John Vandenberg (talk | contribs) m →User:Vintagekits: done |
John Vandenberg (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
== {{user|Wikimachine}} == |
== {{user|Wikimachine}} == |
||
Case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks. |
Case [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks]]. |
||
The user banned (Wikimachine) has continued to edit with very obvious and sarcastic comments, attempting in my opinion to continue disrupting the same pages as he did before. |
The user banned (Wikimachine) has continued to edit with very obvious and sarcastic comments, attempting in my opinion to continue disrupting the same pages as he did before. |
Revision as of 00:10, 17 March 2008
Edit this section for new requests
- Add new requests to the top of the page. Old requests will be automatically archived off the bottom three days after the last time stamp.
Per the decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance, PHG is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages of articles relating to medieval or ancient history, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion. He has been unable to remain civil and refrain from attacking other editors: [1], [2], [3], [4],
Since PHG seems unwilling to take to heart the various reminders about civility and collaborative editing, and since his recent actions on article talkpages are continuing to be disruptive and keep other editors away from more productive work, I recommend that PHG be blocked for a short time, perhaps 48 hours, to allow other editors to get back to work. Hopefully this block will be a wake-up call, and avoid further restrictions on his ability to contribute to talk pages. Shell babelfish 19:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikimachine (talk · contribs)
Case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks.
The user banned (Wikimachine) has continued to edit with very obvious and sarcastic comments, attempting in my opinion to continue disrupting the same pages as he did before.
He has edited from various anonymous IP's making essentially the same arguments as he did before on the same pages, some which are edited by very few other editors. Some example IP's he has used are 69.245.41.113, 69.180.210.99, 69.180.193.52, etc.
Aside from these comments being essential copy and pastes of his old arguments, and him signing with "A former Wikipedian," and referring to how he will "continue the fight when is allowed back in a few months" they are from the same geographic area as the original user (see [[6]]). If you would like further information please let me know. If this should be put somewhere else and not here also please let me know and I will follow up. Thank you very much.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.165.177 (talk) 2008-03-15T23:46:29 (UTC)
- Block evasion is inexcusably bad enough for Wikipedia if the ip saying is really right. However, I just bring something for your information. This IP user, 128.205.165.177 (talk · contribs) or 128.205.33.79 (talk · contribs) whose dns is designated to SUNY Buffalo is either Komdori (talk · contribs) or LactoseTI (talk · contribs) who suddenly disappeared around the last early November.[7]. In addition, this user seems to be associated with the Japanese bulletin board, 2channel because I saw the same comment as this at the board. We need to have a stronger enforcement to Japan-Korean articles at this point for editors can safely edit and discuss without stalking or being watched by other off-wiki board like 2channel has done [8]. Japanese editors from the board has done something at Talk:Sea of Japan. If you need more information or translation, I will follow up it as well. Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Both findings (Wikimachine and LactoseTI/Komdori) are certainly correct. Wikimachine's block extended to another year from today. Appletrees, can you give us a link to the corresponding posting on 2ch please? These days, I'm certainly inclined to take no crap from people who use anon IPs and post to 2ch. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- My computer is getting out of order, so I can't provide translation from Japanese text right now, so leave the link which shows their talking about Wikimachine's block evasion on Jan. 19th. 2008. See No.133 ~136[9][10] Here is presumably Wikimachine's ip addres, so take a look at the contribution on the same date. See this ip address, one of which the Buffalo anon mentioned. 69.245.41.113 (talk · contribs). In addition, according to 2channel, more than two editors currently reside in east coast of US. I will add the relevant link later. One is assumed as this user per his engagement in Pyrus pyrifolia and Yakiniku.[11]
Original text | |
---|---|
:133 [2008/01/19(土) 16:50:39 ID:BLZSbvXs] | どうみてもウィキ機械丸出しのIPも登場したなw>りゃんこ
|
- They seem to move their forum regarding English Wikipedia and me. I would see my name on some "worst bulletin board" (it really exist in 2channel) They talk about you a lot as well on the same link (see No. 637, 645, 661~670) --Appletrees (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Lol. I love it when they talk about me as "superman". Especially the way it comes across in Google translator. "Now is the perfect superhuman stopped shooting death sentence mode [...] I kill you immediately declared, is perfect superhuman Gil's left to settle down [...] (Especially now that superhumanはあっPURUTO perfect honeymoon relationship, very dangerous)". Yeahhrrr. I feel like a ninja. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Arbcom case:
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles,
- 'Case Final Decisions' .
- Liftarn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Editor Liftarn (talk · contribs) has been making:
- BLP violations - "Samuel Weems, a conspiracy theorist".
- Using Weasel/Point terminology on pro-Israel situations and, in contrast, use of anti-Israel propaganda sites (electronicintifada.net) as source: "claimed", "controversial", "according to", (electronicintifada.net) as source - [12].
- Removal of secondary sources - "promotional clutter" and again [13].
Liftarn (talk · contribs) has been violating Purpose of Wikipedia spirit removing sources and claiming OR on each and every word that might be critical of the article's subject. He also routinely uses the "per talk" reasoning for edits not discussed or at least clearly not agreed upon on talk.
His latest edit [14], explained with "We have been over this already." removed well cited material who's removal was not discussed anywhere, and also the removal of two valid external links which he previously removed under the "promotional clutter" claim.
I've tried resolving issues with him and opened a WP:3O request, but frankly, discussions were going nowhere and I've personally had it with the editor's refusal to get the points raised, follow WP:NPOV and editorial process.
Respectfully. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Samuel Weems is dead, BLP is scarcely relevant. The description may well be accurate anyway. Most of the diffs presented are from February and January, though I admit this is less than impressive. The current dispute over Carlos Latuff does not seem sufficiently serious to merit administrative attention at this time. Try MedCabal or MedCom if disputes continue. Liftarn's editing is less than perfect but no worse than many others who go unsanctioned. Moreschi (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Any suggestions on how to handle the false edit summaries and content removal? I actually submitted this post with hopes for a warning being issued to Liftarn, nothing more. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Warning for what? As regards the paragraph he removed from Latuff's bio, I agree. We don't need to go on about how controversial the contests are that Latuff chooses to enter. In an article on the contest, that fine - how is it relevant to Latuff's bio? The guy's obviously a nutter, no need to overstress the point. Nor is removing sourced content a crime in itself if said content is clearly off-topic. Moreschi (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Any suggestions on how to handle the false edit summaries and content removal? I actually submitted this post with hopes for a warning being issued to Liftarn, nothing more. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- From my perspective, I figured a warning for the "per talk" and "promotional clutter" false edit summaries was in order. He waited another full week without any talk page comment and removed the external links (and some extra material) again... this is clearly not the right way for an established editor to behave.
- p.s. If he wants to narrow down the "how controversial" paragraph, he should at least make note that this is his intention.
- p.p.s. (offtopic content note) without winning 2nd place on the Iranian holocaust denial extravaganza, I'm not certain Latuff would have an article on wiki. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- (persisting) Issue seems to be persisting (latest Liftarn diff). I honestly can't deal with the false edit summary issue anymore -- this time it's "It has already been discussed and agreed upon." -- and request assistance. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Current issue moved from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests. Case link Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. Thatcher 22:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is nothing being done to stop this editor continuing to edit war and POV pushing, he was named in the arbcom but instead of answering his case there he decided to disappear until the arbcom was ended, he was also involved in mediation on the same issue, and dispite being unable to provide WP:RS to support his edits he continued to edit war throughout the mediation which resulted in the mediation process being abandoned.
He has recently started to edit war again on the issue in breach of principles#2 and principles#3 of the arbcom ruling. I have reported him in the past couple of days to two admins, to date neither have done anything about it. Some of the articles and templates he has been disruptive on include:
Astrotrain has a been blocked numerous times for both edit warring on this issue and making personal attacks on other editors and myself, he also came back as a possible for using anon IPs to continue evade 3RR in edit wars.--Padraig (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- The integrity of an article's stability? must be preserved. Thus 'two' options - 1) Page protections or 2) Blockings. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Astrotrain seems to be going back into SPA mode, starting edit wars by adding the Ulster Banner without consensus, making no attempt to discuss things, adding flags in needless provocative ways - eg 1801 in Ireland. This disruption should be nipped in the bud really. One Night In Hackney303 23:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not overly familiar with the (apparently) lengthy debate that has been had about this issue, but there does appear to be a number of different editors reverting Astrotrain's additions of the Ulster Banner. Given the fact that it isn't currently an official flag, its difficult to see why its additions to these articles is particularly germane. In addition, the addition of flags to pages is over-used generally. I have already asked Astrotrain to stop edit-warring over the addition of the Union Flag to 1801 in Ireland. I extend that request to include these other articles too. If he continues then I guess we can look at other options. As other editors have found out, there is a rapidly decreasing tolerance for this sort of behaviour though, I'm hopeful he will appreciate that. Rockpocket 23:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Astrotrain seems to be going back into SPA mode, starting edit wars by adding the Ulster Banner without consensus, making no attempt to discuss things, adding flags in needless provocative ways - eg 1801 in Ireland. This disruption should be nipped in the bud really. One Night In Hackney303 23:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I'd be delighted to see 99% of the flags removed from wikipedia, but however tedious the little national emblems are in list entries, Astrotrain has been busy adding huge flags to articles where they are barely relevant and — as he well knows — highly provocative. As well as the addition of the Union Flag to 1801 in Ireland, he also added the Ulster Banner to 1953 in Ireland (in this edit), which seems to me to be nothing gratuitous mischief-making. There is a separate 1953 in Northern Ireland article where it might have some relevance (though it seems pretty marginal to me), but I can't see any useful purpose its addition to 1953 in Ireland. The whole Ulster flag debate is a minefield, and it took a lot of effort by many folks to achieve some stability there, and trying to reopen it like this is disruptive (his comment here of "how can a flag be POV?" is thorougly unpersuasive faux-naivety). I'd support a crackdown on this, and I am glad that Astrotrain has been warned of possible probation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
- I note that you didn't mention cases where I added the Tricolour, or are you ok with that one as you are Irish? Is this just another case of a set of articles that no one can edit in case one of the Irish editors is offended? Wikipedia is not censored for images of prophets or the human body, so why are flags different? In each case, there was a good reason for adding flag images. Astrotrain (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- As I said, flags a ridiculously overused on wikipedia, and there is for example guidance against the use of {{flagicon}} beside place of birth. This isn't a matter of censorship, it is matter of not going around looking for opportunities to splat a huge flag on pages where it is at best marginally relevant, and you would be in similar trouble if you were going around adding huge pictures of Jesus in articles making a brief mention of him. In the cases where the flag is relevant, such as the first use of the tricolour, a small icon will do fine, with a link to the article on the flag explaining its design and history. You are trying to use wikipedia as a device for nationalist flag-waving, and I deplore that whatever flag is being waved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Astrotrain in this edit here you inserted the Ulster Banner saying it was the unofficial flag of Northern Ireland, it was never the official flag of Northern Ireland not even during the period 1953-72, so can you explain why you feel its necessary to include a image of a governmental banner that has been defunct for thirty-five years in the portal for Northern Ireland today.--Padraig (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I note that you didn't mention cases where I added the Tricolour, or are you ok with that one as you are Irish? Is this just another case of a set of articles that no one can edit in case one of the Irish editors is offended? Wikipedia is not censored for images of prophets or the human body, so why are flags different? In each case, there was a good reason for adding flag images. Astrotrain (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
As normal, you bring nationality of editors into it. Is that the be all and end all of your arguement? Your looking to edit war, simple as and if things quiten down too much you can be counted on to start thing up again. --Domer48 (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that there is different nationalities is a good thing. However, it seems to me that people are being too sensitive. We should not be a situation that we cannot use images in case it offends one nationality. Describing the national flag as "POV" is one example of this sensitivity. Astrotrain (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Images are supposed to be relevent to the content of the article, adding the Ulster Banner as you are doing is POV pushing and you have continously refused to provide RS to support your claims it a national flag, numerous sources have been provided to prove it isn't and never was a national flag. This is also the same claim you failed to support in the flag mediation when your idea of compromise is that you could add the Ulster Banner to any article or template in wikipedia, dispite failing to support its use with RS.--Padraig (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
And if they persist?--Domer48 (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- If Wiki has done one thing it has put me off flags! Look at the article Irish Sea - every bleeping town has its "national" bleeping flag attached (and NI had the Teddy Bear's head). Daftness. Should Isle of Man, Wales and England not have the Union Jack as well? I mean that layout makes it appear as if Ireland is just another part of the UK? And so on......SCRAP the damn things. Sarah777 (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- relisting with new timestamp pending resolution. Thatcher 12:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Can a decision be made on this issue.--Padraig (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Padraig, unless Gino gets involved you will not have an Admin doing anything at all. See this is an issue that can be resolved by Administrative action, simplys lacks the will. --Domer48 (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia sets high standards for Decorum and Editorial process for all Balkan related articles. I believe that Grandy Grandy is breaking these by repeatedly making controversial and WP:POV edits on a number of Balkan related articles without any discussion on the relevant Talk pages and, sometimes, despite notices by administrators to respect the editorial process. A number of examples:
- Bosnian mujahideen: Despite a specific request by the involved Mediation coordinator (User:Vassyana) to all editors "to stop reverting and/or making significant changes. As Osli73 has done below, please propose any significant changes here on the talk page. If any changes you make are reverted, please do not escalate the matter into a revert war. Instead, raise the issue on the talk page for discussion" Grandy Grandy has made a number of major reverts/controversial edits without attempting to discuss these (see [15], [16] and [17]). It should be noted that this is an article which GG on several occasions has tried to delete alltogether ([18], [19] and [20]).
- Mujahideen: here GG has repeatedly reverted or extensively edited ([21], [22] and [23]) the section on Bosnia in line with his POV edits of the Bosnian mujahideen article, again, without seeking any consulation or discussion on the Talk page (despite being encouraged to do so).
- Naser Oric: a number of controversial edits/reverts ([24], [25] and [26]) without any attempt to motivate or discuss these on the Talk page, despite encouragement to do so.
- Alija Izetbegovic: again, a number of controversial edits/reverts ([27], [28] and [29]) without any attempt to motivate or discuss these on the Talk page.
- Bosnian War: again, a number of controversial edits/reverts ([30] and [31]) without any real attempt to motivate or discuss these on the Talk page despite encouragement to do so.
- Finally, based on this reply and the fact that the reverts by GG are the same as those by Dragon of Bosnia, currently on one weeks block for similar transgression, I believe that these edits are being done in collusion.
RegardsOsli73 (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment
- First of all, I don't agree with @OSLI73. He is the one who started to vandalize articles, I am the one among the others (Dragon, HarisM, Dchall1, Live Forever etc) who repaired the damage. And here is the proof:
- @OSLI73's log of vandalism:
- 12:23, 5 December 2007, Stifle blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Three-revert rule violation: Bosnian Mujahideen)
- 07:45, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month.
- 07:37, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months.
- 02:26, 23 March 2007 Thatcher131 blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (violating revert limit on Srebrenica massacre see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo)
- 01:48, 1 March 2007 Jayjg blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (violation of arbcom revert parole on Srebrenica massacre again)
- 09:48, 18 December 2006 Srikeit blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 1 week (Sockpuppeteering and directly violating his arbcom probation and revert parole)
- 00:49, 5 September 2006 Blnguyen blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 96 hours (did about 10 reverts on Srebrenica massacre in about 2 hours)
- Second of all, @OSLI73 is blanking articles (removing sourced parts he doesn't like).
- For example @OSLI73 deleted a part from Bosnian War which is clear example of vandalism - blanking WP:Vandalism: "Removing all or significant parts of pages' content without any reason."
- He deleted this part:
- According to numerous ICTY judgments the conflict involved Bosnia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (later Serbia and Montenegro) as well as Croatia.
- Soureces:
- I asked him why, for a few times, got no answer. He just repeats the same old story he wrote above which is not related to his deletions in order to get Arbitration enforcement cause he doesn't like Radio Free Europe source, doens't like ICTY source, doesn't like this and that...I am not willing to support his idea about arbitration cause there are a lof of other users who worked hard to write smth, and now @OSLI73 is trying to undo that cause he doesn't like some sources. Grandy Grandy (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
In reply to Grandy Grandy comments above:
- It would be good if he answered the issues that I raised above, instead of bringing other issues
- I don't see what old transgressions of WP:3RR have to do with the issue at hand
- Grandy Grandy has not made any attempt to discuss the edits/reverts he has made (at least not prior to me making this complaint) despite encouragement to do so. Please see the relevant talk pages.
- Grandy Grandy has made major edits to the Bosnian mujahideen article despite being specifically asked by the admin involved not to do so.
- Grandy Grandy seems to be arguing that as long as information is sourced it is not POV or inappropriate and should never be removed. My belief is that appropriate sources is only one condition for inclusion in an article. Sourced information can still be POV.
In conclusion, I would encourage Grandy Grandy to reply to the specific issues I raised above. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
In reply to Osli73 comments above:
- I answered all the issues on the appropriate talk pages.
- Well "old transgressions of WP:3RR" is all but old transgressions of WP:3RR. Sockpuppeteering and directly violating your arbcom probation and revert parole, violating revert limit on Srebrenica massacre, rule violation on Bosnian Mujahidee isn't just the matter of WP:3RR, it's much more.
- Grandy Grandy has not made any attempt to discuss the edits... Well, isn't true:[32],[33],[34],the real problem is you never answered my questions about blanking. You just skip it and continue to revert which is obvious vandalism.
- Regarding Bosnian Mujahideen, I just improved the article per comments in AfD, cause other users agreed that the name must be changed as you fabricated it (the title isn't present in any of your sources). Most of the users also voted for the deletion of that article: [35] as it's cloned, POV fork or collection of unreliable source (WP:RS).
- Please read WP:RS and WP:Vandalism. Persistent removal and blanking of the high-quality and neutral international sources in very sensitive Bosnian War article (Summary of ICTY verdicts I,Summary of ICTY verdicts II) is probably in appliance with ur belief that appropriate sources is only one condition for inclusion in an article and that sourced information can still be POV, but it isn't in appliance with Wikipedia rules, cause the sentence started with According to that source. It wasn't just included as a pure fact, it designated the source (International Tribunal), unlike your edits when you included many other speculation about Al Qaeda etc. without relevant source. Grandy Grandy (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- relisting with a new timestamp pending resolution. Thatcher 12:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)