Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Greenbay1313 (talk | contribs) Ronn Torossian |
||
Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> |
<!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> |
||
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> |
<!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.--> |
||
===Result concerning BLP=== |
|||
[[Ronn Torossian]] page has been repeatedly violated by User:Ravpapa. Many blog and slanderous statements made. --[[User:Greenbay1313|Greenbay1313]] ([[User talk:Greenbay1313|talk]]) 17:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:53, 31 March 2011
Hangakiran
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Hangakiran
- User requesting enforcement
- Biruitorul Talk 22:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Hangakiran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Enforcement
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [1] The editor continues to refer to his opponents' ethnicity in a content dispute, thereby creating a battleground atmosphere. Saying "all the Hungarian editors have been banned. The discussion is now entirely one where I am left to defend against many Romanian editors who have started hounding the discussion" is not acceptable.
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- Warning by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [2] Hangakiran was specifically warned: "I consider using the nationality of editors as an argument prima facie evidence of sanctionable misconduct under WP:DIGWUREN".
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- I request that action be taken to stop Hangakiran from referring to content opponents' ethnicity.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- This comment by Hangakiran, made 17 minutes after T. Canens's warning, strikes me as evidence that he did read it. - Biruitorul Talk 17:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC) (Moved from admin section)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- Hangakiran notified here.
Discussion concerning Hangakiran
Statement by Hangakiran
Comments by others about the request concerning Hangakiran
Result concerning Hangakiran
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- I agree with T. Canens's warning that "using the nationality of editors as an argument [is] prima facie evidence of sanctionable misconduct", and as such am open to enacting a short topic ban.
But I'm not sure whether a warning left on another user's talk page is enough to satisfy the notification requirement, given that there is no evidence that Hangakiran has read it. What do others think? Sandstein 16:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Biruitorul, yes, I agree that the diff indicates that the warning was read. Sandstein 17:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Leidseplein
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Leidseplein
- User requesting enforcement
- Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Leidseplein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Enforcement
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [3] Accusation of trying to impose your POV on the world, which violates WP:AGF
- [4] Unnecessarily inflammatory language about "Polish hypocrisy", "Polish complicity with Hitler" which violate WP:BATTLE, more bad faith accusations like "editors so strongly oriented towards a pro-Polish POV prove"
- [5] Another charge of "hypocrisy", this time directed at me personally, which violates WP:NPA. Also some false accusations and insistence on discussing editors rather than content.
- [6] More personal accusations of "an attempt to advance a pro-Polish/anti-Western POV". Unnecessary inflammatory language: "Attempts to deny printing in this articlethe FACT" (as an aside, anytime someone writes "FACT" in capital letters in a talk page discussion and says people are trying to "deny" this "FACT", well, it pretty much means you've got trouble). More WP:BATTLE violations along those lines: "'It is exceptionally INCONVENIENT...", which ascribes motives to editors
- [7] More of the same: "it is, instead, merely embarassing, embarassing to those who so passionately believe..." - the "embarassing" part is pretty much a personal attack (though not a particularly extreme one). The "passionately" adjective again discusses editors not content, constitutes WP:BATTLEGROUND language and ascribes states of mind to editors which they may or may not posses. Certainly, I don't think I wrote anything on that talk page while in throes of passion.
- [8] false and baseless accusation that I ("as advocated by another editor") am trying to ensure that there's "ONE interpretation of history allowed on Wikipedia", i.e. more WP:BATTLEGROUND language. Goodwin's Law violation by comparing my statements to Communist Party propaganda.
- [9] another baseless accusation of editing "passionately" (which in this context seems to imply "emotionally rather than rationally, hence wrongly"), this time in a section heading.
- [10] - question mark abuse. Not really a violation of anything specific but perhaps relevant to this whole "passionately" thing.
- [11] - Assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks: "I do not try to hide my POV by attacking sources, citing wikispeak and using false claims to guidelines that you learned when you felt disciplined by other wikipedians". Even more personal attacks: "That's a laugh and actually explains everything - one thing about becoming an adult is..."
There's a couple more in the same vein but that I think is more than enough.
There are also a couple strange statements which aren't really any violations but are worth pointing out
- [12] In this edit Leidseplein states that this matter was "already referred to a board other than 3O early on" - I have no idea what this is referring to or what it's supposed to mean.
- [13] - "I was asked by a third party to point out..." This is a strange statement as it appears to indicate that Leidseplein was asked to make edits and comments on the article by someone else, as potentially a WP:MEATPUPPET. It looks (I don't know if it actually is) sketchy especially in the context of the battleground nature of this area, the large number of sanctioned and topic banned editors, and editors under interaction bans. Who was this third party? When I asked this question it was repeatedly ignored or evaded by Leidseplein.
- Similarly, here [14] Leidseplein begins to refer to their edits in the first person plural, "since we, w followed your explicit, not-to-be-contradicted instructions", which again seems to suggest some kind of meatpuppetry or co-editing with another unknown editor is going on. Of course it could've just been a verbal slip up - but then when I asked "who's this "we"" you're referring to, why not just say "hey, it was just a verbal slip up"? Why evade the question?
Like I said the above three are not obviously any kind of violations of Wikipedia policy but they do seem strange to me.
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- [15] - after Liedsplein's initial revert with an accusatory edit summary I posted a comment on the talk page in which I asked him to focus on content rather than on editors: an edit summary that uses phrases such as trying to impose your POV on the world is unnecessarily combative and fails to assume good faith. Contrast that with my edit summary (but 1) this isnt considered to be part of WB 2) different circumstances than German occupation of Sudetenland) which directly focused on content rather than accusing any editor of wrong doing.
- I asked Liedsplein several times during the discussion to stop making statements which refer to me or my supposed motives personally and focus on discussing content instead.
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- Notification of DIGWUREN sanctions.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- At this point I'm not asking for a sanction, block or ban. As far as I know, the editor has not been previously made aware of the WP:DIGWUREN restrictions, warned of the discretionary sanctions in this area, or of the especially strong need to avoid making this area more of a battleground than it already is.
- Another mitigating factor is that Liedsplein, after he reverted me did ask for a third opinion (though his phrasing of the dispute was non-neutral and had to be corrected [16]) - that in itself was commendable. The way he/she/we carried out the subsequent conversation was not.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.
Discussion concerning Leidseplein
Statement by Leidseplein
Comments by others about the request concerning Leidseplein
Result concerning Leidseplein
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Result concerning BLP
Ronn Torossian page has been repeatedly violated by User:Ravpapa. Many blog and slanderous statements made. --Greenbay1313 (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)