Dispute resolution (Requests) |
---|
Tips |
Content disputes |
Conduct disputes |
|
A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.
To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.
This page trancludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.
Please make your request in the appropriate section:
|
Contents
- 1 Requests for arbitration
- 1.1 Sorcha Faal article protection from editors failing to follow WP consensus policy.
- 1.1.1 Involved parties
- 1.1.2 Statement by Picomtn
- 1.1.3 Statement by David Gerard
- 1.1.4 Statement by Jytdog
- 1.1.5 Statement by clpo13
- 1.1.6 Statement by more or less uninvolved Dennis Brown
- 1.1.7 Statement by Doug Weller
- 1.1.8 Statement by Checkingfax
- 1.1.9 Statement by Fyddlestix
- 1.1.10 Statement by Only in Death
- 1.1.11 Statement by ThePlatypusofDoom
- 1.1.12 Statement by MjolnirPants
- 1.1.13 Statement by John Carter
- 1.1.14 Statement by
- 1.1.15 Clerk notes
- 1.1.16 Sorcha Faal article protection from editors failing to follow WP consensus policy.: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/0/0>
- 1.1 Sorcha Faal article protection from editors failing to follow WP consensus policy.
- 2 Requests for clarification and amendment
- 3 Motions
- 4 Requests for enforcement
Requests for arbitration
Sorcha Faal article protection from editors failing to follow WP consensus policy.
Initiated by Picomtn (talk) at 20:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Involved parties
- Picomtn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- David Gerard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- [diff of notification David Gerard]DiffDiff
- [diff of notification Jytdog]Diff
- Note I am so sorry, but I'm unable (age/eyesight/slight dementia) to fully understand what diffs are or how they are used (and @Checkingfax: can tell you I've honestly been trying to learn), but I have notified all of the parties involved from my talk page as evidenced here. Thank you. Picomtn (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
This articles talk page contains evidence of dispute resolution attempts, but has been eliminated. (see statement)
Statement by Picomtn
This is an article (Sorcha Faal) that in 2012 a no consensus AfD was reached for this articles subject, and was followed a year later, in 2013, with a successful deletion effort led by WP editor David Gerard who, also, then substantially edited[1]an article about this articles subject[2] on the RationalWiki "snarky point of view" website.
From February 17, 2016 to May 11, 2016, this article was recreated and substantially worked on by at least 12 editors and its name was changed from "Sorcha Faal" to "Sorcha Faal reports" by a consensus opinion of same. On March 29th, Edward321 requested a G4 speedy deletion of this article, which was denied by administrator JzG on March 30th with his stating "Not a G4 repost, content is significantly different."
From March 30th to May 10th, this article continued to be worked on and on that date had reached the size of 24,731 bytes with various important issues relating to it still being discussed on both the talk page and noticeboard.
On May 11th, editors David Gerard, Fyddlestix, Jytdog and WP Arbitration Committe administrator Doug Weller (none of whom had previously contributed to the editing of this article) asserted an immediate WP consensus over this article and from that date to May 15th deleted from it 20,224 bytes of content and sourcesDiff, changed this articles name (thus removing the previous articles viewing history), and editor Jytdog "manually moved" 90% of the talk page to archive failing to follow WP talk page archiving guidelines. (see correct WP example here of how talk pages that have content archived are to be noted)
This request is being asked to resolve the issue of if this article (in its previous "Sorcha Faal reports" state/not current one) falls under both WP:BLP and WP:Lists (and if lists restore its original article name), an order that the location of the "manually archived" talk page be posted, and all editors be notified that WP:consensus policy must be followed and that all edits should be documenented on the talk page citing exact WP policies and guidelines that are being adhered to.
References
- Question Due to my age (very senior citizen) and disabilities (eyesight/slight dementia/heart) am I able to have someone more experienced in this process appointed to help me please? Thank you. Picomtn (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Doug Weller says in his arbitration statement here on this page "If this is a BLP article", but immediatly prior to the gutting of this stable article said "I agree entirely. BLP applies"Permalink thus proving his knowledge that BLP Discretionary Sanctions applied. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by David Gerard
Picomtn believes that me having previously nominated Sorcha Faal for deletion on Wikipedia, but writing about them elsewhere with completely unrelated content rules, constitutes a conflict of interest. See 2, in which he also asserts "an apparent bias, and conflict of interest, being evidenced by editor Gerard towards anti-war, anti-government conspiracy type writers" and claims that Jytdog and I are the same person. (He also claims that I may be an NSA sockpuppet, which I am at a loss as to how to usefully respond to.)
This was all in the cause of bringing back the deleted Sorcha Faal article, per Talk:Sorcha_Faal/Archive_1 (notes from the article being in draft space).
On the BLP question, I concur with the approximate consensus at BLPN - I don't know that "Sorcha Faal" is one person, but I have treated the article as a likely BLP because it's safer than not doing so. This implies the need for stringent BLP-quality sourcing.
In the present dispute, Fyddlestix went through the article and did a thorough BLP-quality check on every source and claim, making a series of edits removing dubious material: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]
I went through that series of edits (and you should too), reviewing each one: each has its purpose, and usually relevant guidelines, clearly stated in the summary. Many of the sources were very low-quality, and even the good ones were summarised very badly or misleadingly. That chain of edits was IMO a thorough, correct and commendable action on a very badly sourced BLP.
Checkingfax and Picomtn attempted to edit-war back this material that had been removed for being completely unsuitable for a BLP, claiming "consensus" because the bad material had not been removed previously. Checkingfax's claims on this page that BLP status holds argues against their actions in putting the dubious material back.
This is a content dispute that is still at the talk-page state of resolution.
Picomtn is an editor who does not appear to understand how to work productively at Wikipedia, despite much effort by several people. Checkingfax I would urge to default to greater caution with likely BLPs. - David Gerard (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Jytdog
Oh my. So premature. Arbcom is for situations where there is intractable disruption that the community has not been able to manage through normal means, including implementing DS that apply to this topic. This is not even close. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Checkingfax there is no evidence that an actual person named "Sorcha Faal" exists and this is not a BLP matter. I had seen that there is a DS/alert on the talk page; I just noticed that it is a BLP DS notice that you placed on the Talk page here on 3 April 2016. That was not appropriate in my view. The relevant DS are PSCI, what with the claims of conspiracy theories about aliens and whatnot that the site makes, as mentioned in the third paragraph of Sorcha Faal. I had thought until now that the DS notice was for PSCI. If Arbcom declines we should bring this to Clarifications to get a read on what if any DS this article should fall under, if that isn't resolved while the case is being considered. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by clpo13
@Picomtn: Can you provide diffs for the claims you've made? Also, can you elaborate on why Jytdog's archiving was problematic? clpo13(talk) 20:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
@Picomtn: Can you also explain this comment? An "us vs. them" mentality is never a good thing to have on Wikipedia. clpo13(talk) 20:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I also agree with what Jytdog says about this being premature. WP:DR lists many alternatives to try before arbitration. clpo13(talk) 20:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, there is an archive link on Talk:Sorcha Faal; it's included in {{talk header}}. clpo13(talk) 22:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by more or less uninvolved Dennis Brown
This is really about content, thus outside the purview of Arb. No behavior has risen to the level of an Arb case, and other solutions have not been exhausted. It is my opinion it should be declined. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- As to whether or not this article falls under BLP, I have serious questions about that. Since it could be any number of people, even a rotating staff that uses that single pseudonym, and it is not connected to any real life person, it is my opinion that it is not covered under BLP and thus not subject to discretionary sanctions. I think shielding this article under the umbrella of BLP is an administrative mistake. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have filed a request for consensus at WP:AN to determine if this article qualifies for BLP protection. I think that the community (and admin in particular since they are the ones that enforce and are supposed to know this stuff) should opine. I don't see how this consensus will change anything with this case request, but in the interest of full disclosure wanted to make note of it here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Doug Weller
Picomtn's comments at User talk:Natalie.Desautels/sandbox/sf give some context to this. I've tried to help this editor in various ways both on my talk page and hers.[19] I've been involved with the article since April 8th, not May 11th.[20][21] Comments on the Sorchs Fall talk page such as "Here are some of my final thoughts about this, and everyone here at WP should be proud today for the fine work you, and these other editors, are doing to help these people[22], who, like you, are working hard everyday to keep us all safe from the bad things we shouldn't know about. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)" aren't encouraging. Doug Weller talk 21:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- If this is a BLP article and thus sanctions are relevant, I want to point out that the article was replete with unreliable sources, obvious misrepresentation of sources both reliable and unreliable, and original research. Several editoss can attest to that. That being the case, it appears to me that restoring such material en masse rather that gradually by discussion was unsafe. Doug Weller talk 04:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Let's look at the "at least 12 editors" There's you and Checkingfax, although you added the almost all the content. There's me on April 8th (well before March 11th). Then there's User:Somedifferentstuff who removed some sources, at least one for not being an RS, others with the edit summary " REMOVED SOURCES; it is a clear violation of WP:OR to use sources that make no mention of Sorcha Faal". Later User:Jzg removed a lot of material, over 11,000 bytes, on the grounds that it was original research and/or synthesis. 10 days later Jzg again removed material as not having a reliable source, OR, not relevant, not mentioning Faal, etc. The next day User:Amatulic "fixed misquotation and misattribution, removed some unsubstantiated peacock terms about sources". Then User:Edward321 adds a speedy delete tag. Amatulic comes along again to remove some OR. User:ThePlatypusofDoom does a small edit saying "fringe cleanup". A WP:SPA, User:Sstorch, adds a personal comment. And User:Natalie.Desautels does some cleanup including removing a paragraph that was a duplicate of an earlier paragraph (which had a source that didn't mention Faal). Doug Weller talk 12:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Picomtn: - Do you still stand by your statements here[23], eg that governments and intelligence services are funding Wikipedia, and that "if you stray too far out of bounds towards real truth and facts (this scares them you know) you'll find yourself exiled."? And that nearly all editors here are " zealots, partisans, and extremists from all parts of the spectrum"? Doug Weller talk 13:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Let's look at the "at least 12 editors" There's you and Checkingfax, although you added the almost all the content. There's me on April 8th (well before March 11th). Then there's User:Somedifferentstuff who removed some sources, at least one for not being an RS, others with the edit summary " REMOVED SOURCES; it is a clear violation of WP:OR to use sources that make no mention of Sorcha Faal". Later User:Jzg removed a lot of material, over 11,000 bytes, on the grounds that it was original research and/or synthesis. 10 days later Jzg again removed material as not having a reliable source, OR, not relevant, not mentioning Faal, etc. The next day User:Amatulic "fixed misquotation and misattribution, removed some unsubstantiated peacock terms about sources". Then User:Edward321 adds a speedy delete tag. Amatulic comes along again to remove some OR. User:ThePlatypusofDoom does a small edit saying "fringe cleanup". A WP:SPA, User:Sstorch, adds a personal comment. And User:Natalie.Desautels does some cleanup including removing a paragraph that was a duplicate of an earlier paragraph (which had a source that didn't mention Faal). Doug Weller talk 12:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Checkingfax
This situation is under BLP Discretionary Sanctions and is therefore exempt to other preliminary means of resolution.
- Additionally, complainant, Picomtn has already taken this issue to any possible preliminary noticeboards.
Discretionary sanctions alert: topic=blp: Fyddlestix David Gerard
Diff showing last 1000 edits going back to starting of Draft.
Editor Fyddlestix and others reverted article gutting edits after being apprised of Discretionary Sanctions, and after being issued unconstructive edit warnings.
Diffs showing editor/admin Guy posting edit summaries that violate BLP guidelines and BLP discretionary sanctions. Admins are expected to know not to do that: "Rabbit hole, nonsense on nonsense, minor nutter, conspiritards, conspiracy loons". [24][25][26][27][28]
Permalink showing editor/admin/arbitrator Doug Weller asking BLP noticeboard if Sorcha Faal reports was a BLP or not. Also, shows that editor Fyddlestix did not participate in the discussion, but instead used the posting as an alert to go over and clandestinely slash the Sorcha Faal reports article.
Permalink showing that editor Natalie.Desautels was poised to make substantial productive copy-edits about the same time.
Permalink of talk page and link to talk page archive showing that editor Fyddlestix never sought consensus to gut the article.
Permalink shows editor David Gerard putting a proposed deletion tag on the original Sorcha Faal article 6:06 am, 30 March 2013
Diff showing that editor Only in death changed article name back to Sorcha Faal with zero consensus. Article name Sorcha Faal was the original name but it was changed to Sorcha Faal reports per suggestion of editor/admin Amatulic and consensus discussion of editors Checkingfax, Guy, and Picomtn.
Permalink showing substantial talk page consensus getting the Sorcha Faal article to its stable 25K version (including references) up to May 11, 2016 (the point at which editor Fyddlestix made an 80% reduction through two hours of continuous bold non-consensus editing).
The 25K version had received consensus via talk page consensus and via edit consensus per WP:Consensus guidelines, and was stable.
Editor MjolnirPants reverted helpful edits performed by Checkingfax without providing an edit summary, nor without gaining consensus, or offering a talk page explanation.
Permalink showing editor Jytdog without consensus, archived 60 days of consensus talk page discussion 30 days before any dormant threads would have been auto-archived anyway. Respectfully submitted, {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
22:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Fyddlestix
Nothing here comes close to requiring Arbcom's attention - it's a content dispute. Picomtn (and Checkingfax), object to a series of edits I made to Sorcha Faal reports, which I came to via this posting at BLPN. I believe these edits were constructive and policy-compliant, certainly they made in good faith. The article previously was rife with POV wording and content, had content that failed verification, and relied on many poor-quality or unreliable sources. I don't believe that prior consensus is or was required to perform a cleanup on an article that was in that much of a mess.
My edits started here: note that I explained each of them in the summary, and posted explanations to both BLPN and the article talk page once I'd completed the cleanup. These were BOLD edits - I was fully prepared to have them reverted and to seek a broader consensus for them, fortunately this proved easy as the edits garnered support from numerous other users (including 2 administrators), and were opposed only by Picomtn and Checkingfax.
Picomtn seems to not understand how wikipedia works very well - but I am surprised that Checkingfax (an experienced editor who I know does great work elsewhere) chose to fight my revisions with such intensity. From where I stand it's obvious that the old version of the page was unacceptable, and incompatible with key policies like NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR. And I was particularly troubled by their use of a DS notice to express opposition to my edits and (I guess?) try to spook me out of defending them. I think that was inappropriate, especially since I believe my edits removed several BLP violations.
As far as the BLP question, what some of those commenting may not know is that both the website whatdoesitmean.com and the pseudonym Sorcha Faal are associated with a name in multiple places on the web (eg, snopes, rational wiki), which is at least potentially a real individual's name. That info's not in the article because it can't be reliably sourced - but in my opinion that does suggest that BLP should apply. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Only in Death
I became aware of the article due to the BLP noticeboard notification. (to address Dennis) 'Sorcha Faal' is a living person using a pen name. That we dont know their actual name is irrelevant. All the reliable sources available refer to them as one person, not a group. Probably because people channelling that much conspiracy nonsense rarely work well with others. Now the article at 'Sorcha Faal' prior to its rename to Sorcha Faal reports would be a BLP. The article after the rename (due to the substantial material on the 'person') would also be covered by the BLP policy even if at that time it was not primarily a biography due to the inclusion of all the report info. The problem with it under 'Sorcha Faal reports' was that it lacked scope. It wanted to not be a biography so it could include lots of unreliable sources for material. Once that material was removed (and most of it was badly sourced) it was no longer primarily about the reports - which with a few exceptions are non-notable lunacy - and the only real reliable sourcing was regarding the identity and impact of the person known as Sorcha Faal - hence the rename back. As it stands due to the impact of some of the reports, Sorcha Faal as a conspiracy theorist is notable. The vast majority of their reports are not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by ThePlatypusofDoom
I was slightly involved in this case. I was notified at the fringe noticeboard. I really wasn't involved in the discussion, but from a purely WP:FRINGE point of view, this page should be protected. It is a magnet for conspiracy theorists, and the people involved at the fringe noticeboard don't want to clean this up again and again. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Also, checkingfax isn't helping anything by accusing MjolnirPants, who I have worked with at the fringe noticeboard and is clearly helping the article. I agree with MjolnirPants. Just semi-protect it and decline this content dispute. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by MjolnirPants
Checkingfax's statement is highly misleading.
- His claim that the name was changes with zero consensus is false: in fact, only in death moved it at the suggestion of another editor and with the support of others. Furthermore, Checkingfax's assertion of a lack of consensus only works if consensus is a unanimous vote. The majority of users participating in the discussion about the move agreed that it should be changed, and provided good reasons why. Two editors said that it should not be moved, but gave no policy or logical reasons as to why. The evidence of this is right there on the talk page.
- His claim that I reverted helpful edits by him (referring to himself in the third person, which has become a red flag for me) without an edit summary is proven false by his own diff. The edit summary was "See talk" where I had posted a longer-than-an-edit-summary rationale for my edit. His assertion that I had not gained consensus once again relies upon the assumtion that consensus is a unanimous vote: In fact, I did so under the same rationale as 2-3 other users, against no policy or logical arguments, and with the (apparent after-the-fact) tacit support from Checkingfax himself (who had been apparently happy to edit the version of the article I supported). In truth, I reverted his edits mistakenly, as I have explicitly explained to him already. I had intended to restore the shorter version of the article, and was under the mistaken impression that this was not the current version of the article. It was. When Fyddlestix saw my edit, he advised me that I had undone useful edits by Checkingfax. I acknowledged this and agreed that they were good edits. Fyddlestix then reverted my edit, which I tacitly supported. Checkingfax then asked me to revert, and I explained that this was already done. When he asked me another question, I realized my mistake (note that the mistake had been fully corrected by this point) and politely explained myself to him. Apparently, he has not bothered to read that before jumping the gun (and the shark, as far as the DS issues go IMHO) by coming here.
I cannot speak to the rest of his claims, beyond pointing out that the editors he claims were warned of the DS's are all more experienced and active editors who have spent more time dealing with DS articles than Checkingfax. Furthermore, Picomtn has a history of conspiracy-minded venting on and about WP, which sets off a whole series of red flags. They've already been addressed above, so I won't harp on them beyond saying that I've found his behavior to be remarkably non-helpful in almost every way; he does not discuss, but simply dictates what he wants, he gets sarcastic when he doesn't get his way, he rants to those whom he thinks will listen to him, and he holds the subject of this article in a much greater esteem than can be explained rationally. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by John Carter
This does seem to me to be jumping the gun at least a little. So far as I can tell, there are still some questions whether the real person or people who have used this name still qualify as living, and/or whether any content on the page might damage that person or persons. Under the circumstances, as I said elsewhere, I think it would be more in the interests of any people who think they might be harmed by this to contact WP:OTRS, give the person there information on how this might require attention, and have it resolved in that way. But I don't think that we can really know which policies or guidelines might apply if we know as little about the theoretically living people as we do here. I suppose, at least theoretically, this might maybe extend to the possibility of treating every editor on wikipedia as being under the same policy, and I rather doubt that this would be the place to do that. The relevant policy page would probably be a better place for such a discussion. John Carter (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Sorcha Faal article protection from editors failing to follow WP consensus policy.: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/0/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
- Decline as premature. The presence of discretionary sanctions is not a reason to bypass all other forms of dispute resolution; if someone is engaging in disruptive conduct, then they can be reported to arbitration enforcement, but everyone involved is otherwise expected to follow the normal process for resolving content disputes. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Decline per Kirill. @Picomtn: I understand that you're relatively inexperienced and feeling a little ganged-up-on, but you'll have a much easier time here if you take on board the feedback you're getting from other editors here about your approach to editing and especially sourcing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Decline per Kirill, in the hopes this can be resolved far more easily somewhere else. Courcelles (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Decline. Agreed that this is premature. To User:Checkingfax in particular: I'm not sure if by This situation is under BLP Discretionary Sanctions and is therefore exempt to other preliminary means of resolution. you mean that this is exempt from other dispute resolution because it is a BLP, or because it is under discretionary sanctions. As my colleagues mentioned above, articles under discretionary sanctions can still be handled in normal dispute resolution venues (typically WP:AE). I do somewhat understand the reluctance to take BLP issues to public community dispute resolution, but unless they involve private information, or information that otherwise should not be discussed publicly on Wikipedia, BLPs can still be handled by the community. I'm hoping that the community's processes will be sufficient for this issue. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Decline. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Decline per above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Decline per above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Requests for clarification and amendment
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3
Initiated by Nableezy at 22:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Statement by Nableezy
The longstanding practice on what edits are governed under the prohibitions passed as part of ARBPIA and ARBPIA2 was that it applied to all edits within the topic area, meaning pages that as a whole are a part of the topic area and any edit to them is covered (e.g. Hamas, Israeli-occupied territories ...) and individual edits that are about the topic to pages that as a whole do not fall within the topic area are also covered while edits to those pages outside of the topic are not (eg editing the Barack Obama page to edit material on his views and or actions regarding the conflict are covered but edits regarding his election to the presidency are not). The prohibition WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 however says that IP editors and named accounts with less than 500 edits/30 days of tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. That on its face leaves out edits to pages that are largely outside the topic area but edits that very much are within the topic area. I'm requesting clarification on whether both sets of edits are covered under the prohibition, and if so suggest an edit along the lines of are prohibited from making any edits that could be ... replacing are prohibited from editing any page that could be .... This came up on AE, so thought it wise to ask for clarification here. I'm not entirely sure who needs to be a party here, I just added the admin dealing with the AE complaint.
- @Kirill Lokshin: Sean's comment below has several examples, the ones I think are the least ambiguous are [29], [30], [31], and [32]. None of those articles can reasonably be said to be, as a whole, part of the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, but each of the edits unambiguously are. Maybe Ed is right and this is premature, but I'm not too concerned about that specific AE. Regardless of how that is closed I'd prefer a crystal clear prohibition one way or the other, and this seems like an easy thing to make that clear. nableezy - 16:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by EdJohnston
- User:Nableezy probably opened this due to some comments made in the thread at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Wikiwillkane. The AE thread is still open. At the moment it appears that the AE complaint might well be closed due to an agreement by Wikiwillkane to cease all edits in the Arab-Israeli topic area until he has reached 500 edits. In my opinion this request for clarification is premature. In the past it has been agreed by the committee that some articles are under a topic ban only in part. Whatever the decision reached about partially-banned articles, the AE can go forward anyway since several fully-banned articles are named in the diffs. EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- The thread at AE about Wikiwillkane has now been closed with a warning against any further violations of the 500/30 rule. I am unsure whether it makes this ARCA moot or not, since I think Nableezy would like the committee to issue a general ruling. The question (I think) is whether the General 500/30 prohibition and a typical ARBPIA topic ban have the same scope. That is, they both restrict all A-I-related editing across all of Wikipedia even when the entire article (such as Roseanne Barr) is not otherwise an ARBPIA topic. In the AE I found myself rejecting the arguments by Wikiwillkane who believed that adding mention of Roseanne Barr's speech to a BDS meeting was not an A-I violation. My view was based on what I consider to be common sense. The matter is sufficiently obvious that I don't think the committee needs to pass any motion to revise the wording of the 500/30 prohibition. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Sean.hoyland
Recent examples: [33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52]
- ARBCOM authorized the WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 restriction for the ARBPIA topic area as everyone knows.
- The restriction can now be implemented automatically by the server via extended confirmed protection (see WP:BLUELOCK). This automates the task of ensuring IPs and accounts that are not allowed to edit certain articles cannot edit those articles.
- Extended confirmed protection has not been rolled out across the topic area for reasons that are unclear to me at least. It has only been implemented on articles on request after the articles have been subjected to disruption. The ARBCOM authorized restriction will be enforced whether or not an article is given extended confirmed protection. If the restriction is not enforced by the server via extended confirmed protection, it will be enforced by editors. The effect will be the same but the cost is different. Extended confirmed protection automates the enforcement of a restriction that already unambiguously applies to thousands of articles.
- Extended confirmed protection is limited in the sense that it only works at the article level. So it could be argued that it can only reasonably be implemented on any page that "could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". If extended confirmed protection had been rolled out across the topic area, Wikiwillkane, an editor recently brought to AE, would not have been able to edit the Israeli-occupied territories, Palestinian political violence, Omar Barghouti and the Judea and Samaria Area articles and no one would have had to waste their time reverting them.
- Extended confirmed protection could not have prevented the creation of the Dafna Meir memorial article created for one of the 230+ victims of the latest wave of violence and the associated image copyright violations. Editors have to enforce extended confirmed protection in cases like that and they will.
- Extended confirmed protection is also not yet smart enough to help with the examples above where content unambiguously related to the Arab-Israeli conflict is added/updated/removed by people whose edits would have been rejected by the server if they had made the same edit in a protected article. The 500/30 rule needs to be implemented at the content/statement level to provide the kind of protection it is intended to provide. Any weakness will be exploited by people who lack the experience or integrity to comply with Wikipedia's rules. Editors who ignore WP:NOTADVOCATE will relentlessly exploit gaps in the protection, gaps that currently have to be plugged by people rather than the server.
Sean.hoyland - talk 13:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Sir Joseph
We also have something similar where an editor will revert and label it ARBPIA 30/500 when the article is not under sanction at all. Most recently, I saw it at one of Israel's ambassadors. The page has no mention of any conflict, yet someone edited the page and it was reverted as if that page is under sanctions. What is to be done with things like that? Sir Joseph (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- In addition, why is Haaretz under sanctions? It's an article about a newspaper company. I looked at the history and couldn't find vandalism so extreme to label it under ARBPIA. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Nableezy, can you provide some examples of the types of edits in question? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- 500/30 applies to all edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict (not just articles). However BLUELOCK should only be applied to pages which are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict to avoid a situation where we have Barrack Obama's article (for example) BLUELOCK'd due to a related paragraph. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- My first instinct was that this is scope creep. In particular, there is no way of informing newer editors of this restriction before they make an edit about the topic to some seemingly entirely unrelated page. But the examples offered are so obviously inappropriate that I do think they should be covered as a matter of common sense. I would hope to see people reserve strict enforcement for unambiguous cases, though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed with Callanecc on this one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Callan --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Coming late to the party with nothing to add except that I agree with Callan also. Doug Weller talk 17:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Amendment request: Race and intelligence
Initiated by Penwhale at 04:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#TrevelyanL85A2_topic-banned and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Modified by motion (September 2013)
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Penwhale (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
- Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Information about amendment request
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#TrevelyanL85A2_topic-banned and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Modified by motion (September 2013)
-
- Mathsci (talk · contribs) to be indefinitely prohibited from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs); this would in essence make it a two-way IBAN between the two editors. because of the wording of the TrevelyanL85A2 TBAN.
Statement by Penwhale
Previously I have filed an amendment request, now archived here, on the same topic. I was told that the issue would be revisited when Mathsci was under consideration to be unbanned/unblocked, and it might have been an oversight to not visit this issue.
Somethings to make it easier:
- The linked remedy against TrevelyanL85A2 has an embedded one-way interaction ban within that remedy (TrevelyanL85A2 is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including user talk pages, or from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic... [emphasis added]).
- The linked motion turned certain one-way interaction bans into two-way IBANs (and continues to be in effect when Mathsci is unbanned).
- Previous request was basically turned down on the grounds that Mathsci was banned (at the time) and didn't need to be addressed.
- Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 04:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
@Mathsci: This request isn't meant to be an attack on your editing; rather, it was a concern (at the time) that a one-way IBAN isn't beneficial, and I note that some of IBANs involving you were converted into mutual IBANs. However, since arbitrators figured it didn't need to be addressed at the time (because you were banned and TrevelyanL85A2 was blocked), they must figured that they can revisit the issue at a later time. I am unsure whether they didn't know such a request existed back then, but I figure it needs to be visited nonetheless. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 07:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
@Mathsci: Hospital visits are never fun (especially ER visits). I don't know whether my well wishes would be taken at face value given the fact that I submitted this request, but I still wish you a speedy recovery, nonetheless. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 07:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Mathsci
This seems to be a repeat of the above request by Penwhale, who has disclosed that he is a RL friend of TrevelyanL85A2. I don't quite understand the point of the request at this stage.
I will, however, take this opportunity to bring up a recent query from an arbitrator.
My site ban was unrelated to editing in the topic area of R&I. It rested on one edit to my user page. The site ban could have been appealed after six months. I waited for two and a half years.
Shortly after the unban, one of the arbitrators privately raised a query with me. Apparently during their discussions some of the arbitrators had a distant memory that my topic ban "by mutual consent", imposed in August 2010, had been lifted. That is correct. It happened at the initiative of arbitrators and was enacted by motion on 20 December 2010. I did not request it.
In March 2016, after a majority of arbitrators had voted to unban me, an intermediary from arbcom asked me if I would agree that a condition of the unban should be a topic ban appealable after 6 months. On arbcom-l I pointed out my voluntary withdrawal from the topic area since August 2010, mentioning the motion of December 2010. That information on the voluntary withdrawal from the topic area was adopted in the current phrasing of the unban but now with a topic ban in perpetuity. That was an odd thing to do.
What are my editing interests at present? A return to a long but incomplete article on baroque music; and the use of images from illuminated manuscripts to enhance articles on fifteenth century art and history.
I have just come out of hospital after an emergency. Here fresh on the doormat is Penwhale's rerun of his request from 2014. Pure bliss. Mathsci (talk) 06:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Opabinia regalis: thanks. What I wrote above just concerned a few loose ends; they have no real urgency and could be discussed at some other time. Mathsci (talk) 07:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by TrevelyanL85A2
I think I should address Newyorkbrad's comment. As a party to this request, I assume I'm allowed to comment here.
The reason ArbCom made the rest of the interaction bans mutual in September 2013 is because Mathsci kept pursuing his conflicts with other editors even when they were inactive or were no longer editing R&I articles. During the 2012 R&I review, he was doing that to me when I'd been offline for the past four months. SightWatcher described a similar experience in his statement here, and here are some examples that were directed at The Devil's Advocate: [53], [54], [55], and [56]. The last two diffs happened while TDA was under a one-way interaction ban with Mathsci.
Part of what happened is that individuals who had been in conflict with Mathsci on R&I articles were given one-way interaction bans with him, and then Mathsci followed these users to unrelated disputes and they weren't allowed to respond. When he did that to me, I objected to it, and the diffs of my complaint were reported at AE as violations of my interaction ban. [57]
I know that Mathsci hasn't tried to game my interaction ban with him in the month since he was unbanned, but the fact that he and I are no longer editing the R&I topic is not a reason to assume there's no danger of that. Most of the times he did this to me and other people before his ban, he and the other editors weren't editing R&I articles when these things happened. I had a lot of trouble dealing with this when it was directed at me, and my poor response to it led to me being blocked for two years. I'd like ArbCom to make sure a similar situation doesn't happen again. TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Newyorkbrad
I appreciate Penwhale's attention to detail and good faith in raising this issue: sometimes it's best to anticipate a potential recurrence of problems and nip them in the bud. That being said, I think this is probably not one of those times. Mathsci has resumed editing, but he will not be editing about race and intelligence, the area in which he previously had negative interactions with TrevelyanL85A2. Meanwhile, TrevelyanL85A2 has a total of three edits within the past year, none of which relate to race and intelligence. Unless something changes, the odds that the two of them will come into conflict again are hopefully slight. Unless I have missed something, the better path might be to let these two editors try to forget about each other, rather than reviving the ill memories of the past on this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Johnuniq
TrevelyanL85A2's statement shows that the message may not have been received—the community is over R&I battles and anyone pursuing them or past participants will not be successful. TrevelyanL85A2 has made a total of ten edits in the last 21 months and should focus on Wikipedia's purpose rather than pursuit of some theoretical justice.
Penwhale should know that "I know TrevelyanL85A2 in real life because of a mutual friend" (posted 31 July 2014 at WP:AN) is a good reason to leave requests like this for someone else.
Per not bureaucracy it is not necessary for Arbcom to formally address the issue raised in this request. Swift action will follow if Mathsci ever pokes TrevelyanL85A2, and imposing an unnecessary formal sanction for a very productive editor would not help the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Race and intelligence: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Race and intelligence: Arbitrator views and discussion
- I haven't had a chance to look in detail at this yet, but did want to say that I'm sorry to hear about your emergency, Mathsci, and glad to hear you're doing better. If you want to discuss other aspects of your editing restrictions, I suggest opening a new request. On the current topic, my first reaction is to agree with NYB that this isn't really a matter that needs urgent attention and can probably be settled by both parties just ignoring each other and going about their business. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see any need for us to do anything. Mathsci, I'm also sorry to hear about your emergency. It doesn't say indefinite, just "standard topic ban". You were told 6 months originally and in my opinion you can appeal then. Whether that is in your own best interests is up to you to decide. If you think that editing in that area puts pressure on you, wait a while to appeal. Doug Weller talk 17:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Motions
Requests for enforcement
Miles Creagh
Closing without action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:51, 20 May 2016 (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 Miles Creagh
Editor is involved in a dispute about the official status of the Flag of Northern Ireland and if it is used to represent Northern Ireland or if the Union Flag is used, the article has seen a slow edit war which while not breaching the 1RR restriction it certainly stretching it waiting just long enough so as to avoid sanctions. As can be seen in the diffs the editor removed that flag was not official and then removed that the Union Flag is the only flag used officially in Northern Ireland. I asked the editor to self revert to avoid this process but they refused here and said they will wait till after this request is completed in some way to negate this request. The whole crux of the dispute as I said is that Ulster Banner has no official status and that the Union Flag is the only official flag and mentions of both of these things where removed by Miles, a compromise was agreed which was the addition of a sentence proposed by User:Eckerslike the edit was made and then Miles removed more thus ending the proposed compromise. I wont be surprised if one of the dormant accounts come along and revert I already asked for admin assistance on the page looks like a sock farm because if it looks like a duck...
Discussion concerning Miles CreaghStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Miles CreaghIt's too bad that Mo ainm didn't just provide me the diffs when I asked him repeatedly to do so on my talk page[58]. Now I know what he's talking about! I would argue that the second diff he provides is not in fact a revert, as it removes no content whatsoever from the article. Eckerslike had just inserted this [59] new sentence that we had all three of us (Mo ainm, Eckerslike and myself) discussed and agreed on here[60], as part of a good-faith effort to move a long-running dispute on a difficult topic towards a balanced conclusion. The new sentence Eckerslike inserted as agreed at the start of the second paragraph of the lead was "There has been no flag in use by the government for the purpose of representing Northern Ireland since 1973". The existing first sentence of the second paragraph, which became the second sentence after Eckerslike's insertion read "During official events, the British government uses the Union flag which is the official flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and is the only flag used by the government in Northern Ireland." (My emphases). What Mo ainm is now claiming is a revert that removes content, is not a revert as it doesn't remove any content. In fact, it is me removing a repetitive redundancy from the paragraph, as the very content and concept it conveys had just been given greater prominence, per the discussion on talk, by the addition of a new first sentence to the paragraph conveying the exact same information. I would argue that the relevant diffs in this case, that demonstrate no content was removed, but was switched around pursuant to a discussion are these [61]. That said, Mo ainm clearly feels there has been a revert here, and now he has indicated what he meant, so I will now self-revert in the interests of reducing tensions and furthering the on-going attempt to resolve this dispute. Done [62] Miles Creagh (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Miles Creagh
|
Tiptoethrutheminefield
Editors are reminded that WP:CIVIL is not just a suggestion. The WordsmithTalk to me 01:01, 22 May 2016 (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 Tiptoethrutheminefield
Probably could find more evidence of WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude in the AA2 area but the above should be sufficient.
[66].
I'm not quite sure what EtienneDolet is talking about. Apparently they object to me making edits to this article at all and think this is some kind of conspiracy against *them* despite the fact that this report has nothing to do with them. I made edits to the article because it was in the news, then I remembered about it when Jamala won the Eurovision contest and I followed some links. This appears to be a desperate attempt at deflecting the issue from Tiptoethrutheminefield's problematic behavior. I'll leave EtienneDolet's - who just jumped in to edit war on that article [67] - motives out of it, though it's not hard to guess them. I resent any charges, which are completely baseless and amount to casting WP:ASPERSIONS, that I have "unclean hands" (whatever that is suppose to mean) or that I'm pushing "pro-Azeri POV" which is ridiculous and it only reveals EtienneDolet's own biased WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC) This isn't the place to discuss content (I have discussed it on talk page - EtienneDolet and Tiptoethroughtheminefield, aside from their personal attack above, have not) but just to make it clear the two paragraphs I removed (I guess that's "mass deletions") are obviously highly POV, and sourced to non-reliable sources like breitbart news, a bunch of primary sources from the involved governments and a few others non-reliable sources. Then a couple actually reliable sources are included to source trivial or irrelevant facts to make it look legit. It's a classic POV pushing tactic. And yes, like many topic areas which have been placed under discretionary sanctions due to nationalistic WP:BATTLEGROUND this one too has its share of dedicated tag teams. @User:The_Wordsmith - in the past I've let stuff like this slide. Then it just build up and eventually ended up being a huge mess. And at that point administrators and arbcoms were like "why didn't you bring it to WP:AE earlier?". Well, here I am bringing it to WP:AE earlier. Additionally keep in mind that User:Tiptoethroughtheminefiled has been sanctioned, with good cause, in this topic area. ADD: another diff to support that Tiptoethroughthebattlefield is just not getting it. A reasonable user, interested in compromise and working towards a neutral article would have at this point struck the offending personal attack and said "ok sorry, I went to far, let's discuss the issue". Unfortunately this is NOT what Tiptoethroughthebattlefield has done, instead they've just flung around more weird accusations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Finally, after a comment like that *how exactly* are we suppose to have a constructive discussion about the issue at hand? Putting aside for the moment the fact that the comment clearly indicates Tiptoethroughtheminefield is not interested in such, it also shuts down discussion with others. And of course the fact that s/he is not only defending but doubling down on the personal attacks in their comment here only makes it more problematic. Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC) @Tiptoethroughtheminefield - yes, the article, and that section in particular is garbage (there's a ton of material on Wikipedia which is most accurately described as garbage, this is just one instance of it). It uses sources like breitbart news and a bunch of press releases from obviously biased governments, which then it presents as fact. Describing it as such reference content. You may disagree but in that case you should respond on talk page with constructive arguments (and preferably do the real work of finding reliable sources) on the talk page. What you SHOULD NOT do is make comments like "Volunteer Marek needs to pack up his own crap and stick to edit warring in subject areas he knows he has a carte blanche permit to edit war in. " which is a clear cut personal attack specifically because it involves discussing editors. See the difference? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning TiptoethrutheminefieldStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by TiptoethrutheminefieldVolunteer Marek drives by an article he has never edited before, in a field he has never (or very rarely) edited before, and starts deleting VERY large quantities of referenced content [69] without prior discussion, content he MUST have known would constitute a contentious deletion. When reverted, he refers to a talk page post he's made in a dead and settled discussion thread (his post is made one month after the last post there [70]), that is half way up the talk page and is about an entirely different subject, to allege that a lack of "consensus" permits all of this deletion, and he deletes it all again [71]. This is a misuse of the talk page (pointing out that misuse and suggesting it should stop is a "personal attack" according to VM). When others point out that the deleted content had numerous sources VM then goes on an I-don't-like-it tirade against all the sources. Without presenting any argument or evidence, he asserts this source is not "reliable", that source is not "reliable", that one too is not "reliable" - all this is referring to well known and well used sources like The Sunday Times, Le Monde, Eurasianet, etc. And he asserts that media sources based in Armenia or Azerbaijan are "primary sources", when they clearly are not. When this is questioned his assertions get even wilder, now the sources are all "junk", are all "crap" [72]. However, the only "crap" I saw on display was in the arguments coming from Volunteer Marek, and I think for me to have reused his use of the word "crap", and asked him to leave with it, is a fair comment to have made under the circumstances. If he wants to return with proper arguments, and present those arguments in a reasonable way, without edit warring, then he is welcome and I will engage with him. No other editor who has worked on the article has advocated such a massive deletion of content, prior discussion about it been mostly about what appropriate wording to use. I suspect the only reason Volunteer Marek came to 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes is that he was following Étienne Dolet around to cause harassment, after having had several disagreements with that editor on Syrian and Ukrainian and Putin-related articles. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Statement by EtienneDoletThe filer of this report appears to have unclean hands. Volunteer Marek, who has never edited an AA2 article, only did so to revert an edit of mine after the whole feud at Putin subsided in what seems to be classic WP:HOUND-like behavior. He has been pushing some strange pro-Azeri POV at that article ever since. A month later, Marek gets reverted by me at this article, and responds 10 minutes later by making a massive deletion of material concerning human rights violations against Armenians here. In other words, Marek's two instances of editing at this article was either to revert me or bait me to revert him. Since then, for the past three days, Marek has made 2 reverts ([76][77]) to maintain his deletion of an entire section consisting of 11,000+ characters and 30+ sources/reports while edit-warring over several users in this 1RR article. That's one revert every 24 hours. One can only assume that there's some WP:GAMING going on. As for Tiptoe's comment, I don't know if that is necessarily an AA2 issue in and of itself. Perhaps WP:ANI would be a better venue to handle a single remark like that. As for his editing pattern, I'd say that his edits are rather productive and neutral. He'll go so far as to confront Armenian POV here, Azerbaijani POV here, and Turkish POV there. That's quite a rarity in the AA2 these days. Hence the main reason why I think he's a good asset to the topic area. Étienne Dolet (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by OptimusViewWhile the article is under 1RR rule, Volunteer Marek already made 3 reverts [78][79][80] during the last 4 days, deleting a whole section with very dubious and disaffected comments. Several users asked him to stop editwarring, but no result. OptimusView (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Comment by My very best wishesIt is wrong that lower civility standards should apply to discussions in nationalism-related areas. To the contrary, higher standards must apply. It is precisely the personal attacks of the kind provided above (and these comments are undoubtely directed at a contributor) that makes editing in such subject areas unbearable. If someone can not edit politely in difficult subject areas, s/he should not edit in such areas. Very simple. My very best wishes (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment by KingsindianIt is almost impossible to avoid this mild level of hostility and language in nationalist areas. I suggest closing with no action. On the content matter, I agree with Volunteer Marek's position - a lot of the content is junk and should be deleted. However, the local consensus is for inclusion. Unfortunately, it can be very hard to get consensus to delete junk in such areas. That's just the way it is. I suggest an RfC to get more people looking at the article. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Comment by usernameResult concerning Tiptoethrutheminefield
|
TripWire
Withdrawn by filing party. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:26, 20 May 2016 (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 TripWire
Withdrawn and 'My apologies! --ArghyaIndian (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Discussion concerning TripWireStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by TripWire
Statement by SheriffIsInTownThe request should be declined as stale. I went through almost all the diffs, i did not find a single diff younger than a week. Also, please take a note that this request might have been inspired by a couple of recent topic bans e.g. User:Towns Hill and User:FreeatlastChitchat. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by TopGunI'm here as I watch TW's talkpage. The report is blatantly frivolous and full of stale diffs. From what I understand, it is an attempt to resolve disputes by removing users from the topic area which is not how wikipedia works. You have to go through the DR process. I also noticed that Arghya was warned just above in another AE report. The fact that he filed this report inspite of that definitely calls for a block of appropriate length that would deter any future hounding of such sort. The offer of withdrawal of this report by the filer seems be looking for a way to avoid WP:BOOMERANG only after he saw it coming where as he was wasting every one's time with lengthy replies in the above AE report(s) and even here till now when he had the WP:ROPE. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable on wikipedia. TripWire, I would really like to note that you dont need to respond with such long statements... admins are generally experienced enough users to get your point if you simply list your arguments (as you finally did in your update statement). I also hope you will avoid discussing the users in future and focus on content instead, unlike those diffs from April (although stale) as I noticed RegentsPark recently applied restrictions to the Kashmir conflict topics for all users, esp. wrt discussion on users. I am also noting this here as a record so that admins can keep a check on editors who bring ethnic claims about other editors in future edits instead of discussing content which is categorically mentioned in the restriction. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC) PS. ArghyaIndian blanked the report which I have reverted. If you want to withdraw, please leave a comment... but let the admins deal with whether they have to hat the report or take some action. Blanking does not guarantee that WP:BOOMERANG wont be opted by an admin anyway. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning TripWire
|