Jiujitsuguy (talk | contribs) |
ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) →Jacurek block review: comment |
||
Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
re: Sandstein, I hope you agree that we can't decide the faith of an editor based on your generalist assumption ''that administrators issuing sanctions know what they are doing''. Admins are not infallible and they do make mistakes sometimes, no big deal but the mistakes do need to be corrected. <br />(<small>I am also a bit puzzled by your ''who was more evil in World War II nonsense'' comment because 1) this case, even content-wise, was not about anything like that. 2) It's not like that needs to be discussed, Poland lost 6 millions citizens during the Second World War, which is over 16% of population. Just for comparison, UK lost 449.800 people or 0,94% and US 418,500 or 0,32%. In other words Poland lost in absolute figures 6 times more people than UK and USA combined. So I wouldn't say that who was more evil discussions are irrelevant, the Nazis were resposable for all the sh*t that happened and Polish sacrifise in WW2 cannot be trivialised as some editors all too often on wikipedia do.</small>) [[User:Loosmark|Loosmark]] ([[User talk:Loosmark|talk]]) 20:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC) |
re: Sandstein, I hope you agree that we can't decide the faith of an editor based on your generalist assumption ''that administrators issuing sanctions know what they are doing''. Admins are not infallible and they do make mistakes sometimes, no big deal but the mistakes do need to be corrected. <br />(<small>I am also a bit puzzled by your ''who was more evil in World War II nonsense'' comment because 1) this case, even content-wise, was not about anything like that. 2) It's not like that needs to be discussed, Poland lost 6 millions citizens during the Second World War, which is over 16% of population. Just for comparison, UK lost 449.800 people or 0,94% and US 418,500 or 0,32%. In other words Poland lost in absolute figures 6 times more people than UK and USA combined. So I wouldn't say that who was more evil discussions are irrelevant, the Nazis were resposable for all the sh*t that happened and Polish sacrifise in WW2 cannot be trivialised as some editors all too often on wikipedia do.</small>) [[User:Loosmark|Loosmark]] ([[User talk:Loosmark|talk]]) 20:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
Ugh. This is a mess all the way around. The dispute wasn't great, but it was handled very poorly by Future perfect. And now we have others weighing in about dead kitties and Sandstein suggesting that admin actions are defacto correct. As many uninvolved editors and admins have noted, this block is unwarranted and unhelpful. It should have been undone a while ago. The ongoing disruption is now the responsibility of Future Perfect and those who stand by his refusal to engage in common sense mediation and restraint instead of punitive club wielding. Let's put a stop to barbarianism on Wikipedia. It starts with those holding the clubs. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 22:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Request concerning Irvine22 == |
== Request concerning Irvine22 == |
Revision as of 22:59, 3 November 2009
Requests for enforcement
Jacurek block review
I blocked Jacurek (talk · contribs) and placed him under an editing restriction the other day under the WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions clause. There was a discussion of it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive574#Future Perfect at Sunrise's block of Jacurek, but that was closed on procedural grounds, firstly because it was on ANI rather than here on AE, and secondly because Jacurek hadn't himself filed an unblock request at that time. Now he has done so, but it has been sitting unanswered on his page for over a day, probably because admins (rightly, according to the arbcom rules) are reluctant to consider an unblock of an arbcom-related sanction without discussion. So, just to help move things along, I'll open this discussion here myself. Let me make it clear that I personally still stand by those sanctions, although some people might feel that subsequent more friendly developments between Jacurek and his opponent Varsovian might create grounds for a more lenient treatment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- This block was obviously correct and should stand: Jacurek's conduct was of a kind that we simply cannot tolerate (and his claims of FPAS being somehow "involved" are so tenuous as to be actually laughable). At most, shortening the block by a week in acknowledgment of his more balanced behaviour since the incident is about as far as I think we can go here. Since the unblock request is fairly well phrased (apart from the bit casting aspersions at FPAS), that would be just about acceptable. Moreschi (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm a new administrator, and I'm not uninvolved[1][2], but I wanted to add my two cents. Blocks aren't intended to be punitive and Jacurek is not likely to be disruptive since (a) he and Varsovian have mended fences and (b) he will be subject to a six-month 1RR restriction. Jacurek's prior block history, which was cited as a factor in giving him this block, was largely a series of newbie mistakes that he has not repeated since his return. Citing his involvement with the EEML arbitration seems to be a case of sentencing Jacurek before he is found guilty. Finally, as noted, I think the six-month 1RR restriction will prevent any potential edit-warring in the future. Please consider these factors when evaluating whether to shorten Jacurek's block. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- That said, it does need to be clearly understood that conduct of that sort is absolutely beyond the pale. Cutting the block length down to 3 weeks including time served is fine, and is just reward for the fence-mending between the two, but anything beyond is too liberal and sends out the wrong message. Moreschi (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- In response to Malik: about "likelihood" of being disruptive again, I do of course hope that the revert restriction will help some, but I must point out that the mere quantity of reverting isn't usually the whole story, and wasn't in this instance: quality of contributions, and quality of talk page behaviour, is another important part. And here, it is my opinion that Jacurek's record has been consistently poor, e.g. in this other exchange with the same opponent, or in this dispute. What we see here is aggressive, stereotyped accusations and appeals to "policy", without substantially engaging the opponent's arguments on the content level. As for the mending of relations between the two editors, my impression is that it is very much to the credit of Varsovian, but I can't quite help the feeling that Jacurek only adopted that stance opportunistically as a chance to get unblocked more easily [3]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm a new administrator, and I'm not uninvolved[1][2], but I wanted to add my two cents. Blocks aren't intended to be punitive and Jacurek is not likely to be disruptive since (a) he and Varsovian have mended fences and (b) he will be subject to a six-month 1RR restriction. Jacurek's prior block history, which was cited as a factor in giving him this block, was largely a series of newbie mistakes that he has not repeated since his return. Citing his involvement with the EEML arbitration seems to be a case of sentencing Jacurek before he is found guilty. Finally, as noted, I think the six-month 1RR restriction will prevent any potential edit-warring in the future. Please consider these factors when evaluating whether to shorten Jacurek's block. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Just a reminder to all that every time the punitive meme is uttered on wiki, a little kitty dies. So let's not hear it again! ;) Once someone has been blocked as many times as Jacurek, "I'll be better" just isn't good enough. Part of the reason this kind of behaviour is worth it for these guys is that they know, come block time, they can just promise to be good and someone will be there to send some little felines to kitty heaven. These guys do little but edit-war over nationalist issues and piss off other nationalists, so what's the loss supposed to be? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- All of Jacurek's blocks are more than a year old, as Malik points out, so the "has been blocked as many times as Jacurek" doesn't really fly here - he got blocked some when he was new, then behaved himself well for a year until a bunch of suspicious anon IPs showed up and started following him around. Then Varsovian showed up - and perhaps with a bit too much paranoia, Jacurek was skeptical of this user as well.
- And Deacon, who are "these guys" you refer to? You should probably take a look at "these guys" contributions before making blanket false accusations like that.radek (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Also, invoking the EEML AC "fiasco" is way out of line. FP is not the ArbCom and it is not up to him/her how that case should be decided.radek (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it's a step up murdering kittens from murdering Transnistrian children. Sorry I don't find any winky winky humor in Deacon's statement. Instead of pontificating on generalities, I suggest investing the circumstances as to whether Jacurek was even the party in the wrong, which Loosemark covers quite well regarding Varsovian being the guilty party. PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 23:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok in my opinion this block was a very bad one for a number of reasons. First what nobody still mentioned here is that user:Varsovian appeared on wikipedia in controversial circumstances. He exhibited knowledge of wikipedia proceeding far exceeding that of a new user which he claimed he was and at least 4 people suspected he was a sock: Jacurek, myself, admin Sandstein and admin Future Perfect himself. Secondly user:Varsovian engaged in edit warring on the London Parade article where he obsessively removed any reference to the lack of Polish participation in the parade. At one point he was blocked for 24 hours for such behavior. He also deleted Polish sources out of the article based on original research (from my conversation with Future Perfect he seems to be aware of this problem) and wrote rants against Polish sources written after 2001. Finally when he started to claim that he lives in Warsaw and that he wrote books about Warsaw (something that would give him far more credibility) Jacurek was most naturally very sceptical and asked him if knows of a main bus line in Warsaw. Future Perfect later concluded that was harassment by Jacurek however given the circumstances I disagree, Varsovian asked Jacurek similar questions about Warsaw on Jacurek's talk page. [4], [5] In any case it is my opinion that if admin Future Perfect thought Jacurek's behavior was bad he could have first warn him about it, immediately nuking with a 1 month long block seems too drastic. Also I'd like to note that during the exchange user:Varsovian called Jacurek an idiot (with a trick, he said "my assistant says you are an idiot") something I brought to Future Perfect's attention 3 times and yet he has still to explain why isn't that worth a block or at least a warning. Finally I'd add that the user whois sock Varsovian was suspected to be left this message on wikiProject Poland: [6]. I won't comment on it because I think it's pretty self explanatory. Loosmark (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Jacurek asked me to comment. This is the first time I've seen the particular issue. I've read the exchanges on the talk pages, which were a travesty of repeated i didn't hear that and the same assertions repeated time after time -- on all sides. I consider the two parties equally at fault in this aspect of things. The specific block seems to have been where Jacurek doubted Varsovian's claimed identity, and attempted to disprove it by an absurd exchange over local knowledge of Warsaw bus routes. This was not an attempt to out--which would properly be taken very seriously indeed, though it may have been seen as one--V had declared his identity as the author of one of the works involved. J. should not have started that exchange, but it does seem that V. had some role in continuing it. It was appropriate to block for this, but the block has served its purpose. if the quarreling resumes it can be reinstated, but some consideration should then be given to blocking both sides equally. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Just out of interest (and not that it is going to make any difference at all to Loosmark, he seems entirely uninterested in facts when it comes to me): I’ve been investigated as a sock and cleared. I’ve repeatedly asked Loosmark to say who he thinks I am a sock of but one could be forgiven for thinking that he prefers to make snide insinuations than actual formal accusations. Like the one which he ends the above post (strange how he didn’t bother giving [7] or [8], two posts in which I give my opinion on Matthead’s comments, would that lack also be self-explanatory?) It is also interesting that Loosmark is still bringing up me not calling Jacurek an idiot. I have already apologised twice for my incivility [9][10] and have already pointed out to Loosmark that I’ve done that [11].
I do feel that Loosmark should read WP:QUICKSOCK or at the very least WP:AGF: his constant accusations (including the particularly charming accusation that I am a racist [12]), insinuations and allegations , together with his unfortunate outright lies, are becoming very tiresome. In a single day I had to ask him seven times to moderate to his tone toward me [13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. To give just one examples of his lies: at no time did I claim to have written books about Warsaw: I said that I have written a book [20] about Warsaw (singular, not plural). I fail to see how writing a book about Warsaw gives one more credibility when discussing a parade which happened in a different country 60 years previously but there are many things which Loosmark claims that I don’t understand.
For example Loosmark claims that I “obsessively removed any reference to the lack of Polish participation in the parade”: I actually vastly expanded the section regarding the lack of Polish participation and more than doubled the number of sources. Unfortunately all 16 of the sources I brought were deleted by another editor. Loosmark claims that I “deleted Polish sources out of the article” but the reality is that there has only ever been one Polish source in the article: I put it there and he supported the deletion of it!
I’d like to end by pointing out all the times which Loosmark has called me a troll but frankly life is too short to find all the diffs. Varsovian (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ok to answer Varsovian's points above:
1) I have not specifically said whois sock I think Varsovian is for the simple reason I am not sure. In fact I don't even know if he's a sock, all I am sure is he is not a new user, as he claimed he was, when he entered wikipedia.
2) The fact that Varsovian later appologied for calling Jacurek an idiot is irrelevant for the point I was making, had Jacurek not been nuked out of the blue he'd probably also have apologized, and that's exactly my point, the difference was that one user, Varsovian, was given the chance to apology, the other, Jacurek, was not. It doesn't feel right.
3) I totally reject the accusation that I have called Varsovian a racist, I have never done so and I demand an apology for this horrendous accusation.
4) Varsovian had indeed asked me to moderate my tone but it doesn't mean that he had a valid reason to do so. In fact he came to my talk and provoked me with a bogus accusation in his typical passive-aggressive style.
5) Varsovian writes above I fail to see how writing a book about Warsaw gives one more credibility when discussing a parade which happened in a different country 60 years previously. That's an interesting point, so the question becomes what for has then Varsovian mentioned a book he wrote about Warsaw in the middle of the the parade discussion!?
6) "I actually vastly expanded the section regarding the lack of Polish participation". Varsovian has to be kidding: [21]. And yes he did work on the section regarding the lack of Polish participation but I have trouble calling that expansion, it was more like adding "its not true the Poles weren't invited" all the time: [22], [23], [24],
[25], [26], [27], [28]
Anyway I don't really care about Varsovian I just hope the bad block of Jacurek is cancelled and Jacurek can return to edit wikipedia because I think he's a good editor. Loosmark (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've been asked per e-mail to take a look at this case. Sorry, I won't take the time to do so, because I am quite put off by this entire Eastern European "who was more evil in World War II" nonsense and its associated cast of characters on Wikipedia. But (to be taken with a grain of salt, as I've not looked into this at all, and the exact reasons for the sanction or on what policy grounds it is contested are not very clear from the above), I generally assume that administrators issuing sanctions know what they are doing, and enjoy wide discretion in choosing what they believe to be the correct sanction; and nothing in the above discussion indicates a manifest and egregious error in judgment on the part of the sanctioning admin that would require overturning his sanction. Should editors with whom Jacurek was in conflict also need to be sanctioned, WP:AE remains available. Sandstein 18:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
re: Sandstein, I hope you agree that we can't decide the faith of an editor based on your generalist assumption that administrators issuing sanctions know what they are doing. Admins are not infallible and they do make mistakes sometimes, no big deal but the mistakes do need to be corrected.
(I am also a bit puzzled by your who was more evil in World War II nonsense comment because 1) this case, even content-wise, was not about anything like that. 2) It's not like that needs to be discussed, Poland lost 6 millions citizens during the Second World War, which is over 16% of population. Just for comparison, UK lost 449.800 people or 0,94% and US 418,500 or 0,32%. In other words Poland lost in absolute figures 6 times more people than UK and USA combined. So I wouldn't say that who was more evil discussions are irrelevant, the Nazis were resposable for all the sh*t that happened and Polish sacrifise in WW2 cannot be trivialised as some editors all too often on wikipedia do.) Loosmark (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Ugh. This is a mess all the way around. The dispute wasn't great, but it was handled very poorly by Future perfect. And now we have others weighing in about dead kitties and Sandstein suggesting that admin actions are defacto correct. As many uninvolved editors and admins have noted, this block is unwarranted and unhelpful. It should have been undone a while ago. The ongoing disruption is now the responsibility of Future Perfect and those who stand by his refusal to engage in common sense mediation and restraint instead of punitive club wielding. Let's put a stop to barbarianism on Wikipedia. It starts with those holding the clubs. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Request concerning Irvine22
- User requesting enforcement
- --Domer48'fenian' 09:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Irvine22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles
- Sanction or remedy that has been violated
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy
- Revert #1 Revert #2
- Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue
- 2 reverts in less than 24 hours, which is a violation of 1RR
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- Unsure
- Additional comments
- Irvine22 is well aware of 1RR since they have been an active participant [29][30][31][32][33][34][35] in this ongoing discussion here were this issue is outlined.
Discussion regarding this request
Left open for discussion.
The difficulty I see here is that the 1RR restriction is intended to force communication; but a number of editors seem to have decided that Irvine22 is a "disruptive editor" or "troll" and to decline to substantively engage (see edit summaries and talk page on the page in question, Pat Finucane (solicitor)). This is not how the restriction is supposed to work. If Irvine22 is indeed displaying a pattern of disruptive behaviour (there does seem to be a certain history of edit warring and excessive boldness on this sensitive topic, besides a now-settled sock-puppet issue), then that broader context needs addressing, perhaps via WP:RFC/U, rather than picking out a single infraction for Arbitration Enforcement. Rd232 talk 12:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I do seem to be the target of tag-team editing, with the reporting editor a member of the tag team. However, I wouldn't make too much of that - I always prefer not to complain. In this case, I will say two things: first, there is in fact only one revert here. The first action within the past 24 hours was a manual deletion of an advertising link. This followed a discussion on the talk page that seemed settled. This was reverted by RepublicanJacobite, and I reverted the revert. That's one revert, surely? Second: my understanding was that the various revert rules did not apply to removing obvious advertising links, such as the one I removed, which was a link to the business webpage of a firm of solicitors.Irvine22 (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.--Domer48'fenian' 15:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- And Wikipedia is not supposed to be a venue for advertising the services of firms of solicitors. Irvine22 (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- The discussion regarding Pat Finucane was hardly concluded, and there most certainly was not consensus for the removal of the link. The last comment in the discussion was you saying that the website is amateurish, which is utterly irrelevant. Most of the discussion prior to that involved your use of a term that was wholly inappropriate and a violation of WP:BLP. There had been next to no discussion as to the merits of the link, in part because you seem to find it difficult to engage in serious, helpful discussion. In an article about a living person, an article which concentrates on his career as a solicitor, a link to the webpage of his legal firm is not at all inappropriate. Just as there is a link to the General Motors website in the external links of the article about said corporation, and so on in dozens of other articles about corporations. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- And Wikipedia is not supposed to be a venue for advertising the services of firms of solicitors. Irvine22 (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- RJ, this is all they want another plathform! Irvine22 when on "Irish Unionist Alliance", where he's twice added a link to a non-notable organisation by the same name that was deleted per AFD, it shows his stance on "advertising" is dependent on who is being advertised. This is a 1RR report, and all we have had is excuses. --Domer48'fenian' 16:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Domer makes a good point, and here are the diffs for Irvine's repeated inclusion of that nonnotable and irrelevant link:
- It seems "advertising" is all in the eyes of the beholder, eh Irvine? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose there is one connection between the non-notable political organization in question and the non-notable firm of solicitors: both have had Wikipedia articles about them deleted. But there is also a rather obvious difference between them - only the website of the non-notable firm of solicitors advertises fee-based professional services. That is what I find inappropriate to link to, and I thought that was the settled view of Wikipedians. Anyway, as Rd232 points out, this could all have been aired on the article's talk page if you had engaged in good faith, instead of playing the tag-team silliness.Irvine22 (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Last things first, I am sick of your unfounded and bad faith accusations of "tag-team" editing. If you have proof that I and other editors colluded to revert your edits without cause, please present in this public forum. Otherwise, I suggest you drop it.
- But, to the substantive matter here, you are incorrect in your facts. The Finucane Solicitors AfD concluded that the article should be redirected, not deleted:
- There's a significant difference between a redirect and a deletion of a nonnotable political group that just happened to hijack the name of an earlier organization. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose there is one connection between the non-notable political organization in question and the non-notable firm of solicitors: both have had Wikipedia articles about them deleted. But there is also a rather obvious difference between them - only the website of the non-notable firm of solicitors advertises fee-based professional services. That is what I find inappropriate to link to, and I thought that was the settled view of Wikipedians. Anyway, as Rd232 points out, this could all have been aired on the article's talk page if you had engaged in good faith, instead of playing the tag-team silliness.Irvine22 (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- RJ, this is all they want another plathform! Irvine22 when on "Irish Unionist Alliance", where he's twice added a link to a non-notable organisation by the same name that was deleted per AFD, it shows his stance on "advertising" is dependent on who is being advertised. This is a 1RR report, and all we have had is excuses. --Domer48'fenian' 16:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
This is neither the forum for discussing issues like accusations of "tag-team" editing and other matters of general behaviour (RFC/U, or possibly other dispute resolution) nor of the content issues (article talk page). Rd232 talk 17:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
So Rd as long as we use the talk page we can breach 1RR (1RR restriction is intended to force communication), didn't know that, thanks for the heads up. BigDunc 18:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't say that at all. I'm merely pointing out that 1RR is (like 3RR) not merely intended to slow edit warring down to a slower speed - it's supposed to stop it by forcing communication. The rest of my comment I don't feel like repeating, I've said before that RFC/U should be used where there are longer-term concerns. Rd232 talk 08:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Dunc, notice also how RD feels they must below, make a pathetic and pointed comment at me, despite the fact that the discussion was closed having to ignore the notice "Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section" in order to make it. They also ignore the notices on the top of this page which says "The Committee does not look favourably upon comments that are intended to provoke reactions in others, and being incivil or provocative is counter-productive," in addition to "The golden rule of contributing to the project is to make an edit only where it actively benefits the project." So why would their ignoring and excusing of the 1RR here surprise us? Lets see how long RD's brand new rule lasts, we use the talk page we can breach 1RR! --Domer48'fenian' 19:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I felt the need to comment on your unhelpful remark, because it's a behaviour I've seen from you too often. I guess I shouldn't have, but it irked me. I didn't think about the "closed discussion" aspect enough because I was in a hurry to leave my computer. Whoa, two revelations in one comment: admins are volunteers with other demands on their time, and are human. Who knew? (And see reply to BigDunc re 1RR.) Rd232 talk 08:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note I've removed the text added after the discussion was closed. Sanctions will be applied if you decide that you can breach 1RR on talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Result regarding this request
- This is a credible AE request, as there was a clear 1RR violation. There is no weight to the claim that the "first" removal wasn't a revert, as Irvine had removed the link another time a few days before.[36] The matter was under discussion on the talk page, and sure it had gone quiet ... but it was obvious opposition remained when the reversion from RepublicanJacobite came. Irvine reverted again. Sorry Irvine, you knew the rules and chose to assume the risks of violating them. I'm giving you a week. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Stellarkid
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Stellarkid
User requesting enforcement:
Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Stellarkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
- [37] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text without consensus 27 Sep 06:51
- [38] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text without consensus 27 Sep 17:02
- [39] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text without consensus during RfC 2 Oct 03:27
- [40] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text without consensus during RFC 6 oct 06:18
- [41] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text without consensus during RFC 7 oct 00:07 (6 oct 06:18 typo)
- [42] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text during 2:nd editwar 15 Oct 16:30
- [43] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text during 2:nd editwar 15 Oct 20:20
- [44] Complaining over his own editwar at admin, showing intent to continue 15 oct 20:23
- [45] Open AE against Nableezy 27 oct, ended 29 oct 21:00
- [46] Tryig to round up Cptnono "== G Massacre == Just curious as to why you won't engage on the page with Nableezy out? Your opinion matters" 31 Oct 22:47
- [47] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text 1 Nov 04:32
- [48] Editwarring: Removal of sourced text 1 Nov 05:41
All edit above is about the lead dispute in article [Gaza War] and about the single words 'Gaza Massacre'.
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
- [49] Warning by Tedder (talk · contribs)
- [50] Warning by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Requesting topicban
Additional comments by Mr Unsigned Anon (talk):
Stellarkid (talk) have as seen continued his editwarring after the topicban of nableezy - 21:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC) showing battlementallity whithout any sign of change.
- Response to Enigma
Your statement bather me as you sounds uninformed about me, and my case at AE. Have you read it at all? Have you read Jiujitsuguys ignorant ramblings and done some reserch about them? And about the 'helpfull' user Tyw7 who starting up the first AE case after I asked him for help against Jiujitsuguys ramblings?. If you going to adress any of Jiujitsugus accusations against me you better find out if there is any substanse behind them or just a morons ramblings, yes ban me now damnit. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Further response to Enigma
If you mean what you say and topicban atleast as many you threaten to do, perhaps even more of the povfilled editors on both sides, I guess that involve me. And I am positive to a solution like that. Let it be the night of the long blades. And I say sinserly, that would be the best to happen for wikipedia regarding IP-conflict related articles any administrator can do ever. Just be sure not to throw out any babies with the water. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Responce to Stellarkid
Who did the AE against Nableezy for you? It cant be yourself as you show you dont understand editdiffs. That fact that you dont understand but have such a loud mouth is baffeling, even for you. And suprisingly to even more extent for Jiujitsuguy. Are you to releted? Cant belive you try to defend yourself with that crap of text. I cant stand it. Is this a conspiracy of morons here? You try to induce a hemorrhage to my poor brain? Why no policy against that. I have to go and suggest that somewhere. Next time try to understand the editdiffs or atleast use your left mousbutton and klick on it and, wow, not a dupe. Just a typo in the time/date. Incredable. Administrators (those of you who have understanding (most I do hope)), interfere or Wikipedia is doomed. As I said before. Ban me to if its needed, just remove that gang of highly devoted idiots. Wikipedias survival is at stake. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[51]
Discussion concerning Stellarkid
Statement by Stellarkid
This has been a hard one for me to address and I will add a bit more tomorrow on specifics, but here is my more general statement.
I have been engaging in discussion in regard to this edit since Archive 58 & Archive 59 (long enough for my words to have been archived!) and on the current talk page. In fact, this particular edit has been argued almost since the first week of the article, as one can see by reading the archive. For the record, the archive is now going on 60 pages and the discussion regarding the Gaza "massacre" has been significant. There is not now, nor do I believe there has been, consensus to put this in the lede of the article.
That is why I spent considerable time discussing the policy issues involved, but was met consistently with the argument that "there is no consensus to remove the edit". There were even a couple of "no consensus" removals made by Mr Unsigned Anon himself [52] [53] . One editor said the sheer number of words on the talk pages would have made us rich if we were paid by the word, lol -- and I am confident he was referring to me.
If it is true as WP:EW says: "An edit war occurs when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each others' contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion," then I am innocent of the charge.
I did do a handful of reversions over the last month, but by no means did I try to override anyone's contributions "without attempting to resolve issues by discussion."
The problem is, just as there was no consensus to remove the material, as charged; neither was there a consensus to add it. This becomes a circular argument and inherently feeds an edit war. WP:CONSENSUS points out that Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality and verifiability in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on. Those were exactly the concerns that were brought out in argument on the archives and talk pages.
I tried to stay with policy based reasons, as did all the editors who objected to its inclusion, starting with WP:CCC which says that "no consensus" is not an appropriate reason for reverting. Some editors, as I did, complained that the sources did not support the contention WP:V, that the edit was WP:OR, some offered WP:NPOV, that the edit was not neutral. Some claimed it was neutral because it was an "alternative name", the other said it was not a name but a non-neutral description. One side said it was WP:CENSOR, the other said it was OK in the body, but not in the lede thus not censorship. Some wanted to use Arab sources and other editor/translators on Wiki and others quoted WP:NONENG. Another policy-based argument that was made was WP:LEADCITE which says: "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none."
WP:BURDEN says that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. If there is no consensus for an edit, the edit is controversial, seen as POV and offensive by some editors, unsupported by others, I believe it should be removed until there is consensus to include it, rather than included until there is consensus to remove it.
I'm not trying to be a policy wonk here but I think WP has these guidelines and policies for just such a reason, and believe in this case they support me rather than the complainant. Stellarkid (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
A bit more specificity as promised:
I feel confident that this AE is in retaliation for the recent one I advanced against Nableezy, ([54]) coming as it does on the heels of it, and seeing how he himself participated in this "war" as I pointed out earlier. He canvassed an administrator to warn me just hours before filing this complaint --
Mr Anon himself demonstrates broad propensity to remove sourced materials that do not conform to his view. See for example these diffs with the accompanying edit summaries:
- [55]" Cant understand why the lead is filled upp with pov stuff even if ballansing out eachother. Start a section or continue to use the reportin other sections. I put the stuff I cut in talk for use els)"
- [56]
- [57] removed israeli side exlanation that is undue weight in lead)
- [58] Removing israels intention to not cooperate. Its intention is bring undue weight and can be presented futher down.)
- [59]
- [60] views, comments away.
But though there are some who might suggest it, I realize that this AE is not about him but about me.
Specifically related to the diffs in question- please note that my edit summaries all refer to policy, and are always accompanied with discussion on the talk page!
The first three diffs are to a compromise version that removes both Operation Cast Lead and "Gaza Massacre" from the lede. This was to answer the complaint that Operation Cast Lead was a name which showed a bias toward the Israeli POV.
Edit four [61] was a compromise suggestion, retaining the word "massacre".
Edit five is a duplicate of edit four, an error by Mr Unsigned Anon.
Edit six and seven was an attempt to start afresh after the article had been locked. Again this was based on my belief that contentious material, particularly in the lede, should be removed until there is consensus to include it, rather than we should provide a consensus to remove it, post facto.
Edit eleven was also an attempt to start with a fresh slate by removing all the names until consensus was achieved to put them back in.
Edit twelve was a compromise with an editor on talk to put back at least the name with the most Google news hits, ie OCL.
Diff 8 Is ludicrous, since I ask for further article protection and guidance. And since the article had been locked the the offending passage in place, makes no sense whatsoever.
Diff 10 is equally ludicrous, as Cptnono's opinion does indeed count.
In the WP essay WP:Consensus not numbers it says In many cases, people have claimed to reach consensus, but really just got tired of considering the views of the minority report, so the result became the bullying by the majority. I see this as exactly the case in this article, through consistent reversions to the same edit presumably "against consensus," as well as through the use of various boards meant to intimidate opposing editors into leaving the article. I could not walk away, since "silence implies consent" and there is a larger principle involved that would not be served by walking away and agreeing to disagree. This allows "the opposition" to continue to claim that the edit is stable and consensus-based, when it is not. If the argument is advanced that there must be consensus to remove something, it is obvious that there is no consensus for the addition in the first place. Stellarkid (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Comments by other editors
Comments by Tedder
I'm in favor of the topic ban on Gaza War, Talk:Gaza War, and any other pages related to the subject. I've only become involved in mediating Gaza War since it came up on RFPP; I endorse a topic ban for this user to restore some civility to the article and talk page. Perhaps a time limit of a year should be put on the user, so they have an opportunity to be productive after then? tedder (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Comments by Cptnono
Of course he was trying to "round me up". I completely agree that Gaza massacre as it is used is incorrect. I'm trying to chill out from this page since it has gotten so out of hand, I need to cool down, and I thought Stellar's concise reasoning could handle the job just fine without me screwing it up. He didn't understand that WP:3RR included reversal of "actions of other editors, in whole or in part." It looks like he thought his reasoning was sufficient so the change was OK. It doesn't work that way. He juts got a warning from two admins about the same 3 reverts and I hope he takes it to heart. Being newer isn't an excuse but it should be taken into consideration. I also think a reminder of the motherly "2 wrongs don't make a right" is something would be nice. I think this AE is premature and Stellar will show that he is more than capable of following the rules and needs to go reread them. Punishing him to restore stability (which has never existed on the article unfortunately) is completely out of line. Asking him to not edit war over "massacre" should work but if you need justice (which isn't the point of this is it?) impose a 1rr. Cptnono (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Follow-up: The length of how long this has been going on should have no bearing on Stellar. He deserves a fair assessment without being lumped in with others. This recent wave (that is how it looks to me at least) involves editors who have not been involved with AE before or are newer to the article as well. Cptnono (talk) 07:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Gatoclass
Although I felt the decision concerning Nableezy above was uncomfortably one-sided, given that he was handed a stiff topic ban while Stellarkid, who had edit warred with equal enthusiasm since arriving at the page in question, got no sanction whatever, I had reluctantly decided to make no comment about it as I felt it best not to second guess the judgement of an uninvolved admin. At this point however, I feel something must be said.
I thought Stellarkid was extremely fortunate not to have also been topic banned in the previous case, given his sheer hypocrisy in bringing the case against Nableezy when he had been almost equally guilty of edit warring on the same article (examples [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70]) but the fact that he has immediately resumed his edit war over the edit in question after just seeing another editor given a stiff penalty for doing so, demonstrates either an extraordinary lack of restraint or else a palpable contempt for this process. Either way, I think at this point Stellarkid must receive a sanction at least on par with that given to Nableezy (although as I understand it the length of Nableezy's ban is currently under review). This kind of behaviour is simply not acceptable. Gatoclass (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Jiujitsuguy
I oppose any sanction against Stellarkid. He is an excellent editor who has contributed greatly to the integrity of the article in question and has remained civil throughout. This is a common tactic that Mr Unsigned Anon employs. He attempts to silence and censor those he disagrees with by filing complaints and having them blocked or topic banned. If anyone deserves to be sanctioned it's Mr Unsigned Anon for the following reasons:
He has reverted me twice here [71] and here [72] within a span of less than 24 hrs. The second revert is particularly distressing becuase I was engaged in a debate with another editor who asked me to self revert here [73] and I was considering his request as evidenced by [74] Then Mr Unsigned Anon comes along and reverts me before the other editor even has a chance to respond to my proposal. Mr Unsigned Anon is very savvy and sophisticated when it comes to Wiki rules and procedure. He will push the envelope just far enough without bursting it. While technically, he's not in violation of 3R in letter, he's certainly in violation of spirit.
Moreover, he has engaged in a disruptive and infantile course of conduct
I've compiled a list of Diffs for your review concerning Mr Unsigned Anon. A review of these Diffs is important and sheds light on the nature of Mr Unsigned Anon.
Here [[75]] he is warned to stop engaging in disruptive reverts.
Here [[76]] he makes inquiries about my race.
Here [[77]] he accuses me of working for the Israeli government and also makes derogatory accusations based on alleged demographics.
Here [[78]] he asks me about the weather in Brooklyn based on his belief that I live there.
Here [[79]] he makes reference to my bank account on the Gaza discussion page.
Here [[80]] he taunts me to engage him in an edit war.
None of these comments are relevant, all of them are infantile and some of them are downright offensive. A sanction should therefore be imposed on Mr Unsigned Anon in the form of a lengthy topic ban.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Mr Unsigned Anon has just reverted yet again here [81] That would make three reverts in just over 24 hours. This is how he operates. Pushing the envelope just far enough. It is etremely frustrating to watch him take advantage of the rules to sanction another editor while he himself is an experienced edit warrior who will stop at nothing to censor those he disagrees with.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think the strange and deprecatory comments made by Mr Unsigned Anon above here [82] here [83] and here [84] concerning Enigmaman and Stellarkid speak for themselves. We’ve all gotten hot under the collar at times (the Middle East can do that to you) but these comments are beyond the pale. Clearly, if anyone deserves to be sanctioned in this mess, it's Mr Unsigned Anon--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Enigmaman
This has been going on for months, with basically no progress. One reports another, it's generally ignored, rinse and repeat. Mr Unsigned Anon, for example, has been taken to AN/I several times, but no administrators really want to get involved in this mess. Topic bans should be meted out, starting with Mr Unsigned Anon. Remove one, see if anything changes, and then progress from there. The trouble, as with all I/P disputes, is that the only people who care to edit the pages are people with a very distinct POV, on one side or another. Enigmamsg 07:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Shuki
I had edited the article once or twice early with an apparent non-controversial edit but decided to stay out of the main controversial issue and not followed it. I was surprised by the severity of Nableezy's recent sentence but in hindsight can see it justified since the tolerance level of uninvolved admins is dropping as time goes on and Nableezy's problematic behaviour was evident on other articles in the I-P realm not just the 'Gaza War'. In stark contrast, StellarKid does not have a similar pervasive problem in the I-P realm at all, so requesting an I-P topic ban for an apparent edit war on one article is plainly exaggerated, an insincere request and simply unreasonable. FWIW, this article would/should have joined the low traffic articles long ago and editors moved on. If I were to hand something down here, it would be to protect the article as is (with all it's problems) and let the issue calm down if that is possible. I'm leaning with Jiujitsuguy and Enigmaman on this. --Shuki (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment by 85.158.184.158
I've had nothing to do with this editor but checking one Talk-Page contribution by Stellarkid tells me not to expect very much. The fact he has Jiujitsuguy on his side will not do him any favours. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Response to 85.158.184.158 by Stellarkid
Here is 85.158.184.158's edit on the Gaza War talk page -- talk about non-productive edits. [85] Stellarkid (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Malik Shabazz
As evidenced by her/his statement, Stellarkid has no understanding of what edit-warring is. As recently as yesterday, Stellarkid made 3 reverts in a little more than 1 hour.[86][87][88] Now Stellarkid is trying to claim that edit-warring while arguing on an article's Talk page isn't edit-warring.
From the little I've seen of her/him, Stellarkid seems to treat Israel-related articles as a battleground. Stellarkid has created "controversies" based on an inability to read the sources carefully (compare this to this and finally this). Stellarkid has had difficulty distinguishing between a press release and a news article and understanding why a press release based on a blog post (!) isn't a RS.
I think a short break from editing articles in this area would give Stellarkid a necessary opportunity to read some of the key Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Full disclosure: Before Stellarkid accuses me of retaliation, I might as well write that I left a message on nableezy's Talk page after he was topic-banned. My comments here have nothing to do with the fact that Stellarkid initiated the AE action against nableezy (which I didn't know until Stellarkid told me). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- This is weird. You just got admin and that should make you rise to another level of judgement as well as not ignoring WP:AGF. You brought some examples from one other article not directly related to I-P conflict and you back up a topic ban? How can you not deny bringing more baggage here? Even if those were two problematic edits, that certainly does not contribute productively to the discussion here. Everyone, even you and I, has problematic edits every once in a while and you have not shown how this is characteristic of Stellarkid. --Shuki (talk) 07:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- With all due respect, Shuki, if you don't think J Street is related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, perhaps you don't know what J Street is. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Response by Stellarkid to Malik Shabazz
Just to respond a bit to your accusations. Of the three diffs that you put up just now, two of them are in the original complaint by Mr Unsigned Anon and I responded to them above. I did not appreciate that any removal of material put in by another user constitutes a revert. With respect to the third diff, there does seem to be a consensus that the Gaza War article is way too long, the material was irrelevant, and it was not in the correct section either. With regard to the two reverts in the lede, I believed I made a BOLD edit to the lede by removing all names, it was reverted. I went back and changed it in another way, based on the concerns (if not entirely) of the reverting editor. The edit was based on a rationale and compromise, and on my belief, expressed above, that when an edit in the lede is controversial, it requires consensus to add it, not remove it. If this is wrong thinking, please point me to the relevant policy.
Regarding the JStreet controversy, I added a controversy section because there is considerable controversy surrounding JStreet and just who it represents. In fact another editor had suggested a "criticism" section back in August, on the grounds that many of these organizations have "criticism sections" and there were one or two supporters of that suggestion. I was "BOLD" and added a "controversy section. You removed the "controversy" section I added as "unneeded" and I did not war it back in, since I am consistent in my belief that there must be consensus to add something, not remove something if it is seen as controversial. By removing it you demonstrated there was no consensus to add it. I then added some more articles to the talk page - relevant to the article in question and reflecting the controversy or criticism that exists in the Jewish community and elsewhere with regard to J Street. I still believe that the opinion of the ZOA under the leadership of Morton Klein is relevant to the article and believe your response inappropriate, less than civil, and actually could be said to have violated WP:BLP. If you had thought I didn't know the difference between blogs and press releases, a word to the wise might have been nice. (and in fact appropriate from an administrator, I would think) Stellarkid (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Stellarkid, your statement "I still believe that the opinion of the ZOA under the leadership of Morton Klein is relevant to the article" is deeply troubling. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the issue described (but actually grossly misrepresented) by ZOA regarding Fenton Communications "the largest public interest communications firm in the United States", Ben-Ami's former employer prior to J Street, accepting a contract from the Qatar Foundation has anything to do with Ben-Ami and hence J Street at all. ZOA even say so themselves. There are so many, many things wrong here that I'm utterly astonished that you "still believe" it's relevant to the article. It's this lack of understanding, this acting upon what you "believe", this inability to distinguish between good sources and blatant agit-prop/misrepresentation that gives me grave reservations about your ability to address I-P related issues in a way that is consistent with both policy and the discretionary standards. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- For the article's talk page, guys (I think).Cptnono (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- No, my comment is made within the context of this arbitration enforcement discussion. It is intended to illustrate a specific instance and provide empirical evidence here to support the notion that Stellarkid may not be able to address I-P related issues in a way that is consistent with both policy and the discretionary standards. He's well aware of my views on the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)...and for interest, I was intending not to comment at this AE until I saw his ""I still believe" statement. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I hear you. Understanding or interpretation of the sources doesn't cause someone to edit war, though. Did he edit war or not is the question isn't it?Cptnono (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- No or else this would just be at the edit warring noticeboard. The question is whether Stellarkid's actions bring him within scope of the arbitration enforcement process and if so what should be done. My example is intended to illustrate a troubling instance where there is, in my view, a conflict between what he "believes" and what wiki policy and the discretionary sanctions say. Has it damaged content ? No, not yet but beliefs are persistent things. Note that I haven't said whether I favour or oppose a topic ban because it's not my decision. I've already said (at Nableezys AE) that I think Stallarkid needs a mentor and needs to agreee to abide by the sanctions. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- So you support
a topic ban in orderto preempt disruptive editing you foresee Stellarkid making in the future? And you are using two articles to base this on? --Shuki (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)- Interested to know how you got that from me saying "I haven't said whether I favour or oppose a topic ban because it's not my decision." Sean.hoyland - talk 19:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- If you are interested in what I think I'll tell you. I think Stellarkid should be restricted to editing from the non-Israeli perspective for a set period like a month. That means every edit in the I-P area he makes during that period should be one that adds information from sources like human rights groups, Palestinian sources, Arab media, other sources that are critical of Israel too numerous to mention due to the inherent liberal bias of reality. If he can do that it will do him a world of good. Also, no sneakily looking at the NGO Monitor/StandWithUs/CAMERA sites in his bedroom for a month Sean.hoyland - talk 19:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sean, I apologize for claiming you suggested a topic ban and I totally missed your last comment to Cptnono, though I still disagree with your claim. Interesting solution LOL, I think if we could all 'be friends' and truly collaborate, then a day with 'reverse editing' would be interesting. Unfortunately, I think there is a lack of respect with regard to many editors, but that's a discussion for another place. --Shuki (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- So you support
- No or else this would just be at the edit warring noticeboard. The question is whether Stellarkid's actions bring him within scope of the arbitration enforcement process and if so what should be done. My example is intended to illustrate a troubling instance where there is, in my view, a conflict between what he "believes" and what wiki policy and the discretionary sanctions say. Has it damaged content ? No, not yet but beliefs are persistent things. Note that I haven't said whether I favour or oppose a topic ban because it's not my decision. I've already said (at Nableezys AE) that I think Stallarkid needs a mentor and needs to agreee to abide by the sanctions. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I hear you. Understanding or interpretation of the sources doesn't cause someone to edit war, though. Did he edit war or not is the question isn't it?Cptnono (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- No, my comment is made within the context of this arbitration enforcement discussion. It is intended to illustrate a specific instance and provide empirical evidence here to support the notion that Stellarkid may not be able to address I-P related issues in a way that is consistent with both policy and the discretionary standards. He's well aware of my views on the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)...and for interest, I was intending not to comment at this AE until I saw his ""I still believe" statement. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- For the article's talk page, guys (I think).Cptnono (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment by Jgui
I am an uninvolved editor, having never edited the Gaza War article at the center of this controversy nor have I edited for or against Stellarkid or Nableezy, other than leaving comments related to the AE that Stellarkid filed against Nableezy. My interest in that AE and now this one is due to the fact that I have in my 1000 plus edits always held by the principal that WP gets stronger by the addition of relevant well-cited RS text. The Nableezy case has greatly disturbed me since I seem to be observing an editor being rewarded for removing relevant well-cited RS text, while an editor who researched, wrote, cited and attempts to keep that relevant well-cited RS text in the article gets severely punished. I realize that case is still under review, so I hope to see a different outcome in that case.
I looked at some of Stellarkid's edits not limited to those he made on the Gaza War article and found a disturbing pattern. The removal of RS cited text without discussion on Talk pages seems to be a pattern for Stellarkid. The cited text that he deletes is always text that disagrees with his apparent POV. A quick look through his edits brought up the following obvious examples; there are more if more are needed:
This edit where his edit summary claims "Refugees from 1948 War: It is not in there. Such inflammatory charges without a page number! Searched the book on Google and I read the chapter(s). Not there". And yet here is the online occurrence of this text in the reference he removed [89] which clearly contains the sentence (search for "nine massacres"):
"During Hiram, IDF troops carried out at least nine massacres of Palestinian civilians and prisoners of war (at Eilaboun, Saliha, Safsaf, Jish, Hule, Majd al-Kurum, Bi'na, Deir al-Assad, and Arab al-Mawassa).(page 245, with citation 347)"
This is almost *identical* to the text he removed with the claim that it was not there:
"During Operation Hiram, at least nine massacres of Arabs were performed by IDF soldiers.[1]".
It should be noted that Stellarkid never commented on this deletion in the article's Talk page - although he discussed other editor's changes there before and after making this change. The POV outcome of his edit - removing a statement that made the IDF look bad - is obvious.
This edit where he removes a whole cited chunk of text with the misleading edit history: "rmv'd plagiarism from Amazon author's site: www.amazon.com/Bible-Zionism-Traditions-Archaeology-Post-Colonialism/dp/1842777602" when in fact this was an exact quote from the deleted reference here, and clearly the editor who added it included the name of the book but was not sophisticated enough to properly cite it and put it in quotes. A serious NPOV editor would take the 15 seconds to fix it by properly citing it and putting it in quotes. A POV editor who felt they should abide by WP policy would at least make a note about the deletion and copy the text deleted to the article's Talk page. But Stellarkid never left a comment of any kind in this article's Talk page. Here again he chose instead to simply remove the cited material that make Israel look bad.
I am flabbergasted by the rewards Stellarkid has so far received for his repeated deletion of relevant RS cited text in the Gaza War article which is documented above as part of this AE. The fact that there are numerous instances of it, in multiple articles, makes his behavior worse. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Result concerning Stellarkid
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Betacommand
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Betacommand
User requesting enforcement:
IP69.226.103.13 (talk · contribs) 09:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Betacommand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand_2#Betacommand_instructed
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
- [90] I see no proof other than your word that your anything more than a 13 year old child Name calling is not civil.
- [91] "How about you actually read the instructions. Did you follow those directions? no. you where reverted because you cannot follow directions" Taunting a user who appears to be a newbie and didn't do something precisely to Betacommand's satisfaction is not civil.
- [92] "please stop being so condescending" is not civil.
- [93] "if there is a specific BRFA that you want reviewed let us know and we can take a closer look." Misrepresenting himself as a BAG member is not civil.
- [94][95] A comment that I am "forum shopping" for asking a specific question of bureaucrats on a specific board. I'm not forum shopping, the question belonged there and was appropriate. He's not a bureaucrat anymore than he's a BAG member.
- [96] An injunction to "stop being so aggressive." Not civil.
- [97][98][99] Apparently I didn't follow something 100% rigidly to his liking. Actually, what I did was failed to add a heading to the section, not failed to make a new section, as my section was indeed below the old.
- [100] Just more Betacommand provocations, calling my concerns about bots to be "ranting."
Betacommands last 30 or so edits are half about me, provoking me, personally attacking me, stalking me. I'm easy. Then he goes to AN/I and suggest something should be done about me[101] and his mentor, User:MBisanz comes back suggesting and indef block.[102]
This indef block against is way outside the bounds of how wikipedia explains block work. No warning, no proof offered, just Betacommand suggests something be done, his mentor suggests an indef block, and there it is, I'm indef blocked, while Betacommand can find some other user to stalk, taunt, provoke, and attack.
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
- [103] Warning by IP69.226.103.13 (talk · contribs)
- [104] Warning by IP69.226.103.13 (talk · contribs)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Block.
Additional comments by IP69.226.103.13 (talk):
How many more chances does he get? I wasn't even given a chance to respond before I was indef blocked with no proof, no input form me, no evidence, just Betacommand and his mentor's say-so. Indef block seems to be the level of interaction on wikipedia, one chance and you're out. Betacommand has had many many chances. And, it's clear, he sees no incentive to be civil. It's a joke to him.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[105][106] Also his mentors.[107][108]
Discussion concerning Betacommand
Statement by Betacommand
Comments by other editors
The notice at the top of Betacommand's page suggests discussing concerns about enforcement with Betacommand and/or his mentors in advance of requests such as these. I can see diffs for Betacommand, but not for User:MBisanz or User:Hersfold - were they contacted with these concerns? Fritzpoll (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hersfold came to Betacommand's when I complained about his personally attacking me, he/she okayed Betacommand's comments to me, although granting that some of his comments should have been left out.[109] So, in other words, he/she has given Betacommand yet one more chance.
- MBisanz responded to Betacommand's suggestion at AN/I "something be done" about me by suggesting that I be indef blocked from editing wikipedia.[110] MBisanz is is one of the bot owners who goes after me at BAG and RFBA-he's not an uninvolved administrator, his request for an indef block gives the appearance of being retaliatory.
- Both of these users have knowledge of Betacommand stalking me at BOT boards. I have notified them of this enforcement request. Considering they were aware and participated in conversations with Betacommand calling me names, then MBisanz leaped, or gave the appearance of being very eager, at the opportunity to get someone to indef block me, there's no point in contacting them instead of a request for enforcement. --69.225.9.98 (talk) 10:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- This appears to be spillover from a situation at WP:ANI. Arbs would be well advised to read both the talk page history of User talk:IP69.226.103.13 and the thread title "Wikihounding by User:IP69.226.103.13" at WP:ANI. This is a very heated situation on both sides, and I am not unconvinced of the vexatious nature of this request. The best action here may be no action at all. Both sides in this dispute need some time to cool off a bit, and it would be wise to not throw gasoline on this fire. --Jayron32 16:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think that if I had posted this request for enforcement the first time Betacommand had called me a "13 year old child" it would have been much better for the community. IMO Betacommand, after two arbcoms and dozens of AN/I should be on a 0 tolerance policy. Instead, his name calling is justified by his mentors.
- Do nothing now, and it will just keep going. That's one constant with Betacommand: he will never stop. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Admittedly doing nothing if there is a problem would be wrong, but I echo Jayron's concerns that this is a dispute that is now a few days old and that there has been no pause for breath in pursuing it. I suggest that it be examined as normal, but I'm not sure you're going to get what you want here. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Of course I won't get I want, which is for Betacommand to stop stalking me and provoking me, because when he goes after someone the community at first simply supports it. There's always a good reason to allow Betacommand to act incivil, sure, it's pretty mild stalking me, calling me a 13-year-old, as you're not the target, and it would make things easier at bots not to have to listen to me. There's always an excuse for his behavior, and always plenty of people to bring up the excuses.
- But, the fact is, I did get community input on the bot, when no one at bots could, because I simply asked for it, and I asked for it away from bots, which is an extraordinarily incivil place. It's incivil because you don't rate incivility the same as others, because you treat outsiders like dirt at bots for giving input. Getting rid of me at bots won't really be what you want-it will be once more effectively using incivility to kill off community input at bots.
- Having Betacommand live up the letter of his sanctions, on the other hand, would give the wikipedia community something that everyone here deserves: the last of the Betacommand drama. You're not his victim. It's nice that it's not so bad for you. Did you even look at his editing record for the past few days? It's all about me. Yes, you're not his victim. Just one of his many defenders. Of course it can wait for you. Of course it's not that bad. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Admittedly doing nothing if there is a problem would be wrong, but I echo Jayron's concerns that this is a dispute that is now a few days old and that there has been no pause for breath in pursuing it. I suggest that it be examined as normal, but I'm not sure you're going to get what you want here. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Reading Hersfold's comments below and glancing again at the diffs, I have to say that I agree that this request is frivolous. I generally think that IP needs to work harder at interacting amiably in a collaborative environment, and realise that when lots of people are telling him the same thing, then that doesn't mean that everyone else is wrong. This certainly doesn't seem to be characteristic of the behaviour for which Beta has so rightly been condemned in the past - what possible words there are that can be called incivility are extremely mild and I don't think any action against him at this time would be productive. YMMV. For disclosure, I was part of a lengthy bots-related discussion with this user over the past few days. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's not frivolous. It would be frivolous if it were someone who was not under parole of his community sanctions. But that's not the case. I got indef blocked at his request. If my cause were frivolous, then how did that happen? It's not frivolous enough for Betacommand and his mentor, MBisanz. So, why it so frivolous for the victim in this? Betacommand's free to attack me is not frivolity. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid the idea of whether this is frivolous or not is subjective - I think it is, you think it isn't. This is called a difference of opinion and, unlike you, who has subsequently left an unfounded insinuation on my talkpage that I am another supporter of Beta who will defend him to the last, I am quite happy to have a difference of opinion: it isn't because I bear you ill. I just don't agree that you are sufficiently objective to see these comments for what they are. I interpret them as Hersfold does - they are not especially interesting, nor should you be as bothered by them as you are. That this has spread to so many venues, and that you tar all who disagree with you with some "establishment" brush suggests to me that you're letting some petty rubbish get in the way. I know you won't agree, but maybe you should just step back, take a breather and ask yourself if all this fuss is worth it. There are real problems, and real problematic comments by editors on Wikipedia: this ain't one of them Fritzpoll (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think if it was clear I shouldn't be bothered, Betacommand would not have so quickly posted at AN/I suggesting something be done about me, followed by MBisanz suggesting an indef block against me, followed by an indef block against me. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid the idea of whether this is frivolous or not is subjective - I think it is, you think it isn't. This is called a difference of opinion and, unlike you, who has subsequently left an unfounded insinuation on my talkpage that I am another supporter of Beta who will defend him to the last, I am quite happy to have a difference of opinion: it isn't because I bear you ill. I just don't agree that you are sufficiently objective to see these comments for what they are. I interpret them as Hersfold does - they are not especially interesting, nor should you be as bothered by them as you are. That this has spread to so many venues, and that you tar all who disagree with you with some "establishment" brush suggests to me that you're letting some petty rubbish get in the way. I know you won't agree, but maybe you should just step back, take a breather and ask yourself if all this fuss is worth it. There are real problems, and real problematic comments by editors on Wikipedia: this ain't one of them Fritzpoll (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- No, it's not frivolous. It would be frivolous if it were someone who was not under parole of his community sanctions. But that's not the case. I got indef blocked at his request. If my cause were frivolous, then how did that happen? It's not frivolous enough for Betacommand and his mentor, MBisanz. So, why it so frivolous for the victim in this? Betacommand's free to attack me is not frivolity. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Comments by Hersfold
As I mentioned on Betacommand's talk page at the time, many of the comments IP69 is complaining about are hardly incivil. This request is entirely frivolous and forum-shopping, particularly considering IP62 was blocked for pursuing this issue inappropriately previously.
- [111] As mentioned by me before, the "13 year old child" bit could certainly have been left out, however I don't see much of an issue with the rest of the comment, particularly considering the context in which it was made. IP62's comments had reached the point where they were becoming disruptive, as noted by Mr.Z-man earlier in that discussion: "Oh, so this is what your bad faith-filled tirade on my talk page and the village pump is about." Ironically, IP62 replied that it wasn't a tirade, but in fact a "hissy fit," which is perhaps where the 13-year-old comment came from.
- [112] As noted for the above diff, the point where good faith needed to be assumed had passed, particularly since it was rather obvious that the discussion had been closed.
- [113] "Please stop being so condescending" is not incivil, particularly considering the pointed comment made just prior.
- [114] Calling this incivil is patently ridiculous, particularly since Betacommand was offering to help in this case.
- [115][116] Frankly, I feel as though this request is forum shopping, particularly since IP62 has been informed multiple times by multiple people the issue needs to be dropped.
- [117] This is constructive advice.
In looking through IP62's contributions, I'm actually pleasantly surprised Betacommand was as patient as he was. This user does not know then to take "no" for an answer, and this request is evidence of that. My advice to IP62 would be to back slowly away from the dead horse, put down the baseball bat and get on with doing something more constructive, before he is blocked again for continued harassment. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not stalking Betacommand, and I provided diffs and evidence. You have not. You seem to be pretty pleased that Betacommand is stalking me, personally attacking me, calling me names. That's okay, Betacommand has lots of ardent supporters. He has to, to have gotten through 2 arbcoms and dozens of AN/Is and still be editing, and to think he can call editors names and still continue to edit. Betacommand is not a dead horse, although the analogy escapes me, as much as wikipedians adore throwing it in defense of the indefensible, he's very much alive and very much obsessed with me.
- I've already been blocked for nothing without evidence, I'm well aware that blocking people who disagree with Betacommand is the standard on wikipedia. Keep it coming on, more drama, more chances, more arbcoms, more AN/Is all about Betacommand, and you pleasantly surprised in support of his continued behavior. That's not mentoring him to improve.
- If not me, someone else, again, in the near future: the one constant, you can't beat this dead horse enough, 'cause it's wikivincible. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Hersford, has provided no diffs for his/her and Betacommand's forum shopping accusations or for my being blocked for forum shoppping. Multiple times? Should have some diffs for these accusations.
He/she admits the "13-year-old" child comment was inappropriate and is supposed to be mentoring Betacommand, but instead of focusing on Betacommand's behavior, he/she joins and supports Betacommand in attacking me.
This will get wikipedia exactly what it always gets from Betacommand: more arbcoms, more AN/Is. He is not being mentored by these two, Hersford and MBisanz. He's being egged on by them. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- My name is spelled HersfoLd, with an L. Thank you. I think your comments make my point enough; the fact that you seem to believe that there is not a point where enough is enough is simply shocking. I did admit that the 13-y-o comment could be considered out of line, and you'll notice that the first time I said as much was on Betacommand's talk page, where he could have very easily seen my comment and learned from it. Thank you for your concerns, you've made my point for me. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
No, what's shocking is how blind Betacommand's supporters are and how willing the wikipedia community is to listen to anything against anyone who speaks up against him, if this last wasn't true Hersfold would have not felt free to accuse me without diffs, and would not have felt free to ignore Betacommand's edit history for the past few days.
9 of Betacommand's last 24 edits have been about me, not including his response to my no personal attacks post on his talk page.
9 of Betacommand's last 24 edits have been about me, and his mentor is accusing me of beating a dead horse. Betacommand is stalking me, following me around and accusing me of forum shopping without diffs, egging his menotr on to ask for a indef block against me, is personally attacking me. He is supposed to be mentored through his return to wikiepdia. Instead of his mentors noticing what he is doing, they are advocating for his stalking and personally attacking another editor to support Betacommand.
It's the same thing as Betacommand's history is full of: his incivility, followed by his ardent supporters screaming for his right to incivility, but no call to Betacommand to knock it off.
No wonder he felt perfectly free to get upon AN/I, get up at BRFA, get up at BN, follow me around, accuse me without diffs. His mentors, both administrators, are right there to protect his right to create mayhem all through wikipedia.
If he's not stopped now, he'll be back here. He's already been given more chances than probably any other wikipedian. His mentors are NOT monitoring his behavior, they're protecting it. None of this would be happening right now if not for Betacommand, in other words, if his mentors were mentoring him instead of supporting his bad behavior. --69.225.3.198 (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- As a preliminary comment, I can find no fault in Betacommand's actions, and so would label this request not actionable. AGK 18:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Result concerning Betacommand
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Declined I defer to the judgement of Betacommands mentor's in this situation. Additionally, the complaint seems to be both motivated by, and substantially consisting of a personal dislike for another user. WP:AE, despite appearances, is not your battleground, please don't treat it that way.--Tznkai (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Mr Unsigned Anon
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Mr Unsigned Anon
User requesting enforcement:
Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested:
Mr Unsigned Anon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
- [118] Here he acknowledges that his conduct could get him banned
- [119] Here, he refers to me as a "retard" and a "moron" and also implies that he has other Wiki accounts.
- [120] Here, he rambles on and makes some strange reference to “night of the long blades”
- [121] Here, he calls me "ignorant" and a "moron"
- [122] Here, he makes inquiries about my race
- [123] Here, he accuses me of working for the Israeli government and also makes derogatory accusations based on alleged demographics
- [124] Here, he asks me about the weather in Brooklyn based on his belief that I live there.
- [125] Here, he makes reference to my bank account on the Gaza discussion page
- [126] Here, he taunts me to engage him in an edit war
- [127] revert of sourced material
- [128] revert
- [129] revert of sourced material
- [130] removal of sourced edits
- [131] removal of sourced edits
- [132] removal of sourced edits
- [133] removal of sourced edits. Preceding four reverts were effectuated within a span of ten minutes.
- [134] His explanation for revert. "Cant understand why the lead is filled upp with pov stuff even if ballansing out eachother. Start a section or continue to use the reportin other sections. I put the stuff I cut in talk for use els (sic)"
- [136] His explanation for revert. "removed israeli side exlanation that is undue weight in lead."
- [137] His explanation for revert. "Removing israels intention to not cooperate. Its intention is bring undue weight and can be presented futher down."
Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
- [141] Warning by Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs)
- [142] Warning by enigmaman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
block, topic ban
Additional comments by Jiujitsuguy (talk):
I am requesting a lengthy topic ban or block. Mr Unsigned Anon has engaged in uncivil, discourteous conduct with some racial overtones. In addition, he has engaged in a pattern of disruptive conduct and relentless reverts of sourced material. This despite being warned that his disruptive conduct could get him blocked.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- This is the latest gem that Mr Unsigned Anon just recently left on my Talk page [143]That comment resulted in a 24 hour block issued by BozMo (talk | contribs)here [144] Mr Unsigned Anon seemed proud of his actions calling it "fun" here [145] and taunted the issuing Admin to issue him a lengthier block here [146]--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am also inclined to believe that he has multiple accounts based on statements that he made here [147].--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
Mr Unsigned Anon Notified [148]
Discussion concerning Mr Unsigned Anon
Statement by Mr Unsigned Anon
Comments by other editors
Result concerning Mr Unsigned Anon
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
Request concerning 212.85.230.26
- User requesting enforcement
- --Domer48'fenian' 14:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- 212.85.230.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles
- Sanction or remedy that has been violated
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy
- Revert Revert #1 Revert #2
- Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue
- 2 reverts in less than 24 hours, which is a violation of 1RR
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
- Unsure
- Additional comments
- 212.85.230.26 was made aware of the Arbitration case on their talk page here and despite this they still went on to make an additional revert her.
Discussion regarding this request
Left open for discussion.
Result regarding this request
- Blocked 24 hours. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- ^ Benny Morris, Righteous Victims - First Arab-Israeli War - Operation Yoav.