetheless, here are some examples where my edits went the "other way".
I've tried to provide a variety of diffs (fixing different problems, different articles, different namespaces &c) but didn't do an exhaustive search and I'm still wary of TLDR; if you want more/different examples or different details, just ask, and I can put together another pile of diffs in the next couple of days.
In other news... Evlekis' crusade is still ongoing, alas.
[76]
[77]
[78]
[79]
[80]
[81]
[82]
[83]
[84]
[85]
[86]
[87]
[88]
[89]
[90]
[91]
[92]
[93]
[94]
[95]
[96]
[97]
[98]
[99]
[100]
[101]
[102]
[103]
[104]
[105]
[106]
[107]
[108]
[109]
[110]
[111]
[112]
[113]
[114]
[115]
[116]
[117]
[118]
[119]
[120]
[121]
[122]
[123]
[124]
[125]
[126]
[127]
[128]
[129]
[130]
[131]
[132]
[133]
[134]
[135]
[136]
[137]
Statement by JoyI'm usually an uninvolved admin WRT Kosovo topics, because I usually don't deal a lot with this part of WP:ARBMAC area. But just in case, I'll write this in a separate section because I've dealt with both editors at length in related areas. Evlekis, are you trying to test WP:BOOMERANG here? Most of what you've linked to are simple content disputes, in which you're advocating moot points. That, in and of itself, isn't necessarily disruptive. Filing this request, however, is. What's particularly troubling is that you failed to heed much of the advice people gave you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive792. The request is cca 1100 words AFAICT, and it's still using phrasing that is just as non-neutral as before. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
What? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I've no idea what you mean by that; I know the basic facts in that Kosovo is officially bilingual, and I recall a series of edit wars on the E80 article regarding Đeneral Janković vs. Hani i Elezit or something like that. It was ridiculous because both names are largely unknown to English readers. I'm guessing we have some sort of a consensus based on reliable sources on which name is appropriate to use where. I fail to see a problem in reporting an Albanian-language census in Albanian-language names if the latter are equal in status to the Serbian-language names. If there is a consensus that only Serbian-language Kosovo toponyms are acceptable on the English Wikipedia, I'd have to see that discussion first to believe that. I never came across it at WP:NCGN or similar.
[148] is not a revert. It's an initial edit, a bold edit. The next edit was a revert of that, and then came the talk and the edit warring. If you seriously think that people here are going to take your word over that, rather than simply reading that page history to observe that simple fact, I'm lost for words. Overall, Evlekis, you've demonstrated well enough by now that you're here for the major talking points of Serbian nationalism: blind opposition to the Kosovo Albanians and blind support of Republika Srpska, and the English Wikipedia is here as simply a tool to promote those causes; whoever obstructs that promotion is somehow out to get you. Further discussion on that topic seems redundant. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
That's a discussion at Talk:Timeline of Kosovo history about historical names of Đakovica. How is this an overarching discussion about modern-day municipality lists? Also, I even found your overview of sources immediately lacking: most of the Turkish names were used by Turkish authors, discussing the Ottoman context, while most of the Serbian names were used by a variety of authors discussing the Montenegrin context. If you just take a hint from that simple pattern, you'd find zero reason to edit war about 2011 census names.
OK, the timestamp on this is 20:04, and on this it's 20:09. Yes, that is the wrong order - if the audience is entirely so trigger-happy that they can't wait five minutes. Which it may actually be expected to be on a divisive issue, but, once again, that list is not an inherently divisive issue. It only became a problem because of the rest of this kind of behavior. It is a clear violation of the spirit and letter of ARBMAC and perpetuating the argument that there's no blame at your end for it is just further proof of that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
WhiteWriter, kindly back that up with some facts. Which of those disputed articles did I involve myself in? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Statement by WhiteWriterThis user was already warned numerous times by several users. We shows complete lack of talk page decorum, and after will to cooperate in ANY possible way. Punishing one, and not other one in this would lead to complete instability and further POV violations, as user showed constant attitude toward non neutral and tendentious editing regarding Kosovo subject, in common violation of WP:AT. Despite INVOLVED user Joy attempt to minimise this obvious long lasting violations. If you do nothing now about Bob, you will point out that any kind of almost DE editing may be allowed, under specific circumstantial. Please, Sandstein, and Gatoclass, act neutral, react on both of them! User was already warned numerous times before, and nothing changed. For this kind us dispute two participant were needed, and not only one. --WhiteWriterspeaks 15:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Result concerning BobraynerThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Before we can process this, you must link to the remedy that is to be enforced, the notification of Bobrayner, and any warning of Bobrayner per WP:AC/DS#Warnings. Sandstein 05:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
After examining the evidence, Evlekis's complaint (limited to the numbered list) appears for the most part unfounded or stale. The reported edits generally reflect content disputes, which this board cannot adjudicate; the arbitration (and arbitration enforcement process) addresses only conduct issues. In "our articles will reflect...", "our" clearly means "Wikipedia's". The Serbian Army edits by Bobrayner are edit-warring, but date to December 2012 and are not at this point very actionable any more. "Don't be silly" is incivil, but not a personal attack. But an examination of Bobrayner's countercomplaint reveals that Bobrayner has been edit-warring at Republika Srpska (1 to 3 April). I also find it problematic that, in his counter-complaint, he alleges without evidence on at least two occasions that a revert was made by Evlekis while logged out. On the other hand, while I am not convinced by many of Bobrayner's allegations, his counter-complaint does have merit in some parts:
In general, the impression one gets by looking at the edit histories of the affected articles is that both parties engage in tendentious editing, in that Evlekis systematically makes changes favoring the position of Serbia in the dispute about Kosovo, and Bobrayner systematically makes changes favoring the opposite position. Such conduct patterns violate WP:NPOV irrespective of the merits of any individual edits. Evlekis's conduct is much more noticeably problematic, but Bobrayner's tendentious edits are not less problematic just because they are comparatively low-key, e.g. at [151], where a wholesale change of (what looks like) Serbian to Albanian spellings of place names is disguised with the misleading summary "spelling fixes". On that basis, I conclude that sanctions are warranted against both parties, but that the sanctions against Evlekis should be more comprehensive in view of the wider range and higher intensity of disruptive conduct exhibited by him, and his previous 1RR restriction. I therefore intend to impose the following discretionary sanctions:
What do my colleagues think? Sandstein 19:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
As I said earlier, I haven't had time to review all the evidence including the Republika Srpska dispute, but based on what I've already seen there is evidence of tendentious editing on Bobraynor's part. For example, in this edit Bobraynor adds the statement that NATO planes bombed ethnic Albanians who had been used by Yugoslav forces as human shields, basing it on page 352 of this source. However, the page in question only states that There is some information indicating that displaced Kosovo civilians were forcibly concentrated within a military camp in the village of Koritsa as human shields and later states that the civilians were either returning refugess or persons gathered as human shields by FRY authorities or both. Bobraynor in other words has turned a statement that civilians may have been used as human shields into an unqualified statement that they were used as human shields. Misstatement or misrepresention of sources is a demonstrable breach of core policy and certainly a potential ground for sanction. I should add that while I haven't yet reviewed all the evidence, this is far from the only example of questionable editing I found from Bobraynor, so at this point I could not agree that his editing in the topic area has been altogether innocuous. Gatoclass (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Continuing on Sandstein's proposal - I agree that Evlekis should be blocked generally for the Rita Ora problem because his retort shows a lack of understanding of the basic problem - Talk pages are simply not the place for editors to make their own value judgement of any kind about article topics, let alone living people. Offhand I think 14 days is a bit excessive - Evlekis has never been blocked for more than a day, that kind of an escalation seems punitive, but then again, it's his third strike, and I don't disagree with a six-month topic ban on what appears to be some of their favorite topic areas, so I'll agree to whatever length others think is appropriate. As for a topic ban for bobrayner, a third of Evlekis' length seems appropriate to me, because they seem to have a much cleaner plate. I don't think see the point in an immediate interaction ban, the topic bans should be implemented first. An interaction ban should happen only if they escalate the problem. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
|
Galassi
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Galassi
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- My very best wishes (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Galassi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Standard_discretionary_sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- April 5
- April 6
- April 21: It tells "See relevant discussions..." here and here. First discussion was resumed by me on April 18. Second discussion was started by me on April 19.
- April 22, same discussions.
- 2009 (edit summary) - same accusation about another contributor, with a promise to report this to administrators, something that he actually did with me in two diffs above.
- April 29 - Galassi blames me of "aryanizing" Vladimir Vysotsky. He apparently refers to this my edit quickly reverted by him [153] and discussed here. But in fact, I only fixed a poorly written nationalistic POV phrase: "His father ... was a Jewish colonel in the [Soviet] army originally from Kiev." (see also my comments below). Aryanization is a Nazi racist ideology. What? @Galassi, do you really believe that I am a supporter of Nazi Master Race concept?
- April 29. Galassi continue totally unsubstantiated accusations that I "insinuate" "bloodthurstiness of Ilya Ehrenburg". No, this is writer I respect very much, although I never thought about him as a "person of Jewish ethnicity" until Galassi said it. As about the idea that Agranov masterminded many Stalinist trials, well, this is written in almost every book, although I also did not realize he was a "person of Jewish ethnicity" until Galassi said it during previous AE request.
These are completely unsubstantiated accusations of racist bias made on administrative page and talk pages of administrators.
Galassi was recently topic-banned on AE from Ukrainian subjects.
The case falls under jurisdiction of WP:DIGWUREN because all these discussions are related to Ukrainian or Russian topics.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Diff 1 above. How on the Earth Galassi could interpret my edits here this way? I was doing exactly the opposite (see talk page here, for example). I tried to fix highly biased edits made by someone else who tried to paint this famous writer as a bloody monster by excessively citing his war time propaganda.
Diff 2 above ([154]). I would appreciate if Galassi explained what exactly "instances" he is talking about. There was none. Once, I had a conversation with Gallassi here, but I only asked him to provide sources, and that is what he did. But I still suspect this article does not comply with our WP:BLP rules. Yes, this writer wrote a satiric essay that was regarded by many as antisemitic, but he also published 10 books that were not considered antisemitic and received 12 literary awards. The respective article on ruwiki does not describe this writer at all as antisemitic. His work was highly prized by writers of Jewish ancestry, like Ludmila Ulitskaya and Mark Zakharov.
Diffs 3 and 4. It appears that Galassi believes that if someone (like me or several other editors) argue on a talk page against describing a person (Losev or whoever) as an antisemite, then such participants must be antisemites themselves. What? For example, if I argue that someone should not be described as a criminal in his biography page, does it qualify me as a criminal?
- Speaking about content disputes with Galassi, I do not think there is any problem here. I am not interested in refuting or inserting any antisemitism pieces. In fact, I made only one revert in "Losev" and one revert in Lev Gumilev to show what exactly I disagree with. Both edits are now reverted back by Galassi, and I do not mind leaving him the "winner". We recently had only one disagreement about Nikolay Gumilev (e.g. here). I would like to continue editing this subject, and Galassi is welcome to continue discussion at the article talk page if he drops his personal accusations. My very best wishes (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Response (refuting accusations by Galassi).
Based on statement by Galassi, he means what he tells at talk pages of administrators. Actually, I expected that he will not make any comments or accept that he is wrong and apologize.
- Vysotsky. Galassi tells about this my edit [155] quickly reverted by Galassi [156]. As discussed here, I made it for three reason. First, according to WP:MOS, Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Second, it was unsourced. Third, the phrase I tried to fix was telling: "His father ... was a Jewish colonel in the army originally from Kiev." This is strange phrase. What army? White army? Soviet Army? There was no ethnicity-based brigades in Soviet Army or something like that. Describing someone in Soviet Army as "Jewish colonel" is a nationalistic POV. This my edit hardly demonstrates any inappropriate bias.
- I did not edit Shafarevich, and the only thing I removed from the article about Lev Gumilev was this. Curiously enough, that is when I agree with Russavia [157]. By reverting this my edit [158], Galassi makes a point that not only some people claim his theories were antisemitic (this is actually only a negligible minority; others criticize various scientific aspects his work), but the whole biography of Gumilev belongs to category "antisemitism". That is an inappropriate POV, as I tried to explain at talk page [159].
- It is very rare that I edit anything related to Jewish subjects (I made edit in article about Vysotsky only because I listened his songs and decided to check his biography page). However, I was so disturbed by the accusations made by Galassi during the previous AE request that I started editing various antisemitism-related subjects (including discussions of Lev Gumiled and Losev) during a few last weeks. Does that edit demonstrate any anti-Jewish bias? Or this discussion? I may have a bias, but this is not an anti-Jewish bias. To the contrary, I recently created pages about poets whose work I admire, and many of whom happen to be of Jewish ancestry (for example, here, here, here, and here). On the other hand, Galassi seems to be here on a mission to label people "antisemites". My very best wishes (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek. This complaint is not about content disputes. It is also not about POV-pushing, edit wars by Galassi [160], a potential BLP violation (see above), or his recent topic ban violation [161]. One could make all these points with supporting diffs, but I am here because of a more serious problem. Here is it:
During the previous AE request Galassi made unsubstantiated and highly offensive accusations right on this noticeboard (two first diffs) and was warned by an administrator about this [162]. However, despite being warned, he continued the same accusations without any evidence at talk pages of two other administrators. I had some doubts what exactly he means in his postings, but now, after his comment below, he confirmed the nature of his accusations. My very best wishes (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek. As about the "coup de grace", no. Speaking in terms of various "factions" around here, he is actually my "ally", and we all know it. I only wanted from Galassi to follow the NPOV policy (as I tried to explain him here, but apparently failed) and to stop making such accusations about me and others (5th diff). I did not report him to AE when he made a topic ban violation. I did not report him to AE right away, but made this notice to provide him an opportunity to fix the problem by promising not to make such accusations ever again. He did not react.My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- And honestly, the comment by Galassi below that I tried "to aryanize" Vysotsky (!?) shows Galassi as someone completely incapable of collaborative editing in this subject area. This is even more offensive than all his previous claims. My very best wishes (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Galassi
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Galassi
I believe that there is a type of antisemitic POV which does not involve making openly antisemitic edits, but rather removing the mentions of reliably sourced antisemitic aspects of cultural/historical fugures, such as Igor Shafarevich, Lev Gumilev and Alexei Losev, essentially whitewashing them. Another insidious type of this POV involves "aryanization" of individuals of mixed ancestry. Such was My Best Wishes' unsummarized removal of such information from the article of Vladimir Vysotsky (a Russian national hero). (diffs forthcoming)--Galassi (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- In addition to that My Best Wishes continues antisemitic POV-pushing by insinuating "bloodthurstiness" of Ilya Ehrenburg, a Jewish poet, and of Yakov Agranov, a Jewish NKVD official, in whose article My Best Wishes insinuates that Agranov masterminded massacres on his own volition, which contradict the accepted common knowledge of Stalinism (diffs forthcoming). Furthermore, My Best Wishes brought/brings me up on charges for the edits on which we had no interaction (especially the ones on Ukrainian topics), which amounts to WIKI-STALKING.
Furthermore My Best Wishes brought me up on charges here originally for the express purpose of getting me out of the way, so I wouldn't be able to hinder his POV-pushing. I formally request that this case be closed as frivolous and without merit, and My Best Wishes be indefinitely banned from any interaction with me. Thank you.--Galassi (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Statement by The Devil's Advocate
This does seem like he is casting aspersions on editors and canvassing/admin-shopping at the same time. He appears to have gone to two Jewish administrators claiming there was antisemitic POV-pushing going on at these articles. I note that the previous case also concerned some problematic behavior regarding his editing about anti-semitism and Jews in this area of the world. Perhaps his topic ban should be modified to cover that as well.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Volunteer Marek
The diffs from April 5 and April 6 precede My Very Best Wishes' last WP:AE report so I don't see how they're relevant. I also don't see the relevance of the 2009 (!) diff.
That boils it down to essentially these two diffs: [165] and [166]. First note that the section title "Antisemitism, misogyny and seven deadly sins" was started by User:Estlandia (Miacek) [167] (also back in 2009). It's purpose seems to be to trivialize things like... antisemitism and misogyny (and going by comment, homophobia, as well). And it appears to be Estlandia who's throwing around gratuitous accusations of POV pushing there. Still that's from 2009.
Then this whole controversy was restarted recently by My Very Best Wishes with this commnet [168] and this comment [169] by an IP.
Overall these are two articles about old school Soviet/Russian scholars who, best as I can tell, DID hold some anti-semitic views. The debate is about whether this should be represented in the articles themselves. So you gonna get a discussion about anti-semitism. In both those discussions, [170] and [171] I don't see any problem with Galassi's comments. Indeed, he seems to be referring to sources and Wikipedia policies.
The timing of this report, so quickly on the heels of the previous one which (unfairly) IMO, led to Galassi's topic ban from Ukrainian topics, and the usage of diffs from before that report, seems like a spurious attempt to administer a coup de grace to one's content opponent. I don't think there's anything actionable here.
Volunteer Marek 15:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I do not mind to withdraw this whole thing per WP:IAR or whatever, just to minimize disruption, if admins do not mind after looking at this. My very best wishes (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Result concerning Galassi
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Dicklyon
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Dicklyon
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Apteva (talk) 07:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#All parties reminded
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 30 April 2013 Have you (twice)
- 29 April 2013 named editor, discussion directed at and about editor, not content
- 29 April 2013 "you're wrong"
- 29 April 2013 "you mis-parse it"
- 28 April 2013 you, your ... agenda
- 28 April 2013 you
- 27 April 2013 named editor, failure to assume good faith (I am of course he or she also)
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
This is an editor who has been warned countless times not to personalize discussions, and insists on continuing.
- Warned on 26 April 2013 by Apteva (talk · contribs)
- Warned on 26 April 2013 by Apteva (talk · contribs)
- Warned on 30 April 2013 by Apteva (talk · contribs)
- Warned on 4 January 2013 by Apteva (talk · contribs)
- Warned on 3 January 2013 by Born2cycle (talk · contribs)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This creates a very toxic editing environment that does not encourage and welcome participation.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Dicklyon
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Dicklyon
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Dicklyon
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.