Leechjoel9 (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 678: | Line 678: | ||
::<s>Hm...they haven't edited a talk page in a month or their own user talk in three. P-blocking from article space to get their attention.</s> Thought better of it. This is an experienced editor, no doubt intentionally not responding. [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 19:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC) |
::<s>Hm...they haven't edited a talk page in a month or their own user talk in three. P-blocking from article space to get their attention.</s> Thought better of it. This is an experienced editor, no doubt intentionally not responding. [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 19:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC) |
||
{{hab}} |
{{hab}} |
||
==Arminden== |
|||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
|||
===Request concerning Arminden=== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Huldra}} 23:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Arminden}}<p>{{ds/log|Arminden}}</p> |
|||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles]] |
|||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
|||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horbat_%27Uza&diff=prev&oldid=1026725211 22:40, 3 June 2021] changing "Palestinian" to "Arab" for the description of the depopulated village of [[Al-Birwa]] |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
|||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AArminden 21 May 2015] Blocked 24 hours for edit-warring |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]): |
|||
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AArminden&type=revision&diff=1024198516&oldid=1024130712 Alert, 18:02, 20 May 2021] |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
Calling the villages depopulated by Israel in 1948 for "Arab" or "Palestinian" has been a hotly contested area, which was resolved with this RfC: [[Talk:Kfar Ahim#RfC: Arab vs. Palestinian?]]: we shall call them "Palestinian". I was therefor disappointed with the above edit by Arminden, and when I asked him to revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AArminden&type=revision&diff=1026727544&oldid=1026534318 link], he replies "I don't care about those tonnes of blabla. I won't revert whatever you do. Enjoy your crusade." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arminden&diff=next&oldid=1026727544 link] |
|||
My 2 cents: editors in the IP area needs to follow the rules, also the rules that they do not agree with, [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 23:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
===Discussion concerning Arminden === |
|||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
|||
====Statement by Arminden ==== |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
===Result concerning Arminden === |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
|||
<!-- 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. --> |
|||
* |
Revision as of 23:56, 3 June 2021
Leechjoel9
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 Leechjoel9
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Boud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Leechjoel9 (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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 14:33, 13 May 2021 reverting a tidying up of the result of the Demographics of Eritrea RfC (and reverting unrelated edits by other people than me)
- 14:36, 13 May 2021 violation of the spirit of the result of the Demographics of Eritrea RfC on the Eritrea page (e.g. removing "three and a half ... million")
- 15:00, 13 May 2021 repeat violation of the result of the spirit of the RfC, on Eritrea
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Leechjoel9 seems to be trying to interpret the RfC on the population of Eritrea in a pedantic way and to prevent edits improving the referencing quality. I see no sign that the closing summary of the RfC described an intention to disallow the use of precise referencing with full, complete references. Pedantically speaking, the RfC did not specifically mention edits of the main Eritrea article, and it's true that in principle, an editorial consensus on one article does not imply a consensus for another related article. However, common sense in this case says that if the Eritrean population needs NPOVing on the main article on the topic of the Eritrean population, then there should also be an NPOV on the discussion of population on the article Eritrea itself. The RfC result does not oppose adding UN DESA 2019's explanation of its change. All three of Leechjoel9's above three edits remove the reference ref name="UNDESA2019_release_notes" that explains the surprising change in population estimates. The RfC favours NPOV. Leechjoel9's three edits oppose NPOV. (Explanatory notes by other sources would be valid to add for NPOV, but the sources are not demographic sources, so they don't publish explanations, they just provide raw "believe me, it's true" numbers.) Boud (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Response to Leechjoel9 18:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Due weight does not mean that "believe-me-it's-true" sources prevent explanations by demographic research "we-calculated-things-this-way-from-these-sources" sources from being mentioned. Ordinary reasoning about sourcing should not need wikilawyering and another month or so of effort for making an edit in the spirit of the result of an RfC. The risk of this editor's behaviour is to discourage editors who lack the stamina needed to argue at length for making changes that are normally uncontroversial in Wikipedia. (Side note: the {{UN Population}} template does not appear to be controversial; for Eritrea, it gives 3,620,312.) Boud (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- False statement by Leechjoel9:
"Bouds edit [136], the user removed the line which explains that various sources disagrees ... editing by BubbaJoe123456 [137]."
I added detail to BubbaJoe123456's edit, making the statement more precise and carefully referenced; I did not remove the population disagreement; I did not remove the statement on no official census (source: name="PHS2010_full"). Moreover, Leechjoel misleadingly pointed to my revert, instead of my real edits.@Rosguill: "Not engaging in discussion"? I made a huge effort in the RfC engaging in rational, structured discussion fully supported by specific sources rather than undated, unarchived sources. I responded patiently to Leechjoel9's repeatedly false and misleading statements and reluctance to use non-ambiguous language. Engaging in discussion with a user who discusses this way and rejects Wikipedia policy (NPOV) would imply that this user gets to veto editing by editors with less patience than me. My recommendation is that the community should refuse Leechjoel9's use of these techniques to own Eritrea-related articles. Boud (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC) - @Johnuniq: See my 22:38, 12 May 2021 edits for more disputed content; however, the main problem is the irrationality of discussion by the user. Boud (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: I assume that you have authorised extending beyond the 500-word limit, since otherwise I cannot answer. The dispute is not only about the infobox. My 22:38, 12 May 2021 edits include:
- fixing the infobox;
- fixing the old statement Eritrea is a multi-ethnic country ... in its population of around six and a half million which I changed to ... three and a half<ref name="UNDESA_WPP_2019_total_population" /> to six and a half<ref name="COMESA_ERpop_2019" /> million;
- fixing the old statement Eritrea's population increased from 3.2 million to approximately 5,755,124 ... between 1990 and 2020 for which none of the old references provide any estimate for 1990;
- adding the clarification to the reader "and revised down<ref name="UNDESA2019_release_notes" />" from the only one of the sources that gives sources, methods and explanations, and explicitly states why it revised down its population estimate by 1.8 million.
- My guess is that your statement
"I will repeat my concern regarding Leechjoel9: insisting on 6 million as the only figure in the infobox given the result of that RfC would be disruptive (sanctionable)"
is likely to be a strong enough result of this ARE to resolve the first three issues (I'm assuming good faith). I cannot predict Leechjoel9's reaction on the fourth point. So far, it seems that s/he rejects the normally uncontroversial idea that a sourced explanation for the disagreement in numbers is better than no explanation at all; pedantically, it is not a formal result from the RfC. Boud (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC) - @Rosguill: Re:
"having read Leechjoel9's explanations here"
: scroll up to see the false statement by Leechjoel9 of 06:11+06:15, 18 May 2021 here at A/R/E; a false statement about my editing is not an "explanation" and it is not evidence of a post-RfC change of behaviour. Boud (talk) 07:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC) - [Word count estimates of comments excluding this line: Leechjoel9: 717; Boud: 816] Boud (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Leechjoel9
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 Leechjoel9
Boud is ignoring and violating the reached consensus and proceeds doing changes without discussion. I have addressed the matter in the talk page of Demographics of Eritrea, and I have urged the user to participate in that discussion. Repeatedly filing for AE and ANI as soon someone disagrees is not a way forward, this is time consuming for everyone involved and a behaviour possibly breaching with Wikipedia policy. This can easily be resolved by discussion which Boud don’t want too, see [1].
The reason for restoring the Eritrea article was that this newly added content goes beyond the reached consensus and has yet been agreed upon. Consensus had been reached for estimates in the Demographics of Eritrea and BubbaJoe123456 did update this article with info that the population of Eritrea is estimated between 3,5- 6,7 Million. This was presented fairly, mentioning the range of estimates but also that majority views supports ~6M est, see [2]. Now a month later Boud decided to update the Eritrea article with new estimates in the info box and in the lead in the Eritrea article, see [3]. The user has done own interpretations of the consensus and did not propose any suggestions on how this should be implemented in the Eritrea article. The consensus did not reach beyond the Demographics of Eritrea article, however a change in the demographics article would affect the Eritrea article. So, there is several issue that needs to be taken in consideration when adding this content to the Eritrea article.
Unlike BubbaJoe123456, user Boud did not mention that all sources besides UN DESA supports estimates in the 6M. In the changes made to Eritrea article the user do not even bother to mention that the broad majority view and sources supports estimate in the 6M. Sources that consist of CIA (2021), Eritrea Ministry of Information (2020), African development bank(2017) and more. By doing this the user presents the UN DESA estimate (single- minority view) source as it has the equal weight of the all of the other sources (majority view), this is giving undue weight to the minority view per WP:RSUW. This is not acting neutral and what the consensus says. The consensus however says both estimates should be presented, which nobody including myself are not objecting to. The objecting comes on how it is should be presented and formulated. This has been discussed before and I have urged that we find a solution on how to implement the consensus also in the Eritrea article.
The Eritrea article is not constructed as the Demographics article. For instance it has an info box unlike the Demographics article. In the early days of the dispute there was an discussion regarding which section that should be affected by these changes (I.e lead, info box, body). That discussion is also not closed, and should also be discussed before implementing. There is currently no dispute about the Demographics of Eritrea article. I would again suggested that the user keep the discussion in the talk page. Leechjoel9 (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- [Reply to Rosgquill, moved from admin-only section] Clearly Boud lacked support implementing the changes without discussing with involved parties on how the consensus was going to be implemented. I restored it because of that and since there are minor issue to the article, I still feel there are issue on the Demographics article that should be resolved. I could of restored it again, I however refrained from restoring current version since the Demographics edits also were less minor compared to the changes to the Eritrea article, I proceeded with discussing the matter in the talk page instead. Leechjoel9 (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
If you look at Bouds edit [4], the user removed the line which explains that various sources disagrees to current estimates of Eritrea and that there haven’t been an official census in the country, removing the constructive editing by BubbaJoe123456 [5].That was the reason, and I also noticed Boud only proceeded with adding and citing the UN DESA source which is this users favoured source. Boud edits also lacked sources, citing and explanation of the sources supporting estimates in the 6M which is the majority view, the consensus reached in the RFC said that these should be presented. Leechjoel9 (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I have given proper explanation on the matter, in my replies above. Could you please clarify what it is you want me to further explain? In this case I don’t don’t see a need for a ban for anybody, the overall behaviour of the other parties should also be reviewed, since content has been added without reaching final agreements on how the consensus was going to be implemented (not in the talk pages or the RFC concluded this). But also since we are in the final stages of resolving the matter by discussion. I proposed in the discussion thread in the Eritrea article that there is a need of rephrasing the sentence, yet still including UN DESA and all the other sources. Leechjoel9 (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Statement by BubbaJoe123456
I was involved in the discussion on Talk:Demographics of Eritrea about how to best represent what sources say about the population of Eritrea, and contributed to the RFC as well. Overall, the concerns that Boud has expressed here are justified. Leechjoel9 contributions on this topic have all been very focused on having the article have as high a population figure as possible. I don't know what motivates this, but it does appear to be POV-driven. Just to be clear, the available data sources have population estimates ranging from under 4M to nearly 7M, as is reflected (now) in the lede of the Demographics of Eritrea article. Grudgingly, after the RFC, Leechjoel9 acceded to the current wording. We've just had a lengthy RFC that came to the conclusion that the most NPOV way to describe Eritrea's population is to (a) show the range of estimates, and (b) note that no official census has ever been conducted. I see no reason why, after all of that, the main Eritrea article's infobox should continue to only show a single estimate from a single source, an approach that was clearly rejected in the Demographics article RFC. Bottom line, I'm concerned that Leechjoel9 doesn't come to topics around Eritrea with a NPOV approach. As another example, they argued for the removal of a clearly notable person from the list of notable people from Asmara, on the grounds that the person no longer held Eritrean citizenship. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Result concerning Leechjoel9
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- This is particularly difficult for admin resolution. I might say more later but my primary concern is always what is in the article and I have to say that it is not satisfactory to put population = 6,081,196 in the infobox at Eritrea given reliable sources with estimates from 3.6 to 6.7 million. I see a comment that the issue is extremely contentious—apparently a small number implies a certain political outcome while a large number implies some other real-world consequence. Unless there is a knock-out argument that I can't see, editors have no basis to decide which RS should be chosen for the infobox number. The problem cannot be solved by the walls of text in Talk:Eritrea/Archive and throughout Talk:Demographics of Eritrea. The approach at Demographics of Eritrea is better where there is no simple factoid—it starts with "Sources disagree as to the current population of Eritrea, with some proposing numbers as low as 3.6 million and others as high as 6.7 million." Question to participants: is there a dispute relevant to this report about text in the article apart from the number in the infobox? If yes, please succinctly identify it. If not, I'm afraid this issue might have to go back to article talk with a focus (that I couldn't see) on exactly what to put in the infobox (one suggestion would be to put nothing there). Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Boud: Is there an answer to my "Question to participants"? It appears from recent posts above that the main issue is the number in the infobox, summed up by this 15:00, 13 May 2021 revert by Leechjoel9 which asserted that the RfC did not apply to the infobox and that the UN DESA report was a "minority" view. I'm inclined to close this as no action with an informal recommendation that participants digest my above comment. The demographics RfC is not sufficient to say what should be in the Eritrea infobox but I will repeat my concern regarding Leechjoel9: insisting on 6 million as the only figure in the infobox given the result of that RfC would be disruptive (sanctionable). Editors should stop talking about the past and who is to blame. Focus on what should be in the infobox. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Leechjoel9, could you explain why you performed the edit at Demographics of Eritrea linked to in the first diff provided by Boud in this report? signed, Rosguill talk 23:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- sorry Leechjoel9, but I was hoping for a bit more detail. Could you please clarify what your specific objection was that motivated you to perform the first revert on May 13. signed, Rosguill talk 22:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- thank you Leechjoel9 for the clarification. My perspective at this time is that Leechjoel9's objections were reasonable, and I don't see anything that immediately warrants a sanction. I find some fault with Boud for not attempting to engage in a discussion about what Leechjoel9's objection was before coming here, which may warrant a warning. signed, Rosguill talk 18:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Boud, my comment was meant with respect to the post-RfC dispute alone. Generally speaking you have been engaging in constructive discussion, but having read Leechjoel9's explanations here, I believe that you could have settled this new issue (or at least sufficiently defined the point of dispute to allow for 3rd parties to weigh in and build a consensus) without coming to AE. signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Boud, on review I think I may have misread the edit you made which was identified by Leechjoel9 when I commented earlier ([6]). Reviewing it now, while formatting of the citations was changed, all of the citations appear to have been preserved; content about the range of estimates was reworded, but
Sources disagree as to the current population of Eritrea, with UN DESA proposing a low estimate of 3.6 million for 2021 and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa proposing a high estimate of 6.7 million for 2019. Eritrea has never conducted an official government census
seems to still adequately present the information. Leechjoel9, do you stand by your prior assessment regarding this edit? signed, Rosguill talk 13:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)- I was hoping to get a further reply from Leechjoel9 before pushing for a close, as I still have unanswered questions about editors' explanations for their behavior. If we don't see a satisfactory reply soon, however, I think that a short tban for Leechjoel9 may be appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 17:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Boud, on review I think I may have misread the edit you made which was identified by Leechjoel9 when I commented earlier ([6]). Reviewing it now, while formatting of the citations was changed, all of the citations appear to have been preserved; content about the range of estimates was reworded, but
- Boud, my comment was meant with respect to the post-RfC dispute alone. Generally speaking you have been engaging in constructive discussion, but having read Leechjoel9's explanations here, I believe that you could have settled this new issue (or at least sufficiently defined the point of dispute to allow for 3rd parties to weigh in and build a consensus) without coming to AE. signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- thank you Leechjoel9 for the clarification. My perspective at this time is that Leechjoel9's objections were reasonable, and I don't see anything that immediately warrants a sanction. I find some fault with Boud for not attempting to engage in a discussion about what Leechjoel9's objection was before coming here, which may warrant a warning. signed, Rosguill talk 18:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- sorry Leechjoel9, but I was hoping for a bit more detail. Could you please clarify what your specific objection was that motivated you to perform the first revert on May 13. signed, Rosguill talk 22:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
أمين
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 أمين
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- أمين (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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 18:26, 14 May 2021
- Removal of sourced information to RS:
On 14 May, four Palestinians were killed, including one said to have attempted to stab a soldier and more than 100 people injured. There have been daily demonstrations since the escalation in Gaza.
- Replacement with:
On 14 May 2021, the Israeli army and Israeli settlers killed 10 Palestinian civilians in the West Bank who were in peaceful demonstrations and others while they were in their homes.
(issues w/ this explained below) - Addition of
In Iskaka village near Salfit, Israeli settlers under the protection of the Israeli occupation army, attacked Palestinian homes, and they killed a young man and shot 10 young men.[7]
- I can only read the source via Google translate, but it appears to say nothing that sounds like
under the protection of the Israeli occupation army
. It doesn't seem to say anything about settlers attacking Palestinian homes either.
- I can only read the source via Google translate, but it appears to say nothing that sounds like
- Removal of sourced information to RS:
- 18:49, 14 May 2021
On 14 May 2021, the Israeli army and Israeli settlers killed 10 (according to the Palestinian Health Ministry) Palestinian civilians in the West Bank who were in peaceful demonstrations and others while they were in their homes.[8]
- Misuse of Al Jazeera (RSP entry), noted as a partisan source in Arab–Israeli conflict.
- Original research and POV issues. Even Al Jazeera doesn't say what the editor is trying to say. It says nothing about people being shot for peaceful protest or for being in their homes. This is what the source says (entire article):
The number of Palestinians killed by Israeli fire during confrontations in the occupied West Bank has risen to 10, the Palestinian health ministry has said.
500 people were injured in different parts of the West Bank.
Violent protests erupted across the territory, with mainly young Palestinians hurling stones, Molotov cocktails and other projectiles at Israeli forces who have responded with tear gas, rubber bullet and live rounds, multiple sources said.
- Another entry on Al Jazeera[9] directly says otherwise, writing:
The Palestinian health ministry said nine Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces during protests across the occupied West Bank on Friday, and a sixth was killed during an attempt to stab an Israeli soldier near an illegal Israeli settlement in Yabad near Jenin.
- According to other sources:
Five were killed after protesters started throwing stones at Israeli troops, while the sixth was shot after ramming his car into a military post and then trying to stab a soldier, officials said.
- 20:46, 10 May 2021 On its own, probably fine. Along with the rest, appears like POV pushing.
- 20:45, 10 May 2021 Ditto
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 30 December 2018 Violating 500/30 to edit ARBPIA.
- 4 January 2019 Block for violation following unblock
- 25 January 2019 Block for gaming extended confirmed
- 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
Report updated slightly in [10]. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Whether Al Jazeera is biased or not is not key to this report. The issue is that it appears the editor made all this up. The edits claim that Israeli armed forces shot Palestinian civilians in the West Bank while they were in their homes, and for peaceful protests, and that "the occupation army" protected Israeli settlers as they attacked Palestinian homes. Simultaneously removing actually verifiable information e.g. about the knife, also contained in the same source the editor used. Both Al Jazeera and Ma'an, as well as other HQRS, contradict what the editor wrote. (Unless it's me who can't read sources today?) Surely the editors below don't think that the report is about a numbers issue of 10 killed vs 6 killed on a current events topic... The edits are a complete fabrication. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC) e: 19:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- The assertion that the sources have changed their portrayal completely and that the edits were based on an old version of the source is difficult to believe. The archive here, from an earlier count, says
Palestinian health officials say six Palestinians have been killed by Israeli army fire in the occupied West Bank. The officials say five were killed in stone-throwing clashes with Israeli forces in several locations, and a sixth was killed during an attempt to stab an Israeli soldier.
This is before the figure was updated to 10. So are we seriously saying that Al Jazeera updated from "6 killed -> 5 throwing stones and a 6th trying to stab a soldier" to "10 killed -> they were all peacefully protesting and/or in their homes" and then reverted back to the original statement with the new count (without any notice of amendment)? Similar for the other source - Ma'an - which allegedly said that the IDF was protecting settlers as they attacked Palestinian homes, and then deleted that statement from their article? - Incidentally, I read this source between the user's two edits, and it didn't say anything of the sort at that time either. Again, whereas the tone and phrasing are secondary POV concerns, the primary one is persistent addition of statements that are nowhere to be seen in the sources. This unverifiable statement remains in the current article's revision. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- The assertion that the sources have changed their portrayal completely and that the edits were based on an old version of the source is difficult to believe. The archive here, from an earlier count, says
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [11]
Discussion concerning أمين
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 أمين
You have included text supported by two sources but you claim to be biased. How is it biased? Is it because I said the occupation army? I put two sources, but you retrieved my amendment, because I settled with one. By blocking a lot of amendments, you are biased toward the Israeli side You could also create a discussion to guide me about the sources and how to choose them, not start blocking me just because I am an Arab. أمين (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Al-Jazeera appears to have modified the text it published, because it removed some words such as settlers and homes. this is not my fault. أمين (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I will be more careful in using sources next time. أمين (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I had been banned before, but it was for not knowing the encyclopedia's policies and being new. Now you are trying to block me. I wrote a text and placed two sources, one in Arabic, the another in English. It seems that Al-Jazeera has modified its text so that it becomes inconsistent with its text, and this created a problem. The goodwill I have in the amendment relieves me of these accusations and I am ready to improve my performance as I will hear advice from users below. Thanks. أمين (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I will do my best only to use English language sources in articles. thanks. أمين (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I will follow the advice you have put. أمين (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Statement by selfstudier
For the sake of clarity, the first line of AJ entry says "Al Jazeera is considered a generally reliable news organization." That there are "some editors" who think it is biased for the IP area is not relevant. The discrepancy in the figures above is because this is a fast moving current event and the casualty count has apparently been rising all day, it was reported as 4, then 6, 9 and now 10 and reports are frequently changed.Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I have updated the article with the latest report (11 fatalities now) and removed material not in the current source.Selfstudier (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Nableezy
What WP:RSP says is Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Not that there is any consensus that al-Jazeera is anything other than a RS. In fact, the actual consensus position is summed up in the green check mark showing generally reliable. Disliking an editors edits is not an arbitration violation and misusing this board to remove an opponent because they used a generally reliable, per consensus, source merits a boomerang in my opinion. Including what numerous reliable sources discuss about the fatalities (that they included nine children) is likewise not a violation of an arbitration decision, and reporting it here merits a boomerang in my opinion. nableezy - 19:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- I will say that Ameen should take care not to import the POV of the sources here. The source uses "Israeli occupation forces", but we should be using "Israeli army" or "IDF" or some such thing. nableezy - 19:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- ProcrastinatingReader, the Maan source does indeed call them the occupation forces, which is what I said Ameen should be careful in importing the POV of his sources. As far as the al-Jazeera piece, it's a live link thats constantly changing. Best to avoid using such links and find a stable url, but what it currently says is According to the Palestinian health ministry, 10 Palestinians were killed by Israeli fire, nine of them during confrontations. The Israeli army said that one of them was killed after he tried to attack Israeli settlers. nableezy - 19:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I dont see where the source support that the deaths were of people peacefully protesting or in their homes, and that is indeed concerning. I mostly object to the way that this was presented as though using al-Jazeera is an offense when it is a perfectly reliable source. Or the addition of the number of children killed which is well sourced to a number of places being some sort of POV violation. nableezy - 22:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning أمين
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Content related to ongoing armed conflict is something we must get right. Ameen's edits don't seem to properly represent the sources, so even if made in good faith this pattern needs to stop. Given previous blocks, I would recommend a topic ban from ARBPIA for at least 6 months. I'm assuming I shouldn't take unilateral action at AE, so I'm leaving this open for more comments. — Wug·a·po·des 01:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- To be fair, some of the previous blocks were possibly misunderstandings. Ameen was blocked for violating 500/30 twice, and they appear to have then made a whole bunch of edits to get themselves over the 500 requirement, perhaps not realizing that this would be considered gaming the system. However, using sources available only in Arabic makes it very difficult for editors who don't read Arabic to verify, so mistating even slightly, even inadvertently, what those sources say is extremely concerning. I hate to topic ban from ARBPIA yet, though. I'm not sure there's that level of disruption? Wugapodes, how would you feel about requiring Ameen to use only English sources in that topic? —valereee (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Valereee, if you need some help with the closing procedures, please feel free to ask me. It's great to see some new names here. That said, I'm concerned with the proposed resolution of just using English-language sources. I think if an editor cannot be trusted to appropriately represent sources used in this area, they need to be removed from the area entirely. I would more tend to agree with Wugapodes' suggestion of a topic ban, though I'm not much of a fan of timed topic bans, rather leaving it up to the editor if and when to ask for restrictions to be lifted but requiring that they do actually make such a request. I've seen far too many editors "wait out" timed topic bans and get right back up to the same old not long after they expire. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Seraphimblade, sorry, been out of pocket. Thanks, I appreciate the offer! I figured I'd read/watch/comment for a while before trying to do any closes.
- Re: this editor...the reason I thought maybe requiring only-English sources was that I'm wondering if this is more a case of mild/unintentional POV-pushing rather than actual intentional misrepresentation. What I mean is that أمين may "know" these were peaceful protests the same way many US conservatives "know" January 6th started out as a peaceful protest so that's what they write, even if when source doesn't actually call it that. Which is easily discovered when everyone at the talk can read the source in the original language, and easy to correct as long as the mild POV pushing is unintentional.
- But if Ameer is using sources most enwiki editors can't read, it's hard to verify what that source is actually saying. Allowing them to continue editing using only English sources lets us figure whether this is a chronic/intentional/more than mild issue. If we instead topic-ban, even indef, we miss the chance to determine whether this is something they can learn to stop doing. So in six months or a year, when they ask to have their restrictions lifted -- assuming they manage to avoid the trap of editing too closely, which for someone whose first language is Arabic is a pretty big trap -- we still won't know if they can edit productively in that area. Sorry for the wall of text. —valereee (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm having a hard time making sense of this. I've been looking at this Al Jezeera source [12] that was used in one of the edits, and it looks like one of those "live updates" pages that posts updates every hour as more news comes in. That makes me more inclined to believe أمين when they say the page changed after they edited. And from what I can tell the sources say that many Palestinians were killed by Israelis during protests and that Israelis have been shelling Palestinian homes. So the edit [13] saying
"On 14 May 2021, the Israeli army and Israeli settlers killed 10 Palestinian civilians in the West Bank who were in peaceful demonstrations and others while they were in their homes."
may be accurate. But I can't find support for the word "peaceful" in "peaceful demonstrations". (There was mention of violent protests though.) On time-limited vs. indefinite topic bans, I'm ok doing time-limited for the first, and then if the user just waits it out and goes back to problematic editing, it's easier to justify an indef. Given the "gaming" issue mentioned earlier, it might not hurt to give the user some extra time to gain more editing experience outside the most contentious area on Wikipedia. ~Awilley (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)- @Awilley, I do think it's possible, based on Ameer's responses here, that this is a well-intentioned new editor who simply has a point of view they believe is clearly correct. Like you, I'd recommend to all new editors that editing in contentious areas is a terrible idea until you're much more experienced. My advice to أمين would be that even if you don't end up topic-banned, go edit in areas that aren't contentious while you learn to edit, as you can get in huge trouble in those areas simply from ignorance. If you have questions about that, feel free to ping me to your user talk. —valereee (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
JzG
@JzG: Please use article talk pages to discuss improvements to the articles, and not as a WP:FORUM for general discussion or off-topic inflammatory remarks. (Noting JzG was not the only editor engaging in forum-y behavior) ~Awilley (talk) 17:38, 28 May 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 JzG
I don't like drama boards, but I feel this is necessary at this point. JzG is a well respected editor, and I have agreed with him on multiple issues aside from anything Trump-related. Unfortunately, his participation on Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol and other pages related to Donald Trump and the events of January 6, 2021 has been unhelpful at best. His comments on that and other talk pages have been quick injections of his personal opinion (in violation of WP:NOTFORUM), and have done virtually nothing to further the discussion or provide a viewpoint that's beneficial to reaching a consensus. I have observed this since the first rename request in early 2021 for this article, where he made a comment that I include the diff of above not as a pure example of misconduct but as more information. When JzG comments on that talk page (or any talk page related to that subject), his comments have never to what I've seen provided an actual policy based comment for discussion. On the contrary, his comments are personal towards editors, frequently refer to "cults" or other personal opinion/inflammatory language, and frequently result in others having to reply to his comments and further derailing the discussions. I fully understand his frustration with the "brainwashing" that has gone on - I get it - but we are all here to build an encyclopedia, and his comments within this topic area have not helped in that endeavor. I attempted to limit the diffs to those I consider the most important - other comments may also be worthy of considering, and I am happy for anyone to add diffs to the section above (if that is allowed) that they think would be beneficial to examine here. I think the most beneficial thing for the encyclopedia at this point is for JzG to be prohibited from making comments related to the events of January 6, and perhaps from making edits related to Donald Trump as a whole - as it's clear to me that he is unable to separate his personal opinions/feelings from the encyclopedia, its policies, and rational discussion between other editors. Discussions on the topic seem to repeatedly go well until he shows up and then they get derailed based on his comments which at best are NOTFORUM violations, and are at worst attempting to push a POV into encyclopedia articles. For full disclosure, I asked User:Premeditated Chaos off-wiki for advice and was advised this was the best venue to get a resolution to this issue on. I will also be notifying JzG of this discussion shortly and will post the diff of the notification here after I do so. @GeneralNotability: - sorry - the "instructions for submitting the request for enforcement" in the editnotice didn't make clear how to do that so I assumed it would be automatically done. I think it's done now. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC) @Valereee: he has apparently been asked to tone it down or disengage multiple times over the past months - I opened this case because it never works, and maybe at least a formal warning will solve it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC) The existing back and forth between Viriditas and Rusf10 makes me think that a sourcing policy similar to WP:MEDRS may need to be implemented here. Apparently, Viriditas, a very experienced editor, sees no problem in citing opinion/commentary/similar sources - which are generally not fact checked or peer reviewed - as proof that their opinion is (in their words) "superior" and should be the only opinion allowed. This is fundamentally an editor problem - where editors are feeling that their opinions are better, and so they bend sourcing policies that are already clear on these sorts of issues, but if AE is unwilling to implement sanctions against editors doing this (including JzG) then maybe the solution is to explicitly codify a "politically opinionated material" sourcing policy that makes clear that WP:PRIMARY applies to politics too - especially
Aquillon's attempt to place blame on me ignores the fact that in the diff he provides as "forumy" by me, I am using a comparison to other articles to discuss consistency within Wikipedia - which while not a policy, is certainly a valid argument to make. I'll note that I was responding to a civil discussion regarding the "attackness" of the topic by comparing it to another topic covered in Wikipedia - and my comments were intended to be a continuance of the discussion as to what to name the article. That's precisely not "forumy" - I was making comments that expressed my opinions on how other articles on Wikipedia could be looked at to improve that article on Wikipedia. On the contrary, most of JzG's comments on that talk page provide no rationale/logic for why their opinions are beneficial to improving the article - which is exactly what makes his comments violations of NOTFORUM and mine not. Perhaps it needs reminding that NOTFORUM doesn't bar editors from expressing their opinions on talk pages - it merely bars doing so without a clear connection to improving articles - which is what JzG is doing, not me. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning JzGStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by JzGSome people don't like the fact that sources describe the Jan 6 events as an attempted coup. Some people don't like the parallels drawn between the insurrection and the beer hall putsch. Some people think that Ashlii Babbit was the One True Victim of the Jan 6 insurrection. I have opinions. They are largely mainstream, and in line with sources. I am not a huge fan of pretending that the Jan 6 insurrection was a peaceful protest about legitimate concerns with election integrity, where a few bad apples stormed the Capitol and tried to overthrow an election. That's not what I saw on the screen, and it's not what I read in the sources. But regardless, Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopaedia and we don't pretend that neutrality is the average between mainstream sources and OANN. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by InedibleHulkI don't like Guy's irrelevant commentary, his political commentary, his choice of insults, his constant moving of the goalposts or his seemingly unquenchable desire to repeatedly ping me in particular, despite several clear notifications that I do not want any of what he is selling. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC) I was (and somewhat am) also troubled by a recent outburst on his talk page regarding "a small group" of what he seemed to clearly describe as Nazis (among other epithets) disagreeing with him on the Capitol Hill talk. I genuinely tried to help him specify which ones exhibited signs of Nazism, so I could help hunt them down and exile them from Wikipedia, because Nazis shot down, captured and tortured my grandfather (among other terrible, horrible things). Three users denied the charges, one didn't dignify my interrogation with a response (right call, IMO) and Guy clarified nothing. [28] Not cool. Picture an anti-Harris guy fighting this hard and getting away with it for so long...impossible! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC) As for his interactions with editors who aren't me, I agree with the complainant that it almost always appears to get heated, disruptive and incivil when Trump's involved; if a topic ban can be that narrow, it would certainly help the majority of editors who aren't zombie Nazi Confederates and simply want to tone down some serious anti-Trump POV that legitimately sometimes goes way too far around here. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC) In light of three things I read below, I'd like to clarify. First, I have nothing to do with a right-wing attempt to rewrite history; the only news show I watch with any regularity is The National on CBC's YouTube channel (and Colbert's openings, if those count) and have no online accounts or communications off-Wiki (besides e-mail, nonpseudonymously and unrelated to any of this). Next, I have no problem with swearing or flowery speech, just when it's used constantly rather than on-topic rational argument with someone disputing content. Finally, when Guy removes bullshit from political articles, I'm happy he's here, but in this case, the ideas that an insurrection A, occurred that day and B, killed five people are the bullshit (per many RS that aren't from January, acknowledge that the word was political ammo for a no-longer relevant impeachment effort and admit only one death was officially ruled a homicide). And no, I'm not lying here, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC) MastCell, since you mentioned it, I'll openly agree that my perception of these two core truths about the January 6 attack does align with the right-wing narrative. That's just because the left-wing narrative is not reflected in available pertinent medical and legal reports. It's based on the current political and social sentiments, exactly like Robert Todd Carroll's signs of pseudohistory. Leftist editors see that the medical examiner ruled three deaths natural and one death accidental (self-administered overdose), and they point to a political news piece from the day after that counts five. Horsefeathers! For months now, no federal property has been captured, no federal officials assassinated, no federal departments overthrown. But hey, leftist media prefers "insurrection" to a fairer word for a right-leaning protest/riot/storm/attack/whatever, in certain select sentences, so "RSP, Conservapedia's that way, racist pig." Horsefeathers! The less we can all stop thinking about equivalency and dualism and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the more we can accept that in a reality-based system with only two supposed sides, the actual true story of any well-documented dispute is always going to better suit one of those sides than the other, so long as it's been politicized by American cable news. There is no unbiased political news channel, but CBC's YouTube channel at least tries to not root for the obvious party when covering U.S. history. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC) Johnuniq I've come up with some crazy ideas on talk pages before, no question. If one of those is called OR, that's fine by me. But the idea of an insurrection requiring at least the intent to seize power, not merely challenge or nullify it, was first written into federal law, which was analyzed by David Kilcullen, which was covered by Michael Patrick Mulroy. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by MjolnirPantsGoing through those links:
None of these diffs show bad behavior. Taken as a whole, they show that JzG has political views just like everyone else. I'm particularly troubled by the notion that the filer seems to think JzG being honest about his political views is somehow evidence of malfeasance. Isn't that the exact sort of thing those who disagree with JzG keep claiming is happening to them, despite all evidence to the contrary? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC) @Valereee: I get that some people are rubbed the wrong way by bad language, and I know that sometimes, plain language is not the best choice. But as much as it's incumbent upon us as editors to recognize that and make smart choices to play nice with others, it's also incumbent upon us to recognize that not everyone sees these things the same way, and to make allowances for those who are a bit more potty mouthed. About the opinion thing: The RSes are all in virtually lockstep agreement that the Trump rally on the 6th and the riot/insurrection/protest/"tourism" that came after were inexorably linked to the point that attempts to distinguish one from the other will invariably boil down to exercises in pedantry. What Guy said was, in fact, a fact, and not an opinion, and there is no reasonable (but many unreasonable) way for an informed person to interpret it as the latter. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC) @Valereee:
Statement by ApaugasmaI think JzG's statement here is fairly typical of what the complaint is about. He refers three times to what
Statement by AircornI don't know why we let Jzg (and others) get away with notforum comments just because they are seen as being correct. In my experience it just leads to more issues and encourages disruptive use of the talk pages. Aircorn (talk) Statement by 力JzG is obviously an editor with a political opinion. This is not uncommon among editors in the AP2 topic area, and not cause for sanction on its own. Of the diffs given, I don't see any that justify sanctions; though I will note the Nazi comments aren't helpful and the comments about Strom Thurmond would be a BLP issue if he were recently alive. There's widespread belief, including from some of their own lawyers, that some of the participants in the events of January 6th exhibited cult-like behavior in their loyalty towards Trump, I don't see any of his comments suggesting editors here are exhibiting that behavior. I am more concerned about JzG's recent behavior at User talk:Jimbo Wales in antagonizing and edit-warring [45] [46] with FloridaArmy than anything here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by Masem(Not directly involved in the above articles but have commented enough at BLP/N and NPOV/N that would not feel appropriate to be included at uninvolved) I'll lead that I don't think there's anything immediately actionable here on JzG, but this is because they are not the only such editor that have shown this type of attitude that create these types of problems in the AP2, and thus would be wrong to single one editor out. Articles involving alt and far right figures, entities and concepts generally suffer from being written in a strongly negative tone and/or as an attack piece, and while the justification "this is what the reliable sources say per UNDUE" is very much true, we are still behold to writing in an impartial and dispassionate tone. And to that end, on talk pages of these articles or related areas, having these types of strong ideals that are used as diffs (again, to stress, not isolated to JzG) are extremely difficult to talk around in discussions, as such editors tend to react that they are dead set on these facets and will not accept any other change. Those strong feelings these editors have in their talk page comment reflect into the mainspace articles. And while what JzG says above "Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopaedia and we don't pretend that neutrality is the average between mainstream sources and OANN", the key word is encyclopaedia and that we shouldn't be presenting any view as right or wrong; we'll reflect the most common or popular viewers reported in the mainstream sources and avoid including the fringe (like OANN), but we absolutely must avoid injecting our own feelings into the Wikivoice in how we write that into WP. Unfortunately, the last several years has led to many articles that reflect the vitrol that many editors have towards the alt/far right and related topics and we need to correct that. Now, I am very much aware that a majority of the time, these editors have been repeatedly fighting off-site campaigns to make changes wholly incompatible with WP principles, work that is absolutely need. This type of work is going to darken one's attitude quickly given some of the baseless attacks against these editors. But there have been plenty of valid ideas (perhaps difficult to bring about but compatible within WP policy) presented from both existing and newer editors that have been met with the same "nope, can't do it" attitude, some of which are within the diffs above (but again, stressing, this is not limited to JzG). This is why when editors start throwing around WP:NONAZIS, a rather dangerous essay, to try to label other editors within these discussions that may be raising valid points, that's also souring the entire process. There is something that over the last 5-6+ years of external events reflected onto WP that have subsequently broken some of the fundamentals of how WP should be approaching these topics. This case is a tip of the iceberg and points to a need to do a lot more retrospective to figure out what's gone wrong and how to bring it back, but it absolutely should not result in any immediate actions against JzG from this request. --Masem (t) 03:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by terjenI recuse myself from commenting on JzG's derailing comments, lobbying of insults, and overly liberal misapplication of the contentious Nazi label in discussions, as they have recently insinuated in AE that I am a Neo-Nazi apologist. Terjen (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by MONGONo idea why JzG is being so forumy, but this is not new. JzG should just be making reliable reference supported arguments once and walking away. JzG should avoid ludicrous comparisons between a small band of half wits that broke into the US Capital to a highly organized military composed of 10 plus million that exterminated millions more. That comparison is absolutely preposterous and an insult to all that died at the hands of Nazi thugs. Alternately one could easily not feed JzG, simply don't respond to him as he is obviously looking to have a fight, or at the very least insult his ideological opposites and/or their reasonings.--MONGO (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
JzG doesn't even get his facts straight when he is out there pontificating "...In 2016, for example, when Trump lost the popular vote by the largest margin of any winning candidate in history?"...maybe he meant modern history because the margin of fewer popular votes for a winning candidate for US President was higher in 1824 and 1876. But that is besides the point because the US has the electoral college and does not elect the US President based on popularity. This is just one glaring detail of many of his ramblings that lack historical accuracy and indicate he is just being reflexive for the sake of arguing. That in conjunction with his belittling narratives about his ideological opponents and/or their stances indicates that if he is reported again to AE with similar issues presented, a TB may be needed. JzG definitely needs an admonishment here.--MONGO (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC) @Viriditas:Of course, Trump lost by more total popular votes, but that is because there were more people voting! Doh. As a percentage of votes cast, Trump had 2.1% fewer popular votes than Clinton. In 1876 it was 3% and in 1824 over 10%. [47] Its idiotic to say just raw numbers when the total numbers are not the same! There were only 5 million votes in 1876, over 125 million in 2016, so of course total votes would be higher, but the percentage is still lower overall.--MONGO (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by PaleoNeonateWhat I see is not NOTFORUM use of talk pages by Guy, but the refutation of arguments posted there. An expression of impatience may perhaps show at times, which is not surprising considering the repetitive task. Moreover, there is a tendency to claim that the view of reliable sources are only opinions, it's not surprising also to see arguments that editors who remind them that WP articles are based on those sources are also only expressing their personal opinions (WP:GEVAL may be useful). —PaleoNeonate – 09:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by ProcrastinatingReaderI like JzG, so I doubt I can opine here with any impartiality, so I won't. But I will link in this ANI for whichever admin reviews this. Haven't reviewed it closely, but the assertions made here remind me of valereee's comment (
Statement by MrOllieSome of this was just discussed in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility By _Admin_User:JzG, which was closed without action. - MrOllie (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by Mr ErnieI've been concerned by JzG's participation in a couple AP2 areas lately. Here he starts what can only be described as a forum post, linking to Twitter and drawing a bizarre comparison to The Red Skull. It was rightly removed but JzG added it again, requiring another removal. JzG's personal opinions of people holding differently political views than him have long been a net negative for editing in that space. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by starship.paintIn relation to the ANI thread raised by ProcrastinatingReader, I raised my concerns to JzG earlier this month [48]:
Statement by MastCell(I'll post up here, rather than below, because I've "known" JzG on-wiki for a long time; I've often agreed with him, sometimes disagreed, and sometimes been frustrated with him, and likely he with me.) As a general matter, I'd agree that veering off-topic on political articles to include personal commentary and partisan rhetoric is unhelpful. JzG definitely does this, although I don't think he's anywhere near the worst offender, even among established editors. And yes, some of his justifications make sense—for instance, the comparison of the modern Republican Party to a cult, where absolute fealty to an infallible Leader supersedes any coherent public policy or core principles to the extent that the party didn't even bother to draft a platform in 2020, is a prominent, reliably-sourced viewpoint. I'm just not sure it's helpful to express it on article talkpages where a significant subset of editors are adherents of that party and will feel attacked.I guess I'd favor a request to JzG to tone it down on article talkpages, and to recognize the difference between that space and more informal project areas (e.g. usertalk pages). But I will also say that if JzG is deemed to have crossed a line in injecting partisan commentary into article talkpages, you can expect me to bring several enforcement requests focused on established editors who have gone way farther over the line than he. In other words, I'm OK with drawing a line, but if this is it, then a lot of people have crossed it—including some of those most eager to see JzG sanctioned here. MastCell Talk 16:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by OIDIn response to Valereee: "you need to be especially careful of treating other well-intentioned editors with respect and to try that much harder to understand where they're coming from." This is based on the assumption that they are well-intentioned (here is a hint: they are not) and that we are obligated to try and understand supporters of child-caging, women-groping, racists. After careful consideration of all the relevant facts, I dont feel the need to be careful at all actually. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by PackMecEngGiven the statement by OID right above, I think it would be a good time to excuse them from the AP area as well. It's not so much a failure to adhere to AGF as everyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi. That has no place in Wikipedia let alone contentious areas. PackMecEng (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by Little olive oilI've interacted with JzG many times over the years and I often disagree with him, often, and I will again, I'm sure. But stating an opinion as fact especially when the the so-called opinion is supported by compliant Wikipedia reliable sources is not sanctionable. Further seeing and stating an opinion as a fact is pretty standard for human beings everywhere let alone here. Are we going to sanction every time someone states their opinion as if a fact or believes their opinion is a fact? No we're not! Inflammatory language is not necessarily the best way to communicate but then I've recently seen some less than optimal language by editors posting here. Are we going to use discretionary sanctions every time someone uses less than optimal language, something everyone does sooner or later? We must be even-handed. Discretionary sanctions if I remember was created to take the load off arbitrations. As such there should be a degree of seriousness to an AE Enforcement. In communicating with SlimVirgin before her death, pillar of Wikipedia that she was, with the insights that came from her intelligence and long-time experience, she was incredibly distraught by Arbitration and especially some of the most recent ones where situations that demanded small interventions blew up into big cases. We have to stop using arbitrations and AE to deal with small-time problems. They tax the community. They tax all of us. JzG can be warned that he needs to tone it down, better yet warn everybody on the article and its talk page. That's it. If there are problems on an article then everything and everyone on that article must be scrutinized. This is a community and as such, very often, it's the multiple-driven, editor interactions that create conflict. No games, no gotchas, just even handed fairness and mature judgement on what will truly impact the community. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by JormThe usual suspects are just tryna' remove someone who stops bullshit from appearing in the articles. It comes without fail that when there aren't any good policy reasons for allowing bullshit into articles, that defenders get worn down into little nubs by constantly having to engage in bad-faith arguments. Eventually patience wears thin and out come the "civility" knives because if you can't remove an opponent through truth or justice, you create a propaganda war. Please do not fall for this.--Jorm (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by SluzzelinGoodness, there's a lot of robust hyperbole and partisanship on articles JzG tends to edit, but even if "quick injections of (...) personal opinion (in violation of WP:NOTFORUM), and have done virtually nothing to further the discussion or provide a viewpoint that's beneficial to reaching a consensus" applied here (which it doesn't in general), then a lot of participants of articles on American politics would fall in the same category. Don't single out, and don't be so restrictive/officious. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by ArkonOof, pretty terrible to see WP:OTHEREDITORSEXIST as the main reasoning to avoid dealing with this by some of the above. To address it (though I really think that shouldn't be needed), Many editors have tried to curb the reported behavior directly, and it hasn't seemed to have resulted in any improvement. What exactly is the next step then if not some kind of official warning/tban/whatever? Arkon (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by ViriditasIn the above, MastCell briefly addressed how JzG's opinions are backed by good media sources. I also wanted to add four names whose research and published work supports JzG: Joan Donovan at Harvard, Lee McIntyre at Boston University, forensic psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee, and author Steven Hassan. Viriditas (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Jackattack1597I agree with most of Guy's political opinions, but his incivility with regards to people on the other side of the political spectrum should not be tolerated. If other people are being similarly incivil towards their political adversaries, the solution is to warn or sanction them as well, not to let Guy walk free.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by AtsmeIn partial support of what Inedible Hulk stated above, following are some links about the misinformation and inaccurate reporting by the NYTimes on Jan 8th about Officer Sicknick's death. Other media outlets in the echo chamber, including MSNBC and CNN, ran their stories off the NYTimes article, and also reported Sicknick's death to have been caused by rioters who bludgeoned him to death with a fire extinguisher during the Jan 6th assault on the Capitol. See Politifact and Snopes. In light of the false reporting by left-leaning sources about the Capitol riots, I can't simply ignore the comment to Valereee, also noticed by IH, about there being an active effort underway by right-wing media (and politicians) to rewrite the history of January 6th. My response to that is...do what?!! Most editors already know my position about exercising caution toward ALL news media, and to comply with RECENTISM, NOTNEWS, NEWSORG, etc. Ok, so...let's take a look at things from a little different perspective.How can we ignore the possibility exists that left-wing media is also active in an effort to rewrite the history of Jan 6th? They just got caught doing it. How many times have they not been caught, or were simply ignored - they own most of today's media outlets, right? What if that autopsy had not been performed, or the results not made public? Sounds pretty ridiculous, right? The pushy, bullying attitudes are what needs to stop - the my way or the highway approach - it has no place on WP, and should not be allowed or ignored. Those types of editors are not collaborators - they're warriors. And if you don't go along with them, be prepared to defend against Alinsky's Rule #13 or a POV railroad, or a unilateral action you didn't expect. They are serious about their mission to RGW and they are certainly not neutral. We've seen a few examples of questionable behavior right here. It has created an environment on WP that, when arguments get heated, it sometimes feels like we're sitting in the hot seat of a Senate interrogation led by Joe McCarthy and our entire WP future is on the line. All the unwarranted accusations and incivility toward one another has to stop...the excuses have to stop...the PAs have to stop. I don't want to see anybody t-banned or blocked. I'd much rather get along - agree to collaborate and work together to get the article right - that should be our goal - give and take - listen to one another - share a bit of levity and laugh. Whatever it takes to get us to that point - I SUPPORT. Atsme 💬 📧 01:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by DGGThe problem is not only. politics. JzG acts and talks similarly in many different fields, including anything relating to unconventional medicine or pseudoscience, and more widely . I am in complete agreement with his actual views on most scientific topics, , and substantially in agreement with his actual views on politics, though in some things I may be further towards the left, and this includes much less trust in the reliability of any publication that will support any of the present US political parties. But we're supposed to be an encyclopedia and give proportional coverage, especially in situations where he actual facts are in dispute. History (or just plain experience) has shown that no conclusion is absolutely final, and that it is quite possible for everyone to be deceived at the time. JzG has commonly taken the position that a source is either reliable or not, without any consideration of various degrees of reliability. When one take such a sharp distinction, there's an inevitable tendency to draw the line between the two in a position where your own views will be the ones considered reliable. If one take as a more realistic position where no source is completely reliable, and very few completely useless, it tends to be much easier to adopt true NPOV proportional coverage, because there much less basis for throwing out the sources favored by one's opponents. In politics, one needs to at least mention the bias of all sources , especially the less common ones-- we can pretty much assume any reader knows the politics of the major sources in AP, In para-science, where he facts are much less in dispute, we have much more basis for indicating what sources represent the currently accepted view and which do not, and we can distinguish between the various degrees of skepticism and nuttyness. So we do have to at least once in an article indicate this, because many readers may not realize. But if we don't at least include example of the far-out sources, how will people coming to the subject recognize them? JzG is certainly welcome to give his own views on the reliability of sourcing. What is may not do here is insist on them, or attack others because of them. I note to my dismay that some of the admins positing in the secition below seem to regar the other parties as equally guilty of this. They may try just as hard, but they don't have the same skill or power or support, so they';re not a danger to NPOV. The one who is in a position to shut out his oppoenents is JzG, as he's the one who needs sanctions, The others I think can be left to the free play of ordinary WP dispute. Sanctions are for when they;'re needed,. The few times we use DS, and AE, the more effective it is. I decided to post here, rather than in the section below, because I realize I'll be accused of partianship as I was in a previous not unrelated AE case. And I want to emphasise that my personal interactions with JzG have always been friendly. Many years ago, we reached an understanding that we would try to to directy oppose each on individual issues, at least with respect to deletion, to avoid an endless circle of trying to outargue each other. I've held off directly posting against him on this as long as possible, and I post in the hope that something can be found that would avoid losing him entirely. But If despite my equally strong convictions can substantially avoid participating in AP, so can he. If I can avoid getting more down in psudoscience, so can he. DGG ( talk ) 07:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by FeydHuxtableJzG sometimes seems over forceful with his pro liberal & skeptical views, and in suspecting bigotry as the motivation for those with different POVs. I hope he takes onboard the DGG & Valereee criticism. But on the broad specifics (not his over harsh judgement of Trump supporters, most of whom seem to sincerely believe Trump was a victim of election fraud) JzG is correct. His comparisons to early 20th century Germany are apt. A coup was undeniably attempted. By 06 Jan it was already > 99% likely to fail regardless of Pence, but if a few key folk had yielded to pressure in the previous 3 weeks, it might have worked. Even before 2010, RSs used to praise us for having the single best Obama article on the web. IMO reasons we're nowhere near that with Trump related articles is nothing to do with JzG, but down to a small group of obstructive accounts who are too tactical to get sanctioned. Probably there is no immediate solution. By the 2030s the obstructors will likely have moved on, and we can accurately describe the Donald and his power plays. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by François RobereThe diffs:
Guy may be opinionated, but so are most editors in the TA. He's also reasoned and thorough, and I've never found him to be unpleasant. None of these diffs is sanctionable; I would dismiss the complaint with a friendly suggestion for everyone to relax and follow the sources. François Robere (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by BilbyGuy and I have butted heads often enough, so I was planning to sit this out. But I'm concerned, in that while I don't believe that the best articles are necessarily created by having all major viewpoints hash it out, I have found that they are not made by having one side have free reign. Guy is a damn good editor, but where he has strong opinions he can use them to create a space where the other side feels unwelcome. When we repeat talk of the "cult of Trump", we suggest to those who come from Trump's pespective that they are just part of a cult, and as such their opinions are lessened. When Guy repeatedly points out that he has more edits than someone, [61][62][63][64][65][66], we create an envoronment where they risk feeling that their contributions are not given consideration simply because of a difference in experience. It isn't whether or not these statements are true that is the issue, but the envronment they create when repeatedly stated, and this is something that I've seen Guy create before. Thus I'm going to agree with Masem - if nothing else, there is a situation being created around these articles which seems to be made to prevent one side from being heard, whether or not that is deliberate. Is it sanctionable? I don't think we have the will to do that here, and I don't see this as the issue that will force it, but I hope we have the will to tackle these issues at some point in the future. - Bilby (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My Ken
Statement by Rusf10I've been watching this form the sidelines for a while. I mostly agree with DGG's views who I believe has been treated very unfairly recently. I admire DGG's ability to put his own views aside and look at things objectively. I will say I am only slightly less concerned about JzG's behavior since he is no longer an admin, but he still has a large amount of influence. At best, his behavior violates WP:NOTFORUM. But making Nazi comparisons really pushes things beyond that. What is even more concerning is MastCell's response here. He not only defended JzG, but doubles down by saying JzG's
Statement by LevivichWhat's happening on this page (people forum-ing to an extreme, almost laughable, degree; bludgeoning by repeating themselves ad nauseum; claiming opinion is fact; asserting that anyone who disagrees doesn't understand or acknowledge reality; asserting anyone who disagrees is either ignorant or malicious, etc.), happens all over AP2, has been for years, and I think this page demonstrates well just how out of control it is. It's very much true that JzG isn't the only or the worst. I don't believe in singling any one editor out, but I do believe in giving warnings where warnings are due. There are several due, just on this page alone. I think some of the comments on this page are worse than the diffs in the report, but that doesn't mean nothing should be done! Just the opposite. We wouldn't allow this WP:RGW foruming in other topic areas. We wouldn't allow anyone to go on about Israeli or Palestinian or Kurdish or Turkish politics like some have gone on about US politics (on this very page). Our discussions about MEK, ISIS, and Hamas are better-behaved that our discussions about US politics. It really gets in the way of productive editing in AP2 when there's a contingent of true-believer culture-warriors, from both sides, arguing endlessly every day. Levivich harass/hound 15:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by AquillionAlmost everyone on that page (JzG included) could stand to be less WP:FORUMy, but his statements are hardly out of line with what most people are saying on both sides; in fact, many things people arguing against JzG have posted to this discussion are equally-forumy and get into "well yes but it's fine because I'm right and they're wrong" silliness. In particular, in several of the exchanges Berchanhimez posted, Berchanhimez themselves was obviously engaging in similar arguments before JzG replied to them - you can straightforwardly see that in their diffs. Here, for instance, Berchanhimez opened up by expressing their broad opinions on the entire topic by relating it to the George Floyd protests; they plainly don't have clean hands to object to JzG responding to that. Likewise, this comment by Berchanhimez strikes me as obvious provocation, so it's a bit silly for him to then object to JzG's reply being snippy. And while a lot of people who commented here could stand to tone down their rhetoric on that page, it is unreasonable for him to demand sanctions against JzG simply for mentioning the comparison to Nazis and fascists, which is discussed extensively in reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by CalidumAnother week, another thread concerning American politics brought to this board. Sooner or later it will be time for this to be taken up by arbcom. -- Calidum 17:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by SPECIFICO@Valereee:} I think it's quite unwarranted and unfair to say Statement by North8000AP2 can at best be endless polite Wikilawyering until we update and fix some policies. But what are in essence ad hominem argument conversations involving other editors is certainly outside of that. And while assuming the ideal in WP:AGF may be unrealistic (and demanding the ideal there is weaponizing wp:agf), positing bad faith and making such prominent in arguments is the other extreme. Increased by heated forum type discussion. There is even a lot of that on this page by others so JZG is not alone. Also IMO this may be broader WP:ANI rather than narrow wp:AE. I think that a strong shift overall to expect more in avoiding such things is required and a warning here and a statement to that effect for all would be a good start. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by PiotrusI am quite keen on enforcing civility, which I find is not done too often around here. That said, I've reviewed the first three diffs, described as "making a comparison to Holocaust/Nazis on an AMPOL topic", and I am not seeing anything particularly objectionable there. Assuming the OP would put the best diffs first, this doesn't seem very actionable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by dave souzaThough I'm sure editors raising concerns about JzG are well intentioned, this reminds me of civil POV pushing, where unending foruming drives editors to distraction when trying to base changes on mainstream sources, and any perceived rudeness is taken as grounds for sanctioning these editors. Perhaps unsurprising that Trump brings this out. InedibleHulk doesn't like "Guy's irrelevant commentary, his political commentary, his choice of insults," etc., but seems content with unsourced discussion aligned with the right-wing narrative, and responded to attempts at sourced discussion with what looks awfully like sarcasm.[69] Bound to happen, and not actionable in my view. It does get tricky when meeting distrust of "Reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", "which is to say virtually entirely left wing mainstream media",[70] and I'll admit to suggesting Conservapedia as an option,[71]but I don't think sanctions are the way forward. . . dave souza, talk 12:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC) Result concerning JzG
|
Enthusiast01
No action because Enthusiast01 was not informed of the DS in this area. Enthusiast01 has "noted" the discussion and is advised that future violations, now that they have been made DS aware, may lead to sanctions.--RegentsPark (comment) 16:19, 31 May 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 Enthusiast01
N/A
N/A, general sanction which ArbCom has clarified requires no awareness besides the edit notice and talk page notice (both present)
The user was asked to self-revert their latest revert. The user has continued editing since that request but has neither responded or self-reverted
@Seraphimblade: please see this clarification request. General sanctions, such as the 1RR, do not require any prior notification of discretionary sanctions besides the edit notice in the article. nableezy - 22:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Enthusiast01Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Enthusiast01For those who are curious why I have not commented on this complaint, I acknowledge having noted the views expressed here and will take it on board. Enthusiast01 (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by 11Fox11Edit #1 is placing standard boldface on the article title. Edit #2 is not a revert, but an edit. Enthusiast01 was not notified of the ARBCOM decision. Nableezy notified them at 21:47, without signing his post, and after all of these edits. Nableezy waited until the next day, and then made the post over here. This after the fact, unsigned, and undated notification is deceptive. 11Fox11 (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Enthusiast01
|
Arminden
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 Arminden
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Arminden (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:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 22:40, 3 June 2021 changing "Palestinian" to "Arab" for the description of the depopulated village of Al-Birwa
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 21 May 2015 Blocked 24 hours for edit-warring
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Calling the villages depopulated by Israel in 1948 for "Arab" or "Palestinian" has been a hotly contested area, which was resolved with this RfC: Talk:Kfar Ahim#RfC: Arab vs. Palestinian?: we shall call them "Palestinian". I was therefor disappointed with the above edit by Arminden, and when I asked him to revert link, he replies "I don't care about those tonnes of blabla. I won't revert whatever you do. Enjoy your crusade." link
My 2 cents: editors in the IP area needs to follow the rules, also the rules that they do not agree with, Huldra (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Arminden
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 Arminden
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Arminden
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.