→Statement by Sitush: + another diff |
יניב הורון (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 543: | Line 543: | ||
*Unhelpful report. It doesn't tell us what is supposed to be wrong with these alerts. The Grabowski stuff looks like a content dispute. I would take no action. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 05:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC) |
*Unhelpful report. It doesn't tell us what is supposed to be wrong with these alerts. The Grabowski stuff looks like a content dispute. I would take no action. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 05:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
{{hab}} |
{{hab}} |
||
==Rafe87== |
|||
<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 Rafe87=== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|יניב הורון}} 12:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Rafe87}}<p>{{ds/log|Rafe87}} |
|||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[WP:1RR]] of ARBPIA : |
|||
<!--- 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 You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs.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=Anti-Arabism&diff=840496883&oldid=840260978 First revert] |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Arabism&diff=840654633&oldid=840568910 Second revert in less than 24 hours] |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> |
|||
Moreover, the section of anti-Arabism in Israel falls into ARBPIA. Therefore, per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab–Israeli_conflict&action=edit third bullet of ARBPIA], {{tq|if an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit.}} User was supposed to wait at least 24 hours after '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Arabism&diff=840568910&oldid=840508844 my revert]''' before reinserting his disputed content full of POV-pushing, unreliable sources, labels and Op-Eds. But a mere 14 hours later [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Arabism&diff=840654633&oldid=840568910 he restored it anyway]. |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, 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 Rafe87=== |
|||
<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 Rafe87==== |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
===Result concerning Rafe87=== |
|||
:''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 12:42, 11 May 2018
Mhhossein
Article in question is outside the scope of ARBPIA. --NeilN talk to me 13:21, 4 May 2018 (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 Mhhossein
Though when I filed the request for me it was clear case especially when article was protected by WP:ECP I am willing to withdraw it as I going to file WP:ARCA --Shrike (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning MhhosseinStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MhhosseinThe mentioned article is not under the remedy Shrike claims. Enforcing the WP:BLUELOCK as an attempt to have "extended confirmed protection" does not necessarily mean that the article is under ARBPIA. Regards. Nuclear program of Iran has nothing to do with the Arab world. --Mhhossein talk 05:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by IcewhizI asked Mhhossein to self revert, as did Shrike. As might be evident on his talk page - User talk:Mhhossein#Self revert request he refused, also after it was pointed out to him the article was placed on extended confirmed protection (500/30) due to ARBPIA.Icewhiz (talk) 06:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by NishidaniI would only note,Masem, that some experienced editors on both 'sides' appear to be confused on this (Syria, hence all the more Iran) as per this remark.Nishidani (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000Sandstein is perfectly correct that this is not part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, because Iran is not an Arab country. It is definitely not covered by ARBPIA. The complaint should be moved to somewhere else like ANI, but a single revert is unlikely to get much traction over there. Zerotalk 09:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by TheGracefulSlickIn the very same discussion Nishidani refers to, one editor says the Israel-Iran conflict does not fall under the Arab-Israeli conflict, and cites a 2013 discussion to support his assertion. Obviously, this is no clear-cut case and it would be unfair to punish anyone for something that clearly isn't understood by everyone. Had Shrike realized this, instead of piggybacking off Icewhiz's initial claim (as usual), we would not be here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by K.e.coffmanThe filing party has a history of initiating misguided reports. I was a subject of one of them at 3RRN last month, which closed as “no violation”: permalink. Perhaps, the filer should be cautioned to better understand policies and restrictions before filing reports at various noticeboards. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My KenWhile the opinions expressed by admins below that the article in question is not covered by the discretionary sanctions are quite reasonable, I think that the fact that the subject area is specifically to be "broadly interpreted" changes things somewhat. Yes, it is certainly true that Iran is not an Arab country, but it is also true that Arabs are Semites, and yet "anti-Semitism" is the description of a bias and prejudice against Jews, and not against all Semites. Similarly, Iran is part of the cauldron of the "Middle East" in which the countries all around Israel have taken up a strong opposition to its existence. Iran is not Arabic, but it is part of the "broadly interpreted" circumstance that the sanctions were intended to control. I would urge admins to take this into account, and not be so specific in their interpretation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Seraphim SystemEven if it was within the remedy, I think it is reasonable to assume good faith and take Mhhossein at his word that he did not believe it was within the remedy. The connection is attenuated enough that I think it would need to be discussed at ARCA and for editors to be made aware of it before it was actionable.Seraphim System (talk) 07:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Mhhossein
|
E-960
E-960 will voluntarily refrain from editing the article for 72 hours. If disruptive tagging is an issue, another request should be made, with evidence that will allow admins unfamiliar with the sources to understand the issue. --NeilN talk to me 02:27, 8 May 2018 (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 E-960
4 reverts on a 1RR article. There are also BLP and RS issues for some of the information added. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 240#Holocaust history: Polish ambassador facebook post covered by wpolityce, and op-ed by Piotr Zaremba and various discussions at Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland such as Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Should Grabowski be removed ?.
Additional comments by IcewhizRE E-960's comments below -
Discussion concerning E-960Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by E-960I'd like to respectfully object to user Icewhiz's reporting of me, as his "Reverts" were done under a false and misleading pretense. In this example [9] user Icewhiz reverted text containing two RELIABLE reference sources, and in his Edit Summary writing in that these are "FRINGE source[s]" (and here [10] the unture claim was made that the same text was ORIGINAL RESEARCH). Yet, both these reference sources are two of the biggest newspapers in Poland, and in the case of Gazeta Wyborcza, the reference was the actual INTERVIEW with historian Jan Grabowski, and the removed text was what the historian said himself. To call these sources "FRINGE" unfortunately comes across as nothing more than an excuse to arbitrarily remove the text. Also, to back up this suspicion users Icewhiz and François Robere continue to tag bomb the article (here: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]) and revert text back-up by reliable reference sources using the 'IJUSTDONTLIKEIT shame tagging' tactic, and they have been warned about it and their tags reverted by other editors such as GizzyCatBella, Nihil novi, and Volunteer Marek, as this keeps occurring. In any case, I can apologize for my knee jerk reaction to restore the text, and confirm that in the future I'll keep in mind that this article is under the tighter scrutiny of the 1RR rule. But, also I'd like to ask the Admins to remind users Icewhiz and François Robere that automatically adding un-warranted tags or removing statements containing RELIABLE reference sources by labeling them as FRINGE, can come across as disruptive. --E-960 (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by GizzyCatBella(writing in progress...will finish today)GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC) I'll hold off on my comment and keep my word for future later use if necessary. NeilN's recommendation [18] is very fair in my opinion.GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Result concerning E-960
|
Salvidrim!
Salvidrim! made and caught their own mistake, so other than a massive TROUT there's nothing to do other than kicking the page back to the draft space and letting someone else review it. Primefac (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2018 (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 Salvidrim!
D'oh! I was casually looking up this game, found a draft in Draftspace that looked fine, moved it to mainspace and wikified it a bit. Then choked on my coffee when I recalled I was currently
My face has been notified by my palm. Discussion concerning SalvidrimStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Salvidrimre Tony: I guess my first thought was that self-reverting might be seen as "yet another attempt to avoid scrutiny"? Maybe I'm just being paranoid, apologies if this is a bit of a timewaster. Another one. Plus I couldn't self-revert anyways since I left a redirect at the draftspace title per usual practice. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by TonyBallioniCan you just re: draftify and slap an AfC tag on it for someone else to review? I appreciate the self-reporting here, but this seems like a bit of a waste of time. When someone accidentally violates an AE sanction, the norm is just to self-revert. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Salvidrim
|
Crawford88
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 Crawford88
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Crawford88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard_discretionary_sanctions: From the definitions of discretionary sanctions, "Within the area of conflict, editors are expected to edit carefully and constructively, ...comply with all applicable policies and guidelines... etc" (emphasis mine).
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 08:30, 7 May 2018 Reinstates removed content in violation of WP:NPOV (because of its language) and of WP:V and WP:NOR because said language is not supported by the source in question. Furthermore, the reinstatement was made despite my having been explicit about the OR problem when removing said content.
- 08:32, 7 May 2018 Reinstates removed content in violation of NPOV. The source discusses defaming a government and a country; the content claims defamation of Hindus.
At this point, I reverted the edits, once again describing the problems with them, and left a warning on this user's page, describing the specific problems with reinstating the edits. They essentially brushed off this warning.
- 04:47, 8 May 2018 Once again reinstates content in violation of WP:NOR and WP:V, despite having seen and responded to my warning above. This version addresses the "defaming Hindus" part of the problem, but reinstates the other original research and non-neutral language for a second time.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
No previous sanctions.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Editor was alerted to discretionary sanctions in January 2017. While this was 15 months ago, it is a bit of a stretch to suggest they are therefore unaware of the sanctions, having edited in this topic area continuously since.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
There's several incorrect statements and fundamental misunderstandings in Crawford88's statement.
- I haven't used my administrator tools on this page, and as I am aware of WP:INVOLVED, am not likely to do so.
- "Hindu" and "Hindutva foot soldier" are not the same either, and if Crawford88 believes them to be, he is simply demonstrating his unsuitability for editing this topic.
- The importance of the content I removed is quite irrelevant, as is the presence of other sources. I removed the content because it wasn't supported by the cited source.
- Crawford reinstated it, thereby taking responsibility for it, in violation of our core policies. He still does not appear to see the problem with that. Neil, he's responded, as you asked; could you take a look? Vanamonde (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark: Well, they reinstated original research, were warned about it and reverted it, and then reinstated it again. This is far worse than a lost of behavior I've seen sanctioned here. You're right that an isolated incident may not be worth a sanction under normal circumstances; but that's only when we have some indication that it is an isolated incident, ie that it won't be repeated. Crawford88 hasn't even recognized problematic behavior here. Vanamonde (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [19]
Discussion concerning Crawford88
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 Crawford88
The two separate edits for which Vanamonde93 is crying foul are:
- 'Allegation by media and Church organizations for a case involving a nun's rape and church vandalism': This case has gathered heavy mainstream attention and elections were fought over this issue calling it the tyranny by Hindu nationalist Sangh Parivar and BJP.[1][2][3][4] The allegation by Vanamonde93 that the source only talks about "defaming a government and a country" is utter falsehood, as it specifically says, "Far from being a Hindutva foot soldier, as the CBCI, the media, commentators and the opposition had alleged, the man was a Muslim and, that too, a Bangladeshi!".
- 'A certain talk show hosted by Tony Brown': This not so relevant in India, but for American Hindus, this incident's importance can be gathered by the documentation of this event in various books and journals.[5] including the seminal Encyclopedia of African American History.[6] WLS - AM 890 is a powerful and influential radio in US over 90 years old in which Brown expressed his anti-Hindu views.
But, as this is an AE proceeding, the things I said about, which ideally should have been part of the discussions on the specific page's talk page discussion, are not relevant. This proceeding is a gross misuse of administrative privileges of Vanamonde93 which he uses to randomly targets well meaning Wikipedia users who do not tag his line. There has been two reverts by me (on two different days) and I have been careful of not violating any Wikipedia policy. So, instead of having a meaningful dialogue about why he considers there is WP:NPOV and absence of WP:V, Vanamonde93 jumps straight into threatening me of an AE proceeding (which to his credit he did). This is what (s)he's claiming to be constructive feedback, "blatant original research, non-neutral wording, and dodgy sources." without any specific instances or reasons.
Highhandedness by Wiki moderators and administrators will only reduce the already waning credibility of Wikipedia in being neutral and welcoming of new editors and users. Crawford88 (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- ^ "Nun rape and church vandalism: The fringe is now mainstream". www.dailyo.in. Retrieved 2018-05-10.
- ^ "Nun rape and church vandalism: Hindutva idea or land-grabbing technique?". www.dailyo.in. Retrieved 2018-05-10.
- ^ "Christians Say They are Under Siege in India After Nun's Rape, Church Attacks". NDTV.com. Retrieved 2018-05-10.
- ^ Today, Christian. "Christians Outraged at WB Nun Gang-rape, Vandalism of Haryana Church". Christian Today. Retrieved 2018-05-10.
- ^ Kumar, M. Kumar R. (2009). Women Health, Empowerment and Economic Development: Their Contribution to National Economy. Deep & Deep Publications. ISBN 9788184501346.
- ^ Finkelman, Paul; Wintz, Cary D. (2009). Encyclopedia of African American History, 1896 to the Present: From the Age of Segregation to the Twenty-first Century Five-volume Set. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 9780195167795.
Statement by Sitush
The example given by Vanamonde93 may be part of a pattern. I come across Crawford88 from time to time and have often thought them to be at best an apologist for Hindutva and at worst an outright proponent of it. Nothing wrong with holding an opinion, of course, but when one's political etc philosophy becomes self-evident in one's edits across a range of articles then it suggests that neutral editing is unlikely to be at the forefront. Recent examples include a spat (with associated edit warring) at Talk:Koenraad_Elst#Feb,_2018 and unexplained removals of categories relating to far-right politics in India around 18 April, eg here and here. Let's not make any bones about it: Hindu nationalism is regularly described as a fascist philosophy and anyone who thinks otherwise is going to have to work hard to support their opinion. We are not censored; Crawford88 should not be censoring. - Sitush (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Crawford88
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- @Vanamonde93:, as presented, this doesn't seem to be AE actionable unless you can document a pattern of POV editing in the area. @Crawford88:, bringing an issue to AE is not an admin action and is in no way a gross or otherwise "misuse of administrative privileges". I suggest you tone down your rhetoric, otherwise you're only supporting the complaint brought against you. --regentspark (comment) 13:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
DanaUllman
As pointed out, this was a community sanction which replaced an expired or expiring ArbCom sanction. I will take it to ANI. Guy (Help!) 07:37, 9 May 2018 (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 DanaUllman
I think DanaUllman should be sitebanned for violation of sanctions under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy
DanaUllman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account, he is, by admission, Dana Ullman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a tireless promoter of homeopathy. He has made exactly one mainspace edit since his 2008 topic ban, and that was promoting a purveyor of bogus diagnostics, an article in the alternative medicine topic area and also potentially related to his business (he uses a radionics machine). He has been allowed to make comments regarding his own biography, but that has now been deleted. His edit history speaks for itself. The only time he strays from promoting homeopathy is when he is promoting himself. That is what he does off-wiki, as is his right. He has no such right here, and his editing history has been consistently problematic. The only topic in which he is interested, is one where he may not edit, and he has consistently tested and pushed beyond the boundaries of that ban. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning DanaUllmanStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DanaUllmanStatement by (username)Statement by Spartazthis is the link for the closed discussion confirming the sanction. Curiously, the tban is a community sanction reimposing the arbcom tban. Buggered if I know whether its out of scope as a community not arbitration sanction or not. Spartaz Humbug! 22:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by EdJohnstonPer the 2012 Arbcom motion, it appears that Homeopathy sanctions were rolled into Pseudoscience. So this enforcement request should be handled as if it was asking for Pseudoscience enforcement. The 2012 motion was in effect dropping sanctions in some areas such as Gibraltar but for other topics, such as Cold Fusion and Homeopathy, it was reshuffling them under new headers. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Result concerning DanaUllman
|
Icewhiz
Editors directed to WP:RSN to discuss Chodakiewicz. GizzyCatBella directed to write Icewhiz's name properly and reminded that communications on the English-language Wikipedia need to be in English. --NeilN talk to me 13:18, 9 May 2018 (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 Icewhiz
Misconduct in two matters subject to discretionary sanctions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons
The editor acted in a troublesome manner by targeted removal of references to the particular historian (Marek Chodakiewicz - a living person) on 12 different E. Europe related articles. Seldom in a threshold of 2 minutes in between edits. These appear to be thoughtless edits in a sole purpose of removing the historian as a source.
On March 8 the editor Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started [26] to make edits to the page of the living Polish historian Marek Chodakiewicz in a profoundly critical fashion. Edits continued until today. [27] Then On May 8th, they went into a frenzy cruse removing any reference to Chodakiewcz from 12 separate Poland and the Holocaust articles under false or no valid justifications at all. GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning IcewhizStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by IcewhizI have indeed been reviewing use of Chodakiewicz as a source - going over most of the uses of him on enwiki. Chodakiewicz is a highly WP:BIASED source (more below) even when writing in a peer-reviewed reviewed setting. While some of his writings have been published academically (in journals and more reputable publishers), much of what he writes is not published academically - varying from non-academic publishers, Polish newspapers of a particular bent, and his various blogs. I am willing to defend each and every one of those diffs if needed (and I'll note - GCB hasn't bothered to discuss) - in some cases I removed highly-biased statements that were made in Wikipedia's voice while representing a rather fringe view, in others I removed sourcing to blog posts, and in a few cases - I removed information that wasn't even in the cited source. It has been my impression that when editors resort to using a source such as Chodakiewicz - there are often other problems involved (both NPOV and V). As for Marek Jan Chodakiewicz -
Reviewing use of sources is what we do on Wikipedia - per WP:V, WP:NPOV. I submit that per WP:BIASED review of the use of Chodakiewicz is more than warranted, and obviously removing what doesn't pass WP:V - e.g. this diff GCB presents - in which we were ascribing to Chodakiewicz a claim he did not actually write in his political blog - is required per V policy as well and WP:BLP given we were falsely ascribing a statement to Chodakiewicz.Icewhiz (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Boomerang proposal: GizzyCatBella repeatedly introducing information from a self-published book by a questionable author that was refutedNote that the editor using GCB as a handle has admitted to editing as an IP as well - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GizzyCatBella - admission here and elsewhere. Editing as one of the IP's in GCB's range in April, GCB introduced the following - text and source. This was discussed as a source with GCB in Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Your Life is Worth Mine: How Polish Nuns Saved Hundreds of Jewish Children in German-occupied Poland, 1939-1945 - E. Kurek (where this didn't receive support). In conjunction, we also discussed Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#"only German-occupied European country" with death penalty - in which Poland being the only country with the death penalty for helping Jews was outright refuted. Ewa Kurek is mainly covered for making stmts such as "Polish author Ewa Kurek, has claimed that Jews had fun in the ghettos during the German occupation of Poland during World War II."[36][37][38]. And does not hold a significant academic appointment.[39][40]. So far - one use of a questionable source. However, GCB then added a self-published book (iUniverse) in a number different articles -
I'll also note, given the circumstances that Poeticbent Revision as of 13:19, 25 April 2018 also re-added Kurek. GCB has not discussed this at the relevant article talk page (complaining instead on the wall of text - see Talk:Irena Sendler#Use of Ewa Kurek as a source and Talk:The Holocaust in Poland#Use of Ewa Kurek as a source) - and instead has been reverting. Use of a WP:SPS is a clear no-go, when it is a questionable author as well, making a claim that has been clearly refuted - it is even less acceptable. Repeated reversions of this without discussion are WP:IDHT. In an area with discretionary sanctions - editors are supposed to adhere to Wikipedia policy on WP:RS and WP:V - which is clearly not the case in the diffs above. Note I did open a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Holocaust in Poland: Ewa Kurek & Mark Paul after the last revert - however this shouldn't have gotten to this - an editor re-inserting a self-published book, by a questionable author, with a false claim, repeatedly - in a sanctioned area!Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Beyond My KenThe disputing editors should open a discussion on the Reliable sources noticeboard if they cannot come to a consensus on the talk page.BTW, not to say "I told you so", but in the recent ANI scuffle about this topic area, I suggested that all the warring editors should be topic-banned from these articles under ARBEE, but no one was interested in doing so. This is not going to stop, the positions are too entrenched, and it's eventually going to end up in a full-blown Arbitration case, simply because admins wouldn't take positive action to control the subject area. This calls into question the effectiveness of discretionary sanctions if no one is willing to utilize them. I believe this situation to be a rare case of the failure of effective administration. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Statement by (username)Result concerning Icewhiz
|
Page restriction for infobox addition and infobox discussion at Stanley Kubrick
Infobox restriction posted at Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Bishonen | talk 10:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC). |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I'm not sure whether page restrictions have ever been placed per the "Civility in infobox discussions" discretionary sanctions, so I thought I'd ask uninvolved admins here before I try it. There's been a long-running war about whether or not to have an infobox at Stanley Kubrick, with new discussions and "straw polls" erupting again and again on the talkpage, and with an infobox being repeatedly added to the article, and then promptly removed. The last explicit consensus on the matter (=no infobox) was back in 2015. I'm considering placing the following page restriction:
The template will also automatically add this text in smaller font: My rationale is that we shouldn't abandon articles and contributors to endless bickering, but put the new discretionary sanctions to use, as I assume ArbCom intended when they set them. The general infobox RfC at the Village Pump has run into the sands and nobody seems up for closing it, which I don't wonder at. God, no. There was an unsuccessful attempt within that RfC to set a limit of six months for starting yet another infobox discussion on an article talkpage. As you can see, I'm offering a restriction of four months on Talk:Stanley Kubrick, where yet another straw poll has just started and been closed, after there was one in early April... Thoughts? Pinging Laser brain, who just posted an appeal for an infobox discussion break on Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Bishonen | talk 07:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC).
Discussion concerning the page restrictionsStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by FrancisDon't know whether any of these variants would be less convoluted:
(the infobox of that particular article, mentioned in The Wall Street Journal two days ago, is way beyond a "default" option, that being the topic of the current RfC, so I wouldn't connect timing to that RfC) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Laser brainI think this is a good idea. I've informally requested on the article talk page that it be given a break multiple times, but there is no sign of a stoppage of the series of proposals. Good-faith editors who are completely unaware of the history stumbling onto the page are one thing, but Hentheden, byteflush, and Siliconred have each opened proposals in the last two months with full awareness of the rocky road the article's been on for several months. It is becoming disruptive and I'd like to see some calm on this page. --Laser brain (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning the page restriction
|
GizzyCatBella
Withdrawn by filer. Bishonen | talk 08:36, 10 May 2018 (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 GizzyCatBella
Revision as of 10:41, 19 February 2018
(+given sanction +filed case on 9 May on ARBEE).
WP:POINTy DS alert in violation of alert.dup, particularly that given their own AE filing today - GizzyCatBella was asserting I was aware of the sactions.Icewhiz (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning GizzyCatBellaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GizzyCatBellaI sincerely missed the previous alert that was given to Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and entered the template in good faith. I even wrote that I couldn't see it before inserting the alert template. [45] I wrote:
If I could find the alert and I knew that it had existed already I would refer to it yesterday ->[46] I didn't because I couldn't find it and wrote this instead:
It's evident that I honestly missed the alert when I was looking for it, and I was honestly thinking that I'm doing the proper thing.[49] User Icewhiz instead has chosen to retaliate and possibly take revenge for me filing a complaint against him yesterday. He could have just told me about the fact that he already has been informed instead of coming here. I would remove the template. His hostile attitude is very troublesome.GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning GizzyCatBella
|
Rafe87
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 Rafe87
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Rafe87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:1RR of ARBPIA :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Moreover, the section of anti-Arabism in Israel falls into ARBPIA. Therefore, per , if an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit.
User was supposed to wait at least 24 hours after my revert before reinserting his disputed content full of POV-pushing, unreliable sources, labels and Op-Eds. But a mere 14 hours later he restored it anyway.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Rafe87
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 Rafe87
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Rafe87
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.