Monochrome Monitor (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 253: | Line 253: | ||
:: I just reworded some things. The fact that Zero has intentionally staked me out for some alleged crime just shows his own bias, especially since he has a problem with wikieditorpro for being too "pro-israel". There was nothing wrong with the actual edit I made either. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New>[[User:Monochrome Monitor|<small style="font: 13px Courier New">monochrome</span>]]<big>_</big>[[User talk:Monochrome Monitor|<small style="font: 13px Courier New">monitor</span>]]</span></small> 11:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC) |
:: I just reworded some things. The fact that Zero has intentionally staked me out for some alleged crime just shows his own bias, especially since he has a problem with wikieditorpro for being too "pro-israel". There was nothing wrong with the actual edit I made either. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New>[[User:Monochrome Monitor|<small style="font: 13px Courier New">monochrome</span>]]<big>_</big>[[User talk:Monochrome Monitor|<small style="font: 13px Courier New">monitor</span>]]</span></small> 11:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC) |
||
::: @the panda ₯’ I didn't change anything that was recently added. Hence not a revert. And you really think I was trying to be deceptive? I was just editing and I thought it would be good to bring up some history. |
::: @the panda ₯’ I didn't change anything that was recently added. Hence not a revert. And you really think I was trying to be deceptive? I was just editing and I thought it would be good to bring up some history. |
||
::::@Johnuniq It wasn't exactly a personal attack, I asked him to tell me what I said that was biased and noticed on his page vilification of Israel and contempt of being accused of Jew-baiting. I deleted it in exasperation because I didn't want to get into an argument especially when I read his comments on Jews being like Nazis. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New>[[User:Monochrome Monitor|<small style="font: 13px Courier New">monochrome</span>]]<big>_</big>[[User talk:Monochrome Monitor|<small style="font: 13px Courier New">monitor</span>]]</span></small> 11:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by Shrike==== |
====Statement by Shrike==== |
Revision as of 11:43, 28 July 2014
Ezzex
Ezzex is topic-banned from all pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict for three months. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2014 (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 Ezzex
Ezzex recently made an ANI post where previous behavior was an issue And a previous ANI against Ezzex which ended with a firm warning from Go_Phightins! for soapboxing. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive847#User:Ezzex
User_talk:Ezzex#Discretionary_sanctions_notification
Obvious case of WP:NOTHERE could notmally be cleaned up fairly easily, but 1RR and applied DS puts at risk of edit warring since this is not over vandalism.
Discussion concerning EzzexStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Gaijin42 ! you have been blocked 3 times in 1 year. Is this some sort of revenge?? --Ezzex (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by EzzexStatement by (username)Result concerning EzzexThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
This looks to be POV-pushing in article space. I recommend a topic ban. The pattern is consistent with a 12 July ANI thread, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive847#User:Ezzex, where Ezzex was warned for calling Wikipedia a 'tool of Israel' and for referring to the murder of the three Israeli teenagers as 'just killings on occupied land.' EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC) |
Captain Occam
There is fairly clearly nothing to do, or that can be done, here. Black Kite (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2014 (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 Captain Occam
linked above
The sanctioned editor appears to be using off-wiki forums regularly and persistently to run a drawer full of POV-pushing socks.
I visited the talk page for Captain Occam to attempt to give him notice, and I see that that what I post on his talk page is covered up by a template announcing that his access to that page is blocked. My 25 July 2014 attempt to notify him is in the talk page history. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Discussion concerning Captain OccamStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MaunusI donøt understand the request. Captain Occam is not editing, he is offering off-wiki advise about how to edit to people who are otherwise mostly clueless nuisances. I think that can only be good. Those people are going to edit anyway. This way at least they have an introduction to how to go about it. Also at this point I should disclose that I have consulted with Occam about my recent edits to the Race and Intelligence article. This is a necessity because there are no editors currently on wiki with interest and expertise in the hereditarian view which needs to be represented in the article. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by CollectWhat precisely are you seeking? Your talk page post is not covered up by a template - the page was hatted by Beeblebrox, which appears a reasonable act. You are not being prevented from doing anything there as far as I can tell. More to the point, what actual acts do you wish the committee to exert over off-wiki sites? King Canute is not currently serving on the committee that I am aware of. Collect (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Captain OccamThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Khabboos
Summarily declined as unclear. Please resubmit with a link to the remedy to be enforced and to dated diffs that explain how these edits are problematic. Sandstein 08:23, 28 July 2014 (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 Khabboos
The topic banned Khabboos is back with a vengeance:
Here is his failed appeal of his existing topic ban: He has also been properly warned about his disruptive behavior in the pseudoscience/fringe area: The person who started the following thread, User:John19322, is very likely a sock of Khabboos (or someone else): TenOfAllTrades correctly questioned him at the end of that thread. Here's what he wrote:
Obviously John19322 is a sock of someone who posted above....He blew his cover! This is the type of amateurish mistake Khabboos and User:Dr.Jhingaadey could make. I will notify Khabboos. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Khabboos should be topic banned in the alternative medicine/pseudoscience/fringe area, "widely construed." He should likely be blocked for sockpuppetry as well. A likely suspect is one of the numerous socks of the indef banned User:Dr.Jhingaadey. They share numerous behaviors, obsessions, POV, and amateurish use of socks. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning KhabboosStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by KhabboosStatement by (username)Result concerning KhabboosThis section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Summarily declined as unclear. Please resubmit with a link to the remedy to be enforced and to dated diffs that explain how these edits are problematic. Be advised that continued unspecific or unproven accusations of sockpuppetry may result in sanctions against yourself. Sandstein 08:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC) |
Monochrome monitor
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 Monochrome monitor
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Zero0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Monochrome monitor (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
- ARBPIA :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 09:03, 28 July 2014 First revert
- 08:42–09:33, 28 July 2014 Second revert
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 06:43, 10 July 2014 36 hour block for 1RR violation
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Given formal notification of ARBPIA discretionary sanctions [8]
- Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 10 July 2014 (as above) by Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, Wikieditorpro section.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I don't make reports like this unless I think we would be better off without the editor concerned. Shows a strong pattern of editing to a personal POV.
@Callanecc: I think that a ban would require a more extensive report than I have made, so in this instance I believe a temporary block would be adequate. Given this editor's recent block for the same offence, the block should be of duration appropriate to a repeat violation.
@Shrike: The first contiguous sequence of edits deleted existing text together with it's academic source. I wouldn't call it a revert if it was a mere rewording or replacement by a better source, but in fact it was deletion of cited text in order to substitute text with a different pov. Ergo, a revert.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Monochrome monitor
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 Monochrome monitor
Okay, I didn't violate anything. That's just shoddy reporting. The first citation is my edit to the article. The second edit is me reverting someone who undid my edits to the article. I stopped advocating my edit after that. I did absolutely nothing wrong. --monochrome_monitor 11:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- What the hell? It was one revert. My first was an edit and the second was a revert to that edit. And are you serious? You think wikipedia would be better off without me? That's absurd. If you read my edits they were not biased and I've been told that I've greatly improved NPOV by different editos. The fact that the same admin wants to report me is also absurd. --monochrome_monitor 11:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@shrike: THANK YOU I WAS NOT REVERTING ANYTHING. --monochrome_monitor 11:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- I just reworded some things. The fact that Zero has intentionally staked me out for some alleged crime just shows his own bias, especially since he has a problem with wikieditorpro for being too "pro-israel". There was nothing wrong with the actual edit I made either. --monochrome_monitor 11:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- @the panda ₯’ I didn't change anything that was recently added. Hence not a revert. And you really think I was trying to be deceptive? I was just editing and I thought it would be good to bring up some history.
- @Johnuniq It wasn't exactly a personal attack, I asked him to tell me what I said that was biased and noticed on his page vilification of Israel and contempt of being accused of Jew-baiting. I deleted it in exasperation because I didn't want to get into an argument especially when I read his comments on Jews being like Nazis. --monochrome_monitor 11:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- @the panda ₯’ I didn't change anything that was recently added. Hence not a revert. And you really think I was trying to be deceptive? I was just editing and I thought it would be good to bring up some history.
- I just reworded some things. The fact that Zero has intentionally staked me out for some alleged crime just shows his own bias, especially since he has a problem with wikieditorpro for being too "pro-israel". There was nothing wrong with the actual edit I made either. --monochrome_monitor 11:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Shrike
Exactly to what version "the first revert" was reverting?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC) Also in general in past AE cases first edit was considered a revert if it was explicitly reverting something but this not a case as far a I can see.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@Panda Here is the past case [9] Here what is written by User:Timotheus_Canens
I don't think DLDD's first edit is a revert. AE has repeatedly held that edits falling within the technical definition may nonetheless not qualify as a revert; in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive73#SlimVirgin, for example, the first edit at issue removed an entire section, but it was nonetheless held to be not a revert
--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Johnuniq
I noticed that Monochrome monitor added then removed a comment at User talk:Nishidani. The removal edit summary was "deleted my question, convo with you will get me no where (blatant antisemite)
" (diff). The removed comment included "Looking at your page you seem to biased and a bit antisemitic, I think I'll consult more neutral parties
". MM should be informed that discussion about an article belongs on its talk page, and that attacks on other editors are not permitted. Johnuniq (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Result concerning Monochrome monitor
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- Zero0000 Are you requesting a block for the 1RR vio or a ban of some sort? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Shrike If mono's first edit included any text that had recently been added and reverted, then the first edit can be considered to be a revert. It appears to be a rather extensive edit, but may have combined previous edits with new edits in order to make it appear to be a new edit the panda ₯’ 11:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)