Dispute resolution (Requests) |
---|
Tips |
Content disputes |
Conduct disputes |
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
Track related changes |
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 transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.
Please make your request in the appropriate section:
|
Requests for arbitration
Requests for clarification and amendment
Motions
Requests for enforcement
Magherbin
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 Magherbin
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Ayaltimo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 03:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Magherbin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- [1] His history of edit wars was being covered by the discretionary sanctions.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
Warnings:
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Magherbin has since made two different (and baseless) accusations against me of being a sockpuppet. [10] [11]
Magherbin has a habit of making bold edits and forcing people to follow his policy as if he runs encyclopedia. I've constantly been engaging in good faith with him. All this user does is follow me and harasses my edits.
1. It's started off on the Harari people page. I removed unsourced additions but were reverted by Magherbin. [12] I've explained to him on the talk page why it's filled with original research.
2. The source literally says "And settled among the Cushites of the Harar-Chercher plateau produced the semitised culture". [13] Nowhere does it say they settled the shores of Somaliland.
3. "By the thirteenth century, Hararis were among the administrators of the Ifat Sultanate." Does not state on page 228. [14]
4. "The sixteenth century saw Oromos invading regions of the Somali peninsula from the northern areas of Hargeisa to its southern portions such as Lower Juba, incorporating the Harari people." Does not state that at all when you use the search bar called From inside the book. No page reference either. [15]
I've decided to leave that page alone in good faith despite the page containing several original research because I was new and I didn't want to cause more tension. There was another page called Yusuf bin Ahmad al-Kawneyn where Magherbin decided to engage in an edit war against me and another user. [16]
He wanted a one-sided view and was against other scholars criticizing his sources to the point, he thought it would be wise to undo both user's revisions. After explaining to him on the talk page he left the page after realizing his misconduct.
He has followed me and conducted edit wars with me on several more pages. [17] [18] [19]
Despite coming from a recent block due to edit warring he didn't mind reverting several articles against me and I decided to let him have it so I can use it against him in the future of how impatient and impulsive this user is when you check out his history. [20]
What I find very hypocritical of him is even if the Harari people page contains original research you can't remove it without consensus because it's a two-year-old revision. [21] I followed the same policy for Ifat Sultanate. [22] The reason for this was because we were discussing several topics so we can make major changes but he didn't want that. It's like he manipulates his own rules.
Nevertheless, I proposed a brilliant idea where we could solve our dispute. I told him on his talk page [23] that we should create sub-sections for people of Ifat Sultanate discussing both theories since there is lots of research on both sides. He didn't like that neutral idea because he wants a single POV to be pushed while repressing other views despite massive scholarly research. He made a claim that it contains original research and I asked him to please share which source contains original research. He only mentioned that Jabarta was a terminology for all Muslims in the Horn of Africa. I told him this is not from my own mouth but the words of a historical Muslim traveler called Al-Maqrizi. According to Maqrizi, the ancestors of ' Umar Wälasma first settled in Jabara ( or Jabarta ) a region which he says belonged to Zeila; they gradually moved further inland and occupied Ifat. [24] I also explained to him you don't have to agree with the opposing views because it's called theory for a reason and I explicitly told him you can expand your own theory section explaining why you think they're Ethio-Semitic. He didn't like the idea nor would he bring evidence to his claim that it contains original research. He would simply threaten me to self-revert after talking with him on the talk page for a couple of months. [25] This user doesn't wish to progress but waste time and war. I've become fed up with his harassment and calling on all the reasonable moderators to check on his poor behaviour and sanction him. I also want to note that Magherbin was an ex-sock puppeteer with a history of abusing multiple accounts and engaging in edit wars with multiple users. Ayaltimo (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I also want to add a few more things like he claims I failed to follow BRD policy. Where was your BRD policy on Malassay page? Where was your BRD policy on Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi page? Where was your BRD policy on Garad page? It's exactly why you got banned for edit warring, not me. I didn't break any rule I simply made a neutral deal and even proposed the idea on your talk page. [26] I've repeatedly asked him which source contains original research. He has failed to address them and simply gets off the topic without wanting to progress. [27] I've been dealing with sock puppets and vandalism on Ifat Sultanate page. [28] You only came there to start an edit war. I also want to note I and Ragnimo have also run into problems where I reported him for edit warring. [29] Beware of this user's dishonesty. Ayaltimo (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Rosguill If consensus was the way forward why was Magherbin aggressive in making changes and not consulting nicely with other users? For example, on the fourth of May, he could've contacted us why he wants to make a change but he didn't address anything despite being in dispute. [30] He then decided to revert again and I explicitly told him to seek consensus before removing sourced content. [31] He left the page alone because he knew he was being hypocritical. Mind you this is the exact same reason why he got banned just recently when you slide to the next history page who he was in dispute with. [32] If anything this is more concerning. He decided to make changes on Walashma ruler pages after he was with an edit war with another user because he was salty. All this happened within the 10th of March. [33] and I decided to revert them back because he was making changes to year old pages. I thought he would improve after coming back from his ban but I was wrong. He did not care and reverted back without even consulting. [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] I left it alone because I was smart not to get in trouble with him and use this as evidence. The reason why I made new changes for Ifat Sultanate was because Magherbin made similar aggressive new changes on Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi article and he was already in dispute with three users over there. [42] [43] I could've reverted it and asked him to explain on the talk page but I wanted to take things slow and carefully because I was discussing with him on other pages. Also, the idea I proposed was far better because I thought it would end all conflicts. He was trying to push his own view and I accepted it because the demographics are disputed by various scholars so it's better to explain both sides instead of pushing one POV. The idea was not about getting the consensus of reliable sources. He argued they contained original research and I told him three times to state which source contains original research and he would avoid answering it. [44] Nevertheless the big elephant in the room is how is he still edit warring and making aggressive changes in other articles when he just recently came back from a ban for the same reason? That should be the most concerning topic relating to Magherbin. However, I can agree with your conditions and agree with Magherbin to make a self-revert on Ifat Sultanate page if he makes a self-revert on Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi page to make it fair and we can discuss in good faith from there. Ayaltimo (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Magherbin
Statement by Magherbin
An Admin had suggested I report this user on the platform [45] and the user beat me to it apparently. Ayaltimo has trouble citing sources and even uses WP:Circular. I notified noticeboards as the editor began editwarring, and multiple editors expressed their concerns that the source failed reliability. [46] [47] Other users got involved and reverted their edits [48] After this, Ayaltimo added new content on the same article which contained original research, synth and other issues, I reverted these edits and I explained to the user on the talk page about BRD, the user reverted. [49] Ayaltimo fails to follow the BRD process and instead editwarrs to maintain these problematic edits that I express concern about on the talk pages. The user doesnt know how to handle a content dispute and turns it into a battleground. This is a recurring problem, the last time an admin had to intervene when the user kept insisting on consensus after removing content that was on the page for years. [50]. We are also in an RFC due to a dispute and the user clearly holds fringe views thats i've been trying to tackle on these pages and Ayaltimo has been a road block, see rfc [51]. Ayaltimo in their report is discussing content dispute on an enforcement page, I believe this is a competence issue when including the inability to properly source. Ayaltimo surprisingly seems to have admitted to the problem on the board.[52] Ragnimo the other user who had similar problematic edits like Ayaltimo is now blocked for socking [53] and Ayaltimo may be continuing disruption on their behalf.
User:Rosguill, on point one, there's another source attached to the statement which Ayaltimo ignored which states "From the northern Somali coast, the Adare (Harar) cultural synthesis occurred and spread into the Chercher - Harar plateau" see.p.53 [54]. Adare is another name for the Harari as stated on the articles page "The Harari were previously known as "Adere", although this term is now considered derogatory.". The article doesnt even state they settled in Somali territory as claimed by Ayaltimo anyway. The second point of contention is the statement that "Hararis were among administrators of Ifat", the source clearly states that Hararis were among the leading principality of ifat with other groups, see p.288 [55]. I have no issues with altering the wording so that it can go more in line with the source however Ayaltimo has not provided any solution. Ayaltimo wants the statement removed completely and has even implied on the talk page that Harar/Hararis have nothing to do with Ifat Sultanate, they say here "Sa'ad ad-Din II was born in Zeila and was headquartered in Zeila. He was the last Sultan of the Ifat Sultanate. He had nothing to do with Harar". On point three p. 155 states; ""During their huge expansion in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Oromo occupied a territory as far as Hargaysa and the lower Juba and had assimilated its inhabitants of Hadiya-Sidama and Harala-Harari stock" [56]. The user stated the statements in the article were fringe and said they would take it to the board but did not do so. Overall the user has a POV that only Somalis ever lived in modern Somali territory. Magherbin (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Rosguill, some google book previews are regionally locked it depends on location, I can see the text on my end and thats what it states. Responding to your point about page numbers not being cited, at the time of citing, google books didnt reveal the page number. There's also issues with searching keywords at times on google books hence why some results dont appear. Anyways Ayaltimo is suggesting I follow BRD on the Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi article when clearly the user didnt even oppose any of my edits there. This is why I was correct in the fact that the user is turning wikipedia into WP:BATTLE. Ayaltimo was instead removing the dispute tag I placed after the now blocked sock ragnimo reverted my edits. [57] I was following BRD and discussing on the talk page unlike Ayaltimo. Magherbin (talk) 05:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Magherbin
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- The sanction is at WP:ARBHORN and Magherbin was notified in diff on 11 December 2020. Re the first point concerning Harari people, Rosguill reverted your changes diff. Admins are not in a position to evaluate content disputes. Perhaps Rosguill missed your point but the situation is that Talk:Harari people is not showing any further discussion since that revert in March so evidence about that issue is not useful here. You would need to show a discussion where consensus disagreed with Magherbin. I have not yet examined the remaining evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Having reviewed most of the evidence in this report, I see some concerning behavior on both sides. Regarding Magherbin, the examples 2, 3 and 4 provided by Ayaltimo are somewhat concerning, and I'd like to see Magherbin respond to these specific concerns. However, the examples of edit warring provided by Ayaltimo raise more concerns about Ayaltimo's behavior than they do Magherbin's; in the provided examples, Magherbin appears to generally make singular objections to new changes. While in some cases Magherbin reverted against such changes more times than appropriate, unlike for Ayaltimo I don't see any examples where they are re-introducing a new change after it was already objected to, the cardinal sin of edit warring. I'm also unimpressed by Ayaltimo's "brilliant idea", as it basically suggests creating POV-forks within the same page. This is not an appropriate way to resolve most content disputes, we need to strive to present the consensus of reliable sources. Based on my assessment, I think that a medium-length topic ban for Ayaltimo is likely necessary unless they can clearly communicate here that they understand when reverting is appropriate (in which case a warning could suffice). I'll reserve judgment regarding Magherbin until I see a direct response to the concerns I highlighted at the beginning of this comment. signed, Rosguill talk 22:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Magherbin, I can't verify the claim regarding 1 because the preview won't show me that page. Regarding the second point,
I'm not sure thathaving looked up "principality" in the dictionary, I realize my reading was wrong and see no problems with Magherbin's interpretation. Regarding the final point, it looks like the claim checks out, and this ordeal in itself can serve as a lesson for why page numbers aren't optional in book citations. signed, Rosguill talk 02:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC) edited 02:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)The population of the leading principality of Yifat included some of these Cushitic-speaking nomadic groups such as...the Harari
backs the claim that the Harare were administrators, my reading is that this says that they lived in the capital - Ayaltimo, ah I see now with regard to Adal Sultanate, Magherbin was in the wrong to revert on May 4th, (Special:Diff/1021447630), I had previously thought that to be unrelated to the prior reverts on April 27th. My impression from seeing all of these disputes between you two is that they follow a pattern: one of you makes a change, the other contests it, you briefly discuss on the talk page, neither of you agrees with the other, and then the matter gets dropped, only to get revived with another revert several weeks later. In a situation like, this, the way to actually resolve the content dispute is to either head to WP:DRN or call an WP:RFC to get additional editors to weigh in and help form a consensus. I'm wondering if a formally logged warning will be enough for both Ayaltimo and Magherbin to learn this lesson. signed, Rosguill talk 03:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Magherbin, I can't verify the claim regarding 1 because the preview won't show me that page. Regarding the second point,
Leechjoel9
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 Leechjoel9
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Boud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 15:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Leechjoel9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 14:33, 13 May 2021 reverting a tidying up of the result of the Demographics of Eritrea RfC (and reverting unrelated edits by other people than me)
- 14:36, 13 May 2021 violation of the spirit of the result of the Demographics of Eritrea RfC on the Eritrea page (e.g. removing "three and a half ... million")
- 15:00, 13 May 2021 repeat violation of the result of the spirit of the RfC, on Eritrea
- 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)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Leechjoel9 seems to be trying to interpret the RfC on the population of Eritrea in a pedantic way and to prevent edits improving the referencing quality. I see no sign that the closing summary of the RfC described an intention to disallow the use of precise referencing with full, complete references. Pedantically speaking, the RfC did not specifically mention edits of the main Eritrea article, and it's true that in principle, an editorial consensus on one article does not imply a consensus for another related article. However, common sense in this case says that if the Eritrean population needs NPOVing on the main article on the topic of the Eritrean population, then there should also be an NPOV on the discussion of population on the article Eritrea itself. The RfC result does not oppose adding UN DESA 2019's explanation of its change. All three of Leechjoel9's above three edits remove the reference ref name="UNDESA2019_release_notes" that explains the surprising change in population estimates. The RfC favours NPOV. Leechjoel9's three edits oppose NPOV. (Explanatory notes by other sources would be valid to add for NPOV, but the sources are not demographic sources, so they don't publish explanations, they just provide raw "believe me, it's true" numbers.) Boud (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Response to Leechjoel9 18:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Due weight does not mean that "believe-me-it's-true" sources prevent explanations by demographic research "we-calculated-things-this-way-from-these-sources" sources from being mentioned. Ordinary reasoning about sourcing should not need wikilawyering and another month or so of effort for making an edit in the spirit of the result of an RfC. The risk of this editor's behaviour is to discourage editors who lack the stamina needed to argue at length for making changes that are normally uncontroversial in Wikipedia. (Side note: the {{UN Population}} template does not appear to be controversial; for Eritrea, it gives 3,452,786.) Boud (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- False statement by Leechjoel9:
"Bouds edit [136], the user removed the line which explains that various sources disagrees ... editing by BubbaJoe123456 [137]."
I added detail to BubbaJoe123456's edit, making the statement more precise and carefully referenced; I did not remove the population disagreement; I did not remove the statement on no official census (source: name="PHS2010_full"). Moreover, Leechjoel misleadingly pointed to my revert, instead of my real edits.@Rosguill: "Not engaging in discussion"? I made a huge effort in the RfC engaging in rational, structured discussion fully supported by specific sources rather than undated, unarchived sources. I responded patiently to Leechjoel9's repeatedly false and misleading statements and reluctance to use non-ambiguous language. Engaging in discussion with a user who discusses this way and rejects Wikipedia policy (NPOV) would imply that this user gets to veto editing by editors with less patience than me. My recommendation is that the community should refuse Leechjoel9's use of these techniques to own Eritrea-related articles. Boud (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC) - @Johnuniq: See my 22:38, 12 May 2021 edits for more disputed content; however, the main problem is the irrationality of discussion by the user. Boud (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Johnuniq: I assume that you have authorised extending beyond the 500-word limit, since otherwise I cannot answer. The dispute is not only about the infobox. My 22:38, 12 May 2021 edits include:
- fixing the infobox;
- fixing the old statement Eritrea is a multi-ethnic country ... in its population of around six and a half million which I changed to ... three and a half<ref name="UNDESA_WPP_2019_total_population" /> to six and a half<ref name="COMESA_ERpop_2019" /> million;
- fixing the old statement Eritrea's population increased from 3.2 million to approximately 5,755,124 ... between 1990 and 2020 for which none of the old references provide any estimate for 1990;
- adding the clarification to the reader "and revised down<ref name="UNDESA2019_release_notes" />" from the only one of the sources that gives sources, methods and explanations, and explicitly states why it revised down its population estimate by 1.8 million.
- My guess is that your statement
"I will repeat my concern regarding Leechjoel9: insisting on 6 million as the only figure in the infobox given the result of that RfC would be disruptive (sanctionable)"
is likely to be a strong enough result of this ARE to resolve the first three issues (I'm assuming good faith). I cannot predict Leechjoel9's reaction on the fourth point. So far, it seems that s/he rejects the normally uncontroversial idea that a sourced explanation for the disagreement in numbers is better than no explanation at all; pedantically, it is not a formal result from the RfC. Boud (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC) - @Rosguill: Re:
"having read Leechjoel9's explanations here"
: scroll up to see the false statement by Leechjoel9 of 06:11+06:15, 18 May 2021 here at A/R/E; a false statement about my editing is not an "explanation" and it is not evidence of a post-RfC change of behaviour. Boud (talk) 07:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC) - [Word count estimates of comments excluding this line: Leechjoel9: 717; Boud: 816] Boud (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Leechjoel9
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 Leechjoel9
Boud is ignoring and violating the reached consensus and proceeds doing changes without discussion. I have addressed the matter in the talk page of Demographics of Eritrea, and I have urged the user to participate in that discussion. Repeatedly filing for AE and ANI as soon someone disagrees is not a way forward, this is time consuming for everyone involved and a behaviour possibly breaching with Wikipedia policy. This can easily be resolved by discussion which Boud don’t want too, see [58].
The reason for restoring the Eritrea article was that this newly added content goes beyond the reached consensus and has yet been agreed upon. Consensus had been reached for estimates in the Demographics of Eritrea and BubbaJoe123456 did update this article with info that the population of Eritrea is estimated between 3,5- 6,7 Million. This was presented fairly, mentioning the range of estimates but also that majority views supports ~6M est, see [59]. Now a month later Boud decided to update the Eritrea article with new estimates in the info box and in the lead in the Eritrea article, see [60]. The user has done own interpretations of the consensus and did not propose any suggestions on how this should be implemented in the Eritrea article. The consensus did not reach beyond the Demographics of Eritrea article, however a change in the demographics article would affect the Eritrea article. So, there is several issue that needs to be taken in consideration when adding this content to the Eritrea article.
Unlike BubbaJoe123456, user Boud did not mention that all sources besides UN DESA supports estimates in the 6M. In the changes made to Eritrea article the user do not even bother to mention that the broad majority view and sources supports estimate in the 6M. Sources that consist of CIA (2021), Eritrea Ministry of Information (2020), African development bank(2017) and more. By doing this the user presents the UN DESA estimate (single- minority view) source as it has the equal weight of the all of the other sources (majority view), this is giving undue weight to the minority view per WP:RSUW. This is not acting neutral and what the consensus says. The consensus however says both estimates should be presented, which nobody including myself are not objecting to. The objecting comes on how it is should be presented and formulated. This has been discussed before and I have urged that we find a solution on how to implement the consensus also in the Eritrea article.
The Eritrea article is not constructed as the Demographics article. For instance it has an info box unlike the Demographics article. In the early days of the dispute there was an discussion regarding which section that should be affected by these changes (I.e lead, info box, body). That discussion is also not closed, and should also be discussed before implementing. There is currently no dispute about the Demographics of Eritrea article. I would again suggested that the user keep the discussion in the talk page. Leechjoel9 (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- [Reply to Rosgquill, moved from admin-only section] Clearly Boud lacked support implementing the changes without discussing with involved parties on how the consensus was going to be implemented. I restored it because of that and since there are minor issue to the article, I still feel there are issue on the Demographics article that should be resolved. I could of restored it again, I however refrained from restoring current version since the Demographics edits also were less minor compared to the changes to the Eritrea article, I proceeded with discussing the matter in the talk page instead. Leechjoel9 (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
If you look at Bouds edit [61], the user removed the line which explains that various sources disagrees to current estimates of Eritrea and that there haven’t been an official census in the country, removing the constructive editing by BubbaJoe123456 [62].That was the reason, and I also noticed Boud only proceeded with adding and citing the UN DESA source which is this users favoured source. Boud edits also lacked sources, citing and explanation of the sources supporting estimates in the 6M which is the majority view, the consensus reached in the RFC said that these should be presented. Leechjoel9 (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by BubbaJoe123456
I was involved in the discussion on Talk:Demographics of Eritrea about how to best represent what sources say about the population of Eritrea, and contributed to the RFC as well. Overall, the concerns that Boud has expressed here are justified. Leechjoel9 contributions on this topic have all been very focused on having the article have as high a population figure as possible. I don't know what motivates this, but it does appear to be POV-driven. Just to be clear, the available data sources have population estimates ranging from under 4M to nearly 7M, as is reflected (now) in the lede of the Demographics of Eritrea article. Grudgingly, after the RFC, Leechjoel9 acceded to the current wording. We've just had a lengthy RFC that came to the conclusion that the most NPOV way to describe Eritrea's population is to (a) show the range of estimates, and (b) note that no official census has ever been conducted. I see no reason why, after all of that, the main Eritrea article's infobox should continue to only show a single estimate from a single source, an approach that was clearly rejected in the Demographics article RFC. Bottom line, I'm concerned that Leechjoel9 doesn't come to topics around Eritrea with a NPOV approach. As another example, they argued for the removal of a clearly notable person from the list of notable people from Asmara, on the grounds that the person no longer held Eritrean citizenship. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Result concerning Leechjoel9
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- This is particularly difficult for admin resolution. I might say more later but my primary concern is always what is in the article and I have to say that it is not satisfactory to put population = 6,081,196 in the infobox at Eritrea given reliable sources with estimates from 3.6 to 6.7 million. I see a comment that the issue is extremely contentious—apparently a small number implies a certain political outcome while a large number implies some other real-world consequence. Unless there is a knock-out argument that I can't see, editors have no basis to decide which RS should be chosen for the infobox number. The problem cannot be solved by the walls of text in Talk:Eritrea/Archive and throughout Talk:Demographics of Eritrea. The approach at Demographics of Eritrea is better where there is no simple factoid—it starts with "Sources disagree as to the current population of Eritrea, with some proposing numbers as low as 3.6 million and others as high as 6.7 million." Question to participants: is there a dispute relevant to this report about text in the article apart from the number in the infobox? If yes, please succinctly identify it. If not, I'm afraid this issue might have to go back to article talk with a focus (that I couldn't see) on exactly what to put in the infobox (one suggestion would be to put nothing there). Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Boud: Is there an answer to my "Question to participants"? It appears from recent posts above that the main issue is the number in the infobox, summed up by this 15:00, 13 May 2021 revert by Leechjoel9 which asserted that the RfC did not apply to the infobox and that the UN DESA report was a "minority" view. I'm inclined to close this as no action with an informal recommendation that participants digest my above comment. The demographics RfC is not sufficient to say what should be in the Eritrea infobox but I will repeat my concern regarding Leechjoel9: insisting on 6 million as the only figure in the infobox given the result of that RfC would be disruptive (sanctionable). Editors should stop talking about the past and who is to blame. Focus on what should be in the infobox. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Leechjoel9, could you explain why you performed the edit at Demographics of Eritrea linked to in the first diff provided by Boud in this report? signed, Rosguill talk 23:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- sorry Leechjoel9, but I was hoping for a bit more detail. Could you please clarify what your specific objection was that motivated you to perform the first revert on May 13. signed, Rosguill talk 22:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- thank you Leechjoel9 for the clarification. My perspective at this time is that Leechjoel9's objections were reasonable, and I don't see anything that immediately warrants a sanction. I find some fault with Boud for not attempting to engage in a discussion about what Leechjoel9's objection was before coming here, which may warrant a warning. signed, Rosguill talk 18:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Boud, my comment was meant with respect to the post-RfC dispute alone. Generally speaking you have been engaging in constructive discussion, but having read Leechjoel9's explanations here, I believe that you could have settled this new issue (or at least sufficiently defined the point of dispute to allow for 3rd parties to weigh in and build a consensus) without coming to AE. signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- thank you Leechjoel9 for the clarification. My perspective at this time is that Leechjoel9's objections were reasonable, and I don't see anything that immediately warrants a sanction. I find some fault with Boud for not attempting to engage in a discussion about what Leechjoel9's objection was before coming here, which may warrant a warning. signed, Rosguill talk 18:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- sorry Leechjoel9, but I was hoping for a bit more detail. Could you please clarify what your specific objection was that motivated you to perform the first revert on May 13. signed, Rosguill talk 22:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Maudslay II
Appeal declined. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by Maudslay IIThe original request was here Maarakeh bombing article, which is accusations 1 and 2 Geshem Bracha moved the page without discussion, then changed the infobox title & lead name (which should reflect the article title) before reaching consenus. That's why I reverted it. Nableezy pointed that out later and reverted it as well. Geshem Bracha added a "hoax" template because of a lack of sources. I added extra sources and removed the template. After realising that I broke the 1RR rule, I reverted my last edit. Zrarieh raid article, accusations 3 and 4 The editor Free1Soul did this: changed the infobox title & lead name, before reaching any consensus, removed references and removed categories. He also moved the page without any discussion. The same thing was done by Shrike earlier. How is this good faith edits? That's why I called it vandalism. All of this is clear in the page's history ~ 10 April. Deir Yassin images, accusation 5 I thought that the Deir Yassin massacre was missing out on a photo. Given the subject is important and well-known, I downloaded a bunch of images from google and uploded them to commons. I realised that they are unrelated to the even when @Huldra: pointed that out and I supported deleting them when it was later proposed for deletion. It was an honest mistake and I agree that I did not put enough effort in the begining. Canvassing, accusation 6 I invited Alexandermcnabb to participate in a related discussion of which he actually talked about but did not know it existed. My invitation can not be described as canvassing in any way. According to this guidline: "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions" and it is acceptable to invite "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". My notification was limited, neutral, nonpartisan and open. Admin Newslinger indefinitely topic banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, and linked me to "policy on verifiability, policy against edit warring, and guideline on canvassing". I do not think this is fair. It is too harsh. I appelead in his talk page but did not recieve any answer. Edit 1: @Shrike: My sv was about the removal of the hoax template, as seen above. The problem was about that. Earlier, SoarlingLL deleted sourced material without a valid reason. My revert was to restore those. This edit was after 25 hours of the first revert. Statement by NewslingerStatement by (involved editor 1)Why you continued to edit war[63] after your self rv? --Shrike (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by selfstudierUnless there are things I don't know about, I stand by what I said previously, a tban seems a bit ott to me despite the CIR issue. A stiff warning and maybe a week break might have done the trick. Maybe I'm a softie.Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Geshem Bracha@Johnuniq: this is not a new user. This account was created in December 2020, but Maudslay II has confirmed they are Maudslayer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Maudslay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has also confirmed they are Maudslayer (itself "one of the accounts I can't get access to"). Maudslayer was created in August 2015. The edits themselves are atrocious, Maudslay II consistently portrays every single Israeli action as a "massacre" against innocent civilians despite reliable sources, even the same sources they are citing, describing the event in other terms. Uploading an image that is a famous image of "Rows of bodies of dead inmates fill yard of Lager Nordhausen, Gestapo concentration camp" from 1945 and falsely presenting it as an Israeli atrocity is either malicious to the extreme or alternatively so grossly incompetent that productive neutral editing on the topic is impossible to foresee.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Maudslay IIResult of the appeal by Maudslay II
|
أمين
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 أمين
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 18:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- أمين (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 18:26, 14 May 2021
- Removal of sourced information to RS:
On 14 May, four Palestinians were killed, including one said to have attempted to stab a soldier and more than 100 people injured. There have been daily demonstrations since the escalation in Gaza.
- Replacement with:
On 14 May 2021, the Israeli army and Israeli settlers killed 10 Palestinian civilians in the West Bank who were in peaceful demonstrations and others while they were in their homes.
(issues w/ this explained below) - Addition of
In Iskaka village near Salfit, Israeli settlers under the protection of the Israeli occupation army, attacked Palestinian homes, and they killed a young man and shot 10 young men.[64]
- I can only read the source via Google translate, but it appears to say nothing that sounds like
under the protection of the Israeli occupation army
. It doesn't seem to say anything about settlers attacking Palestinian homes either.
- I can only read the source via Google translate, but it appears to say nothing that sounds like
- Removal of sourced information to RS:
- 18:49, 14 May 2021
On 14 May 2021, the Israeli army and Israeli settlers killed 10 (according to the Palestinian Health Ministry) Palestinian civilians in the West Bank who were in peaceful demonstrations and others while they were in their homes.[65]
- Misuse of Al Jazeera (RSP entry), noted as a partisan source in Arab–Israeli conflict.
- Original research and POV issues. Even Al Jazeera doesn't say what the editor is trying to say. It says nothing about people being shot for peaceful protest or for being in their homes. This is what the source says (entire article):
The number of Palestinians killed by Israeli fire during confrontations in the occupied West Bank has risen to 10, the Palestinian health ministry has said.
500 people were injured in different parts of the West Bank.
Violent protests erupted across the territory, with mainly young Palestinians hurling stones, Molotov cocktails and other projectiles at Israeli forces who have responded with tear gas, rubber bullet and live rounds, multiple sources said.
- Another entry on Al Jazeera[66] directly says otherwise, writing:
The Palestinian health ministry said nine Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces during protests across the occupied West Bank on Friday, and a sixth was killed during an attempt to stab an Israeli soldier near an illegal Israeli settlement in Yabad near Jenin.
- According to other sources:
Five were killed after protesters started throwing stones at Israeli troops, while the sixth was shot after ramming his car into a military post and then trying to stab a soldier, officials said.
- 20:46, 10 May 2021 On its own, probably fine. Along with the rest, appears like POV pushing.
- 20:45, 10 May 2021 Ditto
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 30 December 2018 Violating 500/30 to edit ARBPIA.
- 4 January 2019 Block for violation following unblock
- 25 January 2019 Block for gaming extended confirmed
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Report updated slightly in [67]. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Whether Al Jazeera is biased or not is not key to this report. The issue is that it appears the editor made all this up. The edits claim that Israeli armed forces shot Palestinian civilians in the West Bank while they were in their homes, and for peaceful protests, and that "the occupation army" protected Israeli settlers as they attacked Palestinian homes. Simultaneously removing actually verifiable information e.g. about the knife, also contained in the same source the editor used. Both Al Jazeera and Ma'an, as well as other HQRS, contradict what the editor wrote. (Unless it's me who can't read sources today?) Surely the editors below don't think that the report is about a numbers issue of 10 killed vs 6 killed on a current events topic... The edits are a complete fabrication. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC) e: 19:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- The assertion that the sources have changed their portrayal completely and that the edits were based on an old version of the source is difficult to believe. The archive here, from an earlier count, says
Palestinian health officials say six Palestinians have been killed by Israeli army fire in the occupied West Bank. The officials say five were killed in stone-throwing clashes with Israeli forces in several locations, and a sixth was killed during an attempt to stab an Israeli soldier.
This is before the figure was updated to 10. So are we seriously saying that Al Jazeera updated from "6 killed -> 5 throwing stones and a 6th trying to stab a soldier" to "10 killed -> they were all peacefully protesting and/or in their homes" and then reverted back to the original statement with the new count (without any notice of amendment)? Similar for the other source - Ma'an - which allegedly said that the IDF was protecting settlers as they attacked Palestinian homes, and then deleted that statement from their article? - Incidentally, I read this source between the user's two edits, and it didn't say anything of the sort at that time either. Again, whereas the tone and phrasing are secondary POV concerns, the primary one is persistent addition of statements that are nowhere to be seen in the sources. This unverifiable statement remains in the current article's revision. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- The assertion that the sources have changed their portrayal completely and that the edits were based on an old version of the source is difficult to believe. The archive here, from an earlier count, says
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [68]
Discussion concerning أمين
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 أمين
You have included text supported by two sources but you claim to be biased. How is it biased? Is it because I said the occupation army? I put two sources, but you retrieved my amendment, because I settled with one. By blocking a lot of amendments, you are biased toward the Israeli side You could also create a discussion to guide me about the sources and how to choose them, not start blocking me just because I am an Arab. أمين (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Al-Jazeera appears to have modified the text it published, because it removed some words such as settlers and homes. this is not my fault. أمين (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I will be more careful in using sources next time. أمين (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I had been banned before, but it was for not knowing the encyclopedia's policies and being new. Now you are trying to block me. I wrote a text and placed two sources, one in Arabic, the another in English. It seems that Al-Jazeera has modified its text so that it becomes inconsistent with its text, and this created a problem. The goodwill I have in the amendment relieves me of these accusations and I am ready to improve my performance as I will hear advice from users below. Thanks. أمين (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by selfstudier
For the sake of clarity, the first line of AJ entry says "Al Jazeera is considered a generally reliable news organization." That there are "some editors" who think it is biased for the IP area is not relevant. The discrepancy in the figures above is because this is a fast moving current event and the casualty count has apparently been rising all day, it was reported as 4, then 6, 9 and now 10 and reports are frequently changed.Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I have updated the article with the latest report (11 fatalities now) and removed material not in the current source.Selfstudier (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Nableezy
What WP:RSP says is Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Not that there is any consensus that al-Jazeera is anything other than a RS. In fact, the actual consensus position is summed up in the green check mark showing generally reliable. Disliking an editors edits is not an arbitration violation and misusing this board to remove an opponent because they used a generally reliable, per consensus, source merits a boomerang in my opinion. Including what numerous reliable sources discuss about the fatalities (that they included nine children) is likewise not a violation of an arbitration decision, and reporting it here merits a boomerang in my opinion. nableezy - 19:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- I will say that Ameen should take care not to import the POV of the sources here. The source uses "Israeli occupation forces", but we should be using "Israeli army" or "IDF" or some such thing. nableezy - 19:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- ProcrastinatingReader, the Maan source does indeed call them the occupation forces, which is what I said Ameen should be careful in importing the POV of his sources. As far as the al-Jazeera piece, it's a live link thats constantly changing. Best to avoid using such links and find a stable url, but what it currently says is According to the Palestinian health ministry, 10 Palestinians were killed by Israeli fire, nine of them during confrontations. The Israeli army said that one of them was killed after he tried to attack Israeli settlers. nableezy - 19:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I dont see where the source support that the deaths were of people peacefully protesting or in their homes, and that is indeed concerning. I mostly object to the way that this was presented as though using al-Jazeera is an offense when it is a perfectly reliable source. Or the addition of the number of children killed which is well sourced to a number of places being some sort of POV violation. nableezy - 22:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning أمين
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Content related to ongoing armed conflict is something we must get right. Ameen's edits don't seem to properly represent the sources, so even if made in good faith this pattern needs to stop. Given previous blocks, I would recommend a topic ban from ARBPIA for at least 6 months. I'm assuming I shouldn't take unilateral action at AE, so I'm leaving this open for more comments. — Wug·a·po·des 01:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- To be fair, some of the previous blocks were possibly misunderstandings. Ameen was blocked for violating 500/30 twice, and they appear to have then made a whole bunch of edits to get themselves over the 500 requirement, perhaps not realizing that this would be considered gaming the system. However, using sources available only in Arabic makes it very difficult for editors who don't read Arabic to verify, so mistating even slightly, even inadvertently, what those sources say is extremely concerning. I hate to topic ban from ARBPIA yet, though. I'm not sure there's that level of disruption? Wugapodes, how would you feel about requiring Ameen to use only English sources in that topic? —valereee (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Paragon Deku
Closed without action - appears to be a good-faith mistake on the part of Paragon Deku, there was no topic-area disruption here. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2021 (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 Paragon Deku
None.
On May 14, I provided the user notification of relevant general sanctions to the Israel-Palestine conflict. On May 15, despite having been notified, the user chose to participate in a move discussion, despite this being explicitly noted as a sort of behavior that was restricted only to extended-confirmed user in the relevant alert. I am requesting
The user was notified at 09:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 09:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Paragon DekuStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Paragon DekuI was not aware at all that I wasn’t allowed to participate in the vote because I do not have EC permissions, and that is my fault. I will strike my vote from the record. That being said, the sanctions warning did not mention this at all, and considering my previous interactions with the reporting user on other pages, I cannot help but feel that this is a personal vendetta against me rather than an earnest attempt to improve the encyclopedia. I have been very even handed in any discussions I made on the talk page in question. Paragon Deku (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by ParabolistThe notification you gave them says nothing about EC permissions. You've posted nothing to their talk page about EC permissions. You jumped straight here after striking out their comment, with no explanation of what EC permissions are. Given the fact that they are a new user, which is why they aren't extended confirmed, did you at any point consider explaining any of the complex rules involved to them? Even maybe linking them to what they would need to understand? Instead you've jumped straight to the club, which is absolutely indicative of SOMETHING. Parabolist (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by selfstudierIf there were to be a filing for everyone who voted in formal discussions but were not theoretically permitted to, this page would be very full. Why has the filing editor not filed any complaint in respect of all the other cases in the same discussion?Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by RandomCanadianWikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions is rather clear that "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive." The relevant page has no mention of "formal discussions" or anything so that doesn't appear to justify, even if I ignore WP:CREEP, the claim that a good faith, constructive comment on a RM (which is not disruptive) should be striken through for violating one of our arcane policies. WP:AGF and WP:BITE are not just someone's imagination but common practice, and I don't see why we should do anything against the reported user. He's been here sporadically for just about 5 years, and is just some edits shy of the 500 count, and doesn't have any of the trappings of usual SPAs. They were notified about the sanctions (but not given an explanation as to why their edits might not be allowed) less than a day before this. Suggest closing without action, allowing their good-faith !vote on the RM to stand (done so), and trouting OP. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Paragon Deku
|
TrottieTrue
TrottieTrue is indefinitely topic banned from biographies of living persons. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2021 (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 TrottieTrue
At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1066#TrottieTrue at least two editors suggested a ban on BLPs might be needed entirely, I'd suggest the bare minimum that's needed is a topic ban relating to dates of birth.
@Valereee: I'd have been happier if I'd not have had to waste time filing this at all. But despite several previous discussions (as well as the previous AE report see User talk:TrottieTrue#BLP:PRIMARY, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#Dates of birth for politicians and an IP User and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive332#Disruptive and uncivil IP user, including vandalism) TrottieTrue thought it was acceptable to clearly violate WP:BLPPRIMARY again regarding the date of birth of a living person. I didn't seek out this edit, they violated it on an article on my watchlist. My belief, based on past and present history, is that TrottieTrue will continue to add dates of birth to articles about living people, and if the BLP policy just happens to get in the way of the edit they want to make they'll simply ignore the policy. FDW777 (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray:, while you make some valid points you fail to understand or aim to tackle the root of the problem, which is TrottieTrue's date-of-birth-must-be-included-at-all-costs attitude. Although this information is spread across various posts and discussions, I will collate it here to demonstrate this attitude. Edits related to the history of John Finucane ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), unless specificed otherwise
That full date of birth isn't something that's been accidentally found, it's been deliberately looked for. Only a partial date of birth appears on the Companies House page for John Finucane. To find his full date of birth, you have to click on the Finucane Toner Limited page, and it's hidden away on page 3 of one of the PDFs. This is the attitude you need to change. Rather than be content with a 1980 date of birth appearing in the article, they go to extreme lengths despite knowing they shouldn't be using the reference anyway. At Kemi Badenoch ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) you see similar behaviour, although without the earlier history. If you check the footnote you will see it links to the records of Charlton Triangle Homes Limited, and it's page 4 of 8! That's clearly not something accidentally found. At Kate Osborne ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) they added a date of birth on 01:54, 18 March 2021. I don't know why the reference has removed the information, but it doesn't appear on the current page. Rather than accept there is no reliable reference for Kate Osborne's date of birth, TrottieTrue starts looking on FreeBDM and upon only finding one record assumes that must be correct, despite the warning from the previous AE to only use high-quality references. Again, that's the date-of-birth-must-be-included-at-all-costs attitude you need to change. FDW777 (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning TrottieTrueStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by TrottieTrueI feel like I'm being harassed by FDW777, since their recent complaint about me resulted in a one-way interaction ban preventing me from contacting them. They claim to have little interest in UK politics, yet are picking up on my mistakes in this topic area quite readily - leading me to suspect they are watching my activity (they note they've edited Kate Osborne before, but it was only to remove my edit!). Anyway, I did not realise that FreeBMD was a source to be avoided, although it appears to have a good reputation. I used it because I had seen it used on BLP articles before: see Frank Kitchen, Tony Barrow and Karl Sabbagh. A search for FreeBMD in BLP articles brings up 877 results. Nonetheless, I apologise if this is a source to be avoided, as I can see how it might be interpreted as "public records". I was only using it to cite the year of birth and place though, not the full date. Where is the evidence that Kate Osborne and the BMD entry are the same person? The election results from South Tyneside council state the winner of Jarrow was "Katharine Helen Brooks-Osborne Commonly known as Kate OSBORNE". As she is married to Pamela Brooks, it can be deduced that this is her double-barrelled married name (see also [69]). Searching at FreeBMD only brings up one matching result for Katharine Helen Osborne. The marriage was actually unreferenced, but I have now added a citation for it. I didn't see the logged warning about only using "high-quality sources" because it was added after the case had closed. I suffer from chronic health problems, and these bad faith accusations against me exacerbate the issues. I have made thousands of edits (particularly on BLP articles) without issue, and spent time researching better sources. User:Johnuniq misunderstands my issue with the IP editor - it was not the first time they had alerted me, and I found their comment violated WP:CIVILITY: "No. You should see WP:BLPPRIMARY and learn the policies and learn your facts." I think a topic ban would be highly disproportionate: "at least two editors suggested a ban on BLPs might be needed entirely" is mentioned. This was from two editors who are not administrators (one of whom was abusive towards me in their reply), and WP is in danger of being ruled by the court of public opinion on these matters. I'm happy not to use FreeBMD again, and exercise extreme caution with anything similar, but I don't think arbitration requests like this are the right way to treat an editor like myself who has made a big contribution to the site. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. FDW777 actually suggested years of birth being used for another BLP article here (no mention of references being needed), a solution enacted by the administrator who created the article, User:Andrew Gray. I have been adding full DOBs with RS citations to that article since then. I think a sense of perspective is needed here, and some compassion. There’s a lot of smears about me here - I’m clearly being victimised. I certainly didn’t violate policy intentionally.--TrottieTrue (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by BuidheI recommended a topic ban from BLP at the ANI. At this point TT has made it abundantly clear that they are either unable or unwilling to consistently follow the requirement to properly source biographies. (t · c) buidhe 17:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by Andrew GrayFor full disclosure, I got caught up in this a couple of weeks ago, with a dispute about dates on List of living former United Kingdom MPs, a list I had produced after an initial suggestion by TT. That was resolved to everyone's satisfaction, I believe. I have not otherwise been involved. TT contacted me and asked me to comment here, though I probably would have done anyway once I had noticed the ping. Having spent this evening reading over the dispute, TT is clearly struggling a bit with the standards the community has for BLP sourcing, but it looks to me like they are trying to work to improve the quality of their edits. They have moved away from the individual sources which were causing problems (and a comment above indicates they have taken on board the problem with this one, as well). They are perhaps having trouble being able to step back and reflect on some of this, but that seems to be in part because things are mired in a very combative dispute model. TT has been editing steadily in this area between the last set of warnings on 7 May and this edit on 14 May. I would estimate 50-100 sources added to articles in those ten days, predominantly from Historic Hansard, which I believe is widely used for dates. The sanctions were to "use only high-quality references" - and while it is true that birth records are not suitable sources (per WP:BLPPRIMARY), thinking that 'official' trumps 'primary' is an understandable mistake to make and many other editors have done likewise. That edit was immediately escalated here to ask for a topic ban, rather than challenged. Both parties are understandably very frustrated at this point, and I appreciate that FDW feels they are just trying to protect the articles from badly-sourced material, but it seems to me that approaches like this don't help resolve the issue - they just perpetuate the dispute, and drive things inexorably towards a topic ban. To try and avoid a ban, as someone who has already been working with TT occasionally, I would be happy to offer to work with them for a while to try and help them improve to a point where they are confident in understanding the BLP sourcing issues that are causing concerns. I feel confident that they would be willing to engage and able to improve. Perhaps an appropriate approach would be for me to discuss the sources they'd like to use with them, and approve/disapprove their suggested sources for BLP content? Combined with the existing interaction ban, that feels like it would go some way to solving the problems here, if the community is OK with it. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Denham331I've been away from Wikipedia for a while and came here having noticed TrottieTrue's excellent work in tidying up articles about new UK MPs, many of which were a mess before he got to them. Without his suggestion, we wouldn't have the List of living former United Kingdom MPs, which will be an invaluable resource for journalists, academics and researchers (great work, Andrew Gray!). This is useful for keeping the Records of members of parliament of the United Kingdom article updated. The article about the oldest living former MP, Patrick Duffy, has been greatly improved thanks to TT. So many BLP articles are full of spelling, grammar and formatting issues, which damage Wikipedia's reputation. The way that TT goes about correcting these errors is a highly useful but a thankless task. A topic ban would therefore be detrimental to Wikipedia. I am also very uncomfortable with the way other editors are going about this. Coming at this from the viewpoint of someone not immersed in the internal workings of Wikipedia, it looks like a case of harassment directed at TT, and borderline bullying. I'm a secondary school teacher, and in my experience, this is not the way treat someone who may have unknowingly broken a rule. As Andrew Gray suggests, it would be better to help TT to become a more valued editor by educating him on how he can improve. It's obvious he didn't mean to violate policy, and if the average editor sees FreeBMD used as a reference on so many BLP articles, would they not be fooled into thinking it is acceptable? There's no training required to become an editor here, which means one can easily edit for years (like TT) without full knowledge of the many detailed policies on Wikipedia. Volunteer-run organisations generally have confidential forms for new people, in which they can disclose any health conditions or adjustments that might need to be made. Sanctioning an editor who it sounds like has a disability for some relatively minor mistakes is not a good look for Wikipedia, and doesn't foster an inclusive environment. It also looks like these policies are not enforced consistently, so singling out one user like this at the behest of another user comes across as vindictive and unfair. A topic ban here would be excessively harsh and punitive; I wouldn't ban one of my students from a subject area for making some honest mistakes. That isn't the way to help someone learn, no matter what age they are. It's clear from TTs statements that they are not maliciously violating policy and are willing to work with other users to improve the quality of Wikipedia. TT has apologised and vowed to learn from this. I oppose sanctioning for this. Denham331 (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC) Result concerning TrottieTrue
|
JzG
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 JzG
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Berchanhimez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 23:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_(1992_cutoff)
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [70][71][72] - making a comparison to Holocaust/Nazis on an AMPOL topic.
- [73][74][75][76][77] - repeatedly referring to anyone who doesn't agree as a "cult" and personalizing disputes by attacking other editors and playing the "experience card"
- [78][79][80] - repeatedly making comments in a discussion to inject personal opinion, with no policy rationale or furthering the discussion, which have the effect of derailing the discussion into asides on his comments
- Further information:
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Placed a {{Ds/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page - see his talk page - he is aware of AMPOL discretionary sanctions.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I don't like drama boards, but I feel this is necessary at this point. JzG is a well respected editor, and I have agreed with him on multiple issues aside from anything Trump-related. Unfortunately, his participation on Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol and other pages related to Donald Trump and the events of January 6, 2021 has been unhelpful at best. His comments on that and other talk pages have been quick injections of his personal opinion (in violation of WP:NOTFORUM), and have done virtually nothing to further the discussion or provide a viewpoint that's beneficial to reaching a consensus. I have observed this since the first rename request in early 2021 for this article, where he made a comment that I include the diff of above not as a pure example of misconduct but as more information. When JzG comments on that talk page (or any talk page related to that subject), his comments have never to what I've seen provided an actual policy based comment for discussion. On the contrary, his comments are personal towards editors, frequently refer to "cults" or other personal opinion/inflammatory language, and frequently result in others having to reply to his comments and further derailing the discussions. I fully understand his frustration with the "brainwashing" that has gone on - I get it - but we are all here to build an encyclopedia, and his comments within this topic area have not helped in that endeavor. I attempted to limit the diffs to those I consider the most important - other comments may also be worthy of considering, and I am happy for anyone to add diffs to the section above (if that is allowed) that they think would be beneficial to examine here. I think the most beneficial thing for the encyclopedia at this point is for JzG to be prohibited from making comments related to the events of January 6, and perhaps from making edits related to Donald Trump as a whole - as it's clear to me that he is unable to separate his personal opinions/feelings from the encyclopedia, its policies, and rational discussion between other editors. Discussions on the topic seem to repeatedly go well until he shows up and then they get derailed based on his comments which at best are NOTFORUM violations, and are at worst attempting to push a POV into encyclopedia articles.
For full disclosure, I asked User:Premeditated Chaos off-wiki for advice and was advised this was the best venue to get a resolution to this issue on. I will also be notifying JzG of this discussion shortly and will post the diff of the notification here after I do so.
@GeneralNotability: - sorry - the "instructions for submitting the request for enforcement" in the editnotice didn't make clear how to do that so I assumed it would be automatically done. I think it's done now. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: he has apparently been asked to tone it down or disengage multiple times over the past months - I opened this case because it never works, and maybe at least a formal warning will solve it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
The existing back and forth between Viriditas and Rusf10 makes me think that a sourcing policy similar to WP:MEDRS may need to be implemented here. Apparently, Viriditas, a very experienced editor, sees no problem in citing opinion/commentary/similar sources - which are generally not fact checked or peer reviewed - as proof that their opinion is (in their words) "superior" and should be the only opinion allowed. This is fundamentally an editor problem - where editors are feeling that their opinions are better, and so they bend sourcing policies that are already clear on these sorts of issues, but if AE is unwilling to implement sanctions against editors doing this (including JzG) then maybe the solution is to explicitly codify a "politically opinionated material" sourcing policy that makes clear that WP:PRIMARY applies to politics too - especially A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts
. An opinion by someone, no matter how "experty" they are in a field, is only reliable for their opinion on something. Even having 4-6 sources as Viriditas presents that are all opinions of experts still does not do anything to prove that's the expert consensus - and in fact, there's an expert consensus that lumping all Republicans or Trump supporters into this "cult" designation is actually damaging to political discourse and civility in the US. Perhaps a WP:POLSOURCING guideline is necessary since these blatant violations of our already clear sourcing policies are being overlooked simply because enough people agree with the opinions being presented. "All opinions are equal, but some are more equal than others"... especially if they are left-leaning opinions, as there are enough established editors who can simply shut down conversation of opinions that they disagree with, no matter how policy bending or outright violating they are being in doing so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Viriditas' response to this comment, which doesn't address my point whatsoever but again just basically amounts to "my opinion is more equal than yours", and also fails to mention that there's quite a few left-leaning sources on RSP as generally or questionably unreliable as well (ex: The Canary, CounterPunch, Daily Kos, HuffPo politics articles, Media Matters, and more). The issue here is that unfortunately many more right-wing sources have had to have RfCs because there are more "POV pushing conservatives" who come to WP than "POV pushing liberals". The fact that Viriditas uses this to support their attempt to silence opinions they disagree with, and then laughs, suggests that this is a much bigger problem with multiple editors than people are seeing here - an effort by multiple editors, whether coordinated or not, to attempt to silence editors simply because they disagree politically with those editors. This sort of dismissive, opinionated, and just downright uncivil response from JzG and now Viriditas is the problem that led me to open this request for enforcement - because as even those who have advocated for no action to be taken admit, it is disruptive to Wikipedia's goal of building a NPOV encyclopedia with consensus and collaboration. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- Notice provided -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning JzG
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 JzG
Some people don't like the fact that sources describe the Jan 6 events as an attempted coup. Some people don't like the parallels drawn between the insurrection and the beer hall putsch. Some people think that Ashlii Babbit was the One True Victim of the Jan 6 insurrection. I have opinions. They are largely mainstream, and in line with sources. I am not a huge fan of pretending that the Jan 6 insurrection was a peaceful protest about legitimate concerns with election integrity, where a few bad apples stormed the Capitol and tried to overthrow an election. That's not what I saw on the screen, and it's not what I read in the sources. But regardless, Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopaedia and we don't pretend that neutrality is the average between mainstream sources and OANN. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by InedibleHulk
I don't like Guy's irrelevant commentary, his political commentary, his choice of insults, his constant moving of the goalposts or his seemingly unquenchable desire to repeatedly ping me in particular, despite several clear notifications that I do not want any of what he is selling. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I was (and somewhat am) also troubled by a recent outburst on his talk page regarding "a small group" of what he seemed to clearly describe as Nazis (among other epithets) disagreeing with him on the Capitol Hill talk. I genuinely tried to help him specify which ones exhibited signs of Nazism, so I could help hunt them down and exile them from Wikipedia, because Nazis shot down, captured and tortured my grandfather (among other terrible, horrible things). Three users denied the charges, one didn't dignify my interrogation with a response (right call, IMO) and Guy clarified nothing. [84] Not cool. Picture an anti-Harris guy fighting this hard and getting away with it for so long...impossible! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
As for his interactions with editors who aren't me, I agree with the complainant that it almost always appears to get heated, disruptive and incivil when Trump's involved; if a topic ban can be that narrow, it would certainly help the majority of editors who aren't zombie Nazi Confederates and simply want to tone down some serious anti-Trump POV that legitimately sometimes goes way too far around here. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
In light of three things I read below, I'd like to clarify. First, I have nothing to do with a right-wing attempt to rewrite history; the only news show I watch with any regularity is The National on CBC's YouTube channel (and Colbert's openings, if those count) and have no online accounts or communications off-Wiki (besides e-mail, nonpseudonymously and unrelated to any of this). Next, I have no problem with swearing or flowery speech, just when it's used constantly rather than on-topic rational argument with someone disputing content. Finally, when Guy removes bullshit from political articles, I'm happy he's here, but in this case, the ideas that an insurrection A, occurred that day and B, killed five people are the bullshit (per many RS that aren't from January, acknowledge that the word was political ammo for a no-longer relevant impeachment effort and admit only one death was officially ruled a homicide). And no, I'm not lying here, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
MastCell, since you mentioned it, I'll openly agree that my perception of these two core truths about the January 6 attack does align with the right-wing narrative. That's just because the left-wing narrative is not reflected in available pertinent medical and legal reports. It's based on the current political and social sentiments, exactly like Robert Todd Carroll's signs of pseudohistory. Leftist editors see that the medical examiner ruled three deaths natural and one death accidental (self-administered overdose), and they point to a political news piece from the day after that counts five. Horsefeathers! For months now, no federal property has been captured, no federal officials assassinated, no federal departments overthrown. But hey, leftist media prefers "insurrection" to a fairer word for a right-leaning protest/riot/storm/attack/whatever, in certain select sentences, so "RSP, Conservapedia's that way, racist pig." Horsefeathers! The less we can all stop thinking about equivalency and dualism and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the more we can accept that in a reality-based system with only two supposed sides, the actual true story of any well-documented dispute is always going to better suit one of those sides than the other, so long as it's been politicized by American cable news. There is no unbiased political news channel, but CBC's YouTube channel at least tries to not root for the obvious party when covering U.S. history. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Johnuniq I've come up with some crazy ideas on talk pages before, no question. If one of those is called OR, that's fine by me. But the idea of an insurrection requiring at least the intent to seize power, not merely challenge or nullify it, was first written into federal law, which was analyzed by David Kilcullen, which was covered by Michael Patrick Mulroy. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by MjolnirPants
Going through those links:
- making a comparison to Holocaust/Nazis on an AMPOL topic.
- [85] This is just an analogy, not a comparison.
- [86] Making a point about far-right American political figures by discussing Strom Thurmond's views.
- [87] This one is actually a comparison to nazis. There's nothing wrong with it, though.
- repeatedly referring to anyone who doesn't agree as a "cult" and personalizing disputes by attacking other editors and playing the "experience card"
- [88] Referring to the "Trump Cult," a concept which is broadly popular, and which has been advanced by cult experts, such as Steven Hassan, with the book The Cult of Trump. Hardly a reference to "anyone who doesn't agree with him". Not accusing any editor of being a part of it.
- [89] Doesn't mention or even hint at a cult in this one.
- [90] Says participants in the Jan 6 insurrection "exhibit some or all of the qualities of cult victims".
- [91] Says "cults are shitty that way" in reference to broken implied promises. Hardly a controversial statement. Cults are shitty that way.
- [92] Claims to have more experience editing Wikipedia than the filer. That's a simple statement of fact. JzG has 148,496 edits to 66,697 pages compared to filer's 2688 edits to 755 pages.
- repeatedly making comments in a discussion to inject personal opinion, with no policy rationale or furthering the discussion, which have the effect of derailing the discussion into asides on his comments
- [93] JzG dared use the word "bullshit", I guess?
- [94] No "injectiong of personal opinion" here. JzG is stating a well-accepted fact.
- [95] Oh, this one is bad. This one is real bad. You guys aren't going to believe this one... JzG had the absolute audacity to use sarcasm. I know. Feel free to rush your kids out of the room and clutch your pearls to your chest in shock.
- Others
- [96] clearly expresses that he is the "least Trumpy Wikipedian"
- Well, here we have an editor asking that another editor be sanctions for having political views that differ from their own. WP:BOOMERANG comes to mind.
- [97] comment with virtually no content that doesn't violate NOTFORUM
- No. Not a chance. JzG is quite clearly discussing the topic at hand. This is just a lie.
- [98] talking about "martyrs" and related topics when nobody brought that up in the discussion
- Another lie. JzG is discussing the actual topic at hand, a topic in which some people are portraying someone as a martyr. The fact that JzG was the first to use the word is immaterial.
None of these diffs show bad behavior. Taken as a whole, they show that JzG has political views just like everyone else. I'm particularly troubled by the notion that the filer seems to think JzG being honest about his political views is somehow evidence of malfeasance. Isn't that the exact sort of thing those who disagree with JzG keep claiming is happening to them, despite all evidence to the contrary? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: I get that some people are rubbed the wrong way by bad language, and I know that sometimes, plain language is not the best choice. But as much as it's incumbent upon us as editors to recognize that and make smart choices to play nice with others, it's also incumbent upon us to recognize that not everyone sees these things the same way, and to make allowances for those who are a bit more potty mouthed.
About the opinion thing: The RSes are all in virtually lockstep agreement that the Trump rally on the 6th and the riot/insurrection/protest/"tourism" that came after were inexorably linked to the point that attempts to distinguish one from the other will invariably boil down to exercises in pedantry. What Guy said was, in fact, a fact, and not an opinion, and there is no reasonable (but many unreasonable) way for an informed person to interpret it as the latter. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: The point is that if you're going to edit in one of the most contentious places on the project, you need to be especially careful of treating other well-intentioned editors with respect and to try that much harder to understand where they're coming from.
I agree with you on that. My point is; WP:CIVIL runs both ways; by the same token we expect editors not to act like dicks, we should expect editors to shrug off the stuff that doesn't matter, like saying "bullshit" instead of "there's no factual basis for that claim." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- To all the admins involved: Whatever your decision, I strongly urge you to consider a boomerang. The number of people complaining about JzG shows that a serious editor could very well have put together a request here that deserves consideration. But this initial filing grossly mischaracterized literally every diff provided. Even if you decide that Guy has acted out of the bounds of expected behavior, this is one of the most blatantly obvious WP:BATTLEGROUND filings I've ever seen.
- And for what it's worse, I really think it's time to for Wikipedia to stop asking if any individual editor is getting too uncivil in these topics, and start asking why so many experienced editors are getting uncivil, or coming close to it. It's a lot easier to solve a problem when one can work on the root cause, rather than just trying to tamp down the consequences. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Apaugasma
I think JzG's statement here is fairly typical of what the complaint is about. He refers three times to what some people
think or don't like, with links to sources that talk about people involved in the real-world conflict, yet the whole direction of his comment seems to imply that he is talking about other editors, thus identifying the latter with the former. It's like a structural failure to assume good faith, often resulting in a subtle (and I think mostly unintended) form of personal attack. It seems to me that JzG is just too involved in the real-world conflict to remain appropriately dispassionate about it. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 01:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- @PaleoNeonate:, with regard to the tendency to claim that the view of reliable sources are only opinions, did you note that two ([99], [100]) of the four sources cited by JzG in his statement above are opinion pieces? I'm not saying that the tendency you speak about does not exist, on the contrary, but isn't it clear that on the other hand, it is a challenge for every editor in this area to keep fact and opinion neatly separated? Isn't it clear, too, that JzG has had great difficulty in rising up to that challenge? Moreover, while JzG may be perfectly right on content per WP:FALSEBALANCE, this is not about content, it is about conduct. What is of concern is not article content, but the disruption caused in creating and maintaining a collaborative environment. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 13:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Some editors making statements here have expressed the concern that JzG is not the only one to engage in this kind of behavior. I would like to ask these editors to present a case against all others whom they regard as habitually crossing the same line. However, please do draw a line. It doesn't need to go any further than a warning at first, and a tban if they need to be brought here a second time. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 20:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- If anyone's interested in an exposition of the logical fallacy behind the bizarre claim going around here that the Republican Party is a cult, they may find it here. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 04:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Some editors making statements here have expressed the concern that JzG is not the only one to engage in this kind of behavior. I would like to ask these editors to present a case against all others whom they regard as habitually crossing the same line. However, please do draw a line. It doesn't need to go any further than a warning at first, and a tban if they need to be brought here a second time. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 20:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Aircorn
I don't know why we let Jzg (and others) get away with notforum comments just because they are seen as being correct. In my experience it just leads to more issues and encourages disruptive use of the talk pages. Aircorn (talk)
Statement by 力
JzG is obviously an editor with a political opinion. This is not uncommon among editors in the AP2 topic area, and not cause for sanction on its own. Of the diffs given, I don't see any that justify sanctions; though I will note the Nazi comments aren't helpful and the comments about Strom Thurmond would be a BLP issue if he were recently alive. There's widespread belief, including from some of their own lawyers, that some of the participants in the events of January 6th exhibited cult-like behavior in their loyalty towards Trump, I don't see any of his comments suggesting editors here are exhibiting that behavior.
I am more concerned about JzG's recent behavior at User talk:Jimbo Wales in antagonizing and edit-warring [101] [102] with FloridaArmy than anything here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Masem
(Not directly involved in the above articles but have commented enough at BLP/N and NPOV/N that would not feel appropriate to be included at uninvolved)
I'll lead that I don't think there's anything immediately actionable here on JzG, but this is because they are not the only such editor that have shown this type of attitude that create these types of problems in the AP2, and thus would be wrong to single one editor out. Articles involving alt and far right figures, entities and concepts generally suffer from being written in a strongly negative tone and/or as an attack piece, and while the justification "this is what the reliable sources say per UNDUE" is very much true, we are still behold to writing in an impartial and dispassionate tone. And to that end, on talk pages of these articles or related areas, having these types of strong ideals that are used as diffs (again, to stress, not isolated to JzG) are extremely difficult to talk around in discussions, as such editors tend to react that they are dead set on these facets and will not accept any other change. Those strong feelings these editors have in their talk page comment reflect into the mainspace articles. And while what JzG says above "Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopaedia and we don't pretend that neutrality is the average between mainstream sources and OANN", the key word is encyclopaedia and that we shouldn't be presenting any view as right or wrong; we'll reflect the most common or popular viewers reported in the mainstream sources and avoid including the fringe (like OANN), but we absolutely must avoid injecting our own feelings into the Wikivoice in how we write that into WP. Unfortunately, the last several years has led to many articles that reflect the vitrol that many editors have towards the alt/far right and related topics and we need to correct that.
Now, I am very much aware that a majority of the time, these editors have been repeatedly fighting off-site campaigns to make changes wholly incompatible with WP principles, work that is absolutely need. This type of work is going to darken one's attitude quickly given some of the baseless attacks against these editors. But there have been plenty of valid ideas (perhaps difficult to bring about but compatible within WP policy) presented from both existing and newer editors that have been met with the same "nope, can't do it" attitude, some of which are within the diffs above (but again, stressing, this is not limited to JzG). This is why when editors start throwing around WP:NONAZIS, a rather dangerous essay, to try to label other editors within these discussions that may be raising valid points, that's also souring the entire process.
There is something that over the last 5-6+ years of external events reflected onto WP that have subsequently broken some of the fundamentals of how WP should be approaching these topics. This case is a tip of the iceberg and points to a need to do a lot more retrospective to figure out what's gone wrong and how to bring it back, but it absolutely should not result in any immediate actions against JzG from this request. --Masem (t) 03:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by terjen
I recuse myself from commenting on JzG's derailing comments, lobbying of insults, and overly liberal misapplication of the contentious Nazi label in discussions, as they have recently insinuated in AE that I am a Neo-Nazi apologist. Terjen (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by MONGO
No idea why JzG is being so forumy, but this is not new. JzG should just be making reliable reference supported arguments once and walking away. JzG should avoid ludicrous comparisons between a small band of half wits that broke into the US Capital to a highly organized military composed of 10 plus million that exterminated millions more. That comparison is absolutely preposterous and an insult to all that died at the hands of Nazi thugs. Alternately one could easily not feed JzG, simply don't respond to him as he is obviously looking to have a fight, or at the very least insult his ideological opposites and/or their reasonings.--MONGO (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Viriditas:I stand by my comment. I cant elaborate further, but will say what I do allows me access to the details you listed and a whole lot more than that.--MONGO (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
JzG doesn't even get his facts straight when he is out there pontificating "...In 2016, for example, when Trump lost the popular vote by the largest margin of any winning candidate in history?"...maybe he meant modern history because the margin of fewer popular votes for a winning candidate for US President was higher in 1824 and 1876. But that is besides the point because the US has the electoral college and does not elect the US President based on popularity. This is just one glaring detail of many of his ramblings that lack historical accuracy and indicate he is just being reflexive for the sake of arguing. That in conjunction with his belittling narratives about his ideological opponents and/or their stances indicates that if he is reported again to AE with similar issues presented, a TB may be needed. JzG definitely needs an admonishment here.--MONGO (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@Viriditas:Of course, Trump lost by more total popular votes, but that is because there were more people voting! Doh. As a percentage of votes cast, Trump had 2.1% fewer popular votes than Clinton. In 1876 it was 3% and in 1824 over 10%. [103] Its idiotic to say just raw numbers when the total numbers are not the same! There were only 5 million votes in 1876, over 125 million in 2016, so of course total votes would be higher, but the percentage is still lower overall.--MONGO (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by PaleoNeonate
What I see is not NOTFORUM use of talk pages by Guy, but the refutation of arguments posted there. An expression of impatience may perhaps show at times, which is not surprising considering the repetitive task. Moreover, there is a tendency to claim that the view of reliable sources are only opinions, it's not surprising also to see arguments that editors who remind them that WP articles are based on those sources are also only expressing their personal opinions (WP:GEVAL may be useful). —PaleoNeonate – 09:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by ProcrastinatingReader
I like JzG, so I doubt I can opine here with any impartiality, so I won't. But I will link in this ANI for whichever admin reviews this. Haven't reviewed it closely, but the assertions made here remind me of valereee's comment (For the record, I do think JzG needs to take a step back from their own POV-pushing. If someone were to gather the diffs, I think it's quite likely there'd be a warning in that direction for AP2.
) Again, I haven't reviewed that situation closely so not necessarily saying there is or isn't a problem there, or anywhere else for that matter. ProcSock (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by MrOllie
Some of this was just discussed in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility By _Admin_User:JzG, which was closed without action. - MrOllie (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Mr Ernie
I've been concerned by JzG's participation in a couple AP2 areas lately. Here he starts what can only be described as a forum post, linking to Twitter and drawing a bizarre comparison to The Red Skull. It was rightly removed but JzG added it again, requiring another removal. JzG's personal opinions of people holding differently political views than him have long been a net negative for editing in that space. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by starship.paint
In relation to the ANI thread raised by ProcrastinatingReader, I raised my concerns to JzG earlier this month [104]: Guy, I'm concerned about your conduct in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Innican Soufou. When you started the discussion, you did not go into detail and you did not provide individual diffs
[105]. Later in the discussion, you digressed to BLM and Antifa
[106], Derek Chauvin, George Floyd,
[107] and Republicans stopping an federal anti-lynching law
[108]. You've hindered your own report with this manner of posts. I'm sure you can do better than this.
Here are JzG's later responses to myself. [109] [110] starship.paint (exalt) 15:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Atsme: -
How can we ignore the possibility exists that left-wing media is also active in an effort to rewrite the history of Jan 6th? They just got caught doing it.
- seriously, I don't think you are properly appraised of the situation here. You should read this Reason piece (right leaning outlet). On the day of Sicknick's death the Capitol Police attributed Sicknick's death to injuries while engaging with protesters. On the next day the Department of Justice's acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen attributed Sicknick's death to injuries due to a violent mob. The WSJ's source [111] said that the fire extinguisher claim was spread by Capitol Police. The AP [112] reported that the fire extinguisher claim was based on statements collected early in the investigation. Both the WSJ (right-leaning) and the AP also initially reported the fire extinguisher claim, so this wasn't a left-wing media thing. This was the mainstream media getting it wrong because the government and law enforcement got it wrong. The mainstream media couldn't independently verify the claims, because the Capitol Police refused to release footage, and D.C. autopsies are confidential, as the Reason link above states. starship.paint (exalt) 02:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC) - To add on, Sicknick's own father said that Sicknick was hit in the head [113], and the outlet that broke the news of 'no blunt force trauma found' was left-leaning CNN. [114] starship.paint (exalt) 03:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by MastCell
(I'll post up here, rather than below, because I've "known" JzG on-wiki for a long time; I've often agreed with him, sometimes disagreed, and sometimes been frustrated with him, and likely he with me.) As a general matter, I'd agree that veering off-topic on political articles to include personal commentary and partisan rhetoric is unhelpful. JzG definitely does this, although I don't think he's anywhere near the worst offender, even among established editors. And yes, some of his justifications make sense—for instance, the comparison of the modern Republican Party to a cult, where absolute fealty to an infallible Leader supersedes any coherent public policy or core principles to the extent that the party didn't even bother to draft a platform in 2020, is a prominent, reliably-sourced viewpoint. I'm just not sure it's helpful to express it on article talkpages where a significant subset of editors are adherents of that party and will feel attacked.
I guess I'd favor a request to JzG to tone it down on article talkpages, and to recognize the difference between that space and more informal project areas (e.g. usertalk pages). But I will also say that if JzG is deemed to have crossed a line in injecting partisan commentary into article talkpages, you can expect me to bring several enforcement requests focused on established editors who have gone way farther over the line than he. In other words, I'm OK with drawing a line, but if this is it, then a lot of people have crossed it—including some of those most eager to see JzG sanctioned here. MastCell Talk 16:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Adding, in light of Valeree's comment and regarding the specific issue of the January 6th attacks: there is an active effort underway by right-wing media and politicians to rewrite the history of what happened on January 6th. That's a fact attested to by numerous reliable sources; see, for example:
- "Some Republicans are rewriting history about January 6", NBC News
- "Jan. 6 commission’s fate uncertain as Republicans seek to rewrite history", Boston Globe
- "Republicans Rewrite History of the Capitol Riot, Hampering an Inquiry", New York Times
- "Rewriting January 6th: Republicans push false and misleading accounts of Capitol riot", Washington Post
- "Trump's triumphs extend to GOP rewriting history of Nov. 3 and Jan. 6", ABC News
- Unsurprisingly, this real-time effort to rewrite history has spilled over, to some extent, onto Wikipedia. JzG is entirely right to push back against it. The language he uses in doing should probably be more temperate, but in our haste to tone-police him I don't want to lose sight of the context, which is that he (and others) are fundamentally defending the site's goals and principles by pushing back against a campaign of politically motivated falsehoods. MastCell Talk 18:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Valereee, comparing the January 6th attacks to BLM protests is, itself, a right-wing talking point, and a misleading one at that, according to experts and reliable sources. See:
- "False equivalency between Black Lives Matter and Capitol siege: Experts, advocates", ABC News;
- "(Republicans) have argued that the attack was no worse than the rioting and looting in cities during the Black Lives Matter movement, often exaggerating the unrest last summer while minimizing a mob’s attempt to overturn an election", New York Times
- "No, an Iowa BLM protest was not like the Jan. 6 US Capitol riot", Politifact; etc.
- But I don't think it's worth belaboring that further. My point is that you, like all of us, choose what to spend time and energy on here; what to prioritize; what to confront and push back against, and what to let slide. By tone-policing JzG without clearly acknowledging the context in which he's acting—a context in which false equivalences and narratives are being actively promoted, in some cases by some of the people seeking to have him censured—you're making a choice, and it's one I don't fully agree with. That's all I'm saying. MastCell Talk 03:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Valereee, comparing the January 6th attacks to BLM protests is, itself, a right-wing talking point, and a misleading one at that, according to experts and reliable sources. See:
Statement by OID
In response to Valereee: "you need to be especially careful of treating other well-intentioned editors with respect and to try that much harder to understand where they're coming from." This is based on the assumption that they are well-intentioned (here is a hint: they are not) and that we are obligated to try and understand supporters of child-caging, women-groping, racists. After careful consideration of all the relevant facts, I dont feel the need to be careful at all actually. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by PackMecEng
Given the statement by OID right above, I think it would be a good time to excuse them from the AP area as well. It's not so much a failure to adhere to AGF as everyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi. That has no place in Wikipedia let alone contentious areas. PackMecEng (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Little olive oil
I've interacted with JzG many times over the years and I often disagree with him, often, and I will again, I'm sure. But stating an opinion as fact especially when the the so-called opinion is supported by compliant Wikipedia reliable sources is not sanctionable. Further seeing and stating an opinion as a fact is pretty standard for human beings everywhere let alone here. Are we going to sanction every time someone states their opinion as if a fact or believes their opinion is a fact? No we're not! Inflammatory language is not necessarily the best way to communicate but then I've recently seen some less than optimal language by editors posting here. Are we going to use discretionary sanctions every time someone uses less than optimal language, something everyone does sooner or later? We must be even-handed. Discretionary sanctions if I remember was created to take the load off arbitrations. As such there should be a degree of seriousness to an AE Enforcement. In communicating with SlimVirgin before her death, pillar of Wikipedia that she was, with the insights that came from her intelligence and long-time experience, she was incredibly distraught by Arbitration and especially some of the most recent ones where situations that demanded small interventions blew up into big cases. We have to stop using arbitrations and AE to deal with small-time problems. They tax the community. They tax all of us. JzG can be warned that he needs to tone it down, better yet warn everybody on the article and its talk page. That's it. If there are problems on an article then everything and everyone on that article must be scrutinized. This is a community and as such, very often, it's the multiple-driven, editor interactions that create conflict. No games, no gotchas, just even handed fairness and mature judgement on what will truly impact the community. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Jorm
The usual suspects are just tryna' remove someone who stops bullshit from appearing in the articles. It comes without fail that when there aren't any good policy reasons for allowing bullshit into articles, that defenders get worn down into little nubs by constantly having to engage in bad-faith arguments. Eventually patience wears thin and out come the "civility" knives because if you can't remove an opponent through truth or justice, you create a propaganda war.
Please do not fall for this.--Jorm (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Sluzzelin
Goodness, there's a lot of robust hyperbole and partisanship on articles JzG tends to edit, but even if "quick injections of (...) personal opinion (in violation of WP:NOTFORUM), and have done virtually nothing to further the discussion or provide a viewpoint that's beneficial to reaching a consensus" applied here (which it doesn't in general), then a lot of participants of articles on American politics would fall in the same category. Don't single out, and don't be so restrictive/officious. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding User:Apaugasma's last edit, I do not wish to "present a case against all others whom they regard as habitually crossing the same line". Apart from trolling, egregious personal attacks, and perhaps other crass violations of WP polices, there's no need for talk-page intervention. I believe it's best to let such discussions run their course ---Sluzzelin talk 21:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Arkon
Oof, pretty terrible to see WP:OTHEREDITORSEXIST as the main reasoning to avoid dealing with this by some of the above. To address it (though I really think that shouldn't be needed), Many editors have tried to curb the reported behavior directly, and it hasn't seemed to have resulted in any improvement. What exactly is the next step then if not some kind of official warning/tban/whatever? Arkon (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Viriditas
In the above, MastCell briefly addressed how JzG's opinions are backed by good media sources. I also wanted to add four names whose research and published work supports JzG: Joan Donovan at Harvard, Lee McIntyre at Boston University, forensic psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee, and author Steven Hassan. Viriditas (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- @MONGO: you wrote, "JzG should avoid ludicrous comparisons between a small band of half wits that broke into the US Capital to a highly organized military composed of 10 plus million that exterminated millions more." According to DHS spokeswoman Sarah Peck, "Domestic violent extremism poses the most lethal, persistent terrorism-related threat to our homeland today."
The NDAA mandated reviews of the domestic terrorism landscape for 2017, when racially motivated violent extremists were “the primary sources of lethal and significant violence” and law enforcement and racial minorities were the top targets; 2018, when domestic violent extremists “were primarily enabled by their use of the Internet” and militia violent extremists “continued to espouse violent rhetoric, often lacking intent or credibility, to engage in violence against Muslims, political activists, and protestors to protect their vision of public safety, such as border-related issues”; and 2019, when the FBI and DHS assessed that racially motivated violent extremists, “primarily those advocating for the superiority of the white race, likely would continue to be the most lethal DVE threat to the Homeland.”
- Although most experts have known this for about 15 or more years, right wing conservatives have worked night and day to prevent authorities from investigating extremism in their ranks. This is an ongoing problem at this very moment, as Trump-supporting conservatives continue to try to block official investigations into the Capitol insurrection in the ultimate act of "defunding the police". Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- @MONGO: "Donald Trump lost the popular vote in [the 2016] US presidential election by a bigger margin than any other US president in history...That deficit is more than five times bigger than the 544,000 by which George W. Bush lost to Al Gore in 2000 - the second biggest popular vote deficit in history for a candidate who has still gone on to become President...Only five US presidents in history have been elected despite losing the popular vote: John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump..." The Independent. See also: List of United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Atsme: are you willing to acknowledge and recognize that QAnon is a real and existing Trump cult believed in by millions of Trump supporters? Because to me, it sounds like you are ignoring its existence and pretending it isn't real. The cult of Trump is very real and has been documented in reliable sources. It is based on a litany of conspiracy theories and operates without any kind of evidence. It is essentially a new religious movement that believes Trump is a manifestation of the second coming of Christ in some form or another. Christian evangelicals have been promoting Trump from their pulpits as the savior of the world. This is all extensively documented. It is a cult. Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Rusf10: you wrote, "Calling a major American political party a cult is unacceptable". With all due respect, we have dozens of reliable sources, academic experts in their respective fields, and former members of the GOP who call the current Republican Party a cult. It is not "unacceptable", it is a general description of the current state of the party, as much as you might not like it. In addition to the four experts who agree with the cult description that I listed above in my first comment, I will add Brian Hughes at American University and Janja Lalich, professor emerita of sociology at California State University, Chico. I will keep adding to this list as necessary. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Rusf10: ask yourself what kind of evidence you are open to and would accept to change your mind. The Republican Party is described as a cult today by experts because it meets a set of criteria for cults. For example, cult members are often willing to die for their leader, which the Arizona Republican Party made a point of tweeting on December 7, 2020, approximately a month before the January 6 insurrection and attack, when they asked their followers if they were willing to die for Trump. You can go down the list, and in the majority of cases, the Republican Party meets the definition of a cult. Again, will you accept the evidence? Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Rusf10: you wrote, "This is WP:NOTAFORUM, so I refuse to debate such topics as your strongly held belief that the Republican Party is a cult." To recap, you previously claimed it was "unacceptable" to refer to the Republican Party as a cult. I responded, showing that for people in the reality-based community, it was acceptable, since it is an evidence-based statement. You responded twice, that this description can only be considered an opinion, and you refused to state what kind of evidence you would accept that would change your mind. You then accused me of having a "strongly held belief". For the record, I believe in data, evidence, and provisional facts. That means I don't hold any beliefs unless the evidence supports them. For example, we know that cults are characterized by charismatic authoritarian leaders and extremist ideologies, which the Republican Party supports. We also know that Trump and the Republican Party reinforce social hierarchy and skew towards authoritarianism, another known facet of cults. Thomas F. Pettigrew's 2017 research, "Social Psychological Perspectives on Trump Supporters", supports this statement. Again, we aren't discussing my beliefs. We are discussing the evidence that the Republican Party is a cult. What evidence will you accept that will change your mind? Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Rusf10; you wrote, "[It] says 'Commentaries'. Thank you for proving my point." I don't see any "point". It's a published commentary in a scholarly journal with 54 cited references to research and supporting documentation. I think reasonable people will give that more weight and consideration than an opinion piece in Newsmax, OANN, the Gateway Pundit, or Natural News. Again, you haven't addressed my question. What kind of evidence will change your mind? If the answer is "none", then you may want to ask yourself if you are engaging in denialism. Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Rusf10, you wrote, "Even after someone points out to you that what you are citing is in fact an opinion, you start argueing about the superiority that opinion." I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how reliable sources work. The opinion of a professor in the relevant field published in a scholarly journal is superior to an opinion published on a right-wing, lunatic fringe website by a Trump supporter. While I could write 10,000 words as to why this is, suffice it to say that your favorite, Trump-supporting blogs (that I mentioned above) are considered and evaluated as unreliable. This is because they have a record and history of propaganda and disinformation. In other words, the majority of sources connected to pro-Trump commentary are considered inferior for good reason. Viriditas (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Berchanhimez, you wrote, "Apparently, Viriditas, a very experienced editor, sees no problem in citing opinion/commentary/similar sources - which are generally not fact checked or peer reviewed - as proof that their opinion is (in their words) "superior" and should be the only opinion allowed." You almost got it right. See WP:RSP for references. All of the Trump-supporting sources I mentioned are on that list as unreliable, prohibited, blocked, banned, and some are even on a spam blacklist. This is apparently a conundrum of some kind for you and others, but it's really quite simple: the vast majority of right-wing, Trump supporting sources cannot be evaluated as reliable, and therefore, cannot be used on Wikipedia. You need to ask yourself why this is true, as it says something fundamental about the state and quality of right-wing, conservative ideology in the United States. If your own sources are considered unreliable, then maybe it's time to look deeply at the problem. Instead, what are you doing? You're here claiming that the problem is one of editors who rely on reliable sources! Thanks for the laughs! Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Berchanhimez, you wrote, "Viriditas' response to this comment, which doesn't address my point whatsoever but again just basically amounts to "my opinion is more equal than yours". Then, you must not be paying attention. I'll repeat myself in a succinct manner: reliable sources support JzG, both those in the popular media, and those in the scholarly journals. Opinions on Wikipedia are based on reliable sources. Is there anything else to say? Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Apaugasma, the Republican Party's embrace of Trumpism is the reason, according to Reuters, that dozens of former Bush officials have left the Republican Party, calling it a 'Trump cult'. It's the same reason multiple experts on cults listed above in this section call it a cult, and it's why the Republican Party has staked their future on a big lie—like all political cults before them. If this statement is controversial for you, then we might not inhabit the same shared reality. Viriditas (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Jackattack1597
I agree with most of Guy's political opinions, but his incivility with regards to people on the other side of the political spectrum should not be tolerated. If other people are being similarly incivil towards their political adversaries, the solution is to warn or sanction them as well, not to let Guy walk free.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Atsme
In partial support of what Inedible Hulk stated above, following are some links about the misinformation and inaccurate reporting by the NYTimes on Jan 8th about Officer Sicknick's death. Other media outlets in the echo chamber, including MSNBC and CNN, ran their stories off the NYTimes article, and also reported Sicknick's death to have been caused by rioters who bludgeoned him to death with a fire extinguisher during the Jan 6th assault on the Capitol. See Politifact and Snopes. In light of the false reporting by left-leaning sources about the Capitol riots, I can't simply ignore the comment to Valereee, also noticed by IH, about there being an active effort underway by right-wing media (and politicians) to rewrite the history of January 6th. My response to that is...do what?!! Most editors already know my position about exercising caution toward ALL news media, and to comply with RECENTISM, NOTNEWS, NEWSORG, etc. Ok, so...let's take a look at things from a little different perspective.
How can we ignore the possibility exists that left-wing media is also active in an effort to rewrite the history of Jan 6th? They just got caught doing it. How many times have they not been caught, or were simply ignored - they own most of today's media outlets, right? What if that autopsy had not been performed, or the results not made public? Sounds pretty ridiculous, right?
The pushy, bullying attitudes are what needs to stop - the my way or the highway approach - it has no place on WP, and should not be allowed or ignored. Those types of editors are not collaborators - they're warriors. And if you don't go along with them, be prepared to defend against Alinsky's Rule #13 or a POV railroad, or a unilateral action you didn't expect. They are serious about their mission to RGW and they are certainly not neutral. We've seen a few examples of questionable behavior right here. It has created an environment on WP that, when arguments get heated, it sometimes feels like we're sitting in the hot seat of a Senate interrogation led by Joe McCarthy and our entire WP future is on the line. All the unwarranted accusations and incivility toward one another has to stop...the excuses have to stop...the PAs have to stop. I don't want to see anybody t-banned or blocked. I'd much rather get along - agree to collaborate and work together to get the article right - that should be our goal - give and take - listen to one another - share a bit of levity and laugh. Whatever it takes to get us to that point - I SUPPORT. Atsme 💬 📧 01:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @starship.paint - you took my comment out of context, but generally speaking the latter happens quite a bit at the drama boards, and at RSN when judging entire sources; i.e., context matters. And btw - similar arguments can be presented for the originating comment but that is off-topic. We're here to discuss behavior, not sources. Atsme 💬 📧 10:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, Johnuniq, for your thoughtful and well presented response. I think something our admins may be overlooking is the portion of our policy that specifically states what constitutes a PA (my bold underline): Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse. Derogatory comments about political parties or allegations or innuendos made against an editor in an attempt to discredit them is unacceptable behavior, especially when it's politically motivated. We also have MOS:LABEL which states: Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. The NoNazi or neoNazi or white supremacy and racist labels, etc. that have been hung on people who are conservatives/Republicans are contentious opinion as is calling an entire political party a "cult". We should not be insulting millions of people because of their political beliefs. Doing so totally dismisses millions of people of color, certain ethnicities and religions who are members of that party. From my perspective, research surveys (again opinion that is dependent upon respondents, numbers, demographics, questions asked, etc.) and articles in news media (again journalistic opinion in biased sources) are a long way from being peer reviewed, historically accurate, high quality scientifically based journals. The labeling, targeting and polarizing of editors has to stop, and that means ArbCom putting their foot down. It is causing harm to the project, and we're losing editors as a result. Atsme 💬 📧 14:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- My final thoughts in response to the pings, as well as in closing - I'm of the mind that when top quality news anchors like Ted Koppel are speaking out about the same issues we're facing on WP, and what may be the reason we're here now, it's time for us to pay closer attention to what's being said. We also have available for our perusal a faculty research paper by Pippa Norris, a Paul F. McGuire Lecturer in Comparative Politics at Harvard Kennedy. Excerpt: "A progressive orthodoxy, it is argued, has silenced conservative voices and diverse perspectives. This development, it is claimed, has ostracized contrarians, limited academic freedom, strengthened conformism, and eviscerated robust intellectual debate. But does systematic empirical evidence support these claims?" I highly recommend it because so much of it applies to our own issues, and the trend that is being promoted, inadvertently or otherwise, by some of our well-meaning by rather aggressive administrators, many of whom I truly appreciate despite our disagreements, but they need to know they are behaving in an unacceptable manner that some editors consider reminiscent of McCarthyism in so many ways, and it creates a chilling environment to work in, not to mention that their own behavior projects what they are trying to prevent. Changes are needed if we ever hope to reduce these occurrences, but that doesn't necessarily mean we have to eliminate good editors/admins or silence opposition voices to resolve conflicts - that only serves to create more issues, just different ones. A much better approach would be to put the POV warriors to use productively by my making them attend WP:NPP school under the guidance of NPP teachers who have promoted and/or reviewed GAs/FAs. Atsme 💬 📧 15:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by DGG
The problem is not only. politics. JzG acts and talks similarly in many different fields, including anything relating to unconventional medicine or pseudoscience, and more widely . I am in complete agreement with his actual views on most scientific topics, , and substantially in agreement with his actual views on politics, though in some things I may be further towards the left, and this includes much less trust in the reliability of any publication that will support any of the present US political parties. But we're supposed to be an encyclopedia and give proportional coverage, especially in situations where he actual facts are in dispute. History (or just plain experience) has shown that no conclusion is absolutely final, and that it is quite possible for everyone to be deceived at the time. JzG has commonly taken the position that a source is either reliable or not, without any consideration of various degrees of reliability. When one take such a sharp distinction, there's an inevitable tendency to draw the line between the two in a position where your own views will be the ones considered reliable. If one take as a more realistic position where no source is completely reliable, and very few completely useless, it tends to be much easier to adopt true NPOV proportional coverage, because there much less basis for throwing out the sources favored by one's opponents. In politics, one needs to at least mention the bias of all sources , especially the less common ones-- we can pretty much assume any reader knows the politics of the major sources in AP, In para-science, where he facts are much less in dispute, we have much more basis for indicating what sources represent the currently accepted view and which do not, and we can distinguish between the various degrees of skepticism and nuttyness. So we do have to at least once in an article indicate this, because many readers may not realize. But if we don't at least include example of the far-out sources, how will people coming to the subject recognize them?
JzG is certainly welcome to give his own views on the reliability of sourcing. What is may not do here is insist on them, or attack others because of them.
I note to my dismay that some of the admins positing in the secition below seem to regar the other parties as equally guilty of this. They may try just as hard, but they don't have the same skill or power or support, so they';re not a danger to NPOV. The one who is in a position to shut out his oppoenents is JzG, as he's the one who needs sanctions, The others I think can be left to the free play of ordinary WP dispute. Sanctions are for when they;'re needed,. The few times we use DS, and AE, the more effective it is.
I decided to post here, rather than in the section below, because I realize I'll be accused of partianship as I was in a previous not unrelated AE case. And I want to emphasise that my personal interactions with JzG have always been friendly. Many years ago, we reached an understanding that we would try to to directy oppose each on individual issues, at least with respect to deletion, to avoid an endless circle of trying to outargue each other. I've held off directly posting against him on this as long as possible, and I post in the hope that something can be found that would avoid losing him entirely. But If despite my equally strong convictions can substantially avoid participating in AP, so can he. If I can avoid getting more down in psudoscience, so can he. DGG ( talk ) 07:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- FeydHuxtable, whether he is correct about the nature of what happened on Jan 6, is not the issue here. This isn't an RfC on article content. Trying to suppress views of those who disagree with us is the issue. DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by FeydHuxtable
JzG sometimes seems over forceful with his pro liberal & skeptical views, and in suspecting bigotry as the motivation for those with different POVs. I hope he takes onboard the DGG & Valereee criticism. But on the broad specifics (not his over harsh judgement of Trump supporters, most of whom seem to sincerely believe Trump was a victim of election fraud) JzG is correct. His comparisons to early 20th century Germany are apt. A coup was undeniably attempted. By 06 Jan it was already > 99% likely to fail regardless of Pence, but if a few key folk had yielded to pressure in the previous 3 weeks, it might have worked.
Even before 2010, RSs used to praise us for having the single best Obama article on the web. IMO reasons we're nowhere near that with Trump related articles is nothing to do with JzG, but down to a small group of obstructive accounts who are too tactical to get sanctioned. Probably there is no immediate solution. By the 2030s the obstructors will likely have moved on, and we can accurately describe the Donald and his power plays. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by François Robere
The diffs:
- Somewhat inflammatory, but mostly on-point and in direct response to other editors. I don't think there's anything sanctionable here, but I would advise Guy to avoid these as they distract from his otherwise solid arguments.
- I'm not seeing this at all. There are lots of sources referring to Trump supporters as a "cult" (there's even a book), including from the right side of the map.[115][116] The only thing I object to is Guy's comment to Berchanhimez ("pretty sure I have more experience of Wikipedia and its sourcing policies than you do"), but as a sole instance of such wording it's not sanctionable.
- WP:FORUMy, but not sanctionable unless it can be shown to be part of a pattern of commentary that is unusually distracting for the TA (in other words - with respect to other editors). I don't think it is.
- All of these are on-point if a bit argumentative, and not sanctionable.
Guy may be opinionated, but so are most editors in the TA. He's also reasoned and thorough, and I've never found him to be unpleasant. None of these diffs is sanctionable; I would dismiss the complaint with a friendly suggestion for everyone to relax and follow the sources. François Robere (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Bilby
Guy and I have butted heads often enough, so I was planning to sit this out. But I'm concerned, in that while I don't believe that the best articles are necessarily created by having all major viewpoints hash it out, I have found that they are not made by having one side have free reign. Guy is a damn good editor, but where he has strong opinions he can use them to create a space where the other side feels unwelcome. When we repeat talk of the "cult of Trump", we suggest to those who come from Trump's pespective that they are just part of a cult, and as such their opinions are lessened. When Guy repeatedly points out that he has more edits than someone, [117][118][119][120][121][122], we create an envoronment where they risk feeling that their contributions are not given consideration simply because of a difference in experience. It isn't whether or not these statements are true that is the issue, but the envronment they create when repeatedly stated, and this is something that I've seen Guy create before. Thus I'm going to agree with Masem - if nothing else, there is a situation being created around these articles which seems to be made to prevent one side from being heard, whether or not that is deliberate. Is it sanctionable? I don't think we have the will to do that here, and I don't see this as the issue that will force it, but I hope we have the will to tackle these issues at some point in the future. - Bilby (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Beyond My Ken
- I note the appearance here of the same old group of editors who always show up whenever anyone dares to cite reality-based reliably-sourced information in the AP2 subject area that dares to contradict right-wing talking points. That a number of them are admins is ... disturbing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Rusf10
I've been watching this form the sidelines for a while. I mostly agree with DGG's views who I believe has been treated very unfairly recently. I admire DGG's ability to put his own views aside and look at things objectively. I will say I am only slightly less concerned about JzG's behavior since he is no longer an admin, but he still has a large amount of influence. At best, his behavior violates WP:NOTFORUM. But making Nazi comparisons really pushes things beyond that. What is even more concerning is MastCell's response here. He not only defended JzG, but doubles down by saying JzG's comparison of the modern Republican Party to a cult
was justified, but then passive-aggressively walks it back by saying I'm just not sure it's helpful to express it on article talkpages where a significant subset of editors are adherents of that party and will feel attacked.
[123]. Well, MastCell you just said it again, so how was that helpful? Calling a major American political party a cult is unacceptable, especially when it comes from an admin. This is just further proof of MastCell's blatant bias in this topic area. So if we are going to look at the behavior of others as MastCell wants, he should be first on the list.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Viriditas:With all due respect, just because someone writes an op-ed does not establish something as fact. Just because someone is considered an expert, does not turn their opinions into facts.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Viriditas:This is WP:NOTAFORUM, so I refuse to debate such topics as your strongly held belief that the Republican Party is a cult.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Viriditas:At the very top of the source you chose[124], its says "Commentaries". Thank you for proving my point.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Viriditas:See this is exactly what we don't need here. (and what got JzG in trouble) Even after someone points out to you that what you are citing is in fact an opinion, you start argueing about the superiority that opinion. Anyone who doesn't agree with your views must be in denial because your opinion is so far superior that it might as well just be a fact. --Rusf10 (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Viriditas:At the very top of the source you chose[124], its says "Commentaries". Thank you for proving my point.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Viriditas:This is WP:NOTAFORUM, so I refuse to debate such topics as your strongly held belief that the Republican Party is a cult.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Levivich
What's happening on this page (people forum-ing to an extreme, almost laughable, degree; bludgeoning by repeating themselves ad nauseum; claiming opinion is fact; asserting that anyone who disagrees doesn't understand or acknowledge reality; asserting anyone who disagrees is either ignorant or malicious, etc.), happens all over AP2, has been for years, and I think this page demonstrates well just how out of control it is. It's very much true that JzG isn't the only or the worst. I don't believe in singling any one editor out, but I do believe in giving warnings where warnings are due. There are several due, just on this page alone. I think some of the comments on this page are worse than the diffs in the report, but that doesn't mean nothing should be done! Just the opposite. We wouldn't allow this WP:RGW foruming in other topic areas. We wouldn't allow anyone to go on about Israeli or Palestinian or Kurdish or Turkish politics like some have gone on about US politics (on this very page). Our discussions about MEK, ISIS, and Hamas are better-behaved that our discussions about US politics. It really gets in the way of productive editing in AP2 when there's a contingent of true-believer culture-warriors, from both sides, arguing endlessly every day. Levivich harass/hound 15:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Result concerning JzG
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Berchanhimez, looks like you didn't fill in the "sanction or remedy to be enforced" - guessing you meant AP2, but probably should get that filled in. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Pinged here. Ugh, I literally just posted to the storming of the US Capitol article asking JzG again to tone down his language re: Trump supporters. —valereee (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Berchanhimez, yes, I'm aware. —valereee (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- @MjolnirPants, your [125] JzG dared use the word "bullshit", I guess? and [126] No "injectiong of personal opinion" here. JzG is stating a well-accepted fact. are exactly what prompted me to again ask JzG to tone it down just now at that talk. No, it's not the word bullshit, although it would be nice if he'd stop using that kind of dismissive language on contentious talk pages, too. And no it's not stating fact that's the problem. It's stating opinions as fact that's the problem. —valereee (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- MjolnirPants, it's not the pottymouth that bothers me. My pottymouth is much worse than bullshit. The problem here is that when you call someone else's opinion bullshit, what you're doing is completely dismissing that opinion rather than making an attempt to understand it. He could have called it horsefeathers for all I care. The point is that if you're going to edit in one of the most contentious places on the project, you need to be especially careful of treating other well-intentioned editors with respect and to try that much harder to understand where they're coming from. —valereee (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- @MastCell, I'm not saying don't push back on falsehoods. In fact it seems pretty likely it's a falsehood that there is ZERO chance there were ANY peaceful protesters at the Jan 6 speeches, which is what calling that "mythical" is. I'm sure that
, just like for a lot of BLM protests,some people showed up intending to wreak violence, some showed up intending to be part of a peaceful protest and got caught up in the riot, and some showed up for a peaceful protest and left when things got crazy. —valereee (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC) - Only in death, I don't actually know all of the editors in this argument, but I do know InedibleHulk, with whom I've disagreed on many, many things. I object to the assertion that editor isn't well-intentioned. —valereee (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- I am in full agreement with MastCell. If this is sanctionable, I can think (even without pausing) of another dozen editors whose behaviour is functionally equivalent, including at least a couple that have posted here in support of the OP. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Then let's log a warning to all three. Seriously. —valereee (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well, this is the problem. I don't think that's a good idea, because I was only referring to AP2, and we could expand that to a lot more of other hot-button subject (indeed, some of the other areas are even worse). This is a functional problem with WP, in that whilst we deal with disruption in articlespace reasonably well, we don't deal well with it elsewhere. To give a hypothetical - and somewhat simplistic - example (and apologies for the Godwin), editor A says "editor B accused me of being a Nazi". Editor B says "No I didn't, I suggested that your talkpage post was supportive of Nazi ideology". Immediately, any action taken by an administrator will be taken to mean that admin is supportive of A or B's political viewpoint. It's difficult. And I suggest that any random swearing or insults - whilst obviously non-optimal - are far less important than removing seriously problematic editors from that topic area. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Though I note that one of those editors is already back at ANI after a block for nonsense like this. An AP2 ban would be better for everyone there, IMO. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin, but will note I was also brought back to AN/I today, for all sorts of nonsense, but the complainant withdrew. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think swearing is equivalent to insults. "That source is bullshit" is not the same as "Your opinion is bullshit." And I hate Trump at least as much as JzG does. Also I'm not going to avoid dealing with a behavioral issue out of concern someone will think my stance on the specific behavior is somehow evidence I'm not behaving fairly due to my personal political stance. For anyone who thinks I'm advantaging Trump supporters: I despise Trump. I think he's possibly the worst thing to happen to the US in modern politics, and that's a big ask after Bush II's war decisions. —valereee (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Though I note that one of those editors is already back at ANI after a block for nonsense like this. An AP2 ban would be better for everyone there, IMO. Black Kite (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well, this is the problem. I don't think that's a good idea, because I was only referring to AP2, and we could expand that to a lot more of other hot-button subject (indeed, some of the other areas are even worse). This is a functional problem with WP, in that whilst we deal with disruption in articlespace reasonably well, we don't deal well with it elsewhere. To give a hypothetical - and somewhat simplistic - example (and apologies for the Godwin), editor A says "editor B accused me of being a Nazi". Editor B says "No I didn't, I suggested that your talkpage post was supportive of Nazi ideology". Immediately, any action taken by an administrator will be taken to mean that admin is supportive of A or B's political viewpoint. It's difficult. And I suggest that any random swearing or insults - whilst obviously non-optimal - are far less important than removing seriously problematic editors from that topic area. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Then let's log a warning to all three. Seriously. —valereee (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Re Nazis: Blanket prohibitions are rarely appropriate because context matters and exceptions exist (and, I think, some reliable sources have made comparisons similar to those by JzG). Nevertheless, I confidently state that mentioning anything connected with Nazis in AP2 discussions is undesirable and JzG should restrict himself to no more than one mention a month. However, diffs 1 and 3 for this issue are part of one brief discussion that started with JzG's problem-free "
there's really only one event. It started down the National mall and moved to the insurrection
". That comment might be regarded as forumy but in context it is an opinion that is relevant to the issue (a proposal to split the article in two: peaceful protest + Capitol protest). The discussion degenerated when people responded to JzG with equally policy-free pronouncements.Re cult/personalizing: The first diff is a repeat (probably a mistake). Another diff is from the Nazi discussion and is part of an exchange of personal opinions among participants—not good but not particularly worse than the others except for use of a bad word. A suitable response would be to point out that claims of "cult" are unsourced and irrelevant to the discussion (and say nothing more, that is, do not continue to exchange opinions). The "experience" issue was a claim by JzG that he had a better understanding of sourcing policies—a glance suggests it is off-topic but in context (to split the article) it's not too bad and is part of the unproductive exchange of opinions.Re repeatedly making comments: The first two diffs are part of the one discussion already covered. The third diff is a claim that someone's opinion was "WP:OR" along with a provocative suggestion for an alternative to an apparently sourced "insurrectionist". The WP:OR claim is literally correct as the comment referred to was an unsourced opinion (that was fine in context where people are exchanging opinions, but it was OR).Re further information: The first diff is a mistake? The second is a bit off but again is part of the exchange of opinions. The third has a very good first two sentences. The third sentence mentioning "martyr" is defensible in that it is anticipating a possible answer to the question in the first sentence.Re what to do: That's difficult. Frankly JzG wouldn't post so many comments if people didn't reply to his initial statements. I'm not saying those replying are at fault, but a good way of dealing with someone posting opinions you don't like is to ignore them and focus on actionable proposals to improve the article based on reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC) - I have serious doubts that this can be resolved here. It's been some 6 years since WP:AP2, and I suspect that WP:AP3 is drawing near. — Ched (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- It would be wise for JzG (and all editors commenting on controversial topics) to focus on what reliable sources say and how best to improve the article instead of spouting opinions like a political pundit. As JzG is well aware, there are plenty of opportunities for all of us to opine on social media, but here on Wikipedia, we should strive to conduct ourselves as encyclopedia editors and not as activists. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Debresser
Debresser blocked for 1 month for topic ban violation. signed, Rosguill talk 04:34, 23 May 2021 (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 Debresser
N/A
The idea that after asking for an unblock for exactly the same violation while saying they will not do it again, and then the very next opportunity where I am at ANI does exactly the same thing makes me not want to wait for an opportunity for a self-revert. I dont know when WP:NOTHERE applies to a user who insists on repeatedly violating a topic ban, but I feel like we are fast approaching that point.
Discussion concerning DebresserStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by DebresserStatement by (username)Result concerning Debresser
|