Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive113
ZScarpia and WLRoss
[edit]| No action taken. T. Canens (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning ZScarpia and WLRoss[edit]
The source is clearly unreliable as was determined by uninvolved editors please see those two discussion from WP:RSN 1.Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_95#Institute_for_Research_Middle_Eastern_Policy Here is some quotes from the discussion:
2. Wikipedia:RSN#IRmep:_actual_reliable_source_evidence In second discussion most of editors were involved expect of two:
3.Misleading edit summary by user:WLRoss claimed that he restored the source per RSN is clear example of WP:TE Only recently User:Shuki was banned for wrong usage of sources.I think the same standard should be apply here.To the very least users should warned on WP:ARBPIA sanction
Response to T.cannens[edit]1. First of all the case is not retaliatory and there no proof for it.I brought Shuki case only as example.Please assume WP:AGF. Second while the source is of course reliable for its own opinion it doesn't even matter we don't use unreliable sources even with attribution from WP:RS "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.".This source was found unreliable by uninvolved editors in WP:RSN like I showed earlier so I don't understand how this request can be considered frivolous.--Shrike (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC) 2. I have not asked that Wlross will be warned just because he edited A-I articles.I have asked him be warned because of his misleading summary.Or do you consider his summary not misleading?--Shrike (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC) Response to Ed.Jonston[edit]But IRMEP is not reliable source even with attribution there are many sites in the web that criticize many things should we include it too?.Everyone can set up a page and call himself an "institute" it doesn't mean there are. Because of it in such matters WP:RSN should decide.And the decision of uninvolved editors was that the site is unreliable for anything and shouldn't be used in Wikipedia--Shrike (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC) I refer what GabrielF(involved said about this "institute": :Like any non-profit, IRMEPs tax filings are available to the public. Here are their 2009 filings. The organization has a budget of less than $100,000 and while it has three board members besides the Director I don't see how it could support more than one researcher. (Crossposted from Talk:Middle East Media Research Institute.) GabrielF (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC) Response to Last comments[edit]I didn't change my claim.The source in unreliable to be included in Wikipedia as was decided by WP:RSN even with attribution. As far as I understand there is three types of sources according to WP:RS and WP:V
As far as I read the WP:RSN it 3rd type of source as was established by uninvolved editors The violation of both editors is that they included this source against WP:RSN while one doing it with misleading summary.--Shrike (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Discussion concerning ZScarpia and WLRoss[edit]Statement by ZScarpia[edit]ZScarpia[edit]In the past four days, I have reverted removals of text (1, 2) made by Shrike in different parts of the MEMRI article twice (1, 2), the second revert being the one listed above. Both reverts were made because of an apparent misunderstanding of the reliable sources policy by Shrike. Shrike removed attributed opinions which were sourced to the attributees' own websites. In those cases, the only reliability issue arising was that it was shown that the attributees had actually made the attributed opinions. The sources given satisfied that requirement. Shrike seems to have difficulty understanding that an individual's own website can be a reliable source for that individual's opinion and that an individual or organisation do not need to be reliable in themselves, only notable as far as the subject matter of the article is concerned, in order to include their opinion. I have no particular views about the notabily of the opinions Shrike removed, my only concern was that Shrike made the removals on specious grounds. Reference has been made to the AE request which I recently brought against Shuki. The claims of similarity between cases are false. I brought the case solely on behavioural grounds. Nowhere, either in the request or on the talkpage of the article concerned, did I refer to source reliability. Although others referred to source reliability, I think that it was Shuki's behaviour that the outcome of the case hinged on. ← ZScarpia 17:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC) The talkpage discussions here and here may be relevant. Shrike made the following comment, which, I think, demonstrates his or her lack of understanding of how WP:RS and WP:V are applied: "Even if the site is reliable for its own opinion we don't use it unless it WP:RS. Please read WP:V." ← ZScarpia 19:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC) @A Quest For Knowledge: The WP:RS (see the Self-published sources section) and WP:V (see the Statements of opinion section) rules do not say that self-published material cannot be used as sources of opinion in general, only that it cannot be used as such when the subject is a living person. It doesn't really matter to me whether the opinions removed by Shrike are deleted from the article or not, so I don't have a dog in the race either. In fact, it looks to me as though the final consensus will come down in favour of removing the second opinion, an outcome which I will not be unhappy about. You'll notice that, on the talkpage, a very good case is made for retaining the first opinion that Shrike wanted to remove, even though it's from a self-published source which would not be regarded as a reliable source for statements of fact. All that concerns me is that, if the material is removed, it is removed for valid reasons. I reverted Shrike because the reasons he gave in his comments weren't sufficient justifications for the removals. If Shrike hadn't used the same reason for making his second deletion as he did in the first, I probably would have waited to see how things developed on the talkpage rather than reverting it quickly. ← ZScarpia 13:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC) @WGFinley: I reverted Shrike's second edit prior to the talkpage discussion developing. I was going on the edit comment Shrike left, "I didn't see any agreement between univolved editors that this source is reliable," the same kind of reason Shrike gave for his previous deletion of text. Shrike didn't seem to appreciate that sources that aren't reliable for statements of fact can be reliable for statements of opinion. From the discussion taking place, it does look as though the IRMEP's opinion is not notable enough to merit inclusion. Shrike, though, didn't state that his reason for removal was notability, but reliability. ← ZScarpia 14:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Shrike's quotations from the rules are selective and don't uphold his position. Whereas Shrike is now saying that "while the source is of course reliable for its own opinion," that didn't seem to be what he was saying in his edit and talkpage comments at the time. Shrike argues: "while the source is of course reliable for its own opinion it doesn't even matter we don't use unreliable sources even with attribution from WP:RS." So, a source which is reliable as a source of opinion but not fact cannot be used because it isn't reliable as a source of fact? ← ZScarpia 14:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC) @WGFinley: An editor who reverts an edit which was done for invalid reasons was in the wrong if it turns out later that there were other, valid, reasons for that edit having been done? ← ZScarpia 15:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC) @WGFinley: I did not know who the IRMEP was when I reverted Shrike. The revert was carried out before the talkpage discussion developed. I was depending on WLRoss's reasonable sounding talkpage comment for the IRMEP's respectability. The revert was based on that and Shrike's evident, repeated misunderstanding of the rules on source reliability (see Shrike's first deletion and the talkpage discussion which followed). As I commented after Shrike deleted Juan Cole's opinion from the article, a correct ground for deletion might have been notability. Questions of notability, though, are sorted out by talkpage discussion. That discussion had yet to take place for the IRMEP opinion when I made that revert. Presumably, one of the reasons that other admins find this request frivolous is because Shrike brought this request before any real discussion had taken place. You've talked about the kind of bickering which causes edit wars. I'm pretty sure that I've never been accused of edit warring. A reason for that is that I don't make the same reversion twice. If someone re-reverts a revert of mine, I don't re-revert them. ← ZScarpia 16:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC) @WGFinley: Based on the wording of Shrike's edit comment and Shrike's previous argument that Juan Cole's website wasn't a reliable source for Juan Cole's opinion because it isn't a reliable source for statements of fact, I interpreted Shrike's reasoning for the removal of the IRMEP's opinion as that the IRMEP's website couldn't be used as a reliable source for the IRMEP's opinion because it, also, is not a reliable source for statements of fact, reasoning that is invalid. Based on that, I think my revert of Shrike's edit was reasonable. As with his or her previous attempt to delete an opinion, Shrike then had the option of taking the issue to the talkpage to try to make a case for the deletion on valid grounds, that is, notability. The IRMEP was being referred to as "the Washington-based Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy", which sounded like a reasonable-sized organisation to me. You'll notice that the discussion over whether the IRMEP is notable is still underway. You wrote: "Claiming you didn't even look into her claim before reverting her isn't helping your argument." But I did look at the claim that Shrike made, which, from appearances at least (personally, I find I have to make guesses about what Shrike's reasoning is), as I've stated, looked like it was a repeat of Shrike's invalid justification for deleting an opinion elsewhere in the article. By reverting Shrike, I expected that she would take the matter to the talkpage where a civil discussion such as the one which followed on from her previous deletion could take place. ← ZScarpia (refactored: 22:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)) @A Quest for Knowledge: The current discussion on the article talkpage is trying to settle the question of whether the IRMEP is a suitable source for an opinion, isn't it? If Shrike had given notability as his reason for deletion, I would have allowed the talkpage to sort out whether the deletion was justifiable, rather than reverting based on the reason he or she did give. ← ZScarpia 17:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC) @WGFinley: The differences between the cases .... the ADL was being used as a source for a statement of fact, not opinion, which was contradicted by other sources. The ADL source was written 15 years ago, but was being used to assert that a condition is true in 2012. Shuki had broken the 1RR restriction on the article and made pointy edits. I didn't hurry here to file a request before a discussion had taken place. ← ZScarpia 17:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC) @MichaelNetzer: "ZScarpia and WLRoss were aware of the Noticeboard consensus on the organization and chose to edit-war over it irregardless." Presumably you're referring to the RS Noticeboard. I did not take part in any discussion on the IRMEP there. Judging from the discussion on the article talkpage, it sounds as though the discussion was inconclusive. Even if not reliable for statements of fact, sources can be reliable for statements of opinion, which is what was being given here. How many edits equal an edit war? Based on whatever your definition is, are you an edit warrior yourself? ← ZScarpia 18:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
← ZScarpia 11:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
So, what does everybody think? Is saying that Shuki was indeffed for using the ADL as a source a true representation of what happened? (Hope that listing all that wasn't inappropriate) ← ZScarpia 00:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
← ZScarpia 07:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Statement by WLRoss[edit]Yes I did use an inadequate comment for the edit but this was purely due to lack of space. I instead used Talk to fully explain the reversion I made: see here. As the editor who lodged this case replied to that post, it is rather unusual to critisize my actual edit comment for it's inadequacy. I checked both RSN cases regarding IRmep as a source and found them to contain no clear result either way which to my understanding of WP guidelines means we can still use IRmep as a source. The only consensus was that IRmep was biased which, according to WP, has no affect on it's reliability. I also looked at the IRmep reference for bias and found this particular article was supported by references to the raw data it used. The article was not targeting MEMRI specifically but using them as an example in an article critisizing all "think tanks" which includes itself. I found no particular bias so made the edit. Wayne (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment by Zero0000[edit]This is a pretty ordinary content dispute that does not belong on this board. The complainant should be instructed to take the problem to some dispute resolution board. Zerotalk 13:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning ZScarpia and WLRoss[edit]Comment by Who is it, really?[edit]This case is identical to one brought against Shuki a couple of weeks ago, by none other than Zscarpia, where it was found that "using the ADL, an organization with an obvious agenda (whether one agrees with their agenda or not is irrelevant), as the sole source for that kind of claim claim is plainly tendentious. " Shuli was indef topic banned for this. Let's handle these cases with some consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Who is it, really? (talk • contribs) 14:37 & 14:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC) ( Account indefinitely blocked at 17:24, 10 April 2012 UTC for abusing multiple accounts. See hidden text. )
Statement by A Quest for Knowledge[edit]Unless I'm missing something, the added material is inappropriate. Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves. In this case, it's not an article about this organization, it's an article about a third-party. Even if this was an article about the Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy, it would fail criteria #2 of WP:ABOUTSELF. To be honest, self-published sources should be avoided, especially for contentious content in contentious articles. If something is truly worth including in a Wikipedia article, a secondary source will have reported it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
@ZScarpia: No, WP:SPS requires that the author be an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. No such evidence has been presented that the author is an established expert. If there is such evidence, please present it. Otherwise, it falls under WP:ABOUTSELF which is very clear: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Note: I've placed three (hopefully neutral!) notices asking for more feedback regarding how this source is being used.[3][4][5] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
comment by asad[edit]@WGFinley, I honestly cannot believe that you have the ability to come to this request and completely misrepresent the contents of an ArbCom statement to use in adjudicating an A/E case. You were rebuffed by ArbCom because you took the issue of source misrepresentation as a content dispute, and ArbCom made it clear to you that it was an issue of conduct. Please don't misrepresent an ArbCom statement to further sympathize with an editor who has plainly filed a frivolous A/E report against editors who's only fault was using an organization as a source to quote the organization. -asad (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
comment by MichaelNetzer[edit]In both WP:RSN discussions on IRmep, even supporters of the group agreed it is not a WP:RS for anything other than referencing the third party documents it stores on its site. Everyone agreed that their commentary on the documents was not reliable, with the exception, "sometimes", of being an attributed opinion (on the documents only). But everyone agreed the group had near zero notability to earn it an RS, including for opinions on third parties. The claims that what we have here is one organization opining on another peer organization fails because MEMRI is a notable agency that's often quoted and discussed in third party major media, while none of them extend such recognition of IRmep. IRmep is not a peer organization to MEMRI and is certainly not reliable to comment on it. ZScarpia and WLRoss were aware of the Noticeboard consensus on the organization and chose to edit-war over it irregardless. They should be reprimanded or sanctioned. Shrike should not be faulted for following policy, especially in wake of other recent AE decisions on WP:RS violations - lest we promote a perception of Wikipedia partisanship on the topic. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
comment by Jiujitsuguy[edit]
Response from named party User:Biosketch[edit]As my name has been mentioned in the course of this discussion, I'll say that at the very least User:WLRoss should be informed of ARBPIA sanctions, as he's an active participant in the topic area and it appears he hasn't been formally made aware of the discretionary sanctions that go along with editing in I/P. I don't identify any bad faith on the part of User:Shrike or User:ZScarpia, and I find it rather disturbing that an Admin would propose punitive measures against User:Shrike when it's clear it was more a matter of misunderstanding policy on his part than anything else. As in the case of blocks, the purpose of sanctions should be to improve editors, not punish them; they should be WP:PREVENTATIVE, not WP:PUNITIVE. In general, it would be beneficial to the project if editors would approach each other before seeking Enforcement and only come here when earlier efforts to resolve things proved ineffective, unless it's something exceptional that needs urgent attention. But it would also help the project if editors were more circumspect in their application of reverts. Not counting my initial removal of IRmep on 1 April 2012, there have since been five reverts of the same content by five different editors. That's counterproductive. User:WGFinley is absolutely correct about the destructive influence of revert wars on the topic area. Even though they aren't edit wars in the strict sense, they make it more difficult to reach consensus, which is what editors' energies should be invested in. In this regard, certainly User:Severino would benefit from at least a stern warning for reverting IRmep back into the article without even participating in the discussion. His behavior is actually the worse of all the editors involved in this case because he's completely flouted the earnest efforts of editors to discuss their way to an agreement and instead acted unilaterally to try to force his personal minority POV in.—Biosketch (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment by Carolmooredc[edit]I find it rather strange that User:Shrike lodges this complaint here quoting and ongoing discussion on WP:RSN as if it is complete. That one asks if IRmep is a reliable source for use of its FOIA and other original documents as primary sources. See (new name) Wikipedia:RSN#IRmep:_actual_reliable_source_evidence_re:_FOIA_docs. While Shrike's two examples actually are of IRmep opinions, in such an ongoing WP:RSN discussion there always is the possibility the community might broaden reliability to include opinions. Or that some WP:RS source might be found quoting IRmep or its director with such an opinion. He does not mention the fact that in this discussion - unlike the first one which only mentioned assertions of IRmep's unreliability - there are almost two dozen WP:RS referring to or using IRmep or its director Grant Smith's FOIA documents, analysis of those documents, quotes from IRmep/Smith documents or reprints of IRmep/Smith articles or press releases. More than a dozen of those have not been contested by (User:Biosketch); it was his removing IRmep FOIA documents as sources which first drew my attention to the issue. In fact, there were so many WP:RS about the group and its activities, I decided IRmep deserves a Wikipedia article and I am working on it. Four editors besides myself believe IRmep can be used as a source of primary source FOIA and other documents (diffs can be provided if necessary):
Not only does this look like a frivolous complaint, it possibly could be an attempt to subvert the WP:RSN process. CarolMooreDC 14:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Comment by Cusop Dingle[edit]
Comment by The Devil's Advocate[edit]Seems to me like Shrike is over-stepping on this issue. Before getting involved in this dispute Shrike had removed an attributed quote from a highly notable critic of Israel, claiming WP:RS as a defense. As to the claim about WP:ORG, I don't think a source's notability is even remotely a valid argument for excluding information from it. Outside of reliability the only concern I can think of is WP:UNDUE, but that does not seem to apply in this case. The criticism of MEMRI as selective and agenda-driven is a significant POV.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Result concerning ZScarpia and WLRoss[edit]
@ZScarpia - Frankly, given your intelligence, I think you are being very disingenuous. That is, you know the organization doesn't measure up to WP:ORG and shouldn't be included as a source of information in the article but you are happy to prop it up because Shrike isn't stating the objection the right way. This is the kind of partisan bickering we do not need in this topic area. The correct response would be to acknowledge the issue and the correct policy against its inclusion. The case is clearly made on the talk page IRMEP is utterly lacking legitimacy but you are playing WP:IDHT because the correct policy isn't being cited. --WGFinley (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
@asad (next up in the partisan parade) - I didn't misrepresent a thing. I was chided for my position that we should not be evaluating sources. I am evaluating the source in this case which happens to be presented as self-sourcing, that leads one to look at the organization that is presenting its opinion and the legitimacy of that opinion to be included as a valid source of opinion. That organization has no such legitimacy. I will not sit here and indef ban people for trying to use the ADL as a source of unbiased info and turn a blind eye when the same thing is being done here. It is the EXACT same thing. --WGFinley (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC) @Tim - state for me the difference, in the Shuki opinion that you and Ed both agreed to where we evaluated the ADL as an inappropriate source for an article (rightfully so) and sanctioned that user for doing it and this. It is the same thing. The organization is a blatantly biased one with nowhere near the standing of the ADL. If I did a Google News search on ADL there Iould be scores of articles including their opinions, this one isn't even close to that and you want to give it a wider berth than the ADL. --WGFinley (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Winterbliss
[edit]| Winterbliss (talk · contribs) and Dehr (talk · contribs) both indefinitely blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Winterbliss[edit]
I included diffs in my comments
No warning is required, because both editors mentioned in my report were active in the discussion about the report on Nagorno-Karabakh article, and are well aware of AA remedies. Plus, soon after registering his account here Winterbliss already filed a report requesting AA2 remedy enforcement, which also demonstrates his familiarity with the remedy in question: [9]
This is a follow up to the recently closed AE request on the article about Nagorno-Karabakh: [10], which resulted in the article being placed under the 500 article edit restriction for the recent accounts. In particular, the remedy holds that "Editors with less than 500 article edits, less than three months old or are anonymous editors are under a 1RR per day restriction with no exceptions". Now my request is related to the activity of the 2 of the accounts that were covered by that remedy, i.e. Winterbliss (talk · contribs) and Dehr (talk · contribs). At the time they both had around 100-150 article edits. Now they have more than 500 edits, which they gained by making minor edits to just one article each, Melikdoms of Karabakh by Winterbliss: [11], and Ghaibalishen Massacre by Dehr: [12] Both articles are written by adding 1 word at a time! See for instance: The same is with the article created by Winterbliss. What could be written in a dozen of edits maximum they wrote in 500 edits, by adding a 500 word text word by word. My question here is, isn't this kind of editing just gaming the system to gain the required number of edits? Maybe the remedy needs some adjustment so that it could not be so obviously gamed? Also, Dehr and Winterbliss edit in exactly the same manner, which leaves an impression that those accounts are related. Note that they never are active at the same time, usually when one is gone, the other one takes his place. This similarity of editing is also something to consider. Grandmaster 20:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Winterbliss[edit]Statement by Winterbliss[edit]Comments by others about the request concerning Winterbliss[edit]Result concerning Winterbliss[edit]
|
Maunus
[edit]| Comments revised, no further action at this time. --WGFinley (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Maunus[edit]
WP:ARBR&I#Decorum: "Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited." This has clearly been ignored here. This is not the first time Maunus is incivil. See earlier blocks for incivility as well as [21]. I ask that the Maunus should be warned. Reply to Hipocrite[edit]I have not promised anything. I have stated that do not to intend to edit any of the core topics in this area due to this obviously being pointless with a very strong local group of editors here in Wikipedia vehemently opposing the biological view and everyone disagreeing with this view has been successfully banned by this group. Not very surprising when a Nobel Prize winner like James D. Watson can be fired for saying the not politically correct thing in this area. I have also stated that I intend to make occasional talk page comments. As can be seen and expected, the group now trying to get me banned also. I do hope that being civil still applies also towards those expressing unpopular views. Hipocrite also brings up an edit regarding IQ research in China which has absolutely no mention of race. So obviously there is no advocacy of genetic racial differences as claimed. Hipocrite has already called me a racist elsewhere so to clarify: I do not argue that there are proven racial genetic differences in IQ. Only that the issue is unresolved and that the biological arguments are not properly presented in Wikipedia. Furthermore, racism includes advocating discrimination which I certainly do not not. My view is the opposite: If there are biological advantages and disadvantages, then only by acknowledging this can those disadvantaged get proper help. See also the moralistic fallacy. Academica Orientalis (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Reply to Maunus[edit]Regarding who is correct regarding non-US anthropologists and other scientists views regarding race, I have presented sources supporting my view at talk:Human, Maunus has not. Maunus is making a claim regarding what racism is without any sources. I refer to the racism article which states, with sources (in the article body), that racism includes advocating discrimination. Also Maunus's definition is rather strange. It is racism to say that some groups may have higher genetic resistance to malaria than other groups? Academica Orientalis (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC) New reply to further arguments: Maunus has added a straw man argument regarding racial slurs. I have not made any racial slurs. Neither have I edited the definition of racism with sources in the racism article. I see that Maunus has now have added some sources to the article. However, Maunus has still not presented any systematic study supporting his claims regarding the views on race by by non-US anthropologists. I have on talk:Human showing much greater acceptance of race by non-US anthropologists. There are also sources there stating that most US forensic anthropologists support the biological reality of race as well as the issue not being resolved in genetics and medicine. I agree that certain subfields in American anthropology completely reject the existence of races and that the American Anthropology Association has issued a statement, lacking scientific sourcing, to that effect. However, Wikipedia should mention all significant views, not just those vehemently argued by certain groups. Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC) New reply to further arguments: Again going back to the definition of racism, is it racism to say that some groups are better adapted to living at high altitudes than other groups (which applies to the Tibetan people in recent studies)? No, I would argue, there has to be some form of discrimination argued for also. I would argue that racial slurs more or less openly include an argument for discrimination which is what makes them racistic. Anyway, this is not just my definition, I again refer to the definition and sources (in the body) in the racism article. Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC) New reply to further arguments: The last edit [22] with the Latin phrase "praeterea censeo Miradrem esse delendam" ("furthermore, Miradre should be destroyed" or something similar) can only be considered new incivility. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC) Recent accusations[edit]Reply Manus: Maunus has continually changed the text and improved the sources in response to my talk page criticisms showing that my criticisms has been constructive. If I have stated anything inappropriate I ask that will be given an opportunity to retract/fix this in the same way Maunus has been advised to and allowed to fix/retract his incivility. Academica Orientalis (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Reply to Mathsci[edit]Regarding the content dispute I refer to my earlier statements above. Race (classification of humans) is under WP:ARBR&I as stated on the talk page of that article. The dispute regarding the Human article concern a section discussing the same subject. Mathsci, as could be expected since he belongs to the same group of editors (including also AndyTheGrump) who constantly show up and support one another on this topic and demands bans for those stating opposing views, is demanding that I should be punished for asking for some basic civility to be respected in this topic! Academica Orientalis (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Discussion concerning User:Maunus[edit]Statement by User:Maunus[edit]I cannot assume good faith regarding user Academica Orientalis/Miradre. I have several years of experience with his editing style which is prototypical case of a civil POV Pusher. He repeats the same invalid arguments an mischaracterizations where ever he goes and no amount of contrary evidence makes him change his story. Among his favorite delusions is the idea that outside of the US most anthropologists thinks race is a valid biological concept, and that the fact that forensic anthropologists stubbornly stick to it means it has any scientific validity. It doesn't and this is demonstrated by mountains of sources literally. Miradre doesn't care - and keeps repeating his references to a few very low profile studies that have been generally criticized or ignored. Over and over and over. That is extremely tedious and tiresome to deal with and it causes frustration - for which reason I sometimes do tell him my opinion. In discussions apart from being repetitive Miradre is also routinely covertly incivil by twisting his opponents words or misrepresenting their arguments. I do not doubt for a second that it was a calculated strategy that made him arrive out of the blue at Talk:Human when he eyed a chance to goad me into insulting him so he could post this request. Miradre as usual plays the victims card suggestion that he is a member of a stigmatized minority group persecuted for his viewpoint. Note however that I have been perfectly able to collaborate amiably with many other editors who share his viewpoint such as the now banned Captain Occam/Ferahgo and David Kane who have mentioned me as a particularly collaborative editor, able to compromise and engage in civil arguments in spite of differing viewpoints. My problem with Miradre is not and has never been his viewpoint but his editing behavior. I stand by my opinion that he is a troll and a POV pusher who should not be editing and will not retract or apologize. The best solution for wikipedias integrity would be to permanently topic ban Miradre from editing articles related to Race and human psychology. I will gladly accept a mutual interaction ban.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Recent Behavior by Academica orientalis[edit]I would very much like Arbitrators to review Academica Orientalis' recent editing at Talk: Racism and Talk:Human. To me these are eminent examples of his disruptive strategy of filibustering, stalling, repetition, misrepresentation and tendenious reading of sources. If you find it necessary I could file a separate AE case, but it seems that these concerns do fall under the scope of this request. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning User:Maunus[edit]It would be nice if admins reading this also reviewed Academica Orientalis/Miradre's continued disruptive presence in article related (and not related but still related by him) to Race. Please recall that he was topic banned for 3 months as a result of [24], that he promised to leave the topic space alone recently (diff by request), and that he's apparently on a quest to make it appear that human races, are very, very different than each other and that some of those races are inferior in some ways to others - I wouldn't want to comment on his motive - see attempts to do this on articles as totally unrelated as Science and technology in the People's Republic of China. But, hey, he's supportive of a widely discredited theory mainly promoted by virulent racists (which he is CLEARLY not, lest I be accused of calling someone a racist), so how dare someone lose their cool at him! Hipocrite (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Result concerning User:Maunus[edit]
|
Geremia
[edit]| Geremia (talk · contribs) blocked for 1 month. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Geremia[edit]
Not required.
Topic banned editor. Topic ban violated.
Discussion concerning Geremia[edit]Statement by Geremia[edit]Comments by others about the request concerning Geremia[edit]Comment by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge[edit]This seems to be a clear cut violation of the topic ban. However, I am sympathetic to the sentiment expressed here. Topic bans are not enforced by the Wiki software. Instead, they're based on the user's own self-enforcement. As a software developer, I find this situation ludicrous. As an analogy, if I'm developing an e-commerce web site and expect a user to enter a valid credit card number to make a purchase, the credit card number must pass a Luhn algorithm validation. If I fail to perform this validation, it's my fault, not the user's. If Geremia honestly thought it was OK to make this comment because the Wiki software allowed them to do so, this is an indictment against the Wiki software, not the user. Sorry if I went off on a rant, but bad software annoys me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC) Result concerning Geremia[edit]
|
Homunculus and The Sound and the Fury
[edit]| No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
1. Homunculus was warned about removing sourced material without explanation, with misleading edit summary: "Moving this into controversies, where it belongs. Will revisit to clean up more later." and about distortion on what sources say using neutral factual Wikipedia narrator voice [28] and [29], see Talk:Falun_Gong#Gallagher_and_Ashcraft_source. 2. Homunculus fails to adhere normal editorial process during Talk:Falun_Gong#Number_of_followers_in_1999 Chronology:
3. [30] - Homunculus Removes sourced material about Li Hongzhi place of residence with misleading comment: demographics circa 1990s
On Talk:Falun Gong#Gallagher and Ashcraft source
On Talk:Falun_Gong#Number_of_followers_in_1999
On Talk:Falun Gong#.7B.7BMultiple issues.7D.7D
@ Ed I've came to WP:AE only after SnF repeatedly disrupted editorial process (a) in Talk:Falun_Gong#Number_of_followers_in_1999 and (b) in Talk:Falun Gong#.7B.7BMultiple issues.7D.7D. See SnF diff #1 and strange comment for (a) and SnF diffs #2 and #3 for edit warring the tag for (b). When I re-read Talk:Falun Gong#.7B.7BMultiple issues.7D.7D I see more then one editor who is objecting the removal. (a) and (b) are text book examples for SnF's disruptive editing. On (a) See H's comment: I think it's best to allow the fellow a chance to respond before reverting.Homunculus (duihua) 04:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC). In order to resolve the dispute, I'd sugest all the points of disagreement listed in Multiple issues to be discussed and resolved. I personally reviewed the sources regarding the number of followers in 1999, the issue that was raised during talk page discussion elsewhere. I have found the current wording as WP:SYNTH and this is a content issue but I could explain this point again if I'd be requested. For the record, my motivation for editing and reviewing sources on the subject of FG is a pure curiosity. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
@ H. Right, when I was looking for edit which removed without discussion sourced material about Li Hongzhi place of residence from the introduction the edit summary: demographics circa 1990s was really helpful. And hmm, not that you have not been warned before. My suggestion to you, H, is to break your edits into smaller pieces and give those appropriate descriptions. And there is no need to advocate for SnF, it might appear as tag teaming. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Update Maybe those reactions (SnF and H) to presenting three high quality major news reliable sources: BBC, Time Magazine and Reuters during Talk:Falun_Gong#Chen_Fuzhao discussion and dismissing those as the government's propaganda could illustrate the problem. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Homunculus and The Sound and the Fury[edit]Statements by Homunculus and The Sound and the Fury[edit]Homunculus[edit]This is interesting. My patience with user AgadaUrbanit has been worn thin, so I shall be more candid and curt than usual. I do not believe this user has an adequate understanding of the concept of consensus, edit waring, or of “normal editorial process.” If he/she did, he might have the insight to recognize that it was he who was consistently editing against consensus and refusing to participate in a normal collaborative process. When this user first appeared on this page, I attempted to engage with them in good faith, understand their concerns, and propose solutions. My attempts at collaboration were met with escalating sarcasm and threats, and I never understood why. Ultimately, when Agada’s contributions and ideas were not accepted, he sought to hold the page hostage by repeatedly and disruptively tag-bombing it, always with little to no explanation of the actual content problems he perceived. When editors removed those tags per consensus, Agada decided to escalate to AE. I’ll quickly address the three specific issues Agada raised against me.
For interested admins to wrap their minds around this chain of events, my best advice would be to read the relevant discussion threads on the talk page in their entirety. A warning: they are very long, convoluted, and even I frequently was at a loss for understanding what was going on. See Talk:Falun Gong#Number of followers in 1999, Talk:Falun Gong#Gallagher and Ashcraft source, and Talk:Falun Gong#Multiple issues. I’ve already wasted a considerable amount of time trying to engage with this editor (for instance, I’ve had to explain why the New York Times is not original research, or why reputable magazines and periodicals are not ‘self-published’). Ultimately I believe this case to be frivolous. However, if the admins believe that there are serious issues here, I will happily provide a more thorough account of my actions. Please let me know if that will be required. Homunculus (duihua) 15:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC) General comments Regarding my involvement in Falun Gong topics Another editor (who does not exactly have clean hands with respect to this namespace—blocks for edit warring, warnings for outside canvassing...) has commented that I am merely another “tiresome pro-Falun Gong” editor who likes to “nibble away daily in their own biased way at articles regarding their chosen organisation and its adversary, the dictatorship of the PRC.” I assume that the disciplinary admins reviewing this case have the judgment and experience necessary to determine that comments like this—which are completely devoid of substance or evidence—should be ignored. But just in case, I shall address the points raised:
It is my observation that some of the partisan editors who frequent these pages don’t appreciate my presence. Presumably, having unaligned, knowledgable editors involved detracts from their ability to advance their respective points of view. It is also true that, because I try to watch over the Falun Gong page and engage with editors who make comments there, I sometimes end up offending the sensibilities of random interlocutors. Yet with very few exceptions, I get along with and can work well with everyone (here’s a recent example[49]). I have never been sanctioned or blocked, which is more than could be said for either of the two editors who have argued for my ban. That’s all for now. Homunculus (duihua) 19:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Status as of April 20 AgadaUrbanit has unarchived this page, and presented new evidence to attempt to indict myself and TSTF. I'm actually glad, because I'd like to ask the admins to consider whether action is necessary against Agada, whose relentless pursuit of this frivolous cause is itself tendentious. Agada's new evidence against me is this diff[50], which he claims had a "misleading edit summary" and involved the alleged removal of "sourced material" relating to the place of residence of Li Hongzhi. On both counts, Agada is wrong. The edit summary provided was "demographics circa 1990s". This edit does indeed relate to describing Falun Gong demographics circa the 1990s (I'll also note that this edit was the result of a prolonged talk page discussion in which I had sought consensus for and described the rationale for this change). I made one unrelated change that was not described in the edit summary, which was to move (not remove) a sentence about Li Hongzhi's place of residence that I believed had been misplaced. It is insane that Agada thinks this is grounds to topic ban someone. Agada's new charge against TSTF is of a similar nature: namely, he doesn't like this edit summary[51] (never mind that TSTF was cleaning up primary source material and original research, and that he explained himself on the talk page). Homunculus (duihua) 18:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
The Sound and The Fury[edit]I've got to say, this is really strange. Anyone who looks at the diffs and the course of discussion will end up scratching their heads. Agada placed a series of tags on the page after a discussion with Homunculus broke down (he stopped answering questions/discussing about the sense of his ideas for improving the page; there was an odd disagreement about whether the State General Administration of Sports' estimate for the number of people doing qigong in China was representative of the Chinese government's estimate, or something like that). That discussion failed to make progress, so he tag-bombed. I removed the tags a couple of times, explaining why, including on his talk page. He didn't really answer. He went away for a week or so each time. I think at one point I got a bit annoyed and called the process "silly." I didn't attack him personally. I have no idea why this case is being brought. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I think this guy had the right idea [52] (on the factual matters; I wouldn't adopt the sarcastic tone), but since he was reverted, I'll repeat. To each of AU's points:
Comments by others about the request concerning Homunculus and The Sound and the Fury[edit]From my perspective, Homunculus and The Sound and the Fury are members of the current crop of tiresome pro-Falun Gong editors that nibble away daily in their own biased way at articles regarding their chosen organisation and its adversary, the dictatorship of the PRC. I would greatly welcome any measure that directed their considerable wiki energies towards other subjects. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Result concerning Homunculus and The Sound and the Fury[edit]
|
Note on Actor model
[edit]Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt#Post-case_clarification I semi-protected Actor model (again) for 1 week. Three Oakland, CA area IP addresses in 24 hours. If they come back after the week I'll increase the block length again. Posting here for transparency and review. Could use someone else to look at the article's talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- It goes beyond Actor model. Maybe some articles, which do not meet our quality standards, should be WP:AFDed. AgadaUrbanit (talk)
- The supporters of Carl Hewitt are confident that they possess the WP:TRUTH and there is no hope of a real discussion with them. Long-term semiprotections of three months or more can be tried. Two other articles where semiprotection has been used in the past are Logic programming and Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Usually a dispute will start each time there is a definitive new publication by Carl Hewitt which of course demands to be cited as a reference in the relevant Wikipedia article. According to Hewitt, in his Knol article on 'Corruption of Wikipedia,' Jimbo Wales should resign as a Trustee of WMF for the greater good of Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Soccershoes1
[edit]| Soccershoes1 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from all Greece and Macedonia related articles and discussions, broadly construed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Soccershoes1[edit]
Several warnings:
A typical Macedonia-related tendentious editor stubbornly promoting Greek POV issues. What's particularly concerning is the fact that he has now started following me around to articles that are completely outside his normal editing profile (e.g. Greek primacy, where, despite the article's name, the dispute really has no relation at all to nationally-motivated POV disputes), simply for the sake of mechanically reverting me in obvious retribution for my reverting him elsewhere.
Discussion concerning Soccershoes1[edit]Statement by Soccershoes1[edit]Comments by others about the request concerning Soccershoes1[edit]Result concerning Soccershoes1[edit]
|
AnAimlessRoad
[edit]| Conventional indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning AnAimlessRoad[edit]
User:AnAimlessRoad is rather new to Wikipedia, having joined in late January. He has few than 50 live edits at the time of request. In his short time here, he has proven to be a highly disruptive presence across multiple namespaces, including at least two (possibly more) covered by ArbCom (WP:AFLG and WP:ARBPIA). User has already entered into multiple edit wars with several different users, and he has been warned multiple times for inappropriate behaviour, including using Wikipedia as a forum, failing to adhere to NPOV, treating Wikipedia as a soapbox and a battleground, failing to adhere to standards of civility, and making personal attacks against other editors. I recommend this user be blocked from editing Wikipedia. For an apparently novice editor, this user seems to be preternaturally familiar with Wikipedia jargon and processes. To avoid possible sock-puppetry, I would also recommend admins consider blocking user’s IP range. Diffs:
[89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95]
The collection of diffs above is partial. I cannot find a single edit that actually appears to be helpful or constructive. Nearly all this user's edits have been reverted or deleted.
Discussion concerning AnAimlessRoad[edit]Statement by AnAimlessRoad[edit]Comments by others about the request concerning AnAimlessRoad[edit]Result concerning AnAimlessRoad[edit]
|
Oncenawhile
[edit]| 1929 Palestine riots is fully protected two weeks. Several editors reverted improperly, but no blocks are being issued. EdJohnston (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
Request concerning Oncenawhile[edit]
The page in question is the 1929 Palestine riots. The version reverted to is the April 15th edit, and two subsequent reversions were done today, on the 24th. The reversions modified the language and removed three sources that were being used to support the previous version. Oncenawhile has previously been officially warned about ARBPIA violations.
Discussion concerning Oncenawhile[edit]Statement by Oncenawhile[edit]Sorry for the late reply. Thank you to the other editors for supporting me in my absence. So... I had no intention to overstep any bright lines. As TransporterMan kindly highlighted below, I had first tried the tagging route to stimulate discussion, which did not have the desired effect. This morning, I responded to TransporterMan's analysis on the tags with my views on the weakness of the policy around tags, which seems to render them useless in disputes - exactly the situation they are supposed to highlight and stimulate resolution of.... Anyway, then I had a bright idea, that maybe my point about tags was wrong because I was always within my rights to remove the dubious information because it hadn't got consensus (4 editors vs. 3). I believed my first edit was (to use my basic non-technical language) an "edit" rather than a "revert". Then Jayjg reverted me without a credible explanation (his edit comment was a copy of mine) and I reverted him (which I believed to be my only "revert" ever on this article). Then a few minutes later Ankh reverted me. I did not revert Ankh, because that's where I thought the bright line was. So it seems that whether the accusation is fair boils down to whether Diff 2 above is a revert in they eyes of the consensus. My views on this are below:
A related question is, whether or not this was technically a "revert", was I actually edit warring? My views on this are below:
In summary, I honestly don't know whether Diff2 was technically a revert or not. But I do know that I did not believe that it was, so the worst I could have done here was to have made an honest mistake. Whatever the verdict, I will learn from it and won't make the same mistake again. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Oncenawhile[edit]According to our official policy, "reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed previously". Which edits were undone in Oncenawhile's first edit today, and to which version did this edit previously restore the page? This edit does not look to me like a revert, and thus OnA has only made one revert today. So there has been no breach of the arbitration decision, and this complaint should be rejected. RolandR (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Comments by Zero0000: I don't have the patience to wade through all the diffs to decide what edits out of this very long sequence of aggressive edits are "reverts" or not. I'd just like to make some general remarks. This edit war was created by and driven by AnkhMorpork, who decided that the "Israeli perspective" was not adequately represented. As illustration of AnkhMorpork's methodology, despite her/himself quoting extensively from the report of the official enquiry he/she repeatedly deletes (and continues to delete, even during this case) statements from that report which conflict with her/his preferred (and rather weak) tertiary sources. (I call them weak tertiary sources because one is a newspaper article and the others are popular history books that cite no sources for their information.) My suggestion that both versions could go into the article (which I believe is what WP:NPOV mandates in such a case) fell on deaf ears. Regarding the nature of tags, I think that when there is an actual ongoing substantial dispute over content, then a tag noting the fact of the dispute is in order and removal of it by a protagonist while (as anyone can see very plainly) the dispute is still in full swing should be seen as edit-warring. I don't think a tag marking a dispute needs consensus from those engaged in the dispute, though a consensus from less-involved editors would of course be enough to add or remove it. Zerotalk 08:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Reply by AnkhMorpork:The comment "This edit war was created by and driven by AnkhMorpork" is very inaccurate. I did not touch this article until on 15th April, Oncenawhile made a series of edits that substantially altered the article. After that, I began to contribute to the article, always mindful of other POV's. I made extensive use of the Talk page, discussed edits and sought a consensual version. I have queried users' personal Talk pages and have sought independent advice at notice boards. You yourself stated to me on 19 April 2012 in reference to this article, "I like the collegial attitude you bring to the editing task and hope you will continue even though your biases are different from mine". Oncenawhile acknowledged "I had previously been quite impressed with your editing style - particularly that you were happy to discuss things thoughtfully" though suggesting my standards were dropping. This volte-face is most unfair and seems retributive. I have been a collaborative editor and will continue to be one, and it is unfortunate that I have been forced to take this matter to AE. This incident was especially frustrating as Oncenawhile ignored all of the clarifying talk page dialogue and inexplicably reverted to an old version, deleting several sources. Comments by Shrike: @Zero You analysis is wrong. The article was stable till Oncenawhile started his edits to "balance" the article at 15 april [100] their edit was revered they should have followed WP:BRD instead they reverted back [101].--Shrike (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Additional Comments by TransporterMan: Even though I would have made this report had AnkhMorpork not beaten me to it (and, indeed, I brought it to the warning admin's attention before I came to that realization) and even though I helped to make the case against him, I think a block is too much in light of the complexity of the edit history, Oncenawhile's relative newcomer status, clean block log, and lack of a lot of warning templates on his talk page even though he works in a highly disputatious area. His effort to get discussion started and attempt to use DR work in his favor. He's clearly stated that he gets it (and I would note that when he was given the ARBPIA warning he was not actually in violation of anything at that time, see the text of that warning). In my experience working in dispute resolution, figuring out how to best approach a situation like this is sometimes beyond the ken of editors with far more experience than Oncenawhile. I !vote to give him a walk this time, put a clear last-chance-result/warning on his talk page, and leave him with a clear block log. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Result concerning Oncenawhile[edit]
|
Iadrian yu
[edit]| Withdrawn. I missed a crucial diff. There is no point in continuing it on my part as submitter.--Nmate (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Iadrian yu[edit]
When I noticed that User:Bzg1920 is a self-confessed sockpuppet of User:Iaaasi [103]->[104], I got to erase his contributions to the project. Then said banned user brazenly complained about me at at the Edit warring & 3RR board where he also confirmed that he is a sockpuppet,viz,"He is reverting obviously helpful edits made my banned users"->08:13, 20 April 2012. Then said banned user came up with WP:DIGWUREN there that I am placed under->
11:25, 20 April 2012 11:28, 20 April 2012. I reverted it-> 11:29, 20 April 2012. The banned user restored it-> 11:31, 20 April 2012. I reverted it again-> 11:34, 20 April 2012. The banned user restored it again-> 11:36, 20 April 2012 Then I reverted it yet again-> 11:43, 20 April 2012 Afterwards Iadrian yu involved himself in the case-> 11:57, 20 April 2012, and he also came up with WP:DIGWUREN that I am placed under->12:04, 20 April 2012 and arbitration enforcment there ->12:33, 20 April 2012 Additionally, he wanted to bait me into an edit-war by restoring the banned user's comment-> 12:10, 20 April 2012, knowning that reverting a banned user does not fall under WP:3RR but, if I should revert his reverting, that would already constitute an edit war. It is possibly meat puppeting and violations of numerous principles of editing on Wikipedia including WP:CIVIL, WP:BATTLE on Iadrian yu's part.
This is not some exceptional slip: I do not remember when was the last time I have encountered Iadrian yu on Wikipedia until recently ,as I do not edit articles he does ,and still he has been on a continuous campaign to try to eliminate me from Wikipedia. At the aforementioned 3RR report, Iadrian yu appeared out of the blue to make an attempt to hoodwink the reviewer administrator saying that the fact that I reverted an obvious and self-confessed sockpuppet was because of my battleground behaviour to get me blocked.
Discussion concerning Iadrian yu[edit]Statement by Iadrian yu[edit]What user Nmate is doing now is block shopping - as he calls it himself. His manners on Wikipedia are far from collegiality relationship. If we take in consideration only this last incident we can notice that his approach is far from friendly and acting against the permission of another editor(7 times in a row after I decided to join the discussion) when he manipulated his comments (what is supposedly the base for this report). Note that the report about edit warring was filed by another editor ( not me ). I only joined the discussion after user Nmate manipulated other people`s comments after 7 times, I am sorry if this user can`t tolerate me or other editors but that is not the base for this kind of reports against me or anybody else. Also the warning issued here [107] - again at the Nmate-s request , after talking to the administrator it was obvious that it was far less need than in other cases [108]. I received this warning when Nmate accused me without any evidence based on his personal opinion. I really dislike this approach when user Nmate accuses me that I am blockshoping in places when I am mentioned - and I simply responded with my personal opinion and evidence for my claims. I said [109] - since it is archived I don`t know how to take diffs from it so I will paste the comments here. Response to Nmate`s accusations[edit]To respond user`s Nmates accusation that are used for this report:
Please check your previous 2 comments (Has this anything to do with you? and In your dream, Iadrian yu, go elsewhere.) when I responded like this, and this is not an personal attack or anything any report can be based on. I was reminding you that on almost every comment you violate the AGF ( assume good faith ). What Nmate calls "previous attempts at block shopping:" are not supported by any evidence or even a suggestion of an evidence. My every comment is substantiated with evidence(diffs) for my claims also the last "case" was October 4, 2011 - 8 months ago! And I participated there because my name was mentioned several times in bad faith by user Nmate and unfounded accusations[116]. After defending myself against unfounded accusations with evidence I am block-shooping???? It is very strange that Nmate accuses me of WP:CIVIL when I never insulted him or attacked him personally while he does that on almost every occasion. First Nmate-`s friendly comment: will report you to the Arbitration Comitee if I have time, Samofi. - After manipulating other users comments with no reasonable evidence that he should ( all based on a presumption(at the time) that one user is a sock puppet) After I joined the discussion further friendly comments like after I did`t responded in a manner Nmate did:
Other evidence of a friendly editing by Nmate or manipulating other people`s comments: Having in mind his recent block history [122], recent (and continuable) personal attacks and edit warring it is clear that the lack of good faith against everybody who doesn`t support his POV is a major problem involving this editor. After taking a look at this user contributions[123] I have a feeling that his main activity is block-shopping against other users and sporadicly make one or 2 fair edits once in a while. Could have written the same report if I was folowing the battleground mentality[edit]Note that the administrator said Result: No action against Nmate; checkuser confirms that these were valid removals of a banned user's edits. Reporter blocked for long-standing pattern of breaches of a topic ban. All editors involved are admonished to avoid battleground attitude and avoid acting in an enabling role for long-term sockpuppeters. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC) conclusion for us other editors - to avoid battleground mentality. After everything Nmate said I could have written the same report as this one here, but I did`t because the admin here said what he said. Conclusion[edit]His aggressive approach is somewhat a normal situation - this are the examples from our last conversation only(not to mention others) and all this with constant WP:BATTLEGROUND(noticed by other users also) mentality when I joined the discussion after he repeatedly manipulated other people`s comments without their permission therefore I will avoid any further implication in this "pay-back" (since this is not the first attempt for Nmate to ban me under this restrictions(block shopping) [124]) report on his behalf. I hope that this demonstrates what is really the problem here. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC) I am very curious why did this user waited for 8 days to file this report???? Adrian (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Note: I am on a holiday from tomorrow(4 days) therefore I ask for understanding if I don`t participate in this discussion during that time. Adrian (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Iadrian yu[edit]Result concerning Iadrian yu[edit]
|
Matt Lewis
[edit]| Matt Lewis and Van Speijk are warned of the Troubles discretionary sanctions. No other action. EdJohnston (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Matt Lewis[edit]
Wikipedia:TROUBLES#Principles:
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions may also apply (Wikipedia:TROUBLES#Standard_discretionary_sanctions).
After a break of several months, Matt Lewis returned to WIkipedia, first contributing to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Muhammad images and then moving onto making sustained and aggressive comments against Irish editors across User talk:Canterbury Tail, Talk:Northern Ireland, User:Matt Lewis, Talk:Ireland and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles. The thrust of the posts are that Irish editors ("nationalists") on Wikipedia are engaged in a semi-organised but deliberate scheme to undermine the (real-world) United Kingdom and to bring about its end through their contributions to Wikipedia. He thus feels strongly that it is incumbent upon those who oppose this to defend the national sovereignty of the United Kingdom from this threat. In a number of comments, I am singled out a particular ringleader of sorts in this conspiracy. An example (one of the more lucid):
My concern is at the sustained, aggressive and particularly sectarian nature of his posts. They have been in-coming for a week now without rest. Sometimes, they contain suggestions for improvements to articles, sometimes they are simply rants. To date, reaction from other editors has been relatively calm and patient. However, I don't know how long that patience can last. Aside from the content of his posts, I am afraid that Matt's comments will spill over and incite the more hot-blooded editors and lead to the running pitch battles we have seen in the past. Some examples:
Matt has been asked by one of the calmer editors to tone down his comments:
Other's have been more direct in giving their opinion on his posts. Examples:
Discussion concerning Matt Lewis[edit]Statement by Matt Lewis[edit]Firstly, RA (Sony Youth to Grahamzilch, an undisclosed IP editor for a long period, then Rannpháirtí anaithnid, or 'RA') is not uninvolved here. It is simply not possible for him to be more involved. This has always been his primary editing area (often sole editing area), and he has always held a different position to mine. Unfortunately we have always disagreed on matters. I thought it was agreed at his Rfa that if he became an admin he'd leave this kind of area-measure to other people? In reality he seems to have stepped-up in terms of being effectively (from his position) involved. I would certainly be 'happier' if someone else had started this. Actually (with perhaps a tiny bit of embarrassment) I'm happy for people to read my comments and judge accordingly - but please read them. The quotes of my comments above are selected snippets, people really need to read in full to judge properly. One thing I've never done (and can never do) is be bullied over holding a valid position, in whatever way that bullying may take place. I do not personally consider the UK/IRE nationality area to be a 'no go area', or one that's been correctly sealed-shut by credible 'compromises' (always compromises). I may appear rude at times but please bear in mind who I'm speaking to, or about. I am honestly never 'trolling' - I always have at least one strong point (typically a number of points) with a connected solution in mind. I am never 'tendentious' (ie in the sense of being 'biased') - although I admit I am a typical British citizen, who happens to also be Welshman from Wales (the large majority of us are happily British - though you wouldn't think it reading Wikipedia talk pages sometimes). Only on Wikipedia am I ever called or labelled a "Unionist"! The only thing I would apologise about is the trouble GoodDay has got into, as (mentors aside) I should have warned him myself, instead of eventually engaging with him on my talk. The two below were clearly ready to get him into trouble - and GD you've really got to stay away. GoodDay certainly did not "provoke" me in any way into losing my temper a little at times - other's have done that (and myself I admit - I come back into Wikipedia, see this stuff at the top of my 1,000 plus watch-list, and just get fed up with the regressive changes to hours of positive work). As far as I am concerned the angry conversation at IMOS has run its course - and I'm sure it's the same for everyone else who participated in it. It's clearly all RFC/Vpump stuff, and this request for enforcement has come a little after the event regarding that. The various issues between RA and myself are clearly personal, and have gone on for years - it's hard to be objective, but I was strongly against him being made an admin (I still can't see the reason that he was, other than that Wikipedia clearly needs them right now). We just don't see eye-to-eye in anything I'm afraid, and I have been upset with the way he's continued pushing so hard for various positions on Wikipedia since he got the 'bit'. Like others, I spent a huge amount of hours bringing stability to the UK "country" matter when RA was almost a lone voice against - gradually he has turned it around by virtue of never giving up (his mantra being "consensus can change" - and he's right). And such is life. Many people like myself have off-line lives to deal with of course, and I wasn't around when the huge amount work by so-many people was simply de-linked away at NI. Again, I can't see the policy behind it - despite what some say. Sources I have being shown in these areas do not weigh up. For example the Government No.10 website has been revamped (and they do from time to time, esp as govs change) - and "four countries of the UK" no longer appears on the home page. According to the same-olds who removed term from Northern Ireland, the No.10 website-change means the government has revised its position! As much as anything, it's all WP:Point. Sovereignty is the only thing that can settle these matters. The protection of various positions in this area (on all sides) really is something to behold. 'Area banning' me (as seems to be the idea reading Domer's and K-Hackney's comments - which have appeared below before I have even had a chance to write this) would imo remove one of the few people who has stood shoulder to shoulder with a (in real-world terms) relatively small group of people who have protected the same position on UK/IRE for years and years. I do not believe the various 'compromises' to be policy-based, and wish (as I always have) that the UK, the Republic of Ireland, and the island of Ireland can be totally freed from the shackles of compromise and special exception on Wikipedia. I genuinely believe that proper adherence to the hierarchy of policies (COMMONAME has it's place for example - and it's not at the very top), and a new guideline paragraph or two, can solve every single issue that the Troubles covers. I honestly do. Before we know it we'll have the Scottish referendum on our hands - it will benefit Wikipedia hugely to sort this out beforehand. That is not a "conspiracy theory" - as we all know in the UK, it's just a plain fact. Wikipedia simply cannot allow the evenly-Weighting of nationalist vision with incumbent reality. Would a 'topic ban' stop me from starting a UK MOS (freeing Northern Ireland from the hugely-restricting and supposedly-unpolitical Ireland IMOS)? I doubt it. I'm planning to do it, and it will be very useful in large number of areas outside of Irish matters. No vote on it first imo, allowing people who have already said they don't want it to line up again - I'll just do it, like with the various task forces I've set up in the past -- where Domer and Hackney did everything they could to stop me, claiming they would be 'anti consensus'. But what actually is consensus here? Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be an 'upstairs in the pub' numbers game in matters that are ultimately this important. My language is sometimes strong - but the fact that countless admin and editors have said that they "simply do not got there" proves that it's a difficult area to navigate and get a fair point across. It's not because they are weak in any way - it's because they've got better things to do be disagreed with whatever they say. I'm not going to be held to blame for any 'bad atmosphere' (now or whenever) - I wasn't part of 99% of its life (unlike others here, who have been around for pretty-much all of it) and was not part of the TROUBLES ruling at all. In the past I've given God-knows how many hours of my time trying to be constructive, while others have simply repeated the same lines again and again. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Matt Lewis[edit]Comment by One Night In Hackney[edit]In addition to the diffs above, when replying to me Matt Lewis says "How about you stop making it your life's aim to abuse Wikipedia? This is not any "subject" - the UK is a sovereign state constantly under nationalistic pressures in these areas" (which is disagreed with by plenty of people at Wikipedia_talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Proposed decision#Proposed Finding of Fact 2 for the record, and I'm sure the 1 FA, 4 GAa and countless DYKs all in the Troubles area speak for themselves about my "life's aim". Matt Lewis's conduct is just pure battleground, anyone who disagrees with him is part of some imaginary Irish nationalist conspiracy. I see no benefit in allowing his further participation in the topic area. 2 lines of K303 15:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Comment by Domer48[edit]I've attempted to put a break on the escalating abuse by reminding editors that these discussions are subject to active arbitration remedies and discretionary sanctions. As has been pointed to above, there is a clear battleground mentality coupled with a level of abuse of editors which is way above the norm. While the subject articles have been quite for awhile now (due to the blocking of a number of sock abusing editors) there is always the potential for a flare up. This editor could be just the catalyst that is needed. --Domer48'fenian' 16:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC) @Shrike The editor is aware of the Troubles Arbcom and has commented on it.--Domer48'fenian' 17:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Comment by Τασουλα[edit]There is no excuse for User:Matt Lewis behavior and conduct...none what-so-ever. He's been warned plenty of times so there is no excuse and I feel the community has lost pateince. I've been observing what's been unfolding and it's a very sorry state of affairs indeed. If i were a new editor, thsi would certainly off-putting but that might be because I'm a little sensitive? Haha. I don't care what the Derry article is called, or how the new lede for NI is layed out (tough i admit I like it and don't see any POV-issues with it) but the conduct...urhhhhhg yuck, even to an uninvolved editor such as myself. (Ps, sorry fpr any spelling mistakes I'm on a tablet PC ;c) --Τασουλα (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Comment by Shrike[edit]Without making any comments about the user behavior he should have been warned about discretionary sanctions according to WP:AC/DS before applying sanctions to him.He of course could be blocked for incivility but that should not be AE block.--Shrike (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Comment by Van Speijk[edit]I don't condone Matt's use of invective and his targeting of certain editors such as RA who, whatever else might be said of him, has always struck me as a fairly reasonable person (even though I don't agree with many of his views). However, uninvolved editors should be aware of a couple of background and underlying issues. Firstly, this complaint stems from Matt's comments at Northern Ireland. This article is about British sovereign territory but it is, by and large, "controlled" by editors whose allegiance is to the Irish Republic and so ensure its primary perspective is that of Ireland rather than the UK; this is a significant problem for Wikipedia. Secondly, regarding Derry/Londonderry, we have the quite scandalous situation that in this matter Wikipedia is in direct violation of its own core principle of WP:NPOV. Both terms can and are used in the wider world, but Wikipedia (or more precisely, its dominant editors in this matter) force a single usage for the city (Derry) and also for the county (Londonderry). This means that Wikipedia is pushing the POV that for the city, Derry is right. Few, if any, exceptions are permitted, and we have the situation of certain editors regularly trawling the entire project replacing any instances that don't adhere to this POV. It is against this deplorable background that Matt's frustration and anger has surfaced; and it's entirely understandable that it has. I urge caution in setting any sanctions here. Van Speijk (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment by bjmullan[edit]Having read both the comments by Matt and the only editor to support him I can only see editors with an us (and we are right) and them battlefield mentality. Wikipedia and Irish article in particular needs editors like that like I need a hole in my head. In recent days I have accused Matt of soap-boxing , battleground mentality and personal attacked on other editors. In addition to this he seems to think he has some sort of magic bullet called sovereignty which will solve all problems relating to NI articles. This is borne out by his statement: "and a new guideline paragraph or two, can solve every single issue that the Troubles covers". And by the way he honestly believes this! Perhaps Matt in your defence you could reveal this paragraph? Bjmullan (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved Users[edit]Result concerning Matt Lewis[edit]
|