72bikers
Blocked as a non-AE action by Bishonen. Sandstein 08:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning 72bikers
[[4]] Discussion concerning 72bikersStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 72bikers
Statement by (slatersteven)I said at the ANI I was unsure what to do. I have no idea where to find the remedies, Also I included the discretionary sanctions awareness information [24], they are aware DS is in place. So I am not sure what you are asking for.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC) Fine close it, I really cannot figure out how to report the user, and so an edit that is blatant trolling stands. I will not post here anymore as it is pointless.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
1. (also a mild BLP violation (assuming the edit means what I think it means)) the study was by Fox and DeLateur (not just by Prof Fox), in addition the study has no links to the mother Jones source (as the edit seems to imply). 2. the Mother Jones source is just a list of incidents it contains no mention of "very common misconception that AR-15's or similar rifles were preferred". Nor does Prof Jones say anything in it 3. One of sources for the phrase "Rifles have been used 25 percent of time in mass shootings, semi-auto handguns almost half of the time." does not say that, it says military style semi auto rifles (in fact it does not say 25 percent of the time, it is also out of date which is another issue altogether). neither of the other two sources for that claim say it. But as I said it is so badly written it is hard to follow exactly what is being said about what, hence why I say it is troling.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC) Note the edit has now been reverted by another edd precisely because [[25]] "RV an illegible edit", it was a nonsense edit designed to make a point. So maybe it should have been battleground conduct I reported them for.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC) Now I admit (as I did from the start) that many of us breached DS, and I had not reported any of that. It was the trolling nature of this breach of DS I felt actionable, not the 1RR breach. I cannot even fathom the mentality behind it other then being a deliberate slap in the face to any ed who has disagreed with him. It was a willful act of childish vandalism, that is what I find unforgivable, and why I have raised it here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC) This [26] represents the problem, not one issue. No where do I say that I have final say. There is no attempt to justify or explain the edit he made, just (what is in effect) a strawman. As I said this is not about 1RR but a general tone of PA's, poor editing and general disrespect to anyone who does not share his POV.Slatersteven (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC) Statement by Waleswatcher72bikers has just violated the 3RR rule at Mass shootings in the United States. Diffs: Diffs of the user's reverts: link to the 3RR board report: [31] Edit warring seems to be an ongoing pattern, and what's worse is a continuing refusal to accept the norms of wikipedia editing. 72bikers continually makes edits that are ungrammatical, poorly formatted, riddled with errors, and simply confusing to the reader. When challenged, they post walls of text [32] [33], aggressively berate other editors [34] [35], and generally display battleground behavior. They have forbidden other editors from posting on their talk page [36] [37], which creates a situation where their behavior can only be discussed on talk pages (where it doesn't really belong) or on noticeboards like this one. Personally, I think a topic ban is due. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC) @Springee: Here and here and again here, after I post on something you immediately follow up and try to claim I'm the problem. This looks like WP:HOUNDing. Please stop. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC) Statement by SpringeeI want to point out that Waleswatcher isn't exactly an innocent party in this case. I'm sorry to see that 72biker violated the 3RR rule but WW's own editing on this and the related AR-15 article has been disruptive and counter to consensus building. 72biker was likely, and rightly, frustrated that WW would come in, make edits or reversions without regard for talk page discussion then only days later decide to join the discussion. 72biker needed the warning but part of this is due to the poor editing behavior of WW. WW has been recently reported for disruptive editing by myself and at least one other editor. They come here without clean hands. Springee (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC) Statement by Simonm223These topics are heated ones and I've tried to be patient with all participants since becoming involved, out of sympathy for that. I got involved with these pages mostly out of concern for the quality of edits that 72bikers had been inserting. I may have been harsh in my criticism, but I am of the opinion that Wikipedia is at its best when major edits are work-shopped at talk before going live and 72bikers does not participate readily in that process, often throwing out tangentially related text-walls or mass-revising their previous comments that have already been responded to, all while failing to provide any constructive response to proposed changes. I will note that my concerns are not primarily a content dispute. I don't agree with Springee on a lot of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE issues on these articles, but they are very willing to discuss at talk and build consensus when disagreement occurs, and as a result we've been able to make progress toward improving the articles. Disagreement on Wikipedia is fine. But disruptive behaviour is not. And with 72bikers' tendency to make unreasonable demands of other editors, their generally weak grasp of grammar and syntax, their haphazard use of talk page and their tendency to ignore anything they don't want to hear, I really think they're a prime example of an editor whose competence is questionable. This is an editor who said that the page about mass shootings was, "not a gun article," in an edit summary in which they removed a contentious source that was under discussion at talk. In short, I'd suggest a topic ban for firearms related articles, widely construed, would be appropriate at a minimum. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC) Statement by GalobtterIsn't the edit a violation of consensus required before restoration restriction? insertion by 72biker, reversion, reinsertion by 72biker. Slatersteven I think the remedy you're looking for is the DS remedy under-which these page specific restrictions are done. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC) Slatersteven, if you can explain how the edit is a clear misrepresentation of sources that can also be something that could get a topic ban, especially/if there is a pattern of doing so. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC) Result concerning 72bikers
|
149.241.170.48
Blocked as a non-AE action by Ymblanter. Sandstein 08:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning 149.241.170.48
IP (and his new user account) keep restoring disputed, POV, speculative content based on unreliable sources. This is ARBPIA-related so he shouldn't be able to edit there in the first place. But even if it wasn't, he already broke 3RR.
Discussion concerning 149.241.170.48Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 149.241.170.48Statement by YmblanterI blocked the IP for WP:3RR for 31h.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning 149.241.170.48
|
יניב הורון (et al)
Withdrawn, as it appears questionable whether the relevant article is under ARBPIA or not. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning יניב הורון
Previously blocked twice for arbitration enforcement in the ARBPIA area.
Background: I removed a report by User:ThurnerRupert to WP:AIV earlier, where he was complaining about the reaction of User:יניב הורון who swore in an edit summary after being templated for vandalism. Since the templating was completely wrong, I felt that the reaction by יניב הורון was reasonable. However, this dispute has led to a small edit-war on that article, covered by ARBPIA, where both editors have broken 1RR. יניב הורון also appears to have broken 1RR on another article obviously related to ARBPIA, although that article does not have the ARBPIA DS notice (see above). I note along with this report that יניב הורון was unblocked (correctly) at 13:49 UTC today, since when they have reverted edits on twenty-three other articles, mostly in the ARBPIA area, many controversial, including seven in the first five minutes of today's editing (and I ignored the ones that were obviously typo fixes or vandalism reverts). I do start to wonder if this editor is a net positive in this area of editing. Black Kite (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning יניב הורוןStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by יניב הורוןStatement by ThurnerRupertStatement by DebresserI just wanted to make a procedural note, that I am not happy with an editor who regularly comments on WP:AE reports as an uninvolved admin, starting to report editors himself. Debresser (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC) Statement by IcewhizPoorly crafted report. Neither are ARBPIA violations. ARCA has ruled that Iran/Israel is not part of ARBPIA which makes the first set of diffs moot as it is entirely about the Iranian's PM comments on Israel. The second set of diffs is an enforcement of the general prohibition against an IP editor which is explicitely exempt from ARBPIA 1RR. Most of Yaniv's reverts are vandalism or reversion of extreme POV related. ThurnerRupert questioning the reliability of long standing content sourced to WaPo, Reuters, ABC, and no lack of additional sources being rather extreme. One should note Yaniv has been the subject of frivilous reports at AE and a SPI complaint (form a long dormant editor) which was false - he was unblocked after being blocked for false reasons.Icewhiz (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning יניב הורון
|
Activist
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Activist
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Seraphim System (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Activist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_(1932_cutoff) :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 16:31, August 23, 2018 and 17:33, August 23, 2018 Content is first added by Activist in a series of two edits
- 17:44, August 23, 2018 and 17:47, August 23, 2018 I remove it and start a discussion on the talk page per the consensus required restriction on the article
- 08:39, August 24, 2018 Restoration of the content
- 22:52, August 26, 2018 Different content is removed by an IP editor per a previous consensus on the talk page
- 04:12, August 27, 2018 Restored by Activist without discussion
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Received DS alert on user talk page 13:33, August 27, 2017
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
There is a consensus required restriction on this article. After the first violation, I informed the editor about the editing restrictions on the article on 19:57, August 24, 2018. This was followed by a second violation on August 27th in which the editor restored content that was removed after discussion. I asked the editor to self-revert a second time on August 27, but the editor has not self-reverted or responded. I am filing here because I would like the editor to self-revert - I don't want to confuse the situation further with back and forth reverts. There are discussions open for both of these edits on the article talk page.
- The fact that Activist has still not self-reverted despite the talk page discussion is troubling. In the response to this complain he says
without having gone back and looked at older edits and reverts and was unaware of their existence
even though he was notified that the text removed by the IP I left a message on his talk page linking him to the discussion and asking him to self-revert several days before filing this complaint [46]. He has made several comments on the talk page defending the edit since this complaint was filed [47] [48] but still has not self-reverted.Seraphim System (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- The fact that Activist has still not self-reverted despite the talk page discussion is troubling. In the response to this complain he says
This seems to be pretty much resolved at this point. An ip has removed the non-consensus content [49] and Activist has returned to the talk page to discuss the jogging edits where there is rough consensus for a new proposal made by Icewhiz subsequent to this complaint being filed. I don't see any harm in closing this complaint, provided Activist understands the consensus required restriction on the article and does not continue to restore the disputed content. Seraphim System (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Activist
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Activist
I haven't been through this AE process before, so please understand that I'm trying to figure it out and try to bear with me.
I made a few reverts to this article without having gone back and looked at older edits and reverts and was unaware of their existence. In one case, I edited a statement about some trivia that I thought shouldn't be included in the article at all, but tried to preserve them despite my disagreement with their inclusion. I was trying to accommodate whatever editors had posted the existing text. The subject of the article, Brett Kavanaugh, was described as a "runner," and an "avid marathoner." and as having "ran" the Boston Marathon. In fact, Kavanaugh is a jogger as defined by Wikipedia*, rather than a "runner." In order to be allowed to run in that marathon, he would normally be required to post a maximum time for a qualifying race, 3 hours and 30 minutes for both the 2010 and 2015 races. That's a fairly slow pace. His actual finishing time in 2010 was "3:59:45," {a pace of nine minutes and nine seconds per mile, really a fast walk) which was described in the same sentence as, "under four hours," a redundancy. I eliminated the redundancy and provided some context to give typical Wikipedia readers a grasp on what the times actually indicated, including his age at the time of the 2010 race. (Runners typically begin to run gradually slower as they age, after their mid-30s.) Since I'd given his age for the 2010 race (always held on the third Monday in April, the Massachusetts holiday, "Patriots Day"), there was no need for me to include his age for 2015. His time there was "4:08.38," nine minutes and 29 seconds per mile/ six miles per hour, a slightly slower jog than five years earlier.) My edit has been accepted by other editors, it appears. Seraphim System (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Suggested two alternate renderings. One restored the redundancy (3:59:45) plus "under four hours." That sentence was followed by a sentence fragment.
I*(From Wikipedia)The definition of jogging as compared with running is not standard. One definition describes jogging as running slower than 6 miles per hour (10 km/h). Running is sometimes defined as requiring a moment of no contact to the ground, whereas jogging often sustains the contact.[2] (In other words, the jogger always has one foot on the ground.)'m terribly jammed for time. If it's okay, I'll add Statement 2 & 3 to address the other edits. Is there a time deadline for completing my response? Activist (talk)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Activist
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I recommend that the complainant ping the admin who enacted the restriction at issue, because other admins (such as myself) do not appear interested in enforcing it. Sandstein 16:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
יניב הורון
Inadequate request, no action. Sandstein 15:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning יניב הורון
יניב הורון's first edit to this article was to change 1973 Arab-Israeli War to surprise attack against Israel on Yom Kippur. He started editing the article after I started this RFC on the main article. His only involvement with the article has been to pipe this link and to restore non-reliable sources like a workshop page from a University that does not even verify the content it is cited for. He has removed content that is supported by a reliable source in the process (like the embargo against Rhodesia, South Africa, etc.) Restoring unsourced information this way after it has been discussed on the talk page is basically a form of subtle vandalism of the article. He does not seem to be worried that DS may apply to him. He has previously said his edits were about content about Soviet support and said he added a reliable source after the talk page discussion. In my last round of edits I left that content in and merged the two versions based on that discussion, restoring the links to Bar Lev Line and the sourced content that his edit had replaced with content that was not supported by a reliable source. He reverted again with a false edit summary - this revert technically violated 1RR because it was within 24 hours of a revert of content he had added, but I didn't report it. The edit summary is false because it has been discussed on the talk page already and it was explained again in an edit summary. I restored the reliably sourced content and link to Bar Lev line again, but self-reverted because I thought the page might be covered by 1RR and added an ARBPIA notice to the article talk headers (if the article is not within ARBPIA this notice should be removed). My next edit copied stable consensus content from the second paragraph of the lede of the Yom Kippur War article. My hope was that this would be consensus content and end the dispute. (This technically fell within 1RR by 4 minutes.) Yaniv left this message on my talk page. I was not expecting the consensus content from the main article to be controversial but I started a talk page discussion asking Yaniv to explain his objection to the content. Yaniv's last edit to the article was only to restore this piping. It was done without replying to the talk page discussion and also violates 1RR on the article.
Discussion concerning יניב הורוןStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by יניב הורוןAnybody can take a look at this and see who is edit-warring. As a matter of fact, I was thinking of reporting Seraphim System for breaking 1RR (1st revert, 2nd revert), so I left her a warning. But apparently she didn't think it was a 1RR violation (although she reported ME for some strange reason). In my opinion, a WP:Boomerang was never more deserving than now.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by IcewhizPoorly crafted report. Yaniv is not the original author of diff1 (from 3 July) - in fact it seems to appears in 21 June, and for the most part in the stable version of the article, prior to Seraphim System's editing. Diff2 is thus not a 1RR original author violation (which applies to the first revert of originally authored content). diff3 is different content all together, and seems to be mainly fixing a missing wikilink. One should also note that no request for a self-revert or warning was posted on Yaniv's talk page (which is not required, but is generally a common courtesy in the area - particularly for non straightforward interpretations of reverts).Icewhiz (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Statement by MhhosseinThe reported user has certainly violated the remedy by performing more than ONE revert in less than 24hrs:
Admins need to take care of it urgently.--Mhhossein talk 12:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Hi Black Kite. This might be noteworthy for you as you aimed to watch his edits. --Mhhossein talk 12:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning יניב הורון
|
HappyWaldo
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning HappyWaldo
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Galobtter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- HappyWaldo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons#May_2014 :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 13:38, 2 September 2018 First revert
- 15:03, 2 September 2018 Second revert, in violation of 1RR restriction on article
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 29 August 2018 Blocked for violating the same restriction on the same article 4 days ago
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I even gave him a chance to self revert his violation, see Special:PermaLink/857715872#August_2018, and he refused.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning HappyWaldo
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by HappyWaldo
Statement by (username)
Result concerning HappyWaldo
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- @Swarm: this is your 1RR restriction, could you please evaluate this request? Sandstein 15:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- Blocked for 1 week. Straightforward 1RR vio. Awareness criteria above and beyond satisfied. Swarm ♠ 00:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- Block converted to personal 1RR editing restriction for three months, per off-wiki exchange with user. Swarm ♠ 02:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)