Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive151
AmirSurfLera
[edit]| User notified of the discretionary sanctions under ARBPIA; no other action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning AmirSurfLera[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General_1RR_restriction
Edit summary "Sorry, I didn't want to remove the second paragraph. I'm restoring the long-standing sourced version in the first paragraph because sources from JVL don't reflect what the text says." shows they viewed the article history where they would have found that the Bethlehem section was under discussion in the talk page where the 1RR notice is posted. Also is very active on israel-palestinian articles Not applicable
Discussion concerning AmirSurfLera[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AmirSurfLera[edit]Actually I didn't realize I violated 1RR. I just wanted to change the paragraph, but then – after Sean.hoyland reverted me – I noticed that I removed the second paragraph unintentionally, so I corrected myself by changing the first paragraph but leaving the next one intact (I didn't know this was a violation of 1RR, since this is not a revert). Then Sean improved it a little bit, and I thanked him for it. We weren't engaged in edit warring, but if it seemed that way, I apologize to everyone. Regarding the last question by Sean.hoyland, I want to clarify that I've never been blocked, and it would be a shame if I were punished for a minor technical issue. Again, I'm sorry and I will be more careful next time.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC) Statement by Sean.hoyland[edit]I saw that pair of edits and reverted AmirSurfLera's first revert because of the unexplained removal of content. I quickly noticed that a small part of the content I restored was wrong (probably for years) and fixed it in a deliberate and conscious technical 1RR violation on my part to correct a factual error. Why did I deliberately violate 1RR ? Because I didn't get the impression that I was in an edit war with an edit warrior. AmirSurfLera's explanation for their second revert was "Sorry, I didn't want to remove the second paragraph. I'm restoring the long-standing sourced version in the first paragraph because sources from JVL don't reflect what the text says." Their actions didn't look like edit warring to me. More like someone editing collaboratively. Their second revert was only necessary because my first revert reversed their changes to the first paragraph. In fact, I was only interested in restoring the material that had been removed, the second paragraph. I didn't even look at the changes to the first paragraph. Reversing their changes to the first paragraph was a unintended side effect of my using undo instead of more carefully examining the changes and only restoring the second paragraph. Of course they couldn't know that, but even so, 1RR violation or not, they weren't edit warring, not with me anyway assuming it takes two. Even if they were edit warring they fixed the consequences of my somewhat sledgehammer-like revert of their revert. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC) I should add that I would hate to give the mistaken impression that I'm a nice guy, so I shall add something. Regardless of the quality of AmirSurfLera's editing which I haven't really looked at in detail, I would be very surprised indeed if they were not an editor with an undisclosed editing history who has returned to WP:ARBPIA . I thought they were an AndresHerutJaim sock, but apparently I was wrong about that (see User_talk:Elockid#AmirSurfLera.2FAndresHerutJaim). Perhaps now is the time to ask AmirSurfLera about their editing history before this account because apparently, according to checkuser Elockid, they have one . Sean.hoyland - talk 18:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC) Result concerning AmirSurfLera[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
SAS81
[edit]| No action taken. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Request concerning SAS81[edit]
SAS81 has stated that he is a paid advocate for Deepak Chopra, who has wasted countless hours of time pushing fruitlessly to remove any mention that Chopra is widely considered a "Guru," and attempted countless times to have Chopra's praise from Bill Clinton, his description as a "thought leader," and a host of other rejected proposals added to the article. He has constantly enforced a battleground attitude (examine, for instance, his statement that I "raise the FRINGE banner extensively and proudly even and seem to focus very heavily on editors who they believe view the subject matter differently" in light of my extremely limited participation on the Chopra talk page, and exactly one substantive edit to the article itself). I request that SAS81 be rate-limited to 3 posts to the Chopra article talk page per day, consisting of no more than 600 words of added text (excluding citations and other text - 600 of his own words), to level the playing field between editors who are paid to advocate and filibuster and the rest of us. Askahrc writes "I myself suggested that we needed a different iteration of an RfC than Hipocrite's." What RFC is Askahrc giving me ownership of, exactly? Why is that RFC mine? Is this further evidence of battleground behavior? Hipocrite (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SAS81[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SAS81[edit]
I'm a little confused NW- I'm hoping you can help clear this up. I'm acting as a representative for BLP, specifically per WP:BIOSELF and that such participation is one of the courtesies extended to living persons who raise NPOV issues on their articles. How does WP:BIOSELF get turned into an SPA? I've also have been vetted by two admins in my COIN - both whom welcomed me and reviewed my activity. Additionally I have been working with the editors on the actual article, supplying them with sources and images that they would not have had access. If I was over extending, I would have assumed Atama would have brought something to my attention. Is this ruling meant to inform Dr. Chopra that WP:BIOSELF is not longer extended to him? If this is the case, it would be good to know what the offending behaviors are, I've made it a point to work within WP and so has he. SAS81 (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC) UPDATE: I also have no problems with accepting the restrictions suggested by Hippocrite, they seem reasonable to me given the circumstances. SAS81 (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Askahrc[edit]I understand your concerns about a COI, Sandstein, but I feel SAS81 has provided more utility than they've taken up time, making them a net positive for WP. They've provided very large numbers of sources upon request, posted materials to WikiCommons when asked and has provided direct feedback from Chopra when we've had stalemates with how to proceed with sources. They've been present on the Talk Page, but that's in large part because users like myself, Littleolive oil, Slimvirgin and others have asked them for information, sources and input that are difficult to obtain from the outside. The RfC that Hipocrite listed as disruptive concerned a longstanding matter that has been brought up as something needing an RfC numerous times (1, 2), and I myself suggested that we needed a different iteration of an RfC than Hipocrite's. As far as I know SAS81's never edited the article itself, has not derailed forming consensus and has been pretty civil and reasonable. The Chopra article is not contentious because of SAS81, but because there are significant content issues being (sometimes heatedly) debated. As for Hipocrite, I've encountered this editor before when they posted a fake AE about "edit warring" on my personal Talk Page after I posted a single revert. My experiences with Hipocrite have suggested they are prone to overreacting and hostility. This AE seems to be more of the same. It'd be a shame to dispense a punishment even harsher than Hipocrite proposed when the initial claim was unwarranted. The Cap'n (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The Cap'n (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Atama[edit]I gave SAS81 some advice similar to the sanctions that Hipocrite is asking for above. It was on the article talk page, and I'd suggested to slow down, pick one point at a time to go over, and try to resolve each point until some kind of consensus is reached. That is how I used to approach mediation when I was actively involved in it and I found it helpful. That kind of focus keeps people from getting distracted by one little dispute after another, and helps prevent editors from feeling overwhelmed and frustrated. I don't feel that SAS81 followed my advice at all, and I'm not so arrogant as to feel that we've reached this point because of that, but I do think that maybe things might have been better if the advice had been followed. I've been giving SAS81 some tips here and there to help them try to avoid conflict, because I think that input from Chopra's representative can be a useful tool for developing the article. (When trying to give advice to SAS81 about other articles to use as examples to improve the Chopra article, I pointed out that I couldn't find a biography of an advocate for alternative medicine or unorthodox science that rated above a "C" in quality; it would be great to see this article reach GA or even FA someday.) So I support Hipocrite's suggestion, to limit SAS81's participation at the article talk page, but not to eliminate it altogether. I think it will reduce the strain that some editors feel in having to handle so much thrown their way, and perhaps it will help SAS81 take a more methodical approach to the talk page that has a better chance of bringing a resolution to various disputes there. Lastly, I'd like to point out that I've intentionally tried to limit my involvement at the article, so that I could act either as mediator at some point, or to exercise my admin tools if necessary. I haven't made a single edit to the main article space (ever), and I've tried to stay neutral in any of the content disputes at that page. I've only given out advice of one kind or another, did a bit of footwork trying to vet sources that people suggested, and made some general points about our policies and guidelines to keep discussions on track. I haven't kept a thorough eye on the article talk page, partially because as Hipocrite suggests above there is so much discussion going on, driven (in part, but not totally) by the volume of commentary from SAS81. So I'm quite certain that I've missed something here and there at the talk page (and especially the article space) and if any of my comments or suggestions here seem to be in ignorance of some occurrence there, it could be because I am in ignorance. So feel free to correct me. :) -- Atama頭 15:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Statement by SlimVirgin[edit]SAS81 is not the problem here. He is representing the BLP subject on the talk page. The BLP policy allows this (see WP:BLPKIND and WP:BLPSELF), and the Foundation has asked that "anyone who has a complaint about how they are described on the project's websites be treated with patience, kindness, and respect." There would have to be significant disruption before a subject or his representative were removed, and nothing like that has happened here. Deepak Chopra feels he needs representation because, as he wrote recently, he believes the article is controlled by "skeptic activists" that aim only to discredit him. It's hard to disagree that there's a problem when you look through the article and talk page. This is the article as I found it. I'll draw attention to one issue only, Chopra's view of AIDS. The article said only this of it:
This is a BLP violation. Chopra is a physician who specialized in endocrinology. He has a standard view of AIDS and recommends conventional medical treatment. In addition to medical care he recommends mantra meditation and has described a version of Ayurvedic medicine (traditional Hindu medicine) that talks about the virus responding to certain vibrations. But this philosophical view is offered as one perspective within a particular theory of consciousness, and it is offered in addition to conventional medical views and treatment, not as a replacement. When an effort was made to explain this in the article, the previous text was restored four times before a slight correction was allowed. (Even that modest correction has since been watered down, with the result that the current text makes little sense.) The people involved on the skepticism side aim to make sure that the article doesn't become a platform for unorthodox ideas. I understand and respect that, but extra care is needed for BLPs. Several issues stand out:
My suggestion to SAS81 is to consider reducing the number and length of his talk-page posts, and refrain from responding to every point that others raise. Sometimes it's better just to let things go. SAS, if you want to post sources and other media (which I found very useful when I was briefly involved in the article), perhaps you could do that on a subpage and post a link to it. It would be very helpful if uninvolved admins would do two things: enforce a strict NPA zone on the talk page and make sure that the content policies are being enforced and not misrepresented. I think those two changes would make a big difference to the quality of interaction and editing. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Cla68[edit]I will second SlimVirgin's concerns about the talk page atmosphere at the Chopra article and other pseudoscience articles. There are a number of editors who appear to be in attack mode over Chopra and other pseudoscience articles. They often give an appearance of being condescending, rude, and brusque with other editors, and the Chopra article is a good example. An editor who is here due to BLP concerns, as SAS81 is, should not be being treated this way. It reflects poorly on the editors who are doing it and it reflects poorly on WP's administration that is not doing enough to stop it. Please do what the community has charged you with and correct the behavior in question. That includes you too, NuclearWarfare. Cla68 (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Olive[edit]A few thoughts:
(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)) Statement by Gaba_p[edit]Even though SAS81's behaviour in the TP is not problematic to the point of warranting a ban (he is a bit disruptive bringing up issues over and over again and derailing talk page threads) I too believe his is a WP:SPA with deep WP:COI issues. He admitted that the only reason he is here is because he's getting paid: Statement by vzaak[edit]If SlimVirgin is referring to my comments, then they have been grossly misconstrued. I have been saying that both WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE should be upheld. To my knowledge, nobody has ever suggested that FRINGE be "prioritized". An independent source (WP:FRIND) provides the mainstream response to a fringe claim, and only with such a source can we confidently place the fringe view in proper context per WP:NPOV, in particular WP:PSCI, a policy. I consider this to be the main reason for WP:FRIND. I gave additional reasons for WP:FRIND but they were all ignored, along with my question, "Is it really true that independent sources cannot provide what we need?". Instead, they were construed as a "ban" on primary sources. No, there is no "ban", but per WP:FRIND the best sources are independent ones. An independent source may be supplemented by a primary source as long as there are no WP:ORish moves involved. Without an independent source, inserting willy-nilly primary-source material about a fringe claim is likely to be a violation of WP:PSCI (a policy), and is likely to be promotional as well. Note that I have never edited the Deepak Chopra article. I had been pulled into the Chopra talk page after SAS81 pinged me. Upon looking there, to my surprise I had noticed Askahrc defaming me with false information right there on the talk page, where I briefly responded. Having read other comments on the page, I contributed a few points to the discussion. @Sandstein: You said, "if there is misconduct by others on that talk page, such as personal attacks, it can be reported to this noticeboard", but you did nothing when I reported the aforementioned attack and others here. I subsequently asked Callanecc about how to stop these attacks from Askahrc, who has already been sanctioned for harassment. Since then, Askahrc has continued to make disruptive comments, for example falsely suggesting that I was trying to "police other editors' thoughts"[5]. I ask you what I asked Callanecc: What can I do to stop this? Askahrc's first attack on the Chopra page happened before I ever commented there, so removing myself from the page is no guarantee. See my comments to Callanecc for more background and information. vzaak 20:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC) Statement by Ronz[edit]As an archivist, SAS81 has been able to provide images and point us to primary sources that we would otherwise not have or would have overlooked. I hope SAS81 will continue with such contributions. While the editing environment for the article is indeed confrontational, SAS81 is making it much worse. As others note, Chopra has perspectives on what biases are at play, and SAS81 is working to battle those perceived biases. SAS81 should simply follow WP:COI much closer, as detailed in WP:PSCOI and WP:BPCA. Others should try to collaborate more, while focusing on content and relevant policies/guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC) Statement by Balaenoptera musculus[edit]SAS81's assertion (above) that they are not a paid advocate for Chopra is false. They said, "I am an employee of Dr. Deepak Chopra and represent his direct interests on Wikipedia and elsewhere." Their more recent attempts to obfuscate this financial relationship does not reflect to their credit; neither does User:SlimVirgin's new round of off-wiki canvassing: "SlimVirgin described the problem as a clear 'BLP violation' and said, "several of the accounts on the skepticism side are misrepresenting the content policies." BLP means 'Biography of a Living Person' and used an example of how Deepak's views on AIDS were intentionally misframed to discredit him. SAS81's verbose and repetitive assertions of Chopra's merit on the Talk page are in violation of policy:
Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC) Result concerning SAS81[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. In and of themselves, the reported diffs do not appear problematic to a degree that they would require sanctions. But looking at SAS81's user page and contributions, it appears that they are in a WP:COI situation with respect to Deepak Chopra, in that they are an employee of an organization that is, according to SAS81, funded and in part controlled by Chopra. SAS81 has never edited an article, and is almost solely dedicated to writing very lengthy talk page contributions in support of Deepak Chopra's views. Because Wikipedia is not a forum for advocacy, and in view of WP:ARBAB#Single purpose accounts and WP:COI, this makes SAS81's contributions appear to be a net negative for our project. Deepak Chopra's article mentions that his work has been described as pseudoscience, therefore the article is within the scope of discretionary sanctions, and SAS81 has been duly notified. I recommend that SAS81 is banned from the topic of Deepak Chopra. Sandstein 21:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
|
Steeletrap
[edit]| No action taken, but with a note of advice. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Steeletrap[edit]
None
On each of these occasions, discussion has been raised with Steeletrap. In each of these discussions Steeletrap has evaded the issue and failed to accept responsibility for the TBAN violations. These discussions are listed here and the numbers correspond to the violations listed above:
User talk:Steeletrap#ArbCom Enforcement requested Discussion concerning Steeletrap[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Steeletrap[edit]This request is disingenuous. The first two diffs were arguably T-Ban violations but I posted them before getting a clarification on the scope of the T-Ban. I disagree with the Arb's broad interpretation of the language of the T-Ban -- according to which one cannot post about AE pages on unassociated talk pages (an incoherent interpretation that implies that I have violated the T-ban here, by virtue of mentioning AE in the context of responding to these charges). But I have abided by it since the Arbs first expressed it to me. The last diff is not, even under the Arb's interpretation, a T-Ban violation. I was providing a NPOV rephrasing of a passage on child-rearing by a non-economist unassociated with the Mises Institute. I am told that secondary sources in the article reference Mises Institute scholars. My edit had nothing to do with those scholars -- who, in any case, were not talking about econ. It was a rephrasing of article text on the ethics of child rearing. Steeletrap (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Statement by S. Rich (OP)[edit]The third reference (in the Molyneux edit), which Steeletrap did not read when "rephrasing" article text, has the following introductory sentence in its' abstract "What does libertarian theory, Murray Rothbard’s theory in particular, tell us about the rights of children?" Steeletrap's statement about Molyneux being a non-economist and being unassociated with Mises.org is correct. But the sources which supplied information about Molyneux's views are clearly within her TBAN. Steeletrap cannot evade responsibility by saying she did not look at the sources or even at the names of those who wrote the sources. – S. Rich (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC) Various editors have tried talking nice, but the story about Gettin' the Mule's Attention may be instructive. – S. Rich (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC) EdJohnston – Minor point, the edit did not involve Mises Institute data. Rather, the sources are Mises Institute related persons. – S. Rich (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC) I will note that Steeletrap's edit text (diff #3) said (in part) "...he [Molyneux] includes in this category not only...". This indicates that Steeletrap was reading what Molyneux had written because she is specifically referring to what Molyneux said. But this edit went beyond a simple NPOV re-write of the text. Steeletrap was re-writing/re-paraphrasing what Molyneux had supposedly written. The only source from which Steeletrap could have gotten the material was from the two Mises Institute-related authors (Block and Kinsella). So, either she looked at the RS and disregarded her TBAN or she injected her own spin into what she thought Molyneux should have written. – S. Rich (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC) In response to TDA, the problem with Steeletrap's edit involved her direct use of the Mises.org- related people. Now if she pulled Molyneux material from LR.com, that would be skirting the edges of her TBAN. But that is not the case here. She edited material based on what Mises.org people had written about Molyneux. – S. Rich (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC) As Steeletrap has accepted some responsibility for this violation, I am somewhat satisfied. I think the next step is for Steeletrap to strike the comments she made about this request as being "disingenuous" etc. And she should strike the attempt to minimize the violation. A clear statement of responsibility, without excuses, would set the matter straight. Also, I have no objections per se if Steeletrap edits on the Molyneux article. I simply want her to stay away from those topics (people, institutions, and Austrian Economics) which are prohibited. – S. Rich (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC) Statement by The Devil's Advocate[edit]One should note that Stefan Molyneux has written a number of articles for LewRockwell.com, which was started by two of the three founders of the Mises Institute, one of them the site's namesake.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC) Statement by weakly-involved Gaijin42[edit]Given the zeal with which other's infractions have been dealt with here, I am somewhat confused as to why this is taking so long. Its time to resolve this. The infraction seems quite obvious (but relatively minor) to me, but since multiple days have gone by with no action, we are running into the punitive vs preventative issue here. However since it occurred on the same article as SPECIFICOs infraction above which, and the two editors have a great deal of overlap and collaboration, I am somewhat reluctant to dismiss this as an entirely coincidental accident. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC) Result concerning Steeletrap[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Nado158
[edit]| Nado158 is topic-banned from everything related to Serbia, Kosovo, and Albania. Sandstein 08:10, 15 June 2014 (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 Nado158[edit]
Discussion concerning Nado158[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Brianyoumans[edit]Is anyone actually claiming that what Nado158 added to the articles is incorrect? I've read most of the text and it seems quite straightforward. I can't vouch for how it matches the sources because I don't know the langauges, but I haven't seen any objections to the content, just to his reaction when reverted. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Nado158[edit]This side must be called FK Trepca not FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica (PKM). The PKM merged in th FK Trepca and was integrated in the club, which was foudned in 1932. This was in 2010. The FK Trepca continue to exist of course with the whole tradition ect. The old version was not right in both cases, as a PKM version and in the version as FK Trepca article with the wrong name, the FK PKM. So i tried to improve. The guy who create this article make a big mistake i think. WHat I want to say is that the original article, supposedly about FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica, was full of mistaken information, not accurate about FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica. I thought before, the PKM is a small club, much too small, I thought the relevance for WP is not enough (an article only for PKM i cant create I think, because of the "weak" history of the club and infos and sources, I am not sure). Because of this I wanted before to improve the half FK Trepca/FKPKM article and move the article to FK Trepca, because this club was in the Yugoslav First League, have more relevance ect. and to create also a link about FK Partizan KM to FK Trepca. Thats all. Becaue of this , I added also many sources and use also the diskussion side, but the guy came an blame me because of the same users who blame me 1 year ago, but he dont knwo the background of the story than, also the background of the users, their plans, type of working, and the trap they set for me, thus he blame me so fast and revert and revert and revert for totaly another things, and i told him please see the sources, look on the dres, the kits, i explained, but he always blame me for the same stuf and wrong accusations. He sitting in Miami and will explain me the rigth. So i lost my nervs, because is ever the same think. If i realy want to fake something, did i contact and admmin before? The other think is, if you think i am bad or i am nationalistic POV pusher, you can block me (I hope not, but i know i am right and I am not nationalistic or do anything in my life wrong, so nobody can change this, not the users here also not the admins and also not WP, infront of the great God i am clean), but trust me, i am in conflicts here and was banned becaue of other strong nationalistic Users who have here more power and are better organizied and have also support and are much more, and I am allone. I am than the "stuppied". But I tell you, the truth have nothing to do with the number of people who are convinced of it. If i revert or remove the nationalistic or fashistic edits of an another user, or the POV, i am the nationalistic user, the bad ect. Least year becaues of croatian User Joy I was banned mostly. Now, he is Admin, and in Vukovar for example he have support of many Croatians users and I was allone, because I want the same rights for all. The rules for Vukovar are not the same like for city of Novi Sad. Becaue I want to remove double moral and double standards. But no changes, I am again the idiot ect. and the onother side enjoys their support, buuuut I am nationalisitc, yes of course. Because of this I have my Edit-History, so i will be ban again for nothing, and the other continue and grow. So again the same like everytime. Double moral continues on WP and this side (WP) lost every day more and more of his vision and faith. So thats all from me brothers. So, your hands are free. Again, Currently there are two football clubs with the same name Trepca. First is Serbian FK Trepca founded in 1932 which was merged with the local Serbian club FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica in 2010. Upon merging FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica, the FK Trepca stay the same club like before, the FKPKM stopp to exist and was integrated in FK Trepca, which was founded in 1932. This club is playig nowdays in Morava Zone League, the 4th league in the Serbian football system. Trepca's home stadium is the local stadium in Zitkovac, Zvecan municipality in Northern Kosovska Mitrovica. Northern part of Kos. Mitrovica is mostly populated by Serbs. The another club with the same name "Trepca", is Kosovar KF Trepça founded by Kosovar Albanians in 1999, which play in the Football Superleague of Kosovo and its home stadium is Trepča Stadium. Both clubs share only the name and colors but year of foundation, stadium, league, club president etc. are different. Trepca Stadium was the home stadium of Serbian FK Trepca but because of politics this club must moved to the local stadium in Zvecan municipality. They tried to play in their home stadium, but its not allowed or possible for many things for them to play there. I added sources, i tried to explain ect. ect. but nothing, now I am the bad guy again. I tried to improved, i used sources, nothing, the guy have no sources, no knowledge about this, but what he can is only to revert and TF here TF there.--Nado158 (talk) 11:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC) About the Stadium: The FIFA and UEFA dont recognize the Kosovar Football Association, the league system, and thus the clubs and football team not also, so It can not be official Adem Jashari Stadium. This was a one side decision. Also, the Albanian club KF Trepca which was founded in 1999 annex the stadium from FK Trepca who was established in 1932, take the club history, the club property of an the club which was founded un 1932, and represent it as his own. I want only to explain it. So I wanted a neutral name, neither Serbian nor Albanian one, like the name Trepca-Stadium, because both clubs bear the name Trepca, thats all. So if I dont have support for this, for the true historical expiration i can change it, but my POV isnt. So many Serbian and non-albanian clubs from Kosovo and also their stadiums and club logos was renamed and annexed without permission of the UEFA or FIFA or the club owners. If someone expell the English players and poplation from Manchester and changed Manchester United over night in KF Manchester Bin Ahmeti Club and the Wembley Stadium also, for example in Osama Bin Laden Pakistani Stadium in one side decison, unofficial and also forbids the English population there to play football, I find this is not right and should be explained. WP should not take over injustice and wrong things and reflect it as the truth or this happen in line of control without problems and support the un-neutral Osama Bin Laden Pakistani Stadium ect. So happen with the Trepca Stadium for example. I wanten only an neutal name like Trepca, this is not pro Serbian, because the albanian clubs bear the name also, but the name after Adem Jashari is uneutral. That was my idea. So, becasue of this I am NPOV??? Never.Nado158 (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC) For the Pristina International Airport, we found also a neutral solution, and why not also for the Trepca Stadium, because both clubs bear also the name Trepca, i thin it was fair. So this is really neutral and not POV ord nationalistic POV. We dont need postfix Adem Jashari to recognize the Trepca Stadium in this special and poor situation.Nado158 (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I dont derseve not 1 week ban ( and you speak for one year), also not ban for Serbia sport, or nature or tourism ect. You are so unfair. Nobod of you looked and checkd my edits on FK Trepca really, but you are so fast with the ban...sorry, but its ridiculous. We (I) dont have rights here like the others, i know, but you exaggerating totaly, but totaly.Nado158 (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC) Come one, show me what i edit wrong at FK Trepca, come on show me, and tell me what was nationalistic or POV???--Nado158 (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC) So, this edits are the same like at FK Trepca, here for the club FK Mokra Gora, so if this is in your opinion POV or nationalsitic, than i dont know realy....[12]
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Nado158[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. This can't be acted on based on the evidence as submitted. The first diff appears to reflect a content dispute, and it is not explained how this might constitute a conduct problem. The second and third diffs each allege edit-warring, but single diffs can't be evidence for edit-warring. Sandstein 18:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
|
AmirSurfLera 2
[edit]| AmirSurfLera blocked 48 hours for violation of the ARBPIA 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning AmirSurfLera 2[edit]
The account is obvious a returned banned user, the problem is there are a dozen banned editors like him. See User_talk:Elockid#AmirSurfLera/AndresHerutJaim. With such poor editing from this new account it is clear this returning user has not changed their ways and should be banned again.
Discussion concerning AmirSurfLera 2[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AmirSurfLera 2[edit]Why is he accusing me of being a "banned user"? This extremely POV-editor is the only one who should be banned based on his aggressive behavior (check his edit summaries). Regarding the 1RR, Dlv999 is right. I'll discuss on the talk page of the article. I didn't notice this was a revert. I apologize for that, but there's no edit-warring here, just mutual contributions by Nishidani and me as you can see.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC) Statement by Nishidani[edit]Sepsis. Your diffs are not actionable, for the simple reason that 'Explanation' in the first two explains nothing. On the otherhand, the 1R rule appears to have been violated at least once (I suspect more than once, but I'm plumbdumb on this aspect of the rules) among the baker's dozen SurfLera made today. Revert theory is not something I understand however, and in any case, I've not the time to examine them, given the imminence of the Italy/England world cup soccer match.Nishidani (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning AmirSurfLera 2[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Lvivske
[edit]| Lvivske is blocked for one week for breaching Eastern Europe edit restriction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:32, 18 June 2014 (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 Lvivske[edit]
Odessa Clashes
Donetsk Republic
Above reverts violated another part of the sanction must precede every revert by explanation on talk plus min.6hrs waiting period. There are many more of those in Lvivske's edit log, I am using these ones as examples.
Looking at the edit log, it seems that there are other violations of the revert sanctions, but these is the one most obvious and used as examples.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Lvivske[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Lvivske[edit]
Statement by Toddy1[edit]The wording of the sanctions was that Lvivske and two other editors were "placed under an indefinite revert limitation on all Ukraine-related edits: not more than 1 revert per 48 hours per article, with the extra slowdown condition that before they make any content revert (obvious vandalism excepted as usual), they are required to first open a discussion on talk, provide an explanation of their intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion." At least some of the edits being complained about look like reverting obvious vandalism to me. Reverting "obvious vandalism" was permitted under the sanctions.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC) Statement by Lvivske)[edit]Result concerning Lvivske[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Khabboos
[edit]| Appeal declined. See the advice by Callanecc about a possible future appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
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 Khabboos[edit]It has been two and a half months since I was topic banned (please see the link provided above). I have not indulged in any OR or wrong citation since then - in fact I have edited more than a thousand articles on wikipedia, citing proper references for my sentences (unless I was making a simple grammar and syntax correction). I have even avoided similar articles after User:Sandstein implied so on his/her Talk Page. I therefore request you admins to lift my Topic Ban - I promise not to indulge in any OR again and cite proper references for my sentences.
@Sandstein: The TBan was imposed because I cited references that did not say the same thing as the sentence I inserted (because I couldn't find proper references online) and then when I complained about a user (Darkness Shines) removing a sentence that I had cited a proper reference for, you topic banned me for calling him a 'crook (you said it was a personal attack)'. However, I have always cited proper references for sentences I inserted in wikipedia articles since then. Like you said, this appeal was originally submitted to WP:AN but was then moved to WP:AE by somebody else, but since this is also a valid forum, I don't think it's necessary for me to move it back where I posted it (thanks for the offer anyway)!—Khabboos (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC) Statement by Sandstein[edit]I note that this appeal was originally submitted to WP:AN but was then moved to WP:AE by somebody else. Because AN is a valid forum for an appeal of discretionary sanctions, the appeal discussion should be moved back if Khabboos desires this. Sandstein 21:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Khabboos[edit]Statement by AcidSnow[edit]You have not come close to making a thousand edits, let alone 200 since your block and topic ban. As Sandstein said before, you still have not provided anything that "is assurance that the conduct for which you were sanctioned will not reoccur". Making promises means nothing as you have done that several times and have broken them right after. In fact, this edit[18] seems to break your topic ban just as Sandstein had first indicated. I don't believe your ready to edit these articles whatsoever. AcidSnow (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Result of the appeal by Khabboos[edit]
|
Brewcrewer
[edit]| No action taken. Brewcrewer is advised not to revert again at Jennifer Rubin (journalist) without a consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Brewcrewer[edit]
In the reverts he adds an empty praise section, deletes criticism of the article's subject as well as removing have a dozen sources including some written by M.J. Rosenberg, Max Blumenthal, and Conor Friedersdorf.
Discussion concerning Brewcrewer[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Brewcrewer[edit]My understanding is that this article does not fall under under WP:ARBPIA. I'll be glad to revert if told otherwise. In full disclosure, the subject does write sometimes about the Middle East conflict and part of the content at dispute is related to Israel. Please be also aware that the content disputed herein concerns a BLP. My position is that the blogs and opeds at dispute, which do nothing but besmirch the subject, do not satisfy our strict BLP policy requiring "a high degree of sensitivity" and the use of "high quality sources." I reverted twice due to our serious BLP policy and the ongoing discussion at the talk page. I have already brought this to the attention of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000[edit]I just want to comment on Sandstein's statement, without commenting specifically on the merits of this report. An extremely large number of articles on living people include attributed criticism by other people. I would guess that most articles about journalists who take strong stands on the I-P conflict have such material. Obviously there are limits involving weight, significance, balance, and reliability of publication, but merely being an opinion piece is by no means grounds for exclusion. Zerotalk 08:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC) Statement by ZScarpia[edit]One of the opinions removed was Max Blumenthal's. At the article on Blumenthal himself, Brewcrewer was rather insistent about re-adding material from a negative review of a book taken from the Forums section (and therefore likely an opinion piece) of the Jewish Daily Forward (at the same time as removing, admittedly rather poorly sourced, complimentary material). Perhaps that betrays a rather uneven approach to what could be see as BLP policy issues, if, in fact, the BLP policies actually are the point at issue. ← ZScarpia 12:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC) Relevant to the breaching of the 1RR restriction on ARBPIA articles, yesterday, the 15th, Brewcrewer created and then heavily edited, during which he reverted other editors, the 2014 kidnapping of Israeli teens article. As other editors made intervening edits between his reverts, at my count, under the way reverts are counted under the rules, he made three separate reverts:
Jalapenos Do Exist was blocked yesterday for breaching the 1RR restriction on the same article.
Statement by The Devil's Advocate[edit]Opinion pieces are not immediately disallowed as sources in BLPs, so long as the claims are attributed in-text to the author as in this case. In the case of the Blumenthal and Josh Nathan-Kazis sources, both are professional writers for professional outlets and thus their writings are subject to full editorial control. Rosenberg is the only one that is shaky, given that his piece was actually taken from a Media Matters site, which is a partisan watchdog organization. Generally, it has been viewed as a reliable, albeit biased, source and thus something that should typically be used with some form of attribution. The sources are not, in my opinion, BLP issues on their own. Even if one argues that there is some BLP issue with the tone or weight, this does not seem to be sufficiently severe to be the kind of non-contentious BLP issue subject to revert exemptions.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC) Result concerning Brewcrewer[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. This is a bit of a borderline case. The article, Jennifer Rubin (journalist), is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict for the purpose of this report, which concerns edit-warring over, among other things, a paragraph reporting that Rubin has been criticized for allegedly calling for a genocide of the Palestinian people. However, I think that Brewcrewer acted in a defensible manner by removing this paragraph, which is what is at issue here, on the grounds that it constituted a violation of the WP:BLP policy. The paragraph relied on two sources, [20] and [21], which appear to be opinion pieces and therefore are not suited to support, at least on their own, negative statements about living people. For this reason, I would forego action in this case. Sandstein 08:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC) Per User:The Devil's Advocate it is not evident to me that Brewcrewer's reverts are justified under BLP. (BLP reverts, per WP:3RRNO, are an emergency measure where the evidence is overwhelming, which it is not in this case). Wikipedia editors do make use of editorial opinion, not just factual coverage, in biographical articles where it makes sense. The factual point that Jennifer Rubin retweeted a harsh comment by Rachel Abrams about the captors of Gilad Shalit does not appear to be contested. (The comment can be seen in this version of the article). Rather than go to the bottom of that issue it may be better to note that (above) Brewcrewer has agreed to revert if he is told that ARBPIA applies to this article. It clearly does. Jennifer Rubin is a political columnist who stakes out bold positions and must be no stranger to controversy. The claim that she advocates genocide of the Palestinians looks to be a rhetorical excess by some people who wouldn't be expected to be her allies in any case. It may reveal more about them than about her. We are used to putting up with some over-the-top rhetoric by opponents in I/P articles, as for example in The Invention of the Jewish People, when the criticism appears notable. We can close this AE with advice to Brewcrewer not to revert again, but leave it to someone else. EdJohnston (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
|
AmirSurfLera 3
[edit]| Blocked for one week, if it happens again we can look into further sanctions as we generally give editors at least two chances. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:46, 21 June 2014 (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 AmirSurfLera 3[edit]
Again, obvious returning banned user, third time this week they have broken 1RR and have been brought here, would have saved a lot of trouble just indef blocking them a week ago per WP:DUCK, please indef block them.
Discussion concerning AmirSurfLera 3[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by AmirSurfLera 3[edit]I reverted myself. But how come that 1RR applies to an edit from March? I think this extreme POV user Sepsis II should be topic banned. For example, he reverts whole sourced paragraphs without even discussing with me on the talk page. He also fails basic WP:Civility and respect to other editors who doesn't think like him. Besides I'm tired of his ridiculous unproven accusations.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Statement by RolandR[edit]This editor is now edit-warring on Israel-Palestine topics on another page, Criticism of Amnesty International: dif 1," dif 2. The editor claims that "this article is not subject to 1RR (no Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement notice on talk page". The sanction states "All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related." If an editor is able to add such text to an otherwise unrelated article on Wikipedia, and claim that it is still unrelated, then this could make a mockery of the 1rr restriction. RolandR (talk) 10:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000[edit]Blatant 1RR violation on both articles. Not to mention blatant POV-pushing. Obviously won't stop until made to stop. Zerotalk 12:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC) AmirSurfLera added material explicitly about the Israel-Palestine conflict and now claims he didn't know the article was about that conflict. Can anyone take this seriously? Zerotalk 00:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC) Statement by 204.101.237.139[edit]AmirSurfLera, changing an edit is considered a revert, even if the original edit happened months in the past. Even though you did not literaly bring the article back to a previous revision (the strict definition of the word revert) you still performed a revert in the wiki sense. As for the article not being tagged as part of I-P, that is also not relevant. First, articles being tagged is more like a courtesy alert than a hard barrier. It would be impractically time consuming to go through every article to tag any that would concievably be part of that topic. That is why, secondly, it is not articles that are subject to DS, it is the topic. While the article itself is not part of I-P, your edit clearly was. Warring over an I-P topic on an article not directly labelled as part of the topic is called "exporting the dispute" and is equally as prohibited. This is the primary reason for the "broadly construed" language in the DS. That you self reverted can mitigate your error, but does not act as a catch-all get out of sanctions free card. In light of the very recent block you incurred, the admins are likely to have run out of good faith about what you claim to be an innocent mistake. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC) Statement by TeeTylerToe[edit]For the record AmirSurfLera broke 1RR in ARBPIA back on June 7th too, which is separate from this time and the time Amir was blocked for 2 days. Check Amir's talk page. He's even gone back and reverted the page that was in contention then after it was brought to arbitration enforcement and he was told to stop reverting. At the very least a fairly long topic ban seems like it would be appropriate.TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC) Result concerning AmirSurfLera 3[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|
Sepsis II
[edit]| Sean.hoyland briefly blocked and restricted, no action otherwise. Sandstein 09:38, 29 June 2014 (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 Sepsis II[edit]
Hypocrisy? User clearly broke 1RR in an Arab-Israeli conflict article and he knows very well what is this because he reported me several times for much less.
Discussion concerning Sepsis II[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Sepsis II[edit]I can't comment unless Sandstein recuse himself from WP:ARE, I would explain why, but if I did that here he would ironically blocked me. Sepsis II (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Sean.hoyland[edit]The first 2 diffs are reverts of IPs, "Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." Actually Brewcrewer should probably be blocked for that terrible edit, one of the worst I've seen for a while I have to say. AmirSurfLera, as a sockpuppet, you are violating the rules to be here are you not and yet you expect others to follow the rules. How can that kind of behavior possibly be justified ? How can ARBPIA function when there are 2 classes of editors, those who have to follow the rules and those who don't ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Statement by RolandR[edit]Sandstein, if you have blocked Sean for his comments above suggesting sockpuppetry, you really should block checkuser Elockid for his comments here. RolandR (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC) Statement by Nishidani[edit]SH's comments about ASL's (putative) sockpuppetry ('The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose') appear to draw on Elockid's checkuser judgement that 'it is a user who has edited before', which AmirSurfLera is on record as denying. If those comments consist of an inference, unproven and therefore unwarranted, then there might be a case for SH's short suspension for disruptiveness. If they stem not from personal guesswork, but rather, as would appear to be the case, from taking an experienced admin's judgement as objective, then it is hard to understand the severity. (Well, it is not that severe, except contextually. I haven't checked the log,- but can't recall him ever doing anything that brought down the book against him - but SH is notorious for not allowing his judgement to succumb to group pressures or POVs from either side. He keeps both honest by his independence.) I dislike expressing opinions here, and do so only because of the senile frailty which tempted me to make a semantic joke, for which I apologize.Nishidani (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Statement by Serialjoepsycho[edit]The above diffs are for 3 reverted editors. 2 of those are ip editors. IP under these sections fall under the 3rr policy as understand. Since as written above this can be "declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below." I do have to question you waiting for it to be amended. And while these sanctions are allowed to be applied broadly under ARBPIA, I have to say you went a little bit more broad than I expect was intended. Being that the only relation to this and ARBPIA is that this was a request for sanctions under it and being that you do have policy that governs user conduct here I have to question such a broad application. Taking into account Nishidani comments, then taking into account Sean's comments... Specifically the third paragraph. He says he would like to see AmirSurfLera blocked but with requirements that actually would allow him to came back and edit properly. With all of that I'd like to ask you to reconsider your sanctions and amend them. Sean is often a contributor I see in arbpia related pages. I often see him making editors aware of arbpia sanctions. That is both Partsan types of editor any other type of editor. Over all I feel he very nuetral in his actions. His conduct here not withstanding, I do feel overall he can be more helpful than hurtful to this specific process.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Statement by Dlv999[edit]Are any of the of the admins willing to address the point raised by RolandR? Namely that SHoyland's comments about AmirSurfLera being a sock were based on information he received directly from checkuser Elockid. To my mind it seems totally rational and reasonable to base statements about editor's sockpupetry on information received from checkusers. Dlv999 (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Result concerning Sepsis II[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I have removed an extraneous comment that had nothing to do with the matter at hand. Editors who have nothing useful to say about the specific complaint being made here should not comment. All participants are reminded of WP:AC/DS#Decorum.Concerning Sepsis II: The complaint is not actionable as submitted because it does not cite a specific remedy that is to be enforced. I am waiting for it to be amended and, if it is, for a statement by Sepsis II. Concerning AmirSurfLera: The allegations by Sean.hoyland of sockpuppetry and violating revert restrictions are not actionable for, among other reasons, lack of submitted evidence in the form of diffs. Concerning Sean.hoyland: The conduct by Sean.hoyland, above, is disruptive in that they repeatedly allege that AmirSurfLera is a sockpuppet without providing appropriate or indeed any evidence, even after being asked to (see WP:ASPERSIONS). Because this complaint concerns the Arab-Israeli conflict, this thread is subject to WP:ARBPIA#Standard discretionary sanctions, about which Sean.hoyland has been previously notified. As a discretionary sanction, and also as authorized by WP:AC/DS#Decorum, Sean.hoyland is blocked for 48 hours for their conduct on this page, and is also banned from commenting on arbitration enforcement requests by others relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, except where Sean.hoyland's own conduct is the subject of the request. Sandstein 11:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
|
Kipa Aduma, Esq.
[edit]| No action here. A sock report has been filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kipa Aduma, Esq.. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Kipa Aduma, Esq.[edit]
He's a sock. Well Callanecc, there are just so many puppetmasters with the same hatred, the sock in the case above is obviously either Nocal or AndresHerutJaim per their long history of using socks to edit 2012 in Israel and like articles. This account could be so many, possibly not even one of a known sockmaster but a second account of a current editor. I could point to the account editing the same pages as previously blocked sock but these sockmasters have been working so long that the vast majority of IP articles have been attacked by them. Other editors have stated this account could be one by AnkhMorpork, Nocal, or Breein1007. Here's one of his sister account [27]. At least one admin can spot that this account is a sock [28]. Anyhow, this account fails the duck test; no normal editor makes a hundred edits over two years but only on a few days. His first edit is a revert, his second is to delegitimize the existance of Palestinians. I know this is futile; many of these sockmasters have hundreds of warnings to their names from this ineffective board.
Block the sock.
Discussion concerning Kipa Aduma, Esq.[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Kipa Aduma, Esq.[edit]What is described as "revert #2" is nothing of the kind - it is the addition of a new tag to the article. As to sock allegations, I see that in the report just above this one, an editor making similar allegations without proof was blocked for disruptive editing. Consistency requires that the same standard be applied here. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 06:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Kipa Aduma, Esq.[edit]This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
|