Contents
- 1 Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Darkness Shines
- 1.1 Statement by Darkness Shines
- 1.2 Statement by Callanecc
- 1.3 Statement by (involved editor 1)
- 1.4 Statement by (involved editor 2)
- 1.5 Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Darkness Shines
- 1.5.1 Statement by Shrike
- 1.5.2 Statement by Collect
- 1.5.3 Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging
- 1.5.4 Statement by Glrx
- 1.5.5 Statement by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge
- 1.5.6 Statement by uninvolved Kingsindian
- 1.5.7 Statement by uninvolved Keysanger
- 1.5.8 Statement by uninvolved OccultZone
- 1.5.9 Brief statement by Drmies
- 1.6 Result of the appeal by Darkness Shines
- 2 Nishidani
- 2.1 Request concerning Nishidani
- 2.2 Discussion concerning Nishidani
- 2.2.1 Statement by Nishidani
- 2.2.2 Statement by Zero0000
- 2.2.3 Statement by Nomoskedasticity
- 2.2.4 Statement by Kingsindian
- 2.2.5 Statement by Johnuniq
- 2.2.6 Statement by MarciulionisHOF
- 2.2.7 Statement by Gaijin42
- 2.2.8 Statement by Pluto2012
- 2.2.9 Statement by WarKosign
- 2.2.10 Statement by Plot Spoiler
- 2.3 Result concerning Nishidani
- 3 Haberstr
- 3.1 Request concerning Haberstr
- 3.2 Discussion concerning Haberstr
- 3.2.1 Statement by Haberstr
- 3.2.2 Statement by NeilN
- 3.2.3 Statement by 331dot
- 3.2.4 Statement by RGloucester
- 3.2.5 Statement by HiLo48
- 3.2.6 Statement by Dervorguilla
- 3.2.7 Statement by Tourbillon
- 3.2.8 Statement by Sceptic1954
- 3.2.9 Statement by uninvolved Kingsindian
- 3.2.10 Statement by MyMoloboaccount
- 3.2.11 Statement by The Devil's Advocate
- 3.2.12 Statement by Knowledgekid87
- 3.2.13 Statement by Herzen
- 3.2.14 Comment by My very best wishes
- 3.2.15 Comment by Mondschein_English
- 3.2.16 Comment by uninvolved Geogene
- 3.2.17 Comment by Iryna Harpy
- 3.2.18 Comment by Nishidani
- 3.2.19 Comment by Moscow Connection
- 3.3 Result concerning Haberstr
- 4 SeattliteTungsten
- 5 SeattliteTungsten (2)
- 6 Neotarf
- 7 Wlglunight93
- 8 Reaper7
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Darkness Shines
DS is granted an exemption in order to bring an article of his choice up to GA standard, at which point the topic ban will be re-evaluated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:39, 16 September 2014 (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 Darkness ShinesSince the TBAN was imposed I have brought Rape during the Rwandan Genocide to GA status, and the Rape during the Bosnian War article is now a GA candidate, I have expanded and replaced most of the references on the article, removing primary sources as well as newspaper references and replacing them with academic sources. This is a controversial article and I have managed all that work without losing my temper at anyone. I should like the chance to do the same thing with some articles dealing with human rights abuses in the region covering the TBAN. I have also created a few stubs and another article which appeared at DYK, Rape during the Sierra Leone Civil War. I believe the TBAN has now become punitive and not preventative, as I have had but one drunken outburst since it was imposed. The following users requested I let them know when I file an appeal, so am pinging them. @RegentsPark: @Drmies: @Bbb23: @Vanamonde93: Darkness Shines (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC) @Glrx: It most certainly was sourced, "the widely held estimate is that almost 200,000 women were raped during those nine months. [sic] Yet in an interview with me in Dr Geoffrey Davis , who was working in Bangladesh in 1972 suggested this number was far higher." Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia p 120. On "The PHR report also showed that ninety four per cent of internally displaced persons (IDP's) had been victims of some form of sexual assault". see Women, Migration, and Conflict: Breaking a Deadly Cycle p50, "94% of displaced households", and that is the source used. On 215,000 to 257,000 victims of sexual abuse, cite to Physicians for Human Rights estimates that during the conflict, between 215,000 and 257,000 of them were subjected to sexualized violence, and now you can say sorry, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Sandstein, what source misrepresentation? That is a PA as it is not true. I just wrote the quote above. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC) @HJ Mitchell:. Other than a 1RR restriction, which I would be fine with, (barring the usual BLP, copy vio stuff) I cannot think of anything myself. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Keysanger has declared himself uninvolved, however he is involved in a content dispute with myself and another editor on the WoTP article. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC) @HJ Mitchell:, I can assure you I will do my best not to lose my temper, and I have been very careful to not get into editing disputes when on the piss. As to your point on sourcing, no can do. The majority of sources I ues are books from academic publishers or journals I access through JSTOR. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC) @HJ Mitchell:, I am not being intransigent, I got the impression you did not want me using offline sources or paywalled papers. I am OK with the suggestion, but have a question. GA reviews can take up to three months, do I have to wait from when I rewrite an article, nominate it, and then hang around for months before it passes before asking for the TBAN to be fully rescinded? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by CallaneccAs I said when DS asked me on 8 Aug, I would have been happy to lift the TBAN myself if there was nothing of the same behaviour as what led to the ban. However I found some edits of concern so wasn't willing to lift it myself. Now I see why he reacted the way he did but comments like this are just not acceptable under any circumstances. Having said that, if other admins agree that the TBAN can be lifted I'd be quite happy to do it myself but I like some agreement to do it. Whether it's still required, if others agree I'd be quite happy to lift it as a second chance. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC) @HJ Mitchell: as the admin who imposed the sanction I'm quite happy for that suggestion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)Statement by (involved editor 2)Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Darkness ShinesStatement by ShrikeI think DS did a good work on those articles. So he should be given a second chance.--Shrike (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by CollectFor what damage DS may have caused, the penalty may not quite fit the crime at this point. One voice for "second chance" on this. Collect (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by TheTimesAreAChangingI haven't always gotten along with DS in the instances where we have interacted, but he is an excellent content contributor and I do not believe he deserves a TBAN.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by GlrxThe TBAN had other issues besides personal attacks. See insertion of unsourced figure of 200,000 rapes at result/DS. Consequently, I looked at Rape during the Sierra Leone Civil War to spot check fact figures; I looked at no other article. There's a claim in the article that "The PHR report also showed that ninety four per cent of internally displaced persons (IDP's) had been victims of some form of sexual assault". There's also a claim of 215,000 to 257,000 victims of sexual abuse. The latter claim can be bound in Reis/PHR report on pages 4 and 59, but it is not on pages 17-18 as claimed in footnote 15. I did not find any support for the first claim of 94 percent. The PHR report does state that 94% of households (a household comprises more than one person) surveyed had one or more incidents of (not necessarily sexual) violence (eg. pp 2, 71). Page 47 states, "Regarding sexual violence, 9% (94) of the 991 respondents reported one or more war-related sexual violence experiences." See also Table 2, page 44, that breaks down the type of violence in households. I'm concerned that DS is not accurately reporting statistics and that there could be an extraordinary POV bias. Consequently, I would not lift the TBAN. I'll commend the claim of only one recent civility incident, but I did not examine civility. Glrx (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC) @HJ Mitchell:. 1RR does not address misstating sources. (WP:V.) 1RR would prevent an edit war over challenged material, but many incorrect assertions may go unchallenged. The 94-percent-of-internally-displaced-persons statement went unchallenged in RdtSLCW. Even when that statement was challenged here, DS neither understood the challenges nor the source. DS also does not discern that the earlier 200,000-rapes issue is not about the number of rapes but rather that the cited source never stated such a figure. Glrx (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC) @HJ Mitchell: Mea culpa: 1RR was DS' suggestion not yours. Glrx (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Doesn't this violate the TBAN?
Glrx (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by uninvolved A Quest for KnowledgeI looked over the original AE request, and given the outrageous conduct by Darkness Shines which led to the AE enforcement request, as well as during the AE enforcement request, and given that this was only a few months ago, I strongly recommend denying this appeal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC) Statement by uninvolved Kingsindian(I am not sure if I am "uninvolved". I have not edited in ARBIPA generally, but I have edited in ARBPIA.) In my brief interactions with DS, his conduct was fine and civil. I did not agree with any of his edits, but then I disagree with the edits of lots of people, so that is perhaps not too important. I do not have any opinion about wider matters. Kingsindian (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by uninvolved KeysangerI am very concerned about DS's behaviour in the Talk page of War of the Pacific. 1.- User Darknes Shines cites A Reference Guide to Latin American History (page 155) as support for the 14. February 1879 as the date of the beginning of the War of the Pacific, The source is fine, but here are a few more: [1]. The book states on page 155:
There is no support for the 14. February as date of the beginning of the war. He invented a support of a RS where it doesn't exist. 2.- Furthermore, User Darkness Shines had no problem to invent a Combat of Antofagasta, on 14. February 1879. despite I asked DS twice ([2], [3]) to deliver a WP:RS for the statement, DS never did it. He invented a event that never occurred. 3.- In the same comment he states To write "some authors consider the 14 February as the beginning of the war, other not" is OR, as you have no source to support that statement, albeit he self had deleted my proposal (Some authors set the beginning of the war with the first naval battles, others on February 14, 1879) and the given RS: [4] I ask the members of the committee "to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment". --Keysanger (Talk) 16:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC) @DS, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that what you did. --Keysanger (Talk) 19:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC) @Black Kite: Darkness Shines has, since his TBAN, faked Reliable Sources, invented historical events, misrepresented statistics, insulted other editors, is unable to answer the the most simple questions about his doings, and he finds always a good reason to justify his malpractices. For every of these cases you find facts in this discussion. There is neither remorse nor change. I would suggest that you again read Darkness Shines's long paper trail of blocks and imagine how many deletes, reverts, edit wars, discussions, insults, protected articles, conflicts between editors, how many good editors that never will come back, and how many wasted time for admins has caused his behaviour. Your duty is "to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment" and that is "now" and not "may be tomorrow". --Keysanger (Talk) 15:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by uninvolved OccultZone@Black Kite: I agree with this proposal. I was thinking of nominating one of his article to GA, he can be helpful. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC) Brief statement by DrmiesI support lifting the ban. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Darkness Shines
|
Nishidani
The complaint against Nishidani is without merit. Shrike agrees to take a voluntary four-month break from AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:39, 18 September 2014 (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 Nishidani
The editor was banned indefinitely in WP:ARBPIA2 the topic ban was lifted by appeal
{{ping| Response to Kingsindian:
@Nomoskedasticity: So its OK to make personal comments about other users? And the phrase "his ignorance of international law" could be only construed as violation of WP:NPA also you forgot that was not the only problem in his comment but accusing of other user in vote stacking is clear indication of WP:BATTLE.--Shrike (talk) 07:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC) @Zero0000, Johnuniq: Then why not simply give a reasons the source talks a lot about that.This nothing more simpler then that.This edit was meant clearly to conceal those reasons to show settlers in negative light clearly WP:TE.--Shrike (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC) @HJ Mitchell:.How does calling anyone an idiot(dif 6) is "characterisations of another's edits" but if there will be such approach the area will be more toxic.Editors like Gaijin42 testify they don't want to deal with that . WP:CIVILITY is still one of the 5 pillars in Wikipedia --Shrike (talk) 05:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
[8] @EdJohnston, HJ Mitchell, Sandstein: I like to take voluntary break from WP:AE for 4 month starting today but I ask that it will be not mentioned at WP:ARBPIA log--Shrike (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Discussion concerning NishidaniStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by NishidaniSorry to be late in replying (if indeed a reply is necessary?). I notified the relevant page on Sunday evening at 20:29 that I would be abroad for a few days. If administrators want me to clarify any of those diffs I'll do so. I know I'm a bore at AE and often elsewhere and will simply for the moment list the chronology behind this incident which Shrike has seized on with such alacrity to allege I am someone totally unfit to edit the I/P area. It deals with the WP:BATTLE insinuation that with 1 revert I was 'edit-warring'. That this kind of 'stuff' can lead to accusations of the kind made here leaves me blundering about woefully wagging a wrinkled simian arse.
Statement by Zero0000Disclosure: I edit in the I/P area, though I never edited either of these particular articles or their talk pages except for the talk page of Israel and the apartheid analogy in 2013. Zerotalk 05:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Gaijin's "evidence" consists of a few items of talk page discussion where Nishidani wrote something that Gaijin disagrees with. The weakness of this case is all too evident. It should be closed. Zerotalk 01:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by NomoskedasticityRe diff 2 [9]: "ignorance of international law" is of course not the same as "ignorant". The comment to which Nishidani responded shows that the editor is indeed unfamiliar with international law as relevant to the topic that was being discussed. Combined with Zero's points above, the observation reinforces my sense that this entire report is itself an exercise in bad faith and disingenuousness, perhaps rising to the level of WP:BATTLE. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by KingsindianDiffs 5 and 6 are stale (and anyway not actionable). To avoid WP:TLDR, I will address diffs 1, 2, 3.
Call me prescient, but I knew this kind of gaming would happen. Kingsindian (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Statement by JohnuniqDiff 4 asserts that this edit was "Blatant source falsification" because the source does not say "settlers, who argue the presence of Palestinians is driving them off". However, the edit is not falsification—it is simply a brief summary of the key points from the source. The source's heading includes "settlers demand Palestinian-free buses", and paragraph 4 includes the view of a spokesman that "...they've [Palestinians] occupied the buses, not out of malice. They've scared away the Jews..."—in other words, the presence of Palestinians on the buses is driving away Jewish travelers. The source gives reasons that the settlers are reluctant to travel on a bus under the conditions described, but the text added by Nishidani is merely an accurate and neutral description of the key points—separate transportation systems were abolished, and settlers have protested because the presence of Palestinians has made settlers unwilling to travel on the buses. Johnuniq (talk) 07:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Statement by MarciulionisHOFPersonal attackNishidani caricaturized me a person crying that everything is antisemitic (pro-Palestinian theme - sample, generally derogatory - sample at "zion crime factory"):
Justified the attack as deserving:
Cheesehead hat (read: inappropriate) commentary
Side notes
@HJ Mitchell, Sandstein: - It would benefit the behavior of people involved if you add clarification to the issues I presented. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 06:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC) + MarciulionisHOF (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by Gaijin42I have been previously active in the 2014 Gaza article, but have not been active for the past several weeks. He regularly disparages WP:RS as being unreliable propaganda (refering to them as Hasbara), and using his own WP:OR to argue why sourced information should not be included. His WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is one of the reasons I no longer actively edit in this area. In light of his previous topic ban, it seems that there may be a persistent problem here. Due to my absense from the article, these "diffs" are all older (20 days?) so are not good evidence for current activity, but are useful I think in showing the persistent nature of the problem.
Gaijin42 (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by Pluto2012NB: I have to state that Nishidani is a valuable editor that I like to collaborate with because of his deep knowledge both on the I-P topic and the wikipedia principles. On the other side, I prefer avoiding any interaction with Shrike who I don't see as a constructive and interesting contributor. I only focused on diff 3. This diff should be counted for and not against Nishidani and the different accusations he is targeted by, such as WP:NPA. Indeed, Nishidani explains very precisely in that diff why his contradictor (Shrike)'s point is not correct. He does it without any attack and is extremely factual. That is perfect exemple of the behaviour to adopt on wikipedia. It is amazing Shrike reports this. (Just for the following of this argumentation: Nishidani reports an WP:undue issue.) In this request, Shrike argues that the answer of Nishidani in diff 3 is a form of... wp:soap because he explains a problem of wp:undue on a wp:or board! That's of course not an acceptable argumentation. And other contributors here above mentionned it was not actionnable [against Nishidani]. I agree with them. But in my opinion, this diff and the fact it is reported by Shrike is actionnable against him for a topic ban on this board! Indeed Shrike proves here that he makes :
For these reasons, I would suggest Shrike is banned to intervene here. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by WarKosignDiff #1: Nishandi added a paragraph that I saw as wrong. I partially amended the section, tagged it as dubious and opened a talk page discussion to address the matter. More editors agreed with me that the paragraph is WP:UNDUE, with Plot Spoiler removing the section. Nishidani called this "editing behaviour, of lockstep naysaying" "close to reportable" and restored the section contrary to the usual procedure. Diff #2: In several cases Nishandi made off-hand remarks about other editors competence that I found insulting. Here "this is the English wikipedia, and precise construal of source language is obligatory" implying that I lack it, and even bothering to provide me with a supposedly helpful translation to my native language that I did not ask for. Here "No sensible objections to 'governed' have been presented. Let's move on" - apparently an objection that the user doesn't agree with isn't "sensible". Nishandi mentioned on one of the talk pages being away for a few days, so any arbitration should wait a few days to give the user a chance to respond. WarKosign (talk) 06:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC) To be fair, I have not noticed Nishandi edit warring previously. The user does post long and detailed arguments with a clearly stated bias on the talk pages, sometimes winding into WP:SOAP and/or WP:IDHT. -WarKosign (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by Plot SpoilerThe most troubling issue here is the WP:tendentious editing displayed. Dismissing RS on occasion from the likes The Washington Post or The New York Times because in Nishidani's view they are parroting "hasbara" or some "IDF meme", while inserting content from non-RS highly activist blogs like 972mag. That is unacceptable, to go along with the incessant personal attacks and battleground mentality. The editor could benefit from not being an exclusively single-issue editor. It questions their commitment to the overall Wikipedia project instead of just pushing a certain point of view. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Result concerning NishidaniThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. This request looks to me like a cynical attempt to eliminate an opponent. I see nothing actionable in the diffs, which appear to be a hodge-podge, put together to make the complaint appear more compelling, but what it boils down to is a trivial content dispute in which the complainant and the respondent are on opposing sides.
I recommend closure with no action against Nishidani, and consideration of sanctions against Shrike for using AE as a battleground. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with HJM and Sandstein that no action against Nishidani is needed. This report by Shrike is far-fetched and unpersuasive. I recommend that Shrike be banned from participating in ARBPIA-related AE discussions for three months, unless his own edits are mentioned. The rationale is due to his using AE as a battleground. There are also long-term issues of tendentious editing by various people which I think Sandstein alludes to. Time does not permit considering every case of non-neutral editing, but whenever we have enough evidence to proceed, we should do so. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC) |
Haberstr
No action taken, although participants are reminded that Wikipedia is not a battleground and your fellow Wikipedians are most likely not intelligence operatives. Sandstein 21:04, 19 September 2014 (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 Haberstr
Since User:Haberstr moved over from Syrian-war related articles (where he also apparently got into some trouble) to ones related to the ongoing situation in Ukraine, he's displayed a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, has made a series of baseless accusations towards any editor active in this area who has disagreed with them, and engaged in tendentious editing. I'm mostly skipping evidence and diffs for the last one because it's mostly and specifically content related but it has involved moving talk pages without consensus (while move discussion was ongoing), changing wording to highly POV versions and demanding that his POV is given WP:UNDUE space in relevant articles (see the diff with comment by Kudzu1 above for an example). He's been warned/talked to/notified several times. Initially his most egregious comments were confined to his talk page but he has since began to make similar comments and aspersions on article talk pages. His behavior has been noted by several editors (though of course, Haberstr contends that these are in a conspiracy against them):
@Penwhale: " @Volunteer Marek:, can you answer Sandstein's question?" - I'm sorry, what question are you referring to? I see one question mark in Sandstein's comment and that's at the end of a statement addressed to other AE admins. Volunteer Marek 04:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC) @Penwhale: Well, the word "obviously" and the phrase "on their own" are in that sentence. You should probably ask Sandstein to clarify if you're not clear on what he's saying. My view is that, sure, any particular one of these diffs is not sanctionable on its own. Which is why I didn't run to WP:AE the first time that Haberstr started accusing editors about being in a conspiracy against him. Or the second time. Or the third time. It was only when he kept doing it, when it started to become an issue on talk pages - in that it pretty much shut down productive discussion - that it reached a certain critical point, where it became clear that Haberstr's battleground mentality was disrupting the editing process that I filed this report. I don't disagree with Sandstein's assessment except perhaps in the matter of degree (I'm also assuming that the rest of his comment, the part about bickering is not directed at me but some of the other commentators, as the only other comment I posted here was trying to say something nice about HiLo) I'm sort of not clear about what is you're asking. Volunteer Marek 18:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Notification of this request [28] Discussion concerning HaberstrStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by HaberstrYou're losing this veteran editor, Wikipedia, and I've made thousands of NPOV edits since 2007. These obviously POV Ukraine entries, where the POV editors don't even allow a widely supported POV tag, that's just not encyclopedic, it's just too much. (Note that this arb com attack on me was apparently sparked by my request here: Ukraine: Volunteer Marek's pre-discussion removal of POV tag (twice) on admin noticeboard.) But, if Wikipedia has taken the side of the U.S. and NATO in the New Cold War, then there's no problem, because Wikipedia now has become the pro-NATO Wikipedia in all its Ukraine conflict entrie. I understand that the Russian-language Wikipedia is appparently anti-NATO, anti-U.S. POV on Ukraine conflict articles. Ain't war by other means just fine and dandy!? The critical and obvious sign of POV is the following: nearly all RS report certain accusations against Russia as allegations or claims, but the POV editors insist on transforming these claims into facts. Sometimes they do so in the title of entries; see Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2014). (On the same article's talk page, see also this discussion: POV: Claims presented as facts. ) Usually, though, the claims transformed into 'facts' are in the introductory sentences of an entry. For example, here is something from the start of 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine: "These men were identified as Russian special forces and other paramilitaries." Well, no, RS reported these allegations as claims, not as facts. I of course changed the biased copy and was almost immediately reverted. Much much more on the intro paragraphs bias here[29] and here[30]. Here is something from the lead paragraph of Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation: "Russia absorbed the peninsula after staging a military intervention in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea ..." The preceding is in fact a claim, and is stated as a claim in all RS news reports. (By the way, the "Annexation" article duplicates 2014 Crimean crisis. Like the "Invasion" entry, I suppose the POV editors just wanted to get a contentious word into the name of another Ukraine conflict entry, and don't care about the duplication violation. Those editors had earlier, and without discussion on the talk page, changed the NPOV 'Incorporation' into the arguably POV 'Annexation'.) I have a long track record of working well with NPOV editors, working well with POV editors who sincerely want to become NPOV, and an ability to NPOV improve politically charged articles: [31], [32]. And I have attempted to do the same regarding Ukraine conflict entries: I improve Ukraine-related articles with appropriate, balanced, NPOV edits and, when such changes are reverted (as they almost always are), I attempt to discuss the matter on article talk pages, and then as a last resort I appropriately tagging obvious POV entries as POV. I always support POV tag application with a substance-full list of many POV violations. The POV editors never engage, in particular Volunteer Marek, never engage in the normal, substantive discussion, and never allow the POV tag discussion to play out as Wikipedia policy requires. All attempts to get the POV editors to listen to what numerous people have said about their actions, their destruction and embarrassment of Wikipedia on the Ukraine topic have been futile. Anyone who reads their talk pages knows what is going on and disinterested administrators should consider a topic ban for those most resistant to NPOV. They can start with whoever started and still aggressively supports this ridiculous page: Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2014). Let's read that again: "If you have not taken sides and are in fact an editor who is NPOV-oriented, please discuss so we can agree that my lead is more or less (tweaking graciously accepted) NPOV. If you have enlisted with one side or the other in the new Cold War, please be self aware and don't get involved in the NPOV discussion." I stand by it; it seems like excellent advice, and I'm very surprised that an editor would attack such a quote. I also stand by the following opinion: "There's an organized and successful effort to make Ukraine conflict articles biased." Based on their extensive discussion on their talk pages, a pro-Maidan group is out to make Ukraine conflict edits POV anti-Russian and pro-Maidan. And I admit it is their 'right' to do so, if they can get away with it. However, I promise to desist from making such a claim or allegation in the future. As any dedicated NPOV editor will imagine, I've been very frustrated by the successful pro-Maidan, anti-Russian attack on Wikipedia neutrality. I have never seen anything like it, and I hope we see the back of it soon. At the very very least, though, POV tags should be applied to the worst violators while we wait out the POV editors. We owe that to our readers. In other words, the following sort of behavior needs to stop: [33]. But it is not just Marek who is the problem: note the quick POV tag removal here: POV tag attached. Strongly pro-Maidan and anti-separatist/federalist, which includes the naming of the entry. Haberstr (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Result concerning HaberstrThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. A notice to all bystanders: Please stop arguing and bickering among yourselves, you're wasting your time. I couldn't care less about whatever opinions any of you might have about who is at fault here. The only thing that matters to me as an admin here is evidence, i.e., dated and explained diffs of actionable misconduct.Now, I see a lot of assuming bad faith on both parts of the dispute here, but I'm currently at a loss as to how we might translate this into useful admin action. None of the reported diffs by Haberstr strike me as obviously sanctionable on their own. Nonetheless, the statement by Haberstr is concerning insofar as it alleges an organized propaganda effort by the "other side" without providing any convincing evidence. This contributes to a picture of a battleground attitude that might require a topic ban. Any other admin opinions? Sandstein 11:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
|
SeattliteTungsten
SeattliteTungsten is blocked for 48 hours. Sandstein 09:12, 24 September 2014 (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 SeattliteTungsten
Note that SeattliteTungsten called both edits "reverts" in his/her edit summary.
I didn't want to submit this case, and over a period of 9 hours twice offered to let SeattliteTungsten avoid it by self-reverting. However, he/she just wants to argue so here we are. As Penwhale has already pointed out, SeattliteTungsten's understanding of the rule is defective. It is also defective in terms of what a revert is. If reverts can be sanitised by making some changes to the reverted text, then we can happily revert all day long as long as we remember to change the text a little each time. The 1RR rule would become inoperative. In each case, some text had just been deleted in toto and SeattliteTungsten put it back with some changes. The changes don't alter the fact that SeattliteTungsten reinserted ideas and their sources that another editor had just completely removed. In each case, SeattliteTungsten correctly used the word "revert" in his/her edit summary so it is puzzling that he/she now wants to argue they weren't reverts after all. Zerotalk 06:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Notified Zerotalk 11:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Discussion concerning SeattliteTungstenStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SeattliteTungstenThe complaintant's contribution to Wikipedia is overall worthwhile and positive. However, the current complaint is frivolous and wholly without merit.
The complaint should be summarily dismissed. Because the complaintant was informed (generally) that the cited examples do not constitute a 1RR violation for the above reasons prior to filing the complaint, the complaintant should sanctioned with a symbolic 1-hour block and a request to type, "I am sorry for wasting other people's time filing a frivilous complaint" one hundred times on the defendant's user page as a sanction for wasting time by filing this frivilous complaint. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning SeattliteTungstenThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
SeattliteTungsten (2)
SeattliteTungsten is topic-banned in addition to a block as a normal admin action. Sandstein 08:11, 27 September 2014 (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 SeattliteTungsten
As the result of a recent AE case, SeattliteTungsten was blocked for 48 hours on account of 1RR violation at Israeli West Bank barrier. In response, SeattliteTungsten created at least four (I believe at least seven) sock puppets to continue editing the same article. These accounts were confirmed as socks by CheckUser Ponyo:
I am confident that the following two accounts, which I was too slow to add to SPI before Ponyo checkusered the others, are also socks:
I propose that all these accounts be permanently blocked (some may have been already) and that SeattliteTungsten be indefinitely topic-banned.
As argument against mitigation, I'll mention:
This editor will come back. Can we please have a brief (say, one month) semiprotection of Israeli West Bank barrier and its talk page to give him/her a time to reconsider? Zerotalk 00:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Mike V's block of one month is reasonable for the pure sock puppetry offence, but I think it is inadequate for the AE violation offence. Zerotalk 02:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Also notice this message from SevenOrEleven which basically says the socks will keep coming and we can't do anything about it. Zerotalk 03:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Notified. Zerotalk 00:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Discussion concerning SeattliteTungstenStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SeattliteTungstenStatement by (username)Result concerning SeattliteTungstenThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Neotarf
Not actionable. Sandstein 08:18, 27 September 2014 (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 Neotarf
[[38]]
I apologize in advance if I did not file this correctly and I ask for help to correct it as I have never made an Arb Enforcement request.
[[43]] Discussion concerning NeotarfStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by NeotarfStatement by Callanecc (with arb clerk hat on)Posting here purely in my capacity as an arbitration clerk as this is related to a current case. For (possible) background see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop#Proposed findings of fact 3 by Neotarf and User talk:Callanecc/Archive 14#Workshop Page. Whether to take these into consideration is up to the admins here and I make no comment on what action I believe should be taken. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning NeotarfThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Wlglunight93
Wlglunight93 warned by HJ Mitchell to take more care in the future. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:22, 29 September 2014 (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 Wlglunight93
.
This editor has been edit-warring over many articles with many editors, generally stopping just short of breaching 1RR. S/he has been warned several times, by WarKosign on 8 September,[45] byMalik Shabazz on 10 September,[46] byOncenawhile on 20 September,[47] by RolandR on 20 September[48] and 22 September,[49] and by Thucydides411 on 22 September.[50] So there is no excuse for not knowing about the policy, and the possible sanctions for breaching it. Many of this editor's other edits are questionable or POV, but they usually skirt around 1RR (though this was apparently breached at Template:Iran–Israel proxy conflict on 27 September, and at Israel on 20 September). But the edits above are a clear breach of the 1RR ruling, and suggest that the editor is indifferent to this, or is growing careless with her/his rapid edit-warring. In either case, a sharp reminder of the requirements for editing in this subject area would be appropriate.
Statement by Wlglunight93There has been an honest mistake here. I made this edit (which I didn't realize it was a revert since I wasn't reverting anyone in particular), but later Darkness Shines reverted his own edit, but for some reason he also changed my edit, so I restored it. In any case, I'll be more careful from now on, knowing that almost anything can be interpreted as a revert.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC) Discussion concerning Wlglunight93Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (username)Result concerning Wlglunight93This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Reaper7
Reaper7 is topic-banned from everything related to Macedonia under any meaning of the term. Sandstein 13:28, 1 October 2014 (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 Reaper7
Given the intermittent but extremely persistent, long-term nature of this conduct issue, I'd suggest only a permanent, full topic ban will be appropriate here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Reaper7Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Reaper7There has been an organized campaign along proven ethnic lines with proven sockpuppets concerning the Macedonia pages and it is my aim to remedy this. There have been meaningless bannings on both sides and constant requests such as this one, for members to be banned indefinitely - a culture that solves nothing on the pages themselves. I request that Fut.Perf., who has been disciplined before is disciplined again. It does not matter how often he carefully sets out the template for a banning action, what is key here is the motivation. I suggest the user is warned that wiki project pages are designed for canvassing for work to be done on certain pages. A brief glance at the Greece wiki page that Fut.Perf. monitors for Macedonia related problems will prove this. The Macedonian pages are in need of more editors and there is currently an investigation - which I am not included in, concerning poor behaviour due to users of specific nationalities and sockpuppets once again in the pages. Taivo is one of those accused and that is why I mentioned him and I have been victimised by Fut.Perf. in the past hence his name mentioned - but not in an insulting manner as he claims. Fut.Perf. is a user who tries specifically to ban members of what he believes is are against a certain stand point concerning the Macedonia issue. I hope for end of this poor bevaiour with a strong and swift reprimand for abuse of Enforcement requests by user Fut.Perf.. This culture has created war ground and should not be acknowledged or tolerated unless dealing with genuine sockpuppets or genuine insults on the pages themselves. I have done nothing on the pages to warrant a ban what so ever. Please take the time to check my last edits. Fut.Perf. is trying to ban myself for asking wiki project Greece for more editors to make there presence know on the Macedonia pages. I have warned the editors which users to be wary of to avoid further conflict. That is not worth a ban or any type of action. Once again, the behavior of Fut.Perf. demonstrates severe bad faith and should not be tolerated or encouraged, no matter how many members he has tried to ban concerning this subject in the past. I am not a Sockpuppet, I have not insulted members, but I have been victimized my this member and others in the past specifically over these pages. I have edited 1000s of pages and never met such aggression as that as I have found on the Macedonia pages. The problems I have had on these pages relate specifically to Taivo and Fut.Perf. hence my warning to the project members of this members for exactly this reason. We cannot afford anymore bannings. This bullying should not stand and I hope for fair outcome unlike in 2011 where Fut.Perf. is not rewarded for attempting to ban members who have not negatively edited any of the pages he feels he needs to police with draconian measures. These are the type of members we are attempting to free ourselves from - his/her page says everything: User:Macedoniarulez Thank you for your time. Reaper7 (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by StevepetersonI am not familiar with user's background but in this instance she/he did nothing but 1) express her/his opinion in a request for comment 2) try to convince a contributor (me) who had participated in the actual debate to "let it pass". She/he has no involvement in the actual argument (no edit on the main article), no reversions and never insulted other users. Regarding the second point (warning a contributor), it was me who initiated the discussion in his talk page, hence I take full responsibility for this. I believe that he used the ethnic metaphor as a way to convince me to withdraw from the meaningless debate. Stevepeterson (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Reaper7This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The request has merit. The submitted diffs are evidence of Reaper7 treating Wikipedia as a ethnic/nationalist battleground. What I find particularly odious are their references to the "editors carrying ancestry from the Republic of Macedonia [and] others with more ambiguous or hidden ancestry", as if any editor's ancestry, even if it were known, would be significant for what they contribute to Wikipedia. Reaper7's statement is additional evidence of an inappropriate battleground attitude, given that it does very little to address their own editing, which is what is at issue here, and does not recognize the problematic nature of their conduct, but makes lengthy and vague allegations against the complainant that are however devoid of evidence. The previous sanctions indicate a longterm conduct problem. Unless an administrator objects, I will ban Reaper7 from anything related to Macedonia (with respect to any meaning of the term). Sandstein 13:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
|