MPants at work (talk | contribs) |
→Statement by JFG: Support MjolnirPants suggestion |
||
(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 516: | Line 516: | ||
However I am very concerned by a recent comment by BullRangifer, telling a well-respected editor: {{tq|MelanieN, you really need to examine your thinking}},[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Presidency_of_Donald_Trump&diff=850958701&oldid=850958485&diffmode=source] simply because she happened to hold the same view as Rusf10 about inserting a particular piece of content (a tweet by John Brennan lambasting Trump). He was immediately called out by two editors {{u|PackMecEng}} and myself, but he persisted and refused to apologize: {{tq|It should still be a wakeup call for her and cause her to revise her thinking.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Presidency_of_Donald_Trump&diff=850960349&oldid=850960034&diffmode=source] See developing thread at [[Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump#Side track on "wrongthink"]]. — [[User:JFG|JFG]] <sup>[[User talk:JFG|talk]]</sup> 07:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC) |
However I am very concerned by a recent comment by BullRangifer, telling a well-respected editor: {{tq|MelanieN, you really need to examine your thinking}},[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Presidency_of_Donald_Trump&diff=850958701&oldid=850958485&diffmode=source] simply because she happened to hold the same view as Rusf10 about inserting a particular piece of content (a tweet by John Brennan lambasting Trump). He was immediately called out by two editors {{u|PackMecEng}} and myself, but he persisted and refused to apologize: {{tq|It should still be a wakeup call for her and cause her to revise her thinking.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Presidency_of_Donald_Trump&diff=850960349&oldid=850960034&diffmode=source] See developing thread at [[Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump#Side track on "wrongthink"]]. — [[User:JFG|JFG]] <sup>[[User talk:JFG|talk]]</sup> 07:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC) |
||
{{re|MjolnirPants}} Count me in to try and devise a damper on knee-jerk emotional headline-chasing. — [[User:JFG|JFG]] <sup>[[User talk:JFG|talk]]</sup> 15:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC) |
|||
====Comment on admin action by Calton==== |
====Comment on admin action by Calton==== |
||
Line 526: | Line 528: | ||
{{ping|Masem}} You and I have discussed some sort of restriction on how soon after a story hits the news cycles we can write about it. I think this is something that should be given some serious thought and discussion, though not here. I'll ping you on another page where we can discuss further. I'm also pinging {{ping|Awilley|NeilN}} who have also been involved in trying to work out something to improve AmPol editing, just to ensure they're aware of this case as an example of how such a restriction might have cut off the drama before it got started. Sandstein, your input is always welcome (even though we don't always agree) so please leave me a message on my talk if you have anything to add to a topic-wide discussion about [[WP:RECENTISM]]. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MPants at work|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MPants at work|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 14:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC) |
{{ping|Masem}} You and I have discussed some sort of restriction on how soon after a story hits the news cycles we can write about it. I think this is something that should be given some serious thought and discussion, though not here. I'll ping you on another page where we can discuss further. I'm also pinging {{ping|Awilley|NeilN}} who have also been involved in trying to work out something to improve AmPol editing, just to ensure they're aware of this case as an example of how such a restriction might have cut off the drama before it got started. Sandstein, your input is always welcome (even though we don't always agree) so please leave me a message on my talk if you have anything to add to a topic-wide discussion about [[WP:RECENTISM]]. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">[[User:MPants at work|<span style="color:green;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] [[User_talk:MPants at work|<small>Tell me all about it.</small>]]</span> 14:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC) |
||
====Statement by MONGO==== |
|||
MelanieN and I might agree 20% of the time on content but if you want a model contributor to these problematic areas hers is that model to emulate and she has been an inspiration to me as well. Therefore calling out MelanieN on partisanship is really extreme, especially coming from someone that would be far more likely then I to have agreements with her. Rusf10 last diff indicates BullRangifer is extremely unlikely to be able to remain objective in these problematic areas. I saw the Mfd there and found it extremely partisan but avoided it since it was in userspace and BullRangifer said that is where it would stay. Rusf10 last diff above where BullRangifer states: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:BullRangifer/Trump_supporters,_fake_news,_and_unreliable_sources&diff=prev&oldid=850479207] "''Don't attack mainstream editors who depend on RS, especially if your POV is the pro-Trump, minority POV, which is not backed by RS. We protect the first, and scorn the latter around here.''" Scorn the latter? I am hoping when this was written he meant only those that use unreliable sources, but his userspace essay that was at Mfd clearly tries to state that Fox News is an unreliable source when Wikipedia itself has never declared that. In the userspace essay, Bullrangifer states [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BullRangifer/Trump_supporters,_fake_news,_and_unreliable_sources]"''...Trump/GOP/Putin-friendly sources (Fox News, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Infowars, RT, Sputnik, etc.) say otherwise with their cover-up/distraction/conspiracy theories which fact checkers keep on debunking. Those are unreliable sources for political content, so don't use them, and frankly, don't even read them, except for research purposes ("What are the fringe wingnuts saying now?")''". I think its a bit extreme to lump FoxNews in with the others in that recital but others may disagree.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] ([[User talk:MONGO|talk]]) 15:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
====Statement by (username)==== |
||
Line 537: | Line 542: | ||
***I also agree with {{u|JFG}} that BullRangifer's comments regarding {{u|MelanieN}} in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Presidency_of_Donald_Trump&oldid=850975994#Side_track_on_%22wrongthink%22 this discussion] are of eminent concern. Telling MelanieN that "you really need to examine your thinking. When Rusf10 agrees with you, you're beyond merely partisan and fringe", and "When an editor like Rusf10 agrees with MelanieN, in a situation like this, it makes it appear that MelanieN is in fringe and partisan territory. She risks being judged by the company she keeps, except for this vital difference...she did not choose the company. It should still be a wakeup call for her and cause her to revise her thinking" is so unacceptable that I find it difficult to put it into words. This is genuine harassment and abuse of a sort even I have seldom seen on Wikipedia, and not even because of something MelanieN did, but because of somebody else agreed with her. It makes me inclined to impose a block and an indefinite topic ban on BullRangifer. <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> 07:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC) |
***I also agree with {{u|JFG}} that BullRangifer's comments regarding {{u|MelanieN}} in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Presidency_of_Donald_Trump&oldid=850975994#Side_track_on_%22wrongthink%22 this discussion] are of eminent concern. Telling MelanieN that "you really need to examine your thinking. When Rusf10 agrees with you, you're beyond merely partisan and fringe", and "When an editor like Rusf10 agrees with MelanieN, in a situation like this, it makes it appear that MelanieN is in fringe and partisan territory. She risks being judged by the company she keeps, except for this vital difference...she did not choose the company. It should still be a wakeup call for her and cause her to revise her thinking" is so unacceptable that I find it difficult to put it into words. This is genuine harassment and abuse of a sort even I have seldom seen on Wikipedia, and not even because of something MelanieN did, but because of somebody else agreed with her. It makes me inclined to impose a block and an indefinite topic ban on BullRangifer. <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> 07:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC) |
||
* As a complete separate comment in re-reading the diffs in context, the whole discussion that these diffs find themselves in is absolutely why we have NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM: trying to cover the reaction of politicians and mass media for every little thing Trump does (in this case) is far too detailed and leads to far too much bickering with editors, particularly with the current regulars on these articles that have shown a clear preference on which side of the external partisan battle they agree with (which includes both pro- and anti-Trump positions) and keep headbutting to maintain their preferred position. AE obviously can't address the content issue, but its clear the content issue is creating behavioral issues, and it would significantly help stem behavioral issues across the board if editors were not fighting to include the level of detail ''and analysis'' in the short term. We have no idea if these will end up being of that much importance 5-10 years from now. These AP2 articles need to stick to facts and avoid trying to incorporate what opinions and reactions are out there unless those reactions shown the test of time. Can't expect any admin action due to this overall, but it would really really really really help stop all these AE reports. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 13:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC) |
* As a complete separate comment in re-reading the diffs in context, the whole discussion that these diffs find themselves in is absolutely why we have NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM: trying to cover the reaction of politicians and mass media for every little thing Trump does (in this case) is far too detailed and leads to far too much bickering with editors, particularly with the current regulars on these articles that have shown a clear preference on which side of the external partisan battle they agree with (which includes both pro- and anti-Trump positions) and keep headbutting to maintain their preferred position. AE obviously can't address the content issue, but its clear the content issue is creating behavioral issues, and it would significantly help stem behavioral issues across the board if editors were not fighting to include the level of detail ''and analysis'' in the short term. We have no idea if these will end up being of that much importance 5-10 years from now. These AP2 articles need to stick to facts and avoid trying to incorporate what opinions and reactions are out there unless those reactions shown the test of time. Can't expect any admin action due to this overall, but it would really really really really help stop all these AE reports. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 13:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC) |
||
*BullRangifer's comment toward Melanie warrant a warning. Perhaps they will consider retracting and apologizing--[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Presidency_of_Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=850960349 their "clarification"] is patronizing, condescending. I'm also a bit bothered by what I can only call a (brief) diatribe [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Presidency_of_Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=850823403 here]. I do not think (in the absence of more evidence) that this by itself is worthy of a topic ban, though had I seen the Melanie-comments when they happened I would certainly have given them an only warning for personal attacks. Blocking for that now is not something I would do. I'll hasten to add that we're here for BF, and not for Rusf10, but it should be clear that the latter's comments about Brennan are, as far as I'm concerned, BLP violations. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 15:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:45, 19 July 2018
Orientls
No action, but involved users warned to resolve the content dispute about Pakistan's regional power status collegially or face topic bans. Sandstein 13:43, 14 July 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 Orientls
Additional comments: What is interesting is that Orientls is an account which has only made less than 190 edits in the past 4 years[1] which raises socking and sleeper account questions. This diff also seems to indicate a botched attempt of meatpuppetry [2] where he inadvertently seems to have copy pasted something else, probably from a chat browser, which indicates that he is doing edits under instructions for somebody else. This diff [3] confirms my suspicions further. His edit history also looks aggressive. See for example his aggressive/incivil comment to Joshua Jonathan here[4] and his condescending demands (to which he has no right anyway) on TurboCop's talkpage here.[5]--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
To editor Sdmarathe: This unexplained blanking[7] of old content and sources was vandalism. There is no definition by which it can be called a "constructive edit". This blanking edit was even before Orientls came to the talkpage. This diff[8] is incivility. Read these parts The message[9] to TurboCop is inappropriate because that disclousre is TurboCop's business and not Orientls'. We can't say its a case of impersonation with certainty when admins have not even decided on that yet. I also find your AE statement inappropriate.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Notified on talk page--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Discussion concerning OrientlsStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by OrientlsResponding as I have been asked below. I wanted to describe my edit[10] on Regional power in edit summary but I pressed "enter" key before I would type edit summary. I have checked before if there is a way to modify edit summary and I never found one. Nonetheless, it is apparent to everyone that the edit was an acknowledgement of the problems with the disputed content that were already described on talk page[11] and the disputed content should not be restored until consensus is reached. On talk page, I have properly backed my argument with high amounts of WP:RS.[12] There was no vandalism per WP:NOTVAND. This report is not making any sense and it is just a personal attack and a clear misrepresentation. I was editing the talk page where I pasted the content twice as my key got stuck and I later removed the duplicate parts.[13] In the last two diffs[14][15] I raised appropriate concerns that you are not allowed to synthesize content or impersonate identity of other users. You would know better about these edits by reading the whole discussion and conclusion would support that my edits are well within policies and constitutes no violation. Orientls (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC) Replying the below message, WP:NPOV is irrelevant because the main concern is with the quality of sources per WP:IRS. If there are quality of sources that support the scholarly consensus then the named country can be added. This source names a few "countries as regional powers" and Pakistan is not included. My comment[16] reads that there are many sources that talks about the regional powers and they don't name Pakistan as the regional power, while my other comment[17] reads that we can't add those sources that fails to describe the context and are contradicting the main article and scholarly consensus regarding the list of regional power. The logic that some sources make mere mention thus they are perfectly acceptable then would you support inclusion of India as Great power? Sources describe India as one, but not all. The same is case with Pakistan when it is about regional power or emerging power. Also read this source that thoroughly describes the issues with this statement, and let me know if you can produce similar source that has also thoroughly studied and described if Pakistan is a regional power. This is why, already I have stated below that RfC or feedback from WikiProjects is needed that how we should organize the list and even if there should be a list as paragraphs are more preferred. Orientls (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by WBG
Statement by SdmaratheRegardless of my above message, NadirAli is still WP:NOTGETTINGIT that there was no vandalism.[18] There is nothing wrong with that message, and this other message was absolutely correct given that impersonation is not allowed and the suspicious account never addressed the impersonation obviously because the account's purpose was to engage in disruption while using identity of a long dormant account. I wonder why NadirAli feels this offended. We cant allow impersonation only because you feel otherwise and you are testing edges of your topic ban by talking about an account who's edits are not supposed to be discussed by you since you are topic banned from the entire subject.[19] NadirAli lacks the understanding of what is a vandalism and wants to treat everyone to be as deceptive as him or even a little bit, given his own history of siteban and topic ban evasion that was never brought into attention until very recently.[20][21] NadirAli has been making these allegations against other editors [22] by falsely claiming that others are making edits for someone else and he never interacted the editor contrary to great deal of with NadirAli.[23] NadirAli is bordering on objectionable behavior - noting his gross WP:CIR issues and battleground mentality here alone, including the recent topic ban(link) violation where he was engaging in same disruptive battleground mentality per his edit summary.[24] Ping GoldenRing. I think we might need to consider some reprimand about this behavior . Sdmarathe (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I note that NadirAli and Mar4d have now resorted to misrepresentation of sources on Talk:Regional power and Mar4d has misrepresented sources on Emerging power by making an edit[26] where none of the sources of Mar4d mentions Pakistan as "emerging power". @Sandstein: Have you confirmed that if Orientls was notified of discretionary sanctions? NadirAli has not mentioned it though he knows it better. I have found that Orientls was not aware of them and according to you as well it is necessary prior the report.[27] Sdmarathe (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Mar4dI'll try to keep this short. The content concerned (which was blanked unilaterally) has been present on the article for several years [28]. Until it was removed in drive-by IP vandalism. I won't comment on Adamgerber80's restoration of the IP, given he has claimed it was in error. But right after a user restored the article to its longstanding version, Sdmarathe's first ever edit on that page is to restore the IP's vandalism. Then Lorstaking makes his first ever edit, restoring the IP's edit with the misleading summary "your SCO/G20 references don't make point", even though it included old references. When the longstanding version was reinstated along with references, Orientls' first ever edit is blanking the section back to Lorstaking's version [29] [30] with no edit summary, which itself should be sanctionable. He did not explain his revert, and commented on the talk 13 hours later. All three of course have no history on the article, but edit the same topics, and added similar original research and personal opinions on the talk. Regarding NadirAli's concerns on WP:MEAT, at the very least there is substantive indication of WP:TAGTEAM which ought not to be ignored. I would like to see scrutiny of the named accounts in addition to monitoring of the article for WP:NPOV issues, and at the very least actionable measures with regard to Orientls to prevent conduct-related damage. Best regards, Mar4d (talk) 10:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Vanamonde93I have now had a chance to review this. Orientls's behavior on Talk:Regional power is concerning. Their first comment shows a complete misunderstanding of NPOV: they say "We don't have to voice opinion of minority but mainstream", which is a grotesque misrepresentation of WP:DUE. It also provides the following quote "But it also reflects that secondary regional powers and entities such as ASEAN, Russia, South Korea and India have proved unwilling to chose between the two" from this source as evidence that Pakistan is not a regional power. Not only does that source not refer to Pakistan at all, it isn't even describing India as a regional power; indeed that quote says nothing about which entities are regional powers. If Orientls is unable to recognize this, it's a problem. Similarly, this source makes it clear that it isn't providing an exhaustive list of "regional powers". Again, Orientls's comment betrays no awareness of this [31]. Furthermore, Mar4d provided [32] a number of sources. I have spotchecked these sources; the ones I checked support the claim they are used for. Yet Orientls's only engagement with them has been to state "We can't treat opinion of Robert Pastor that is added to the footnote by the source itself[26] and Iraq is not a regional power, thus Pastor's opinion is extremely flawed and same goes for "Buzan, Barry; Wæver, Ole", it is flawed too" [33]. Textbook stonewalling. That said, Orientls has made all of 206 edits to Wikipedia. WP:ROPE would suggest only a warning at this point. Vanamonde (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Code16Agree with Vanamonde93, leaving aside the content dispute (which is a whole separate can of worms), Orientls's actions are indeed concerning, but can be attributed to a lack of experience. Erasing reliable sources by claiming they are a "minority view" seems to be a misunderstanding of WP:FRINGE. All FRINGE claims are minority claims, but not all minority claims are FRINGE. There is a difference, and it is an important one for new editors to understand and respect. Since the user is inexperienced, I suggest he be given some advice on this issue by an admin and perhaps a warning. Code16 (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Result concerning Orientls
|
Seraphim System
No action. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:25, 14 July 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 Seraphim System
In addition, user violated as well: "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."
Discussion concerning Seraphim SystemStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Seraphim SystemNone of the content in that edit has anything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Turkey isn't an Arab country. This has been discussed here before and the result has usually been that the content actually has to be about the Arab-Israeli conflict. (Especially on a broad article like this one, where the article is not actually covered by ARBPIA). And I just want to add that I am not even trying to work on conflict articles, but some of the articles I'm working on like 1973 oil crisis and Terrorism may have some overlap and I try to be careful about it and self-revert when I think it's relevant. I will self-revert here also, but only if admins decide it's within ARBPIA's scope, because I sincerely don't think it is. I first encountered this user when I proposed to move Yom Kippur War to Arab-Israeli War of 1973, ever since then he has followed me around to revert me on multiple articles, some that he had never previously worked on like here removing sourced content with edit summary "restoring sources" and here adding citation needed tags to content that is already sourced (I responded by adding two more sources). I just don't think this edit falls within the scope of ARBPIA, and it's frustrating to have someone following me around and starting ARBPIA-related disputes on articles that are mostly outside the conflict area. I already stopped working on 1973 oil crisis when this happened, which I was hoping to nominate for GA, but he keeps following me from one article to another. This complaint seems like part of the same pattern. Seraphim System (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC) @DavidBena: I actually did not remove anything for any reason related to ARBPIA and I didn't remove any content about Gaza or Israel or Arab-Israeli relations. I'm not sure if the editors who are objecting to the removal are doing so based on a thorough understanding of the academic sources available. State-sponsorship is not about inclusion on the FTO list — there has been a lot of academic literature published. A subject like this with an abundance of academic sources available shouldn't have been sourced to media sources in the first place—these sources do not even discuss state sponsorship of terrorism. I'm open to discussion, and I'm sorry this has escalated to another routine ARBPIA dispute. I'm entirely indifferent as to whether the content is included in another article. Seraphim System (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by DavidbenaI find it strange that our co-editor, Seraphim System, defends his deletion of well-sourced material in an article entitled State-sponsored terrorism, and yet claims that the edit had nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict, for which reason he deleted it. I'm astounded, insofar that while the article does NOT limit itself to the Arab-Israeli conflict (ARBPIA), it does treat on terrorism in a general way, including what happens in Gaza under Hamas rule. The edit, therefore, was applicable and should not have been deleted by Seraphim System.Davidbena (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by IcewhizRelations with Hamas (hosting a HQ, etc.) is clearly ARBPIA related, Hamas being a Palestinian movement that is a side to the conflict - this is ARBPIA not because of Turkey, but due to Hamas.Icewhiz (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by SMcCandlishARBPIA scope seems pretty firm to me, Hamas being deeply embedded in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Whether Turkey qualifies or not is immaterial (though it does; it's an 82% Muslim country (the rest being almost entirely secular, not Jewish or Christian), barely on any kind of speaking terms with Israel at all, and threatening to break off all diplomatic relations with Israel again – i.e., to once again be allied with Arabs and the rest of the Muslim world against Israel – since 2017). The disruptive nature of nuking the entire section of source information because Seraphim System prefers "some academic sources", and then editwarring to re-delete it all is clearly within DS range. The fact that Seraphim System doesn't seem to recognize that this kind of thing is disruptive, and just wants to wikilawyer about whether the page qualifies under ARBPIA then disclaim involvement in the topic area, is a strong indication such behavior will continue. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by power~enwikiSimilar to Iran-Israel, Turkey-Israel relations generally do not fall under the ARBPIA sanctions, but they can when they relate to support for Hamas. The page State-sponsored terrorism does not appear to explicitly be under any page-level Discretionary Sanctions, though content on the page might fall under several different sanctions (American Politics, Syrian Civil War, India-Pakistan). As discussion of the content dispute is now proceeding on the talk page, I see no reason for any action against any editor, though there may be a need for additional page-restrictions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Mhhossein@Black Kite: That GMAE is not something new by the mentioned user. You might want to see this archived AE report, specially [35] and [36]. --Mhhossein talk 13:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by [username]Result concerning Seraphim System
|
Mar4d
No action, but involved users warned to resolve the content dispute about Pakistan's regional power status collegially or face topic bans. Sandstein 13:44, 14 July 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 Mar4d
WP:ARBIPA: Per [37], topic banned from conflicts between India and Pakistan, with a warning that "
I don't see why Mar4d is even editing this subject of Regional power. It largely borders and is sometimes focused on India-Pakistan conflict when it comes to adding Pakistan to this article. Misconduct is more than just violating topic ban:
Mar4d was already warned by NeilN in June 8 to " This seems like a recurring issue of a long term problematic attitude of Mar4d. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Mar4dStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Mar4dStatement by power~enwikiI don't see any of the three diffs listed as violating the TBAN imposed. Linking to an SPI report, or replying to a comment which mentions an India-Pakistan conflict (without discussing that conflict in response) are not violations. While the dispute at Regional power is mostly a content dispute, the behavior at Talk:Regional power may need the attention of admins willing to impose Discretionary Sanctions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by SdmaratheTopic ban extends to talk page discussions as well as referring anything that focuses the area from the user is restricted, be it large or minor in form, it is a topic ban violation. @Power~enwiki: The reports NadirAli and Nauriya had filed above are closed/closing with no action.[61][62] Both of these editors are on verge of getting blocked indefinitely for their sock puppetry[63][64] and Nauriya recently started an SPI against 4 opposing editors which included me and the SPI has been closed as insufficient without even a CU.[65] To sum it up, NadirAli and Nauriya are leaving, and only Mar4d is here and he is violating topic ban, calling good-faith edits a vandalism, misrepresenting sources,[66] trying to the last word on talk page while turning them into battleground and that's all after that stringent warning as mentioned already,[67] that any more disruption or testing edges of the ban would lead to topic ban or indefinite block. To add further, I went through a number of discussions on Talk:Kargil War, Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Talk:Battle of Chawinda. These discussions also involved Adamgerber, 1990s guy, Orientls, and they were really smooth and finally ended up supporting the universal consensus regarding these conflicts. You need to think that why those pages didn't had any conflict but only this one article (Regional power) is having the conflict while those India-Pakistan war articles are having no conflicts despite major changes? The answer is pretty obvious. Sdmarathe (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by VanamondeThis again? The behavior at Talk:Regional power and Talk:Emerging power is bad, and probably requires sanctions on multiple users. It also isn't the best place for t-banned users to be. That said, The diffs as presented are not topic-ban violations. Mar4d is not permitted to discuss the India-Pakistan conflict. He is quite free to participate in discussions on more general issues, even if other participants are discussing the India-Pakistan conflict. It's also worth noting that the t-ban has been brought up in those discussions far more than necessary. In the AE discussion which resulted in the mass topic ban, I had warned that the conflict was likely to spill over into other IPA areas. That's what seems to be happening here. In sum, if sanctions are considered, I would recommend looking at broader topic bans/new topic bans rather than a block. Vanamonde (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by OrientlsRegional power in the context of India and Pakistan concerns major subjects including the Indo-Pakistani conflict. Initial argument was if Pakistan is mentioned by majority of sources as a regional power and the later argument was about if the sources make efforts to describe the emergence of Pakistan as regional power. Mar4d replied to the sources added by Sdmarathe, detailing India-Pakistani conflicts with relation to emergence as regional power. Mar4d said: "your arguments and sources unfortunately are completely deficient, and therefore have been rejected."[68] Sources have described that India emerged as regional power as a result of Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 because Pakistan was divided.[69][70][71][72] I don't see sources that would make efforts to describe Pakistan as a regional power and/or provide significant details about Pakistan's emergence as a regional power. Sources are meant to be detailed and descriptive, more than simply giving a passing mention. Some sources support that India is the only regional power in South Asia.[73] I stopped participating in the talk page because Mar4d has been replying without addressing these issues. This has also happened earlier on Talk:Umayyad campaigns in India#Infobox where he was ignoring every reliable source on the subject. I plan to resolve this by organizing an RfC or seek feedback of multiple WikiProjects. Orientls (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Mar4dConcerning Regional power, please see my comments in the section above. Also, I have not violated any restrictions. Happy to respond if any admins have questions. Mar4d (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Code16Mentioning the user's topic ban is irrelevant to this "regional power" topic, and seems to be an effort to stifle debate, which is bordering on bad-faith. I suggest that all editors focus on the content and stop attacking and launching arbitration cases against each other ad-hominem. Code16 (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Result concerning Mar4d
|
Sdmarathe
No action, but involved users warned to resolve the content dispute about Pakistan's regional power status collegially or face topic bans. Sandstein 13:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Sdmarathe
Sdmarathe's behavior at Talk:Regional power is in breach of WP:BATTLE. There is an ongoing dispute about whether Pakistan should be listed as a regional power. Stating that it should be listed, Mar4d provided 8 sources: [74]. I spot-checked some of the sources, and they did support the content Mar4d wished to add. These sources were provided partially in response to Sdmarathe asking for them. Sdmarathe's responses have been discouraging. He has indulged in speculation [75], made claims about source misrepresentation [76], and tried to use lists of other regional powers as evidence (a logical fallacy) [77]. Most importantly, he has repeatedly discounted the sources previously presented [78], [79], [80], and then slipped into original research: [81]. While this may seem to be a content dispute, the problem here is not that Sdmarathe has not accepted Mar4d's version of the text. There would be no problem if they were engaging with the material. The problem is that Sdmarathe persistently refused to engage with the sources provided in response to his request, and instead indulged in original research and textbook stonewalling. This behavior wasn't limited to that discussion. Their attitude at SPI and AN has been extremely combative, [82], [83], [84], and a warning from Cullen328 [85] made no difference to their behavior [86]. In sum, Sdmarathe is treating Wikipedia as a battleground, and is not displaying the level of decorum expected in an area under discretionary sanctions.
To be clear; I don't give two hoots whether Pakistan is listed as a regional power or not. Personally, I think the dispute is silly in the extreme; geopolitical power exists on a spectrum, and any such classification is going to engender dispute. I am not exculpating the "other side" in this dispute; the behavior of Mar4d and Nauriya is far from ideal, and in their haste they have obfuscated what some sources say. I'm not excusing Lorstaking and Orientls either. But Sdmarathe's behavior has been a problem, and needs to be looked at: the other users can be dealt with in other sections. Vanamonde (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SdmaratheStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SdmaratheFirst set of diffs concern content dispute, as far as I know they are not handled at AE. Still I would like to make a few things clear. First, my arguments are basically policy-based and similar to those put forward by many other editors on that discussion page. I have been analyzing the sources that have been presented so far in accordance with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, a core criteria for evaluating sources. The crux of my argument lies here; the sources provided by Mar4d completely fail the aforementioned criteria since they are making passing mention of Pakistan, just like the sources make passing mention of Venezuela,[87] North Korea,[88] and many other non-regional powers, without actually explaining in detail how and why Pakistan is a regional power; while, on the other hand, I have provided many reliable sources that describe how Pakistan is not a regional power and completely refutes Mar4d's arguments (e.g. [89]) I would not prefer to go into the details regarding the misrepresentation of sources by Mar4d and NadirAli, but just mention a few diffs that illustrate my point:[90][91][92] Also noting the existence of reliable sources rejecting Pakistan as a regional power,[93] it is even more necessary to take into account policies like WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Generally, it is possible to find two or more sources supporting many types of statements, including pseudo-scientific beliefs, that's why we need sources which completely comply with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. ScrapIronIV had just restored the version that supported my comments on talk page with edit summary "Per talk page".[94] I understand the concerns. I can only assure the admins that I will be more careful in future, especially in what I say. Also, it must be noted that on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizanali.007, my responses were made in response to misleading comments of Nauriya on SPI,[95] and Nauriya had filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RaviC against me in the form of personal attack and harassment. The suspicion, whether it was filed by Nauriya himself or it was provided to him has been raised by an uninvolved editor like Kautilya3, and patrolling admin Abecedare has also talked about it on the SPI. On WP:AN, Nauriya made more false allegations and personal attacks against me and others like, "personnel grudge and vendetta from Indian editors who themselves are involved in sock puppetry and edit warring".[96] This is completely untrue. I will urge the participating admins to check my recent interactions on much more controversial articles like Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965#Change in result in the infobox, Talk:Kargil War#Result in infobox, where you won't see a single problem with my conduct. I was mostly concerned about the aforementioned SPI and those continued personal attacks from Nauriya. I acknowledge that this doesn't justify my behavior--but like I said, I will be more careful in what I say. I had already realized after the second reply of Cullen238[97] to leave it alone and that's why I chose not to engage any further and I started editing something else as my contributions show.[98] I rest my case. Sdmarathe (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by OrientlsReplying the ping here. All I have to add is that Sdmarathe is correct with his assessment of sources on Regional power and it is true that the sources in this context are meant to be descriptive per WP:IRS. Mere mentions don't fulfill that necessary requirement. Sources must describe the emergence of Pakistan as a regional power, same way sources describe the emergence of India as a regional power. There should be no contradictions against the generally accepted names. Sdmarathe has only asked for such quality sources while provinding such sources for backing his argument. To make it more simple, can you find a particular date or year when Pakistan is said to have been emerged as a regional power? For India it is 1971.[99] I think you have ignored Mar4d[100] and NadirAli[101] incorrectly claiming that "all" sources mention Pakistan as regional power. There are mere mentions of Pakistan, but also omissions as regional power in many lists, while other sources saying India to be the only regional power in South Asia[102] and/or finding issues with the disputed statement.[103] Such contradictions are concerning and that needs to be addressed properly. Like I have mentioned above, RfC or assistance from WikiProject will help us to decide a standard of sources and if the list needs to be replaced with paragraphs. SPI is still open and unhelpful comments are swiftly removed by the clerks there. If you are observing problems with statements of Sdmarathe then you can ping Bbb23 or Abecedare and request to deal with them. I disagree that his "attitude at SPI and AN has been extremely combative". It was not a very ideal one but you are ignoring that Nauriya filed an extremely flawed SPI[104] with apparent motive to get rid each of the opponents around. I don't see a logic for stoking this sort of rhetoric. I prefer ignoring such reports even though I was also falsely accused of sock puppetry by Nauriya who has assumed bad faith of the highest order.[105] In these circumstances you can expect worse if not better. Bigger concern is that why Nauriya is not addressing the concerns regarding his lack of prior interaction with any of the editors? To be fair, such issues are not really significant and should be best discussed on the relevant talk page since the both discussions (SPI and Regional power) are still open. Orientls (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Statement by Code16I will comment on a statement Sdmarathe made above, which indicates bad faith in the context of this dispute, and moreover, a dangerous redefinition of WP guidelines: QUOTE "Generally, it is possible to find two or more sources supporting many types of statements, including pseudo-scientific beliefs, that's why we need sources which completely comply with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources." END QUOTE. The user is claiming that this argument applies to ignoring sources like Samuel P. Huntington, who is one of the leading scholars in the field?! Wow. If this user was unaware of the difference between FRINGE and RS, I would chalk this up to a misunderstanding. But in this case, he seems to be fully aware of the difference, and has proposed a new synthesized guideline which converts any RS into FRINGE, arbitrarily, based on his own judgement. That is a major red-flag, and should merit more than a mere warning. Code16 (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Result concerning Sdmarathe
|
Han Jo Jo
Blocked indefinitely as a normal administrative action. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:52, 13 July 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 Han Jo Jo
User hasn't (yet?) raised "intelligence" side of WP:ARBRI, but page is under discretionary sanctions regardless. No one makes arguments like these unless on a mission to push some superiority/inferiority narrative. Editor clearly WP:NOTHERE except to abuse WP for trollish crackpot "theories". See, scientists are just doing a WP:GREATWRONG because they aren't classifying us all as Homo sapiens sapiens africanus, H. s. s. caucasensis, etc. So WP:ADVOCACY must be used to stop Wikipedia, since its editors are a sociology conspiracy copy-pasting from fake/obsolete "sources" to hide the WP:TRUTH, which can be got from private e-mails (about something else entirely) that HJJ has in his secret stash. [sigh] We should waste zero more seconds entertaining this stuff. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Notified: [114] Discussion concerning Han Jo JoStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Han Jo JoStatement by (username)Statement by PaleoNeonateThanks for filing. I was only an observer of the discussion (although I indeed intervened once to assert that the discussion was undue) and it was clear that the editor had a particular obsession with this article, was determined to endlessly pursue discussion about a fictitious scientific debate in violation of WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, etc. Resorting to attacks against the reliability of existing sources and competency, honesty and good faith of other editors when failing to reach consensus for their suggestions. The "Sad article, sad website" comment somehow appeared familiar... In any case, I agree about the WP:NOTHERE assessment. —PaleoNeonate – 00:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Result concerning Han Jo Jo
|
BullRangifer
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 BullRangifer
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Rusf10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- BullRangifer (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/American politics 2 :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- July 18, 2018 Personal Attack- Implies that I and another editor (user:Markbassett? it's not clear) are topic-banned when in fact, we are not.
- July 18, 2018 Personal Attack- criticizes another editor for agreeing with me saying "Rusf10 agrees with you, you're beyond merely partisan and fringe"
- July 18, 2018 After being called out by user:PackMecEng for making a personal attack [115] he doubles down on the personal attack.
- July 15, 2018- The above diffs weren't the first time he referred to two topic-banned editors, I don't know whether or not to interpret this as a threat
- 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)
Notified of sanctions on January 6, 2018.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I think the diffs speak for themselves. Bullrangifer attacks editors he disagrees with as "fringe". In regards to the first diff about "topic banned editors", the only way that this makes sense is he is casting WP:ASPERSIONS that we are actually sockpuppets of topic-banned editors. Not surprising since he mentioned the possibility of me being a sockpuppet of a topic-banned editor before [116] there he says he is NOT accusing me of being a sockpuppet, but why bring it up?--Rusf10 (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Besides Bullrangifer's response making no sense, he continues the personal attacks calling me a "fringe editor" yet again and now a "snowflake". Personal attacks like this are never justified.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek:Typical WP:BATTLEGROUND response. Stop trying to muddy the waters. Your accusation of WP:FORUMSHOPPING is ridiculous. Even though it involves the same editor, this is a separate issue. The ANI thread was not about a page under discretionary sanctions. And you have completely mischaracterized the discussion I had on Abeccedare's talk page. That discussion actually had nothing to do with BullRangifer, it was about another editor's conduct at ANI [117] As for [118] & [119], not everything on a talk page needs a source. Why don't you actually read the John Brennan & Bill Kristol articles? Because those facts are there. And it wasn't a "quality of source" issue, its an issue of WP:UNDUE--Rusf10 (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek:Oh I see, John Brennan voted for a communist is just something the far-right made up, right? Too bad that CNN reported on it [120], showing you do not know what you are talking about. And would you care to expand your comments on WP:DUCK, because that is about sockpuppets, are you now casting aspersions that I am a sockpuppet?--Rusf10 (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek:- so you're saying that the CNN source that quotes Brennan is wrong?--Rusf10 (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning BullRangifer
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 BullRangifer
More harassment? Why am I not surprised. This is just more of their abuse of drama boards. This fringe editor's actions lately border on harassment and they need to be topic banned from American politics, broadly construed, and an iBan installed to keep them away from me. The last time their revenge MfD lost by a snow keep. At the MfD, their revenge motivation for starting the MfD was pointed out, and they were roundly called out by numerous editors for being on the wrong side of what RS say on Trump-related subjects. Anyone can check their contribution history and a pattern becomes clear. They tend to use spurious arguments to keep anything negative about Trump out of articles, no matter how well-sourced. That happens to be part of the subject of my private essay which they sought to delete. The community gave them a good spanking for that attempt to push a fringe, pro-Trump, non-RS-based agenda against a mainstream editor who consistently bases his opinions and editing on very RS.
Let me respond to their spurious accusations:
They seem to be paranoid.I have never said or implied that they or Markbassett are topic-banned editors. As I don't wish to cause anymore irritation than necessary, I won't mention the editors I was referring to here, but I'll provide that info to any 'crat who contacts me by email. Their topic-banning has created a calmer atmosphere in the Trump arena. Both are topic-banned and one has an iBan to keep them away from me.Unfortunately some editors, like Rusf10, seem to be filling their shoes, so a topic ban boomerang should be considered.- My comment was misunderstood, so I immediately clarified it. I did not "double down" on it. That's a false accusation coming from an editor who likes to throw around accusations of "casting aspersions". (BTW, when arguments are not policy-based, it's legitimate to question them and alert the editor(s) to the problem. That's not a "personal attack", even though directed at a person. It will usually be unpleasant, but as editors we should be able to handle such criticism.
Snowflakes need not apply here.) - That diff only refers to PackMecEng's comment. My clarification response is linked immediately above.
- Yes, I have referred to those two topic-banned editors before, and my response above covers it.
BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- He also uses this diff
and babbles about meaccusing them (Rusf10) of "being a sockpuppet of a topic-banned editor before". WTF? I'm innocent and have no idea what that's about.More paranoia, and paranoia is a very poor reason for abusing dramaboards.-- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC) - Refactored by striking to restore focus to the real points made. My rebuttals should be more clear now. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- I have apologized on the article talk page. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- It has been recommended that I leave an explanation for my atypical use of the term "snowflake" above. The immediate context should make it plain that it was atypical use. It's completely unrelated to the normal political epithet one sees. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Volunteer Marek
Recently Rusf10 filed a spurious request for deletion on one of BR's essays, in what very much looked like an act of revenge for comments BR made here (this concerned a discretionary sanction violation by Rusf10, which he however, self-reverted). The request for deletion was closed as a SNOW KEEP, highlighting the spurious nature of the request. This report seems to be part of the same WP:BATTLEGROUND pattern by Rusf10. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Note: Just realized that this is an instance of WP:FORUMSHOPPING by Rusf10. He brought essentially the same complaint to WP:AN [122], and the discussion there was closed by User: Abecedare with "No admin action needed yet". He then proceeded to harangue Abecedare about their close at their talk page, and was told, quote, "I am going to follow the advice I offered you all: drop the matter and concentrate on building the encyclpedia instead of wasting all this time watching each-other's edits and filing and responding to complaints". And furthermore, quote, "Please disengage and stop treating wikipedia as a battleground/schoolyard; none of you are coming across well in the process". Rusf10 has obviously failed to heed that advice as evidenced by this very request.
Together with the spurious MfD nom of BR's essay and Rusf10 persistent aggressive responses to BR [123], this is a pattern of badgering. It's actually no surprise that BR has finally responded in an exasperated way in this request to this badgering. And let's be clear - Sandstein's proposal for the topic ban is NOT based on any of the diffs presented by Rusf10, but rather, just on the frustrated response made here. Sheesh.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey, User:Sandstein, how about you actually bother asking User:MelanieN how she viewed the comment? I'm sure she can speak for herself and doesn't need you grand standing for her.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
And while we're here, in this WP:AE Rusf10 was "warned against using purely personal opinion in place of policy-based argument when assessing the quality of sources. They are also warned against engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior".
As the comments by admin User:Abecedare above make clear, he's failed to take the second part of that warning seriously. As far as the first part goes, here we have Rusf10 cheerily disregarding that part as well:
- [124]
- "not to mention how far-left (Brennan) is (he once voted for a communist)" - unsourced attack on a living person and an outright smear
- " Bill Kristol (...) claimed to be a Republican for many years, he is also a "never-Trumper" " - another unsourced attack on a living person, implying that when somebody says they're a Republican they're lying ("claimed to be")
- [125]:
- " Brennan is highly partisan" - another unsourced attack on a living person.
Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
BTW, this whole Brennan thing is a current far-right talking point/concerted attack on the man [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] (needless to say, these are not reliable sources). Earlier, he was being accused of "being a Muslim" [131] and other ridiculous shit. So why is Rusf10 repeating this nonsense, even if it's just on talk pages (to which BLP still applies)? Gee, maybe the "fringe" label isn't a personal attack after all but rather WP:DUCK and maybe the comments directed at MelanieN should be seen in this light. But hey, go ahead, and enable and support this stuff on American Politics articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Text in excess of 500 words removed as an admin action. All editors are asked not to use AE to continue interpersonal or content disputes, to avoid complicating this case. Thanks, Sandstein 08:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by SMcCandlish
Looks like a frivolous, vexatious, and unclean-hands report to me. Let's look at the diffs. This is not a personal attack and doesn't imply what the reporter says it does. While "Wikipedia is endangered by your attitude" wasn't worded very well, in the broader context of the dispute it obviously means "this kind of cavalier attitude about suppressing well-sourced information for PoV purposes, in favor of stuff sourced to fake news, endangers Wikipedia". No. 2 is also not a personal attack, though similarly unnecessarily personally worded. Criticizing an editor for holding a position that mimics that of a long-running PoV or fringe stance isn't an attack (either to that party or to the background party of the comparison), it's a criticism of viewpoint. Again, the broader context of the discussion makes it clear why that viewpoint is being criticized. Ditto with this one. What seems to be happening here is that Rusf10 is angry about being put in the WP:FRINGE box. If referring to it were an attack, we would not have that page. And it's an important page. The fourth diff is BullRangifer providing sound and civil advice, which Rusf10 did not heed, and the prediction in which is now likely to come true. I do think that BullRangifer would benefit from the first two sections at WP:HOTHEADS (basically, avoid "you" wording). One can make the same point without it, and without providing incentive or ammo for WP:DRAMA like this AE time waste. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by JFG
No opinion on the edits presented by the OP. (Correction: edits 2 and 3 are the same that I independently found objectionable. Still no comment on the other ones. — JFG talk 09:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC))
However I am very concerned by a recent comment by BullRangifer, telling a well-respected editor: MelanieN, you really need to examine your thinking
,[132] simply because she happened to hold the same view as Rusf10 about inserting a particular piece of content (a tweet by John Brennan lambasting Trump). He was immediately called out by two editors PackMecEng and myself, but he persisted and refused to apologize: It should still be a wakeup call for her and cause her to revise her thinking.
[133] See developing thread at Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump#Side track on "wrongthink". — JFG talk 07:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@MjolnirPants: Count me in to try and devise a damper on knee-jerk emotional headline-chasing. — JFG talk 15:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Comment on admin action by Calton
You know, if an admin is going to remove comments because they "continue a content dispute" (as here), perhaps they should ALSO remove the content-dispute stuff by Rusf10 that this is a rebuttal to? --Calton | Talk 08:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by MjolnirPants
I agree with Calton: remove what that text was in response to or restore the text. Otherwise, this appears to be taking sides.
I agree with JFG that some of Bull's comments are probematic. But they're par for the course in AmPol, they're well out of character for Bull and the hounding Bull has been experiencing at Rusf's hands is ridiculous. An indef topic ban on Bull is ridiculously inappropriate (though lesser sanctions might not be. Hint: Try a one week topic ban and see if that helps), and Rusf should, at the very least, be one-way IBanned to cut down on the inevitable future drama.
@Masem: You and I have discussed some sort of restriction on how soon after a story hits the news cycles we can write about it. I think this is something that should be given some serious thought and discussion, though not here. I'll ping you on another page where we can discuss further. I'm also pinging @Awilley and NeilN: who have also been involved in trying to work out something to improve AmPol editing, just to ensure they're aware of this case as an example of how such a restriction might have cut off the drama before it got started. Sandstein, your input is always welcome (even though we don't always agree) so please leave me a message on my talk if you have anything to add to a topic-wide discussion about WP:RECENTISM. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by MONGO
MelanieN and I might agree 20% of the time on content but if you want a model contributor to these problematic areas hers is that model to emulate and she has been an inspiration to me as well. Therefore calling out MelanieN on partisanship is really extreme, especially coming from someone that would be far more likely then I to have agreements with her. Rusf10 last diff indicates BullRangifer is extremely unlikely to be able to remain objective in these problematic areas. I saw the Mfd there and found it extremely partisan but avoided it since it was in userspace and BullRangifer said that is where it would stay. Rusf10 last diff above where BullRangifer states: [134] "Don't attack mainstream editors who depend on RS, especially if your POV is the pro-Trump, minority POV, which is not backed by RS. We protect the first, and scorn the latter around here." Scorn the latter? I am hoping when this was written he meant only those that use unreliable sources, but his userspace essay that was at Mfd clearly tries to state that Fox News is an unreliable source when Wikipedia itself has never declared that. In the userspace essay, Bullrangifer states [135]"...Trump/GOP/Putin-friendly sources (Fox News, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Infowars, RT, Sputnik, etc.) say otherwise with their cover-up/distraction/conspiracy theories which fact checkers keep on debunking. Those are unreliable sources for political content, so don't use them, and frankly, don't even read them, except for research purposes ("What are the fringe wingnuts saying now?")". I think its a bit extreme to lump FoxNews in with the others in that recital but others may disagree.--MONGO (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning BullRangifer
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I think we need to take action against BullRangifer here. Even leaving the three reported diffs aside, their response to this request is wholly unacceptable, as it includes a number of personal attacks ("fringe editor", "paranoid", "snowflakes", "babbles"), and includes unacceptable aspersions, i.e., accusations of serious misconduct without evidence ("harassment", "their revenge motivation", "more of their abuse of drama boards"). Particularly, BullRangifer's assertion that "snowflakes need not apply here" is entirely at odds with Wikipedia's communal ethos as established in WP:5P4 ("Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility") and in the core policies linked to from there. Our community does expect and require that editors treat each other respectfully and collegially even if – especially if! – they strongly disagree about content. This statement reflects a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude that is incompatible with editing in the tension-filled American politics topic area. I therefore intend to topic-ban BullRangifer from modern American politics for three months to give them an opportunity to improve their interpersonal skills in other topic areas. Sandstein 06:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Add to the fact that at least for the first three diffs, there is nothing that I see in the immediate contributions in that talk page of anyone else using personal aspersions or similar uncivil behavior that often begets more uncivil behavior. BullRangifer's comments out of nowhere are definitely a problem and do suggest a topic ban is valid. --Masem (t) 06:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- I also agree with JFG that BullRangifer's comments regarding MelanieN in this discussion are of eminent concern. Telling MelanieN that "you really need to examine your thinking. When Rusf10 agrees with you, you're beyond merely partisan and fringe", and "When an editor like Rusf10 agrees with MelanieN, in a situation like this, it makes it appear that MelanieN is in fringe and partisan territory. She risks being judged by the company she keeps, except for this vital difference...she did not choose the company. It should still be a wakeup call for her and cause her to revise her thinking" is so unacceptable that I find it difficult to put it into words. This is genuine harassment and abuse of a sort even I have seldom seen on Wikipedia, and not even because of something MelanieN did, but because of somebody else agreed with her. It makes me inclined to impose a block and an indefinite topic ban on BullRangifer. Sandstein 07:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Add to the fact that at least for the first three diffs, there is nothing that I see in the immediate contributions in that talk page of anyone else using personal aspersions or similar uncivil behavior that often begets more uncivil behavior. BullRangifer's comments out of nowhere are definitely a problem and do suggest a topic ban is valid. --Masem (t) 06:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- As a complete separate comment in re-reading the diffs in context, the whole discussion that these diffs find themselves in is absolutely why we have NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM: trying to cover the reaction of politicians and mass media for every little thing Trump does (in this case) is far too detailed and leads to far too much bickering with editors, particularly with the current regulars on these articles that have shown a clear preference on which side of the external partisan battle they agree with (which includes both pro- and anti-Trump positions) and keep headbutting to maintain their preferred position. AE obviously can't address the content issue, but its clear the content issue is creating behavioral issues, and it would significantly help stem behavioral issues across the board if editors were not fighting to include the level of detail and analysis in the short term. We have no idea if these will end up being of that much importance 5-10 years from now. These AP2 articles need to stick to facts and avoid trying to incorporate what opinions and reactions are out there unless those reactions shown the test of time. Can't expect any admin action due to this overall, but it would really really really really help stop all these AE reports. --Masem (t) 13:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- BullRangifer's comment toward Melanie warrant a warning. Perhaps they will consider retracting and apologizing--their "clarification" is patronizing, condescending. I'm also a bit bothered by what I can only call a (brief) diatribe here. I do not think (in the absence of more evidence) that this by itself is worthy of a topic ban, though had I seen the Melanie-comments when they happened I would certainly have given them an only warning for personal attacks. Blocking for that now is not something I would do. I'll hasten to add that we're here for BF, and not for Rusf10, but it should be clear that the latter's comments about Brennan are, as far as I'm concerned, BLP violations. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)