The Four Deuces (talk | contribs) |
The Four Deuces (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
==Samp4ngeles== |
==Samp4ngeles== |
||
{{hat|Editor self-reverted. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 13:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)}} |
|||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
<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> |
||
Line 124: | Line 125: | ||
[[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 03:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC) |
[[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 03:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC) |
||
Since after a posting by an administrator on the editor's talk page, they have self-reverted, I am collapsing this discussion thread. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 13:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASamp4ngeles&type=revision&diff=931633188&oldid=931630860] 03:46, 20 December 2019 |
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASamp4ngeles&type=revision&diff=931633188&oldid=931630860] 03:46, 20 December 2019 |
||
Line 141: | Line 144: | ||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
||
* |
* |
||
{{hab}} |
Revision as of 13:18, 20 December 2019
Edit5001
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 Edit5001
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Edit5001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:ARBAPDS : Post-1932 American politics
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 19 December Argues that a source published in October 2018 supports Dobbs' claim that "many" undocumented immigrants committed voter fraud in November 2018 and then says that it is
insulting to everyone's intelligence
to note that a source published before the 2018 elections is not valid to support claims about the outcome of the elections. - 19 December Edit-wars these changes, and others (removes well-sourced "falsely", etc.) after they're objected to on the talk page, declaring
Consensus isn't necessary for every single edit. Stop lying.
- 19 December Uses weasel words to portray Lou Dobbs' false claim about voter fraud in 2018 as possibly true, claiming in the edit summary that it is "NPOV"
- 19 December Uses weasel words to weaken the clear factual description of Lou Dobbs' statements as relating to anti-Semitism.
- 19 December Weakens reliably-sourced description of Dobbs' use of conspiracy theories about George Soros.
- 19 December Describes Vox and USA Today as "obviously biased sources" in removing a description of a white supremacist rally as a "pathetic failure."
- 19 December Uses source which says nothing about the article subject to make a claim about the article subject.
- 13 December Removes statement that
There is no evidence that white people are dying out or that they will die out, or that anyone is trying to exterminate them as a race
in an attempt to portray the white genocide conspiracy theory as true.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict by Doug Weller: [1].
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This user is making tendentious edits to a wide array of American politics-related articles, editing them to remove and/or weaken reliably-sourced statements about people, misuse sources, depict conspiracy theories as potentially true. When their edits are challenged and they are asked to discuss these contentious changes as per WP:BRD, they have made the statement that Consensus isn't necessary for every single edit
, which flies in the face of WP:CONSENSUS - indeed, by policy, contentious edits require consensus when challenged. In this case, I would ask for an enforced 0RR/BRD sanction - that if any of their edits are reverted by anyone, they are not allowed to reinstate them unless consensus is developed on the talk page (or the reverter refuses/fails to engage in discussion after a reasonable time). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Who is the arbitrator on Wikipedia of whether a claim is fit to be labeled "false"? If sources contest something, it's a contested claim.
indicates a failure to understand how Wikipedia works. In this case, reliable sources and fact-checkers essentially unanimously reject Dobbs' claim that voter fraud by undocumented immigrants was responsible for the outcome of the 2018 elections - it is a false statement. We do not give equal validity to unequal sources and uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. The statement that Dobbs' claims are false is uncontroversial and uncontested among reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Notified here.
Discussion concerning Edit5001
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 Edit5001
NorthbySouthBaronOf has essentially sat on several political related articles and turned them into partisan political hit pieces for or against subjects as meet his political ends. He refuses to consider any opinions other than this own and declares that each and every modification to articles he's involved with require consensus to the point of needing an RFC for most changes.
I'll respond to each and every case he cites;
1. None of my edits were contested on the Talk page. I also only reverted a single edit, which itself was a revert of several of my edits by NorthbySouthBaronOf with zero explanation other than "get consensus", so that's hardly an "edit war". NorthbySouthBaronOf is simply totally wrong about what he's claiming here.
2. Who is the arbitrator on Wikipedia of whether a claim is fit to be labeled "false"? If sources contest something, it's a contested claim. Outright calling people whose articles he's editing liars spreading falsehoods, as NorthBySouthBaronOf commonly does on politically charged pages of those he edits, isn't constructive or neutral.
3. It's extremely contested at best to say Dobbs was intending to be anti-Semitic with those remarks. Criticism of George Soros is extremely common and much of it has absolutely nothing to do with his ethnic background. To flatly label criticism of Soros as anti-Jewish is outrageous.
4. See above. Soros is well known as an international political activist. Further, the source itself calls him a "liberal" philanthropist - wording that NorthbySouthBaronOf completely left out.
5. Vox is described as a politically partisan source here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources The USA Today article, meanwhile, is an opinion piece. That's why I refer to these two sources being cited in the example in question as biased.
6. As I wrote in the edit there - Horowitz stated "It doesn’t vindicate anyone at the FBI who touched this, including the leadership,” This directly covers Strzok, as he was one of the leading FBI agents involved and "touched" the issue thoroughly.
7. I removed that sentence because I felt it wasn't adequately backed by the sources included. Not much beyond it than that. Edit5001 (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Levivich
1. Team red
2. Team blue
3. Using AE to solve a content dispute
Yup, it's AP2!
Looking at those diffs, I agree with NSBF on some, with Edit5001 on others. This is a content dispute and should be resolved through dispute resolution, not AE enforcement. Having a difference of opinion is not disruptive. – Levivich 17:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Edit5001
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Samp4ngeles
Editor self-reverted. TFD (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2019 (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 Samp4ngeles
Violation of 1RR.
Tulsi Gabbard is under 1RR. The editor was already recently blocked for violating 1RR. I notified them after they exceeded 1RR in this case and asked them to self-revert or I would report them to AE.[2] They replied, "I think you need to count it again. It was only one revert, of the @Xenagoras revert. If you notice, I went on to explain the revert in further by creating a new topic in Talk. That should eliminate any confusion. This is not "edit warring," but I would perhaps agree with you if I were to revert it a second time." However, in both cases they removed the words "and multireligious" in the sentence "Gabbard was raised in a multicultural and multireligious household." Based on the comments of original blocking administrator, the quickness with which the editor reverted to edit-warring and their apparent lack of appreciation of what edit-warring is, I would recommend a topic ban on Tulsi Gabbard and related articles. TFD (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC) Since after a posting by an administrator on the editor's talk page, they have self-reverted, I am collapsing this discussion thread. TFD (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Samp4ngelesStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Samp4ngelesStatement by (username)Result concerning Samp4ngeles
|