Paul Siebert (talk | contribs) Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
→Nableezy: Closing |
||
Line 293: | Line 293: | ||
==Nableezy== |
==Nableezy== |
||
{{hat|Bob drobbs topic-banned from Israel/Palestine content for six months -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 23:19, 12 December 2021 (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 424: | Line 425: | ||
*Kitchen-sink enforcement requests like this provide evidence of [[WP:BATTLE|battleground]] behavior. The complaints concern disputes regarding [[David Collier (political activist)]] which was deleted at 22:26, 10 December 2021 as a result of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Collier (political activist)|this AfD]]. The first link is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FDavid_Collier_%28political_activist%29&type=revision&diff=1057930058&oldid=1057929097] which shows Nableezy making very valid points at an AfD with a mild "And possibly block creator per [[WP:POINT]]." At the time this request was filed (19:54, 10 December 2021) the AfD did not support keeping the article and in fact it was deleted {{frac|2|1|2}} hours later. Continuing with this issue does not show good judgment. I don't see any evidence showing Nableezy making anything other than reasonable policy-based comments. Mother Teresa might not have included all of Nableezy's text but if there is something sanctionable there, I don't see it (that's an invitation for anyone to post a single link with an explanation). The final item of evidence is "He just filed a report: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Inf-in_MD]" which refers to the report above ([[#Inf-in MD]]) where the reported user has been blocked as a sock. A topic ban of {{u|Bob drobbs}} seems appropriate in order to reduce the disruption. Re the request to extend past 500 words, please post more within a limit of 1000 words but all that is needed is, say, two links showing something actually bad, with a brief explanation. Re the duration of a possible topic ban, I think indefinite is the only useful approach in a topic like this where the editor needs to show an understanding of why the sanction occurred and why it would be reasonable for it to be removed. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 01:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC) |
*Kitchen-sink enforcement requests like this provide evidence of [[WP:BATTLE|battleground]] behavior. The complaints concern disputes regarding [[David Collier (political activist)]] which was deleted at 22:26, 10 December 2021 as a result of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Collier (political activist)|this AfD]]. The first link is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FDavid_Collier_%28political_activist%29&type=revision&diff=1057930058&oldid=1057929097] which shows Nableezy making very valid points at an AfD with a mild "And possibly block creator per [[WP:POINT]]." At the time this request was filed (19:54, 10 December 2021) the AfD did not support keeping the article and in fact it was deleted {{frac|2|1|2}} hours later. Continuing with this issue does not show good judgment. I don't see any evidence showing Nableezy making anything other than reasonable policy-based comments. Mother Teresa might not have included all of Nableezy's text but if there is something sanctionable there, I don't see it (that's an invitation for anyone to post a single link with an explanation). The final item of evidence is "He just filed a report: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Inf-in_MD]" which refers to the report above ([[#Inf-in MD]]) where the reported user has been blocked as a sock. A topic ban of {{u|Bob drobbs}} seems appropriate in order to reduce the disruption. Re the request to extend past 500 words, please post more within a limit of 1000 words but all that is needed is, say, two links showing something actually bad, with a brief explanation. Re the duration of a possible topic ban, I think indefinite is the only useful approach in a topic like this where the editor needs to show an understanding of why the sanction occurred and why it would be reasonable for it to be removed. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 01:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC) |
||
*Agree with a topic ban for the OP plus a warning about weaponising dispute resolution forums to "win" content disputes. I see some of these previous frivolous dispute resolution filings are now being characterised as "daring to question an admin," which further illustrates that the OP doesn't understand [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]], [[WP:TE]], or why their approach is disruptive to collaborative editing. More positively: agree with the topic ban being indefinite but not infinite - a good record editing unrelated articles might pave the way for a future appeal. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 03:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC) |
*Agree with a topic ban for the OP plus a warning about weaponising dispute resolution forums to "win" content disputes. I see some of these previous frivolous dispute resolution filings are now being characterised as "daring to question an admin," which further illustrates that the OP doesn't understand [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]], [[WP:TE]], or why their approach is disruptive to collaborative editing. More positively: agree with the topic ban being indefinite but not infinite - a good record editing unrelated articles might pave the way for a future appeal. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 03:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC) |
||
:*May as well proceed to closing as this has been sitting here for a few days without further input. There is consensus for a '''topic ban''' of the OP but less consensus on its length (indefinite vs shorter). Have therefore gone for a milder option with a six-month ban. I note {{u|Rosguill}}'s comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rosguill&diff=1059970731&oldid=1059961474 here] re ban length: in the spirit of AGF am content to assume that six months editing in other areas of Wikipedia will induce a less battleground approach. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 23:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
==The History Wizard of Cambridge== |
==The History Wizard of Cambridge== |
Revision as of 23:19, 12 December 2021
AmirahBreen 2
AmirahBreen blocked for a week and banned from the article Gaza flotilla raid for a month. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:25, 6 December 2021 (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 AmirahBreen
Right after returning from the user have edit warred again This content was previously removed by him as part of big revert "Five of the activists who were killed had previously declared their desire to become shaheeds (martyrs)" [2]
Discussion concerning AmirahBreenStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AmirahBreenI made one reversion today and one yesterday. I am not clear is a 24 hour period counted from midnight to midnight or from one reversion to the next? I have made no further edits to the page today. I have opened discussions about it on the article talk page and am participating in those discussions to reach consensus. Please also consider that the information which I removed was defamatory and original research. The sources were clear that their primary motive was to bring aid to Gaza and to cherry pick from the sources what they said may happen as an alternative if they failed and to place that in the text with the implication that it was their primary motive is defamatory. Although this is not a BLP and those people are not still alive, there are still people alive who were part of this aid mission who it can effect 'by association'. GizzyCatBella wouldn't it be clearer if the warning said 'editors who revert this article should seek consensus before further reverts, and must refrain from from reverting the article again for at least 24 hours'? IMO there should also be warning there that if Wikipedia policies are not followed it could also lead to a block due to discretionary sanctions. I am not one to go straight for arbitration, but reverting my edit in a rollback with no explanation in the edit summary as to why, as was done here [5] and then reverting it again for no other reason than that the editor considered it a 1RR violation as was done here [6] despite the fact that I had still not been given any explanation either in edit summary or on talk pages as to why it had been reverted in the first place, is that really in line with Wikipedia policy? If there was more emphasis on adhering to Wikipedia policies in the warnings then this shouldn't have happened in the first place. Editors should give clear edit summaries and particularly when making reverts on an article which is under discretionary sanctions. You are enforcing 1RR yet you are not enforcing Wikipedia policies. What is more Daveout actually contravened the 1RR in one fowl swoop with a rollback of two completely separate edits with an edit summary which explained only one of them, but did you see me running straight to AE? He's also made a 3rd revert which is only just outside the 24hr mark and he's had talk page warnings for similar behaviour. Daveout also broke the 1RR by doing this [7] and this [8] which resulted in me getting blocked after being reported by a sock-puppet of a banned editor. I warned him about edit warring on his talk page. [9] and yesterday morning he went straight back and started another edit war, by reverting my edit with no explanation or edit summary, immediately followed by reverting another editors edit, for which he gave an edit summary but it turned out to be invalid. I've certainly learned a thing or two in all of this myself, but has Daveout learned anything at all? Has his username even been mentioned in this or the previous discussion in which I was not allowed to take part? When he reverted my edit yesterday with no explanation in the edit summary I actually thought he'd probably made two reverts, one immediately following the next, by mistake, being that his edit summary only covered his second revert. I reverted back asking him to provide an edit summary (or discuss on the talk page), not with the intention of starting an edit war, but because I thought he had mistakenly rolled two reverts into one, and the edit he'd provided an edit summary for had absolutely nothing to do with my edit as far as I could see. I hadn't even questioned the reliability of the source, I had questioned the way in which the source had been cherry picked. WP:WAR Referring to 3RR - 'Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring.' Is this any different for 1RR? According to WP:1RR it isn't. WP:1RR also says that 24 hours may be replaced by 'a week', 'a month' etc. If it's talking about the time between one revert and the next then why not arbitrary figures such as 6 hours, 18 hours etc. If a revert was made this month then it implies that a revert made next month would not be within the month, even if it were made on an earlier day of the month. A month is not a set number of days, so how can you count from revert to revert if a month could be 31, 30 or even 29 or 28 days. How do you know which length of month to choose? The length of this month or next month? I'm not saying that I don't understand now what has already been explained to me, what I am saying is I still feel that the policy pages don't explain clearly enough and that I should be believed when I say I did not fully understand if it meant 24 hours from the time the first revert was made or if it meant 'on the same day'. WP:3RRNO Point 7. also says under exemptions 'Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy.' Due to the comma after 'unsourced' but no comma after 'poorly sourced', I would read this to say that libelous, biased, and unsourced, may also refer to articles other than BLPs. I still maintain that the text I removed was libelous and biased in the context it was placed and in the way it was picked from the source which distorted it's meaning, it also turned out to be poorly sourced. If I am not reading this correctly, then a comma should be placed after 'poorly sourced' in point 7 to make it clearer. Cullen328 I don't even understand your comment, at the start of this discussion I was not asking if 24 meant 24, I was asking 'is it counted from midnight to midnight or from edit to edit'. Anyway, I have exceeded my wordcount now. Perhaps you will take into account that I was not allowed to make a statement in the last discussion, if you are counting the results of the last discussion against me too. Amirah talk 02:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by GizzyCatBella
I would say that a 1RR violation is obvious @AmirahBreen The warning was posted and visible here --> [11]
Statement by NableezyWhats the first a revert of? Did anybody ask the user to self-revert? Did you try to engage on the talk page? With the user on the user talk page? Curious. nableezy - 21:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Here Shrike, I tried to help you out with the whole not using AE as a weapon thing. Maybe see for example User_talk:Bob_drobbs#1rr for how a user might try to engage another and ask that they correct their actions prior to escalating things here even if they oppose their edits. nableezy - 21:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
HJ, nobody has tried to engage this person with anything besides threats at all. This was the sequence of the first block. Notice. AE report (by a since blocked sock). Sanction. Those are consecutive edits to their talk page, and not one person stopped in between to give her (I think from username?) even one chance at learning how to correct the issues. And here, again, no request to self-revert. You have one user reverting their edit so they could not self-revert, and another reporting them, and nobody offering a chance at a self-revert. And all the while, users are violating WP:RSEDITORIAL and WP:ONUS. That is, um, sub-par. nableezy - 22:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by User:力Nobody is covering themselves with glory here. I'm not sure how several of the regulars don't understand the dummy links ("difflink3") in the reporting template. I'm not sure I believe that AmirahBreen doesn't understand the 1RR rule after being blocked over it a week ago. I'm not sure why Nableezy thinks this filing is inappropriate after that block and after this talk page disucssion that suggests AmirahBreen thinks they did nothing wrong. As far as what should be done, a week-long page ban from Gaza flotilla raid (but not the talk page) seems to me to be both gentle and justified. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Bob Drobbs1. A polite notice of 1RR violation was put on AmirahBreen's talk page.[12]. There was no request to self-revert because someone else did it for them. AmirahBreen didn't accept this, but instead doubled-down with seeming annoyance and frustration. And this was immediately after a 72 hour ban for the same violation. It would appear that for whatever reason, AmirahBreen is unable or unwilling to follow the rules. 2. Digging a deeper hole. In the latest edit[13] AmirahBreen tries to argue that we should excuse this additional violation of 1RR, because it was their opinion that this text was problematic. That's not how 1RR works. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC) 3. While I appreciate the wide variety of human experience, the simple fact is that we all have to work together abiding by the same set of rules. AmirahBreen hasn't just slightly exceeded the 500 word limit in here, they've more than doubled that. It's another example, that at this point in time, this user isn't following the rules. They pointed out their own rule violation, yet they did not correct it. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning AmirahBreen
|
Inf-in MD
Inf-in MD blocked as a sockpuppet of NoCal100. Maxim(talk) 16:24, 10 December 2021 (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 Inf-in MD
N/A
Inf-in MD, after having previously accused me pompous ignorance only to redact it when told he would be reported, has several times now accused me of lacking competence to edit here. The basis of this is my saying that a group known as "Jewish Human Rights Watch" There is no website for it, no charity information, no known board, no nothing. Inf-in MD did indeed find that it was a registered corporation in the UK under a slightly different name, but has claimed that I what I wrote "is completely false, nonsense by an editor who hasn't done even minimal research on the topic". One part of what I wrote was incorrect, that it does not have a board. The rest remains completely true. Regardless, claiming that I lack competence is inflammatory and uncivil, and if Inf-in MD feels I lack competence to edit here then the correct thing to do is raise the issue on an administrative board. Not drop a CIR link, four times, in article talk pages. As I had previously asked Inf-in MD to not make such personal attacks, and they have seen fit to ratchet that up substantially, I ask that he be restricted from participating in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions. That's a pretty blatant misreading of my question, I was asking if it was a competence issue for me that I did not find the group listed under Jewish Rights Watch. Because I looked for Jewish Human Rights Watch and came up with zilch. I was asking that if I did not find it under a different name does that mean I lack competence. Not turning the question around. nableezy - 02:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
The response is incredibly disingenuous. He does not doubt my good faith in the first paragraph, but its time somebody put a stop to me in the second. Doesnt have any idea about anybody was doing in years past, but offers this commentary about long-time editors supposedly being unsanctionable. Also, linking to a website I dislike is a very peculiar framing for linking to a website that outs several editors and attempts to out several more. Im already on record as to what prior accounts would have informed these views over the years, but I find the game in which one pretends to be assuming good faith in me in one paragraph so that they look like they arent doing what they so obviously are doing and in the next paragraph retreating to form to be disingenuous. nableezy - 15:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Inf-in MDStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Inf-in MDAs I explained on that page, WP:CIR says "Sometimes editors have good intentions, but are not competent enough to edit in a net positive manner. They create work that others have to clean up." - that seems to be the case here. I don't doubt the editor's good intentions but he's simply not up to the task as demonstrated by his editing. He did not perform the most basic of research that would have shown that what they claimed ("this is not an organization in any meaningful sense. It is a Facebook group and a Twitter feed. There is no website for it, no charity information, no known board, no nothing.") is false. As the links I gave him show , it is a registered corporation (a PLC) in the UK, with a board that is named, with an address etc.. He further did not understand that 'Jewish Rights Watch' is the legal name for "Jewish Human Right Watch" (and seems to still not understand this, per his comment above), despite the fact that I gave him a link that made that connection explicit (and then he had the audacity to accuse me of failing CIR for confusing these entities which he incorrectly assumed were different ones - [14] "your link to the UK company information services is to "JEWISH RIGHTS WATCH", not Jewish Human Rights Watch. Is that a competence issue?" the same thing he's accusing me of doing here!). He thus created work for other editors (me) who had to do this basic research , and more work to explain this basic stuff to them and clean up the wrong and misleading stuff they posted. This user has a habit of trying to weaponize discussion boards like this one (or even Afd! -[15] "sanction the creator" , or this, same AfD [16] "you should be blocked and topic banned per WP:POINT and WP:TE") to sanction people who disagree with him. It's time someone put a stop to this behavior. Inf-in MD (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC) User:力 , I provided links to their corporate registration and filings. There have been 3-4 employees, since 2014. Not that it really matters, many organizations are sole proprietorships or two partners, that does not make them any less of a real organization. But I take your point about invoking WP:CIR not being a good idea. Inf-in MD (talk)
I accept that invoking CIR was wrong , and have struck those references out .Inf-in MD (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC) With that said let address some of the other comments:
Statement by User:力Bringing up WP:CIR on an article talk page is almost never a good idea, especially with editors who aren't new. Also, I'm not convinced that "Jewish Human Rights Watch" is anything more than a doing-business-as for an individual activist or two, based on the talk page discussion. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Statement by GizzyCatBellaAccusing a 14-year-old veteran of lacking competence is a bad, bad, bad idea. Particularly when it comes from somebody who initiated a journey with Wikipedia 4 months ago Let's study it all a bit closer... - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Statement by AquillionFirst, per WP:ONUS, nobody is required to do your research for you. That means that even if nableezy had been completely and unequivocally wrong, it still wouldn't have been appropriate to accuse him of WP:CIR issues - he's entirely within his rights to evaluate a source based solely on what has been presented by the people who want to include it. Inf-in MD's complaint that nableezy made them do the work of researching the source that Inf-in MD presented is not appropriate, because that work was always Inf-in MD's responsibility. But on top of that, nableezy's argument wasn't even obviously wrong! Arguing that the source is WP:UNDUE because Statement by ShrikeNableezy complain that editors weaponize AE but he doing the same such filing were at AE multiple times and maximum what happened is mild warning that editor comments are not "ideal". It would be strange if there would be different outcome --Shrike (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000To editor Shrike: Counting has never been my strong suit, so apologies if I'm wrong. As far as I can tell this filing brings Nableezy's count for 2021 up to 3. In the same time period, your count is 4. Maybe you should withdraw your "multiple times" remark. Zerotalk 08:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Result concerning Inf-in MD
|
RoyalCathayan
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 RoyalCathayan
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- AlexEng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- RoyalCathayan (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
- Discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBAPDS
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- Today
- Added unsourced statement and photo about a supporter of Hong Kong's independence to the Trump Rally section. Appears to be an attempt to link the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests with the 2021 United States Capitol attack
- Added aggrandizing claim regarding the streets being filled with the vehicles of Trump supporters as a caption to a photo of one car bearing pro-Trump stickers and paraphernalia. Appears to be aggrandizing the scale of the protest using vague exaggerated and unsourced claims.
- Added photo of the US Capitol in darkness after the attack (Metadata shows it was taken at 5:33pm) and labeled it as
Patriots look on the Capitol just before the attack
. Appears to be elevating attackers to status of "patriots". Not really sure about the motivation for the incorrect description of the timeline; maybe just a simple mistake. - Added claim that US Capitol Police allowed attackers into the building, sourced to a youtube video rather than secondary source analysis. Appears to be POV pushing diminishment of attackers' actions.
- Today
- Removal of "false" descriptor surrounding Trump's claims of fraud in several places; this is well-sourced throughout the article body.
- Addition of WP:COATRACK section of various isolated incidents of small-scale fraud or processing issues. Appears to be POV pushing electoral fraud narrative.
- Today Aggrandizing scale of Trump supporter crowds with obvious WP:PUFFERY.
- Today
- Removal of well-sourced "false" descriptor of claims again.
- Modification of "allies" to "supporters." "Allies" implies public figures rather than crowds of supporters. Not really sure what the motivation was, but this is a pattern of POV pushing.
- Removal of well-sourced big lie statement and the word "lie" in another place in the article.
- Addition of descriptor "in America and abroad" to a sentence about Trump supporters. Appears to again be aggrandizing scale of Trump support by adding irrelevant factoid about foreign support.
- 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 in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This editor launched into a foray of POV-pushing in articles about post-1920 American politics today. Worse, all of these substantial edits were marked as "minor," which may be an attempt to game the system by reducing the visibility of controversial edits on watchlists. AlexEng(TALK) 05:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [24]
Discussion concerning RoyalCathayan
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 RoyalCathayan
Statement by (username)
Result concerning RoyalCathayan
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Nableezy
Bob drobbs topic-banned from Israel/Palestine content for six months -- Euryalus (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2021 (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 Nableezy
Repeated calls in an AFD and article talk pages calling for me to be banned IMO cross the line into intimidation and harassment violating WP:CIVIL:
This is especially true as he continued this behavior after I asked him to stop. "Please stop making threats - if you're going to report me, then report me. But I think your accusations are groundless. Stop making threats implied or otherwise" [25] David Collier (political activist) has personally attacked Nableezy (I cannot share the link), and I believe Nableezy knows this, but he denies that he has any COI in regards to the person who attacked him. Below is how Nableezy refers to Collier. This might violate WP:COI or WP:OR among other things. The RS which are being used generally refer to Collier as an "independent journalist" or "researcher", though a few mostly older sources do refer to him as a "blogger". His blog is never mentioned in anything more than passing, but his reports on antisemitism are covered in depth in RS. Nableezy's personal opinion that material covered by RS is "wild claims" should play no part in these discussions.
Regarding COI, I recognize something of a Catch-22 if anyone with a wikipedia page can attack a wikipedia editor, and then that editor can no longer edit their BLP page. But on the flip-side, if a notable or possibly notable person attacks an editor, that editor must be extra careful editing their page or pushing for exclusion of their work. Nableezy seems to be completely failing there. Finally, this isn't any sort of "gotcha" trying to silence an opponent. I repeatedly told Nableezy that I felt these calls for me to be banned felt like threats or intimidation and asked him to stop[26][27][28] He refused. Then I asked if he'd join me in a mediation process.[29][30] Again he refused.
He just filed a report: [31]
Regarding WP:POINT, ... As for edit warring, Huldra systematically went through wikipedia removing every mention of Collier[32][33][34] outside of his page with the exact same edit comment: "WP:ONUS and WP:DUE and WP:RS...". I did put much of that text back at one point or another while making good faith efforts to engage in talk pages. And in at least one case, she was right so I undid part of my revert[35]. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
@Huldra:: AR was completely the wrong venue, a mistake which I acknowledged[38] and corrected with a move to ANI[39]. And yes, there was zero result, but here's how two non-involved editors described your behavior:
Johnuniq made an early comment in that ANI, but for whatever reason did not weigh back in after those comments. I've been editing on and off, for 10 years not just in the IP area. I may get permanently banned for daring to question an admin, but Johnuniq's call for a permanent ban, when I've never even been reported before, feels like an attempt to silence one side of these discussions. I'm imperfect, but so is almost everyone who edits IP pages. On the positive side, if you look you'll find examples of me making real effort to work with the "other side" including Nableezy [40][41], and when I misgendered Huldra, I apologized profusely.[42]. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC) @Huldra: I did not systematically go through and add everything possible about Collier. I carefully evaluated things and only added content which I felt was well supported by multiple sources. The Amnesty International text, for example, has two solid sources. When there was only one source, or a bad source, I did not include it. When you pointed out things that were badly sourced, I agreed with you and removed them [43]. I treated you with real kindness once. You are under no obligation to return that favor. But I'm going to ask you to speak up on my behalf anyways, so we can work together to make pages better in the future, fairly representing all sides. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning NableezyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by NableezyDavid Collier is a blogger. That is how he is referred to by the BBC. The US State Department describes him as pro-Israel blogger. Do I think Bob should be sanctioned for violating WP:POINT? Yes, I do, his creation of the Collier article, really a hagiography, was on the heels of a dispute at NPOVN about using some material from Collier. He, after creating the article, wrote on NPOVN that David Collier is notable now. He very purposely created an article as part of his push to include material in other articles, material that a consensus at NPOVN found should not be included. COI? Because Collier called me a terrorist? How does that make it so I have a conflict of interest with him? I dont give half a shit what some random person on the internet thinks of Nableezy. That somebody thinks I am a terrorist is their problem, not mine. I have never engaged with Collier in any way whatsoever anywhere, and the idea that one can make up some wild claim, and yes I am going to say the idea that I am a terrorist is indeed a wild claim and a ranting on a blog, and can then disqualify that person from editing their article is asinine. OR? What edit to an article have I ever made that was not cited to a reliable source directly backing it up? Yes, there has been an incessant push to include Collier's claims, in which he demonstratively fabricates material as documented here, carried out by Bob and the now blocked latest reincarnation of NoCal100. And yes, I do think that is a problem. A content problem that I am addressing on talk pages. Warning Bob that if he continues to violate WP:ONUS and edit-warring (not 1RR as he claims above) is what we are supposed to do. We let people know what they are doing is against policy before reporting them. Such as when I gave him the opportunity to self-revert previously. Bob seems to be under the impression that if he does not violate the 1RR that he may edit-war to enforce his position, as he has done here, here (and again same article same revert), here, and here. Every single one of those is a violation of WP:ONUS, and yes every single one is part of an incessant campaign to include a bloggers view in our articles. nableezy - 20:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Collier has attacked a large number of editors here, claiming that we are antisemites, terrorist-supporters, literal Nazis. The idea that somebody can disqualify a set of users so that only those users whose views align with his own may edit material about him is so silly that I cant quite put into words how dumbfounded I am that somebody would seriously suggest it. By Bob's standards, only Collier's fans can edit material about him, and if I or anybody else does not want a blogger quoted at length in encyclopedia article then we fail COI. I have no external relationship with Collier. I have no financial relationship with Collier. He has tried to out me, he has tried to out others. That does not mean I have a conflict with him. I very literally do not give a shit about David Collier, or anything he has ever written or said. I do care about our articles, and I will continue to make sure that they remain encyclopedia articles and not filled with unimportant trivia like what some blogger thinks. nableezy - 21:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Bob, I can honestly say I dont care what you think about my views of Collier or his reports, and no I will not be excusing myself from discussions about them. But I will try my best to only warn you on your user talk page. If youd prefer I just report you for edit-warring I can do that too if you like, but I always appreciated a heads up that a report was going to result if I did not correct some error; if you do not then no worries I dont need to give them. nableezy - 23:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Add another ONUS violation and instance of edit-warring here, having previously reverted multiple times (here and here. nableezy - 00:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by FirefangledfeathersMentioning the possibility that you might complain about a user's conduct on-wiki is not a "threat" and describing them as such is a pet peeve of mine. I am surprised to see that Bob drobbs considers this sanctionable behavior; he's done the same at least once, in this comment at Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. In a topic area with such frequent misconduct, including some that is accidental and quickly corrected, it's no surprise that content disputes commonly include mentions of ANI or AE as a potential next step. I would prefer to see these mentions take place at user talk pages, so that content discussions can stay more focused, so here's me asking: nableezy, please consider bringing conduct concerns to user talk pages, followed by ANI/AE/and admin's page if needed. It's vanishingly rare to see editors respond well, and it usually devolves into misconduct side conversations that detract from the project far more than they resolve any disputes. I have said, and will continue to say, as much to any editor that I think might take the feedback well, but again, this type of warning is so ubiquitous that sanction here would be surreal. Firefangledfeathers 22:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Statement by SelfstudierI will not directly address the complaint filed but rather discuss issues I raised on complainant's talk page, if I may. Re the BDS article & Approaching Inf-in_MD & The "one last chance" refers to the discussion mentioned by "FFF". Complainant has a tendency to overreact when things are not going the way they would wish & "I have a busy day and don't have time right now to figure out how to do it myself" The whole talk page may be read to get the gist of my argument, it's not that long and elements of it explain in part why Nableezy is justifiably exasperated. There are other issues around use/misuse of dispute resolution procedures that I will address if needs be. Selfstudier (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by HuldraJust this month, Bob drobbs first reported me to arbcom; link Then he reported me to WP:AN/I; (see link); both with zero result. And now he reports Nableezy here. And we are still only the 10th of the month. If you don't topic-ban him; can you please at least ban him from filing more "reports"? Far, far too much time has been wasted on this. And just the idea that if people are harassing you off-wiki, then you are disqualified to discuss them on-wiki? This is 100% absurd, IMO. (Alas; it would of course be wonderful for the harassers iff it was true) Huldra (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Nableezy
|
The History Wizard of Cambridge
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 The History Wizard of Cambridge
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- The History Wizard of Cambridge (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
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Standard_discretionary_sanctions
- [46] Revert of Nug on 21:34, 11 December 2021.
- [47] Revert of Volunteer Marek on 22:00, 11 December 2021. Mass killings under communist regimes is under a strict 1RR.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- [48] Received a 48 hour block for edit-warring earlier this year at Cecil Rhodes on 09:06, 3 April 2021.
- 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 on 06:29, 10 December 2021.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I explained the discretionary sanctions and asked The History Wizard of Cambridge to self-revert the 1RR violation prior to filing this AE report, deliberately declining to revert it myself or to take any particular stance on the underlying content, but The History Wizard of Cambridge refused to do so.
The History Wizard of Cambridge previously deleted content in two non-consecutive edits on 5 December ([49], [50]) although those edits were not reported here because it was ambiguous whether they qualified as reverts and whether the user was then aware of the discretionary sanctions in effect at Mass killings under communist regimes (notwithstanding the prominent notice that displays whenever editing the page).
Under the former account name of BulgeUwU, which was considered obscene and had to be changed, this user was the subject of an ANI report by Pudeo detailing what other users called "mass POV changes"
(Pudeo), "ridiculously blatant POV-pushing"
(Ineffablebookkeeper), "deliberate falsification or just incompetence"
(Red Rock Canyon), and "improper synthesis"
(Fences and windows). Among other things, The History Wizard of Cambridge/BulgeUwU wrote in wikivoice that British historian Robert Conquest (author of The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties) "committed plagiarism"
using a source that failed verification, after which the user conceded: "Even though the word plagiarism is not used [in the source], I don't know how else to accurately describe [Conquest's] actions."
TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning The History Wizard of Cambridge
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 The History Wizard of Cambridge
Statement by Paul Siebert
I myself noticed this edit war, and I posted this warning on the talk page. There is a clear 1RR violation here, but before making a decision, two considerations must be taken into account.
- First, this edit by @Nug: restored the source that is, according to this RSN discussion is unreliable. In addition, several users ([52], [53]) objected to that. Therefore, the user whom The History Wizard of Cambridge reverted clearly violated consensus. Similarly @Volunteer Marek: repeated the same edit, and that action also was against a consensus.
- Second, there is a serious reason to suspect that the opposite party was acting as a tag-team. I believe, many admins are aware of that reason, but if they aren't, I can explain it, either here of by email.
My opinion is that this article has a very bad karma, but we currently are starting to work productively and collaboratively on fixing its problem. Thus, a dispute resolution is currently in progress, and Nug is an important participant in it. I think that AE sanctions will bring unneeded drama, which will immediately create a very toxic atmosphere. However, if admins decide that sanctions are needed, then both warring parties must be sanctioned. In my opinion, a final warning to all parties would be the most fruitful solution.
Statement by (username)
Result concerning The History Wizard of Cambridge
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.